JRR Tolkien --> RJ ideas

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

Please explain why you think that this is immature...

 

I did not say that development of character is uninteresting. It is. I wanted to point out a major difference between the Wheel of Time and the Lord of the Rings. Character changes are everywhere. They cannot be avoided. Even short storys contain changes in characters often enough. That can be very interesting, but the interesting part is how the changes take place. It is something like exploring human nature. But what the changes is much less interesting (yes, there are exceptions, but this is my overall opinion)...

 

He stated something in quotes, and you reply "You are allowed to use the quote fuction of the board," it wasn't even a quote, it's just a statement. Who was he quoting? No one, it was his opinion (which was actually pretty rash imo), in quotes...

 

OK, as long as that's your opinion, but you have to realize that most people will disagree with you. Myself, I actually believe that all aspects of change, in addition to the plot, is what makes a good piece of literature, a good piece of literature...

 

I mean, you can't say that Tolkien was not a good writer...

 

Realize that when Tolkien came out with his books, how revolutionary they must have been. At that time, (I imagine) most of the books must have been simpler fiction/works of non-fiction. When Tolkien created a marvelous book of fiction, and not just a book, he created a whole new world, he must have shocked the entire world.

 

Just imagine, after reading another dull novel, then turning and noticing LotR, you begin reading that book and become entranced with the world that's being introduced to you. You immediately buy tFotR and read it within a week (that's pretty fast for me), you notice the rich details as well as the storyline (compared to the other novels out at the time), and you conclude that this is a marvelous work of fantasy.

 

Now where did I make a mistake here? If anyone did actually do this, I have no doubt that their thought process would be somewhere along these lines...

[Nimrod]

Not to detract or derail the thread and I am not sure yet of the rules about this but if you think WOT is similar you should read some of Dennis McKiernan's stuff. WOW the first books are nearly plagarism. Of course he takes it a whole new direction eventually.

 

Makes me weep for what could have been if tolkien had been able to do more.

[GaWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWd]

  RJ borrowed very heavily off of Tolkien & Herbert (Dune). Is this a bad thing? No, since Dune is considered the best sci-fi series written, same with Lord of the Rings taking the same position in the fantasy section. All it does is make RJ a smart man, he cherry picked many themes from what he knew to be very successful franchises. He altered them just enough to not be sued for royalty checks. The worst one could accuse him of being would be very unoriginal in not developing fresh new ideas. But seriously what few authors do that today?

 

    Since this topic dealt with mostly the Tolkien themes that reappear rather shamelessly in WoT I thought I might list some of the more prominent themes from Dune;

 

Many parallels between Dune and the Wheel of Time have been noted. Some of the more important similarities include:

 

    1) Rand / Paul Atreides : Messiah figure from the outside leading great rising of desert warriors (Aiel / Fremen) in fulfillment of prophecy. Has powers usually only available to women. There are also similarities in the way we see both characters develop: a young, rather naive and powerless adolescent changes into an extraordinary leader with great powers.

 

  2) Aes Sedai / Bene Gesserit : Powerful, secretive and manipulative female caste with extraordinary powers, sometimes known as witches. Both go through intensive training and painful rites of passage. Somewhat similar internal power structures and mindsets. Similar remarks may also be made about the Aiel Wise Ones, the Kin, and several other groups in RandLand.

 

  3) Foretelling the future / dreaming : Appears in various guises in both books.

 

  4) Aiel / Fremen: Kick-ass desert warriors who ally themselves with the Messiah figure. The strong similarity makes perfect sense once one knows that Herbert's real-world sources for the Fremen were the Israelites, Native Americans and Zulu ), and RJ "coincidentially" claims his sources for the Aiel of all people are also the Zulu and Native Americans....

 

  5) Some common words are used: "Shaitin" and "Mahdi" are two examples. "Shaitin" derives from an Arabic word which in turn is derived from a Hebrew (and Arabic) word, meaning "satan". In short out of all languages RJ could choose from, he chose the old arabic/israelite tongues from which Herbert took his inspiration.

