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

Shaktar

New member
Mar 6, 2010
4
0
0
As far as youth fantasy goes, the series was... okay. I might read the fourth one just for closure. I would recommend reading the Joust series by Mercedes Lackey and the Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan. Joust series is a dragon fantasy, and the Wheel of Time starts with a simple plot and then builds up, so it's great for people new to big fantasy series.
 

PowerC

New member
Feb 28, 2011
218
0
0
Anchupom said:
So I've recently pre-ordered Inheritance (The fourth book by Christopher Paolini, after Eragon, Eldest, and Brisingr) and I've just finished re-reading his series so far. I'm in love with the world of Alagaësia, Eragon's quest, Murtagh's future, what will happen in the fight against Galbatorix, and everything else.
This book excites me more than the last 3 Harry Potter film releases combined. I just can't wait.

So in addition to the poll, what do you think about the books? Who's your favourite character? Favourite moment? Speculation on what will happen in Inheritance? I want this to be a full-blown discussion about the series, and I hope at least SOME Escapists will answer me.

If you're interested, here's the cover for Inheritance:

And please please please, if you've seen the film "Eragon", read the book! It's SO much better!​
Its a great series and I couldn't wait for this book like two years ago, I hadnt even heard it was coming out Christopher Paolini took a Loooooonng time to finish it
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Anchupom said:
spartan231490 said:
That's your opinion. The best-seller's list and national success would seem to work against you. As for being too young. Mozart wrote one of the worlds most praised compositions at what: 7? obviously, 15 is not too young for artistic achievement. Leann Rimes was a remarkably successful musician at 15. I'm sure I could find more examples if I tried, but I feel no desire to. Achievement has nothing to do with age. Joan of Arc died when she was 15 years old.
Sorry dude, I'm all for defending Paolini, but this argument holds little water. Being able to write/play music is a talent that doesn't really require worldly experience, something which writing can need. So his argument that he was too young when writing Eragon is logical.
I don't accept your premise that writing requires more life experience than writing music. I also don't accept your premise that life experience is so conveniently wrapped up in the number we use to express our age, look at Joan of Arc.. I am also almost entirely convinced that you could find a writer who was 15 or younger who wrote a book that is praised as being amazingly written. Or even a classic.
 

Cpu46

Gloria ex machina
Sep 21, 2009
1,604
0
0
zedel said:
Honestly, as long as Roran doesn't become a dragon rider, I'll be pleased. I can't stand Roran for some reason...
Same wish, different reason.

I like Roran as a character. He doesn't have the immense power that Eragon possesses. When he gets injured he cant just suck the energy out of a nearby family of rabbits, heal himself, then angst over the poor rabbits for a week. If he becomes a Rider then he looses this one shred of weakness, and I tend to feel more attached to characters when there is a legitimate threat of them dyeing.

I say some minor character gets the dragon. Nasuada or Katrina have my vote. If Arya gets the dragon I will be disappointed.
 

SilverKyo

New member
Apr 15, 2009
211
0
0
Paolini could learn very well from my college writing class professor (I'm not actually going to be a writer or anything close to it, I just needed another class and the classes I actually needed weren't open): "An average writer will describe a scene plainly and normally like any other person could in a conversation. A good writer will use a wide and broad vocabulary of words and put as much detail into the scene as he can so the reader knows what's going on. An author and a great writer will use the exact and precise words needed so they can describe the scene just as well as the good writer in the same length and approachability as the average writer." This is one of the lessons that really stuck with me in that class, along with a couple others, but this one aptly describes my opinion on Paolini. He is right on the second one, a simple good writer. He got published by virtue of his parents owning a publishing company and they had a great marketing campaign that touted his writing at the age of 15 to be some actual achievement so it would sell well when in actuality, 30% of all teenagers are "writers" at 15. If you need evidence, go look at fan fiction, and I rest my case.

