The Fall of Gondolin

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Conan46

Tolkien "borrowed" like crazy. Lifting half of his dwarf names from the Elder Edda, also including Gandalf and Frodo. "Mirkwood" is a name he got from William Morris. The Kalavela was borrowed from. Dwarves and Elves and Goblins were all from folklore. His elves were somewhat based upon Native Americans. His Hobbits were somewhat based upon Kentucky Hillbillies. All authors borrow from other authors. There is nothing original under the sun. The ingredients are already there, authors are just cooks remixing the ingredients.

A lot of conjecture there, especially the part about elves based on Native Americans. And hobbits based on Kentucky Hillbillies ... not buying it. Sorry.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Conan46

Tolkien "borrowed" like crazy. Lifting half of his dwarf names from the Elder Edda, also including Gandalf and Frodo. "Mirkwood" is a name he got from William Morris. The Kalavela was borrowed from. Dwarves and Elves and Goblins were all from folklore. His elves were somewhat based upon Native Americans. His Hobbits were somewhat based upon Kentucky Hillbillies. All authors borrow from other authors. There is nothing original under the sun. The ingredients are already there, authors are just cooks remixing the ingredients.

Tolkien was a professor who specialized in Old English and Nordic literature. He published editions of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and a translation of Beowulf. It's not exactly shocking that LOTR was heavily influenced by various classic English, German and Norse epics, legends and myths.

I'm use to the music culture where pretty much everyone borrows from each other all the time, sometimes with permission, sometimes without. Until fairly recently, most musicians made all their money on gigs, and didn't really care if other musicians covered their songs or not. Just as a somewhat recent example, listen to the start and beat of Rick James 1981 hit Super Freak, then listen to the 1990 MC Hammer hit, Can't Touch This. If you listen to Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash's VH1 Storyteller album, they talk about using PD songs as the basis for new songs and how everyone borrows from everyone else.

Really, once you get away from the super touchy authors and the big money properties, authors are a lot more open about how they are influenced by various writers and stories, some old PD stories, others contemporary writers and stories. That's how sub genres start up.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Example: Mysterious character in an inn from an ancient race of royal humans. Fine. A book titled "The Other Adventures of Strider" set in Tolkien's world with Tolkien's characters. Theft. (I don't know how I can make my point any clearer.)

That is the price you pay when you create excellence. As a writer you should be honored how you inspire others. Nobody is mistaking The Other Adventures of Strider as anything other than fan fiction. Sure, if you wanted to be petty, you could sue.

It is easy to point a finger and say that all high fantasy today is a copy of Lord Of The Rings (or stealing from it). Hard to argue when there is so much old myth and legend incorporated into it. It is harder to admit that not every high fantasy is stolen from Tolkien, but rather based on some of the same legends. Sure inspired in a way that they wanted to write their own interpretation of the legends. Every King Arthur story, for example, could be considered to be stolen from another one. Or they are all so similar, because they all closely resemble the original legend.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That is the price you pay when you create excellence. As a writer you should be honored how you inspire others. Nobody is mistaking The Other Adventures of Strider as anything other than fan fiction. Sure, if you wanted to be petty, you could sue.

It is easy to point a finger and say that all high fantasy today is a copy of Lord Of The Rings (or stealing from it). Hard to argue when there is so much old myth and legend incorporated into it. It is harder to admit that not every high fantasy is stolen from Tolkien, but rather based on some of the same legends. Sure inspired in a way that they wanted to write their own interpretation of the legends. Every King Arthur story, for example, could be considered to be stolen from another one. Or they are all so similar, because they all closely resemble the original legend.

The lost prince and broken sword were lifted directly from Norse mythology and the story of Sigmund, Sigurd and the sword Gram. Wagner referenced the same legend in his Ring operas. If I recall correctly, Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword came out the same year that Fellowship of the Ring was initially published.

[leebase]

Ugh. I just do not see a reason for people to write using characters and world some other author invented. Ever. You want to write about trolls or witches or a taking mouse...you can already do that. Terry Brooks are better for NOT using Tolkien’s actual world and character names. His first couple of books were outright theft as it is (opinion folks, not a statement of actual law).

We already have libraries where the poor can read books for free. I just don’t see why anybody else should be making money from Walt Disney's work, or Marry Shelley's work, or Dickens work than their descendants. Or in the case of the digital world we live in...nobody will make money from those works.

And how foolish would an author be to write in an post copyright universe of post copyright characters? You wouldn’t own your own work. Or rather, you’d have to compete with everyone else writing with those same characters.

I understand why patents exist. Only you can make a widget you patent for a certain number of years. Then society gets to benefit from the common knowledge of your widget. But there aren’t an infinite number of ways to make a light bulb. There are no limits to telling a new story

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by leebase

We already have libraries where the poor can read books for free. I just don’t see why anybody else should be making money from Walt Disney's work, or Marry Shelley's work, or Dickens work than their descendants. Or in the case of the digital world we live in...nobody will make money from those works.

Why in the world would anyone deserve to be making money off their several times great grandfather's work? They didn't create the work, it's not necessary to encourage people to write nor is it conducive to maintaining the world's literary heritage.

Originally Posted by leebase

And how foolish would an author be to write in an post copyright universe of post copyright characters? You wouldn’t own your own work. Or rather, you’d have to compete with everyone else writing with those same characters.

I understand why patents exist. Only you can make a widget you patent for a certain number of years. Then society gets to benefit from the common knowledge of your widget. But there aren’t an infinite number of ways to make a light bulb. There are no limits to telling a new story

It's because at the heart of many(all?) storytellers there's a child and children love telling stories about their favorite stories. Most fan fiction authors whether amateur or professional are doing it for the love of the original work and many form communities around their shared art (just look at Sherlock Holmes).

