Eragon Discussion *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> [Legends and Lore] >> Writers of Lore >> [The Workshop] >> Craft Discussion



Message


khalim456 -> Eragon Discussion *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/1/2009 8:57:40)

Hello all in L&L. I am very surprised that in this forum, although there is a critique thread on Twilight there is none on Eragon. This is very strange to me, as almost every other forum I've joined has the two books being critiqued side by side in the same section of the sub-forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Epistler

Greetings to you.

The Epistler heard that you were looking for him.

He very much appreciates that you liked and admired his efforts enough to publish them on your site.

He stopped writing Epistles and disassociated himself with AS some time ago, and now regrets his own involvement in such petty viciousness.

He would appreciate it if you were to remove the Epistles, but wishes to add that he thinks your chapter analyses were very well-written and thought-out.


So I was asked by the forum moderators, to remove The Epistles from all public sites.

If you want to read The Epistles for your own private use, PM me your email and I'll send them through that medium.

~K~




Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/3/2009 12:15:16)

No thread about Eragon? I beg to differ: http://forums2.battleon.com/f/tm.asp?m=15231321 Granted, it's way back in LD, and extremely out of date to boot. I can't even remember what I said, if anything worthwhile.

I don't have time to read the article right now, but I'll get to it sometime. However, I stand by my opinion that Eragon was popular for a /reason/, even if the reason for "spitting out an old plot to please people who like a simple, relaxing read." And if that was Paolini's goal, he achieved it. We can call his stuff crap for as long as we like, but we must remember that he's the one with the royalties, advances, and--most importantly--fans.

Don't get me wrong, I am slightly surprised that it became so popular, because the characters sucked, to be frank. Maybe I'm weird, and characters like Eragon actually appeal to some people. For me, the only halfway-good character was Murtagh. Everyone else was hollower than bird bones.

EDIT: http://forums2.battleon.com/f/tm.asp?m=15608703 Here's another thread about Eragon, made by Recar. It's shorter but more recent than mine.




Xirminator -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/3/2009 14:23:26)

Paolini is young - he has a lot to learn. (But so are most of us.) I sincerely hope he reads the reviews of his book and adjusts the fourth one a bit - and properly characterize and build his world in his future novels.




khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/3/2009 18:02:46)

Xirminator: I would hope so.

Firefly:
quote:

I don't have time to read the article right now, but I'll get to it sometime. However, I stand by my opinion that Eragon was popular for a /reason/, even if the reason for "spitting out an old plot to please people who like a simple, relaxing read." And if that was Paolini's goal, he achieved it. We can call his stuff crap for as long as we like, but we must remember that he's the one with the royalties, advances, and--most importantly--fans.

Don't get me wrong, I am slightly surprised that it became so popular, because the characters sucked, to be frank. Maybe I'm weird, and characters like Eragon actually appeal to some people. For me, the only halfway-good character was Murtagh. Everyone else was hollower than bird bones.


There is no doubt that Paolini is popular, very much so. If I recall, he was the only author who was 22 when he was interviewed on TV - the first person, I think, in the literary world to do so. However, the timing of the release of his books was very fortuitous, as at that era, the Lord of the Rings trilogy was still 'the craze' of the time and the general community wanted more creative pieces of the fantasy genre to devour. Eragon, with its similarities to LotR, quickly picked up in the vacuum left at the end of the LotR Film Trilogy and advertising that the author is a child prodigy must have certainly helped too.

I do have an article on Murtagh as well. To me he was my favorite because he showed human frailty - unlike Eragon, who has and always will act 'perfectly', for want of a better word. If you can recall, in the first book when Murtagh and Eragon were confronted with Human Slave Traders Murtagh impulsively kills them, which causes Eragon to chuck a tantrum. However, when Murtagh tries to explain his actions, which went along the lines of 'they tried to kill me ever since I was born, please forgive my skittishness, Master Eragon', Eragon still couldn't accept what he did was wrong, but necessary, which in essence makes him far too perfect top be a human being, whilst Murtagh makes mistakes... like the rest of us mere mortals.

Sorry, ran out of time, I'll come back and wqrite more laer.




Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/3/2009 18:40:35)

Read the article. Agree with most of it. Whether the Inheritance Cycle lives on or not, we'll see. And Paolini's fans are people too, so I hesitate to name their opinions worthless. Apparently, I'm very different from the average reader, because some of the things mentioned here (such as liking villains or minor characters more than the hero) aren't problems for me because that's my attitude for books in general.

Some random comments about the points in the article, mainly objections but not always. As I said, I mainly agree.

- The emotionlessness isn't due to the technical writing, which was alright--and darn better than most YA, no offence. The emotionlessness was because most of his characters lived only to serve the plot and nothing more.
- I find it amusing that Eragon is talking about Roran and Murtagh. They're both far better characters than he, haha.
- I actually didn't mind that particular example of "purple prose." Not saying that the books had none--they did. That particular piece wasn't bad though. I think it gave off parts of the atmosphere and gives the reader a better understanding of elves in general--the purpose is not to focus on those particular elves.
- Blargh, no point in spending your entire lifetime to create a world. What a reader cares about is your characters, not which way River Silver turns. Telling Paolini to wait 'til he's forty isn't very helpful.
- Galbatorix was probably influenced by Sauron, who also never appeared. And that was one aspect of LotR that annoyed me--and yes, I give Tolkien fans full permission to call me out for my honesty. And thus, it annoyed me in Inheritance too.
- Eragon serves the plot, no doubt about it. And that's fine... had it not been the only thing he did. And yes, minor details /really/ add to a character. Readers simply love quirks, and Eragon had few if any.
- Theft? I don't think it's really going that far. And I really don't give a crap who invented the werecat first. The fact that the plot is cliche matters much more than the fact that a few "ideas" were cliche.
- There's nothing wrong with themes. "If can mean whatever you want it to mean is the same as saying it means nothing at all." So I won't go around encouraging writers to take out morals from their stories--that's just, well, not morally right. But I can see how people have a problem with how Paolini presented his views. Ironically, I--neither atheist nor vegetarian--didn't feel offended simply because he did such a poor job at convincing me that I barely noticed that he was even trying. The books may have been more controversial if the themes actually shone through--and frankly, if something were offensive and controversial enough to get a hatedom because of that, it actually sounds like something meaningful. Had the Inheritance Cycle been that, I wouldn't agree with the view that they'd be forgotten quickly.
- Yep, they were simply... boring. With that in mind, I must say that Twilight was a better story than Eragon. *waits for the flames to start burning*

Wow, this is certainly one of my blunter posts. And it looks like I have things to say that may be taken the wrong way by either Eragon fans or Eragon haters. I sincerely hope that I'm not offending anyone. Ultimately, you have the right to love or hate the books, and I would never dream of taking that right away from you. And your views on the books, whatever they are, will not change my opinions on you as a person for better or for worse. Maybe I should stick this disclaimer on the top... And excuse any typos here--I have to eat.