His writing is flat and boring. He uses big and, more importantly, unnecessary words that merely leave his readers confused as they gloss over them without a second thought and wondering why a scene makes no sense or scrambling for a dictionary every other sentence, which only serves to break the flow and immersion you're supposed to be trying to build. Call it purple prose, call it thesaurus syndrome, call it flashing your writing e-peen, it's all the same. The words make him feel better and make him feel like his writing is of a higher caliber then it actually is by simple virtue of having his expanded vocabulary. One vivid example that comes to mind his when he used the term "poniards" very early on in his first book. Who here actually knows what that term is without having to look it up? When I read that book, I was still the intended audience of said book: a young middle school student. If anyone actually knows what that word means off the top of their head (which I highly doubt), I require you submit your age and level of education, because no middle school kid knows that word. And this is one of his traits that has not improved in the slightest over the course of his writing, if anything it's gotten worse.

Then there is the overall bad structure to his writing. From sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph, page to page, chapter to chapter, every other page the reader is subjected to some form of awkward phrasing or structure that is so glaringly obvious you have to ask yourself how Paolini thought this was a good idea when, in the prologue for his story, he used the phrase "raven-haired" and "black locks" one right after the other with only a period between them. How is it necessary writing to describe black hair back to back from one sentence to the next? The structure of the books really screamed out to me as someone with desperate need for an editor, preferably with waders and pruning shears (kudos for those of you who get that reference, which should be a fair number of you). Structure is one of the main reasons why people commonly say, even on this thread, that they find his writing incredibly dull. He wastes time writing things that in no way contribute to the furthering of the story he's trying to tell. This is the other key aspect of his writing that hasn't improved in the slightest between any of the books. I'm not even going to go into his issues on showing and telling with the reader, that would take too long.

I'm gonna get out of your hair soon, don't worry, but I really just want to finish getting this off my chest. Another thing my professor taught me was, "How do you expect to write about life if you never go out and experience it?" The fact that Paolini has been home schooled his entire life shines through on his characters. Between the interactions and building of his characters, it's quite obvious Paolini doesn't have a complete grasp on how two people actually converse in a variety of settings. Every conversation and most of the personalities he writes are flat and one dimensional. The funny part is the few good characters he's actually written are side characters, with the noted exception of Murtagh who actually seems to act like something similar to a human being most of the time. All the other ones are small rolled and unimportant characters, specifically Roran and the little crazy girl Eragon cursed stick out in my mind. His main character, the protagonist of his stories, is the worst character in the entire story. Eragon is a Gary Stu author self insert who, due to the way he gets written, is also a textbook example of a sociopath, specifically antisocial personality disorder (I can prove that). His side characters have actually gotten better over the course of the series, but no part of Eragon himself has improved in the slightest, and up until the end of the third book he still has all the qualities listed above.

To those of you still reading this, I thank you, and there isn't much more. I could get into the obvious cliche's and genre abuse that toes the line of plagiarism so close it's sickening, but that's been done to death and is more commonly known and explained then the points I've listed above. From the liberal taking of major aspects of his stories from Star Wars (which he did finally manage to break out of with the third book, and partially with the second book but not entirely, I congratulate him for that) and the setting and characters from Tolkien and a couple other smaller things I'm not nearly as informed on, but that's been done before on this forum. When I had first started the books, It was when the first one came out and I was the target, some 6th or 7th (can't remember exactly) grader know nothing who loved it. When the next book came out, I was sophomore and although I had thought it was alright, I didn't pull nearly the same amount of entertainment out of it as I had the first time, even though the second books was slightly (cannot emphasize that enough) better then the first. When that third book came out, I was a senior in high school, and proceeded to re-read the entire series. As I forced my way through, I did come across the realization that the public school system isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be, because I had at least learned something since the first time I read the book. I had grown as a person, and I was happy, because I realized how absolutely atrocious the series was. As it stands, I might read the last book if I find out that the series actually ends, simply because I want closure. But if I do read it, unless Paolini has exponentially increased in his writing skill, I'll probably have to turn it into some sort of drinking game that will have to be carefully thought out so I don't die, or maybe I'll just get really high and hope I can regress to the mental state of a 6th grader and find entertainment in it.

TL;DR meh, writing blows but I might read it for closure.
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Nah, I read the first 2 books years ago, but I've moved on to better written books since then.

