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

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
JambalayaBob said:
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
Joan of Arc doesn't relate directly to a 15 year old relating to a book, she relates to how irrelevant the number of an age really is.

If I am confusing you with one of the other people I was talking to, then I am sorry, but If you are who I think you are then I originally quoted your post that had about 2 lines about how Paolini was an awful author. This is mostly a thread for fans of Paolini, so I consider coming here and making a short post with no evidence about how crappy he is to be starting an argument.

As to finding proof about him writing b4, I don't feel any desire to. You were the one who claimed he didn't. I believe burden of proof goes to the person who makes the statement. I also don't think it's that relevant. Honestly, there are a great number of people who write compelling books at 20 without going to Africa with the peace corps. I don't see any reason why a 15 year old home-schooled kid couldn't.

As to me not believing it takes life experience to write compelling stories: I believe that Paolini is a compelling author, so therefore I intrinsically believe that he has enough life experience to be one. He doesn't have that much. Ergo, a whole lot isn't required.

I know nothing about you. exactly why I don't have a great deal of respect for your opinion. forgive me if that makes me a jackass, but I don't grant respect except to people who have proven to me that the deserve it. However, I have a great deal of respect for my friends, especially when it comes to fantasy books, as we are all very avid fantasy readers, and very intelligent. One of us is an english major focused in creative writing. We all think that Paolini is a good author. Certainly not the best we've read, but good. Now, i have a great deal of respect for 6 people who agree on this. Honestly, nothing you can say is going to make me respect your opinion more than ours combined, although your arguments have already elevated you above pretty much everyone I have yet argued with on the internet, for whatever that is worth. It is important to note here, that I mean your opinion, not the arguments behind it. Arguments and debates fascinate me, and I have yet to here a single one that was entirely without merit. However, I also haven't seen any facts or arguments from you that change my opinion.

I have actually listened to everything you have said. I just don't agree with it. I am sorry if I sounded condescending. I am frustrated, it's almost 3am here and I never had a huge deal of patience to begin with. Being honest, most of that frustration is generic, as I don't usually see well reasoned arguments on this topic, just idiot parrots who say it's crap because it's crap. And that last reply was condescending. Evasions in debates really do piss me off. I know they are usually unintentional, but that's the way I am. It's one of the reasons I despise politicians with an unusual venom :D. I am sorry for that, whatever that's worth.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
JambalayaBob said:
sorry, internet is crap, first part of this was a double post.
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.
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.
 

Monsieur E

New member
Jul 1, 2011
35
0
0
artanis_neravar said:
MorsePacific said:
artanis_neravar said:
Kind of like how I want Gears to end with them winning, but nothing left for them to rebuild, and not enough people to rebuild even if there was anything left. So even though Humanity won out in the end they still die out
Exactly. It would be nice to see Paolini do something different. A lot of writers are afraid to take a series in that direction because I'm sure plenty of fans would be pissed, but that's why it's interesting to me. I remember writing a short story when I was younger and my girlfriend at the time being absolutely outraged that I killed the main character. It just seems like ground that hasn't been covered yet.

You don't always need happy ending with dragons farting rainbows and vegan elves having intense parties with all kinds of crazy natural hallucinogens and the main character getting married while he solemnly recalls those who died for him during his quest. Sometimes the best hero is a martyr.
Exactly! I know that after watching the newest Transformer I really wanted Bumblebee to die (if you've seen it you'll know what I'm talking about) because it would have had a major effect on me and the mood of the story
That would have been a good moment(in a sad way). I just wish that Bumblebee had quoted Monty Python when he lost his legs in the first movie.

"'Tis but a flesh wound!"

OT: I read the first three, liked them. I wouldn't have finished Brisingr if I didn't do a project in English class(book report, I was 3/4 into book).
 

bean burrito

New member
Jul 10, 2009
77
0
0
I read the first book and thought "meh". I might re-read it when I get a chance and see if my opinion changes, and try to get into the series again, but otherwise, meh.
 

SilverKyo

New member
Apr 15, 2009
211
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Antisocial Personality Disorder, or Sociopathy, can be shown through most but not necessarily all of the following qualifiers in the standard version:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honour financial obligations.
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

Now, I will go into my explination of those standard points.

