Blatant LoTR Copy-Cats

[Attalus]

I have never read any more Terry Brooks books after The Sword of Shannara. He might at least put a couple of in-jokes in it to indicate that he was plaigarising Tolkien.

[Elemmírë]

Ah, good. So the thread was moved.

Originally Posted by Embladyne

I'll complain right along with you...

You already did. You've officially been banned from watching LotR in the future... (Not by me, btw)

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well then - all I can say is one down, and another success story for me opening up someone's eyes.

See you will start complaining to them and pointing all these cliched hollywood hack things jackson resorted to in his movies - and then they will hate them and they will tell people and so on and so on and so on.

So that's your plan.

And then I will go watch it with the quasi-Legolas-fangirls down the hallway and we'll see if I make it back to the Moot alive...

Originally Posted by Attalus

I have never read any more Terry Brooks books after The Sword of Shannara. He might at least put a couple of in-jokes in it to indicate that he was plaigarising Tolkien.

I agree with Nurvs that he probably didn't realise he was copying so much until after the fact. I was lucky in that I had not read LotR in a while when I picked up Sword of Shannara... and I had stupidly read about four other Brooks books first... so I didn't really see all the... well, connections is an understatement ... at first.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Hence my sig. Tolkien is the god of fantasy. He created the fantasy genre, perfected it, made it so deep and detailed, and set all the guidelines for it.

That is grossly unfair to Tolkien's precedents. He in no way pulled his work out of thin air. His work was built upon EXISTING stepping stones. Granted, his STYLE of fantasy has had huge implications for the fantasy genre today, but the genre in and of itself ALREADY existed.

Originally Posted by Embladyne

I too agree with El that Tokien did not create fantasy perse, but had a tremendous hand in influencing it's future direction, for which I am grateful.
Not Modern fantasy anymore, it's Postmodern....or, Post-postmodern....

What has changed about the fantasy genre that shifts it from modernity exactly? It still bears the characteristics of a traditional 'modern' novel, so I don't know what the hell you're yapping on about here.

[Attalus]

I agree, BoP, and was going to post to that effect except I was being hurried. Shakespeare drew extensively on earlier sources, as JRRT himself noted in "On Fairy-Stories," to the effect that Hamlet is not the same as Aylmon's story in his Brut. He goes on to liken the creation of a fairy story, of which the LotR is inarguably one, to the making of soup: a bone from there, veggies from here and there, and stock from elsewhere, to make something entirely different from, but related to, these sources. I certainly have no quarrel with that, but outright piracy is something else, again.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Attalus

I have never read any more Terry Brooks books after The Sword of Shannara. He might at least put a couple of in-jokes in it to indicate that he was plaigarising Tolkien.

Upon reflection, I now regard the Skull Kingdom and the Skullbears as a massive in-joke. I don't think he did it on purpose though (the joke and the ripping off).

[Embladyne]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

What has changed about the fantasy genre that shifts it from modernity exactly? It still bears the characteristics of a traditional 'modern' novel, so I don't know what the hell you're yapping on about here.

I apologize....I was just poking fun at all the art history classes I've taken (and I enjoy taking.) And people who say that after certain world events (of which there are so many) there can be no art made purely for entertainment and enjoyment. Art always must have some further purpose. With which I very much disagree.
However, there is recent fantasy that falls into this category of writing. (Writing with a purpose beyond just trying to tell a good story, and instead trying to sell an idealogy or analyze real, recent historical events. Yes, this is a highly disputable region of literature.) I'll see if I can take time away from school to go rumage up a list of what I think qualifies.
A lot of this literature, in my opinion just plain sucks beacuse the stories suck. There are some, though, that although I dislike being sold to blatantly, are really great books.

El...tell me, who exactly is it that has banned me from watching Lotr? (so I can hunt them down and force them to read horrible fanfics!!!)

