"Borrowing" ideas for stories, when is it ok?

[Boaz]

The other day I responded to a Terry Brooks thread http://www.chronicles-network.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3279&page=1&pp=15 in somewhat of a negative way. Okay, it was definitely negative... I accused him of intellectual theft and I think The Sword of Shanarra borders on plagiarism.

Here is my summary of The Sword of Shanarra.

A young man in a pastoral community is suddenly warned by a grey cloaked old man who tells him to flee because black creatures are hunting him. The young man, who happens to be short, takes his trusted, and also short, brother in arms with him. The short men flee one step ahead of the black creatures. They make it to a large town where they meet a ranger. The ranger also happens to be a prince. He agrees to guide them to the secret city of refuge. They journey through swamps and forests and barely escape the black creatures. At the secret city of refuge, a council of the free peoples is meeting. They have decided they must do something before the Dark Lord overruns the earth. Of course the short, young man volunteers to go be the one to combat the Dark Lord personally. His dim witted, short companion is also chosen to go. The old grey wizard, the ranger prince, a dwarf, the regal human prince of the border kingdom that bears the brunt of the Dark Lord's attacks, and two Elven brothers decide to accompany the short, young man.

Are you with me so far? Okay.

The fellowship starts out. After a few adventures they do a dungeon crawl. Just when they are about to get out of the dungeon... a fire demon appears! Well, the grey wizard and the fire demon have it out... and the end result is that they both plunge into a bottomless pit.

Question: Am I summarizing Tolkien or Brooks?

Answer: Brooks, he has two elves and two hobbits. Tolkien had one elf and four hobbits in his fellowship.

I'm not making this up!

Well from there the story changes and I'll use Tolkien's names to convey Brooks' story.

Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, Legolas' brother, Gimli and Sam head to Minas Tirith. But when they get there, just ahead of the Dark Lord's army, they find that Faramir (instead of Denethor) has gone insane. Faramir, under Wormtongue's psychological control, killed Denethor and made himself king. Faramir wants to marry Eowyn (who has quickly fallen for Aragorn). They defend the city against the legions of Mordor. When Wormtongue starts to lose control of Faramir, Worm kills him. Aragorn kills Worm. Aragorn gets Eowyn. Boromir wins the battle and becomes king of Gondor.

Meanwhile, Frodo meets Han Solo and Chewbacca. They journey towards Mordor, but Gollum steals the Ring from them. They chase Gollum, but Gollum reaches Barad-dur first and gives Sauron the Ring. Then Frodo and Sauron battle, but it turns out that Frodo did not even need the Ring.

The End.

I'm quoting myself... oh, the sheer arrogance of it!

Anyway, is that story owned by Tolkien? Can anyone just "borrow" it? At least Eddings had the grace to use only the barest bones of the fellowship idea.

Of course, all authors borrow from previous stories. Love, hate, war, peace, discovery, and losing are all in the human experience and they've been talked, sung, and written about over and over.

I'm sure Tolkien based some of his works on old Gothic (I mean Gothic as in Goths, Ostrogoths, and Visisgoths), Celtic, Norse, and Anglo-Saxon texts that I am not aware of. From my point of view, he breathed new life into stories that were thousands of years old. I think Tolkien's book was popular enough that it did not need new life breathed into it.

One obvious use of an ancient story by Tolkien is the story of Horatio. The story goes that Rome (when it was still a small city) was being invaded by the Etruscans. The Romans realized that the bridge they had built to allow them easy commerce and military access over the Tiber river would now be the means of allowing the Etruscans to sack their city. So a company of men volunteered to hold the far end of the bridge while the Roman engineers destroyed the bridge. Very courageous offer of these men because once the bridge was destroyed, they had no escape. Well the Etruscans saw the destruction of the bridge taking place, so they attacked. All the volunteers were slain except for one, Horatio, but the bridge had not yet been destroyed. So, Horatio held the bridge single handedly until the engineers finished their job. Once they were finished, Horatio turned, dove into the river, swam across, and was accorded as the savior of Rome.

