Do most fantasy novel nowadays have traceable elements of Tolkienism in them?

[Haramu]

I know the professor inspired a lot of authors like J. K. Rowling but it seems fantasy writers nowadays haven’t anything else to add. They can’t make anything new and fresh. Its like people have lost their ways to create new things. Of course, I know the professor had cleverly borrowed ork from the Norse mythologies as well as other tales. But he did it in such a way that it became interesting to read and to know more about these so called repulsive creatures. He was a very intelligent man with an enormous imagination unlike most authors nowadays who seem to copy and paste from Tolkien or other clever authors like C. S. Lewis, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson or Lloyd C. Douglas. If you're going to make a fantasy book then do it in such a clever way to make it more interesting and readable. Every time I pick up a fantasy book I can't help but sense some form of Tolkienism . Deep down and dark at the bottom of my heart I really wished that the professor had finished 'The New Shadow'. It would've made a brillant thriller and a good sequel to 'Lord of the Rings'. Sorry if I am rabbling on a bit

[Galadriel55]

Well, the Professor himself borrowed much more than just orcs from various myths, legends, and cultures. But he integrated those better than modern fantasy writers (in general) integrate Tolkien.

I also noticed the trend in novels that tell medieval stories of epic proportion that take place in fantasy settings. I stopped looking at those ones when I pass the bookshelves in the local stores. They, indeed, fail to impress because they are just recycling the same ideas over and over again.

There are some fantasy novels that don't follow this pattern, though. From those that I've read in the recent past, I can assure you that Plain Kate and The Night Circus are very original and enjoyable books. Both have very unique ideas and twists and give you lots of food for thought. While every once in a while you get an element that looks vaguely like Tolkien, it is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and they stand very well on their own.

So there are both kinds. I don't underestimate the influence Tolkien had on modern fantasy, but there are still books out there that do not use his legendarium as support.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I don't underestimate the influence Tolkien had on modern fantasy, but there are still books out there that do not use his legendarium as support.

I agree. I admit to not being a "genre" reader, in that I don't seek out other fantasy works just because they are fantasy. That means I'm not well up on the fantasy sector in general.
However, things I have read, like the aforementioned Harry Potter series certainly can be described in my mind as "Tolkienesque". It's especially notable in Stephen King's Dark Tower as well.
I think too that Tolkien's popularity naturally causes his readers to see his influence in other works, whether it's truly present, or not. We all tend to see what we expect to see.

[Morsul the Dark]

Well, now that's tough to say. Many Fantasy Novels have archetypes and while you could say Tolkien had them, I think it'd be hard to say he invented them.

The hero who is stronger than he realises.

The exiled king.

The wizard.

Many fantasy novels use these. Originality is hardly dead:
United States (2010) 328,259 (new titles and editions)

The thing is do you think all those make it onto Barnes and Noble's shelves?(For the recorder I wanted to say borders because it was shorter but...)

I hate to say but many of these recycled tales come to the forefront because it's what people buy. I read on my lunch break and interestingly enough I've started buying books at the store they're like $3 and I figure eh passes the time. I've been introduced to some great unknown authors.

some of my favorites out there right now:

Tim Wagonner- Nekropolis Series. It's basically a noire set in the city of the dead. waiting for the fourth book.

Glen Cook- Black Company series. Here's your fairly basic fantasy but where it wins is it's not over the top. I think the wizards here could be compared to Gandalf in the factthat they're not all powerful and specialize in illusion more than actually battle magic. sadly the tenth(and final) book kind of takes it from fantasy to sci fi which is a weird transition.

Matt Haig- The Radley's- Now this story on the surface is about a family of vampires but under that is a theme of denying your inner deisres and pushing down instincts really good I've read it four times in the past month.

Dean Crawford- Ethan Warner novels, now to be fair I've only read his first book but I want to read more his story is so vivid I acually cast it in my mind and knew which actors played what...

...

...

what was the original question?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Well, now that's tough to say. Many Fantasy Novels have archetypes and while you could say Tolkien had them, I think it'd be hard to say he invented them.

The hero who is stronger than he realises.

The exiled king.

The wizard.

Many fantasy novels use these.

