I’ve been reading some rather odd books this past two days, and while I’ve shared my views on this subject within their reviews, I thought I would try hammering them out in a separate post, too.

Why?

Because I always have a look around at what people like to say about these books, too. I like to see if I’m part of the majority, or the minority.

What I discovered was that I’m not the only one who was looking at both these two books I’ve just reviewed (Kell’s Legend by Andy Remic and Sixty-One Nails by Mike Shevdon) as being heavily influenced by another main author. Mister Remic’s book is not often reviewed in a sentence without using “Gemmell” somewhere in there, and Mister Shevdon won’t escape “Gaiman” very easily. Conspiracy theories abound relating to the fact that Gaiman and Gemmell both start with a “g” but I don’t read that kind of thing. In fact, I don’t believe those theories, even though they sounded right when I wrote them.

I’m more interested in the idea of homage vs. happy similarity vs. influenced by. It’s like a “what came first – the chicken or the egg?” question.

Mean-spirited fans cry plagiarism – an accusation exceedingly unfair and unwarranted in my opinion. You could claim any book with “elves” in it is plagiarising Tolkien’s little additions to the fantasy world. You could pretty much track down the roots of any character and find them sprouting out of something else. It’s a neverending story (this post has no flying luck dragon, I assure you).

I think what always needs to be taken into consideration is firstly the spirit in which the homage is intended as well as the success with which it has branched off and become something of its own. Has it succeeded in becoming something new? Or is it simply a rehash of the old? That is, I think, the essential and key element of whether something is a valid work on its own.

I like to think the two novels I have reviewed which inspired such a whirlwind of thoughts and opinions in this area have actually succeeded in proving themselves to be simply another permutation in the fantasy genre. Another elegant step in the evolution of a basic character. And, after all, is not every character in every novel simply an evolution of man as we evolve in our ideas of what it means to be an average man? Every character is always, at heart, an average (if overly-moral) man. There’s always that strand of him (or her) which remains steadfastly the same no matter what novel you read. Always.

Read them again, and you’ll see. They’re always doing the right thing. Even anti-heroes are rigid in their moral view (twisted though they are).

Only their basic physicality is really any different. Whether it’s Druss, Kell, Fafhrd, Conan or Elric – for me, they’re all just offshoots of the same simple design. Sometimes, though, a writer writes something a little too-recognisable. It can be a double-edged sword for that author. On one hand, they get their work out there faster – we can all recognise and relate to the character a lot easier and on the other hand we despise them because we feel their character’s just a try-hard imitation and always seen as being more shallow no matter how superior the work.

It’s a hard call for the author. And one I don’t envy. It’s easier to be the reader than the writer.

I’d like to point out, though, a simple idea that’s not often linked with this idea of homage in the literary field. And that’s what I call the Tom Hanks syndrome.

A lot of people like Tom Hanks.

I can’t stand him. I hate every single film with him in, and the surest way to make certain I never see a film is to have him in it. And I will never read the Da Vinci Code because Tom Hanks is in it. And he wore a mullet. On a side note, why is it every ageing actor feels they must wear a mullet at some stage in their late career? Is it to prove they’ve still got the goods in the manly department? That they’re not losing their manliness to the ague that is age?

I hate Tom Hanks because he wins acting awards.

Why?

In every film, he is Tom Hanks. He never changes his character. Ever. He’s always Tom Hanks. One might say that every film Tom Hanks does is a simply homage to every film he’s done before. His character is, always, the same. You can argue with me as much as you like, but it’s true.

Tom Cruise does the same. In every film, he is Tom Cruise. Well, he seems to think he’s that way when he’s not in a film, too, but that’s beside the point. Many actors and actresses are exactly the same in every film they’re ever in. Only their clothes and hairstyles may change.

Yet, they win awards for it.

And their names are both “Tom”. Notice that?

Their directors win awards for their performances, too, and all they did was steal a “character” from another film, and put them in a different situation.

It’s exactly the same.

And what about newsreaders? They’re all the same, too, from channel to channel. The nude ones from Russia aside, all news readers are the same. Even if you watch news from other countries, they speak the same, dress the same, and have the very same facial expressions. They are carbon copies of each other, and it’s my belief all newsreaders are simple clones of each other.

And musicians. Someone explain to me the difference between any emo band, please. They all sound the same. And rap. and Hip hop. All the same. Yet, they too win awards for originality.

My idea is this: treat these things as evolution of design, rather than spit vitriol and condemn the work. Think of all the authors as twins – they may look the same, but they have their own way of doing things, too. They’re not good and evil. They’re not two halves of the same coin. They’re not good or bad. They just are. And, we all make mistakes. Take me, for example. When searching for a suitable image, I settled on the Olsen Twins. What the Hell was wrong with me to do that? Especially this picture?

Read a novel for what it is – a creative piece of work written to entertain and perhaps challenge, irrespective of its author, and we’ll find the reading experience much friendlier.

On a side note, if you get TOM, which is obviously something very sinister considering these two Toms couldn’t act their way out of a shoplifting charge, and you add it to G – first letter of the two aforementioned blokes who inspired two authors and thus this article, you’d have TOM G. Take into account the fact that my favourite colour is GREEN and you get TOM GREEN.

Make of that what you will.