If you haven't read the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and it's sequals, you really should. They're in my top 5 best books I've ever read.
Explain this to me. I read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo a couple of months ago and feel it is honestly one of the worst books I have read in my life. And I read a lot. I am baffled as to how anyone can like that book.

I'm not writing this to be a troll. I would just honestly love somebody to explain to me what they feel made the book good. I could write an entire paper on exactly why the writing is weak, the story is poor and most of the characters are shallow, pointless, and two-dimensional. So please, send me a message detailing what these books did for you; the first one in particular. I would love some insight into this. :)
 

CarlsonAndPeeters

New member
Mar 18, 2009
686
0
0
My review of the series:
Eragon: Fucking amazing
Eldest: Kind of all over the place, but came together where it mattered
Brisingr: Pretentious, poorly written, and lacking in plot. Bad.

So my hopes are meh for Inheritance. I'll definitely read it, just to finish off the series, but I'm not dying with excitement because I'm fairly pessimistic as to what the outcome will be.
 

sir.rutthed

Stormfather take you!
Nov 10, 2009
979
0
0
The third book was just terrible. It turned me off to his writing altogether. I may flip through this one at the book store, but I certainly won't be giving this guy my money.

drummond13 said:
Daystar Clarion said:
Nah, I read the first 2 books years ago, but I've moved on to better written books since then.

If you haven't read the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and it's sequals, you really should. They're in my top 5 best books I've ever read.
Explain this to me. I read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo a couple of months ago and feel it is honestly one of the worst books I have read in my life. And I read a lot. I am baffled as to how anyone can like that book.

I'm not writing this to be a troll. I would just honestly love somebody to explain to me what they feel made the book good. I could write an entire paper on exactly why the writing is weak, the story is poor and most of the characters are shallow, pointless, and two-dimensional. So please, send me a message detailing what these books did for you; the first one in particular. I would love some insight into this. :)
I've never read Girl with Dragon Tattoo, but I could say the exact same thing word for word about the Shannara series. It's horrible in every way I can imagine, but for some reason there are a fair number of people who think it's great.
 

SilverKyo

New member
Apr 15, 2009
211
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Yes I do know many 15 year olds with the life experience to create a compelling story. I know a great many, especially considering how little life experience it actually takes to craft a compelling story.

Congrats, so Paolini isn't for you. Some of us are notably more effected emotionally by Paolini than by Mozart. I like his writing. I think it's good. So do all my friends who love reading.
I'm sure there can be 15 year olds with life experience. Someone who lost their mother to cancer, or had parents who died in a car crash, or spend his life in a gutter, or had a drug or abuse issues, or spend their lives partying, or getting harrassed at school, or had a life changing conversation with a teacher. Any of those could be applied to Paolini.

Except they aren't. As he's stated in various interviews (I can look this up, but please don't make me, it's late and I'm feeling lazy and am cooking and doing laundry), he's been home schooled for his life and rarely spend time outside the company of his family, and spent most of his time watching movies or reading things in books which, although informative, are NOT the same as actual life experience (read paragraph 4 of my above post).

Also please, and I am dead serious, please tell me someone who has been emotionally moved by his writing. Honestly, I find that neigh impossible to anyone sane above the age of 12. The only state Paolini's writing has ever moved me to is boredom induced coma.

spartan231490 said:
I don't accept your premise that writing requires more life experience than writing music. I also don't accept your premise that life experience is so conveniently wrapped up in the number we use to express our age, look at Joan of Arc.. I am also almost entirely convinced that you could find a writer who was 15 or younger who wrote a book that is praised as being amazingly written. Or even a classic.
Joan of Arc was almost certainly bi-polar if not slightly schizophrenic if historical texts are completely accurate (a dubious claim).

I propose a question to you: do you know what a savant is?