That in itself doesn't make something a Tolkien rip-off, by any means. Still, I've read too many authors that do quite blatantly copy Lord of the Rings, without adding much of their own.

However, Tolkien isn't the only influence even on hack fantasy. If you think about the elements you expect to find in a typical Epic Of Epic Epicness cliche-fest, quite a lot come from other sources.

[Ardent]

Originally Posted by Haramu

I know the professor inspired a lot of authors like J. K. Rowling but it seems fantasy writers nowadays haven’t anything else to add. They can’t make anything new and fresh. ...

I don't think there is much in Tolkien that was truly new. As you say, his main input was making it fresh for his time. He drew on sources, what Jung calls archetypes, from Norse and Celtic mythologies, but there are also huge chunks of Mesopotamian, Indian and Greek tales in there too, not to mention philosophies from Plato to Nietzsche. Drawing on so many themes it is hard to imagine how any writer could avoid Tolkien's influence. Even when authors go back to the root stories they cannot avoid the comparison. Tolkien has become the standard that others get measured by.

One series I really like is Stephen Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle (Taliesin, Merlin and Arthur), because it draws on the Atlantean myths and throws them into the mix with Celts. In that legendarium it is we Anglo-Saxon invaders who play the 'Orcish' role, which is one of the interesting twists. The books also won a C.S.Lewis award, so the Inkling influence is aknowledged.

Another favourite is Babylon 5, a TV series, but again the comparisons are explicit. Instead of being set in a distant past it is set in a distant future with Vorlons and Shadows in the role of Maiar and sentients like humans aspiring to join them beyond the rim of the galaxy. There is even a Beren and Luthien tale, Sheridan and Delen, where she gives up part of her Minbari nature to merge their two races.

These two examples may not appeal to everyone, they both have their flaws and stand in the shadow of Tolkien, but they are special to me because, in the course of their story telling, they introduced me to ideas that I might otherwise have rejected as old fashioned, obsolete or simply un-interesting.

[Kuruharan]

It depends, but in my readings of late I seem to be detecting attempts by a number of writers to remove themselves from Tolkien's influence. Subverting old archetypes is all the rage right now...to the point that its becoming an archetype all its own that someday will be in need of subversion.

George R. R. Martin, who is probably the biggest figure in contemporary fantasy, is vocal about his debt to Tolkien. However, his stories are certainly not Tolkienesque.

Steven Erikson, who wrote the Malazan Book of the Fallen series, explicitly denies Tolkien's influence on his work.

Joe Abercrombie, of The First Law fame, praises Tolkien's work and writing, but at the same time (at least in my view) tries to minimize the level of Tolkien's influence on his own work.

I've never read Wheel of Time and am not familiar with Robert Jordan's or Brandon Sanderson's opinions of Tolkien or his influence on their work.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Diana Wynne Jones' The Tough Guide to Fantasyland is an amusing collection of typical fantasy tropes, and not all of them originate in Tolkien's tales. I find stories most interesting when the authors take the time to think up something original. And I agree with those who've answered that wizards, lost kings, orphan heroes etc. have been around much longer than JRRT - just recall fairy tales for many of those elements!

I think the reason Tolkien inspired so many authors is because he has been read by so many, and because the quality of his writing is so good. A number of well-known authors wrote about that influence in the book Meditations on Middle-earth, edited by Karen Haber. In the introduction George R. R. Martin writes:

Fantasy had existed long before him, yes, but J.R.R.Tolkien took it and made it his own in a way that no writer before him had ever done, a way that no writer will ever do again. ...he created something that touched the hearts and minds of millions. ...none of us have ever been the same... especially the writers. Tolkien changed fantasy; he elevated it and redefined it, to such an extent that it will never be the same again.

He goes on to say that JRRT's special contribution was making the secondary world a special place, "a character in its own right". And continues:

Most comtemporary fantasists happily admit their debt to the master (among that number I definitely include myself), but even those who disparage Tolkien most loudly cannot escape his influence.

