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

lovest harding

New member
Dec 6, 2009
442
0
0
spartan231490 said:
JambalayaBob said:
No offense, but the Eragon series kinda . . . sucks. I read the first one, started the second, then I stopped because I had to question why I was even reading it. I was in middle school when I read the first one btw, and I'm sure the majority of his fans were in middle school when they last read the books. I was in high school by the time I tried the 2nd one, which I'm sure is why I stopped. Point is, nostalgia doesn't make things good. Plus I got really pissed off at the map of the world because of its ridiculous inconsistencies, but that doesn't really matter too much.

Also, "Eragon is the first book in the Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini, who began writing the book at the age of 15." This sentence pisses me right the fuck off. Nobody should start writing full fledged novels at the age of 15. I tried to write a novel when I was 16, and there was a reason I didn't finish it. I didn't get burned out or anything, I just looked at it after I was quite a few thousand words in, and I humbly said to myself, "Started out okay, but this is shit," and truly, it was.

Christopher Paolini's story should be a humbling, cautionary tale for any aspiring authors. Look before you leap, but before you even look, make sure you actually know what the fuck you're doing. I think this dude really doesn't know what he's doing, especially since he was appalled at the lack of "quality writing" in fantasy when his dialogue is about as rich and nuanced as a horny 14 year old's FF7 fanfic (albeit markedly less disturbing).

TLDR: Eragon isn't good because its author is way too ambitious, and the sheer fact that this series is the only thing he's really written proves it on so many levels.
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.
Success is not a qualifier for quality.
And if you need proof, Twilight is sitting at your local library.
(I agree with your age point, though, there is no magic age where talent develops. If you have it at 30 odds are you had it at 15. Although the quality of writer, talented or not, is dependent on how much writing they've done as well as how much they have been taught or have learned by themselves.)
 

elbrandino

New member
Dec 8, 2010
267
0
0
To be frank, Paolini is a hack. He's borderline of plagiarizing Tolkien. So no, not terribly excited, but goddammit I'll buy that book and I'll read it. I hate not finishing ant series, and though I don't like to admit it, I like the Inheritance Cycle.
 

Jimmybobjr

New member
Aug 3, 2010
365
0
0
Ive rather moved on from books like these- but i have read all three, and i would like to know how the story ends.

I am looking foreward to Matthew Reillys "Scarecrow and the Army of thieves" thats coming out in october.
 

ks1234

New member
Mar 12, 2011
228
0
0
lovest harding said:
I mean, success is kinda the basis of quality... If something sucks, it won't ever succeed... Also, quality, alot of times is based off of opinion. You used the Twilight books as an example, now... don't get me wrong, the subject matter is NOT something that interests me... but, if you look only at the writing, it is a very WELL written book that definitely appeals to the masses. I don't particularly like the series (Twilight), but I can appreciate it for what it is. Now the Eragon series, I love those books, and I can also appreciate why some people hate it with a passion, you just have to chalk it up to "it's not everyone's cup of tea" then again, books RARELY IF EVER appeal to everyone...
 

ks1234

New member
Mar 12, 2011
228
0
0
elbrandino said:
To be frank, Paolini is a hack. He's borderline of plagiarizing Tolkien. So no, not terribly excited, but goddammit I'll buy that book and I'll read it. I hate not finishing ant series, and though I don't like to admit it, I like the Inheritance Cycle.
If Paolini is plagiarizing Tolken then EVERY FUCKING ONE WHO WRITES A BOOK WITH THE "STANDARD" FANTASY SETTING is plagiarizing fucking Tolken
 

Sandernista

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,302
0
0
ks1234 said:
Hafrael said:
I'll read it at barnes and nobles.

Not paying for another on of his books though
You cheap cheap bastard... lol :- P
I bought hard cover copies of the first three!

Plus I have better, more dragon-dancing related, things to buy.
 