Argeus the Paladin -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/3/2009 20:37:19)

quote:

-Yep, they were simply... boring. With that in mind, I must say that Twilight was a better story than Eragon. *waits for the flames to start burning*


I'd like to direct you to Arzim's Rebuttals, but since this is about Eragon, I'd probably digress.

As for the theft part: Would you all agree that in the world nowadays, sources of originalities has been mostly dried up, and the only way something original can be acquied is by (i) mixing together cliches in a way that it isn't cliched any more (Shinji and Warhammer 40000 - a fanfic that is this at its finest), or (ii) take a cliched plot and deconstruct it to the point of unrecognizability (Evangelion itself)?

Sadly, Paulini didn't do that.




RATIONALPARANOIA -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/3/2009 21:47:40)

The article I agree with, on at least one point: Eragon is... yeah, boring. The main problem: the characters, as Firefly said, aren't interesting. Eragon is almost the exact example of a Marty Stu- one of the things that makes Murtagh, the one character who actually beats him, interesting. There's other examples of simply bad character writing- Eragon calling Murtagh out for killing a slave trader, even though Eragon kills literally hundreds throughout the books.

However, in some areas, the article is just wrong: Implying that good world building would take (based on the fact he said Christopher Paolini would be well into his forties, and he (Paolini) started writing Eragon when he was 15) 25+ years is simply ridiculous. If worldbuilding takes even more than a year (and that's, I'd say, the absolute maximum)- you're doing something wrong. Either you're just terrible at worldbuilding, and in that case sci-fi/fantasy isn't for you, or you're putting way too much time into an area that doesn't really need it, and that could be better spent focused on characters, plot, and actually, you know, *writing* the book.

Of course- I could abide the flat characters and cliche plots if, well, the story was unpublished. And Firefly- Paolini's 'success' was, aside from writing the book itself, not really due to any effort by him. His parents allowed him to skip college and tour the country promoting his book, and he got lucky enough that one of the kids who read the book and liked it was the stepson of Carl Hiassen (author of Hoot and other works). Hiassen told Alfred Knopf about the book, and Knopf decided to play up the whole 'young prodigy' angle and *very* heavily market the book. And with the target audience being middle school age children, many of whom with no idea of what's original and what are good characters, the book was able to sell with alright prose and be liked. Now, the point I'm trying to make is there are many, many authors who write far better than Paolini- unfortunately, they didn't have the opportunities or luck that he did. And that's what I hate about him- he has no right to be that successful, not when there's so many more talented authors out there.

And Argeus- I disagree. I heavily disagree. Really, you can call anything cliche or theft, depending on how vague you make the descriptions of that plot or plot element- and of course, you need to understand the difference between cliches and tropes. Harry Potter, if you look at it a certain way, was not original at all- the young, upcoming prophesied chosen one (who, at least initially, knows nothing about the prophecy) is approached by a wise old mentor who helps teach him and eventually tells him of his duty. Opposing the young chosen one is an old and powerful evil person, one who either directly or indirectly kills the wise old mentor. Then, spurred on by the wise old mentor's death, the young chosen one defeats him, with the helps of his friends (although the final battle is done alone).

Yeah... if you describe it that way, there are many books (especially fantasy and sci-fi) that follow that plot. However, Harry Potter is (at least to all of its worldwide fans) quite an original book series. So no... I don't think you need to use deconstruction or mixing cliches together to be original, or that most sources of originality have been dried up. That to me (no offense intended) sounds like a lazy attitude.




khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/4/2009 2:42:50)

Rationalparanoia: I actually have another article that details how Eragon is a violent sociopath but I'll keep it to one article at a time for now.

As everyone can see, this article is very heavily biased against Eragon and you have to be really careful to tell apart the comments are actually constructive from those that are just directed out of spite. I don't blame the author though, you have no idea what she went through when she was trying to post critiques in Shur'tugal.com and Amazon.com. They censored all posts and threads which didn't post positive feedback and critiques on the books. She just got a bit angry is all. :D

The hypocrisy of Eragon is quite obvious. He kills hundreds of people in wars, blames Murtagh for killing ONE slave trader, kills more people and then finally gets emotional whilst eating rabbits (in Duweldenvarden in Eldest). I am very much confused. :/

quote:

- The emotionlessness isn't due to the technical writing, which was alright--and darn better than most YA, no offence. The emotionlessness was because most of his characters lived only to serve the plot and nothing more.


And to quote Paolini himself: "Characters are born out of necessity".

In my opinion even mediocre YAs would know better than to make their characters little plot bunnies with no character development to keep the story rolling. Characters are what essentially makes or breaks creative pieces. Flashy swords and epic battle scenes will only sustain a book for so long. Any half-decent YA who owns a thesaurus at home can infuse his writing with interminable amounts of purple prose, however, only good authors know where the boundaries lie between pulling the reader into an exciting world and from putting them to sleep.

quote:

quote:

In this sense, Eragon is a lot like Transformers- it's good, jolly, entertaining fun until you begin to think about it.


What the devil are you talking about, I thought the movie was awesome.


When I saw this quote in the other Eragon thread, I just had to reply. When my friends and I went to see Transformers 2 recently, we came knowing that the storyline was going to be a complete mess - all we wanted to do was just shut down our brains and enjoy high-quality graphics about epic robots transforming and duking it out on the big screens. Shame I didn't place the same expectations on when I read the Inheritance series trilogy cycle...




Argeus the Paladin -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/4/2009 2:58:12)

quote:

Of course- I could abide the flat characters and cliche plots if, well, the story was unpublished. And Firefly- Paolini's 'success' was, aside from writing the book itself, not really due to any effort by him. His parents allowed him to skip college and tour the country promoting his book, and he got lucky enough that one of the kids who read the book and liked it was the stepson of Carl Hiassen (author of Hoot and other works). Hiassen told Alfred Knopf about the book, and Knopf decided to play up the whole 'young prodigy' angle and *very* heavily market the book. And with the target audience being middle school age children, many of whom with no idea of what's original and what are good characters, the book was able to sell with alright prose and be liked. Now, the point I'm trying to make is there are many, many authors who write far better than Paolini- unfortunately, they didn't have the opportunities or luck that he did. And that's what I hate about him- he has no right to be that successful, not when there's so many more talented authors out there.