[blantyr]

I'd also note that much of fantasy writing has hopped off the Tolkien themes entirely. Modern urban fantasy set in the current day is awfully common. Charles de Lint with Moonheart and many similar books might be an early proponent of the subgenera. Of late, and more cliched, we have had Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight with it's vampire werewolf conflict. The leading character is often female and a quite competent combatant. There is generally a strong romance element, borrowing the love-hate style familiar to those who have touched regency romance. If werewolves and vampires have been over done, one can find angels, demons, furies and any other similar sort of beast. The powers and abilities of the heroine might change, but the themes and style of the work doesn't. I've recently discovered mermaids have become a popular theme in the young adult market.

There are still books exploring the fringes of the territory established by Tolkien, but an awful lot of the market is chasing an entirely different set of cliches. I suspect many in this group might find Tolkienesque writing a higher class of thing than the typical modern vampire story, but younger readers, judging from sales and market share, might find the urban fantasy style work speaks more to the world they are growing up in.

While there is common ground between Frodo and Buffy, I don't see the two styles as aspects of the same genera. The rules and traditions seem distinctly different.

[Haramu]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I'd also note that much of fantasy writing has hopped off the Tolkien themes entirely. Modern urban fantasy set in the current day is awfully common. Charles de Lint with Moonheart and many similar books might be an early proponent of the subgenera. Of late, and more cliched, we have had Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight with it's vampire werewolf conflict. The leading character is often female and a quite competent combatant. There is generally a strong romance element, borrowing the love-hate style familiar to those who have touched regency romance. If werewolves and vampires have been over done, one can find angels, demons, furies and any other similar sort of beast. The powers and abilities of the heroine might change, but the themes and style of the work doesn't. I've recently discovered mermaids have become a popular theme in the young adult market.

There are still books exploring the fringes of the territory established by Tolkien, but an awful lot of the market is chasing an entirely different set of cliches. I suspect many in this group might find Tolkienesque writing a higher class of thing than the typical modern vampire story, but younger readers, judging from sales and market share, might find the urban fantasy style work speaks more to the world they are growing up in.

While there is common ground between Frodo and Buffy, I don't see the two styles as aspects of the same genera. The rules and traditions seem distinctly different.

Well said! I couldn't agree more and so I have nothing else to add because you had taken every word out of my mouth.

[Nerwen]

Reading this thread, though, I fear we are perhaps in danger of trying to talk a problem out of existence. Because, honestly, there really are thousands of books out there that do consist largely of just the kind of unimaginative cut-and-paste exercise described by the OP- which is not the same thing as "being influenced by" or "having elements in common".

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I'd also note that much of fantasy writing has hopped off the Tolkien themes entirely. Modern urban fantasy set in the current day is awfully common. Charles de Lint with Moonheart and many similar books might be an early proponent of the subgenera. Of late, and more cliched, we have had Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight with it's vampire werewolf conflict. The leading character is often female and a quite competent combatant. There is generally a strong romance element, borrowing the love-hate style familiar to those who have touched regency romance. If werewolves and vampires have been over done, one can find angels, demons, furies and any other similar sort of beast. The powers and abilities of the heroine might change, but the themes and style of the work doesn't. I've recently discovered mermaids have become a popular theme in the young adult market.

Note - Buffy and Bella are worlds apart, and it's not werewolves in Buffy, it's demons.

Counting TV as 'fiction', which it is, the BBC's Being Human centres on the relationships and conflicts of vampires, werewolves and ghosts and is anything but cliched. I've not seen the American alternate version but the original British one is marvellous and wholly original (and sadly ending for good next week), managing to be both hilarious and horrific at the same time.

Also note that almost all 'supernatural' fictions seem to have contemporary settings, as indeed did the daddy of them all, Bram Stoker's Dracula. This is because they all share that common theme - they walk among us. Quite a lot different to traditional fantasy written by Tolkien, George RR Martin, Ursula le Guin, Mervyn Peake etc. Fantasy worlds are about escape, even where they are utterly grim, however sometimes the two collide - see Neil Gaiman for more.

I don't think it can be denied that Tolkien is an influence on almost or even all fantasy writers who followed him, whether they graciously admit this (like George RR Martin and JK Rowling) or claim they are nothing like Tolkien (see Terry Pratchett and Phillip Pullman). There are absolutely masses of books (and TV) out there that are 'original' though, in as much as any fiction which uses long standing tropes and myths can be said to be 'original'.

[EluThingol]

Surely people try to emulate what they like, or what was successful. But like someone else said, much of what Tolkien wrote was borrowed from something else.