I would hate a world where people can write historical novels using real people as characters but be unable to do so with equally dated fictional characters. And I like reading tales where someone takes the POV of a different character and tells me what the story was like for them. I like dressing an old tale up in new clothes (Westside story). I like old tales told in a different medium (there's a very funny graphic novel based on Chaucer- only suitable for those who don't mind mooning). I want people to be able to write ridiculous books psychoanalyzing Shakespeare's characters as if they were real or make role playing games for those who want to play in Middle Earth. I like finding free copies of strange and wonderful old stories (such as With The Night Mail / A Story of 2000 A.D. (Together with extracts from the contemporary magazine in which it appeared) by Rudyard Kipling). For that matter every translation is also a retelling, which is one of the reasons I tend to collect multiple translations of older works (and the public domain is why there are multiple translations of said works). And above and beyond all that I simply want my favorite books to continue to be available to my children and grandchildren even if the author dies intestate without known heirs. Our culture is composed of common stories, ideas, styles and things all of which *need* to be copied and sometimes revamped.

If you surveyed authors I bet that they'd rather their work survived and was read in a hundred years then be lost in an attempt to give their great grandchildren a small addition to their income. And having people still retelling and remixing their stories would be a compliment (if sometimes mixed) that most works never receive.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Tolkien was a professor who specialized in Old English and Nordic literature. He published editions of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and a translation of Beowulf. It's not exactly shocking that LOTR was heavily influenced by various classic English, German and Norse epics, legends and myths. ...

"Heavily influenced" by legends and myths is not the same as lifting someone else's history, world or characters and using them in your own book. I've given examples of what I mean in earlier posts.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That is the price you pay when you create excellence. As a writer you should be honored how you inspire others. ...

It's not "inspiration" I'm talking about here (as my example in an earlier post made clear). If "inspiration" all we're talking about, then I've got zero problems with any of this. But I'm pretty sure the implication in an earlier post was that people should have the right to write their own book using someone like Gandalf (not a character inspired by Gandalf) and Tolkien's world and history (not a world and history inspired by Tolkien).

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

Ugh. I just do not see a reason for people to write using characters and world some other author invented. Ever. ...

Me either. The whole point of writing is to create your own characters and your own world.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ekbell

Why in the world would anyone deserve to be making money off their several times great grandfather's work? ...

So, should grandchildren of business owners be forced to give up their grandfather's business? Tolkien made the bulk of his money (in later years) by writing and selling his books. Rockefeller made a lot of his money selling gas. Why should he be able to pass down his assets to his heirs while Tolkien shouldn't be able to do so? Should business assets go into the public domain, after the death of the company founder, plus 50 years? Why do we undervalue the livelihood of writers?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rcentros

It's not "inspiration" I'm talking about here (as my example in an earlier post made clear). If "inspiration" all we're talking about, then I've got zero problems with any of this. But I'm pretty sure the implication in an earlier post was that people should have the right to write their own book using someone like Gandalf (not a character inspired by Gandalf) and Tolkien's world and history (not a world and history inspired by Tolkien).

Seriously you are going on how Gandalf is an invention of Tolkien? He is not. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf_(mythology)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So, should grandchildren of business owners be forced to give up their grandfather's business? Tolkien made the bulk of his money (in later years) by writing and selling his books. Rockefeller made a lot of his money selling gas. Why should he be able to pass down his assets to his heirs while Tolkien shouldn't be able to do so? Should business assets go into the public domain, after the death of the company founder, plus 50 years? Why do we undervalue the livelihood of writers?

Because Rockefeller's heirs are not still selling the exact same oil that Rockefeller sold. They are selling new product that the various companies have come up with. Rockefeller's heirs don't own the concept of selling oil for lighting, which would be the equivalent of Tolkien's heirs owning the back story of Tolkien's universe, rather they own stock in various companies which they can either sell, or get dividends for.

There are two rather different concepts here. First is the original idea of copyright, which is the ability to make copies of a specific work. Tolkien's heirs still get their cut of every copy of LOTR and the Hobbit being sold and they control what companies can produce copies. The second is the rather new idea of controlling to derivative works based on Tolkien's work, which is really the driving motivation of public domain.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So, should grandchildren of business owners be forced to give up their grandfather's business? Tolkien made the bulk of his money (in later years) by writing and selling his books. Rockefeller made a lot of his money selling gas. Why should he be able to pass down his assets to his heirs while Tolkien shouldn't be able to do so? Should business assets go into the public domain, after the death of the company founder, plus 50 years? Why do we undervalue the livelihood of writers?

Writers are entirely free to pass down their earnings and assets to their children/legatees, just like anyone else.

A government-granted limited time monopoly on reproducing their work is one of their assets and may be passed on.

There is no natural right to have the government restrain people (on pain of fines and prison) from printing books.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So, should grandchildren of business owners be forced to give up their grandfather's business? Tolkien made the bulk of his money (in later years) by writing and selling his books. Rockefeller made a lot of his money selling gas. Why should he be able to pass down his assets to his heirs while Tolkien shouldn't be able to do so? Should business assets go into the public domain, after the death of the company founder, plus 50 years? Why do we undervalue the livelihood of writers?

You understand that the vast majority of grandchildren of business owners have to work to maintain the business, right? What do the grandchildren of famous authors have to do to maintain their ancestor's copyright? If they had to, at the very least, pay a fee to renew the copyright every few years, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Shari

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Writers are entirely free to pass down their earnings and assets to their children/legatees, just like anyone else.

A government-granted limited time monopoly on reproducing their work is one of their assets and may be passed on.

There is no natural right to have the government restrain people (on pain of fines and prison) from printing books.

And said government has the right to set the terms of that time-limited monopoly.