So, I was wandering around TV tropes when I came across this thread here. Basically it discusses a blog post that accuses authors such as Rowling of plagarising what the author thinks to be more original writers like Tolkien. Since many people here have read both, and I think it is an interesting idea, I thought I'd bring it up.

If a work uses ideas from other works, should it be considered plagarism? Are the similarties close enough that Harry Potter can be considered a rip-off of Lord of the Rings? How does this plagarism compare to works like The Inheritance Cycle or The Bartimaeus Trilogy?

The article brings out another, bigger issue as well. Are the only real artists the ones who come up with something completely 'new'? Is this even possible, or is everything created a reflection of the artists influences and the atmosphere they live in? Is using common conventions a bad thing? Where do you draw the line?

Okay, so there's a lot of questions in that, but I'm really just curious about what people think about what this article is discussing. I've got some, but I'm currently trying to separate them in my head from the thought that the author's tone kind of makes me want to punch him in the face. So until I feel like I can be fair, I won't say them.

You mean this link?

Um, pretty much, yeah. Sorry for the confusion.

Anyway, I won't be bothered by that article. Once you start to write about a genre (for example, magic), the others who will follow you will have to stick to a similar line (like having characters- humans, animals, invented ones- who perform magic). It is just the degree of difference that counts. Like, Tolkien wasn't the first one to write about magic, but he could be one of the first ones to write a series which includes different categories like magic, adventure, mystery etc. Someone else could have combined magic and humour. That then seems to be different. Another could have combined magic and science fiction. And so on. But once most categories are exhausted, anything belonging to a combination of established categories seems "similar".

Well, in my view, BT, HP, and little of the LoTR I have read, are different. I would not consider one to be a rip-off of the other. In spite of them having the same tried-and-tested formula of magic and adventure. The basics might seem the same, but as go further in, many differences arise. However, I do agree that Inheritance Cycle is similar to LoTR because even the characters are similar. Like, you have 3 main races with almost identical characteristics and all of them having more or less the same role in both the books. Apart from CP even copying stuff like each race having a different language and their respective leaders etc.

I like to use the argument used in Flash of Genius.

Open up any book. Unless it is a play by Shakespeare, the words to create the story have all been used before. Ideas are very similar. You use old ideas to make something new.

Plus, it's not like LOTR hasn't taken any inspiration; the runes, I believe, have been taken from the basis of the languages that Tolkien taught in university. While perhaps the universe, species, and characters are distinctively original, LOTR takes nearly every aspect from the Quest, or the Monomyth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth



You could pretty much paste each event onto that cycle.

Despite LOTR proven here to not be completely original, it is thought to be the basis of any fantasy genre. And so even though novels like Harry Potter and Bartimaeus Trilogy drawing heavy inspirations from folktales (djinni, magic, etc) and LOTR, they make something new from old ideas.

Just my thoughts.

Also, the Inheritance Cycle is exempted from my argument. =p

I think people like Homer used every part of of Monomyth first. That's the earliest example I can think of