1. This one is fairly obvious if you take a second to really think outside the box. Eragon is a first criminal of the first order, namely being a member of the rebel army, repeated acts of treason against the ruler of Alagaesia, disturbing the peace, refusing peace offerings, dishonorable tactics in battle, breaking out of prison, and freeing known supporters of the rebels guilty of the highest degree of smuggling. This might sound like a joke at first, but I am completely serious. King Galbatorix is the ruler of the Empire of Alagasesia (A wonderful example of his flawless use of the english language that totally doesn't make the reader stop and scratch their head. I want to see a neighboring country who has an Emperor who rules over a Kingdom). I know your first response here is, "But he's the bad guy!", and I urge you to stop and hear me out. Eragon grew up with a pretty standard peaceful childhood that was in no way hardened by the Empire, or how fine every town they went was off (except that one crazy dark place with the raz'ak, but that hardly counts, that place is a cult, they would be crazy whoever was going to be there). There were no examples of any places where the Empire actively oppressed it's citizens outside of *gasp* raising taxes! Oh noes! You know what is a primary cause of raising taxes? The Empire actively fighting a war... against rebels. Yea, Galbatorix claimed his throne threw violent rebellion, but who else is trying to claim the throne through violent rebellion? The rebels. If one tries to remain completely unbiased (which isn't hard to do considering all we know of the primary antagonist is the rebels say he's bad and he did that bad thing that one time), the Varden are terrorists. If there was no Varden, there would be no war; the citizens get to live peacefully and there would be no armies wreaking destruction on the landscape and villages with fighting. When the Varden wins in the next book (and to suggest otherwise would be giving Paolini too much credit and to try to raise him above standard fantasy novelist), they will inevitably but their candidate on the throne and continue their version of the Empire, and ironically similar parallel to Galbatorix and his rise... but without quite so much dragon death. It will probably have a single ruler or maybe a group of rulers, but they will probably rule like a dictatorship or monarchy because they don't really have the technology to pull off a successful republic or democracy (although that might happen because Paolini says it should even though it doesn't make logical sense as a long term plan). Eragon is completely oblivious to all of this, willfully or otherwise. But once you strip away the glamour and cliche black-and-white morality, he is a criminal. The Varden stole the egg, most likely involving some form of murder, and he came upon it. When the egg hatched and he became a rider, a good citizen would have pledged himself to his King, but instead he joined the rebels and proceeds to perform criminal and terrorist acts against the country, without a bit of remorse. He kills soldiers - men doing their duty - destroys property, lies and steals, refuses offers of clemency, and causes general chaos. Will he be brought to justice for these crimes? No, that would require Galbatorix to win, which is a laughable concept in Paolini's world.

2. Eragon is not a liar exactly, but he is incredibly self centered. This trait is glaringly obvious in the first book due to various qualities relating to it being the first book, so I'm going to examine this topic I'm about to raise with particular scrutiny there. Did Eragon achieve a notable achievement on his own the first book? No. He escapes from prison with the help of Murtagh and Saphira, he gets to the Varden with their help and Broms (post-mortem or otherwise). He kills Durza because of Saphira and Arya and their help. None of those heroic exploits were of his own doing, he is a child calling himself a man and takes no pride and doing these things for himself... but yet he takes no notice of any of this. He takes his friends absolutely for granted, expecting them to wait on his every command and indulge the childish tantrums which invariably take place whenever someone does not rush to help him at every turn. He is also utterly ungrateful ? witness his ?grudging? thanks to Brom after the aforesaid makes him a saddle, his constant whining to Saphira, his pathetic bewilderment and emotional blackmail when Arya rebuffs his sickly-sweet romantic approaches, his sulky rage over Vanir?s refusal to kowtow to him, and his generally condescending and overbearing behaviour toward every other character in the book (this might be book 2, I can't remember exactly). Eragon does not lie or deceive to get his way ? but he does not have to by virtue of being a "hero". Eragon is a spoilt brat wearing a hero?s armour and carrying a sword. He treats every other character in the book like his personal entourage, and yet accepts the respect he gets as if it is his due. I can already hear your counter argument, "But this is to show growth over time, he's supposed to act like a prick and get better over time. Character growth!" Well, let's look at that "growth". He's outright rude to Oromis for the longest time, well into the third book. The hysterical abuse he throws at the already much-abused Murtagh, his brother and apparent whipping-boy. Seriously, the way he treats an obvious victim of a dire situation is outright horrible. And his condescending behavior never really goes away unless forced to otherwise, such as with superior officers or royalty.