A savant is someone who, although normally deficient in many or most other aspects of their lives, is born with an incredibly near inhumane ability to a certain skill or knowledge. Musical talent, Photographic memory, Insane calculations they can do in their head, complete knowledge of one topic, things not normally possible like that. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a savant writer. They are not the same thing. You can't just be born with complete life experience which, although it is not required for outstanding writing, it is a very key part of it. Although, I guess there could be a savant with a complete language of the dictionary and grammar rules who could write about his unusual life up to the age of 15, but that's a loophole and besides the point. I'm rambling now...

Anyway, I would like to ask that you, please do not compare Paolini to actual geniuses of their art. I'm not saying he's completely horrible or the worst example of a writer ever, but he is not the Mozart of writing. He's slightly above average at best, and this is not an opinion. There are pointed flaws in his books that needs to be fixed. Honestly, what he really needs is a good editor and a couple revisions and his books could be really good, but they are not a golden jesus that farts diamonds.
 

JaceArveduin

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,952
0
0
Shaktar said:
As far as youth fantasy goes, the series was... okay. I might read the fourth one just for closure. I would recommend reading the Joust series by Mercedes Lackey and the Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan. Joust series is a dragon fantasy, and the Wheel of Time starts with a simple plot and then builds up, so it's great for people new to big fantasy series.
So that's why when I ended up reading books 8,9, and 10 it made my brain hurt from trying to comprehend all of the it.

But yeah, I'll end up reading it, and I hope it's worth the wait.
 

A Free Man

New member
May 9, 2010
322
0
0
an_luas said:
I had no idea what Eragon was until the film came out and I thought it was a prtetty good film (still didnt know about the series). The my grandad of all people said I was missing out and gave me all of his eragon books!
OT: I actually forgot about the new book but thanks for the reminder! will be getting this whenever i see it avaialable!
I am! I actually hated the movie though, I thought it was a poor representation of the book and couldn't stand on its own as a movie. But I love the books and it's about time the new one gets released.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
The only character I still like is Roran. Because he is basically a batshit insane blood knight caught in the middle of a rather bland series. But his story in Eldest made up for the crap the rest of the book turned out to be.
 

Araksardet

New member
Jun 5, 2011
273
0
0
I personally find his books hackish and way too reminiscent of Star Wars meets the Lord of the Rings, with stiff and cheesy dialog. I'm still sort of hoping he grows a style of his own and does something new in the last book, but I'm not counting on it.
 

lovest harding

New member
Dec 6, 2009
442
0
0
Anchupom said:
lovest harding said:
It's not high fantasy if you haven't drawn a map of every single corner of the continent (bonus points for entire world) and invented at least 3 languages (probably all based on elvish).
All fair points, and I understand where you're coming from with them. Even with the Twilight, I admit, albeit while hating myself, that Meyers was original.

Although on an attempt a humour, I think you'll find that the only language based on Elvish (which is actually an adopted lanuage anyway) is the human language, but that has parts of Dwarvish in them. Dwarvish was spoken before the Elves reached Aglaesia, and Urgals speak a language very different to Elvish and human, most similar (but still rather different to Dwarvish)

(that's why I chose that bit to quote you on, because I wanted to display my nerd-dom.)
;D
Are you talking about in the actual world of the Inheritance books?
Because I was talking about all the made up languages in all high fantasy novels were probably based on Tolkien's elvish. xD
My point being that made up languages most likely based on Tolkien's elvish language, overly thought out worlds, and some form of Tolkien's races being the only obvious qualities for modern high fantasy.
 

inFAMOUSCowZ

New member
Jul 12, 2010
1,586
0
0
I read the first two and loved them. years go by, and I get the third one. Well I am now older and read more books, as well as the Lord of the Rings books. And I can safe I only could get halfway through the third book. It honestly was crap. For younger readers I can see why they would like it. But any older I see no point. I also thought the third was the last, but oh well. If you enjoy the series great for you. I just see the books as being bad, boring, and all of that.
 

PortalThinker113

New member
Jul 13, 2010
140
0
0
The books are okay. Nothing to get in a furious rage over, but nothing really special. I used to love them quite a bit, but as the years moved on, my tastes changed, and the gaps between each book started to get ridiculous, I grew tired of the series. Looking back on the past three books, I can see how tired, cliche, and derivative they are, and I can also recognize the poorly written dialogue and character problems.