 

  But the most important similarity between Dune and WoT is that RJ for a large part seems to have partially adopted Frank Herbert's style of writing. The books of both series are written from the same viewpoint. 3rd person with a shifting point of view, sometimes looking through the eyes of the protagonists and sometimes the enemies. Though there is always a key character around which the story revolves, they are also both ensembles, with no real starring role. Whatever the viewpoint, you're privy to the thoughts and feelings of whoever you're following, including all their biases. Both series, especially WOT are fraught with dramatic irony and foreshadowing and both display complex, intertwining relationships between the main characters.

 

 

 

PS: A random Tolkien similarity that has not been mentioned: the name Andor is noted in the Silmarillion as the "original" name for Numenor, and means "Land of Gift."

[BrainFireBob]

1) It's the Messiah figure archetype- there's only so many ways to do it.

 

2) Women with special powers are always witches. RJ gives a reason for his female priesthood, Herbert never did.

 

3) Foretelling almost always appears in fantasy books- Herbert didn't innovate it either.

 

4) It's the Hebrew archetype- Moses and the Jews out of the wilderness. It's a long-standing archetype that Herbert didn't invent either.

 

5) This one cinches it.

 

Jordan and Herbert most likely drew from the same sources. It's only people that have read nothing but fantasy that think that Tolkien and Herbert were mind-blowingly original. Jordan quite obviously went back to the same sources- although he did a deliberate Tolkien tribute in the Eye of the World.

[CUBAREY]

I believe RJ also tipped his hat to Hubert, in Eye of the World he names one of the shadowspawn, and in one of the later books one of the Choosen comments on the Worms and says something like of course they cann't transform now.

[BrainFireBob]

Now that, sir, is a palpable point.

[Jonn]

I think RJ borrowed from a lot of sources and not just other authors. I often find when I am watching movies, fantasy, adventure, sci-fi, movies often dating from before the first Wheel of Time book was published, that there are many striking similarities in some of the elements of these films.

 

It happens a lot. I often sit there watching a movie on television and thinking...hmm, there's something very wheel of time-esque about this, perhaps RJ has seen this film and put some elements of it in.

 

It's not that RJ is lifting things word for word or even trying to emulate something to the exact T in style. He's asking questions in a different way. He's saying, "well, what if we go this way instead? What if we combine this line with this circle? Can we change the meaning of both shapes by intertwining them? It's what authors do. It's what artists do.

 

You have to draw from the human experience. Part of what we are as a universal society comes from the fact that there are themes and ideas that are familiar to us all across the board.

 

Now, a good author can take these things that are familiar and put their own spin on it, make it their own, expand on the idea, basically making it fresh again, or more challenging. "New" ideas usually share the same DNA with the old ones they try to improve upon.

 

So in essence, we all steal. We steal out mannerisms from our environment, our parents, our peers, friends, our role models. Then we combine it with what's inside us in various ways. Our own code. Then it is ours. Some people are heavy on the influences around them. Some people are very internal.

 

I think RJ's vision is very ambitious, very affecting and emotional. There's passion, a style involved. It's very distinct. You can see his personality in his writing. His exposure to other sources and at the same time he's exposed a lot about himself in his writing.

 

Tolkien seemed to want to shy away from "claiming" his work. It's very English in a lot of ways. He didn't like to say that the work had anything to do with what he felt about the world around him, how he was personally influenced to create this world. He always seemed to downplay it away from the modern sense of personal awareness. It was always, just a whim while he was working on something else. It was always just some tales that he used to put his children to sleep. This is rather at odds with what is actually an very complex, long, ambitious, sweeping piece of literature. He must have spent hours and hours in the day on this "whimsical" little tale. It's all very old school English, stiff upper lip, self-deprecation...It has no content beyond the story, which is obviously not the case as it has endured for decades now. Why because Tolkien's work resonates. I think that there is a certain distance though that can be felt in his work. It all has to do with how he felt about it, what his intentions were. Tolkien's failure to embrace what he had done, fully and his reluctance to identify his work with the world around him, even himself at times. This may be the stumbling block that many young readers may run into if all they know of the Lord of the Rings is the movies and the lunch boxes and toys.

