Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6796926" data-attributes="member: 15700">Still yes <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Both Tolkien and Wagner pulled from existing myth without changing much about the overall plot.  See the aforementinoed Saga.  And at the very least, the amount of similarities from Brooks to Tolkien are no more than the similarities from Tolkien to Wagner.  I.e., even if you disregard all the similarities Tolkien took from existing myth and folklore, it can easily be argued that Tolkien is more of a copy of Wagner's work than Brooks is of Tolkien's.*  But all we hear is how Brooks ripped off Tolkien, when Tolkien wasn't any better, or even worse.  I'm guessing it's because everyone knows Tolkien, but not nearly as many know Wagner's work.So yeah, I can compare the two.  It's also a bit disengenous to use the entire "Shannara cycle", since the other dozen or so books set in the Four Lands are all unique and don't have anything similar to Tolkien in them.*What did Brooks take from Tolkien?  Elves and dwarves in a fantasy setting with an all-powerful wizard like character?  A collection of these races to go on a quest to save the world from a big bad demon like creature?And what did Tolkien take from Wagner?  One ring of power to rule them all, and a shattered sword as key plot items?  At least Brooks had the sense to file off the serial numbers at least lol.</blockquote>

Verification