He has. It's life, you see? Luck is pivotal to the success of any author - Paulini is not to be blamed just because he was lucky. And so is Stephenie Meyer (I digress, again).

quote:

However, Harry Potter is (at least to all of its worldwide fans) quite an original book series. So no... I don't think you need to use deconstruction or mixing cliches together to be original, or that most sources of originality have been dried up.


And your reasoning is?




Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/4/2009 10:04:26)

Harry Potter is not unoriginal for two things: characters and voice. In an age where everything seems to have been done before, those are the selling points of a novel. You have to give characters the reader cares about, and in order to do that, they cannot be cardboard copies of something else. You have to tell your story in an original voice, which has something to do with technical writing, but more to with, I believe, the passion the author puts in. Frankly, except for the rare genre-savvy individual, most people don't care who made the werecat first. They care if you can make unique /characters/. And characters are more than just what they do for the plot--Harry being destined to fight Voldemort is part of him, but other interesting parts include everything from his cocky father to his glasses.

Haha, why don't we sum up the Inheritance character debate with Murtagh > Eragon and get over it. =P

I disagree about the YAs. Most of them are more boring, preachy, and downright flat than Eragon. Half are about mundane things in high school, which interests only the mainstream folks who don't even know what a round character is. The other half is preachy stuff about kids in war, how terrible war is, how oh-my-gosh real this plot is, how oh-my-gosh deluded I am that I'm actually writing an original story... Their characters' only purpose is to preach and act like plot puppets. While I respect their authors for trying to show how horrible life is in third world countries--and a few of them were actually quite touching--said authors need to learn that having a "realistic" theme doesn't give them the excuse to make crappy characters, write flat prose, and rush through the plot like a hurricane. Frankly, considering that the alternative is reading that stuff above, I can really see why fantasy YA sells--yes, including Eragon. The competition seems to assume that kids are stupid while putting them to sleep at the same time.

I'd take some shallow entertainment like Eragon over some pretentious, unoriginal sermon trying to pass itself off as experimental literature. The "luck" Paolini had is annoying, but the fact that many YA authors think they can get away with anything as long as they're talking about an important world issue is just as irritating.

So, no, I don't agree that mediocre YAs have solid characters. And nor do I agree that the average YA writer has better technical writing than Paolini. The only thing mediocre YAs have is a skeleton plot, a bang-you-on-the-head theme, and "realism," for what it's worth.

And finally, Paolini's success. Yes, he had luck on his side, but I hesitate to say that he did little work or that he didn't deserve to be successful. Firstly, the fact that he even finished a story of that quality at his young age is already incredible. He's no Martin or Jordan, but he's better than most that's in the slush pile--and the most is coming from much older writers. Now, though, we can take his age out of the question since it doesn't relate to the quality of his story. Still, I think his success relied more heavily on his story than his connections.
- His parents were small press publishers, nothing more. If his book was total crap, it would've never gotten to the bookshelves through them.
- If his book did not have a certain amount of merit, no publisher would've picked it up no matter who recommended him. Publishers are in the business for money; they buy what sells. And if he wasn't gonna sell, they would not buy him. (Of course, publishers' opinions on what sells isn't the same as what really does, but I digress)
- Tours, blah. If you look at the statistics, the number of people who attend book signings vs. the number of copies a book needs to sell to become an NYT bestseller... let's just say there's a /huge/ gap. Word of mouth--not promotion--is what generates sales. And people are only going to recommend your book if they liked it, not because they went to your book signing. Ultimately, once it's out there, though luck, cover, back cover, ect. are huge factors, a very key measuring stick is the stuff between the covers of the book.

The final result is this: Eragon sold. It may have sold to non-fans of the fantasy genre, it may have sold to Tolkien-fanatics, it may have sold to people with no clue what literature is... but it sold. And somewhere, in many somewheres, Eragon brought some unknown reader a smile and a day of fun. That, had I been Paolini, would be worth more than all the critical acclaim in the world.




khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/5/2009 4:19:28)

Argeus:
quote:

He has. It's life, you see? Luck is pivotal to the success of any author - Paulini is not to be blamed just because he was lucky. And so is Stephenie Meyer (I digress, again).


I think what Rationalparanoia meant is that, although it does take a mix of skill and luck to become a published and successful author, Paolini may have drawn too much from the luck factor rather than the skill factor in the publishing of his books.

Firefly: I have to completely disagree with your statements on YAs. It is unfair to generalize and stereotype every single young author as being one that *always* writes about some soapy (and soppy) teenage drama flick or one that preaches about the calamities of war.

quote:

Their characters' only purpose is to preach and act like plot puppets. While I respect their authors for trying to show how horrible life is in third world countries--and a few of them were actually quite touching--said authors need to learn that having a "realistic" theme doesn't give them the excuse to make crappy characters, write flat prose, and rush through the plot like a hurricane. Frankly, considering that the alternative is reading that stuff above, I can really see why fantasy YA sells--yes, including Eragon. The competition seems to assume that kids are stupid while putting them to sleep at the same time.


I fail to see the difference between what you described about the characters created by YAs and the characters in Eragon. The only thing Paolini has that separates him from most flat pieces of YA creative writing is his abuse of the thesaurus, resulting in overbearing and stagnant paragraphs that subsequently drags the flow of the story. Flat prose is not great, but purple prose isn't any better. The plot of Eragon isn't rushed? I completely agree. He just shoved the plot of Star Wars into a LotR context and voila!

And did you happen to read Rationalparanoia's explanation for the supposed 'success' of the book into the publishing world?

quote:

If his book did not have a certain amount of merit, no publisher would've picked it up no matter who recommended him. Publishers are in the business for money; they buy what sells. And if he wasn't gonna sell, they would not buy him. (Of course, publishers' opinions on what sells isn't the same as what really does, but I digress)


Publishers are in the business for money, is the key point I beleive you raised there. They do not care what is original and what isn't. They do not care what has good prose and what doesn't. They do not care for character development and every other little thing that constitutes the basic essentials of a 'good book'. They only care about what sells and what is marketable.

