Sequel as plagiarism?

[Gilrandir]

A couple of years ago I came across a book advertised as a sequel to "The Lord of the Rings". It is written in Russian by a Russian writer Nick Perumov. Can we call it plagiarism?

On the one, it is an independent story the scene of which is laid 300 years after the downfall of Sauron. A hobbit named Folco Brandybuck and two Dwarves (one of them is called Thorin) try to rid the world of a new Dark Lord who is descended from Boromir son of Denethor II being an offspring of Boromir’s illegitimate heir.

On the other hand, the concept of the book was totally unoriginal/"borrowed". Plus I couldn't help asking myself: would anyone read (or buy) it if it were not associated with LOTR?

Thoughts?

[Montmorency]

Can we call it plagiarism?

Fan fiction isn't a new concept.

[Gilrandir]

Fan fiction isn't a new concept.

It is no answer to the question I put.

[Montmorency]

Well, OK: what is your understanding of plagiarism? Does a story being derivative make it plagiaristic? Are all derivative stories plagiaristic? If so, are there any non-derivative stories, and can they be plagiaristic?

All descriptions of plagiarism I have come across mark it as essentially 'unattributed or unauthorized reuse of concrete elements from a concrete prior work'. Do we agree that it isn't the case that modern fantasy is largely plagiaristic of LOTR?

In a few words, "plagiarism" and "unoriginality' shouldn't be considered the same thing.

[Gilrandir]

Does a story being derivative make it plagiaristic?

This is the question I can't answer. That is why I called for others to share their mind.




All descriptions of plagiarism I have come across mark it as essentially 'unattributed or unauthorized reuse of concrete elements from a concrete prior work'.

There are elements (and even characters) in Perumov's novel that are directly implanted there from LOTR or from other books by JRR (namely The Silmarillion). Do you think the author was authorized (forgive my pun) by whoever holds legacy of JRR's rights to do it? I bet he wasn't. So, if we go by your definition, the book in question IS plagiarism.



Do we agree that it isn't the case that modern fantasy is largely plagiaristic of LOTR?

I wouldn't agree with the bolded. Modern fantasy rather stems from/was called forth by LOTR.



In a few words, "plagiarism" and "unoriginality' shouldn't be considered the same thing.
Once again, THE STORY by Perumov was original, but THE CONCEPT was not. Which smells of plagiarism.

[Montmorency]

There are elements (and even characters) in Perumov's novel that are directly implanted there from LOTR or from other books by JRR (namely The Silmarillion). Do you think the author was authorized (forgive my pun) by whoever holds legacy of JRR's rights to do it? I bet he wasn't. So, if we go by your definition, the book in question IS plagiarism.

Well, here it might have more to do with copyright. Authors, by their specific assertion of rights, can deny or approve the creation of stories and media that use their characters, places, and so on, as fan fiction. I don't know what the status of Tolkien's work is - certainly he gets so much fan fiction that perhaps it doesn't matter what the policy of his estate or rightsholders is. But either way, this is a matter of copyright, not plagiarism - and clearly the attribution to LOTR is there. In my view, that alone will avert charges of plagiarism unless you can point out specific sequences or language that have been lifted or transcribed wholesale from the original works.


Modern fantasy rather stems from/was called forth by LOTR.

Exactly.


Once again, THE STORY by Perumov was original, but THE CONCEPT was not. Which smells of plagiarism.

You don't see the dissonance with your previous sentence above?

[Beskar]

Plagiarism is where you copy someone's work and pass it off as your own. The original author did not do that. However, he broke copyright by using names and settings whilst being not approved cannon. For example, I know the author of Lord of the Grins which is a parody of lord of the rings. In order to be published, you got to change every single name. Similar with Bored of the Rings, and Sillymarian.

[Montmorency]

Of course, speaking of copyright I should also mention the distinction between commercial production and Fair Use distribution for personal or artistic reasons. Fan fiction authorization for the former will usually have to be specified on a case by case basis, but by US copyright law one can forbid the writing of derivative work for any reason, regardless of whether it is for profit or not. Some authors just don't want people working with their canon under any circumstances.

[Gilrandir]

You don't see the dissonance with your previous sentence above?