However, I still fully plan on reading Inheritance, as I have been invested in this series for too many years of my life to simply walk away when we finally might get to see how this thing ends. Hopefully, Paolini might have matured enough to be able to send the series off with a satisfying conclusion. A part of me really hopes that he might do something truly ballsy and interesting with the ending, but I don't want to get my hopes too high.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
SilverKyo said:
spartan231490 said:
Yes I do know many 15 year olds with the life experience to create a compelling story. I know a great many, especially considering how little life experience it actually takes to craft a compelling story.

Congrats, so Paolini isn't for you. Some of us are notably more effected emotionally by Paolini than by Mozart. I like his writing. I think it's good. So do all my friends who love reading.
I'm sure there can be 15 year olds with life experience. Someone who lost their mother to cancer, or had parents who died in a car crash, or spend his life in a gutter, or had a drug or abuse issues, or spend their lives partying, or getting harrassed at school, or had a life changing conversation with a teacher. Any of those could be applied to Paolini.

Except they aren't. As he's stated in various interviews (I can look this up, but please don't make me, it's late and I'm feeling lazy and am cooking and doing laundry), he's been home schooled for his life and rarely spend time outside the company of his family, and spent most of his time watching movies or reading things in books which, although informative, are NOT the same as actual life experience (read paragraph 4 of my above post).

Also please, and I am dead serious, please tell me someone who has been emotionally moved by his writing. Honestly, I find that neigh impossible to anyone sane above the age of 12. The only state Paolini's writing has ever moved me to is boredom induced coma.

spartan231490 said:
I don't accept your premise that writing requires more life experience than writing music. I also don't accept your premise that life experience is so conveniently wrapped up in the number we use to express our age, look at Joan of Arc.. I am also almost entirely convinced that you could find a writer who was 15 or younger who wrote a book that is praised as being amazingly written. Or even a classic.
Joan of Arc was almost certainly bi-polar if not slightly schizophrenic if historical texts are completely accurate (a dubious claim).

I propose a question to you: do you know what a savant is?

A savant is someone who, although normally deficient in many or most other aspects of their lives, is born with an incredibly near inhumane ability to a certain skill or knowledge. Musical talent, Photographic memory, Insane calculations they can do in their head, complete knowledge of one topic, things not normally possible like that. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a savant writer. They are not the same thing. You can't just be born with complete life experience which, although it is not required for outstanding writing, it is a very key part of it. Although, I guess there could be a savant with a complete language of the dictionary and grammar rules who could write about his unusual life up to the age of 15, but that's a loophole and besides the point. I'm rambling now...

Anyway, I would like to ask that you, please do not compare Paolini to actual geniuses of their art. I'm not saying he's completely horrible or the worst example of a writer ever, but he is not the Mozart of writing. He's slightly above average at best, and this is not an opinion. There are pointed flaws in his books that needs to be fixed. Honestly, what he really needs is a good editor and a couple revisions and his books could be really good, but they are not a golden jesus that farts diamonds.
I've been emotionally moved by his books. I'm much older than 12.

Joan of Arc being crazy doesn't change the impact she had on people.

You can have life experience from having lived a normal life, at 15.

Yes, I know what a savant is, irrelevant to the conversation. I never claimed he was a savant, I claimed that his writing is good, and you don't need to be old to create meaningful art. The only thing you need is the ability to understand and convey emotion, something which many young people are adept at.

And Christopher Paolini compares himself to geniuses of their art by his age and success, I merely pointed it out. He is a good writer. Is he the best? No. But he is well and above most writers. As I said, many people agree with me on that, people whose opinions I respect far more than yours, or anyone else's on the internet.
Writing ability is not fact. "good" writing has changed before, and it will change again. Good writing used to be long, and flowery, and overly extensive. Good writing now is concise and short, but effective. That is just one of many examples. Hell, good writing is a matter of debate and opinion, not fact.

And I don't care anymore. Christopher Paolini is a good writer, nothing you can say will change my opinion on that. Why don't we agree to disagree.