Paolini for example, was instantly seen by Knopf as a 'child prodigy' (I'll leave the fact that he was 22, well into his adulthood, when he he was published hanging there for a moment). $$$ signs must be ringing in any publisher's head about marketing a child prodigy who was supposedly the 'next big thing after Tolkien'.

So for me success does not equal a good piece of creative writing. I gather that we differ heavily on that point, Firefly. It is true that every book, every author, will have its critics and malcontents - that's an inevitable fact of life. However, Paolini's success was due more to the fact that he had connections that an ordinary YA, or any other author for that matter, does not.

Pushing details about the author aside, and whether he had the right to be published or not we should go back to the original discussion about the book itself.

Purple prose is prevalent throughout all his books. However, is this a mark of mastery over the English Language or simply the abuse of our friend the Thesaurus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Epistler #3

Too many adjectives is probably the most common sign of an immature writer, and Paolini floods his prose with them. Example:

Between these two rode a raven-haired elven lady, who surveyed her
surroundings with poise. Framed by long black locks, her deep eyes shone
with a driving force. Her clothes were unadorned, yet her beauty was
undiminished. At her side was a sword, and on her back a long bow with a
quiver. She carried in her lap a pouch that she frequently looked at, as if to
reassure herself that it was still there.

Our first introduction to the lovely Princess Arya. Putting aside the overly worshipful terms in which she is described, let us instead turn our attention to the number of unnecessary adjectives and over-descriptions in this paragraph. First of all, ‘raven-haired’ is immediately followed by a mention of ‘black locks’. Sorry… what colour was her hair again? The Epistler grows confused. Many of the other descriptive words simply make no sense. ‘Deep’ eyes? And how can someone survey their surroundings with ‘poise’? Poise refers to a way of holding oneself, but examining something only requires a person to move their eyes. And what, exactly, is a ‘driving force’? The next sentence is even worse – ‘unadorned’,
followed by ‘undiminished’ in the same sentence. The two words, used together like this, are simply clumsy. Everything about this paragraph proclaims its writer to be young and inexperienced – similar prose can be found on Fanfiction.net with minimal effort.

In fact, here in an extract from a piece of Lord of the Rings fanfiction:

Silence stretched across the lands, the silence accompanying the
brewing storm. An unbearable screech pierced through it, leaving buzzing
echo behind, to drive out anyone that is unwanted. But the torment is
unmoving to the owner of those piercing grey eyes. Slowly she approached
the alarmed city. Archers and watchers looked upon the vast plains warily.
Something disturbed the blissful emptiness behind her. She looked back.
Rows and rows of her kin marched, equipped with bows, arrows and
blades, and she recognized the leader. Yes… it had been too long. Haldir,
handsome as always, lead the elite elven warriors. They are walking
towards their end. She slipped away, yielded by the shadows of the setting
sun. Noticed by no one, she called upon her servants. An Uruk-hai spotted
her and walked over. She nodded, and whispered commands in the Black
Language. The Uruk-hai inclined its head and retreated.

Bear in mind that this was written by an author who says of herself “Please excuse my illiteracy, I am only 14 years of age, and English is my second language.” Ignoring the changes of tense, the style is strikingly similar. In other words, the work of a fourteen-year-old fanfiction writer is strikingly similar to that of… a nineteen-year-old fanfiction writer.


I think the Epistler has a very definite point about the usage of the word 'poise'. This is evidence enough that Paolini, even in his first opening paragraphs, attempts to use the Thesaurus to find synonyms of words that he considers too dull and boring, basically those that are too 'un-Tolkienesque' to be worthy of being integrated into his books. Before he discovered poise, I bet Paolini first thought of normal words such as 'dignity' and 'elegance'. Words that we mere mortals might have juggled around and played with when first writing our story. However, he then decides these words are simply not good enough to fulfill his Tolkienesque criteria and instead flips through his battered and bruised thesaurus. As a result of searching for either of those two relatively common words, poise crops up as one of the possible synonyms. Without even checking to see whether or not poise was suitable for that context, he integrates it into the sentence. Poise, as The Epistler defines, is a way of holding oneself in a state of balance and equilibrium. It doesn't make sense that 'she [Arya] surveyed her surroundings with "holding herself in a state of balance and equilibrium"'. The only positive light I could see in this particular line is that Paolini didn't pick 'sangfroid' as his chosen Thesaurus-ed replacement word. That would have just been horrible.




Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/5/2009 10:03:59)

Young authors? When did I mention young authors? YA stands for young adult, which is a genre of fiction geared towards 13-18 year olds. I wasn't talking about young authors--I was talking about adults trying and often (not always) failing to write for teens. And my experience with the genre comes from published work, works that go on to be nominated for awards... and I can still see why a teen would rather read Eragon.

I'm not supporting or hating on Eragon, young authors, young adult fiction (only saying my experience with it wasn't good), drama, or whatever. I'm just laying the facts down on the table. And the fact is this: most readers don't care about purple prose/bland prose, originality, rushed plot/slow plot, rounded characters, whatever... until they detect it in the story. Evaluating a story on how good it is based only on the individual parts is nonsense. You could have the most deathless prose in the world, what you perceive as the most engaging characters, the most original take on elves since Tolkien, a plot full of twists, a million deconstructions on cliches... and if your book failed to entertain the audience, you still failed.

I highly suggest you read this: http://www.writersofthefuture.com/newsletter/march09.htm Specifically, the article "The Single Most Important Piece of Advice." Since these guys judge(d) the Writers of the Future Contest, the most prestigious newcomer contest in fantasy/science fiction, I hope you at least consider their words. For those who don't click the link, here's the vital quote from it: "And what the audience wants is not style or syntax or characterizations done in the first, second or third person in the past or present tense. What it wants is a satisfactory story."

I'm not saying Paolini didn't have luck on his side. I'm not saying every single young adult fiction sucks--just saying how, considering the subject of most of those books from my experience, I can see why Eragon is a more entertaining read. I never made a single comment about young authors--that comes from your misunderstanding of my abbreviation, which I didn't explain (sorry about that). And I'm not saying Eragon is high literature (I didn't even like it myself) and nor am I saying it won't be forgotten. I'd only like to draw your attention to the fact that it was a good read for many people, regardless of why. At the end of the day, you can hate the plot and characters and theme... but someone else just wants to hear an entertaining story. And though the story didn't entertain you, your words aren't going to (and shouldn't) stop it from entertaining others.




khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/6/2009 2:50:33)

Sorry about my misunderstanding, it should have been clear to me you were talking about the Genre rather than a generalized group of authors.

