Revisiting Chronicles v. LOTR

[Aleksandr]

And another difference: the depiction of evil.
Sauron (and Morgoth before him) seek to rule the world, perhaps even deluding their followers (and themselves?) that they have only the best of intentions in this desire. LOTR (and the Silmarillion) is a tale about the evils of greed and covetousness. This is certainly not a trivial subject and Tolkien does a good job of exploring it quite thoroughly, but he doesn’t really plumb the far depths of evil.
But Foul makes no pretense of having good intentions and he doesn’t want to possess the Land, he wants to destroy it and the whole Earth. This means that he is ten times nastier than Sauron could ever be and the Chronicles is far more wrenching a read than LOTR (and Tolkien was also so fussily “nice” in his writing that he suppressed a great deal of the horror that he could have displayed more graphically).

[Invain]

The first main difference that comes to my mind is the unusual depth of TCTC. LOTR is a good epic story, but in TCTC we get much more. Once we consider this, it doesn't really matter that the inevitable similiarities to LOTR occur. Tolkien may be the the father of fantasy as we know it, but Donaldson made a big step further.

Another thing is that you can find tolkienesque analogies (deliberate or not) in virtually every fantasy book. The point is whether a given book is just another Tolkien ripoff or creative expanding of the genre he started.

The ring is the most obvious analogy between the two... at least at first glance. In LOTR there was no necessity for the amulet of power to come in the shape of a ring. In TCTC, however, the ring carries much more significance - as Covenant's wedding ring it is a symbol of his past life, which he lost to his ilness.

[drew]

I'm reading LOTR right now, and for the first time. I've read TCOTC many times. I've seen the LOTR movies about 3 times each.
Right now, I can't beleive how DIFFERENT the stories are.
Just because there are a few charactor similarities (very few) doesn't mean that it's a rip off. Hell you could compare Mhoram to Atikus Finch, but I wouldn't say that the Chronicles are a rip off of To Kill A Mockingbird! I guess that being the Difintive story of any genre means that all subsiquent stories will be called rip-offs. Therefore all of the Isaac Amanov novels are a rip off of Jules Verne!

[Borillar]

Ok, clarification time.

By no means do I think TCTC is a ripoff of LOTR; far from it. The essential themes of both are so very different, and the ideas of facing up to inner despite, of the dangers of overeliance on stringent fidelity, of balancing passion and reason...those things are inimical to TCTC and not LOTR. They're both wonderful for what they are, and what they are is just fundamentally different. Believe me, I realize that the Ranyhyn are nothing like the horses of the Rohirrim, etc. etc.

The only point I was trying to make is that there are some suprising "surface" similarities between the two, a few similar plot arcs, that I wondered if SRD did deliberately or unconsciously. For instance, why name him "Berek the half-hand", when Beren the partial-handed existed in LOTR? Why didn't SRD call his character "Frank the 50% Fingered" or something that wouldn't immediately cause people like myself to waste everyone's time as I'm doing with this thread?

Come to think of it, I again am not even sure what I expected people to contribute to this thread when I started it, except again perhaps more examples of some "surface" similarities, just for my amusement.

That is all.

[Grimmand Honninscrave]

I am both a JTTR fan and a SRD fan. I love both works and I thinlk both stand alone. It does seem that SRD was influenced by JRRT but that is where the simularities end. The land is nothing like middle earth and vise versa. Both have special things abount them that are not the same. Earth power, kevens lore, elves, dwarves, hobbits... need I go on?

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

It's a discussion that resurfaces here every once in a while. Asking for surface similarities invites deeper comparison, so it always ends as a deeper discussion.

We get defensive pretty quickly, too, though. The problem I have, and many others, I suspect, is that there are many people who look only at the surface similarities: they are the ones who challenge SRD's creativity and originality without acquiring a deeper understanding of TCTC. Mind, I'm not suggesting at all that you are one of these folks, Borillar. Like I said, some of us get riled up pretty quickly (heh, mostly me and Jay, I think ). The thing is, the similarities are worth a discussion because they force a deeper reading of both TCTC and LOTR, something many people are unwilling to do, to their detriment.

So, there's my stump speech. I say compare away... I wouldn't mind a deeper discussion regarding Forestals, and Ents: the Elves who first taught the trees to speak versus the One Forest, which didn't need anyone to teach it awareness. How do they compare in source, power and service?

