The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Lalwendë · 02-18-2005, 06:12 AM

It's an interesting question as to exactly what an author has to do to either plagiarise or to emulate Tolkien, and more importantly, to avoid both of these pitfalls. If a book is epic in scale and tone then it seems to be classed as emulation, while if it includes so much as a dwarf or an elf then it is classed as derivative. Ultimately, all works of fantasy, even those which are only tangentially considered fantasy, will now be compared to Tolkien; his work has now become a frightening yardstick against which all other works are judged. I often wonder if more superb works are never written, as good writers are so afraid of being compared in this way?

What distinguishes the good from the bad? And more importantly, the unique from the derivative? And should writers even try to think in this way?

Thinking about what made Tolkien so unique, his linguistic ability was a central factor, but could anyone come close to his near obsessive attention to detail? Would anyone else possess his level of knowledge? If they did then it would also have to be coupled with another rare gift, that of storytelling, and possibly also with the willingness to devote a lifetime to one work. So, it is quite possibly a big mistake for a writer to even attempt to follow in Tolkien's footsteps.

What else separates good from bad? Books which attempt to deal with 'big ideas' rather than, or at least alongside, adventure. This seems to be behind the success of Philip Pullman. Writing for a specific audience has enabled JK Rowling to create something sufficiently original to have spawned its own industry and fan base. And bypassing it all has been Terry Pratchett who has instead gone for humour, underneath which any possible links can be explained as parody - and I hasten to add, I don't think this is wrong in the slightest!

But all of the above have been accused of copying Tolkien, despite their originality. Is it inevitable that any new fantasy or epic works will be compared to Tolkien? The recent Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell was compared to Tolkien but it was only the size of the book which bore any real similarity. Writers were producing mythic, epic and fantasy works before Tolkien, but they are not all influences on him, so why must every work which comes after necessarily be classed as derivative? Are they really derivative? I'm asking this as someone who likes writing and is often afraid of the Tolkien yardstick!

02-18-2005, 06:12 AM	#7
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	It's an interesting question as to exactly what an author has to do to either plagiarise or to emulate Tolkien, and more importantly, to avoid both of these pitfalls. If a book is epic in scale and tone then it seems to be classed as emulation, while if it includes so much as a dwarf or an elf then it is classed as derivative. Ultimately, all works of fantasy, even those which are only tangentially considered fantasy, will now be compared to Tolkien; his work has now become a frightening yardstick against which all other works are judged. I often wonder if more superb works are never written, as good writers are so afraid of being compared in this way? What distinguishes the good from the bad? And more importantly, the unique from the derivative? And should writers even try to think in this way? Thinking about what made Tolkien so unique, his linguistic ability was a central factor, but could anyone come close to his near obsessive attention to detail? Would anyone else possess his level of knowledge? If they did then it would also have to be coupled with another rare gift, that of storytelling, and possibly also with the willingness to devote a lifetime to one work. So, it is quite possibly a big mistake for a writer to even attempt to follow in Tolkien's footsteps. What else separates good from bad? Books which attempt to deal with 'big ideas' rather than, or at least alongside, adventure. This seems to be behind the success of Philip Pullman. Writing for a specific audience has enabled JK Rowling to create something sufficiently original to have spawned its own industry and fan base. And bypassing it all has been Terry Pratchett who has instead gone for humour, underneath which any possible links can be explained as parody - and I hasten to add, I don't think this is wrong in the slightest! But all of the above have been accused of copying Tolkien, despite their originality. Is it inevitable that any new fantasy or epic works will be compared to Tolkien? The recent Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell was compared to Tolkien but it was only the size of the book which bore any real similarity. Writers were producing mythic, epic and fantasy works before Tolkien, but they are not all influences on him, so why must every work which comes after necessarily be classed as derivative? Are they really derivative? I'm asking this as someone who likes writing and is often afraid of the Tolkien yardstick! __________________ Gordon's alive!