I noticed many parallels in the novel to Lord of the Rings. The enemies - Myrddraal and Trollocs are nearly identical to Tolkien's Ringwraiths and Orcs. Even the storyline is similar, with some untrained young men (similar to the hobbits) embark on a heroic conquest and are separated.

I've read OSC's Ender series borrowed "ansible" from Ursula Le Guin (I think my memory is correct???). This example is clearly strategic and gives credit to the author.

I think you can borrow, but it weakens your work. You could write about a race identicle to the Borg and probably pull it off if you're a good writer. To me it's all like writing in the Superhero genre. It just lacks originality and freshness... but it can and has been done... a lot. Just an opinion.

Tracy

BTW I thought that the Harry Potter idea was a total rip off of The Wizard of Earthsea and I refused to read any of them. So to answer your question about a Wizard school for children??... yer too late lol to steal that since HP already did steal it from Ursula Le Guin.

I think the plagiarism part is largely up to the author/ publisher of the published work. But my understanding is, unless you copy chunks of prose, you're pretty safe. Having said that, I remember JK Rowling sued Russian author Dimitri Yemetz for writing a story about Tanya Grotter and a witch school Incidently, Rowling won, but think about the money she had backing her up. Was it fair? I don't think so--I've seen closer matches to Tolkien that the description I read of Yemetz's book, but I haven't read it.

I think the second question is the more difficult to avoid. On some level, we all recognize that we lift ideas from other authors. But I think we all strive to put an original twist on it, tweak it, or somehow make it our own. It's like a cover song, in a way. You can sing "Here Comes the Sun" but why do it in a way that sounds exactly like the Beatles? Rather, own the song. Make it yours (the lack of this twisting is one of Simon Cowell's common complaints). But writers who read other writers will be quick to similarities that might make themselves uncomfortable, and will call you on it.

As for the third issue... I think the very fact that Jordon's WoT books have been so popular, as well as a whole slew of Tolkien-oriented books, is testament to the fact that the reader is very forgiving. They want good stories. Many want original stories, but as long as you, again, make the universe your own, even if its a slightly foggy Middle Earth, it will work. I think the issue is that you have to have a story to tell that needs to be told in that universe. It's got to be justified. But because the Tolkien-esque world was so diverse and rich, I think readers simply couldn't get enough of it and wanted to be immersed in it again and again. Hence the success of subsequent books set in that universe.

But I think the magic is waning. Most readers seem to be turning away from the Tolkien books, largely because they have been done to death, and there are so many that are just bloody awful.

Edited to add:

I just thought of what might be the most important consideration: How much can you borrow and still feel good about your work?

Anytime you are writing about the Heroic Monomyth, which Tolkien, Jordan, and a host of others do almost exclusively, certain archetypes are going to be present. To some degree it may be a matter of borrowing from ones betters, but there is also an inate expectation from the readers of genre fiction. Certain character types are expected to appear within their traditional roles, and many readers are reluctant to expand beyond that limited view.

The difference lies, for my tastes, in the characterization of the archetypes. For Example, the Spiritual Guide, whether Gandalf, or Moiraine, are expected to fulfill certain functions, and only their individual personalities and motivations separate them from one another.

How the author creates these characters, within the logical framework of his own unique worldview, what they accomplish and how are the only real variants on the same old song. The variants are the things that will cause me to examine my own personal viewpoints and hopefully learn something new about the human condition.

Tolkien didn't invent "orc," either. But there's hardly any fantasy work since that doesn't in some way seem influenced by what Tolkien did---notice in particular the prevalence of multi-book series as a publishing category. Dwarves (spelled that way), orcs, good and evil wizards, elves, magic items to be possessed or gotten rid of, choice of names...there's a lot floating around.

(Even Rowling borrowed some from Tolkien, despite disclaimers---largely it's a matter of name choice. She's not the first writer to set stories in a British boarding school---which, when you strip away the fantasy elements, is what "Harry Potter" is. Fantasywise, well...I can't set any specific influences down...stylewise, maybe a resemblance to Brian Jacques.) (Disclaimer again: I've only read Book One, but a great deal has seeped out into the media.)

It's hardly unreasonable not to find writers who, in being influenced by Tolkien, reflect that influence in their own work. It's a matter of putting one's own spin on it.

[edited 'cause I had an extra "e" in "wizards."]

Take another duology that I happen to admire: The Sundering by Carey. Not only was it modeled on Tokien, it was a deliberate retelling of LotR--from a different perspective. But (with a some exceptions that I won't go into here--because they have to do with a different subject) Carey wrote amazing characterizations. The end was so tragic, although fated from page one, I literally couldn't sleep when I finished book two I was so upset with the death at the end of one of the characters.

The important thing is to have a fresh outlook, voice, image, character, or plot twist.

LeGuin invented the word "ansible" and then told other writers they could use the word freely.

quote:

---

I had the same issue with the first WOT book myself. However, as the series progresses, it diverges from the LOTR tributes. By The Shadow Rising, you'll forget all about that.

---