[theDespiser]

Remember, JRRT is the poor reader's SRD.-jay

(Gets chased out by rabid JRRT fans)

i wouldnt go that far, given JRRT's acedemic credentials

[theDespiser]

The first main difference that comes to my mind is the unusual depth of TCTC. LOTR is a good epic story, but in TCTC we get much more. Once we consider this, it doesn't really matter that the inevitable similiarities to LOTR occur. Tolkien may be the the father of fantasy as we know it, but Donaldson made a big step further.

with Tolkiens work and LOTR, you have to take the Silmirillion, The Hobbit, LOTR, and all the other books/stories he has done about Middle Earth, and you get a far more expansive world than Donaldson created...mainly because he wrote so MUCH...he created an entire history and language for the elves before he even wrote the books...


and i dont see how Terry Brooks is 'just another tolkien rip-off'

[Avatar]

...he created an entire history and language for the elves before he even wrote the books...

Indeed. As a linguist first and foremost, he actually wrote the books to give a context, a historical setting, for the language that he had created from scratch.

--Avatar

[Invain]

with Tolkiens work and LOTR, you have to take the Silmirillion, The Hobbit, LOTR, and all the other books/stories he has done about Middle Earth, and you get a far more expansive world than Donaldson created...mainly because he wrote so MUCH...he created an entire history and language for the elves before he even wrote the books...

I realize that, and I'm not trying to belittle the enormous amount of work Tolkien put into his books. Still, however expanded Middle Earth may be it is only a setting. The depth I had in mind lies beyond the setting and is, for example, the creation of such psychologically complex characters as Covenant, which Tolkien simply lacks.

[matrixman]

Asking for surface similarities invites deeper comparison, so it always ends as a deeper discussion.

We get defensive pretty quickly, too, though. The problem I have, and many others, I suspect, is that there are many people who look only at the surface similarities: they are the ones who challenge SRD's creativity and originality without acquiring a deeper understanding of TCTC. Mind, I'm not suggesting at all that you are one of these folks, Borillar. Like I said, some of us get riled up pretty quickly (heh, mostly me and Jay, I think ). The thing is, the similarities are worth a discussion because they force a deeper reading of both TCTC and LOTR, something many people are unwilling to do, to their detriment.

Well said, Alynna. I agree 100%.

I'm sure it's like deja vu for veteran Watchers who see the SRD/JRRT debate and the same arguments along with it pop up every now and then. It's like an undead monster that keeps coming back, no matter how many fiery arrows *dlb ducks out of the way* or burning pots of graveling we throw at it.

Whatever. I'm all for freedom of thought and all that jazz, and at least Borillar makes it clear he appreciates both Tolkien and Donaldson. Judging an author's work solely on the basis of superficial similarities to another's is unfair and misleading.

And anyway, I don't talk much about Tolkien here because we're Kevin's Watch, not Aragorn's Watch or something...

[theDespiser]

with Tolkiens work and LOTR, you have to take the Silmirillion, The Hobbit, LOTR, and all the other books/stories he has done about Middle Earth, and you get a far more expansive world than Donaldson created...mainly because he wrote so MUCH...he created an entire history and language for the elves before he even wrote the books...

I realize that, and I'm not trying to belittle the enormous amount of work Tolkien put into his books. Still, however expanded Middle Earth may be it is only a setting. The depth I had in mind lies beyond the setting and is, for example, the creation of such psychologically complex characters as Covenant, which Tolkien simply lacks.

with that, ya gotta take into account that LOTR had so many characters...and the different styles of the authors...but i see your point...Tolkien didnt take quite the same approach, but to say that LOTR doesnt have depth(which you didnt EXACTLY say) is a bit much..

the way i feel about it: Theyre both great authors...the stories which they told were epic and grand in scale...and, my fave is SRD because i read TCTC before LOTR...but LOTR cannot be dismissed as inferior to SRD...

[BT Shire]

SRD was influenced by Tolkien. In fact, he has stated many times that he became interested in writing fantasy when he read LotR. So it is fair to say the the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant would not exist if not for Tolkien. It might be accurate to say that the modern fantasy genre as we know it would not exist if LotR hadn't been written. Some fantasy is a blatent rip-off of Tolkien. SRD's writing is certainly not, but the influence is plain for all who care to look for it.

Which do I think is better? I'll never tell

[Kalindril]

There are similarities in all things written and created. But there is no point in finding them. Exceedingly depth of Covenant story is what it brings it on top of all others. There is an essence of humanity and devotion wriiten on the pages that lasts in our heart forever... just to walk the plains of Andelejn (on my language), to se the living health of the Land and most of all to know it's unparalleled inhabitants ... that is a life in all its glory.
To be true, to be alive.

