LOTR's vs. Dragonlance

[SpiritWarrior]

I recently read the "Dragonlance chronicles" trilogy, six years after reading the "Legends" (I know, I started backward). I have read many FR books, Terry brooks, numerous TSR novels and much alternative fantasy/fiction. IMHO the Chronicles series was good but not close to being worthy of the hype surrounding it then and now. Okay, I could live with that...

It was only after finishing the series that something else began to nag at me, a strange familiarity I couldn't quite put my finger on while I was reading the trilogy dawned on me: This series, the storyline, the events told suspiciously like The Lord of the Rings. Is it me or has anyone else noticed this? Before people start demanding why, let's look at the undisputable similarities:

The Dark Queen = The Dark Lord, she has returned as he did and she is amassing a great army as he is.

The Green Gemstone Man = Frodo and The One Ring, she wants the gemstone and he wants the ring. In order to get it they must find he who carries it and send all minions out to search for it because without it they cannot take physical form and walk once again in the realm.

Tanis = Aragorn. Haunted by their own skeletons, they feel exiled from the world. They both fell in love with a an elven daughter yet have trouble reconciling these feelings. They both have 2 other lovers of which they are unsure about.

The unicorn in the wood = The lady of the wood

Draconians = Uruks, a half-breed, new to the realm and created for one purpose: to serve the dark queen/lord. A cross between 2 races with all the plus and none of the minus.

Dragons = Nazgul, same terror, same stuff.

There are a few more but I just can't think of them right now. Isn't it blatant though?

[ 01-02-2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: SpiritWarrior ]

[philip]

Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: I recently read the "Dragonlance legends" trilogy, six years after reading the "Chronicles" (I know, I started backward).

Chronicles are before Legends that's not backward, though I suspect you changed them as you're talking about chronicles down.

It was only after finishing the series that something else began to nag at me, a strange familiarity I couldn't quite put my finger on while I was reading the trilogy dawned on me: This series, the storyline, the events told suspiciously like The Lord of the Rings. Is it me or has anyone else noticed this? Before people start demanding why, let's look at the undisputable similarities:

I have a collector's edition and on the back of it it says 'Finally something to read after the rings.' That's where I thought about it. And I found it's definitely familiair and it might even be that without LotR there would be no DL as we know it.

Dragons = Nazgul, same terror, same stuff.

There's a IMO large difference between the different series on this comparison. While in LotR the Nazgul are only few in number and undead evil humans, in Dl there are lots of dragons and the large difference, which makes them IMO not comarable there are good dragons as well.

I actually like DL more as there is another difference and you can see it in the book-a-minute reviews

The LotR:

Gandalf: Bilbo Baggins, your Ring is evil. In a couple decades, we'll try to destroy it. In the meantime, leave it for Frodo to play with. Bilbo Baggins: It's not evil. It's mine. My precious. Mine! MINE, I TELL YOU!! MOOHOOHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! (Frodo takes it to RIVENDELL. Some FRIENDS come with him. They are attacked by black riders a LOT, and it is SCARY.) Elrond: Frodo Baggins, if Sauron ever gets this Ring, the world will be destroyed, and evil will reign forever. We must act quickly. Take the Ring to where he lives. (They do some travelling. Some more FRIENDS come with him. Gandalf DIES in the mines of Moria, but will later be RESURRECTED in GLORIFIED form having triumphed over EVIL, an obvious literary ALLUSION to that movie where the guy comes back as a DOG.) Boromir :Frodo Baggins, give me the Ring. Frodo : No. Boromir: What have I done? (dies) THE END (Gandalf frees THEODEN and overthrows SARUMAN. A bunch of IRRELEVANT stuff happens. Then the PLOT starts up again.) THE END Aragorn: We must travel the Paths of the Dead. Eowyn: You'll die. (They don't.) Gandalf: The Hordes of Mordor will destroy Minis Tirith.(They don't.) Gandalf: We must attack Mordor. We'll all be killed.(They aren't.) Gollum: Mmmm, yummy finger! (dies) Frodo: The Ring has been destroyed, but now we will die in Mordor. Sam: Buck up, Master Frodo. (A bunch of feathered DEUS EX MACHINAS come out of NOWHERE and save EVERYBODY.) THE END

