LOTR vs. Other Fantasy
 

Has anyone read any other books that are similar to LOTR, like they use similar names or ideas? If so, share them.

The series that jumped out at me recently was the Inheritance Trilogy, whose second book, Eldest, just came out a few weeks ago. There are certain similarities between it and LOTR. First, they both involve elves, dwarves, and humans. The elves existed first, then the dwarves were made, then the men came sailing in on shps, just like in LOTR. Second, both villains are a person who was a part of a good organization (Sauron with the Maia, Galbatorix with the Riders) and turned evil. Third, the main character is an orphan raiswd by extended family (Frodo by Bilbo, and Eragon by Garrow). Both main characters find a rare important item (Frodo the Ring, and Eragon, the dragon egg). The main characters are the only ones who can do what needs to be done to defeat evil. Also, both the main characters have sidekicks that are with them the whole time (Frodo has Sam and Eragon Saphira). Those are some of the main similarities.

There are a few smaller similarities too. Both stories involve black cloaked evil creatures (Ringwraith and Ra'zac). I also noticed similarities in names. Morgothal(Morgoth in LOTR) is the name of one of the dwarf gods. Elessari(Elessar in LOTR) is one of Council of Elders in the Varden.

If anyone has any other simalarities in Inheritance or any other books, please share. :)

My copy of Eragon is filled with post-it notes that point to Tolkien allusions. I have the copy with a map and a section on the languages in back (some sort of special edition)

The map has place names such as Ardwen and Eldor, too Tolkien-style for me to feel comfortable with. The town Melian also comes to mind.

On page 15, one of Horst's sons is named Baldor.

On page 32, we hear the name of a province: Inzilbêth, the birthplace of the antagonist.

On 49, we hear of elves coming over the sea in silver ships.

On page 58, two dragons' names are Vanilor and Eridor, too close to Valinor and Eriador for my liking.

On page 104, Brom begins to act like Gandalf, especially when it comes to blowing smoke-rings.

On 168, the place name Ninor is mentioned. It might be original to Paolini, but to me it sounds like Nienor.

On 184, there is a man named Brand.

All the way to 391, there are some rather large urgals (ie, orcs). They remind me of Uruk-hai.

I might post some more later.

EDIT: AragornII, are the names Elessari and Morgothal from the second book? I haven't read that one yet.

Yes, Alcarillo, they are from the second book. I think their might be another one too, but I forget.

BTW Alcarillo, you against Paolini and other writers using Tolkien allusions? That's kinda the impression I got from your post. I'm not really against it, but I'm not really for it, so I guess I'm just neutral. I just noted those things.

Another thing is that the elves live in a big forest (Du Weldenvarden vs. Lothlorien and Mirkwood) and the dwarves live in mountains (Beor Mts. vs Misty, the lonely Mt)

I suppose that little allusions are okay; they're like little hidden nuggets for LotR fans. Too subtle for the movie-goer to pick up, but like bold neon lights for avid readers of the books.

But when you begin to take major themes, such as elves coming from across the sea, that's when I feel that a line has been crossed.

I'm afraid that outside of LOTR and the rest of the Tolkien Legendarium (great word BTW), my experience in reading fantasy is limited to Lewis' CoN, Ted Dekker's Circle Trilogy, Michael Warden's Gideon's Dawn, Gilbert Morris' Seven Sleepers series, and Brian Jacques' Redwall books. None of which are really comparable at all with LOTR.

As an aspiring writer, one of my long-term goals is to someday write a fantasy/mythology/epic, that rivals Tolkien while being as independent from his work as I can get. Quite possibly an impossible task. I don't think even the great Greek, Roman, Finnish, Norse, etc. myths compare with the Silmarillion. Just IMHO, though.

I guess, Alcarillo, that this just proves that no one can write anything greater then or equal to LOTR without using at least some of the ideas.

P.S. They both have dragons, although Inheritance centers more around dragons than LOTR.

And dragons have been around for hundreds of years. Dragons are not pure Tolkien, and are a common element in fantasy.

And, of course, elves, dwarves, goblins, and giants (in The Hobbit, anyway) are not unique to Tolkien either, although his elves and goblins are QUITE different from how most people think of them.

