Originality in fantasy Post-Tolkien

[Lumiel]

Alright. Is it just me, or do most fantasy/sci-fi (emphasis on the fantasy though) books seem to copy Tolkien in some form or another? Mind you, I love the basic idea....the unassuming underdog undergoes (hee hee! alliteration! ) Herculean trials and emerges stronger than any thought possible and Voila! the day is saved! It's simply classic and I love to rehash things that I already like.

I remember that one of the first books I read after finishing the trilogy for the first time was Terry Brooks' The Sword of Shannara. It was a wonderful book, and his style reminds me somewhat of Tolkien, only less cryptic if you know what I mean. But from the very first chapter, it's impossible to escape the fact that the plot is almost identical to LOTR. Brooks is imaginative in creating his own world, which although similar, is still different in key ways, such as his portrayal of elves, dwarves, humans, and the like. His later books in the series branch off into different (although all with an underlying theme that is nearly the same) storylines and plots and his other series, such as A Knight of the Word are completely different from his Shannara series and in another world altogether from Tolkien's work.

I was just wondering what other people think about this; do books nowadays seem only to remake what's already been done by Tolkien? Or are they just doing what's been done for thousands of years? And also, what books have you read that are similar to Tolkien's work and what are entirely new or groundbreaking as far as the fantasy genre goes?

[One of the Nine]

I havn't personally read "The Sword of Shannara," but my brother is and he says that it is very much like "The Lord of the Rings." The only thing that is different is that Shannara has more books than LotR.
I can't think of any series that I have read with almost the exact plot line as LotR, but one thing I have noticed is that a lot of people like to knock LotR and some have even gone to the length of writing books that make fun of LotR. Not to stray from the original subject too much, but my dad owns a copy of "Bored of the Rings." I have half a mind to read it, but I'm still thinking...

[Imladris]

I don't know if this topic has done but I'm going to answer just because this particular issue is a sore spot with me.

Alright. Is it just me, or do most fantasy/sci-fi (emphasis on the fantasy though) books seem to copy Tolkien in some form or another?

I think that we are forgetting that Tolkien himself copied most shamelessly. He built most of his own mythology upon already existing Norse mythology (such as Beowulf). The whole scene with Bilbo stealing the cup is based on a scene in Beowulf. Even his languages were built on already existing languages.

I was just wondering what other people think about this; do books nowadays seem only to remake what's already been done by Tolkien? Or are they just doing what's been done for thousands of years? And also, what books have you read that are similar to Tolkien's work and what are entirely new or groundbreaking as far as the fantasy genre goes?

There are only a few storylines in this world that we could number them on one hand. What makes a story, however, is the way you tell that story. That's what Tolkien did. He told a common story line and he made it unique.

Sometimes, when I read these sort of threads (nothing against you Lumiel), it seems as if people view Tolkien as the king of all fantasy -- and that's simply not true. It's illogical to say that Tolkien is the accumulation of the fantasy genre and that anything written is a mere rehash and rip off. That would be denying the uniqueness and creativity of human nature.

Of course Tolkien was a major turning stone in the fantasy genre. So was Shakespeare. Shakespeare coined many words -- is it wrong to use them? Tolkien helped build the fantasy genre. He gave a new and better definition to elves. Why not use it? That would be like ignoring mechanical advances because they were built on someone else's shoulders.

Yes, there are some shameful copies. But there are only a few. The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander, The Chronicles of Narnia, George MacDonald (was he before or after Tolkien?) and many others are not rip offs -- yet they are fantasy.

[starkat]

I really disagree with you about the Chronicles of Narnia being a copy of Tolkien's work. Lewis and Tolkien for one were contemporaries. Not to mention that one is geared for an older audience while the other is geared for children. Why do you think the CoN are copies of Tolkien's work?

[Imladris]

You misread me:

The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander, The Chronicles of Narnia, George MacDonald (was he before or after Tolkien?) and many others are not rip offs -- yet they are fantasy.

I said they were not ripoffs.

Cheers,
Imladris

[starkat]

I'm sorry. I'll pay closer attention in the future. Thanks for correcting me.

[Lhundulinwen]

I am a writer, and I began writing long before I read LOTR, but after reading it, I found that many of my short stories had Tolkien-ish elements when I revisited them. I hadn't read that much fantasy (especially fantasy written after Tolkien), but I had read classical stories such as The Odyssey and bits of Beowulf. Tolkien did borrow shamelessly, but he mixed these elements together in such a way that it made something so unique and different it is a classic work in its self.

I had to take a seriously long break in my novel after reading LOTR because I would unconsciously put an Aragorn or Gimli character into it. When a writer sits down to write, everything they've ever experienced, felt, read, or been around is game to be but down on paper (or screen). To consciously block anything out takes a lot of effort.

Yes, a lot of writers purposefully copy Tolkien. Brooks's Sword of Shannara is a good book, but it is really really close to being the same as LOTR. (If you love LOTR, please don't read the book; you may end up having a screaming arguement at the book!!!) Yes, there really aren't that many different plots, or for that matter, types of characters.

Most writers who have any self respect try their best to be original. But a lot of them, whether they know it or not, borrow from the same classical works as Tolkien did; or they may copy directly from Tolkien because LOTR is their favorite book, they just haven't read it in years or just forgot all the juicy details we all love.

Whether fantasy or not, all writer's try to be original and different; but with such a great epic work as Tolkien, in the last fifty years it has been hard to be original compared to the Master of Fantasy.

[Lush]

Keeper, your definition of fantasy is narrower than Paris Hilton's waist (for all of you living under a rock, that's pretty durn narrow).

Oh, and as much as I believe in the whole "nothing new under the sun" notion, there is still a lot of fantasy out there that a) Wasn't one of the sources Tolkien drew on for his stuff and/or b) Wasn't revolutionized by the advent of Tolkien.

Try Russian folklore, an area that was virtually inaccessible to Western scholars even as the world began to grow small in the past century (thank you, Uncle Stalin). Check out, for example, the myth of the wise grey wolf and compare it to Tolkien's vicious wargs.

See, the basic building blocks are usually the same, but stories are interpreted and re-interpreted over time. And that's interesting.

[Mad Baggins]

Have any of you read the Xanth series by Piers Anthony? They are a quite good (in my mind) series of fantasy novels. They are in no way similar to Tolkien, and I find that quite refreshing after having seen novels like Eragon in which there are so many Middle-earth related names it's insane. Another good set of fantasies are the MYTH series; I can't remember the author at the moment. They too are completely original in their ideas. So in my opinion, there are still a lot of authors that are finding new sources for their fantasy novels, just like there are a lot of authors finding sources for their fantasies in Tolkien's works.