[W.B.]

LOTR has been around longer and is more well-known than TCTC, so I think SRD gets more of the bum deal when it comes to people griping about TCTC being deritive (which, in a positive sense it is, as SRD has said all along), though those who have not read LOTR or Tolkien in general will complain about LOTR or dismiss it or what-have-you, just as others denigrate TCTC. I could certainly understand (though feel the same as) someone who found one or both authors not to their taste.

They're both to some degree acquired tastes. What makes SRD challenging to read is the extremity of his language (sentence structure, arcane vocabulary, unusual use of words) and the anti-hero-as-hero. What makes Tolkien hard to read is his psychological distance from his characters and heroic language. Now I don't think Tolkien wrote shallow characters, but they are not always as *accessible* as SRD's. Covenant might rage and clench, while Frodo might wince, though the characters are just as tormented.

Thematically are they the same? Well, they are both deep works that deal with despair and evil and power. I find Tolkien dealt more deeply and compellingly with evil (the nature of the ring, the Wraiths, Sauron, and Saruman) while SRD dealt more with power (TC's meditations on the white gold and guilt).

Which work is overall more compelling to a specific individual is a personal opinion. I don't think "better" is a very useful term. Of course that's all my opinion, too.

For superficial similarities, I know others before have pointed out geographic likenesses.

[theDespiser]

a LOT of books would not exist if it werent for Tolkien...


or maybe its just that we wouldnt be as far along as we are...someone would have written something like LOTR eventually...he wasnt the first fantasy author

[Iryssa]

a LOT of books would not exist if it werent for Tolkien...

good point...


okay...in case anyone cares what I think about this, I'm just gonna give you a link to an essay I wrote a LONG time ago...I'll warn you, it's probably the worst essay I've ever written, but I still believe every word I wrote...anyway, it's quite short, so you won't have to put up with it for long

Essay

[Zahir]

Yeah, there are similarities, but too much can easily be made of such. Consider the fact that in Ancient Greece, playwrights in essence had only the same cluster of stories to tell again and again--everyone wrote an Oedipus, just as in Elizabethan England nearly everyone who could be called a playwright sooner or later did their own version of Richard III.

The similarities are intersting, but their main function--at least IMO--is to bring into sharp relief the differences.

Tolkien's Ents, for example, are not nearly so alien as the Land's great woods and their Forrestals. Ents, for example, have gender and although their world view reflects enormous patience and great age, in many ways they are very anthropomorphic. Not so Garotting Deep! It is an ancient and alien form of life, so different that a weird liason is needed for the forest to defend itself or even perform the most rudimentary form of communication--the Forestals.

Likewise, Lord Foul makes Sauron look like a minor tyrant. Tolkien's cosmos has evil as a form of diminishment, that Sauron in seeking after power over others as an end in and of itself has lost many of his most basic abilities. One gets the impression that even Sauron's imagination has shrivelled. Yet Lord Foul remains terribly and potently wise throughout, a master of deep knowledge of which we only guess at--then flinch away. He is no bully, but something more profound, more disturbing. And many times more dangerous.

Then compare Frodo with Thomas Covenant. Our nice little gentleman hobbit is a lovely person, no doubt, and it is much to his credit that he gives so much and at such a high cost for the world. Yet the issues that drive and are demonstrated by Frodo are simply not those enacted by Thomas Covenant, who must tackle real self-loathing, laced as it is with a genuine sense of terrible guilt.

Myself, I doubt Tolkien would have much approved of TCTC. He was influenced throughout by a particular stripe of Catholic Christianity, by a romantic love of some kinds of 'primitive' society, coupled with almost Edwardian sensibilities. For example, practically the only eroticism anywhere in LOTR is the long of the Ents for their lost wives. Compare that to the disturbing incestuous feelings between Covenant and Elena!

[matrixman]

Wow, Zahir!

[drew]

Yes, excellent post!
People need to stop looking at the surface simalarities, and take notice that these are two very different stories.
I personally don't think we'd hear the comparisons very much if they both didn't have a Ring. Most other fantasy stories have a mythical sword, but people don't call them a rip off of King Arthur...funny thing is, most of these stories are much more simaler to LOTR than Covenant is.

-Although, The Staff of Law, deffinatly has some comparisms to Excalebur if you ask me!