Eragon

I know i shouldn't ask the obvious, but :
Why are most of you again Eragon

it's not thaat bad...

The reason it's so unbelievably bad is, mostly, because it's just an imitation of other, better, works. The plot mirrors Star Wars, practically scene for scene, well the world itself is almost an exact replica of Middle-Earth. He tries to write in a style reminiscent of JRR Tolkein's, which isn't a good idea anyway, as any book without the huge wealth of world, culture and language that was present in LOTR, that is written in that style is going to be boring, difficult and pointless to read. None of us have any problems with borrowing certain ideas from other writers. It's when you take whole worlds and plot concepts that you're in trouble.

Baroness Ink wrote:

Chris Paolini wrote:
The real torture with Eragon came in the editing. I discovered that editing is really another word for someone ruthlessly tearing apart your work with a big smile, all the while telling you that it will make the book so much better. And it did, though it felt like splinters of hot bamboo being driven into my tender eyeballs.

Get a clue, idiot. It's bitter reality. Just because your father pulled all the strings doesn't mean you get to escape all the realities of publishing.

It makes you wonder, doesn't it? If the book is better after all the "tearing apart" how bad was it to begin with?

BrokenSword wrote:I am also bothered by Christopher's bragging and assumptions that he is the only teenager to write two novels by age 21. I have seen FAR better work written by younger writers on YWS.

I know, he seems to think he's this amazing child writer, better than the rest of us. It's never occurred to him that any old fool who could string a few sentences together, who's born into a publishing family would be able to get published. And marketing played a big part in his "success" as well. What really irritates me is when he says things like this:

Within the pages of this book is a whole land, Alagaësia, for you explore. You may take fancy to Tronjheim, the city-mountain the dwarves have built, or perhaps the mysterious forest Du Weldenvarden. Either way, there are more than enough marvels here for even the most accustomed reader of fantasy.

Marvels? Please, don't make me laugh. It's OK to borrow Tolkein's ideas on a dwarf city, but to dub them as your own? Now that is going way too far.

Three cheers for KazSmurf. I was just wondering how large the Eragon fanbase was, so I could compare it to other books and authors. Does anyone know?

Well, the series has its own Wikia.

When people started to read Paolini's books, many critisized the plot plans. People claimed that this book was to much like earthsea books(refering to Ancient Language), and Brom was too much like Obi-wan from star wars. These critisims were not nessesary, for some books are the same. If some books were not the same, then people would not find as many books that they liked. Take for example, Earthsea. If you like Earthsea, then you most likely will like Paolini's inheritence trilogy. If you like inheritence, then you'll probably like Earthsea.

- http://inheritance.wikia.com/wiki/Inheritance_trilogy

Yeah, I might take their point more seriously if they knew how to use correct grammar. XD

At any rate, I do intend to get my hands on a copy of Eragon and give it a go. I'm curious what all the fuss (from both sides of the fence) is all about about.

Eragon is all right but Star Wars is a lot better.
I on Fan Force board thir are a lot better writers then Poalini.
www.shutugal.com

Has a lot of opions and Fan Fics.
Lanna

Sohini wrote:I know i shouldn't ask the obvious, but :
Why are most of you again Eragon

it's not thaat bad...

It's not so much for me that the writing is flat and boring, there is no character development, the only good characters are copied from other original works, *stops self in mid-rant* I could go on for hours, but what really annoys me is how Paolini takes credit for other authors ideas as if they're his. He acts like he's the next Tolkien, but then again, he probably thinks he is. Someone really should tell him in person that the only thing that makes his books remotely good (although many people, including me, could argue otherwise) is that he took bits and pieces of other works, put them all together in a book, and slapped his name on it.

I know about 95% of you on here really don't like Eragon and Eldest, but I loved them. The movie was shockingly bad however. I am really looking forward to Book 3.

I don't care how similar people say it is to Star Wars and LOTR. I loved it.

That's alright and I respect the way you think. However, I have one question: why? I just want to know what made you like them so much.

Like I said, I honestly think most people that DID like the books liked them because the characters were well drawn, and were identifiable. That's what I think, anyway.

snap wrote:Like I said, I honestly think most people that DID like the books liked them because the characters were well drawn, and were identifiable. That's what I think, anyway.

But, in all honesty, I didn't find any of them well drawn, or identifiable. Eragon was just a brat, totally flawless. Paolini thinks he's a brilliant writer, but he can't make a believable main character. He's so damn "noble" you really wouldn't think twice about whacking him round the head with his own book. Brom's boring, we don't really see that much of Arya, although we know she's another "perfect" character. Murtagh (sp?) is perhaps the only well thought out character in there.

Still, Arya is one smart chick for not falling for Eragon.

If the characters were identifiable, I feel it is only because they have been used so many times the readers can relate them to other, well-drawn characters.

While the lack of complexity on the character's part did bother me, what bothered me even more was the lack of growth in each character throughout the novel. Arya and Brom were extremely static characters, and while Eragon did suddenly become courageous towards the end of the book, I felt there was very little explanation or description of his journey towards being courageous. The one character who was believable dynamic and intrigued me was Murtagh.

Still, Arya is one smart chick for not falling for Eragon.

She is. I think I will be sick if she does end up falling for him (unless Eragon undergoes some very serious character changes.)

KazSmurf wrote:

snap wrote:Like I said, I honestly think most people that DID like the books liked them because the characters were well drawn, and were identifiable. That's what I think, anyway.

But, in all honesty, I didn't find any of them well drawn, or identifiable. Eragon was just a brat, totally flawless. Paolini thinks he's a brilliant writer, but he can't make a believable main character. He's so damn "noble" you really wouldn't think twice about whacking him round the head with his own book. Brom's boring, we don't really see that much of Arya, although we know she's another "perfect" character. Murtagh (sp?) is perhaps the only well thought out character in there.

I couldn't agree more. Paolini obviously doesn't know enough about people in general to make a convincing and relatable character.

Paolini doesn't know how to foil.

Or can't write a character smart enough to really contrast Eragon XD

He's probably never heard the word 'foil', in the literary sense.