The problem is Firefly, I detected all these flaws in the story. Not on my second, third or fifth reading but my first. Not the prose specifically, but more obvious elements such as character development and words which don't fit into their contexts just constantly jab me in the side like an annoying thorn. I'm not exactly a Professor with a Doctorate in Writing (if such a degree exists) but I am still able to pick up such inconsistencies. I agree with you that nitpicking is not the best when evaluating a book's quality, if it wasn't spotted the first time then the writer has done a real good job on it. However, I found these errors on my first reading, which consequently made the rest of the book an awkward read for me.

Maybe you're thinking "What the heck is a 16 year old concerned with the definition of the word 'poise' for?" Well this 16 year old likes to always expand his vocabulary. One thing Eragon did that was good for him is that he did pick up a lot of new and exiting words to add to his little compendium of knowledge. However, upon finding the word 'poise' in the dictionary and seeing that it didn't fit into the context of the sentence, he grows confused. If this was just the start of the book, and he already spots a mistake, how will the rest of the book fare? And it just keeps on cropping up...

"Sorry," apologized Brom.

I was never aware that saying sorry was an apology. I guess this is testament to the fact that we learn something new everyday. This particular mishap was passable, if only because it just made me laugh. Comedic value is always under-appreciated in the fantasy/sci-fi genre these days...

As for the rest of your arguments... How can I possibly deny them? It is true that Eragon makes a good read for most people, that it brings smiles to a few faces and that it gets people's attention back to literature. All positive things, nothing to complain about. I encourage people to the buy the books. If I was a nutter who went as far to try and stop the purchase of the Inheritance books I wouldn't even post this topic in L&L. I know that the best way to annihilate all memory of an object is to ignore it completely, and let it fade into obscurity, so if I was such a person who didn't want people to read Eragon, I wouldn't discuss the books. Please understand that I'm not a fanatic that tries to boycott stores selling Eragon or a zealot that goes around inviting people to book burnings. I'm just another average person who does not like the Inheritance Cycle.

With that aside, may I repeat that the point of this thread is to debate upon the finer features of the Inheritance Cycle? I think we all agree that Paolini was published and has achieved the high pedestal of fame and prestige that all authors aspire to stand on one day. Whether these accolades are duly bequeathed is another matter altogether, a matter that I would rather not discuss.




Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/7/2009 10:39:19)

Yep, and I noticed the flaws too. But maybe people enjoyed it despite those flaws--perhaps /they/ didn't notice or simply did not care.

I wasn't exactly directing everything I said to you. I'm far from an Eragon fan myself--I started it years later than most people (and out of sheer curiosity to know what was so awesome/horrible about it), would've dropped the book due to the boring backcover alone if I didn't already resolve to read it, and never managed to finish Eldest due to time reasons. And as I pointed out in my second post on the thread, I'm as aware of the flaws as you are.

The only things I object to are the assertions that it's absolutely horrible no matter how you look at it, that it's no better than a teenage fanfiction (based on the comparison of /one paragraph/, no less), that Paolini relied 100% on luck, that Paolini writes worse than the average teen (he doesn't write worse than the average /adult/, not if you believe the slush pile stories...), that anyone who likes Eragon should check their heads... the list goes on. Not saying that anyone here necessarily said any or all of these things, just noting that these are the types of comments that seem to follow the "It's popular so it sucks" mentality rather than actually critiquing the contents of the book.

I was only stating a fact: that many people enjoyed reading Eragon. And just like what anyone else says probably won't influence Khalim or even my own dislike of it, what we say won't influence someone else's enjoyment of it. Whether it's good or bad is totally subjective, and judging a book by individual parts is like the story of blind men touching an elephant. However, many people having enjoyed it is a fact. As long as people debating Eragon are aware of this, and that no, these people are not crazy, and no, having a gazillion book-signings or the world's best parents is /not/ going to make anyone like his books if they didn't enjoy what was written in the very text. All I'm asking is some awareness among his critics that Eragon is not 100% garbage (just like said critics ask Eragon fans to be aware that it's not 100% perfume).

Final point: What makes or breaks a book isn't the flowery-ness or lack thereof in descriptions, or the sentence structure, or the vocabulary--'cause it that were the case, we should get computers to write for us. So... just noting that the arguments about his characters are far more compelling than the protests to his purple prose.

PS: "poise" is not a thesaurus-y word, in my opinion. Though the apologized thing was pretty funny. But I do it all the time, so maybe I have no room to talk (but then again, I do it in rough drafts, not the final version (hopefully! I can't promise this, since I wrote some really bad stuff only a little while back), so maybe I can talk, haha).




illusion99 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/8/2009 1:26:47)

hmm..
about the elves part..almost every book that has elves are borrowed from Tolkien correct me if i'm wrong...
but.....i know that review is needed to help the author get better but really...>.>
i really like Paolini's work....Eragon was the first book i actually finished...and you have not idea that was really something for me....i have short attention span and....after reading eragon it's like...it's like the mark of when I'm starting to overcome my disability....
I really don't like the meanish critic......
Like what Xirminator said Paolini is still young.

and you can't really expect a young person to write like a pro....

Also isn't that the part when elves and drawves relegion thing....
paolini make them differ that elves think that there are no gods and dwarfs have lots...
i don't think paolini is saying that there are no god or gods it's just what the characters are saying. if i remember correctly i think he said that he tries to think like the character then if he is them what would he say or do. it's just to make the characts unique from one another




Xirminator -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/8/2009 5:58:59)

About the religion thing:

It's true that Paolini did that to give his elves and dwarves a personal touch. Thing is, he can get a bit preachy with it. There's no point going so into depth about the arguments the elves and dwarves have. It's like he's trying to convince somebody. And that's not with just the religion - there are other instances where he does the same thing.




illusion99 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/8/2009 8:41:39)

@above
.....you got a good point about the part where it seem like he's trying to convince someone though.
[>:]




Arzamol -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/8/2009 15:44:39)

He has fans. It does not matter what the fancy people have to say, if a book is popular, its good writing. Personally, I ate those books up, and I eagerly await the next one.

I read the first argument. Eragon does not lack emotion, he just quells it faster than most, wich is something that I admire; He never beats himself up!




Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/8/2009 15:44:53)

Meh, I don't think there's anything wrong with having an opinion, though I agree that the elves (and Eragon) are somewhat unbelievable and hypocritical--they don't eat me but wear leather and kill enemies on the battlefield ruthlessly? That, in my opinion, is a greater flaw than "preachiness." And some amount of arguing about Gods is okay--I mean, are writers supposed to eliminate all semi-controversial areas of their writing? But since I haven't read all of Eldest and onwards, I've no idea if Paolini is truly preachy or if it's just hate-induced flanderization. As far as I've read, if he really is trying to convince anyone, he's doing such a bad job of doing it that I can't even tell he's trying to convince me, haha. [/joke]

That being said, since he /is/ published, selling, and writing for a living, we have every right to hold him to the standards of a pro. Of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't take his age into consideration--only that, if I were Paolini, I'd rather people not lower the bar for me because that is one form of discrimination, no? That being said, I highly disagree with the deluded view that even the average teen writer better than Paolini. Mediocre teenage authors usually do not cease making a reader's eyes bleed. Paolini couldn't've been that bad, or else the bookstores will be stained with blood...




Arzamol -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/8/2009 15:53:09)

Read the second argument, it did not bother me. Diferent people have diferent tastes. To me that paragraph helped me understand Elves in general and how the seem to make the world light up when happy.

EDIT: And purple is my favorite color.

EDIT:
quote:

For example, the villain. Galbatorix. To date he has not appeared in person at any point in the books, and thus we are given an idea of his character by other characters, who describe him, his past and his actions. And this is all we get. We hear almost nothing of him from people who are not his enemies, hence we only see one view – the one that says he is mad, evil, cruel and tyrannical. That’s it. That’s all we ever get. This being so, how can we truly feel angry toward him or care about his actions? Villains, just like heroes, need personalities and Galbatorix has had no opportunity to display one.
Galbatorix is the looming threaht that is behind almost every bad thing that happened. He is a faceless shadow whose presense affects everything in Alagaesia. That is all you need to know about him.

EDIT:
quote:

With Eragon, the hero, the opposite is true. Or is it? Unlike Galbatorix he remains central to the plot and is rarely not around. The bulk of the story is told through his eyes. This means plenty of opportunities to develop him as a character. This being so, what do we know about him? He’s brave, impulsive, somewhat naïve, hates Galbatorix with a passion and harbours unrequited love for Arya. But... that’s all we know about him. In spite of the fact that we know all this, Eragon still fails to be a fully fleshed out, three-dimensional character. The reason for this is fairly simple: he is never developed beyond what is absolutely necessary for the plot. He says, does and feels what the plot requires him to, and no more. The so-called ‘epic romance’ (Paolini’s own words, from Eragon) is limited to Eragon’s immature lust toward Arya the elvish woman. He rarely if ever makes a serious mistake, and when he
does it is forgiven and forgotten almost immediately and never has any significant repercussions for him. For example, in Eldest it is revealed that he accidently put a curse on a small child he was supposed to be blessing. In a properly developed book with properly developed characters, there would be consequences for Eragon. For example, he may become unpopular among some people. His reputation might suffer. He could suddenly be deemed unfit to perform complex magic lest he make another mistake. He could suffer a period of self-doubt and need reassuring. But none of this happens. Instead Eragon feels embarrassed for an extremely short space of time, apologises to the child and offers to try and reverse the spell, and then all is well again.
And yet I am satisfied with the character. And not a lot of people know about the cursed girl, or at least they don't know it's his fault. Punishing him would have made people suspisious. It is inportantthat people look up to him, he boosts morale. Also, being a dragon rider, he can do what he wants.
quote:

This is not the only deficiency in Eragon’s personality. Many, many important things are never adressed. How does Eragon feel about being a Rider and having so much responsibility rest on his shoulders? Is he afraid he won’t be strong enough to do what he must? Does he miss his old, easier way of life? Does he ever wonder if war is the only answer and whether they could try negotiating with Galbatorix instead of resorting to violence? What does he think of himself? Is he humble? Narcissistic? Does he think he is good-looking or does he wish his nose was smaller? What kinds of food does he enjoy?

Questions like these may seem unimportant, but if they were answered they would go a long way toward developing Eragon and making him come alive. But they are either briefly skipped over or avoided altogether, and the result is, of course, a flat, cardboard cutout of a character. Even fans often claim they are more interested by side characters than by Eragon himself. And, unfortunately, these problems are present with every other character in the series. The ways in which they relate to each other are simple and clear-cut, with no ambiguities or subtleties present. Every character who dislikes Eragon is either on ‘the bad side’ or is unimportant. All the important characters on ‘the good side’ adore him, and he accepts this without question.
Granted, although I have no problem with this.
quote:

This points to another problem – this being the fact that Eragon is a Mary-Sue (or Gary-Stu in this case). Mary-Sues tend to be ridiculously powerful – and given that Eragon is a Dragon-Rider, expert magician, elite swordsman and, by the end of Eldest, an elf/human hybrid with heightened senses, he fits that part to a tee. They also tend to be, yes, loved by every good character and hated by every bad character. There are other Mary-Sue characteristics which Eragon also fits, but these are the most important.

quote:

And so, with a world which is essentially Middle-Earth, a hero who is a Mary-Sue and a villain the reader has no chance to hate, it is safe to say that the Inheritance series has failed to provide a living, breathing story.
I like Mary Sue, whomever that is. And not all stories have to have shades of gray.A problem many young authors encounter at some point. After they have mastered – or think they have mastered – the basics of telling a story, beginning authors will start experimenting with the notion of inserting morals into what they write. This is a bad idea, and most authors eventually realise it, because moral lessons which have been deliberately inserted into stories inevitably appear forced and didactic. In Eldest Paolini betrays the fact that he has not yet learnt this, and he includes a few glaringly obvious anti-religious messages, as seen in the extracts below.

“I deny nothing, only ask what good might be accomplished if your
wealth were spread among the needy, the starving, the homeless, or even to
buy supplies for the Varden. Instead, you’ve piled it into a monument to
your own wishful thinking.”
“Enough!” The dwarf clenched his fists, his face mottled. “Without
us, the crops would wither in drought. Rivers and lakes would flood. Our
flocks would give birth to one-eyed beasts. The very heavens would shatter
under the gods’ rage!” Arya smiled. “Only our prayers and service prevent
that from happening. If not for Helzvog, where—”
Eragon soon lost track of the argument. He did not understand
Arya’s vague criticisms of Dûrgrimst Quan, but he gathered from Gannel’s
responses that, in some indirect way, she had implied that the dwarf gods
did not exist, questioned the mental capacity of every dwarf who entered a
temple, and pointed out what she took to be flaws in their reasoning— all in
a pleasant and polite voice.”