 

RJ on the other hand, has been very savvy about his work. He engaged in the dialogue. He acknowledges the influences that shape his work. He could be coy about certain aspects of the series, but for the most part he was always pretty open about his feelings about the work. The big difference is that he identified himself as an author. You always had this sense of reluctance from Tolkien to define anything let alone himself. It was like he hated to name things just one thing. He was a linguist, there was always another layer, another name. RJ was a soldier, a man of science, of God, of family. He was an American through and through, a collector, a sportsman. He appreciated the work of others including Tolkien and was not afraid of showing that appreciation. He did not shy away from the fact that everything that an author experiences and sees goes into his work. This was his work. He was an American author. He was a storyteller and wasn't shy about defining himself as one.

 

You can look at more than just books to see what distinguishes authors from one another.

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

I agree with what Jonn has said...

 

If I wrote another article (yes another) on Tom Brady's amazingness (he's the QB for New England, and the previous QB for University Michigan (which are both amazing teams) and is on route to break records for QBs) would someone accuse me of taking ideas/things from other articles? No, everyone might draw from the same sources, sound the same, with only minor things changed...

 

Does that make me a plagiarist?

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

He did not shy away from the fact that everything that an author experiences and sees goes into his work.

 

RJ did more then simply incorpotate his experiences into his work.  He, I assert, consciously borrowed characterizations, plot themes and concepts from Tolkien and Hubert. He then changed them, elaborated on them, made certain aspects deeper and thus created his own world and characters.  Is this plagerism or in can it be seen as lessoning RJ's contribution to the genre? No. RJ's work stand on its own. Moreover, acknowledged sometimes directly, and sometimes with "a tip of his hat" the debt he owed to both Tolkien and Hubert.

[Jonn]

I suppose I should say that by incorporating what one experiences, this includes other works of writing, stories, movies, television, comics, books...

 

Sure, RJ can tip his hat to Dune and The Lord of the Rings, but where do those works get to tip their hats to?

 

Tolkien was an Oxford Don and he spent a lot of time with epic poems, tales like Homer's Iliad and most notably, Beowulf. His style relies on emulating the narrative of the epic poem, fragments of ancient tales, translations, the spoken traditions. Tolkien was also a catholic. No doubt biblical imagery and symbolic figures can be seen in his work.

 

This business of comparing Dune to the Wheel of Time. I wouldn't know. The only Dune I know of is the one that's in the desert and the...er...interesting movie starring Kyle MacLachlan. I might read it, but it's always eluded me, the motivation to do so and the opportunity. The movie wasn't so great, but I don't know much more about the book. I haven't gone too far in reading that much science fiction at all, so my experience is limited there.

 

As it predates The Wheel of Time, I can't discount that RJ might have borrowed elements from it. An opinion about style and depth in comparison would be more enlightening rather than similar narrative elements and archtypical characterizations. If he popularized multiple points of view or pioneered it, then I suppose that would be something to consider.

 

Female based power is not an new idea, in fact we see some of the oldest references of power involve the female cult. Athena, amazon warriors, witches and witchcraft, the Virgin Mary, the earth mother beliefs of old Europe. The sisterhood of nuns has its roots back to ancient Rome and even Greece.

 

I'm not saying that RJ didn't take elements from such works as Dune and Lord of the Rings. I do think RJ's approach is distinct. Dune was created over 40 years ago. Lord of the Rings before that. If an idea, or approach is good, then chances are someone will use it as a template to try to advance the concepts of the art. Outside of certain aspects, the world of Wheel of time doesn't really bear too much resemblance to either of the two works. Lord of the Rings would be the closest, but it feels like there were fewer people in that book. Certainly fewer women.

 

I suppose I should find some time and read Dune. Maybe...well, I might finds some time. I'll come back afterwards and let you know what I think.

[BrainFireBob]

Cubarey-

 

I disagree. If you study literature theory, I think there's only something like 30 basic plots in all of literature- there's also only so many themes- check out The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Conrad (as I recall) to see some of what I'm referencing.

 

What most people list as Jordan borrowing or taking from Tolkien or Herbert- these are things Herbert and Tolkien themselves didn't originate, but took from mythology and fable. Anyone dipping the same sources will have similarities- once you add in complex plots, there's bound to be intersections.

 

Goodkind and Jordan you see tossed around- that's a publication dates thing, not a "the stories are so similar they must be copied." They're similar and Goodkind started writing books with similar elements after Jordan had just published such a book- and it stops right around Goodkind's fourth. That is why that argument holds. Otherwise, there's only so many ways to go- is anyone using a farmboy imitating Star Wars, even if it was written before Star Wars? No, because Lucas didn't invent the farmboy-hero-son of old hero plot.

