Poll: Who's excited for the new Christopher Paolini book then? [Discussion may contain spoilers]

[Yosato]

Really looking forward to it; I think the series gets way more stick than it deserves; sure the series is flawed, but all my criticisms of it didn't stop me from enjoying it immensely.

 

[Yosato]

Also, it comes out 3 days before Skyrim - I think I'm just gonna hole myself up in my room for like a week and emerge as an elf or something

 

[CaptainTrilby]

I remember reading the books when I was in junior school and thinking they were the best books ever. Going back and reading them now, they are just mediocre at best. Plagarised tat looking back on it.

Read some Terry Pratchett or something along those lines, some good fantasy fiction.

 

[snappydog]

I'mma have to read it because I loved the first book at the time, and now I need to know how it ends. The series as a whole hasn't been overly entrancing for me lately though, I have to say. Suspect I might have forgotten what's happened by the time I read Inheritance.

In fact, that might be why the series in general has seemed a bit slow to me: simply because they took SO LONG to release. If they hadn't, I think I'd still enjoy all the books.

 

[Silas13013]

I enjoy them an my grandkids do as well so I can say with almost complete certainty that I will be reading it to them before bedtime when they come to visit.
And let me clarify my enjoyment of the series, I enjoy it because it is simple, yet engaging t those with an open mind. Thought provoking? No. Original? Only if you see a cake as original when you followed the instructions in a cook book. But it's an easy read and I can easily read the entire series in 4 nights.
I can also see why the 3rd book garners so much hate. From what I remember, the 3rd book was the end of the series, until he started working on it and ended up with something along the lines of a nine hundred page book, which he determined was too long and split it in half. Hence the rather padded and unsatisfactory ending which offered no closure whatsoever and actually devalued one of the largest threats (shades) by

Spoiler

introducing and killing one within a few chapters, one which supposedly stronger than Durza and could have possibly destroyed the entire army if not for the extremely pathetic way in which he died.

All in all, I enjoy the series and will enjoy reading the final book to my grandkids.


Also, someone mentioned earlier that only bad hunters will stalk an animal for 3 days. This person has obviously never been big game bow hunting before, as the stalk can take upwards of a week depending on how far away the animal is. When your time is limited and you haven't been baiting an area (like most hunters do today) it can take quite a while before an animal shows up, and if you know the migratory route of the creature, following it can be the fastest way to bag your game, rather than waiting on luck for a stray to cross your path.

 

[lovest harding]

sorry, internet is crap, first part of this was a double post.

See above comment. I don't think Twilight is poorly written. I don't think it's amazingly well written either, but it's definitely solid.

I find the writing to be completely novice at best (and fanfiction fangirl at worst). I'll even admit that I can be snobbish and nitpicky about the quality of writing because of the subject matter. But her characters are flat at best and her plot takes an entire book to start.
But even if you don't agree, would you say that Twilight deserves the amount of praise and attention it has received over other books that came out at a similar period of time?
Even if you consider the writing solid, I don't see how anyone can look at the books and say that they deserve the attention they've received and the sheer praise that can be seen by countless admirers, especially over other books aimed at similar age groups with similar themes (Gemma Doyle Trilogy comes to mind, books that received fame but nothing close to the rabid fangirlism like Twilight).
And that is my original point. Success does not equal quality.

I do not think that success is a true test of quality. I do agree that it didn't deserve the praise it got. But i do think it's indicative. Pure crap is never gonna be popular. amazing is never gonna be completely ignored. but the middle ground can end up anywhere, that's what I think.

I think people can find quality in anything if they're looking for it. My original point is that success isn't a qualifier for quality. You cannot simply look at the success of Eragon and gauge its quality (which I said to the statement "The best-seller's list and national success would seem to work against you." which in itself was a response to someone saying the quality of the Eragon books was bad). Whether bad or good, the fact is that it's impossible to look at a books and say "It sold 2 million copies in two days that means it's an amazing book."
Success and quality are two entirely separate entities. One cannot dictate the other because success depends solely on amount of books sold while quality depends solely on the author. Sure quality can and does influence success, BUT that success is not dependent on quality.

