Was JRR Tolkien his own plagiarist?

[Wetwang]

Did JRR Tolkien plagiarise himself when he wrote The Lord Of The Rings?

A controversial question no doubt!
But let's take a closer look that led to the question.

The good professor had great success when The Hobbit was released and his publisher, George Allen & Unwin Ltd was keen for a sequel.
This was understandable; strike whilst the iron is hot as the saying goes.
The professor was reluctant though and at first refused due to wanting his publisher to focus on The Silmarillion as well as a few other issues with creating a mythology that would live up to his perfectionism.
But after pressure he relented and over many years he wrote and published The Lord Of The Rings.

Now we come to the points that I believe lead to the opening question.

1- Both The Hobbit (TH) and The Lord Of The Rings (LotR) have basically the same format.
Bag End ~~> Isolated mountain ~~> A changed Bag End.
2- Both stories begin with a party. TH is unexpected, LotR is expected.
3- In both books a group of people travel east together and end up in Rivendell
4- Both groups meet an unexpected ally on their journeys east. In TH we have Beorn and in LotR we have Aragorn. One could argue this is to be expected in a work of fiction, but I add it in mitigation none the less 😉
5- After Rivendell both groups run foul of orcs in The Misty Mountains. And let's not forget that in each book the two groups have a run in with wolves as well. Interesting to note that Gollam appears at this time too.
6- Gandalf disappears for a period of time!
7- After this we enter an Elven realm in both stories, which is immediately followed by a journey down a river.
8- Then we reach the climax of both books. Both landscapes around The Lonely Mountain and Orodruin are described as a desolation or a wasteland and such descriptors. This was undoubtedly as a direct result of the good professor's experience of the Western Front in World War One and particularly The Battle of the Somme.
9- There is a battle involving many different nations in both books.
10- The journey home back to Bag End is rather uneventful, until we get there and there is a surprise turmoil waiting for both Bilbo in TH and Frodo and his friends in LotR.

These are ten observations that I believe one could use as signs of the good professor plagiarising himself.
Interestingly, where The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings do differ is that in TH, Bilbo goes on a journey to find treasure, in LotR Frodo goes to lose one.

I know this may be a contentious subject but I'll be interested
to see what other think 🙂

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

That LOTR is in many ways -- especially structurally -- The Hobbit "writ large" was recognized from the first: the children's fairy tale rewritten as full adult fantasy.

If you want to go there, you could say Book II "copies" Book I: each begins with a chapter of festivity, followed by a chapter of "ancient history", at the end of which a decision is taken about the Ring. Each book ends with a river crossing, where Frodo is separated from the others. In between are several encounters with danger, in which Frodo learns something about Middle-earth, or himself. For example, with Old Man Willow and Caradhras, he learns that nature is not always benign, as in the Shire; he finds courage within himself in the Barrow and Moria.

Examples could be multiplied. The difference, as the professor himself said, lies in the unique "flavour of the soup".

 

[Wetwang]

That LOTR is in many ways -- especially structurally -- The Hobbit "writ large" was recognized from the first: the children's fairy tale rewritten as full adult fantasy.

If you want to go there, you could say Book II "copies" Book I: each begins with a chapter of festivity, followed by a chapter of "ancient history", at the end of which a decision is taken about the Ring. Each book ends with a river crossing, where Frodo is separated from the others. In between are several encounters with danger, in which Frodo learns something about Middle-earth, or himself. For example, with Old Man Willow and Caradhras, he learns that nature is not always benign, as in the Shire; he finds courage within himself in the Barrow and Moria.

Examples could be multiplied. The difference, as the professor himself said, lies in the unique "flavour of the soup".

You re-enforce my opening post 🙂👍

 

[Halasían]

All you say in your post is true, but you're probably looking for some sensationalism by using 'Plagerism' as a heading and lead-in to this. Plagiarism by definition is basically taking someone else's ideas and work and passing it off as one's own. Hence it's impossible to 'plagiarise yourself'. The professor was just using and reworking his own ideas. Maybe 'Recycling' is a better term for it.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Edit: Hal chimed in while I was typing. 😄 I'll leave this unchanged, though.


Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with your points, only saying they're not exactly "contentious".

We could go further and examine Tolkien's use of romance themes and structures: for instance, a common trope in romance is the somewhat mysterious birth of the hero, often associated in some way with water; think Moses or Perseus. Frodo is "born" in a sense, out of the Brandywine, and his relation with Bilbo is confused, rather than "mysterious" -- befitting the comic tone of the opening chapter. In similar manner, we could see Aragorn's story as having been "born" from the Anduin.

These things seem familiar, in an unconscious way, but never forced; they became features of literature long ago. Though Tolkien was scrambling to finish the story, Faramir's entry into it feels both inevitable and right: the Tale of the Two Brothers goes back to Genesis and ancient Egypt.

Just one more example of how Story shapes itself, whether assisted by, or in spite of, the Storyteller.

 

[Wetwang]

All you say in your post is true, but you're probably looking for some sensationalism by using 'Plagerism' as a heading and lead-in to this. Plagiarism by definition is basically taking someone else's ideas and work and passing it off as one's own. Hence it's impossible to 'plagiarise yourself'. The professor was just using and reworking his own ideas. Maybe 'Recycling' is a better term for it.

No intention of sensationalism on my part for sure, but 'recycling' is a good choice.
Kind of a bit lazy of the good professor though to just rehash The Hobbit the way he did and just flesh it out somewhat.
Though definitely not as lazy as just having the eagles fly the Ring to Mount Doom from the get go! 😉

 

[Eljorahir]

An interesting topic and well supported with the 10 examples.

5- After Rivendell both groups run foul of orcs in The Misty Mountains. And let's not forget that in each book the two groups have a run in with wolves as well. Interesting to note that Gollam appears at this time too.

#5 deserves a little more detail (IMO): The group attempts to go over the Misty Mountains but find themselves compelled to go under them where: they battle orcs/goblins, Gandalf destroys the local "Big Bad", and they are separated from a member of the group.

And, I'd insert another between 7 and 8...
7.5 Hobbit with a Sting battles spider(s).

 

[Deimos]

Did JRR Tolkien plagiarise himself when he wrote The Lord Of The Rings?

A controversial question no doubt!...

Not controversial at all because.....it cannot happen.

plagiarise : "The action or practice of taking someone else's work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one's own; literary theft." or "the wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas [...] of another."

The word plagiarise has meaning only if you are using to express the thought that some (i this case Tolkien) used someone else's work in composing his own. And because he used only his own work, it is , by definition, not plagiarism.

You are thinking, perhaps I am being pedantic? Not at all.
A word means one thing , and not something else. Anyone who writes or speaks should have that expression branded in neon letters on one's brain. If you misuse a word you muddle what you are trying to say, confusing the discussion.

And who knew that better, who knew precisely how to use words, than Tolkien himself.
Had you presented the question to him, he probably would have looked puzzled and said, "How can I plagiarise myself? I am the author of all my works."

 

[Wetwang]

For those that like a bit of pedantry 😉:

Yes, you can plagiarize your own work. This is known as self-plagiarism or text recycling. It happens when you reuse passages, data, or an entire assignment you have previously submitted or published, and try to pass it off as brand new, original work.

self-plagiarism
noun [ U ]
uk /ˌselfˈpleɪ.dʒər.ɪ.zəm/ us /ˌselfˈpleɪ.dʒɚ.ɪ.zəm/

the process or practice of using your own ideas or work that you have already used before:
Self-plagiarism is a well-documented failing among writers of all kinds. ~~ Cambridge Dictionary

 

[Deimos]

For those that like a bit of pedantry 😉:

Yes, you can plagiarize your own work. This is known as self-plagiarism or text recycling. It happens when you reuse passages, data, or an entire assignment you have previously submitted or published, and try to pass it off as brand new, original work.