There is a saying "No Idea is original". And it's true.


You can make a cake, but did u invent the batter, the oven, the frosting, the recipe? ANY of it? probably not. You are going to do it the same way with the same stuff, just like everyone else did before you and everyone else did after.


Your mission though, is to make it more delicious, or at least, different and memorable.

That being said, it doesn't matter how much rip-off there seems to be in a writing, especially within our beloved fantasy genre.

If you want to find something new, fresh, strange, un-done, its your responsibility to go out searching for it. The writers of unique and groundbreaking things are hidden away in obscurity because people publish mostly what is recognizable, relatable and profitable to the majority.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by EluThingol

Surely people try to emulate what they like, or what was successful. But like someone else said, much of what Tolkien wrote was borrowed from something else.

There is a saying "No Idea is original". And it's true.

You can make a cake, but did u invent the batter, the oven, the frosting, the recipe? ANY of it? probably not. You are going to do it the same way with the same stuff, just like everyone else did before you and everyone else did after.

Your mission though, is to make it more delicious, or at least, different and memorable.

That being said, it doesn't matter how much rip-off there seems to be in a writing, especially within our beloved fantasy genre.

If you want to find something new, fresh, strange, un-done, its your responsibility to go out searching for it. The writers of unique and groundbreaking things are hidden away in obscurity because people publish mostly what is recognizable, relatable and profitable to the majority.

I can sympathize with this. Playing with the cooking metaphor, in my youth the primary ingredient in icing was sugar. Lately, I've been encountering icing that seems centered on whipped cream. I don't know that this was really a recent innovation, or whether the cooks in my family just recently discovered it, but it is really neat either way to break out of one tradition and embrace another.

Cyberpunk and Steampunk are in my lifetime examples of new generas that grew out of a few authors sufficiently breaking molds to create a new pattern and a new market. It is not at all common to write a book that is innovative enough and popular enough that one gets copied sufficiently often to create a new genera. It isn't easily done. I wouldn't suggest that a writer seek to deliberately do it. You just write you best books and maybe it will happen. I will be tempted to applaud when it is done.

Far more writers or artists of all sorts will work within a tradition. Quite a few work within a tradition in such a way as to expand the tradition and keep it alive rather than cliched. At the same time, if one doesn't care for a particular genera, a particular tradition, then one can almost define such as a collection of cliches. The comment about ninety percent of everything might stand.

Tolkien? He borrowed from so many diverse sources that it would be hard to write fantasy without borrowing from some of the same sources. I don't know that this makes him the father of all fantasy. There is no doubt that he revitalized fantasy. He set some patterns that many have borrowed. I do see modern writers who are still playing similar games by similar rules.

JK Rowlings didn't invent fantasy. She also didn't invent the young adult plot line where the kid is sent off to boarding school and has lots of coming of age experiences. She did combine two traditions in a quite readable and sellable way. I've read em all and like them quite a bit.

If I don't give Tolkien credit for the teen age angst modern urban fantasy novels where vampires contest with werewolves... Please don't interpret this as disrespect for the Professor. I just don't see fantasy as having a single tradition.

[Saurondil]

Originally Posted by Haramu

I know the professor inspired a lot of authors like J. K. Rowling but it seems fantasy writers nowadays haven’t anything else to add. They can’t make anything new and fresh. Its like people have lost their ways to create new things. Of course, I know the professor had cleverly borrowed ork from the Norse mythologies as well as other tales. But he did it in such a way that it became interesting to read and to know more about these so called repulsive creatures. He was a very intelligent man with an enormous imagination unlike most authors nowadays who seem to copy and paste from Tolkien or other clever authors like C. S. Lewis, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson or Lloyd C. Douglas. If you're going to make a fantasy book then do it in such a clever way to make it more interesting and readable. Every time I pick up a fantasy book I can't help but sense some form of Tolkienism . Deep down and dark at the bottom of my heart I really wished that the professor had finished 'The New Shadow'. It would've made a brillant thriller and a good sequel to 'Lord of the Rings'. Sorry if I am rabbling on a bit

## Michael Moorcock - despite his criticisms of Tolkien's story - does seem to be indebted to him. "Elric of Melnibone" is about the last ruler of a great kingdom, that is 10,000 years old; Elric relies on dragons, which need to sleep for 100(?) years to restore their strength; he has a sword, with a name (Storm-bringer) that is exceptionally dangerous; the name "Melnibone" vaguely recalls "Numenore"; & Elric is a sorcerer. He is almost an anti-Aragorn, or an Aragorn-as-Dark-Lord. Elric is a combo of Aragorn, Turin, Ar-Pharazon, & Sauron - a pretty unpleasant character.