I don't. My sentence was On the other hand, the concept of the book was totally unoriginal/"borrowed".
If you mean this very sentence.


Plagiarism is where you copy someone's work and pass it off as your own. The original author did not do that. However, he broke copyright by using names and settings whilst being not approved cannon.

Does plagiarism refer also to "unauthorized borrowing" of ideas?

[Montmorency]

When you say "Modern fantasy rather stems from/was called forth by LOTR", you're referring to ideas and styles that became massively and ubiquitously incorporated into the genre.

Whether someone calls this kind of genre work LOTR-inspired or directly set in the LOTR universe itself thus can't be the distinction you are looking for.

Let's bring in the application of plagiarism to schoolwork as a parallel. Let's say the assignment is to write a fantasy-genre vignette, but maybe less of a LOTR style and more of a Latin magical realism style.

If the student then turns in an assignment set in Rivendell, then this is not in itself a matter of plagiarism - it is straightforwardly only a violation of the terms of the assignment.

If the vignette is simply written as an outline of a Tolkien short story or an Isabel Allende short story, then that would be plagiarism. But simply writing a Tolkien style story would, again, be a failure to complete the required assignment and not an instance of plagiarism.

[Gilrandir]

When you say "Modern fantasy rather stems from/was called forth by LOTR", you're referring to ideas and styles that became massively and ubiquitously incorporated into the genre.

Whether someone calls this kind of genre work LOTR-inspired or directly set in the LOTR universe itself thus can't be the distinction you are looking for.


The problem is that Perumov's book is "directly set in the LOTR universe" thus it is not limited to just incorporation of ideas and styles. It is not just A world of sword and magic, but THE world of sword and magic INVENTED by Tolkien. So we are dealing with the borrowing of concept.

[Montmorency]

As I said, in those terms it is strictly a matter of copyright law. It should be enough to say that Russia does not wholly buy into the principles of Western copyright.

[lars573]

But it does. Because it's passed European style copyright laws and is signed on to various international copyright agreements.


Can we call it plagiarism?
Sure. But you've got to cotton to the idea that plagiarism is an ethical concept and not a legal one. The only way an author who's plagiarized someone else's works could be punished for it is if it breaches copyright law, educational or journalistic integrity rules. This novel would probably be a breach of copyright.

[Gilrandir]

Sure. But you've got to cotton to the idea that plagiarism is an ethical concept and not a legal one. The only way an author who's plagiarized someone else's works could be punished for it is if it breaches copyright law, educational or journalistic integrity rules. This novel would probably be a breach of copyright.

Being no lawyer myself I wasn't (and am not) interested in legal consequences the author of the said book may face. I'm concerned with plagiarism per se.

[Pannonian]

Being no lawyer myself I wasn't (and am not) interested in legal consequences the author of the said book may face. I'm concerned with plagiarism per se.

You could directly ask Christopher Tolkien about Perumov's work. He's still around and active, and currently editing an updated version of Beren and Luthien to be published next year. Of course, any lawsuits involving the former may delay the publication of the latter.

[Gilrandir]

You could directly ask Christopher Tolkien about Perumov's work. He's still around and active, and currently editing an updated version of Beren and Luthien to be published next year. Of course, any lawsuits involving the former may delay the publication of the latter.

I did once but I was told that he was in self-imposed seclusion. I presume he doesn't want to be annoyed by idle inquirers at his advanced age.

[lars573]

Being no lawyer myself I wasn't (and am not) interested in legal consequences the author of the said book may face. I'm concerned with plagiarism per se.
Which has no concrete definition. As it falls into ethnics and not regulation. Clearly the author though he had the right. BUT fan communities have a tendency to feel they have more ownership over a property than the persons or corporate entity that actually owns the copyrights. If said author falls into that category. Which I'd be interested to know.

[Montmorency]

BUT fan communities have a tendency to feel they have more ownership over a property than the persons or corporate entity that actually owns the copyrights. If said author falls into that category. Which I'd be interested to know.

I mentioned this possibility - it involves the distinction between commercial use and "artistic" Fair Use.