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

What has changed about the fantasy genre that shifts it from modernity exactly? It still bears the characteristics of a traditional 'modern' novel, so I don't know what the hell you're yapping on about here.

Language, Boppy! Language!

Originally Posted by Embladyne

And people who say that after certain world events (of which there are so many) there can be no art made purely for entertainment and enjoyment. Art always must have some further purpose. With which I very much disagree.

Em, I don't know if I wholely agree with you here. After an important event occurs, how can an artist or writer not even unconsciously incorporate it into his/her work? Though... I don't understand the distinction between modern and post-modern...

Isn't everything in the here and now modern? Maybe what was once considered modern should be called something else in such a case...

Though I don't see how Tolkien could be considered "post-modern" in anycase. But since that was just a rant, on your part and mine, I'll let it go.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Embladyne

However, there is recent fantasy that falls into this category of writing. (Writing with a purpose beyond just trying to tell a good story, and instead trying to sell an idealogy or analyze real, recent historical events....

What makes this post-modern, exactly? Postmodernism, as I'm sure you well know, is a reactionary movement against modernism. I don't doubt that there is what some would consider 'post-modern fantasy' literature, but I take umbrage at the notion that selling an ideology is somehow a new concept, applicable only to post-modernist work!

[Embladyne]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Em, I don't know if I wholely agree with you here. After an important event occurs, how can an artist or writer not even unconsciously incorporate it into his/her work? Though... I don't understand the distinction between modern and post-modern...

Isn't everything in the here and now modern? Maybe what was once considered modern should be called something else in such a case...

Though I don't see how Tolkien could be considered "post-modern" in anycase. But since that was just a rant, on your part and mine, I'll let it go.

Oh, I'll clarify. I do not consider Tolkien to be post modern, no. If that's what it sounded like I was saying, excuse my lack of writing ability. I agree with you that art history terms are confusing, though. Let's leave them to their own, as I only meant that part as a jest, and get to the theories that I found more interesting. I guess a better term (than "modern") to use for today's authors is "contemporary."

Postmodern art tries to deal with the tragedy in the world. Consiously. This is a great idea, but I don't think it should have precedence over story. (There is postmodern art I enjoy and appreciate, mainly music and film.) The answer to this kind of art, though, I dislike more. In it's attempt to make grand and great things that rebuild or replace what has been lost, it easily slides down the path of simplistic propaganda.
All of this is my opinion on these art forms. My favorite way to decide whether or not I like a particular something, is still to try it out myself.

El, thanks for calling me on that. I still don't think I've written very well what I mean.

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I don't doubt that there is what some would consider 'post-modern fantasy' literature, but I take umbrage at the notion that selling an ideology is somehow a new concept, applicable only to post-modernist work!

I did not mean to claim that *only* postmodern work sold ideologies.
Only that I like people to be subtle when they do sell. All work is obviously going to have some kind of ideological background, no matter who the artist is. My general statements allowed many things to fall through the cracks. And I don't intend to dis postmodern art, or any larger genre of art for that matter. What I am worried about is when people claim to speak for everyone about the direction in which art MUST go. Or claim that their art is the only REAL art around. (I'm not saying that postmodern art does this, just individual artists across the centuries.) That is a personal thing. Just like my dislike of one book, and rabid fascination with another. Since life is a highly individualized endeavour, so too should be the art a person creates.
Thanx to you too, for forcing me to be clearer, I hope.

[Elemmírë]

It doesn't matter.

It's all Off Topic anyway.

How about this to try to drag us back On Topic: Why the word "copying"?

Why are people sometimes so angry about the idea that someone is always trying to "copy" Tolkien? (This thread, for example ) I know there are a lot of people who think that Harry Potter is a cheap rip-off (I don't see it, personally).

I haven't heard anyone get angry about Tolkien taking influence from Christianity or mythology? Why is it that when Tolkien's work clearly parallels theology or myths and legends, it is considered "influence" and "inspiration," yet someone who draws that same "inspiration" from Tolkien is immediately accused of copying?