A lot of this does not need to be traced to Tolkien, but had there been no Tolkien, I think Moorcock's work would have been poorer. STM that the pessimism (& worse) in "E of M" is a serious weakness: Tolkien's story is shot through with hope, & IMO that makes it more humane: he does not "darken the heart" in his treatment of evil; unlike Moorcock.

I don't think "The New Shadow" was "finishable" - Tolkien's achievement was too complete. I could have done with more info about Eldarion, though. And Aragorn's daughters.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Saurondil

## Michael Moorcock - despite his criticisms of Tolkien's story - does seem to be indebted to him. "Elric of Melnibone" is about the last ruler of a great kingdom, that is 10,000 years old; Elric relies on dragons, which need to sleep for 100(?) years to restore their strength; he has a sword, with a name (Storm-bringer) that is exceptionally dangerous; the name "Melnibone" vaguely recalls "Numenore"; & Elric is a sorcerer. He is almost an anti-Aragorn, or an Aragorn-as-Dark-Lord. Elric is a combo of Aragorn, Turin, Ar-Pharazon, & Sauron - a pretty unpleasant character.

Not so much Turin or Ar-Pharazon- Moorcock started writing the series before the Silmarillion was published, so in part this is actually an example of two writers drawing on the same mythological sources.

I don't think "The New Shadow" was "finishable" - Tolkien's achievement was too complete. I could have done with more info about Eldarion, though. And Aragorn's daughters.

I'm torn about "The New Shadow". It's intriguing, all right, and ends on such a chilling note that you feel frustrated there isn't any more of it- and yet, on the whole I think Tolkien made the right decision. Too many authors just can't resist yet another trip to the well (Moorcock being rather a case in point).

Anyway, welcome to the Downs!

[Saurondil]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Not so much Turin or Ar-Pharazon- Moorcock started writing the series before the Silmarillion was published, so in part this is actually an example of two writers drawing on the same mythological sources.


I'm torn about "The New Shadow". It's intriguing, all right, and ends on such a chilling note that you feel frustrated there isn't any more of it- and yet, on the whole I think Tolkien made the right decision. Too many authors just can't resist yet another trip to the well (Moorcock being rather a case in point).

Anyway, welcome to the Downs!

## Thanks for the correction - & the welcome

[Tidesson]

Try R. Scott Bakker's trilogy, "The Prince of Nothing."

Once you get finished with that storyline, try his follow up novels, "The Aspect-Emperor," which deals with the world of Ëarwa twenty years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Nothing

You can get a taste here of Ëarwa's history (Bakker's worldbuilding skill) that in my opinion, rivals Tolkien's Middle-Earth. http://princeofnothing.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

R. Scott Bakker's Official Website:

http://www.rscottbakker.com/

Here's a forum for his fantasy work, akin to Tolkien's here: http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/index.php

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Tidesson

...You can get a taste here of Ëarwa's history (Bakker's worldbuilding skill) that in my opinion, rivals Tolkien's Middle-Earth.

Thank you for your personal assessment, Mr. Bakker.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Tidesson

Try R. Scott Bakker's trilogy, "The Prince of Nothing."

Once you get finished with that storyline, try his follow up novels, "The Aspect-Emperor," which deals with the world of Ëarwa twenty years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Nothing

You can get a taste here of Ëarwa's history (Bakker's worldbuilding skill) that in my opinion, rivals Tolkien's Middle-Earth. http://princeofnothing.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

R. Scott Bakker's Official Website:

http://www.rscottbakker.com/

Here's a forum for his fantasy work, akin to Tolkien's here: http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/index.php

I'm a huge admirer of Bakker's work in Earwa, beautiful, intricate, and unflawless. Following your timeline link, however, I was reminded again of the similarities between the corruption of Cû’jara-Cinmoi and that of Ar-Pharazon. Both are dark characters who are kings of the most powerful realms of their time. Both apparently humble the enemy of the world, one which has its origins outside of that world. That enemy ultimately seduces both with promises of immortality to destroy themselves and their nations, with enormous consequences to a storyline that occurs thousands of years later.