Tolkien used this story twice. First, Turin caused a bridge to be built ove the Narog so the commercial and military abilities of Nargothrond would be increased. Glaurung attacked before the defenders could destroy the bridge and the city was sacked. In the second instance, Boromir and Faramir held the bridge at Osgiliath while engineers destroyed the bridge. Boromir, Faramir, and two others succeeded in holding the bridge and then succeeded in swimming the river. This happened in the year before the fellowship was formed.

I guess I don't have a problem with taking a story from antiquity and retelling it or incorporating it into a modern work.

Did anyone read Dennis L. McKiernan's Iron Tower Trilogy? Well four Hobbit-like fellows (Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin) leave their nice little homeland just ahead of some nasty creatures hunting them. Their land has this nice hedge (the High Hay in Buckland) that keeps out the nasties. After some adventures a fellowship is formed. The fellowship is being pursued into the mountains, so they decide to go through the mountains instead, via the old abandoned dwarf kingdom (Moria). Well they get to the door, but they can't seem to open it. And oh, by the way, they are puzzled by the lake that now lies next to the door. When they get the door open, a horrible creature from the lake attacks them. They escape into the dwarf mines as the creature destroys the doors from the outside. When they finally get to the other end of the dwarf mines they run into trouble... you guessed it! A huge fire demon! (Can you say Balrog?)

I'm not making this up! (And obviously neither did McKiernan.)

Anyway the story winds up with the main Hobbit defeating the Dark Lord by using the ultimate magic weapon. But in the process the poor Hobbit is wounded and never finds peace or real honor in his homeland.

Borrowed ideas, influenced by another author, stealing intellectual property, or outright plagiarism? You tell me.

PS - I, Brian, thanks for welcoming me to your forums. I am not trying to be overly negative, just trying to get some dialogue on some ideas and opinions. I know you don't need my opinion to edit or delete my posts, but please know that I won't hold a grudge if you do. Thanks again.

 

[Jay]

I'm not sure what your looking for in response.


I think most people know Terry Brooks is a hack, this has been known and discussed for like 20 years

 

[Brian G Turner]

I don't think you're being negative Boaz - I think you're being very realist in your approach to suspension of belief, and I find that refreshing.

I certainly agree that there's no harm in re-telling ancient legends - in fact, I'd actively support it, as it's prevent stories worth telling from dying. Even if the details change, the acts remain worth telling of. I actually have an aspirant novel aborted, which attempt to retell a couple of Ancient Egyptian hero stories rolled into one (and had completely forgotten about until this thread, even though I once put chapter 1 on the net).

As for more contemporary works - "borrowing" ideas isn't neceassrily the problem, as much as how they are applied.

Sometimes a story will impact writers who follow simply for the size of its influence - no doubt LOTR had this power over a number of middle-aged fantasy authors. Then of course there's the inadvertent use of details from stories which have otherwise been forgotten - I remember reading Jung highlight this specific topic with regards to a writer of his time.

However, I should hope that a lot of borrowed ideas - whether actual plots or simply just concepts - are used after as a foundation to develop and evolve lots of ideas. Generally, where a writer introduces useful concepts, it's worth using them to refine the original ideas, extend into new application, or else even simply use as a point to create a new complex of ideas that others will build on yet.

I know I've certainly been influenced by other writers, but as an aspirant I've never seen myself as borrowing from them, as much as building new ground from them - providing extra depth and new dimensions - or certainly as I see it.

So overall I should think the contention is not so much one of whether it is correct to borrow ideas from other writers, as much as to what degree of change of context and application a writer needs to make when referencing already often well-used concepts and devices.

2c anyway.

 

[Boaz]

Thanks I, Brian.

Ainulindale, I guess I was ranting and wanted to see if anyone would respond. I've not really discussed this topic online before... I mean, I've ranted, but no one has really responded. Well, if I'm covering old ground with Brooks and McKiernan, sorry.

Do you think Brooks' TSOS and McKiernan's Iron Tower Trilogy (both are decent, run of the mill reads) are building on Tolkien with new energy as I, Brian suggests or do you think they have stolen their stories from Tolkien? (I recall Gandalf's frustration at Pippin's questions, so I'll try not to ask too many.) Or more to the point do you think Brooks and McKiernan saw themselves as breathing new life into Tolkien's stories or were they both out to just make a quick buck?

