Kevin's Watch

It is well known that SRD copied the Lord of the Rings. The ents midwives had deserted them as surely as the unhomed, long-living, unhasty, giants had a decline in birthing. The wraith lords are undying, the ravers the same. There is a ring. Etc, etc.

And of course, there are differences.

And yet, we have the title of the first book, "Lord Foul's Bane". I recall in the Lord of the Rings that the ring is called Isuldur's Bane. Perhaps we shall see the ring fall into Lord Foul's hands at the beginning of the 3rd chronicles and that this ever-coveted power shall be his undoing.

Spoiler --

That's already happened, at the end of the Second Chrons

It is well known that SRD copied the Lord of the Rings

I disagree, I think the similaritys(or most of them) are only skin deep.

Quite so

Where you get ur ideas is byond me...

I think there is very little similarity between TCTC and LoTR. Sure Donaldson has been inspired by the book, but Tolkein himself was inspired by many other books. In my opinion, TCTC stands on its own quite well.

There are too many similarities to discount, but I wouldn't say it's copying, either.

Any similarities are superficial. Donaldson in no way "copied" LOTR. The main comparison is the ring of course. But, in LOTR, the Ring was pure evil. It's power was known and the point of the whole story was to destroy it. In TCTC, the ring is a symbol of hope and strength. Unlimited power, the wild magic which destroys peace. In LOTR the Ring was made for a single purpose, to enact and preserve the evil that was Sauron. I see no similarty other than the fact that they were rings. Heck, they weren't even the same type of gold.

And yes, there are definite similarities between the ravers and wraiths, but again, just on the surface. The woodhelven are often compared to the Elves, but that isn't right. The Elves were immortal, empowered by magic. And while the woodhelven were deep in the wood lore, they were not immortal and were not anymore magical then the stonedowners.

And as far as I'm concerned, the Giants are unique. There have been giants in other fantasy stories, but most have been protrayed as troll-like imbeciles that have no purpose other then to cause havoc. The Giants of Seareach are rich in heritage, strength, and beautiful story telling. "Joy is in the ears that hear." The only similarity I see between them and the Ents was they didn't like "haste". Again, just surface stuff.

Tolkien was Donaldson's inspiration, not his outliner.

Well said, Furls Fire.

If im not mistaken, both works belong in the fantasy genre. Each genre has its own sort of formula which is adapted and modified by the author. Each work has unique ingrediants. Some ingrediants may appear the same but as Furls said the similarities are only on the surface.

Fantasy works are bound to have one or two similarities for the simple fact that they belong to that genre just as romance novels are a little similar as are horror novels etc.

Authors, poets, songwriters anyone with a creative bone in their body will produce works that have been influenced by their prior experiences.

I can see similarities in some instances but as a whole they are two separate works.

I also agree that their are similarities, but that's all. I recently watched the extended edition of The Two Towers, and noticed the similarity of living trees fighting against their enemies (Fangorn forest slaughtering the remainger of the Uruk-Hai army.) Obviously, this is similar to Garroting Deep in TIW.

Personally, I think SRD is better than Tolkien. Tolkien's writing style drives me totally insane. I've attempted to read both the Hobbit and FOTR and for the life of me, I get about 100 pages into it and just throw up my hands in disgust. SRD hammers me with words that I don't understand, but I can use a dictionary.

Wow....what an interesting thought.....SRD used Tolkien as a model....hmmm....I agree with Furl and Infelice.....perhaps LOTR inspired SRD but the ideas and plot are definitley his own.Think about long lived Giants,why wouldn't they take their time both in story telling and decisions,after all they live alot longer than we do....we're always hurried by our lack of time,you all know the saying"life's short".
As far as the rest I think Infelice hit it on the nose you'll find similarities within the genre....shall we call anyone who uses robots in SciFi a copier of Issac Asimov or Ray Bradbury....don't think so it's just part of that genre.....just like rings of power,eternal demons,wraiths or ravers,sentient trees,or beings of earthpower are part of fantasy.
There is so much unique in the TC series that it makes me read it again and again and I always enjoy it,and as we all know in White Gold Wielder Foul does get his hands on the ring.....and we know the outcome of that,I just realized there may be some who have just taken up reading the series...so I won't finish that thought and ruin it for you.

I honestly prefer TCTC to LoTR. The writing is better for a start. The characters are more interesting and are believable. There are many scenes in LoTR that are silly (sorry if that annoys anyone but that's my opinion); I almost put the book down when it came to the Tom Bombadil part. LoTR takes ages to get interesting, whereas TCTC kicks off right from the start. For me, I like TC more than any character in LoTR because he has my sympathy and he evokes feelings in me; something Gandalf and co don't do for me. The enemy is more interesting in TCTC because the Despiser is so effective a foe.
The battles are described better in TCTC and evoke so much atmosphere. For me, Hile Troy pushing his army down south then hard across the wastes was redolent with emotion. I didn't feel the same with LoTR.
My main problem with LoTR is that the book's real strength is in it's history. Tolkein goes to great lengths to invent a fantasy world with background, language, family lines, etc but that doesn't make it more interesting for me. Donaldson is focused and just tells a story.

Are you good people kidding me?

OF COURSE IT WAS A COPY!

LOTR: There's a bad guy hanging out at the east end of the land.
TCTC: There's a bad guy hanging out at the east end of the land.

TCTC: There's a forestal.
LOTR: Tom Bombadil.

TCTC: Giant's have stories that last weeks in the telling.
LOTR: The Ents language requires a great deal of time to agree on a simple premise.

TCTC: The most power item in the story is a ring.
LOTR: The most power item in the story is a ring.

TCTC: Woodelven.
LOTR: Elves.

LOTR: Rohan adores horses.
TCTC: Ramen.

TCTC: Ranyhyn come at the beckon of a whistle as if they had ridden toward it long before.
LOTR: Gandalf's steed (duh).

TCTC: Revelstone.
LOTR: Helm's Deep.

There's alot more too. It's as plain as day. It's my opinion that The Thomas Covenant Chronicles are more interesting in many ways & more mature content. But it is still A COPY! And there have been a huge amount of such blatent copies since then by the likes of authors such as Terry Brooks. Don't be naive'.

CovenantJr wrote: That's already happened

I read it once. I found it to be far too depressing. But I'm glad he did it. Just one more copy of JRR, and it proves my point. Maybe my doctor can give me some happy medication so I can once again stand reading about the land being tortured so.

Zephalephelah wrote:Are you good people kidding me?

OF COURSE IT WAS A COPY!

LOTR: Berel one-hand
TCTC: Berek half-hand

See? Totally different. 'nuff said.

You are right Zephalephelah I AM SAURON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Great board by the way)

Yeah and Urviles, Urakai
Orcs and cavewights
Kresh and those wolf riders
Massive armies vs. smaller armies
A handful unique creatures interspersed in each

Elves long-life & the bloodguard


But as I said, TCTC is much better in many ways.


Oh my, if only they could do it the justice that LOTR was given in film.

Oh my, if only they could do it the justice that LOTR was given in film.

T'would be a dream come true!

While I agree that there are many similarities between elements in LoTR and LFB I still feel that the book is not a copy by the simple fact that there are also a lot of important differences between the two works.