Just a random thought, not an important one, and in response to a year-old post, no less.

Overall I think Bakker is about as distinct from Tolkien as he could be while still writing fantasy with an elaborate feigned history. I'd say that his work--like some of Moorcock's or Donaldson's--is inspired partly by his reactions against Tolkien though.

[Lotrelf]

I have not read much. The only two series I have read are Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter books(I'm half through the Hobbit and the Silmarillion). And I found Harry Potter books highly influenced by the Lord of the Rings books. Stephen King's books are also said to be inspired by Tolkien, and he is one of the most celebrated authors of our time. Tolkien borrowed from Mythology, and it is seen in his work (I see his work influenced by Hindu Mythology as well. I don't know what he would said on this!). But his own experience in the wars affected his writing enormously.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I found Harry Potter books highly influenced by the Lord of the Rings books. Stephen King's books are also said to be inspired by Tolkien, and he is one of the most celebrated authors of our time. Tolkien borrowed from Mythology, and it is seen in his work (I see his work influenced by Hindu Mythology as well. I don't know what he would said on this!). But his own experience in the wars affected his writing enormously.

King has acknowledged Tolkien's influence in his work. I can really see it in the Dark Tower series, but even in books like The Shining, obvious references are there. I'm thinking mainly of the end of that novel, though I won't spoil things for those who have never read it.

As for Potter, one can see some similarities. There's the guiding hand of Dumbledore who, like Gandalf, is the mastermind of the movement against the prime evil force. He, as is Gandalf, is taken away from Harry in a self-sacrifice.
I think also that with Voldemort's Horcruxes there is an element of the One Ring, as those inanimate artifacts have within them a piece of Voldemort's being, and thus have an adverse effect on one who possesses them.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

As for Potter, one can see some similarities. There's the guiding hand of Dumbledore who, like Gandalf, is the mastermind of the movement against the prime evil force. He, as is Gandalf, is taken away from Harry in a self-sacrifice.
I think also that with Voldemort's Horcruxes there is an element of the One Ring, as those inanimate artifacts have within them a piece of Voldemort's being, and thus have an adverse effect on one who possesses them.

Have you read this?

Overall, I like Lord of the Rings. However, I do feel that Tolkien kind of rips offHarry Potterin many ways. There are several parallels, such as elves, dwarfs, wizards, goblins, trolls, magic (especially invisibility), etc. Sauron is referred to as Dark Lord just like Voldemort is. There is also the elder white-haired bearded wizard who serves as a mentor, Gandalf, who is reminiscent of Dumbledore. Some of the character names are similar, such as Wormtongue as opposed to Wormtail, too. There is even a gigantic spider (Shelob) at the end of The Two Towers that reminds one of Aragog from Chamber of Secrets. I even noticed that the plots of both series begin with the protagonists birthday. Now I see that Tolkien, this unoriginal bastard, is coming out withThe Hobbitin December. This would be fine, but why didn't he just write this book first to begin with? I still like Lord of the Rings, though don't get me wrong but I wonder if Tolkien has ever said in interviews whether he borrowed elements fromHarry Potter. I'll be watching the extended DVDs later this week and I think he is featured on the commentary track, so I look forward to that.

I know, it's not good to laugh at others, but this guy has done something that will make anyone laugh at him.
I know this is not a Harry Potter forum, but I don't really see Dumbledore's death as a self sacrifice, like I see Gandalf's. Dumbledore's death is something like for himself i.e. I don't see him being completely selfless. Gandalf dies out of pure sense of duty.

[Nerwen]

Lotrelf, I'm pretty sure that's a troll...

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Lotrelf, I'm pretty sure that's a troll...

I think the same. But look at the language this guy has used! "The unoriginal bastard" ? There should be a limit of stupidity, and he seems to have crossed that.
Anyways, There's really a lot in HP that reminds me of LotR. Even the use of words is kinda same.