SilverKyo

New member
Apr 15, 2009
211
0
0
spartan231490 said:
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.
I will call Paolini above average, but that's it. I find myself still in disbelief that anyone can be moved emotionally, and my knee jerk reaction is to say, "Pics or it didn't happen," but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to lay everything you said to rest as a difference of opinion.

Except one.

Did you imply that Paolini was "concise, short, and effective?"

I'm not even going to bother going into another complex explination as to exactly how wrong that statement is because I already explained that. I'm going to requote my earlier post that you either missed or decided to skip after the first paragraph. If nothing else, paragraph 2 and 3 explain very precisely how Paolini is in no way "concise, short, and effective", which I would agree is good writing, but paragraph 1 offers a nice quote and segue into those next two.

SilverKyo said:
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.
Edit: Seriously, captcha's are adds now?
 

elbrandino

New member
Dec 8, 2010
267
0
0
ks1234 said:
elbrandino said:
To be frank, Paolini is a hack. He's borderline of plagiarizing Tolkien. So no, not terribly excited, but goddammit I'll buy that book and I'll read it. I hate not finishing ant series, and though I don't like to admit it, I like the Inheritance Cycle.
If Paolini is plagiarizing Tolken then EVERY FUCKING ONE WHO WRITES A BOOK WITH THE "STANDARD" FANTASY SETTING is plagiarizing fucking Tolken
I give you these two links, good sir, and take my leave.
http://aydee.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/eragon/
http://telpenori.blogspot.com/2007/02/paolini-and-plagiarism_28.html
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
The whole premise of the other books turned me completely off. Never bothered reading any of them.
 

The_Healer

New member
Jun 17, 2009
1,720
0
0
Read the first one when I was ~13, loved it.

Read the 2nd when I was 18, not interested in the slightest.

There are a lot better fantasy writers out there.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
SilverKyo said:
spartan231490 said:
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.
I will call Paolini above average, but that's it. I find myself still in disbelief that anyone can be moved emotionally, and my knee jerk reaction is to say, "Pics or it didn't happen," but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to lay everything you said to rest as a difference of opinion.

Except one.

Did you imply that Paolini was "concise, short, and effective?"

snip
I never said that he was concise or short. I don't know that he hasn't it's been a year since I read his books, but I do think he is effective.
Honestly, the only reason I care to respond is that you say you can prove that Eragon is a sociopath. Please do. I'm very curious to see this line of reasoning.
ks1234 said:
elbrandino said:
To be frank, Paolini is a hack. He's borderline of plagiarizing Tolkien. So no, not terribly excited, but goddammit I'll buy that book and I'll read it. I hate not finishing ant series, and though I don't like to admit it, I like the Inheritance Cycle.
If Paolini is plagiarizing Tolken then EVERY FUCKING ONE WHO WRITES A BOOK WITH THE "STANDARD" FANTASY SETTING is plagiarizing fucking Tolken
Not even standard. Every single fantasy book that has ever been written can be compared to LoTR or Star Wars, and most of them are accused of blatantly ripping-off one or the other, but guess what: They aren't. Inheritance least of all.
ks1234 said:
lovest harding said:
I mean, success is kinda the basis of quality... If something sucks, it won't ever succeed... Also, quality, alot of times is based off of opinion. You used the Twilight books as an example, now... don't get me wrong, the subject matter is NOT something that interests me... but, if you look only at the writing, it is a very WELL written book that definitely appeals to the masses. I don't particularly like the series (Twilight), but I can appreciate it for what it is. Now the Eragon series, I love those books, and I can also appreciate why some people hate it with a passion, you just have to chalk it up to "it's not everyone's cup of tea" then again, books RARELY IF EVER appeal to everyone...
Glad someone beat me to this point. I wouldn't say that they are very well written, but they are well written and written for an audience. I love disney movies from the 90s and think they are amazingly well done, and many people agree. Simplicity, is not a form or poor quality.
lovest harding said:
spartan231490 said:
JambalayaBob said:
No offense, but the Eragon series kinda . . . sucks. I read the first one, started the second, then I stopped because I had to question why I was even reading it. I was in middle school when I read the first one btw, and I'm sure the majority of his fans were in middle school when they last read the books. I was in high school by the time I tried the 2nd one, which I'm sure is why I stopped. Point is, nostalgia doesn't make things good. Plus I got really pissed off at the map of the world because of its ridiculous inconsistencies, but that doesn't really matter too much.