[Embladyne]

Because religion is cool, man!
Really though, I do agree with you on the copying thing. I think we should consider those who "copy" Tolkien as my parents always told me to think about my younger siblings "copying" me. "It's a compliment!"
Then again...copyright laws. Don't I wish I owned those to my lifestyle, when my parents gave me that line!
But, I think that people maybe don't mind authors using religious stories, because those are stories of a culture, and collectively owned, while in our society, books are works of intellect, and....stuff.... and individually owned, and the author is deserving of credit because of their great accomplishments. Personally, if I ever wrote a novel, the dedication would be longer than the actually book because of all the people I would have to thank, and apologize for *almost* plagerizing.

[Elemmírë]

But what can truly be considered original?

Is there anything in Tolkien's work that does not closely resemble something seen before? Surely he put everything together somewhat differently than anything else... But so most people we've accused of plagiarising him...

With the exception of Brooks, of course.

[Attalus]

Certainly, I do not object to people using the age-old conventions of fantastic literature (some go back to Gilgamesh). What I dislike about The Sword of Shannara is that it blatantly copies the storyline of the LotR so much that every page causes me to think, "He's Legolas!" or something else. Obviously, this is a highly individual matter. David Eddings does much the same thing, but not in regard to Tolkien. The man actually copies himself.

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Why is it that when Tolkien's work clearly parallels theology or myths and legends, it is considered "influence" and "inspiration," yet someone who draws that same "inspiration" from Tolkien is immediately accused of copying?

On this exellent question is only one answer. GREED, my man.
Tolkien Estate is making a lot of money on The Professor's work. And while this "goose" continue to produce golden eggs, it will be an army of well-payed lawyers which with an appliance of different interpretation of the law will help to squeeze out on the whole Tolkien's ideas as much money, as it can be possible.
In mean time a lot of extraodinary written work, inspired by Tolkien, will be forewer lost for readers. Pity.

[Attalus]

Alas, Olmer is right. The quashing of the Fall of Gondolin book, I forget the title, proves once again that Christopher is not at all one with his father's ideal of inspiring otheres.

[ItalianLegolas]

it does kind of stink that if Tolkien was living today we could have tons more LoTR books, but then again there would be almost no need for the Entmoot because all these questions would be answered

[Olmer]

Originally Posted by ItalianLegolas

it does kind of stink that if Tolkien was living today we could have tons more LoTR books,

Probably, not. He abandoned the idea of the story's continuation through the Forth Age.

[Count Comfect]

Yes, but people showing up at your door growling "publish more" and brandishing imitation Middle Earth swords can be quite convincing

Topic?

I think the greatest change of Tolkien as compared to most of his predecessors/successors is the degree to which his books are setting-driven rather than plot- or character-driven. That is to say, it's about Middle Earth, not so much about the Ring, or about Aragorn/Gandalf/Frodo/etc., whereas much of the rest of fantasy is more interested in either plots or characters.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by ItalianLegolas

it does kind of stink that if Tolkien was living today we could have tons more LoTR books, but then again there would be almost no need for the Entmoot because all these questions would be answered

Not all the questions would be answered, ... And I'm sure some of us would still debate and discuss the answers we got...

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

...His books are setting-driven rather than plot- or character-driven. That is to say, it's about Middle Earth...

two words: The Silmarillion.

I definitely agree... I wonder how much of that is due to his mythological inspirations. For me the difference between Tolkien and other fantasies has been that ME seems like genuine mythology rather than just a story. It sometimes feels frighteningly real for that reason... (I'm not crazy, btw, and I'm not searching for Valinor.... yet )

I suppose this comes out of it being so setting-driven.

[Pytt]

I agree Ellie. Tolkiens world is much more real in a way. he has made his own language, for one thing. I thing it has to do with what Ellie says. In some way ME is more complex and intriguing than other fantasy worlds.

Btw, shall we search for Valinor togheter Ellie?