[Montmorency]

One such case (http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/j-d-salinger-estate-settles-suit-with-fredrik-colting/22067):

Swedish writer wrote a sequel/meta-criticism to "Catcher in the Rye", publishing it internationally, and was sued by Salinger's estate when he tried to publish it in the United States. Federal ruling (later vacated) held that it did not pass muster for Fair Use, and finally the two parties settled on the agreement that the unauthorized sequel would not be published in the US or Canada until the source work passes into public domain.

http://www.ncte.org/cccc/committees/ip/2009developments/jdsalinger


The characterization of Salinger as a defender of his copyright prerogatives is something that he himself does not dispute, as he is described in his own court filings as “fiercely protective of his intellectual property” and as someone who “has never allowed any derivative works to be made using either The Catcher in the Rye or his Holden Caulfield character” (Complaint against ABP, Inc, John Doe, Windupbird Publishing Ltd, Nicotext A.B., 2; see also pp. 10-11)

What would make this different from the LOTR sequel is, in the defendant's argument:


it becomes more and more clear that it is Salinger who is the most important character. His narrative starts and stops as he tries different ways to move the story forward. He even makes characters appear and disappear in front of Mr. C as the book progresses.
(Declaration of Fredrik Colting, 10).

In short, Mr. Colting is arguing that his is a transformative work, one that makes use of only that which is required for him to explore a premise that in large part centers upon Salinger himself. In additional filings this argument is explicitly supported by Robert Spoo, who had been asked to assist Colting’s attorneys in assessing the extent to which 60 Years Later had made “creative and transformative” use of The Catcher in the Rye (Declaration of Robert Spoo, 1) and by Martha Woodmansee, who describes 60 Years Later as a work of “meta-commentary” that

pursues critical reflection on J.D. Salinger and his masterpiece CR just as do the articles that literary scholars conventionally write and publish in literary journals, but[…]casts its commentary in an innovative “post-modern” form, specifically, that of a novel.
(Declaration of Martha Woodmansee, 3)

First judge disagreed and delivered an injunction on distribution, saying that the work was not sufficiently a parody, a commentary, or transformative of the source:


With regard to Mr. Colting’s depiction of the septuagenarian version of Holden Caulfield, Judge Batts concluded that for most aspects of the character 60 Years Later was simply “rehashing one of the critical extant themes of Catcher” (Memorandum & Order, 16). In reaching the conclusion that in that regard 60 Years Later was neither parody nor a commentary, Judge Batts relied not only on the text of the novel but also the wording on the novel’s jacket and public statements by the Mr. Colting describing 60 Years Later as a tribute and a sequel. It was only after the suit was filed, the Judge pointed out, that Mr. Colting and his lawyers adopted the argument that the novel was commentary upon The Catcher in the Rye, and she dismisses their claims as “post hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivete of the original” (Memorandum & Order, 11; see pp. 16-17, n. 2). As for the claim that the novel is transformative via its use of the character of Salinger, Judge Batts acknowledged that this was a “novel” element but stated that it “is at most, a tool with which to criticize and comment upon the author, J.D. Salinger, and his supposed idiosyncracies” (Memorandum & Order, 19). For Judge Batts, the gold standard for determining that a text is a parody that satisfies the standards for fair use is that the commentary or critique be focused on the original work itself.

In the appeal, this is dismissed as failing against the First Amendment, since it works as a ban on publication, as backed by various publishing organizations:


[…]in this case, where the only harm appears to be to the pride of a reclusive author in not having his desires fulfilled barring commentary about his iconic book and character, without any actual financial harm, the lower court saw fit to ban publication of a new boo. Such a result defies common sense, and is not—and cannot be—the law.

So in short, the appeals court vacated the first decision, but before this case could go up for review in the Supreme Court, the two parties settled on their own with the agreement not to publish in Canada and the US.

None of this is to predict how the law will apply or be applied in the case of a Russian author in Russia, but just to illustrate the kinds of legal considerations that are involved.

[lars573]

I mentioned this possibility - it involves the distinction between commercial use and "artistic" Fair Use.
You brought up fan fiction, which really has a more fluid definition than plagiarism. But generally the difference between fan fiction and copyright violations is trying to make a buck directly from the fan fiction. At least in North America, unless it's clearly a parody (see pronz producer Axel Brawn's mountain of blockbuster pron parodies).

