LoTR: One Book To Rule Them All?

[Darth Shoju]

A number of threads have been circulating lately that touch on Lord of the Rings (the books) in some fashion. Something that has been standing out to me is the number of times I've seen a book or RPG is called derivative of the good professor's great work. It's gotten me to wondering: what makes a fantasy work derivative of LoTR? I've seen reviews of fantasy novels that derided the book as "derivative" seemingly because it had elves or dwarves in it and nothing more. Is that all it takes? Or is it the protagonist who comes from a simple life to rise to save the world? Or does an all-powerful McGuffin have to be part of the story? Is it a combination of all of these things?

Ultimately I think it is a judgment that is leveled all too often. I can understand claiming that the elves and dwarves of D&D are heavily influenced by LoTR, but the game itself, IMO is not derivative of that story. Certainly there have been fantasy novels/series that are but pale imitations, but as far as I'm concerned the mere presence of the elements I've listed above (even when they are all present) do not necessarily make a story derivative of LoTR.

What does everyone else think?

 

[mmadsen]

It's gotten me to wondering: what makes a fantasy work derivative of LoTR? I've seen reviews of fantasy novels that derided the book as "derivative" seemingly because it had elves or dwarves in it and nothing more. Is that all it takes?

Tolkien's work introduced the whole notion of a mixed party of elves, dwarves, halflings, wizards, etc. as the protagonists -- and it introduced the modern fantasy notions of elves, dwarves, etc.

Or is it the protagonist who comes from a simple life to rise to save the world? Or does an all-powerful McGuffin have to be part of the story? Is it a combination of all of these things?

If you read pre-Tolkien fantasy, then come back and read derivative post-Tolkien fantasy, it's often quite easy to see how derivative the derivative stuff really is.

I can understand claiming that the elves and dwarves of D&D are heavily influenced by LoTR, but the game itself, IMO is not derivative of that story.

D&D borrows from many, many sources. Tolkien is just one -- although perhaps the most popular one, even if Gygax wasn't a huge fan.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

The less like Tolkien my games and gaming material are, the happer I feel.

 

[Toben the Many]

What makes a D&D game too derivative of LotR? That's a hard call. It would probably depend. I've seen some campaigns that are pretty much a rip-off of LotR...but they were great. Then, I've seen some that were pretty different from LotR, and were great too. I think it's like anything. You can copy something and still make it good, so long as you inject something new and fresh into the system. Case in point: Battlestar Galactica.

Someone might have already said this, but a long while ago, Gary Gygax wrote in Dragon Magazine that he didn't really feel like D&D was too derivative from LotR. Yes, the basic races are taken from LotR, but there were some major differences. Some of them included:

• Magic in D&D is quite common.
• Wizards in D&D access more power faster. For example, a 3rd level wizard can already turn invisible or charm people. That's pretty powerful in terms of what Tolkien set up for his wizards.
• The races in D&D are balanced. In Tolkien's universe, they are not. The elves are obviously superior because they are. Just as the Dunedain are.

And Gygax makes a good point. Any D&D universe is much more magic-heavy than Tolkien's.

But despite the differences, it's very hard to avoid some Tolkien derivative-ness...because Tolkien has had a tremendous impact on modern culture and modern fantasy literature. Everything from Star Wars to Stephen King's The Dark Tower series has flavors of Tolkien in it. There was a great Newsweek article on Tolkien's impact. The line in the article said, quite aptly, "Tolkien is like oxygen. He shows up in so many things...invisibly. You don't even realize his influence is there."

I think the same thing could be said about H.P. Lovecraft.

However, I find that most of D&D is really more based on Robert E. Howard than Tolkien. In the Conan stories, Conan raids dungeons and towers...there are traps he has to overcome. Also, the world of Conan is steeped in magic. Magic is literally everywhere. It's just never treated in a mundane fashion. Finally, many of the Conan stories are about "getting stuff".

 

[Endur]

One Book To Rule Them All

Sums it up pretty well.

 

[Jdvn1]

Never read 'em.

Never plan to.

 

[Korgoth]

A number of threads have been circulating lately that touch on Lord of the Rings (the books) in some fashion. Something that has been standing out to me is the number of times I've seen a book or RPG is called derivative of the good professor's great work. It's gotten me to wondering: what makes a fantasy work derivative of LoTR? I've seen reviews of fantasy novels that derided the book as "derivative" seemingly because it had elves or dwarves in it and nothing more. Is that all it takes? Or is it the protagonist who comes from a simple life to rise to save the world? Or does an all-powerful McGuffin have to be part of the story? Is it a combination of all of these things?

Ultimately I think it is a judgment that is leveled all too often. I can understand claiming that the elves and dwarves of D&D are heavily influenced by LoTR, but the game itself, IMO is not derivative of that story. Certainly there have been fantasy novels/series that are but pale imitations, but as far as I'm concerned the mere presence of the elements I've listed above (even when they are all present) do not necessarily make a story derivative of LoTR.

What does everyone else think?

I guess it comes down to how you're using the word "derivative". Certain things in D&D are definitely derived from Tolkien... I'd suggest: Elves & Dwarves as they appear in the game, Halflings, Orcs, Goblins as militaristic and social creatures, quests to destroy the artifact of the evil overlord, etc. That's a soft use of "derivative" because they're just elements from the books borrowed by D&D and placed in a new context (except maybe the Ring Quest paradigm, which I think generally goes against the original intent of D&D anyway).