Also, "Eragon is the first book in the Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini, who began writing the book at the age of 15." This sentence pisses me right the fuck off. Nobody should start writing full fledged novels at the age of 15. I tried to write a novel when I was 16, and there was a reason I didn't finish it. I didn't get burned out or anything, I just looked at it after I was quite a few thousand words in, and I humbly said to myself, "Started out okay, but this is shit," and truly, it was.

Christopher Paolini's story should be a humbling, cautionary tale for any aspiring authors. Look before you leap, but before you even look, make sure you actually know what the fuck you're doing. I think this dude really doesn't know what he's doing, especially since he was appalled at the lack of "quality writing" in fantasy when his dialogue is about as rich and nuanced as a horny 14 year old's FF7 fanfic (albeit markedly less disturbing).

TLDR: Eragon isn't good because its author is way too ambitious, and the sheer fact that this series is the only thing he's really written proves it on so many levels.
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.
Success is not a qualifier for quality.
And if you need proof, Twilight is sitting at your local library.
(I agree with your age point, though, there is no magic age where talent develops. If you have it at 30 odds are you had it at 15. Although the quality of writer, talented or not, is dependent on how much writing they've done as well as how much they have been taught or have learned by themselves.)
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.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Jim Grim said:
I've not read any of the others, but I've heard they're not very good.
It's a solid series, although there's a ton of "HE PLAGIARIZED IT" naysayers. Which I suppose he did, but so has every other elf-dwarf-orc fantasy series since Tolkien.

OT: Excited enough that I'll buy it. Not right away, though.
 

Z of the Na'vi

Born with one kidney.
Apr 27, 2009
5,034
0
0
I'm excited about the book, and will purchase it or receive it for Christmas, more than likely.

I also won't allow threads like this to spoil my fandom for the Inheritance series, so I shall take my leave as soon as I am done writing this post. It is one of the few things left in this world that I am able to enjoy without allowing other so called "fans" of the series to ruin everything for me.

Regardless, I look forward to the final installment, with bated breath.
 

lovest harding

New member
Dec 6, 2009
442
0
0
ks1234 said:
lovest harding said:
I mean, success is kinda the basis of quality... If something sucks, it won't ever succeed... Also, quality, alot of times is based off of opinion. You used the Twilight books as an example, now... don't get me wrong, the subject matter is NOT something that interests me... but, if you look only at the writing, it is a very WELL written book that definitely appeals to the masses. I don't particularly like the series (Twilight), but I can appreciate it for what it is. Now the Eragon series, I love those books, and I can also appreciate why some people hate it with a passion, you just have to chalk it up to "it's not everyone's cup of tea" then again, books RARELY IF EVER appeal to everyone...
It's well written? Seriously? Have you read it?
I don't know a single person over the age of 14 who would say it's well written. Even my friend who likes the series (she's 22) admits it's poorly written. Stephanie Meyer just isn't a good writer.
"He was both dazzling and dazzled."
"He leaned in slowly, the beeping noise accelerated wildly before his lips even touched me. But when they did, though with the most gentle of pressure, the beeping stopped altogether."
"He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. His glistening, pale lavender lids were shut, though of course he didn't sleep"
"As I had just that once before, I smelled his cool breath in my face. Sweet, delicious, the scent made my mouth water."
"And then we continued blissfully into this small but perfect part of our forever."
She even uses I'd've in one of the later books (I'd have to ask my friend for the exact quote) as well as another double contraction in the same book. And they weren't even in dialogue.
And we're not even talking the quality of plot (which doesn't actually begin until 300 pages into Twilight) or the sheer nonsense of her characters (the girl yearns so hard for a man who says he wants to kill her and that he needs to leave or she'll get hurt that she literally tries to bring him back to her by going into increasingly life threatening situations that are tantamount to suicide attempts).
Even her Host book (which I read an excerpt from hoping to see at least an okay writer under the bullshit and found a man who attacks and forces a woman to kiss him twice and her instinct is to say how it felt good to kiss the man who held a knife to her throat and threw canned food at her head).
Perhaps you should read the books (or at least excerpts) before you defend her writing. And if you did read them, maybe you should go back and read them more thoroughly. It's obvious that the only good writing was done by an editor (and at times even that can be sketchy).

