TSR Appendix N Discussion

[Sacrosanct]

If it is possible, can you find a quote? Seems like that would go a long way towards putting this to rest.

FWIW, IMO one can make a recreation of someone else's work, make an allusion, do an homage, or create a spiritual successor. All will be identifiably similar to the thing they are in reference to, and there isn't always a direct correlation between which category the new products is and how similar it is to the references work (one given homage may be more similar than a given recreation, the other less similar).

I don't know of any quote Brooks said where he admitted the copied LoTR item by item, but I do know Lester Del Rey (his publisher) say he wanted to have Sword of Shannara be Tolkien-lite. A book for the masses, because by then Tolkien started to wane in popularity (from the spike during the 60s), and let's be honest, was not an easy read. Some folks consider Rey and Brooks with saving the genre by creating a novel that could actually be easily read. That was the intent anyway.

On a side note, no one accuses George Lucas of ripping off Tolkien either, and Star Wars is the space version of LotR, and came out the same year as SoS.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, he was using the Fantasy Supplement to the Chainmail rules. Remember? Which had Balrogs. Because it was ripped off of a Tolkien-based wargame!

Again, credit Tolkien for the things he should get credit for. Don't credit Tolkien for naming the dungeon of a castle a dungeon.

The genericization of the term, though, seems hard to credit to anything other than the Hobvit on their brains, and it's not the only thing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The genericization of the term, though, seems hard to credit to anything other than the Hobvit on their brains, and it's not the only thing.

Ugh. That's the problem. That's what I keep pushing back on.

A while back, I had a conversation with someone who kept insisting that Tom Bombadil was the reason D&D had bards, because Tolkien. Of course, that's not why. It's actually laid out in the first article about bards, and it also explains why Bards had such a weird mix of abilities. Or people who insist that Druids are really just Radagast the Brown. Again, not true. Not even close.

You cannot ascribe things to Tolkien simply by saying that it must be because everyone had Tolkien on the brains. They didn't. Tolkien had a decent influence on D&D, and the places where it was obvious (Chainmail, races) it's really obvious. But it quickly devolves into error when you begin to ascribe everything to Tolkien. It's a tautological argument that eventually turns into "It must be Tolkien."

 

[Parmandur]

Ugh. That's the problem. That's what I keep pushing back on.

A while back, I had a conversation with someone who kept insisting that Tom Bombadil was the reason D&D had bards, because Tolkien. Of course, that's not why. It's actually laid out in the first article about bards, and it also explains why Bards had such a weird mix of abilities. Or people who insist that Druids are really just Radagast the Brown. Again, not true. Not even close.

You cannot ascribe things to Tolkien simply by saying that it must be because everyone had Tolkien on the brains. They didn't. Tolkien had a decent influence on D&D, and the places where it was obvious (Chainmail, races) it's really obvious. But it quickly devolves into error when you begin to ascribe everything to Tolkien. It's a tautological argument that eventually turns into "It must be Tolkien."

Nah, Tom Bombadil is why we have DM PCs.

A good case could be made for Beorn including Druids, though moreso over time as Wildshape became a schtick.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

A good case could be made for Beorn including Druids, though moreso over time as Wildshape became a schtick.

Druids are based in a very 1970s conception of Celts as reported by Romans, that, for whatever reason, took hold in the popular imagination of the time (this was when environmental consciousness was taking off).

The entire class is, putting it nicely, based on a bizarre misunderstanding of history that was popular in the 70s. I guess we're just lucky that they didn't have a class that had pet rocks.

 

[Parmandur]

Druids are based in a very 1970s conception of Celts as reported by Romans, that, for whatever reason, took hold in the popular imagination of the time (this was when environmental consciousness was taking off).

The entire class is, putting it nicely, based on a bizarre misunderstanding of history that was popular in the 70s. I guess we're just lucky that they didn't have a class that had pet rocks.

Well, I think that's why they've tried shifting it towards the shapeahifter Class over time.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, I think that's why they've tried shifting it towards the shapeahifter Class over time.