DL:

Tanis:I am a half-elf, tortured by my half-elven, half-human nature. Flint:I am a dwarf. I am dour and grumpy but secretly loving and tender. Sturm:I am a knight. I exist so I may die with honor and make everyone sad. Caramon:I am a doofus warrior. I exist solely to give Raistlin someone to insult. Raistlin:I am an ultra-smart wizard, but I'm secretly evil. Har har har. Caramon, you're a doofus. Tasslehoff:I am a Kender. I'm here for comic relief. Tanis:We are together again after five years of separation. Let's go do all the important stuff in the war that's about to happen, rise to amazingly high levels in our AD&D® character classes, and become heroes. (They do, and the reader hears DICE rolling in the background.) THE END

The DL characters have lots more personality shown in the books. They all have different ways to solve situations while in the LotR there's a more race cliché, I'm not saying it doesn't happen but a lot less than in DL.

Sometimes I found LotR boring (hides behind the couch [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) compared to DL cause when there is a boring part in DL the characters make it fun to read while in LotR there is barely such a thing.

[ 01-02-2004, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: philip ]

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally posted by philip: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: I recently read the "Dragonlance legends" trilogy, six years after reading the "Chronicles" (I know, I started backward).

Chronicles are before Legends that's not backward, though I suspect you changed them as you're talking about chronicles down.

It was only after finishing the series that something else began to nag at me, a strange familiarity I couldn't quite put my finger on while I was reading the trilogy dawned on me: This series, the storyline, the events told suspiciously like The Lord of the Rings. Is it me or has anyone else noticed this? Before people start demanding why, let's look at the undisputable similarities:

I have a collector's edition and on the back of it it says 'Finally something to read after the rings.' That's where I thought about it. And I found it's definitely familiair and it might even be that without LotR there would be no DL as we know it.

Dragons = Nazgul, same terror, same stuff.

There's a IMO large difference between the different series on this comparison. While in LotR the Nazgul are only few in number and undead evil humans, in Dl there are lots of dragons and the large difference, which makes them IMO not comarable there are good dragons as well.

I actually like DL more as there is another difference and you can see it in the book-a-minute reviews

The LotR:

Gandalf: Bilbo Baggins, your Ring is evil. In a couple decades, we'll try to destroy it. In the meantime, leave it for Frodo to play with. Bilbo Baggins: It's not evil. It's mine. My precious. Mine! MINE, I TELL YOU!! MOOHOOHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! (Frodo takes it to RIVENDELL. Some FRIENDS come with him. They are attacked by black riders a LOT, and it is SCARY.) Elrond: Frodo Baggins, if Sauron ever gets this Ring, the world will be destroyed, and evil will reign forever. We must act quickly. Take the Ring to where he lives. (They do some travelling. Some more FRIENDS come with him. Gandalf DIES in the mines of Moria, but will later be RESURRECTED in GLORIFIED form having triumphed over EVIL, an obvious literary ALLUSION to that movie where the guy comes back as a DOG.) Boromir :Frodo Baggins, give me the Ring. Frodo : No. Boromir: What have I done? (dies) THE END (Gandalf frees THEODEN and overthrows SARUMAN. A bunch of IRRELEVANT stuff happens. Then the PLOT starts up again.) THE END Aragorn: We must travel the Paths of the Dead. Eowyn: You'll die. (They don't.) Gandalf: The Hordes of Mordor will destroy Minis Tirith.(They don't.) Gandalf: We must attack Mordor. We'll all be killed.(They aren't.) Gollum: Mmmm, yummy finger! (dies) Frodo: The Ring has been destroyed, but now we will die in Mordor. Sam: Buck up, Master Frodo. (A bunch of feathered DEUS EX MACHINAS come out of NOWHERE and save EVERYBODY.) THE END

DL:

Tanis:I am a half-elf, tortured by my half-elven, half-human nature. Flint:I am a dwarf. I am dour and grumpy but secretly loving and tender. Sturm:I am a knight. I exist so I may die with honor and make everyone sad. Caramon:I am a doofus warrior. I exist solely to give Raistlin someone to insult. Raistlin:I am an ultra-smart wizard, but I'm secretly evil. Har har har. Caramon, you're a doofus. Tasslehoff:I am a Kender. I'm here for comic relief. Tanis:We are together again after five years of separation. Let's go do all the important stuff in the war that's about to happen, rise to amazingly high levels in our AD&D® character classes, and become heroes. (They do, and the reader hears DICE rolling in the background.) THE END

The DL characters have lots more personality shown in the books. They all have different ways to solve situations while in the LotR there's a more race cliché, I'm not saying it doesn't happen but a lot less than in DL.

Sometimes I found LotR boring (hides behind the couch [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) compared to DL cause when there is a boring part in DL the characters make it fun to read while in LotR there is barely such a thing. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, got chronicles and legends mixed up - but only in text [img]smile.gif[/img] .

I agree much happens in LOTR's that does not in this series but I am still left with the nagging feeling they are one of the same. The skeleton of the story is identical and I think Weis and Hickman only cleaned it up a little, added some emotional character conflict, and painted in some turbulent characters to go with it which served to throw the masses off the trail.

Maybe I am just bitter but really I did not enjoy this as much as I thought I would. I preferred the Legends series if I had to pick one.

[philip]

Nazgul equals dragon highlord, that completes the picture Sad thing books are copied so easily. Makes me wonder where they got the idea of the other DL novels they wrote

[SpiritWarrior]

I did love the twins trilogy though, that at least felt real.

[philip]

The war of souls, which I'm reading now, as well.

[Raistlin Majere]

Originally posted by philip: The war of souls, which I'm reading now, as well.

I didnt enjoy the "war of souls" trilogy, that much...it was kind of weird. I enjoyed the chronicles and the time of the twins more the LotR, though. Even if it was "copied", i dont care, cause they made it so good... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by philip: Raistlin:I am an ultra-smart wizard, but I'm secretly evil. Har har har. Caramon, you're a doofus.

boo-yah

the best DL book, IMO, is The Soulforge. I definately enjoyed that the most(wonder why )

[Thoran]

I see very little commonality between the two stories... other than the fact that they're both fantasy.

The Dark Queen = The Dark Lord, she has returned as he did and she is amassing a great army as he is.

All epic tales will have an evil bad guy(girl) who needs to be confronted by the hero's, that's standard EF form. They are usually bent on the conquest or destruction of the lives/lands of the hero's... and armies are good at doing that.

The Green Gemstone Man = Frodo and The One Ring, she wants the gemstone and he wants the ring. In order to get it they must find he who carries it and send all minions out to search for it because without it they cannot take physical form and walk once again in the realm.

Similar, yes... but not overly so. Frodo is the focus of one of the main story threads in the Rings, and the prime motiviations and challenges of his character are based on his internal struggle against the corrupting powers of the ring. I barely recall the Green Gemstone man from DL (read them all more than 10-15 years ago), but I seem to recall he was a side character who didn't even know what his importance was and played a overall minor roll in the story.

Tanis = Aragorn. Haunted by their own skeletons, they feel exiled from the world. They both fell in love with a an elven daughter yet have trouble reconciling these feelings. They both have 2 other lovers of which they are unsure about.

Yes some similarity here, Aragorn playes the roll of "dark hero", he's a character you'll see in a LOT of epic fantasy... along with Gandalf and others. Pure "goodie goodie" heros are boring.

The unicorn in the wood = The lady of the wood

I guess if you only take the LOTR books to form your opinion you might conclude there is similiarity here... but given the wide sweep of Galadrial's involvement in middle earth (from Belariand to Lothlorien), she's much more of a "player" in Tolkien's world than the Unicorn was in DL. Again there is similiarity but it's hard to say the Unicorn is not just a standard "mystical woodland ruler" character. You could equally compare it to the Wood Elf king in The Hobbit.

Draconians = Uruks, a half-breed, new to the realm and created for one purpose: to serve the dark queen/lord. A cross between 2 races with all the plus and none of the minus.