Writing quality and appealing to a lot of people are completely different.
She is the perfect example of what finding an audience that will love what you do no matter what can do for someone.
As I said in another post, I applaud her for trying something different with her vampires. It showed some originality. But that is the only thing I can stand behind.
 

JambalayaBob

New member
Dec 11, 2010
109
0
0
spartan231490 said:
JambalayaBob said:
spartan231490 said:
JambalayaBob said:
No offense, but the Eragon series kinda . . . sucks. I read the first one, started the second, then I stopped because I had to question why I was even reading it. I was in middle school when I read the first one btw, and I'm sure the majority of his fans were in middle school when they last read the books. I was in high school by the time I tried the 2nd one, which I'm sure is why I stopped. Point is, nostalgia doesn't make things good. Plus I got really pissed off at the map of the world because of its ridiculous inconsistencies, but that doesn't really matter too much.

Also, "Eragon is the first book in the Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini, who began writing the book at the age of 15." This sentence pisses me right the fuck off. Nobody should start writing full fledged novels at the age of 15. I tried to write a novel when I was 16, and there was a reason I didn't finish it. I didn't get burned out or anything, I just looked at it after I was quite a few thousand words in, and I humbly said to myself, "Started out okay, but this is shit," and truly, it was.

Christopher Paolini's story should be a humbling, cautionary tale for any aspiring authors. Look before you leap, but before you even look, make sure you actually know what the fuck you're doing. I think this dude really doesn't know what he's doing, especially since he was appalled at the lack of "quality writing" in fantasy when his dialogue is about as rich and nuanced as a horny 14 year old's FF7 fanfic (albeit markedly less disturbing).

TLDR: Eragon isn't good because its author is way too ambitious, and the sheer fact that this series is the only thing he's really written proves it on so many levels.
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.
You're gonna say that because something's popular it's good? Well let's just take a quick peek at Twilight and see if you feel the same way. And it's less his age and far more the FACT, mind you, that he had written practically NOTHING before Eragon. The only reason I even write the word practically is because obviously he wrote for school assignments. Anyways, do you know any 15 year olds with enough life experience to craft compelling and thought provoking stories? I'd sure like to meet these people if you do.

Using someone like Mozart as an example does nothing to further your argument, instead it's a poor attempt to bring Mozart down to Paolini's level. Saying that they are even remotely close to each other is a crime. Reading Paolini's books would make me feel nothing outside of sheer boredom, whereas listening to Mozart can bring out emotions in me that I might have never experienced otherwise. Mozart was a genius, Paolini's just some dude who got lucky.

I'll list reasons why Paolini's writing is mediocre at best (and horrific at worst) if you really want me to, but for now I'll just leave it at that. You can find plenty of criticisms of him online if you spend 5 seconds of your time anyways.
How do you know how much writing he did before this. You don't have any idea how many fan-fics/short stories/poor novels/writing exercise he wrote before he wrote Eragon.

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. We have each read a quite literally insane number of books and fantasy books in particular, so I value our opinion more than yours.