self-plagiarism
noun [ U ]
uk /ˌselfˈpleɪ.dʒər.ɪ.zəm/ us /ˌselfˈpleɪ.dʒɚ.ɪ.zəm/

the process or practice of using your own ideas or work that you have already used before:
Self-plagiarism is a well-documented failing among writers of all kinds. ~~ Cambridge Dictionary

The concept has been around for a long time, but the but the specific term "self-plagiarism" has only been in use since 1994.
Inherent in the longstanding definition is that of "stealing some written work that is not yours".
But you cannot steal from yourself, which is the crux of my objection to using the term plagiarism .
In the past when you reused your own work and passed it off as new or original, but it historically went by different, more precise names depending on the context:

• Duplicate / Redundant Publication: In scientific and medical publishing, submitting the exact same paper or data set to two different journals has been discouraged for many decades because it artificially inflates an author's publication count and distorts statistical meta-analyses.
• "Salami Slicing": This refers to the practice of slicing a single comprehensive study into the "least publishable units" across multiple papers to manipulate bibliography length.
• Text Recycling: Verbatim copying of your own technical descriptions or methodologies from an older paper into a new one.

So, use the concept to your heart's content... but I will still object to the use of a late 20thC. made-up, and oxymoronic, term when there already exist terms for the concept of reusing one's own work. But also, note the distinction... It is doing so with the intent of passing the new work off as original. And Tolkien never intended that. So neither the older terms nor the newer made up term applies to the Professor's work.

 

[Wetwang]

The concept has been around for a long time, but the but the specific term "self-plagiarism" has only been in use since 1994.
Inherent in the longstanding definition is that of "stealing some written work that is not yours".
But you cannot steal from yourself, which is the crux of my objection to using the term plagiarism .
In the past when you reused your own work and passed it off as new or original, but it historically went by different, more precise names depending on the context:

• Duplicate / Redundant Publication: In scientific and medical publishing, submitting the exact same paper or data set to two different journals has been discouraged for many decades because it artificially inflates an author's publication count and distorts statistical meta-analyses.
• "Salami Slicing": This refers to the practice of slicing a single comprehensive study into the "least publishable units" across multiple papers to manipulate bibliography length.
• Text Recycling: Verbatim copying of your own technical descriptions or methodologies from an older paper into a new one.

So, use the concept to your heart's content... but I will still object to the use of a late 20thC. made-up, and oxymoronic, term when there already exist terms for the concept of reusing one's own work. But also, note the distinction... It is doing so with the intent of passing the new work off as original. And Tolkien never intended that. So neither the older terms nor the newer made up term applies to the Professor's work.

Whether you agree with the term or not is quite irrelevant.
The fact that the term now exists and is recognised is all that really matters now.

Anyhow, this is steering the subject I was trying to highlight in my opening post wildly off topic.

You say potato I'll say potarto and we'll move on agreeing to disagree 😉

It still remains a point of fact that the good professor was short on ideas when he wrote LotR and really just ended up producing a fleshed out The Hobbit copy to satisfy his publisher.

 

[Eljorahir]

It still remains a point of fact that the good professor was short on ideas when he wrote LotR and really just ended up producing a fleshed out The Hobbit copy to satisfy his publisher.

This sentence needs a little revision (IMO of course). How about?:

It still remains a point of fact that the brilliant professor was full of ideas when he wrote LotR and produced a work greater than The Hobbit in its scope, depth, and heart by a factor of at least a hundred (if such things can be mathematicalized). Satisfaction-o-plenty was had by (almost) all who partook of "The Hobbit, Mark II".

 

[Wetwang]

This sentence needs a little revision (IMO of course). How about?:

It still remains a point of fact that the brilliant professor was full of ideas when he wrote LotR and produced a work greater than The Hobbit in its scope, depth, and heart by a factor of at least a hundred (if such things can be mathematicalized). Satisfaction-o-plenty was had by (almost) all who partook of "The Hobbit, Mark II".

If softening the edges makes it more palatable for you 👍