3. This is no contest. Even other characters remark on Eragon?s rashness and stupidity. He constantly rushes into things without a second thought (only to be miraculously saved every time, but this is beside the point). This trait is probably supposed to be endearing ? our hero is meant to be a hot-headed but courageous lad who has a lot to learn? blah blah blah. I have a better way of putting it: he?s a moron.

4. On numerous occasions in the books, Eragon has temper tantrums, usually over something trivial. It is a little unfair to add that he constantly fights and kills people as a solution to his problems (i.e. he would rather not work for the nasty ol? King), given that he is a fantasy character and that is what fantasy characters do?

5. This was kind of covered more or less in point 2, but I'll do a quick recap anyway. Eragon is constantly putting himself and other people in danger, usually because he is too stupid to think about anything for more than two minutes together. He is extremely reckless, and this cannot be overlooked given that he lives in a world where danger is ever-present and real, and the consequences are, frequently, death. Or they would be if we we're being completely realistic and not in the world in Paolini's idealistic head.

6. To return to the topic at hand, Eragon is indeed irresponsible. In spite of the fact that everybody is relying upon him, he constantly does stupid and irresponsible things which get himself and other people into trouble; his apparent inability to think ahead only compounds the felony.

7. This one is the proverbial nail in the coffin for me. Some of the other points are more of a stretch or you might say, "He's just being a stupid teenager" or "The writing wasn't what the author intended the character to be (to which I say the writing should be better then, I don't buy that one)." But this point is just too much to stand when you really throw it into the proper perspective. I wonder if someone has ever actually read these books and kept an active tally on the amount of people Eragon has killed. Now? in Eldest, when Eragon?s cousin Roran is forced to begin fighting and killing people, he keeps a mental count of all his victims and angsts about it. It is lame and unconvincing, but at least in this case Paolini made an attempt at showing some realism ? Roran is shocked by the fact that he has killed people. Eragon, however, has no such reservations. At no point in either book does he truly feel remorse for anything, even something as heinous as killing another living soul. In Eragon, when he first kills a group of urgals, he has no reaction beyond, ?OMG I gotz magick??!!?. He pats himself on the back for having discovered his magical abilities, but doesn?t pause for a second to consider the fact that he has just become a killer. Yes, the victims were evil, beastly urgals, but they were still, technically, people. And yet Eragon feels nothing at having killed them. Later on he kills human beings with a similar lack of reaction or human feeling. Where is the disgust? Where is the guilt? Where is the horror? He acts like a robot. In the, uh, glorious final battle of Eldest, he uses the uber-speshul magical death words (cheap cop-out) to instantly kill dozens of Imperial troops, and his only real thought is ?geez, this is just too easy?. And this is after he?s been told that there is no life after death and that this life is all anyone gets. This is not all. After Murtagh ?dies? at the beginning of the book, Eragon feels (or rather, thinks) sad for exactly a paragraph, and then forgets about him for the rest of the book. When he reappears at the end and reveals that he is now working for the Empire, Eragon screeches at him about how he was ?mourning? for him (liar), and goes on to be a complete asshole toward him ? taunting him about the scar he got from his violent father, and continuing to hurl abuse at him after it is already clear that he has been coerced into his current position and is now more of a victim than ever. Once the fight is over (and Eragon has been soundly defeated, much to the reader?s pleasure ? this reader, at any rate), he continues to feel sorry for himself and barely spares a thought for Murtagh at all ? after he has discovered that they are brothers, no less. There are even more examples to be had of Eragon?s selfishness and lack of remorse. Elva is an excellent one. When he discovers that he unintentionally cursed the child instead of blessing her, he is dismayed for approximately one minute before he moves on to other things and forgets all about the matter. He suffers from no lingering guilt or anxiety whatsoever, and when he finally meets his victim face-to-face, he briefly apologises and promises to try and remove the curse before he wanders off and forgets about her again for the rest of the book. Somehow, the Epistler is not taken in by this display of remorse. Strangely, however, he goes to pieces over having killed a few rabbits. ...Does anyone else see the internal contradiction here?