[professorskar]

Joseph Campbell did The Hero With a Thousand Faces, just to clear it up.

[BrainFireBob]

Well, it's been a few years for me.

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

Someone should read L.E. Modesitt's work, all of his plots are the exact same as his own work, not to mention other people's works...

 

In his story, some little guy gets super powerful with Chaos/Order usage, then changes the world, gets married, matures... And this happens in every single book, without a exception... Now can you blame him for doing that? Part of what's copied is copied because it's now an element that's very important to all literature...

 

If Tolkien created the foundations for all fantasy (which some people, maybe even most, believe) then it's only natural that other authors will build on that foundation...

 

Does that make him a plagiarist?

[YoungKing]

Ok, this thing is still going.

 

Let me first get the whole "ignorance" thing out of the way. When I wrote that, I believe I had just come from a long shift at work, was tired, and a little pissed off at what I read. Harsher then I meant.  To me, it doesn't make sense to comment on a discussion about two books, when you haven't read one. Yeah, you saw the movie, great, but we all know the books better, always better. I was a little dismayed at how yankee seemed to dismiss the relevance and greatness of LotR and it ind of set me off. I'm not flaming anyone, or angry.

 

Anyway, where now to begin.

 

The real debate about mechanization would come from the Hobbits return to the Shire, only to find it ruled by Saruman, and quite different from when they left. It's from the books, and wasn't included in the film. Anyway, many people have come to the conclusion that JRRT put it in as a reflection of what was going around him in England in 1949, when he was about done the story. He's denied that, saying that "It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset..." Basically this beautiful country that the Hobbits loved was being ruined and torn apart by the evil and industry of Saruman. There is no connection.

 

Let me begin by saying that industry and mechanization are different. Mechanization is something that can be added to industry for instance, but industry can stand alone without mechanization. What I said above is that the Shire is ruined by the evil and industry of Saruman, not mechanization. That is hardly a contradiction or error on my part. Something I was trying to get at was that the main instance in which people use to argue about mechanization coming off badly, was a part that Yankee had no knowledge about. Basically he had no argument.

 

And how would the good guys do it? They make their swords with candles? ;-). Well... They just don't do it. Actually they just loose the war. Ok, they would have lost it if it were not for the trick involving Frodo, a very specific Ring and a very specific vulcano.

 

The thing with how they prepare for is that the "Good Guys" wouldn't tear down part of an ancient forest for firewood, dig great rents in the Earth to use as forges, turn a beautiful area into a pile of smoke and fire and ash, and so on. Obviously they would need wood, but from a different source which would probably be replaced, forges would be built from stone, they wouldn't go out of their way to wreck havoc on nature and the Earth to get an army ready. They do much of the same, just differently if that makes sense, it just comes of looking bad because it is done with evil as the intent. It's not so much JRRT writing in his dislike for mechanization as it is Saruman preparing a great army as he would, evilly.

 

There is also much more about the Battle on Pelanor Field(sp), I believe that's it, in the last book. From what I remember it's not as gimmicky as it is in the movie.

 

Oh well... It is a long time ago that I watched the movies. But anyway:

Changes in characters don't matter. The characters live another 40 years and nobody cares about the changes in the character. Characters change all the time. People in reality do as well. I am changing just because of the added experiences I got from partcipating in this thread. I am changing while I am reflecting about what I read in the Newspaper.

So what about the important changes? Everyone except the humans are gone or will be gone in the near future. But what does that change for men? For right now they are probably busy cleaning up after the war. But that is not what I mean. I am talking of values that changed. Values in the society to be more precisly. Believes. Laws. Technology.

 

Well I think you are mixing up change in our lives and change in a fictional character's life. Change in a book, movie, poem, basically anything like that is extremely important. Have you ever watched a movie where the character(s) doesn't change? Probably not because even in really bad movies the characters change a little. It's an integral part of any story. In our own lives well, of course we change, not on the level of fictional characters, but it's different for obvious reasons I won't get into. The thing is, changes in characters matters more than anything else. And you say that they live another forty years and nobody cares about the changes? Well that's not even part of the story, because it would be boring. Who wants to read about Sam Gamgee raising his Hobbit-children, or how Rand might live out his days as a crippled(or Moridin-like) farmer, if that were to happen. Stories feature on major changes in characters' lives because it is exciting, and people enjoy it. We get to read about Rand changing from a shepherd to the most powerful man on Earth, or Aragorn go from the excluded Ranger to rightfully becoming King of Gondor. Thats exciting, that's what I want to read about. Nobody really cares if some guy named Bob changes his political views or gets a new car, nobody is going to write about it. Hopefully you get how important change is.