And yet, somehow, we are expected to agree and sympathise with her. This segment is particularly annoying because it assumes that the reader will
automatically side with Arya… even though there is no reason given to do so. In fact this part is a collossal misjudgement on Paolini’s part, as it does nothing more than offend people with religious beliefs and also make Arya appear rude and self-righteous.
I found the argument interesting, as it showed where each chararter stands when it comes to religion. The fact that Arya is a better debater is irrevelant.
quote:

Later on, the subject comes up again when Eragon asks Oromis about what the elves believe in:

“And you don’t put stock in gods.”
“We give credence only to that which we can prove exists. Since we
cannot find evidence that gods, miracles, and other supernatural things are
real, we do not trouble ourselves about them. If that were to change, if
Helzvog were to reveal himself to us, then we would accept the new
information and revise our position.”
“It seems a cold world without something... more.”
“On the contrary,” said Oromis, “it is a better world. A place where
we are responsible for our own actions, where we can be kind to one
another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of
being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment. I won’t
tell you what to believe, Eragon. It is far better to be taught to think
critically and then be allowed to make your own decisions than to have
someone else’s notions thrust upon you. You asked after our religion, and I
have answered you true. Make of it what you will.”

It could hardly be more clear which side Paolini is on here. The fact that he appears to be unaware that moralistic writing is unlikely to win him any admiration speaks volumes about his ignorance about writing for an audience. Whether you agree with him or not, it is hard to feel anything but irritation over having these morals forced down your throat. Again, this is something a more seasoned and talented writer would know better than to do.
And yet later, an actual god shows up. Paulini doess not reveal wich side he is in, but rather what side the characters are in. Just because Elves are anti-religious does not mean he is trying to convince us into being so. He was trying to show that Elves were like modern day scientists.
quote:

The final and most sweeping problem of all is this: the Inheritance series is simply boring. What with the emotionless writing, shallow world and characters, and forced, obviously morality, the books simply collapse in on themselves and become tedious. If the reader does not care about Eragon or his struggle against the Empire, then there is no reason to read on. In reading Eragon and Eldest, all the reader can summon is, at best, vague curiosity. Capping this off are other problems – the slow pacing, the needlessly meandering plot, the black and white morality (evil is always ugly and black, good is always beautiful and shining white), and the forced and ridiculously archaic dialogue. All this put together does not make for a gripping read.
This is not another problem, this is a sumary of the other problems, your conclusion. The urgals are ugly, yet they are not all bad. And where in the book does white come as a good color? The way I see it, blue represents all that is good in that book.




khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/9/2009 8:16:46)

Arzamol:
quote:

He has fans. It does not matter what the fancy people have to say, if a book is popular, its good writing.


Please read this post by Falerin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falerin

Warning: The following post may offend you slightly. If it does be sure to read the follow up post below!

If you hate something because of how hyped it is... You are a big fat hypocrite!

Well if you hate it JUST for that reason alone you are a hypocrite anyway.

Think about it... if you are making a conscious choice to dislike something JUST because people around you like it. Then you are just as guilty of feeling without thinking. As the individual who automatically likes things because they are popular.

Why is it that individuals are unwilling to assess things on their merit alone and not based on whether its TOO DAMN Popular or THE BOMB OMG!!!11!!!...

Why because our culture is lazy... and does not like to use their minds.

If you are guilty of judging something based on expectation. Have decided to hate something based on the raving fanbois. Then I urge you to use your brain... Violate your vows to yourself and enjoy something you chose to hate....

Likewise if you are guilty of liking something without thinking. I urge you to find the critical flaws in the piece you love so much....

We need people who think critically and for themselves. Not who follow a herd mentality (and both groups here... are doing so).


quote:

Galbatorix is the looming threat that is behind almost every bad thing that happened. He is a faceless shadow whose presence affects everything in Alagaesia. That is all you need to know about him.


This, I guess differs from person to person as it is subjective. Personally, I usually drift somewhere in the grey zone on the use of stereotypical pure good versus pure evil dichotomy present in archetypal fantasy/sci-fi. In the modern era, we usually expect more than what Tolkien, for example, wrote in his context. Creating an 'evil character' that is just 'pure evil' without any character or personality just seems a bit bland for my taste. I repeat, however, this comes down to personal preference.

quote:

And yet I am satisfied with the character. And not a lot of people know about the cursed girl, or at least they don't know it's his fault. Punishing him would have made people suspicious. It is important that people look up to him, he boosts morale. Also, being a dragon rider, he can do what he wants.


I seriously cannot beleive I am reading this. It seems as if you're almost implying that people who have power can do anything that they want. Please, for your sake, reconsider the implications of what you have just said. This goes further than the literary world, I'm afraid...

quote:

I found the argument interesting, as it showed where each chararter stands when it comes to religion. The fact that Arya is a better debater is irrelevant.


Oh, but it is very relevant. Paolini is trying to show us that the more intelligent, more calm and seemingly more rational character is Arya. We know, as a learned modern audience, that coral is not in fact, 'living, growing rock,' but made up of colonies of small aquatic wildlife called polyps. The fact that the Dwarven priest in question explodes as soon as he was questioned about his fate sets up a bad generalization - that all people of faith are close-minded and are also prone to throwing random tantrums. This would count for Arya too, as she, and the rest of the elves, beleive that everything can be explained naturally, even those they can't currently explain, such as the seeming of the Dwarven God Helzvog (I think he was called that) during the coronation ceremony of Orik.

But what irks me the most is that Arya wears a smile on her face when the Dwarven Priest attempted to defend his belief. I keep visualizing that as a self-satisfied smirk, an I'm-more-superior-than-you-are type of smirk. Either way, it's still disconcerting when someone is laying down their faith on the line, only for their audience to wear smug looks. However, take this smile, as you will. For me, in this particular context, the smile was followed by the line: "questioned the mental capacity of every dwarf who entered a
temple". Questioning the mental capacity... in other, more simpler terms, this would simply mean insulting the intelligence of. A smile is definitely not sincere when followed with the comment "I think you and all of the people like you are somewhat mentally challenged, dearie."

quote:

This is not another problem, this is a sumary of the other problems, your conclusion. The urgals are ugly, yet they are not all bad. And where in the book does white come as a good color? The way I see it, blue represents all that is good in that book.


