A misconception both dangerous and destructive. On its own, it is a logical fallacy. As the same arguments you use to prove there's nothing new under the sun were applicable decades and centuries ago; yet we've always drawn something different, there's been originals we celebrated. They are rare, yet exist. This attitudes leads to the devoted tracing to every story element backwards to its "original" from which it was copied; listening to a few of these arguments you'll realize that step-by-step what you call "original" compared to the "derivative" is less and less connected, the inspiration is more and more subtle. I advise we as writers put a stop to this and celebrate the speckles of originality each writer (each of us) adds to the greater literature treasure of mankind. Tolkien was inspired by Germanic mythology, he did not borrow from it. The difference between inspiration and borrowing is quite stark. I highlighted Germanic as Anglo-Saxon and Norse dwarves are somewhat different; Tolkien's dwarves take heavily after Alberich and the Nibelungen-dwarves. There's a whole book (Tolkien and Wagner: The Ring and Der Ring) dissecting Tolkien's influences from Germanic mythology through Wagner Example with Tolkien: Inspiration from Tolkien would be to create a world of epic fantasy where the clash of good and evil manifests in "good" and "evil" races interlinked in myths and origin and the "mundane" to stand between and chose their sides. Borrowing from Tolkien would be to create a world where Elves stand as guardians of peace, watching over humans but growing ever more tired of them and opting to abandon the lands and let the humans rule. Bonus points if your elves are immortal, pointy-eared, magical, forest-treetop-dwelling and even more bonus points if you borrow LOTR movie elven architecture for your descriptions.
The Silmarillion is a fascinating work. I wonder what Tolkien would have thought of his son's edit. I think he would have agreed with the creative decisions his son made overall. Christopher and J R R had a very close relationship, not merely as father and son but as collaborators in the development of The Lord of the Rings.
There is a massive difference. Most people who "borrow" from Tolkien generally do a copy-paste - orcs, elves and so on. That is what I refer to as "Tolkien Lite". Tolkien himself based a lot of stuff on real life - you have to have inspiration from somewhere - but he always drew from multiple sources, and he often shifted them around a lot. So you have obvious stuff - such as Numenor being based on Atlantis - and less obvious stuff, such as Arnor being based on Carolingian Empire (especially breakup into three states), and Gondor on Byzantine Empire but with various influences. And even there he combined a lot: Siege of Minas Tirith is roughly based on Siege of Vienna. Numenoreans / Dunedain themselves have influences from ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and so on; Rohirrim are some combination of Anglo-Saxons, Goths and Batavians (you can read more here if you are interested). Thus it is wrong to say that there is "nothing new under the sun". There is - even if any given concept already exists, that doesn't mean that new mixes are not possible. It is a difference between baking a bread and buying it from a supermarket: it is still bread, but with former you have many more options and potential for originality than with the latter. Also, Tolkien's work is ultimately based on Northern European mythology, Anglo-Saxon in particular. But there is lot more out there, and I think that by simply borrowing from Tolkien, a lot of opportunity is being missed - for example, I do not remember Baba Yaga being present in Tolkien's mythos. Nor Fomorians, Nemedians etc. (Tolkien apparently wasn't big fan of Irish mythology). He does have werewolves, but they are clearly of Northern/Western European model, as opposed to e.g. Slavic or Croatian model. And so on...
True. Forcing a difference can be bad. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try and go to the source, try and avoid just copying what others had written. Drawing inspiration is good, but it should be a learning experience, not a shortcut. Try and understand how writers you are being inspired by came up with what they did, as opposed to just copying what they did.
I don't know how much time I'd spend worrying about this if you're among those who enjoy Tolkien and are writing that type of story. There is clearly a market for Tolkien-like fantasy, provided it is well-written. If you're writing something you'd enjoy reading, it's likely there are others who would enjoy it as well. Whether it's a lot like Tolkien or completely different, write the story that speaks to you.
Yes, and if we could, we'd find out what drew inspiration for the Norse myth and go even further than that until we are at the beginning of creation, hence there is nothing new under the sun.
I don't think it is useful to say there is nothing new under the sun. Whether it is true or not depends entirely on how broadly you define what you're talked about. Defined broadly enough, there is little if anything that is new. Defined narrowly, lots of works are new. It's pointless to be sidetracked by banalities.
I think its incredibly useful to think about, if not on a philosophical level but for the fact that you can, and are, drawing inspiration from everything. The very early humans had only nature and themselves to make up stories from. With the wealth of information we have now there is no limit.
There is nothing new, but that doesn't mean you should just go the lazy route. If you draw ideas from one of interpretations, you are cutting off many possibilities that could be explored and given a new spin.
