Lord Foul's Bane vs Lord of the Rings

[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?

[Foxbat]

A good point for debate.

Let me tell you a story (in the great Max Bygraves tradition) of a ring made of gold, which is stolen, and of a character of great power to which the ring actually belongs, of a person who comes into posession of this ring and, ultimately, brings about the downfall of its true owner.

This was an opera written in the 1870s by Wagner (The Ring Cycle) - the LOTR came along in the 30s - then Covenant in the 70s.
There are differences in all three but, ultimately, both Wagner and Tolkien used Norse legends/myths for much of their background - and it's difficult to see where this ends and borrowing from each other begins.

My verdict - all 3 Not Guilty.

[I, Brian]

Okay, I really will have to invest again in some Wagner.

[Cricket]

I am not sure which I love better. All I can say is that I love Lord Foul's Bane, and most all the books of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever. They are sad, and yet, so inspiring. The leper, becomes the hero, and prevails, succeeding against his most powerful enemy....himself.

[Foxbat]

Thinking more on this point made me wonder if we should be asking the question Why a ring?

Wagner, Tolkien and Donaldson all choose this item as a main focal point of their story (more so for Tolkien and Donaldson).
But why? Is it because in a way it can be seen as a symbol of bondage/enslavement/agreement?

I wonder if it has anything to do with the story of Zeus freeing Prometheus from his imprisonment in the Caucasian Mountains. Reluctantly Zeus agrees to free him but proclaims that Prometheus must wear a ring made from the chains that pinned him to the rock.

Then there is the ring itself.
Tolkien’s ring is, in essence, an extension of Sauron and this, by its very nature, makes it not only powerful but evil – able to corrupt all who wear it.

Donaldson’s ring is much more enigmatic – much more contradictory (is this deliberate? Much of Covenant’s position is shrouded by a haze of paradox). The power ultimately lies in Covenant himself but he needs the ring. And yet, this ring is as transferrable as Tolkien’s. Is it the power itself that is likely to corrupt rather than the nature of this ring? So what does it do? Does it hint at power in all of us – that the ring itself acts more like a magnifying glass when you place it between a piece of paper and the sun?

Quite frankly, if I knew the answer, I’d write it here but, as you can see, there ain’t no more………………….so what do you think? Is it just a plot mover used coincidentally by all three creators? Or is there some underlying message that I’m just not getting.

[EffervescingElephant]

I must confess that I didn't get along with the Thomas Covenant saga and have only completed reading "Lord Foul's Bane". I was struck by the similarities to Tolkien and other quest fantasies but these elements never "worked" for me in Donaldson's book and some (names like "Drool Rockworm" and "Lord Kevin") seemed to be almost spoofs. Was this deliberate do you think? I was fascinated by the idea of a thoroughly bitter and world-weary protagonist but I had trouble following Covenant's motivations at times - he seemed to swing from being self-pitying and apathetic to a hero who cared passionately about The Land and back again repeatedly - perhaps this was a point of the book and I missed it? I got very confused after Covenant's "pact" with the intelligent horse-thingies (sorry, I've forgotten what they were called) and didn't persist beyond the first volume. Do the other volumes continue in a similar tone or do things change?

I know a load of people love these books and I hope that I haven't offended anyone. It seems to me that SF and Fantasy stories simply either "work" for the individual viewer/reader (as Lovecraft and Cordwainer Smith do for me) or don't (I've never taken to any of the new "Star Trek" shows) and I'm afraid that I just don't get Thomas Covenant (then again I might just be being dim - it has been known. )

[Foxbat]

he seemed to swing from being self-pitying and apathetic to a hero who cared passionately about The Land and back again repeatedly

Yes he does - but I think that is as much a symptom of his illness (which is weaved into the Land's own suffering). And for this reason, I've always viewed Covenant as Donaldson's attempt to write something akin to Hamlet set in a fantasy world.

The names do seem a bit naff at first but that soon wears off if you start to enjoy the story.

Certainly not everyone's cup of tea but good debating material

[littlemissattitude]

It's hard to say, as I've only read the two Covenant Trilogies. Well, I read about the first half of "Felloship of the Ring", but that was because I was supposed to for a class. I have seen the films, however, so I do have an idea of the story.

From what I do know, I think I'd have to say that there are similarities, but that those similarities are 1) superficial and 2) don't really matter because the two stories are really completely different. While Frodo has the Fellowship behind him, Covenant ultimately has only himself, even through he has those who aid him. It just isn't the same dynamic, as far as I can see.

[dwndrgn]

Well, it's late (or early depending on your orientation) and I just got off of a long shift at work so I may not be coherent. However, I wanted to throw in my two cents' worth.

I've never read the ring cycle so I can't discuss that but I've read both LOTR and the Thomas Covenant series.