 

[Scrubiii]

-snip-

snip

I will admit your points are well argued, but I defy you to find a high fantasy character who doesn't fit those definitions by the end.

as to learning too fast, he's facing a rider who's been around for over 100 years, and who cheats. he kinda has to or the story makes no sense. That's not a mark against it. "oh really, you mean a fantasy story is unrealistic because it has to be? How ever can you stand it." The only way that would be a mark against it if he learned to read in 5 years and became a master swordsman in 1, then it would be confusing. Rand beats 2 Heron-marked swordsman less than a year after beginning to learn. It happens, it has to for an author to allow his main character to start standing up for himself. Ok, so it doesn't have to, but you get my point.

Spoiler: Wheel of Time spoilers?

The difference is that Rand is the reincarnation of the Dragon reborn, and it is repeatedly established that he inherited a large portion of his predecessors knowledge and skills.
There's no justification for why Eragon learns fast other than how superior to mere mortals he is.

 

[spartan231490]

-snip-

snip

I will admit your points are well argued, but I defy you to find a high fantasy character who doesn't fit those definitions by the end.

as to learning too fast, he's facing a rider who's been around for over 100 years, and who cheats. he kinda has to or the story makes no sense. That's not a mark against it. "oh really, you mean a fantasy story is unrealistic because it has to be? How ever can you stand it." The only way that would be a mark against it if he learned to read in 5 years and became a master swordsman in 1, then it would be confusing. Rand beats 2 Heron-marked swordsman less than a year after beginning to learn. It happens, it has to for an author to allow his main character to start standing up for himself. Ok, so it doesn't have to, but you get my point.

Spoiler: Wheel of Time spoilers?

The difference is that Rand is the reincarnation of the Dragon reborn, and it is repeatedly established that he inherited a large portion of his predecessors knowledge and skills.
There's no justification for why Eragon learns fast other than how superior to mere mortals he is.

I don't think that argument really holds water. He can't access that reliably or consciously until much later in the series. I'm talking in the first couple of books, he does that all on his own without the help of what you mentioned. The reason he learns so fast prolly has something to do with his Father's blood and the fact that Lan is teaching him.

 

[spartan231490]

-snip-

snip

I will admit your points are well argued, but I defy you to find a high fantasy character who doesn't fit those definitions by the end.

as to learning too fast, he's facing a rider who's been around for over 100 years, and who cheats. he kinda has to or the story makes no sense. That's not a mark against it. "oh really, you mean a fantasy story is unrealistic because it has to be? How ever can you stand it." The only way that would be a mark against it if he learned to read in 5 years and became a master swordsman in 1, then it would be confusing. Rand beats 2 Heron-marked swordsman less than a year after beginning to learn. It happens, it has to for an author to allow his main character to start standing up for himself. Ok, so it doesn't have to, but you get my point.

Spoiler: Wheel of Time spoilers?

The difference is that Rand is the reincarnation of the Dragon reborn, and it is repeatedly established that he inherited a large portion of his predecessors knowledge and skills.
There's no justification for why Eragon learns fast other than how superior to mere mortals he is.

I don't think that argument really holds water. He can't access that reliably or consciously until much later in the series. I'm talking in the first couple of books, he does that all on his own without the help of what you mentioned. The reason he learns so fast prolly has something to do with his Father's blood and the fact that Lan is teaching him.

 

[spartan231490]

-snip-

snip

I will admit your points are well argued, but I defy you to find a high fantasy character who doesn't fit those definitions by the end.

as to learning too fast, he's facing a rider who's been around for over 100 years, and who cheats. he kinda has to or the story makes no sense. That's not a mark against it. "oh really, you mean a fantasy story is unrealistic because it has to be? How ever can you stand it." The only way that would be a mark against it if he learned to read in 5 years and became a master swordsman in 1, then it would be confusing. Rand beats 2 Heron-marked swordsman less than a year after beginning to learn. It happens, it has to for an author to allow his main character to start standing up for himself. Ok, so it doesn't have to, but you get my point.

Spoiler: Wheel of Time spoilers?

The difference is that Rand is the reincarnation of the Dragon reborn, and it is repeatedly established that he inherited a large portion of his predecessors knowledge and skills.
There's no justification for why Eragon learns fast other than how superior to mere mortals he is.