I read quite a long time ago the first part of The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and got really irritated with it. I don't remember all the similarities but the monsters (I don't remember what they're called) are just like orcs and the place where the main character is from is too similar to the Shire, eg. the emphasized mention that doors are not usually locked and so on, and then there were kind of nazgul (somekind of undead black riders).


(I know that in the downs there are lots of WoT fans so I didn't mean to insult anybody or anybody's favourite book; this is just my opinion...)

For me, it's not that big of a deal. I saw an interview Paolini did on the Today Show and he mentions Tolkien as being his biggest influence when writing the books.

Also, it happens all the time. Everything that can be written has been written, nothings completely original, you can always take a part of a book (or movie for that matter) and draw it back to a previous work.

I wish to pick up Eragon next from what I hear it's better written and a better style than Harry Potter. I've read the first two books, and almost now done with the third. From what I've seen the Harry Potter books are all...Happy, Happy, Happy...blop. All of a sudden you're hit with a big tragedy at the end.

Where Eragon and Eldest the problems are more inferred and are mixed in the story more natural, than the happy, happy, joy, joy...depressing.

I don't read a lot of fantasy but I did read Eragon earlier in the year - partly out of curiosity regarding the author. Although I have been generally repulsed by what I perceived as Tolkien ripoffs " (Dwarf lords of Dyspepsia" kind of thing) I really enjoyed this - it isn't in Tolkiens league as far as the creation goes and it isn't as challenging as Pullman, but it is a good read - I didn't want to put it down. I was catching the train to work and I resented the short drive back from the station!!! It is derivative of Tolkien but Tolkien used myth as inspiration. He did not invent the idea of the Elves going into /coming from the West. Tuartha de Danaan anyone?

I cannot imagine getting immersed in these books like I do in Tolkien - the depth isn't there but it is a well crafted book and is clearly written and I might say gets you in to the story very quickly and he doesn't waste information. It is a much more approachable book than LOTR. I would point out that not all teenagers are avid readers and as a former teacher, I think that this would be a great book particularly for those who would find the complexity of Pullman and Tolkien to daunting and CS Lewis too old fashioned.

Just because champagne is best, it doesn't nullify the virtues of good, clean water....

I won't insult WoT readers, as I am/was one of them too; however Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is garbage. The five thousand books in the series (or was that the number of characters and storylines? ;) ) started with some promise, then went over to the dark side of money grabbing.

However, like most accidents, I continued to read them even after they went into the tank as I was hoping, just hoping that the series would turn around. It's like watching a B-movie at 4 AM in the morning; you continue to watch as "it just can't be this bad throughout the whole movie," yet, like every other time, it is.

And that's not the worst of it. Jordan and his fans can love the WoT; whatever suits you. Just please, please do NOT rate it equal to LOTR! Or if you must, first make sure that I have been securely restrained and adequately sedated. You also might want to keep on hand a wooden stake and some silver bullets.

Pepper spray is good to have too.

But hey, who am I and what have I gotten published?

I think I'm going to say something now that will make everyone here hate me.

I have read a lot of fantasy and I don't think The Lord of the Rings is the best out there. Before everyone starts attacking me - it's just my personal opinion. And I do think Tolkien is wonderful and I can see why he seems like the greatest to a large group of people. It's just that I have always been very interested in the (late) Medieval period and Tolkien's work is clearly inspired by the Heroic period that preceded the Middle Ages.

That said, I often notice I tend to get a little annoyed at the many Tolkien rip-offs out there. Wheel of Time is a good example and there are other epic fantasies that are disturbingly like Lord of the Rings. Similar names don't disturb me much (do you have any idea how hard it is to come up with phonetically possible names that have not been used before?) but Tolkien introduced a lot of clichés that many writers can't seem to avoid.

For example, a regular fantasy-hero is born and raised in an area that is isolated from the rest of the world. The inhabitants are kind, but ignorant. For some tragic reason he has to leave this place, encounters evil beings wearing dark cloaks who live in towers. The friendly Elves live in woods, Dwarfs live in caves. Granted, this may seem most logical when examining mythology, but the Irish fairies definitely weren't all wood-sy.

I have never read Eragon, but from what I've heard it's a huge rip-off of both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings - but what else can we expect from such a young author? I personally rather read something less well written with an interesting, new idea than a book which might have been a good read if it had not been written before.