I see the coincidences with a ring being used as incidental. Covenant's ring is a symbol for him, his own personal talisman if you will and is only powerful because of the material it is made of (it's been a while since I read the entire series so if this is incorrect, someone please correct me). Sauron's ring is an object of power, created to be used as such. To me, that makes them completely different.

Other than the fact of the rings, I don't see any similarities at all. The Land is quite different with unique resonances that don't even remind me of Middle Earth. All of the races and their belief systems are unique as well. Throw in the fact that Covenant, unlike Frodo, wasn't originally a part of the land or its peoples and you have more differences.

Bah! They aren't the same stories, one didn't steal from the other and that's all I've got to say on the matter. I'm yawning too much to say more .

G'night all...

[Foxbat]

. Covenant's ring is a symbol for him, his own personal talisman if you will and is only powerful because of the material it is made of (it's been a while since I read the entire series so if this is incorrect, someone please correct me)

I'd say you're pretty well on the mark.

[Ashen Shugar]

When I read the title of this thread, Covenant vrs LOTR, I almost fell off my chair - surely no one could possibly suggest Covenant was even close to Master Tolkien? I found Tomas dreary and gave him euthanasia after book 1, so i guess I am not exactly an authority or even an educated opinion, but such ignorance aside - JRRT wins this bout by KO in the opening seconds of Round 1.

[ommigosh]

Long long time since I read the Donaldson books but I remember them as being a cracking read.
Probably, if you really look for them, you could find lots and lots of superficial similarities in the Tolkein and Donaldson books beyond just the rings. I seem to remember that Donaldson has a race (can't remember the name) who lived in trees and sang a lot (cf Middle Earth's elves) and a squatter, more dour faced race who made everything out of stone and sang a lot (cf JRR's dwarves). There are hordes of battle-fodder nasty fighting beasts (who didn't sing much) as well (orcs?) and really powerful and intelligent horses (Shadofax?). The list is probably endless....
I don't think it is a case of Donaldson nicking ideas though. The whole approach was different. JRR's was a grand, epic fairy tale (and I loved every page) whereas Donaldson's character's leprosy and his struggle to cope with that was the main thrust; with the fantasy world being possibly just that.. a real fantasy construct of his own troubled mind. Covenant was a complex reluctant (anti) hero who deliberatley wouldn't take part in his own fantasy at times.
Lord Foul's Bane vs Lord of the Rings?? It's like bedtime and chocolate, difficult to compare...but both hugely enjoyable.

[chartreuse]

"I got very confused after Covenant's "pact" with the intelligent horse-thingies (sorry, I've forgotten what they were called) and didn't persist beyond the first volume."

I totally agree with you EE! I lost interest after that silly part too. The book seemed to drag on and on and the "gloom and doom" became very claustrophobic to me as well. That's a series I've never finished and I don't regret it. I guess I'm just not cerebral enough (or bipolar enough) to enjoy the series.

[dragonqueen]

I've read both, and a lot of other authors, and have been comparing how similar they are. I mean, in LOTR they have shadowfax as a special breed of hores, and in Lord Foul's Bane, they have those riders with their horses, havn't read it in so long I can't remember what they're called but there were other points I found too. I'd have to read them one after the other for a good compare!

[Drake Leon]

Woah, woah, woah. Back up the train here, and let me get aboard. DEBATE TIME! Anyways, let's start this rolling while I give a nice synopsis of my position on this. Elements derived from one another: The ring of power, evil Dark Lord, a hero pulled from another place as the only one to save a dying land... But then it's all turned on it's head. Lord of the Rings is more adventurism, with a definite philosophical underbase...

Thomas COvenant is very much cerebral, dark, and mysterious. It's never sure the hero in fact, WILL win, and horrible stuff constantly happens. A lot more gritty and realistic- I liked it a lot, actually. On the very outside, they sound the same... On the inside, they're little alike.

When Donaldson wrote this, he was taking a cliche ON PURPOSE and turning it on it's head. While some stuff matches up, almost all of it- particularly Covenant as the Anti-Hero- and he is, read the first few chapters of the first book to convince you of that... Was very new. The villain is also better done, IMHO, in The Unbeliever than in LoTR, and there is more to think about...

The Adventure parts are, perhaps, better in LoTR, and The Chronicles are not for the faint of heart, being as they are some of the most depressing novels I have ever read. They also get confusing and paradoxical- they do eventually solve the paradoxes, merely using Paradox to reel you in for the punch...

Tolkien's heros would never do much of the awful stuff that Covenant did in the novels, and are almost idealized- Boromir, of course, was not as he was corrupted to use a story plot, but the rest of them are almost without exception amazingly valiant and forthright.

Overall, the verdict: There are some similarities, but they're nothing alike.