Other than the dragon angle with the Draconians they are similar in creation, although the Uruk's were Saruman's creation... not Sauron's.

Dragons = Nazgul, same terror, same stuff.

Dragons are quite a bit different from Nazgul. Nazgul are mounts... more akin to big flying horses. Dragons in the DL world were an intelligent species, in fact IMO they would be much better compared to the Dragons of Tolkiens world (and in fact they seem to be a virtual knock off of those dragons). The differences in dragons is that there are good Dragons in DL, in Tolkiens Middle Earth all dragons were decended from one baddie (Glamring or something like that, he's knocked off towards the end of the Silmarillion)... and they're ALL bad.

Beyond the character similarities/differences, the sweep and focus of the stories are IMO targeting different audiences. I read all my DL stuff as a teen, and enjoyed the heck out of those books. They're fast paced and exciting, with LOTS of Action, Humor, and good Good vs. Evil storyline. I tried reading some DL stuff recently though and found that the writing is a bit too simplistic for me, I believe the stories are intended for a young audience. There is a decided lack of subtlety or nuance in the writing, and certainly there's not the depth of worldbuilding and use of language that hallmarks Tolkiens works. I read LotR first as a teen also, and it was SLOW. I still enjoyed the story but I had trouble with a lot of the monotony. I think some of the pacing is really the only weakness in the story. However, when it came to Tolkiens world, I found he created it to an extent that I've never seen in another author. The depth of characters, the history that exists for each is amazing. As you read you almost need a copy of the Silmarillion, Appendices, and other writings handy for reference, so you can look up and understand all the historical context that he places the story within. Tens of thousands of years of history feed into his work, and it's not just icing... it's integral and constantaly referenced in the narrative. It's an amazing feat on Tolkiens part... and oh yea, he also whipped up an entire language on the side.

I guess to me it's the matter of depth, Middle Earth of the Rings has amazing depth for the work of a single author. There are other detailed worlds (forgotten realms), but I've not yet read another fantasy author who has managed to so totally immerse the "present" storyline that he's telling in the historical record for his realm.

Other than that LotR is classic Epic Fantasy, with much in common with earlier works like Beowulf. Any fantasy author who writes using the "Epic Form" will by default have much in common with earlier works of the genre.

[ 01-12-2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Tancred]

Originally posted by Thoran: Other than the dragon angle with the Draconians they are similar in creation, although the Uruk's were Saruman's creation... not Sauron's.

Can't... let... it... go... gaaaah! Even though I know this'll contribute nothing to the discussion, I can't stop myself from pointing out that in the books, Sauron created the Uruks, the larger, stronger Orcs; the name 'Uruk-Hai' literally means 'the Orc people'. Saruman copied Sauron in this, as in soooo many things...

[Timber Loftis]

I liked both, though I probably like DL better, especially after I meet Weiss & Hickman at a reading they did.

However, I generally agree with Thoran's post. Further, I think there are a lot of basic fantasy elements Tolkien solidified that you can see repeated elsewhere, and that the tales are not so common beyond that.

LotR is about a good/evil struggle with a lot of real-world (WWII, etc.) themes brought in. For me, Chronicles was much more about the group, the party, and had overt ties to gaming and group role-play, as exhibited by the playtesting of DL modules that helped "write" parts of the tale and the DL modules themselves, which were published for D&D playing.

Legends was a different tack altogether, being a tale of brothers more than anything else, but also commingling a certain realization by the side of Evil of its own futility (remember the snake eating itself). Evil never does this in LotR, but rather is pure destructive consuming evil. In fact, both when reading and watching LotR, I kept laughing at how the orcs as a race could simply not exist. With no life other than orcs and rocks in Mordor, what do orcs eat, for instance? It's environmentally and realistically untennable to the Nth degree that the orcs of Mordor could even eek out survival from one day to the next -- it's almost laughable.

On Raist's suggesting, I'm going to pull out my hardbound copy of Soulforge that I never read and read it -- even though I'm suspicious that it is simply the "novelizing" of events already detailed in short stories. I'm at least going to check it out.