Ah well, it's hard to avoid any Tolkien-ish influence if you're an aspiring fantasy writer. LotR is much like the Bible in that way. ;)

- Cailín

I never got the WoT-shipping people. I must admit I just don't like Robert Jordan all that much. He's so full of himself and yet he cannot even seem to finish a story. How can you write a good book if you always postphone writing the final sentence? :rolleyes:

(Yup, this is personal.)

Mith...
Which I clearly explain in my post before...
And also, why I hold no resentment to the young, promising author...
So, Paolini comes out and acknowledges Tolkien as his influence, his inspiration. Which should be touching to Tolkien fans like ourselves. :)

Just something I noticed...
 

It,s funny, one thing I noticed about elves is that many people see them as tiny, short little magic workers, associated with Santa and the like. Once you get to Tolkien, he changes them into an actual race that is, in some ways, superior to men. They fight, make art, are sometimes bigger than men, totally the opposite from the "stereotype" elf.

I don't hate you but I couldn't disagree with you more on this. Basically as far as ideas go "there is nothing new under the sun" - you can reduce all stories to a combination of certain elements. Everything has been done before. Shakespeare was not original in his stories, Tolkien was not original in his stories but they are far more read than Kalevala and Holinshed. The writing is everything - how they structure the plot, how they handle character, dialogue and so forth. Their use of language. So I would rather read something derivative (and what isn't?) and well written than something allegedly original and poorly written. I have got to the stage in life where I won't waste any of it reading stuff that is badly written. Good writing gives more pleasure each time you read it not less.

Take Austen - her stories are fairly similar and are about the simplest in the world - as Maupassant says "with love there is one story - always the same". But her books are so beautifully written I could happily have them as my desert island choice and although (like probably every englishwoman of my age) very good memories of the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, I will go to the new film to see HOW they have treated it.

I am not putting Paolini in Austen's league ar near it ... but I think he is a good writer and will be interested to see how he matures. And I think it might be fairer to actually read the book rather than criticise it on hearsay as a general principle.

I wasn't disagreeing with you - SInce I have read the book, I thought I would comment - and I was pointing out to Alcarillo that Tolkien did not invent the specific idea of Elves being linked to the west.

I do get your point, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by a story that has been written before. I mean not just an intertextual relationship or use of the same cliches/themes - for this is inavoidable - but an actual near-copy of something that has been written before. See, of course it is not so that after Tolkien wrote about Elves, nobody should write about them ever again. But if these Elves are wise, silvery-haired creatures that came to (insert Middle-Earthy name here) over the sea, I feel slightly annoyed. More so if the hero's name is Bobo and he's a Loppit (no, never saw this really happen).

Take Jane Austen again, for example (I happen to be a huge fan, despite me not being English). With Pride and Prejudice, she actually set the tone for all current much beloved romances: the arrogant, slightly evil and totally not sociable male first constantly fights with the heroine but manages to seduce her in the end - well, you know the story. I don't know if you ever read Bridget Jones' Diary, but it is very much inspired by Pride and Prejudice: the same story in the present time. Still, it is a delightful read and the author gives such an interesting twist to the story, nobody minds it is not an actual original idea.

Maybe it is because I spend a good deal of my time critiquing stories written by children. You cannot really expect them to write perfectly yet. I always find, though, there are two types of aspiring writers among kids. Some take their favorite stories and try to tell them in their own words - most of the time these become literal copies, while others try to come up with a somewhat new and original idea. I always find the latter more promising (even though they mix up evil stepmother with evil debtmother, which is extremely strange and confusing. :D )

I agree though, I may have judged Eragon too quickly.

Well I did enjoy Bridget Jones (but few of the imitations), and if you refer to post 11, I am hardly a fan of Tolkien copies. I picked up Eragon fully prepared to condemn it as a travesty.

As I say I enjoyed it. Clearly it is tolkien inspired but it is more "homage" than rip off to my mind. It is not set in Middle Earth but is not entirely incompatible.. a bit like Lyra's Oxford. I haven't read a lot of fantasy - I am fascinated by Middle Earth, it's culture and languages and so other fantasy books I look at seem very superficial (NB I exclude Discworld ). Maybe if I read more fantasy I would find Eragon more derivative but the story did not seem to be from Tolkien even if aspects of the setting could be. I don't think it is a "Great Book" but I did find it a good read and will be interested to see what Paolini produces when he has got out a bit more... :D