This article was written before the Urgals were given a heart, and were portrayed as savage animals, which is, to my knowledge, around Eragon and the better half of Eldest. I agree, however, that Eragon is not simply a black/white morality as this article conveys it to be. I don't get the blue reference though, maybe an allusion to Saphira?




Falerin -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/9/2009 8:56:49)

I believe you are trying to quote one of the two of us out of context Khalim.

I certainly do not think Arzamol is suggesting that having fans makes Paolini a good writier. He is rather stating he has fans and is a good writer technically.

Personally I am a fan of Paolini's simplicity with Eragon. I believe it belies what is actually going on internally with the Character of Eragons mind as the series progresses. I will withhold ultimate judgement until the sequel to Brisingr has been read. I am purposely not reading Brisingr either until I have done so. I will do this becuase the one sin Paolini is guitly of is Epic Writing. And in Epic writing the peices can only stand or fall compared to the unity.

Though I think that Brom, Roran (in later books), Galbatorix (yes Galbatorix. I do not think he is the faceless Sauron people make him out to be at all... I think he is twisted and tormented and quite evil and I think he is characterized as much in the characters of Mozran and Murtagh as he is in his own apperance. When he does ultimately appear Paolini must actually be very carefull to not be too heavy handed because of the way he has been built up), and especially Murtagh are actually very well written.

And while Paolini is derivative (and arguably most speculative fiction is) his moral quandries are given a new spin.

Eragon raises some startling questions about free will versus predestination that are very very important.

I am fairly sure we all have them telescoped toward the end though. We all think Murtagh will escape and Eragon will be forced to move outside Algaesia

And indeed thats likely... but the question is worth asking none the less. And quite interestingly young readers are satisfied by the contraditction. THough in one case Eragons will is violated beyond escaping while in another Murtagh is presumably freed from it...We call Eragon destiny and we call Murtagh and unnatural violation.

I do not think its accidental on Paolini's part that Murtagh is the more developed character. He needs to be for the two possible endings to the conundrum presented.

Ultimately some important moral questions are raised.

Imagine for a moment Paolini shocks us all by going the tragedy route and it is Eragon who breaks his fate but that Murtagh does not escape enslavement before the books end....

That could make a compelling story but boy I can imagine the backlash would be horrendous.

Sort of like the backlash to the end of the Dark Tower Series.

And I am sorry but I have to reply to at least one other post here

quote:

He is no Martin of Jordan



And thank heavens for the latter. I thought the goal was to be less boring and terribly dull.... and people clearly are noting he is getting there already. Jordan is the master of excessive verbiage and affected ennui.




Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/9/2009 12:28:26)

Meh, sucks to be neutral. I end up arguing against both sides, haha.

Nothing to say about Fal's analysis of theme, since I haven't read that far.

Though it is arguable that Paolini was being preachy about atheism, I think many people are blowing that single Arya vs. drawf scene out of proportion. Think: You're taking /one/ atheist character's argument with /one/ pious character and saying that said characters represent atheism and piousness as a whole. So any author that has a single character that can be seen as having unfortunate implications is guilty of being preachy? So... since most of the members of Roland's Ka-tet are male, Stephen King is sexist? Because many movies have a few black characters as bad guys, all those directors are racist? And... oh, right, I have some timid women in my works, but I've been accused to being /too/ feminist in real life. I guess I'm a walking talking oxymoron, right?

Oh, crap, that above paragraph sounded more sarcastic than I intended. I meant it humourously; my apologies if it sounded blunt.

On the other side of the coin: Murtagh is pretty cool, but his coolness does not excuse Eragon from being a pretty terrible character. And I think you're taking Arzamol's statements too far, Khalim, though I can see where you got there impression. Eragon certainly /cannot/ do whatever he wants--not in my book (bad pun). But readers have the right to be satisfied with the character, even if other people (Khalim, myself) are not at all satisfied.

Oh, I wrote that, Fal? I had to go back and scan to find it. Oh, I agree that Jordan describes setting /too much/, especially if he's indoors, and I have /many/ objections to his story (everything from portraying women as radical feminists that need to be overpowered to dragging the plot out like a rubber band threatening to snap while the author plays endless ping-pong). I only brought his name out because he is (generally) a fairly respected fantasy writer of recent years that would be a more valid measuring stick for Paolini than Tolkien is. I was only saying that Jordan surpasses Paolini in many aspects, and in those aspects, Paolini certainly can learn a few things. But of course, he shouldn't copy Jordan's bad points, of which I am entirely aware of. There's a reason I stopped reading Wheel of Time...




Arzamol -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/9/2009 14:49:32)

quote:

I seriously cannot beleive I am reading this. It seems as if you're almost implying that people who have power can do anything that they want. Please, for your sake, reconsider the implications of what you have just said. This goes further than the literary world, I'm afraid...
I was just saying that he has a dragon, a fire breathing dragon. Plus he is a magician and good swordsman. The only people who can punish him are Galbatorix and Mutagh (and that tree...), and if they were to get their hands on him, then hope is lost.

Also, he messed up. It was an honest mistake and people forgave him for it. Thats how the world should be.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying he should do anything he wants, I'm saying he can. With great power comes great responsibility.

quote:

I agree, however, that Eragon is not simply a black/white morality as this article conveys it to be. I don't get the blue reference though, maybe an allusion to Saphira?
To the new sword and to both Saphiras.
quote:

Meh, I don't think there's anything wrong with having an opinion, though I agree that the elves (and Eragon) are somewhat unbelievable and hypocritical--they don't eat me but wear leather and kill enemies on the battlefield ruthlessly?
In war its do or die. Eragon doesnt (where does that ' go?) go around killing people randomly, nor does he support killing animals for food. He only kills when nessesary, and that nessesity comes a lot during war.




Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/9/2009 17:39:08)

Admittedly, I haven't read far enough to debate with you on whether the war-killing was justified. I just find it odd that someone can muster up the ruthlessness to kill humans but can't bring themselves to eat animals. Not saying if it's right or not; it's just odd. And I wonder if you have anything to say about the leather? If they can't bring themselves to eat animals, why can they bring themselves to make said animals into clothing?

Again, my comment wasn't about morality. It was about realism and plausibility.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.171875