I don't think that argument really holds water. He can't access that reliably or consciously until much later in the series. I'm talking in the first couple of books, he does that all on his own without the help of what you mentioned. The reason he learns so fast prolly has something to do with his Father's blood and the fact that Lan is teaching him.

 

[Pappeska]

I liked the first book, but I've grown as a reader. The last book was more annoying than interesting. But I guess I want to know how it ends, if I buy the book or just skim through it somewhere.

Oh, and the fact he had to write a fourth book to wrap it up. It annoys me because in my books it says 'Trilogy' now if I buy the fourth, I may have to buy new copies of the others just to get it right.

 

[Condor219]

No, I'm not going to be buying it. If I see it somewhere, sure I'll read it, if only to see where he's taken the plot from this point (hoping that he did something non-cliche for the climax).

Oh, and to all you people who are saying, "Oh, tons of books rip off Star Wars and Lord of the Rings". A few things is wrong with that; using one or two archetypes from Star Wars or LotR would be fine, because they existed before them. But for those works that copy a large chunk of their plot from them (or from any other pre-existing book for that matter); are any of those actually good?

Having an old mentor does NOT equal being a farm boy who discovered some old order of warriors, who eventually becomes the world's only chance for survival aided by a small rebellion and a mentor who eventually dies after adequately teaching the young hope all the things he needs to save the world. Tons of books have mentors, but what he's done is beyond that.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I liked the first book, but I've grown as a reader. The last book was more annoying than interesting. But I guess I want to know how it ends, if I buy the book or just skim through it somewhere.

Oh, and the fact he had to write a fourth book to wrap it up. It annoys me because in my books it says 'Trilogy' now if I buy the fourth, I may have to buy new copies of the others just to get it right.

That's not what happened at all, the third book, was going to be too long to fit all of the things he wanted to put in it, so he cut it in half and made 2 books, kind of like what they did with the last Harry Potter movie

 

[Pappeska]

I liked the first book, but I've grown as a reader. The last book was more annoying than interesting. But I guess I want to know how it ends, if I buy the book or just skim through it somewhere.

Oh, and the fact he had to write a fourth book to wrap it up. It annoys me because in my books it says 'Trilogy' now if I buy the fourth, I may have to buy new copies of the others just to get it right.

That's not what happened at all, the third book, was going to be too long to fit all of the things he wanted to put in it, so he cut it in half and made 2 books, kind of like what they did with the last Harry Potter movie

That's bad writing/planning on the authors part.

 

[Jegsimmons]

meh, ive never read anyof them, but from what i hear the first story is very similar to A New Hope in basic plot...i dont know they just dont seem to be anything ill enjoy while reading at night.

 

[Mcmuffin]

i loved the books when they first came out when i was a kid but now as ive grown ive realized that the books arent very..well good. however i will be reading the 4th one just for the sake of finding out the end, although i imagine it will be something like "and then eragon stabbed galbotrix through the heart with his sword of flaming flamingyness....and then everyone lived happily for the rest of their lives"

 

[w00tage]

I read about halfway through the second book.

When it came out.

Haven't touched one of the books since.

Chalk me up as "Not in the slightest".

In all fairness, CP and co have admitted that the second book wasn't good in their eyes either. CP was a growing teenager and a growing author, so there's plenty of reason for that.

I will say that the third book was a great improvement and is the best of the three imo.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I liked the first book, but I've grown as a reader. The last book was more annoying than interesting. But I guess I want to know how it ends, if I buy the book or just skim through it somewhere.

Oh, and the fact he had to write a fourth book to wrap it up. It annoys me because in my books it says 'Trilogy' now if I buy the fourth, I may have to buy new copies of the others just to get it right.

That's not what happened at all, the third book, was going to be too long to fit all of the things he wanted to put in it, so he cut it in half and made 2 books, kind of like what they did with the last Harry Potter movie

That's bad writing/planning on the authors part.

And you know exactly how long each of your books are going to be before you write them? It can happen to anyone Orson Scott Card originally intended for Xenocide and Children of the Mind to be one book, and he quickly realized that it was going to be to long and he couldn't fit everything he wanted in just one book. It has nothing to do with planing its how the plot and characters grow while you are writing it

 

[Bobbity]

- Fantastic post, but snipped for space. -

I will admit your points are well argued, but I defy you to find a high fantasy character who doesn't fit those definitions by the end.