 

The "I do not agree"-Part was just to provoke you. I wanted to read more then that I cannot handle the depth of the books. That is not reasoning in my opinion if you just tell me I am unable to deal with the books.

Anyway I seem to have been sucessful or you decided for another reason to state your reasons.

 

Well I explained why I said that above, I was hasty, or so an Ent would say. I just feel you're a bit misinformed about LotR, and it shows through your comments. Wasn't trying to flame you or anything like that, sorry.

 

I myself believe that The Lord of the Rings is a harder read than the Wheel of Time series, I'm sure most would agree. That doesn't mean it's better and that's not what I'm trying to imply, just that it might turn off some readers in the first couple of chapters.

 

Next....

 

YoungKing

-stated that this thread is full of ignorance (try not to start a flaming contest, be nice people)

-implied that people that have seen the movies but haven't read the books are igorant, and that they shouldn't post until they've actually read the books (hey, they can post, just maybe not make as good of a post as those who have the background information)

-people that don't understand LotR can't handle the depth of the book, LotR is better than tWoT (I actually agree with this)

-stated that Peter Jackson didn't do LotR justice (I totally agree with this)

-proved yankee's friend's theory wrong

-stated that yankee needs to be more specific, that "BTW, I disagree" is not enough

-attempt at correcting another statement that was misinterpreted

 

Well let me say that people who haven't read the books are somewhat ignorant. That's not bad, or insulting, just the truth. I think ignorant gets used to much as an insult, so people only see it as an insult. I can say that I'm ignorant about a lot of things and that's nothing to be ashamed of. I just try not to make comments and statements about that which I lack in knowledge.

 

I think you got me wrong about people not understanding the books, so they can't handle the depth of them. Nothing about understanding, it's just a much harder read than tWoT as I've said before. Literature versus fiction. And although I love tWoT and enjoy it immensely, I do believe LotR is a superior work, although I know more about tWot... oh well. And the movies, well yeah, they were decent, but Jackson didn't stick by the books enough, he messed it up around midway through the second movie.

 

Anyway, I'm tired so maybe that all doesn't make sense. I tried. Now I need sleep, goodnight!

 

YK.

 

 

 

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

I myself believe that The Lord of the Rings is a harder read than the Wheel of Time series, I'm sure most would agree. That doesn't mean it's better and that's not what I'm trying to imply, just that it might turn off some readers in the first couple of chapters.

 

Tolkien was a professor of linquistics and writing 70 years ago.  I do not know if it was a "harder" read but it was definately a different style of writing.  Then again anyone reading any good fiction (whether literacture or popular fiction) written in the same period would have to deal with the difference in writing styles between that period and those that are prevalent today. 

[YoungKing]

Tolkien was a professor of linquistics and writing 70 years ago.  I do not know if it was a "harder" read but it was definately a different style of writing.  Then again anyone reading any good fiction (whether literacture or popular fiction) written in the same period would have to deal with the difference in writing styles between that period and those that are prevalent today.

 

You kind of just told us something we already knew.

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

YK just pretty much shut down the thread, I can't seem to find anything to disagree with... Although having said that LotR is a more difficult read, I think I agree with Rey more, that it's just a different style, not necessarily a harder read. But maybe that's just me, I'm a little weirdo!!!  ;D ;D ;D

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

The similarity is called the hero monomyth

 

Click there, or here

 

 

[Cocaloch]

To the people saying the what RJ, Herbert, and Tolkien, while these authors took a lot of ideas from other things they put it to use in their own way which is what makes them great. After all it is impossible to create something totally new, you have to think in lines that your already think in. Its like trying to imagine a 4th dimension, to our minds it is immposible to add another axis to xyz because we can not think in that way.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

Its like trying to imagine a 4th dimension, to our minds it is immposible to add another axis to xyz because we can not think in that way.