Then there's a stronger use of "derivative". I once played in a game where the evil overlord was plaguing the land and the plucky heroes, while seeking to defeat him, had to contend with the constant threat of his supernatural Black Riders, and so on. That's on the strong side of "derivative", like maybe "ripoff-ative". Now, people will fight over the difference between a ripoff and an homage, but I don't really have much to contribute on that score right now.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I guess it comes down to how you're using the word "derivative". Certain things in D&D are definitely derived from Tolkien... I'd suggest: Elves & Dwarves as they appear in the game, Halflings, Orcs, Goblins as militaristic and social creatures, quests to destroy the artifact of the evil overlord, etc. That's a soft use of "derivative" because they're just elements from the books borrowed by D&D and placed in a new context (except maybe the Ring Quest paradigm, which I think generally goes against the original intent of D&D anyway).

Then there's a stronger use of "derivative". I once played in a game where the evil overlord was plaguing the land and the plucky heroes, while seeking to defeat him, had to contend with the constant threat of his supernatural Black Riders, and so on. That's on the strong side of "derivative", like maybe "ripoff-ative". Now, people will fight over the difference between a ripoff and an homage, but I don't really have much to contribute on that score right now.

Good point. I'm referring to the use of derivative in a negative connotation. I guess my question is, does the presence of something such as elves and dwarves as developed cultures and important characters cause a work to be derivative to the point where the quality is diminished? Would D&D be better for not having dwarves and elves? Would a story like George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire be worse for their presence?

 

[Felix]

The less like Tolkien my games and gaming material are, the happer I feel.

Plato described Aristotle as a foal who kicks his mother after sucking her dry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your comment seems to lack any gratitude for what Tolkien did for english literature in general, much less for us small segment of role-players.

Paul Johnson described the future of history as necessarily incorporating Western European culture and philosophy; it could be post-Western or anti-Western, but it could not be non-Western. I feel the same is true for fantasy myth and Tolkien: it cannot be non-Tolkien, so large is his influence.

 

[Turjan]

It's gotten me to wondering: what makes a fantasy work derivative of LoTR? I've seen reviews of fantasy novels that derided the book as "derivative" seemingly because it had elves or dwarves in it and nothing more. Is that all it takes?

I think the classical example for fantasy works labeled as "derivative of Tolkien" is Terry Brooks' 'The Sword of Shannara'. Here is what you will find on Wikipedia about it:


"The plot of the 'Sword of Shannara' has drawn criticism for being overly derivative of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J. R. R. Tolkien. Tolkien's series, which predates the first Shannara novel by roughly thirty years, also revolves around an unlikely hero from a small, quiet community who is drawn into a quest by a tall, magic-bearing man in order to destroy a distant Dark Lord. Precious magical artifacts are entrusted to the young hero who must flee his homeland, in the company of his oldest friend, when terrifying minions of the Dark Lord seek him out and begin pursuing him. Eventually, a council decides the young hero will have to penetrate the center of the Dark Lord's realm in order to stop his armies, aided by a multi-racial group of companions. In addition, some names sound similar, such as Elessedil, which sounds somewhat like a combination of the Tolkien names Elessar and Elendil.

Terry Brooks admits that Tolkien's works were a major influence, and his supporters point out that many of the similarities are broad concepts common in modern day fantasy literature. Additionally, the plot of Brooks' subsequent novels bear little resemblance to Tolkien's works (apart from elements shared by many novels in the genre)."


This means it's a lot of elements that come together. Nevertheless, this doesn't actually mean that the book is really derivative. Here is what Orson Scott Card writes in an article concerning plagiarism about the term "derivative" (emphasis mine):


"Derivative?

What if, however, your "research" consists of reading another work of fiction and then "thinking up your own." I'll confess that when I first picked up Sword of Shannara, eons ago, I quickly decided that Brooks's only source was Lord of the Rings, and I put it back down. But this was not a charge that Brooks plagiarized or copied unethically. Rather I simply detected way too much influence, and not enough original vision for my tastes. That is, Brooks did nothing unethical. He simply did something that I found artistically displeasing. Millions of readers disagree with me, and I confess that since that time I've seen many works published that have far less original content than Sword of Shannara did, so I daresay my original judgment was unfair. Still, when you work within a genre utterly dominated - arguably created - by one towering writer, you're going to run the risk of being called "derivative."

However, keep in mind that as far as we know, Shakespeare almost never wrote a story "from scratch." His sources were usually historical, and often were stories that had been depicted in plays by other playwrights. Originality was much less a concern in that era - indeed, it was regarded as a plus if you could point to an admired source for your work.

And you also have to be aware of the fact that your audience's sophistication will affect the way they receive such resemblances. If the only science fiction novel you have read is Starship Troopers and then you read Ender's Game, you're going to go ape over the fact that there are insectoid aliens, etc. Card is a thief! But then when you realize (1) Card has never read Starship Troopers and (2) there was a long history of sci-fi stories about combat with insectoid aliens that both Heinlein and Card borrowed from, you relax a little. We weren't being "derivative," we were "working within a tradition." "


Well, he's defending himself, but I think the point stands, nevertheless.