LoTR: One Book To Rule Them All?

[William drake]

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".

Why do people keep doing this. Tolkien only brought out what was already there, he did it during a time when fantasy was looke down upon by most of the reading world...and only after a long time, long time, did his work gain apreation. Nothing of his world, excpet for the islands of Middle Earth itself, is of a Tolkien singular creation. All of his concepts came from Norse, Cletic, Germanic, and old Britan myths...all of it. The names, and some of their concepts were of his own design, but alot of it he just took and threw into a new form.

It's like if a write a book about a centaur....did I steal the idea from J.K Rowling who used a centaur character in a few of her Harry Potter Books...no. Why? because she didn't creat the centaur as a race.

Now i will say this, if someone wrote a story, where an elf, who, in the story turned out to to be very very much like Elrond: in style, dress, speach, and role in the story, one might have a point that people are ripping from him. But on the other hand, Elrond represents the leadership role of his race...there fore, any elf who is the leader, make look to new readers Elrondish...but its not that the writer is trying to coppy, he's simply using some of the basic types for great storytelling: the hero, the villian, the friend, the allies an so on...


SO, when you talking about this, make sure your doing it right.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It's gotten me to wondering: what makes a fantasy work derivative of LoTR? ... Is that all it takes?

All it takes is a vitriol-spitting detractor intent on landing a low blow.

 

[hong]

I think the classical example for fantasy works labeled as "derivative of Tolkien" is Terry Brooks' 'The Sword of Shannara'.

I've never read The Sword of Shannara, but I did read the sequels, Elfstones and Wishsong. They were actually pretty good, and not quite so blatant in copying Tolkien's work. Or at least I didn't say to myself "OMG this is so LotR!!!1" at any point when reading them.

Also, Wishsong has Garet Jax, who's been a pinup boy for half the world's sword munchkins ever since, so you could say it's even spawned its own derivatives.

 

[RFisher]

After taking a close look at almost every creative work I enjoy, I decided to always read "derivative" with positive connotations, in spite of whatever the person who used that word may have intended.

 

[Crust]

I teach LotR in my Eng 12 class, and I feel that it should be required reading in schools.

As for its influence on D&D, I think that's clear. It's like asking Led Zeppelin if they were influenced by The Beatles (which was asked of Page in a filmed interview you can find on YouTube/their double DVD). Of course Tolkien's work influenced D&D. How could it not? It's the most popular and beloved piece of literature of the 20th century. Gygax and co. might not have consciously infused the game with Tolkien's flavor, but it is there, in my opinion.

I can honestly say that Tolkien led* me to D&D to a certain degree. In fact, the validity of LotR in today's world almost justifies the existence (and the enjoyment) of D&D.

As for Brooks, I stopped reading Sword of Shannara when I realized how the protagonist's quest was almost identical to Frodo's quest. Granted, the similarities end as the story progresses (so I hear from several readers), but I haven't had a desire to try reading them again.

Really, though, I need to read those books. The Shanarra books are on my "must read" list.

And it's not like Tolkien started it all with his books. Certainly, he himself was influenced by Anglo-Saxon literature (like Beowulf) and Norse mythology. If anyone appears to be copying off Tolkien, it's important to remember that Tolkien did his share of copying (perhaps "borrowing" is a better word) as well.

*EDIT: I fixed the glaring typo. Sorry if it caused anyone undo stress.

 

[dcas]

I think there's a difference between copying elements to weave together a new story and copying a story. For example, while LOTR is clearly influenced by Beowulf, it is not derivative of it.

 

[Mycanid]

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.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

On other fronts, I agree with hong ... kinda. The first book of the Shanarra series I read (I was 12 then) was the Elfstones book (and it is still my favorite). I read the Sword book later and did not really notice the "rip-off'ness", but I did not like it anywhere near as much as the Elfstones book. Later on after a few reads of the LotR trilogy I re-read Sword, and suddenly noticed, "Hmm ... this really seems like...." I tried the Wishsong book and did not like it AT ALL. I have not read any more Brooks since then.

I was led to rpg'ing because I had already read Tolkien's stuff.

I remember Gygax once posting that even though he did not like the trilogy (he liked the Hobbit, though) they deliberately incorporated Tolkien'esque elements into DnD as a business choice. They knew that by putting those elements in the game in that particular way they would attract a larger clientèle. Even if I was disappointed by the way he put it I am on the whole glad that they made the choice to do so. And this is simply because I really like Tolkien.

So ... to ask whether or not DnD was made worse for incorporating elements from Tolkien seems to me to evoke answers that ultimately come down to whether or not a person likes Tolkien's works.

Fortunately in today's rpg world we have many choices and plenty of folks are creative enough to "tailor" any setting they like to what fits their bill.

 

[mmadsen]

I teach LotR in my Eng 12 class, and I feel that it should be required reading in schools.

Why should it be required reading?

I can honestly say that Tolkien lead me to D&D to a certain degree.

Since you said you were an English teacher -- it's led.

 

[Felix]

Since you said you were an English teacher -- it's led.

His opinion is rendered irrelevant because of this? Thank you mmadsen for pointing out such a vital clue to defraud Crust and his false claims to authority.



Or perhaps you like having a little revenge on your English teachers who made judicious use of their red pens as you wrote your way through their classes?

 

[Crust]

Why should it be required reading?

Because they're excellent books that contain all of the state standard reading requirements for fiction covered in the PSSA (the PA standard assessment) and required by the state in classroom instruction.

Lots of books do that, obviously, but beyond the above, they showcase the finest example of literature to come out of the 20th century, in my opinion. The detail is unparalleled, and with the use of the fantastic Encyclopedia of Arda, the myriad of artwork out there, and the films, students have amazing resources to use in conjunction with the books, allowing for a complete understanding of what could be the first books students ever actually read.

Why shouldn't they be?

Since you said you were an English teacher -- it's led.

How nice of you to point out. It really sucks being human. You might consider capitalizing your name, since we're correcting each other here. But wait... You can't fix that, can you? That must be frustrating.