This brings to mind two examples from the music industry. George Harrison recorded My Sweet Lord, but was sued for stealing the song from the Chiffons' He's So Fine and Vanilla Ice was sued for stealing Under Pressure from Queen. In the former example, I get the feeling that Harrison had heard so many songs that he subconciously used the Chiffons' song while Rob Van Winkle intentionally stole from Queen. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

When fantasy storylines seem rather similar, it's most often because the writer is being lazy. It's perfectly possible to write mainstream epic fantasy and not duplicate to any extent what's been written before - George RR Martin and Steven Erikson are currently the best proof we have of that.

Tim Powers, by any reckoning one of the most original fantasists around, speaks about the phenomenon of aspiring genre writers who do not read much outside their chosen genre - he teaches a lot of workshops, and can always spot the aspiratns who have limited their literary exposure. As a young man, Powers was totally steeped in sf and fantasy, which he says gave him the basic toolkit to write in these genres, but he has since nearly ceased reading in these genres, searching out diverse ideas and influences, in fiction and non-fiction, which help him come out with ideas which are not a re-hash of standard fantasy themes.

If a fantasy writer can't see beyond 'breathing new life' into Tolkien or any other genre writer, they're not really trying very hard, are they?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't know about Brooks, but McKiernan is sort of an interesting case. I don't remember all the details, so parts of this may be garbled, but here is the story in its broadest outlines:

After reading LOTR, McKiernan was fired with the desire to write a sequel. (If I'm remembering correctly he was recovering from some sort of injury and had loads of time on his hands.) So he threw his heart and his soul into the project and wrote the story, believing in his innocence that it might actually get published. Of course when he had finished, he learned there was no way in heck the Tolkien estate was going to authorize or permit any such sequel. Well, but he still had the books, and he wanted to see them in print. So he changed a few names, filed off the serial numbers, and was lucky enough to get published by a major publisher.

And a great many people bought his first series and liked it, and many of those people were so interested in the backstory, that they wanted a prequel.

Which prequel inevitably turned out looking a lot like a copy of LOTR.

I'm not sure what the moral of this story is -- maybe just that a writer's motives aren't always as cynical or mercenary as they may appear.

 

[GOLLUM]

I agree that Brooks is to an extent a copyist but I quite enjoyed the Shannara books having read all of them. For me they provide a nice break from the more substantial reads like Martin and Erikson, as JP so aptly puts it YES to some extent it's a bit of mind candy but as long as it doesn't rot my brain completely...

I've also read Mckiernan's Iron Tower Trilogy and thought it only just passable LOL! Brooks is a much better author than this guy IMO, so that should give you some idea of where he sits on my list of favs....

 

[Jay]

I agree that Brooks is to an extent a copyist but I quite enjoyed the Shannara books having read all of them. For me they provide a nice break from the more substantial reads like Martin and Erikson, as JP so aptly puts it YES to some extent it's a bit of mind candy but as long as it doesn't rot my brain completely...

This is where I think my tastes (and those thay may share them) philosiphies differ. I look upon Martin and Erikson as my light reads to get away from more substantial (but no less relevant) reads by people like a Delany (Dhalgren is what I would call a reasonably dense novel) or Jeffrey Ford, Moorcock's more literay directed work, M. John Harrison, Calvino etc.

That why when I see something like Eragon or Shannara, or Draogonlance, I don't consider it light reading, I consider it what I think it is - garbage.

Do you think Brooks' TSOS and McKiernan's Iron Tower Trilogy (both are decent, run of the mill reads) are building on Tolkien with new energy as I, Brian suggests or do you think they have stolen their stories from Tolkien?

I defintely agree with Brian's assesment, however ,I don't think it can be accepted universally. In Brook's case the evidence is to damning - he directly has stated he is chiefly influenced by LOTR and started writing Sword of Shananra after reading it. Del-Rey chose Brooks to experiment how viable the market was and to prove it can be a profitable genre. Not whether they could write quality books, but make a profit.