[Montmorency]

You brought up fan fiction, which really has a more fluid definition than plagiarism. But generally the difference between fan fiction and copyright violations is trying to make a buck directly from the fan fiction. At least in North America, unless it's clearly a parody (see pronz producer Axel Brawn's mountain of blockbuster pron parodies).

So what exactly are you talking about, then? I have brought all these points together, and my position in short is that the Russian novel is a derivative fan work, likely not in accord with copyright statutes, and that this does not in itself make it a plagiaristic work.

It is no more plagiaristic than drawing Gandalf is plagiaristic of the novels, or drawing Ian McKellen as Gandalf is plagiaristic of the movies. An example of plagiarism in this respect would be sketching official illustrations or promotional images of McKellen in character.

[lars573]

That Plagiarism is phantasmagorical. A blanket term for copyright violations and academic/journalistic dishonesty. That using it has no force beyond an attempt to shame.

[Montmorency]

That using it has no force beyond an attempt to shame.

In the latter context, it has quite a lot of force, and it has a totally separate force from strict copyright considerations.

Public domain work does not fall under copyright, and it may easily be plagiarized. Copyright of a work may be respected even as it is plagiarized.

[Gilrandir]

my position in short is that the Russian novel is a derivative fan work, likely not in accord with copyright statutes, and that this does not in itself make it a plagiaristic work.



Even if the author uses locations, artefacts and characters taken from LOTR?

[Gilrandir]

As it falls into ethnics and not regulation. Clearly the author though he had the right.

That I figured out. I was interested what people here think of it - whether it is plagiarism or not. I see what Montmorency thinks. And I don't think I understand your attitude.

[Husar]

Even if the author uses locations, artefacts and characters taken from LOTR?

I don't think that's plagiarism. If you write a scientific report and use the technical terms of the field that you did not invent, would you call that plagiarism? Of course these terms can be copyrighted or registered trademarks or be protected legally by a similar construct in this case, but that just means Monty is correct IMO.

[Gilrandir]

I don't think that's plagiarism. If you write a scientific report and use the technical terms of the field that you did not invent, would you call that plagiarism? Of course these terms can be copyrighted or registered trademarks or be protected legally by a similar construct in this case, but that just means Monty is correct IMO.

One can't equate a scientific report and fiction in this respect. In the former you ARE to give the previous research on the topic and then pass on to what YOU have discovered. The writer under discussion just took the whole world invented by another with its toponymy, races and even some characters and proceeded to tell a new story about it.

[Pannonian]

I don't think that's plagiarism. If you write a scientific report and use the technical terms of the field that you did not invent, would you call that plagiarism? Of course these terms can be copyrighted or registered trademarks or be protected legally by a similar construct in this case, but that just means Monty is correct IMO.

In science, terms are just terms of standardisation, the language by which the field is discussed in. Credits and references identify the individual. In works of art, names and stories are the means by which an individual is identified. You're comparing apples with the method of transport. Both involve nouns, but are completely different concepts.

A better comparison may be between scientific terms and artistic tropes. Both are the building blocks of what the individual scientist/artist makes of them.

[Montmorency]

Even if the author uses locations, artefacts and characters taken from LOTR?

How can you write an LOTR story without using places and people from LOTR, unless you write sci-fi set thousands of years into that world's future? Or wouldn't that also seem like plagiarism to you?

Now I want you to give a serious answer to this: is it plagiaristic to use characters and places from Greco-Roman epics or from the Bible? If so, you seem to fall back into the notion of any concept reused as plagiarism, making it a trivial term. If not, why not?

[Husar]

One can't equate a scientific report and fiction in this respect. In the former you ARE to give the previous research on the topic and then pass on to what YOU have discovered. The writer under discussion just took the whole world invented by another with its toponymy, races and even some characters and proceeded to tell a new story about it.


In science, terms are just terms of standardisation, the language by which the field is discussed in. Credits and references identify the individual. In works of art, names and stories are the means by which an individual is identified. You're comparing apples with the method of transport. Both involve nouns, but are completely different concepts.