 

4th Dimention--we call it time.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

lol!

 

And I believe it's called thinking "outside of the box."

 

Obviously, some people are able to do it, or else the box would be infinitely small. It's just that the box is so large because of the number of people that have contributed numerous ideas to it. And with that, it's harder to be a pioneer because you must think in a way that thousands or millions of people have not thought. And that's quite a task.

[DuDZiK]

Allow me to put this whole sort of thing to bed as best I can.

 

Fantasy literature has replaced the folktales and mythologies of old. They all reflect the same themes, the same or very similar ideas and concepts, and even the specifics are often very similar when they are not the exact same. Tolkien was a Celtic philologist, in fact he made an honorary speech/lecture to a committee of professors in the field of celtic studies.

 

The concepts include magic, fantasy (an alternate reality that reflects our own), and a fight between what is defined as good and what is defined as evil. When every such story follows the same sort of pattern (a la Joseph Campbell's archetypal journey) and has been in several cultures for thousands of years, you will find that it's all but impossible to create a fantasy story that has any real original ideas. Names, places, and the values portrayed in the story can be changed to suit the times, but thats about it.

 

What is the primary purpose of fantasy literature, or any story for that matter? It's to give enjoyment to those who come to experience the story, whether through visual reading or through hearing it spoken. The details can be different, but in the end it's still the epic battle between good and evil, with the heroism of the heroine, the beauty and love with the heroine's love, the tragedy of loss, and the magic of the world that everyone enjoys. I always try and keep this in mind when reading, because I read to enjoy and to allow my mind to put myself in the story.

 

When you start taking stories seriously, or god forbid take it literally, then you're in a mind that betrays the spirit of the story.

 

For me, I think some people will always argue who among authors in a specific genre is 'original'. Some people simply want to make their favorite author factually the 'best' author by asserting that they are the most original, and others steal from their story. These are the same people who will argue to the death that the school they go to is the best, that their favorite band is the best, that their country is the best and so on. Everything they like has to be the best and they'll argue anything to make it seem so.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

You're not going to put it to rest. You've only said what others who have come before you have said. And anyone who didn't accept that when it was first spoken will never accept it, no matter how many times, no matter how clearly articulated, things are (spoken).

 

But also, it's a given that people are reading the books for enjoyment.

 

The debate is founded on the idea that too much similarity in two series makes it impossible to enjoy and read the second series.

 

Some people can ignore the parallels. Some can't.

[DuDZiK]

You're not going to put it to rest. You've only said what others who have come before you have said. And anyone who didn't accept that when it was first spoken will never accept it, no matter how many times, no matter how clearly articulated, things are (spoken).

 

I know... that's why I said I'd do my best to, not do it outright.

 

People's minds can be swayed by the way. That's one thing that always makes me cringe when I read or hear it, that "there's no point to this discussion, no one is going to change to other's minds". I can state for a fact that this is not true, because I personally have had my mind swayed in a few such discussions. Most will not give an inch, some may give a few inches but retain their overall beliefs, some may go halfway, some may step over to the other side and so on.

 

But also, it's a given that people are reading the books for enjoyment.

 

You'd think so. People take enjoyment in different ways, though. Some people read stories because they like stories, and enjoy being lost in the plot and the characters and the events and the simple realm of fantasy. Others... I don't think a person does not have this to at least some extent, but there are some people I have come across who have made comments about books that make me wonder why they bother reading at all. They just seem to demand too much from a story that makes me think that while they take enjoyment from stories on condition, they do not just start reading a book with an open mind ready to enjoy what they read. They will decide later if they will enjoy the story. That's an important distinction, IMO. They will be the ones who insist on arguing about the similarities or differences between books and authors, and they will generally be the ones who will come to dislike a book so much.

 

I have not met a fantasy book yet I haven't liked, even if I wouldn't read it again. How many others could say the same, and consequently what are their opinions regarding this issue?

 

The debate is founded on the idea that too much similarity in two series makes it impossible to enjoy and read the second series.

 

Some people can ignore the parallels. Some can't.

 

Well if you're reading for pure enjoyment why couldn't you? Would these people be the same who criticize musical artists for making an album that sounds similar to previous ones? I could never understand those people...