Lord Foul's Bane vs Lord of the Rings

[Allanon]

i have read tokien and donaldson, i loved LOTR and Covenant, but for me Covenant wins Hands Down!

my main reason for saying this is that when frodo saves the world he is accepted as the greatest hero ever and no body really leaves the book that is a pivotal character where as in covenant there is so much pain and hatred it isnt straight forward and simple.

Covenant is always an outcast, even to himself, he hates himself. most of the main people die and leave, and the ones that stick around have a crappy time. the character of covenant is so complex its like a hundred people in one. i loved this book and cant wait for the last installment of the series.

[Rosemary]

I enjoyed both LOTR and Covenant. To me, the differences in the goal of the quests were so great, which causes both series to be such brilliant stories. I certainly agree that Covenant was very depressing in parts but 'being inside' the story, found I was almost encouraging Thomas to 'smile'.

I also think the 'rings' symbolise these goals, as mentioned way back in this thread. The 'ring of power' and Thomas's ring made from a material of some kind (too long ago to remember now!) is more of a symbol to Thomas himself.

Hopefully I will be able to start on Runes Of The Earth very soon, continuing the marvellous stories of Donaldson.

[sanityassassin]

could never get into stephen donaldson tried lord fouls bane and only read about 60 pages read lord of the rings many times so cant really comment on the similarites but in any gendre with such large epic books there are going to be similarites especially with so many books written in similar styles

[velocity]

I agree with the fact that there are similarities, in the use of rings and in the types of characters (Elves, Goblins, etc) ... but these are really superficial (and even inevitable) similarities.
The stories & main characters are totally different & given a choice, I would chose Covenant over LotR.

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by velocity

The stories & main characters are totally different & given a choice, I would chose Covenant over LotR.

I'ld have to agree with you on that score mate. OOH shock, horror!...

[Brys]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I could have sworn that I'd read a list of claims purporting to show that Lord Foul's Bane derives a lot of it's actual plot elements from Lord of the Rings - the only accusation I can specifically remember is that of both chasing after a powerful ring.

I'll see if I can find something on the net.

Until then - for those who've read the series - how do you take claims that Donaldson might have borrowed heavily from Tolkien?

Is the format simply too different? Or is it a case of Tolkien having used so many different themes and concepts, that it's hard not to incidentally repeat some of them?

I'm one of the ones advancing these claims, though focusing more on the world created than the plot (though Lord Foul's Bane was very similar to LotR). Let's get through the basic things:
A powerful ring in both novels.
A very powerful dark lord who can be defeated by arbitrary means
A fellowship to help the main character succeed
Hordes of mindless minions
A lair for this darklord
A quest
An unlikely hero (going a bit far, admittedly)

You might argue that, so what, most of this stuff is in the bulk of epic fantasy. I argue that doesn't excuse it - originality, and in more than one aspect, is necessary. Sure, it's the archetype of fantasy and commonly accepted, but I don't think anything using this plot can be an excellent novel - or at least I haven't seen an example of one yet. The overarching plot may not be Tolkienesque, because it's all about character development. But then if we argue that, we end up saying that Erikson, Bakker, Martin and Mieville all write Tolkienesque plots because their overarching plots have some similarities. What's important is what the bulk of the story is - that's the plot - and in Covenant, it's a tale of good vs evil, albeit in a world that may not exist beyond Covenant's head. There's a Tolkienesque plot, and there's a twist in it. It's still very similar to Tolkien's. One element of originality doesn't suddenly make every aspect original. As for characters - while there are few direct copies of any, and Covenant is very original, the inhabitants of the land tend to be archetypes based on similar ones found in Tolkien, and there's a similarly racist outlook (before anyone kills me for saying that, I mean that race dictates personality and outlook on life to some extent in this world).

Or is it a case of Tolkien having used so many different themes and concepts, that it's hard not to incidentally repeat some of them?

(and even inevitable) similarities

I can't take that this seriously. Just because Tolkien wrote a decent epic fantasy doesn't mean that other people can't use their own imagination. Tolkien didn't even use that much. And so many authors have written very different things from Tolkien, I don't see why you can't write your own novel - Bakker, Calvino, Erikson, Harrison, Kay, Leiber, Martin, Mieville, Moorcock, Peake, Powers, Vance, Swanwick, Vance, Vandermeer, Wolfe and Zelazny all managed it - and I have only been reading fantasy for a few years, so someone better read than me can probably come up with a load more who have as well. And for a trilogy described as "good enough to be compared to Tolkien" (the Riddlemaster trilogy by Patricia McKillip) it's startingly original and very different from LotR, even while being a very traditional epic fantasy.

And now after attacking Donaldson, I'm going to have to say I think that I prefer the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant to Lord of the Rings - because LotR was all the elements I just said I didn't like in Covenant, but without the redeeming feature of the characterisation of Covenant.

[Rahl Windsong]

Like I have said in countless other comparison posts to LoTR, I simply do not care. If I enjoy reading a story then in my own mind it must be good if not then well I'll find a new book to read that I enjoy more. I enjoyed LoTR and the one book I have read of Donaldson's I enjoyed it as well, for me that is all that matters, period.

Everything "borrows" something from that which came before...see R Scott Bakker's "thoughts" on this which in my opinion leads us to understand just exactly what the "Thousandfold Thought" is. And Bakker's concept on this applies to just about anything the human mind can think of. If nothing had come before then inspiration to create more would not be there and we would all be sitting around doing absolutely nothing save breathing and eating then sleeping. However when we sleep we dream and the "Thousandfold Thought" can then be revealed from something that came before.

Rahl

[speedingslug]

Most thing have already been said but for my part, I would say they are different, there could be shades of Tolkien in Donaldson but when you read the whole thing the whole land concept is like taking an acid trip and writing a book (A good book )

I love both

Got to love NOM !

[The Ace]

LOTR is good, Thomas Covenant is mediocre, so I hope not.

[Allanon]

ace! not good man

[SkywardShadow]

I personally didn't find very much similar between the two. Covenant engaged my mind, and truly changed the way I looked at the world (I was in middle-school when I first read the books). LotR bored me, though I read them long after reading many other fantasy series. I do acknowledge that Tolkein helped make the fantasy genre what it is today, but I believe that the authors that have come since have improved upon his stumblings a thousandfold. The Hobbit was a fun adventure though.

Thomas Covenant is good, LoTR is mediocre.

[Chabio]

Comparison is a bias critique meal to be taken with a pinch of salt.

They are both good in their own right.

[Karsa Orlong]

Donaldson's my favourite fantasy writer, so of course I'm gonna have to go with him. No disrespect towards Tolkien, he was of course a great influence on Stephen, but The Chronicles... are something else, absolutely breathtaking in every possible way.

[Allanon]

Yey!!!

[epicfantasy7]

I have to take the stance that Donaldson's work is unique and bears only superficial similarities to Tolkien's work. Because both works have elves, magical horses and dwarves doesn't really say anything. If this were of import I guess that every single fantasy writer would have to be accused of copying the writer of Gilgamesh. And Tolkien himself openly proclaimed his homage to William Morris who wrote several fantasy novels in the 1890's such as The Well at the World's End and The Wood Beyond the World. In my opinion Donaldson is another brilliant writer who has continued on the fantasy tradition - let's say he has followed in the footsteps of Tolkien.

After all, every story has already been told. Now it's just a matter of how you tell it.

Sidenote: Anybody heard anything about the next Chronicles novel? I think it's title is "Fatal Revenant"