A better comparison may be between scientific terms and artistic tropes. Both are the building blocks of what the individual scientist/artist makes of them.

I thought as much and yet I would still not call it plagiarism as he is not trying to pass these names off as his own invention as far as I understand it, he merely tries to extend an existing world and that obviously requires that he uses the standardized terms/names from that world. Surely that makes his job easier, but I understand plagiarising as taking an idea and trying to pass it off as your own. Merely adopting a framework with a clear reference to the original author of said framework is not what I would see as plagiarising. If he copy-pasted entire segments from the original books, then yes, it would be plagiarism. If he tells his own stories based on Tolkien's framework, not so much.

[Montmorency]

If a student copies an entire page of wikipedia for a report on a subject, and explains "This is copied directly from Wikipedia", then he is not plagiarizing. He is merely ignoring the terms of the assignment.

That is all plagiarism amounts to: lack of attribution.

[Gilrandir]

How can you write an LOTR story without using places and people from LOTR, unless you write sci-fi set thousands of years into that world's future? Or wouldn't that also seem like plagiarism to you?

The initial premise contains the seed of plagiarism. Any LOTR story is borrowing an idea, which smells of plagiarism.



Now I want you to give a serious answer to this: is it plagiaristic to use characters and places from Greco-Roman epics or from the Bible? If so, you seem to fall back into the notion of any concept reused as plagiarism, making it a trivial term. If not, why not?

If you borrow a character and set him into a different time/age (Achilles as POTUS), it is not plagiarism, in my opinion. Although it would seem like you lack imagination to come up with characters of your own. As for borrowing places, it is clearly not plagiarism. Geographical locations are not inventions of anyone (at least not of those who wrote myths or the Bible), thus the talk of plagiarism in this case is irrelevant.

But if you take, say, Troy and relate a story of how it throve 300 years later after the siege and bring in some characters of the classical myth (let's imagine that they could live that long, or some unageing gods that took active interest in the city again) it would be very close to plagiarism - not of the original TEXT, but of the original IDEA, mind you.


Merely adopting a framework with a clear reference to the original author of said framework is not what I would see as plagiarising.

This rule holds for scholarly texts. I'm afraid it is not so for fiction. And Perumov didn't mention in his book Tolkien a single time. To tell the truth, it would look weird - a reference in a fiction text.

[Gilrandir]

If a student copies an entire page of wikipedia for a report on a subject, and explains "This is copied directly from Wikipedia", then he is not plagiarizing. He is merely ignoring the terms of the assignment.

That is all plagiarism amounts to: lack of attribution.

Again, this is correct for scholarly treatises. Fiction is a story apart.

[Montmorency]

And Perumov didn't mention in his book Tolkien a single time.

Neither does Tolkien, right? Unless you mean that Perumov didn't actually advertise his novel as set in Tolkien's mythos?


borrowing an idea, which smells of plagiarism.


But if you take, say, Troy and relate a story of how it throve 300 years later after the siege and bring in some characters of the classical myth (let's imagine that they could live that long, or some unageing gods that took active interest in the city again) it would be very close to plagiarism - not of the original TEXT, but of the original IDEA, mind you.

Then that will have to be the crux of the disagreement. If a mere reuse of ideas should be plagiaristic, then we cannot fail to find any given work plagiaristic until we have run out of places to look. If its only the reuse of characters, events, or places that factors in, then it becomes even more meaningless and disconnected from the institutional usage.

What utility do you see in your specification of the concept?

[Gilrandir]

Neither does Tolkien, right? Unless you mean that Perumov didn't actually advertise his novel as set in Tolkien's mythos?

Perumov's book was advertised as an enchanting sequel to LOTR. But Tolkien wasn't mentioned in the book itself (it would be strange indeed if it was - "once upon a time in what Tolkien called Middle-earth" :laugh4:). I doubt that Perumov was in charge of advertising campaign, but he can't have failed to realize what he was writing a sequel to - it was indeed the chief purpose of his book (if we forget about money).



Then that will have to be the crux of the disagreement. If a mere reuse of ideas should be plagiaristic, then we cannot fail to find any given work plagiaristic until we have run out of places to look.