If I look, I can find critisims of tolkein, or Mozart, or raising the debt ceiling if I look. That doesn't mean that those criticisms are accurate, or at all diminish the effectiveness and artistic merit of his work. I really don't care about your opinion anymore. You're saying that Mozart is an irrelevant example, and just plain ignoring the other two examples, is an evasion with no merit in a debate. an obvious and intentional evasion in a discussion speaks volumes about a persons character.
Fine, I'll give you my thoughts on your other 2 examples. Music is a completely different art than storytelling, which makes your example of Leann Rimes only a bit less redundant than Mozart. Joan of Arc wasn't an artist, and she did NOT die at 15, she died at 19 years old. Yes, she is an important historical figure, but she led an army, and in her time, it was very common for men her age to be fighting in wars. I kinda see the point you're trying to make here, but I still fail to see how she really relates at all to a 15 year old writing a book.

Now, onto the meat of this. First of all, stop acting like I'M the one who started this argument. You're trying to make it look like I'm pestering you or something when I'm really not. And how do I know he hadn't written a lot before this? I looked into it, I couldn't find his acknowledgement of writing anything before Eragon, or anything else in any bibliography I found. I would like you to find proof, because that way I would maybe have an ounce of respect for him, but right now, I really really don't.

You say it takes very little life experience to craft a compelling story, huh? So you're saying that people don't have to have much social interaction to create 3-dimensional characters? They don't have to know how a number of the vast amount of types of people work on a psychological level? This is the equivalent of saying that you don't need to have seen a mountain in order to paint it. The only way to create characters that don't feel like cardboard cut outs is to have met people similar in some way to the characters you want to create.

Okay, so you're ready to say that you and your group of friends have a superior opinion to mine, even though you know jack shit about me? Sounds to me like you're just trying to not even listen to someone with an opinion different to yours. I respect your opinion, I think you're wrong, but I'm not actively trying to stop you from liking anything, I'm only responding to your arguments against my opinion.

Yes, you can find criticisms to pretty much everything, and you're also right in the fact that it doesn't diminish the value of the things you enjoy. But it's at least worth listening to reasons why people think he's a bad author. If you don't at least listen to dissenting opinions, you're just blindly marching in lockstep with people who already have the same opinions as you, instead of trying to challenge yourself to gain more perspective on something.

Now, here I was gonna list all the reasons why Paolini's writing pretty much flat out sucks, but I decided against it because it would take too long, and it's really not worth the energy. Plus, I know you aren't really interested. The last reply you sent had an air of condescension that I had previously sensed in you. In conclusion, you duuuuuuumb, boy! That is all :D
 

nima55

Paladin of Traffic Law
Nov 14, 2010
214
0
0
artanis_neravar said:
Because you can pick out some basic stuff it's plagiarizing? Get over it already people they only thing it has similar to Star Wars is that he's a farm boy who goes off on an adventure with him mysterious mentor. The only thing it has in common with Lord of the rings is elves and dwarves.
I agree sir. I the wide world of storytelling, there is nothing that is truly original (just ask TV tropes) so it never bothers me. Hell, as we all know, Star Wars hugely draws from other stories and films, but they're still great
 

lovest harding

New member
Dec 6, 2009
442
0
0
spartan231490 said:
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.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Wabblefish said:
They are good books, not the best like other people have said but I still enjoy them and I think the writer has a lot of potential, after all those are his first written books.

Also I wouldn't say Eragon plagiarizes...remember we looked through the plot and analyzed it a few months back on this forum?

Its more like they just get heaps and heaps of cliches and tropes
What people get messed up on is that they say plagiarize when they are talking about plot points and vague character relation.

Plagiarism is taking an idea word for word or almost word for word and claiming it as one's own.

I would have called it plagiarism if Eragon's Uncle was called Owen, and there was Obi-Brom, and Eragon joined an organization called the Rebellion, and Arya had been a former member of the Senate of Alagaësia, and Eragon had abilities that stemmed from the special powers of The Push and he rode a specialized wooden flying machine called an X-Dragon, and he was being chased by the Ra'Fett.

That would be plagiarism.