Everyone in A Song of Ice and Fire, save Daenerys? That's not the point, however. It doesn't matter what other authors do; if a series' main character has no more depth than a Mary Sue, then you have a serious problem. The fact is that Eragon is a two-dimensional character, and not because he was intentionally written that way. You get the sense that Christopher Paolini wanted to make him a living, breathing person, but lacked the ability to do so.

I don't think that argument really holds water. He [Rand] can't access that reliably or consciously until much later in the series. I'm talking in the first couple of books, he does that all on his own without the help of what you mentioned. The reason he learns so fast prolly has something to do with his Father's blood and the fact that Lan is teaching him.

Rand begins training with the blade in Emond's Field, continued through Shienar, and all the Great Hunt, before he encountered his first blademaster. He was being taught by the best swordsman of the age - for the most part - and it was established that the Flame and the Void were key to his success. I'm not totally sure that it's defensible, but at least it's something.



Eragon, on the other hand, becomes a master swordsman in, what, five pages? He then seemingly stops training - save with Vanir - and his incredible skills are taken for granted for the rest of the series. If the speed with which Rand came to his skill is somewhat unbelievable, then Eragon is decidedly ludicrous.

Let's boil it down further: Weak youth gains power and accomplishes great things. Hey look, it's every high fantasy ever written, they must all be rip-offs.

Of course, that's a silly argument and nobody would seriously offer it. You may taker issue with the more specific points which are pretty heavily derived from one specific source, but that does not facilitate a silly, over-the-top argument. Well, it readily facilitates it, but it's rather uncalled for.

We're not talking a few generic plot points, we're talking a good chunk of the series, point by point. You say yourself you've seen those lists.

I've also seen the same arguments about another dozen books, none of which are rip-offs in my opinion. His premise is similar, it happens in a world with this much entertainment, that is going to result in similar plot structure. I see the differences as being more significant than the similarities.[/quote]
What differences? The blue flaming sword and the silver mark on Eragon's hand are out of the Belgariad, the system of magic is that of A Wizard of Earthsea's smashed together with the Belgariad's, an entire scene in the first book is copied almost word for word from the Elenium, the world - and, indeed, many of the places, spelled identically, is ripped from the Lord of the Rings, while the plot is straight out of Star Wars. The idea of Dragonriders is taken, no, stolen, from the Dragonriders of Pern, and even the changes worked on Eragon in Eldest are simply those worked upon Tomas in Magician - even to the point that they were both changed by dragon magic.

Nothing, I repeat nothing in Eragon is original. It's all taken from better authors, and badly merged into a single work. Prove me wrong.

One of the main characters from Eldest onwards - Roran - was ripped directly from Wheel of Time. Roran is a carbon copy of Perrin - the beard, the hammer and the axe, the unwilling leadership, the defence of the protagonist's hometown, his leading the hometown to join the protagonist in war, and the moral uncertainty.

Ok.

Spoiler

Favorite character is probably Arya, favorite moment is definitely when Roran kills almost 200 soldiers.

Doesn't that strike you as at all ridiculous? He killed two hundred soldiers in a single battle?

 

[Sandernista]

I liked the first book, but I've grown as a reader. The last book was more annoying than interesting. But I guess I want to know how it ends, if I buy the book or just skim through it somewhere.

Oh, and the fact he had to write a fourth book to wrap it up. It annoys me because in my books it says 'Trilogy' now if I buy the fourth, I may have to buy new copies of the others just to get it right.

That's not what happened at all, the third book, was going to be too long to fit all of the things he wanted to put in it, so he cut it in half and made 2 books, kind of like what they did with the last Harry Potter movie

That's bad writing/planning on the authors part.

And you know exactly how long each of your books are going to be before you write them? It can happen to anyone Orson Scott Card originally intended for Xenocide and Children of the Mind to be one book, and he quickly realized that it was going to be to long and he couldn't fit everything he wanted in just one book. It has nothing to do with planing its how the plot and characters grow while you are writing it

You mentioned OSC. You are now my friend (Note, I only like his books, not his politics)

Ooh, have you read the ASoIaF books too?