No one is held guilty until the guilt is proven. But if everybody (including Perumov) knows whose ideas he has reused, the case seems clear, no?



If its only the reuse of characters, events, or places that factors in, then it becomes even more meaningless and disconnected from the institutional usage.


I have already explained my take on reusal places and characters.



What utility do you see in your specification of the concept?

It is not MY specification of the concept under discussion (the bolded is mine):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.

Besides, if we speak of "language" and "expressions" Perumov's book exposes a very similar to Tolkien's manner to name the chapters.

[Montmorency]

But you consistently avoid including


and the representation of them as one's own original work.

in your specification, so it clearly doesn't match the reference.

[Gilrandir]

But you consistently avoid including



in your specification, so it clearly doesn't match the reference.

As I said, he never referred to Tolkien's legendarium in his work. Moreover, Perumov's book bears his name on the hardcover. Doesn't it mean he presents the concept as his own?

[Montmorency]

http://www.corina.com/en/aut/perum.html

There is no mistaking the attributions. Also, I note he has been doing this since the collapse of the Soviet Union. He translated the English originals. There is no question as to what he is writing.

[Montmorency]

As for Christopher Tolkien (http://www.indiewire.com/2013/01/christopher-tolkien-trashes-peter-jacksons-lord-of-the-rings-says-films-lack-beauty-and-seriousness-of-the-books-102485/), in general he seems to embody the shallowness of the original works, what later authors around the world (such as apparently Perumov) at least try to revise:


"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher said of "The Lord Of The Rings," revealing he turned down an invitation to meet Jackson. "And it seems that 'The Hobbit' will be the same kind of film." And while most families of authors would be thrilled to be associated with a billion dollar franchise (even if, in this case, they only get a small portion of that coin), as Christopher's son notes, that's not the case here.

"Normally, the executors of the estate want to promote a work as much as they can," Adam Tolkien said. "But we are just the opposite. We want to put the spotlight on that which is not 'Lord of the Rings.' "

As for Christopher, he offers a bleak assessment on the legacy of his father and his work, which is now part of a movie machine that won't be going away any time soon. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," he pondered. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

Bad themes, worse heroes, pointless villains. I despise what those works stand for. But that's my tangential rant, triggered by Christopher's remarks.

[Gilrandir]

http://www.corina.com/en/aut/perum.html

There is no mistaking the attributions. Also, I note he has been doing this since the collapse of the Soviet Union. He translated the English originals. There is no question as to what he is writing.

I don't see how it refutes my claim. IN HIS BOOK he never said that it took Tolkien's works as a background. He has been employing a whole imaginary world created by another person ("another author's thoughts/ideas" as the definition of plagiarism goes) in a book which bears HIS NAME as the author.

As for his translation skills, I was especially shocked when he translated The Sundering Sea as Гремящее Море (The Thundering Sea). I also spotted some other discrepancies which don't make Perumov into a meticulous Tolkien reader (which is essential for a translator, especially of such a writer as JRR).

Someone built two storeys of a house and another man added a third one. Our debate is about who is the architect of the edifice. I believe that the second architect couldn't have introduced anything conceptually new since it would be at stylistic discord with what had already been built. Moreover, the second one couldn't go out of the limits of the initial building since the whole construction would collapse. So the second architect could just ape the lower building structure and ornaments, perhaps adding a touch or two of his own.

[Montmorency]

Our debate is about who is the architect of the edifice.

What I have been getting across is that this is not a relevant approach.


IN HIS BOOK

in a book which bears HIS NAME as the author.

So what? It's not Tolkien's book. It's a LOTR book written by a different party. A book does not need to include, "SET IN THE WORLD OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN" to affirm attribution.

[Gilrandir]

What I have been getting across is that this is not a relevant approach.


Then we agree to differ.



So what? It's not Tolkien's book. It's a LOTR book written by a different party. A book does not need to include, "SET IN THE WORLD OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN" to affirm attribution.

The bolded makes the concept unoriginal. But we are going around in circles, don't you think?

[Montmorency]

The bolded makes the concept unoriginal. But we are going around in circles, don't you think?