It's not that writing something derivative is bad. It's totally acceptable - indeed, necessary - to have influences. However, it's desirable to go beyond merely imitating your predecessors and create something that is distinctly yours. That's sorta the point of artistic expression, and you do yourself a disservice as a creator if you don't strive for that. Rather than something to be avoided, influences are a starting point; something to build on. If there is a negative aspect of Tolkien's success, it's that because he so thoroughly codified archetypal high fantasy that a lot of subsequent writers simply did the same thing he did, we probably missed out on a richer, more varied genre. That's a little bit tragic to consider, seeing as fantasy is pretty much the one genre offering limitless possibilities to create whatever you can imagine. Also, like, most of his dwarves got their names from that list, almost verbatim. It's kinda weird reading through them and seeing how many dwarf names Tolkien straight up lifted, considering we're talking about a man who invented an entire damn language complete with naming conventions for his elves. I'm sorta curious what those similarities are. See, there's reason to believe that the stereotypical depiction of a "Tolkien-style elf" actually wasn't quite what Tolkien had in mind: Apparently he imagined Legolas as being quite manly, describing him as very tall, slender yet immensely strong and ridiculously tough. Tolkien specifically mentioned that he disliked "effeminate" portrayals of Legolas, suggesting he meant for the guy to be distinctly masculine even next to guys like Aragorn and Boromir. Like some chiseled "Brad Pitt in Fight-Club"-looking dude, probably. It's also sorta debatable if Tolkien's elves even had pointy ears, since this is never mentioned in any of the books. (Apparently most of the support for this are a couple of meta-narrative comments that could be argued to be ambiguous.) You'd think if pointy ears was such characteristically elvish trait, he would have brought it up more. Then there's the fact that dark hair was standard among the sindar elves, blondes being incredibly rare. So the irony here is that what most people think of as "typical Tolkien elves" very possibly wasn't at all what Tolkien himself thought they looked like. Though, sort of a weird aversion to this is trolls: Apparently nobody seems to agree on what exactly a troll is supposed to be.
Yes, except that he invented and popularized the genre, and without him, there would be nothing except for some obscure indie writers, such as Lud-in-the-mill and Lord Dunsany. And lets just spit on the fact the Tolkien made something so grand that everyone wanted to imitate it because he touched on a genre nobody understood.
In terms of height and general demeanor there's a certain similarity. The King of Elfland is a powerful enchanter, with none of the diminutiveness that a lot of traditional portrayals of elves have. Neither Tolkien's nor Lord Dunsany's elves resemble this: But it's been a while since I read it.
Ah... I'm not going to dispute that, but let me rephrase and clarify my point. It is true that Tolkien was one of those rare people who pretty much caused a cultural paradigm shift all on his own, and we should all be grateful that his work pushed fantasy into the mainstream. We can agree on that, yes? The tragic part is that a lot of people kinda missed the point: That fantasy doesn't really have a specific style or form - it's not actually about elves and dwarves and dragons. It can be whatever you want it to be. I recall giving The Dark Tower a shot some years ago and in a rather lengthy preface, Stephen King explained that after reading Lord of the Rings he had this strong desire to write a great fantasy epic. But he didn't, because he realized that he wasn't ready for it: He knew that if he'd tried, he'd just end up writing Tolkien's great fantasy epic. It was only much later, while watching Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns on the big screen, he realized he'd found his own vision. I think that King, on some level, understood what Tolkien actually wanted to accomplish. Tolkien wasn't trying to establish a template. He simply had very distinct vision of the world and mythology he wanted to create, and that's the true genius of how work. That's the lesson we should all have learned from him.
I can't remember ever coming across someone arguing that fantasy fiction must include elves, dwarves, or dragons — or anything else from Middle-earth.
What's the saying? Imitation is the highest form of flattery? To some point, that's true, but often times I see it as a writer being lazy. They didn't want to bother creating their own races/groups so just took tolkiens and cut and pasted them into 'their' world. What's the difference between borrowing from the Norse or Tolkien? One is a culture, spanning centuries and a continent, the other is the hardwork of one man. It's a matter of effort. Did you read Lord of the Rings and decide to use those races in 'your' world, or did you spend time learning about a culture and it's many divergent world views and beliefs and use elements of that, combined with your own creativity to create something new? It's fine if somethings in your story show the influence of Tolkien, it's really hard to not have some just because of how massive his influence has been, but unless your book is based in middle earth, put some effort into shaping your own world.
Really? Isn't all we know about Norse myth based from one, highly influential man? Snorri. Just because Norse myth been around longer doesn't make it better than one man's efforts. Not that he only used Norse myth, there's Irish and King Arthur and a heap of other stuff, which all is as valid as using Tolkien in your work. How is basing your races on Tolkiens work any different from the Norse. How much 'culture' and 'world views' do you find by reading about the dwarfs in Snorri? Last time I checked there wasn't really anything comprehensive about them. It's too bad nobody is allowed to use Hobbits, really
I thought It would be a nice idea to set a similar world but follow an orc or goblin's perspective. his master 'Gifted' 9 rings to humans, 7 to dwarfs, 3 to elves. and only hand 1 for himself. 9,7,3 are greater than one. in return, they just wanted some land to grow something to eat, (As Mordor is mostly barren) most of the orc resort to cannibalism just to survive. Yet the racist elvish propaganda labels it as an 'invasion' and kill their leader. it's not like orcs are really good in a fight, so it is not like they are a major threat or have been fighting long enough to be any good at it. The minute they get to Izingaurd. they are so starved for resources no wonder they took every part like ravenous piranhas. You know what? If I was an orc, I would be pretty pissed off too.