Now, I don't discourage that, because it's a business, and that's what their goal should be, but in saying that I don't think it's even disputable that Brook's isn't a hack - he is an extreme case. George R.R. Martin and Robin Hobb were both extremely influenced by Tolkien, look how they parlayed it into absolute different works, even though they are epic fantasies, then look at Brooks - its Lord of the Rings for idiots, nothing more.


You know what I found inetresting, I had a collection of essays with some dozen+ author each getting a chapter to pay homage to Tolkien, for influencing them in their work, it's a damn good read, with great content called Meditations on Middle Earth edited by Karen Haber (who is Robert Silverberg's wife). It includes all kinds of authors from Martin, Hobb, Turtledove, Swanwick, Terry Pratchett, Ursula Leguin, Orson Scott Card, Feist, among others.

What I found amusing is, where is Terry Brooks? The man should have had half the book to himself, half homage/half confession. From a post made in a discussion at FBS regarding just some of the obvious similarities:

-

The Oshmfords, a family in the middle of no where, Shady Vale, who is intertwined with the fate of the world. (Hobbits)

-The Warlock Lord, is the closest thing to Sauron in fantasy. Hell, it is Sauron except Brook's doesn't have teh incredible established history via The Silmarillion.

-Isn't Flick Sam?

-Allanon, basically a ageless the lone magic user who serves the land by uniting people , gifted with knowledge, whose amazing powers are limited. Gandalf.

-The Western elves.

-Mt. Doom/Skull Mountain

-The Kings Passage parts, are absolutely reminiscent of the Mines of Moria.

-The enigma, The King of the Silver River, Tom Bombadil anyone?

-The Skull Bearers, basicaly the Nazgul.

-Why does the Warlock Lord survive in the past? Because he was not destroyed utterly by Jerle Shannara....Isildur anyone?

-Doesn't Tyris(sp) = Helms Deep?

-Mist marshes/dead marshes

The whole story is Tolkien. At least Paoulini ripepd off 3-4 authors for Eragon.


Now let me give credit where it's due. Brook's success sped up the genre's process in establishing itself as a impact genre, no question. He has had, and still does have immense publishing success - he just isn't a great writer, and there is a profound difference.

 

[Mark Robson]

My work draws on the seeds of 'ideas' from lots of different authors, but I've tried to assimilate these gems and utilise them in different ways. I would like to think that I'm very much my own writer, but if you were to read my books, then you would certainly see shades of: Tolkien, Eddings, Gemmell, Elizabeth Moon to name but a few. In the end, my stories are my own - tainted by the echoes of works of other writers maybe, but it is easy to draw parallels when you look at storylines. In some ways it is harder to see the originality in many works.

 

[dwndrgn]

I think I must be in the minority here. I don't particularly care whether the author has gotten his/her ideas directly from another book. When I'm reading a book the only thing I care about is that the story engages me, doesn't bore me and keeps me interested until the end. Since I'm not a lawyer and certainly haven't read up on literary cannibalism, I won't even comment on that side of the issue.

If you think about it this way - if the new author is pulling themes from another author but making them their own enough so that casual readers don't notice - sounds like a plan to me! Sure it seems like the easy way out, but if it works it is a win win situation for everyone. I say casual reader because I do not read with 'literary thoughts' in mind. I don't go through a specific paragraph and think, hmm, the author must have lost his first person perspective here...no, if something doesn't work in my mind and disrupts the flow of my reading, sure I'll notice. Otherwise, the author could be using the translated works of Edgar Alan Poe in ebonics for all I care. The end result is what matters to me, the casual reader. Did I enjoy it? That's it.

Now let me say this, I read TSOS directly after having read LOTR for the third time. I enjoyed LOTR, have read it many times, but, it has never made me cry. TSOS did. Is that important? As a reader? Of course it is. It meant that somehow, someway, that 'plagiarizing hack' as some have called him, used an old story to touch my emotions in a new way. To me, that's a writer, regardless of the origin of his/her stories.

Anyway, that's my take.