Yes, we just came back to the beginning of the thread, when I tried to distinguish unoriginality and plagiarism. :shrug:

[Pannonian]

As for Christopher Tolkien (http://www.indiewire.com/2013/01/christopher-tolkien-trashes-peter-jacksons-lord-of-the-rings-says-films-lack-beauty-and-seriousness-of-the-books-102485/), in general he seems to embody the shallowness of the original works, what later authors around the world (such as apparently Perumov) at least try to revise:

Bad themes, worse heroes, pointless villains. I despise what those works stand for. But that's my tangential rant, triggered by Christopher's remarks.

I'm not sure how you can describe Christopher Tolkien as embodying the shallowness of the original works, when History of Middle Earth is one of the most meticulous compilations of any literary collection ever. From my browsing of the relevant areas, I can think of an alternative LotR with alternative characters, and also why JRR made the creative decisions that he did. And all that from their own comments, without any extrapolation from me. And LotR was relatively straight forward compared with the many storylines of the Silmarillion, such as the many Galadriels, each of which contradicts the others.

[Montmorency]

It's broad, but in spirit closer to Winnie the Pooh.

My dislike has grown over the years, though to a lesser extent with the films.

[Pannonian]

It's broad, but in spirit closer to Winnie the Pooh.

My dislike has grown over the years, though to a lesser extent with the films.

Are you familiar with HoME? Or even the Silmarillion?

[Montmorency]

Are you familiar with HoME? Or even the Silmarillion?

Not interested. My dislike doesn't have to do with the mechanics of world-building.

[Strike For The South]

Winnie is more compelling storytelling.

[Gilrandir]

A new aspect of the issue has come up to my mind: modding. It is not only using someone's idea and concept. It amounts to using someone's product. Can we call it plagiarism?

[Pannonian]

A new aspect of the issue has come up to my mind: modding. It is not only using someone's idea and concept. It amounts to using someone's product. Can we call it plagiarism?

That, I can comment on. George RR Martin explicitly allows the Westeros mod to use his world in their manner, with due credit given and no profit made, etc.

[Gilrandir]

That, I can comment on. George RR Martin explicitly allows the Westeros mod to use his world in their manner, with due credit given and no profit made, etc.

And what if no permission is obtained? Did Creative Assembly allow any of the mods of Total war series? In my view, it is not about permission, it is about principle - taking a dish that others had cooked and after spicing it differently present to the public (often being very proud of one's skills as a chef).

[Pannonian]

And what if no permission is obtained? Did Creative Assembly allow any of the mods of Total war series? In my view, it is not about permission, it is about principle - taking a dish that others had cooked and after spicing it differently present to the public (often being very proud of one's skills as a chef).

CA doesn't mind mods AFAIK, and I've given an example of an author explicitly giving permission for a mod based on his work. That's as concrete an argument for mods as you're going to get, and I doubt that any reasonably western court will rule against that. With these concrete arguments at all levels, your attempt to turn this into an argument of principle is rhetorical at best.

[Fisherking]

And what if no permission is obtained? Did Creative Assembly allow any of the mods of Total war series? In my view, it is not about permission, it is about principle - taking a dish that others had cooked and after spicing it differently present to the public (often being very proud of one's skills as a chef).

By your standard the Brothers Grimm would be plagiarists of the first order. Similarly any philologist would also be. Much would now be lost to the world.

I find that a tad bit extreme.

[Gilrandir]

CA doesn't mind mods AFAIK, and I've given an example of an author explicitly giving permission for a mod based on his work. That's as concrete an argument for mods as you're going to get, and I doubt that any reasonably western court will rule against that. With these concrete arguments at all levels, your attempt to turn this into an argument of principle is rhetorical at best.

I have been quite explicit that I'm not intersted in any lawful/copyrigth considerations, so my argument WAS the one of principle all the time.


By your standard the Brothers Grimm would be plagiarists of the first order.

AFAIK, they were collectors of popular folklore. The latter has no author by default, so I don't think plagiarims is involved here. But conceptually, they are unoriginal.



Similarly any philologist would also be. Much would now be lost to the world.


A philologist STUDIES texts, not PUBLISHES texts created by others as his own.