That was a core feature from the beginning, but I have to tell you the first time I read through the druid I kept thinking, "Why do they need mistletoe? What, are they worried about kissing people during the holidays?"

It's interesting how a lot of the classes have evolved from the early days, yet still remain beholden to certain ideas that were probably not that well thought out.

 

[Parmandur]

That was a core feature from the beginning, but I have to tell you the first time I read through the druid I kept thinking, "Why do they need mistletoe? What, are they worried about kissing people during the holidays?"

It's interesting how a lot of the classes have evolved from the early days, yet still remain beholden to certain ideas that were probably not that well thought out.

Now that's interesting: because of the vagaries of history, I read through all that '70's claptrap in the library as a kid years before I saw a D&D book (devoured everything in the local public library starting 1992, started D&D in the 3.5 era). So, all that stuff made total sense.

 

[Cadence]

I don't know of any quote Brooks said where he admitted the copied LoTR item by item, but I do know Lester Del Rey (his publisher) say he wanted to have Sword of Shannara be Tolkien-lite. A book for the masses, because by then Tolkien started to wane in popularity (from the spike during the 60s), and let's be honest, was not an easy read. Some folks consider Rey and Brooks with saving the genre by creating a novel that could actually be easily read. That was the intent anyway.

On a side note, no one accuses George Lucas of ripping off Tolkien either, and Star Wars is the space version of LotR, and came out the same year as SoS.

Was trying to find the quote about copying, and didn't yet, but did run across a variety of (I thought) tangential things that were interesting...

First quote makes me wonder how much of Sword being (to some/many very like) Tolkien was Brooks and how much was Brooks polishing as ordered by Lester del Rey:

THE DEMON SERIES: Terry Brooks Interview

Interview with Terry Brooks, with a lot about Lester del Rey

Interview: Terry Brooks - Lightspeed Magazine

[Wards of Faerie] is the first in a trilogy that I have been thinking about for quite a bit of time. It’s in the future of the Shannara world, not in the prehistory where I have been working. It is a direct sequel to the High Druid set of books, and it’s about a topic that has been discussed...

www.lightspeedmagazine.com

Some notes on "The Sword of Shannara" and "The Lord of the Rings".

The Annotated Sword of Shannara: Tolkien Lite, and That's Alright! - Reactor

In the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, the entry for “Terry Brooks” provides three pieces of information which should be included in any discussion of The Sword of Shannara. First, that Sword was “deliberately modelled” on parts of The Lord of the Rings; Second, that Terry Brooks was Lester del Rey’s...

www.tor.com

The title to this one is the funniest thing that came up in the search:

Did J.R.R. Tolkien or Terry Brooks copy from each other?

Answer (1 of 2): Brooks certainly borrowed a lot from Tolkien, but I think we underestimate how much both of them drew from the mythical lore of the U.K. (i.e., A caused some B, but both were also caused by C). Tolkien gets credit for being first; but I find the Shanarra books to be better writte...

www.quora.com

And, a funny start, and a quote from his autobiography half way down::

Tale of the Rip-Off: Terry Brooks

By Nicholas Landon In a quaint home, a young denizen of a rural village lives his life peacefully with his family. Then, one day, a mysterious stranger from an order of wizards appears to reveal to…

cutpasteprint.wordpress.com

Although it feels really important to note that the part that comes next after the quote (that the blog skips) is that: "It was Tolkien's genius to reinvent the traditional epic fantasy by making the central character neither God nor hero, but a simple man in search of the a way to do the right thing."

 

[Cadence]

As an aside, I tried some old newspaper searches and wasn't getting much exciting. The two things that came up for < "Sword of Shannara" plagiarism Tolkien > could not have been more different. I like the way the second one phrased things in the last column.

First up (and remembering what was searched for),

Spoiler: The Philadelphia Inquirer - 15 May 1977 - Is not a fan!

And this very different one is by Dan Davidson in the 29 Sep 2006 Whitehorse Daily Star. The part shown is the

Spoiler: end of a review of both Angel Fire East and a Sword of Shannara reread.