Also, for your consideration, but in much less thought out detail: Narcissistic Personality Disorder & Eragon

1. A grandiose sense of self-importance

2. Requires excessive admiration

3. Strong sense of entitlement

4. Takes advantage of other people

5. Lacks empathy (again)

8. Arrogant affect (he accepts being the Last Hope of pretty much everything with scarcely a pause. One would expect some feelings of self-doubt or at the very least embarrassment, but apparently Paolini thinks otherwise)

Narcissists, far from actually being special, have very little personality to call their own. Instead, they create a false personality from bits and pieces of the personalities of other people whom they regarded as an authority. They adopt other people?s tastes and opinions as if they were their own, they have sterile inner lives and resent having to do anything for themselves, and they don?t talk about their feelings... does this sound familiar at all?

Eragon is a blank slate of a character. He never thinks for himself. Instead he mindlessly repeats things which other people have said, has no real opinions or beliefs of his own ? he has no individuality. Everything he is is a quotation of some sort; he becomes a vegetarian atheist like Oromis with little or no resistance, and never shows any resentment over the fact that he is being changed by powers outside of his control. Narcissists also show an inability to change as a person based on their experiences, which, again, is true for Eragon. He begins as a selfish, immature brat, and stays that way right to the end of Eldest, in spite of all the huge changes that have taken place in his life. His view of the world changes not one iota.

I'm not a psych major, and am not qualified to make this judgement in any professional degree, and none of the people I know who do would subject themselves to reading these books. But I do have a list of traits that classify these disorders and I have a keen eye for seeing similarites.

Also, one last thing that helps me to really dislike Eragon as a character: The Mary Sue (or Gary Stu in this case) test! Most common Mary Sue traits:

1. Sues tend to be good-looking. Quote from Eldest: "more beautiful than any man, more rugged than any elf".

2. They have tragic pasts. Eragon is an orphan who never knew his mother and who has an unknown father (now where have we encountered this scenario before?). He also loses his guardian and his home under violent circumstances.

3. They also have special powers. Eragon becomes a master swordsman in a matter of months, can use magic, has 1337 archery and hunting skills at age 15 (and let us not forget that he is the only person brave enough to hunt in the Spine. At age 15), can see the future in his dreams, is a dragon rider, and has a healing ability that rivals Wolverine?s.

4. Every ?good? character automatically loves them. I can only think of one character on the side of good who did not automatically kiss Eragon?s skinny behind ? Vanir the elf. However, Vanir changed his mind following the Deus ex Machina Ceremony. Every other character with whom Paolini wants us to sympathise adores Eragon. Anyone who dislikes him is evil.

5. The Sue receives all the attention in the story ? a Sue is like a black hole into which all else is inevitably sucked. They can even warp the laws of space and time. Let us not beat about the bush ? the whole of Alagaësia revolves around Eragon. Even the evil King is obsessed with him. No matter where he goes or what he does, Eragon is the centre of attention 100% of the time. Every other character defers to him. Even the far wiser Oromis kowtows to him and puts up with his continual rudeness and arrogance without complaint. Even Saphira, who is supposedly Eragon?s equal, has no apparent life away from him or any concerns or interests of her own.

6. Sues are also generally the same age, race and gender as their creator. White teenage male. That is all.

7. They do the things their creator would like to do. Paolini himself said that Eragon is his daydream, and that Eragon the character does the things that he himself would like to do

8. They have romances with canon characters the author finds attractive. Arya is Arwen. This we know to be fact. Both Elvish princesses with black hair with whom the rugged hero falls in love. She exists for no reason at all beyond being Eragon?s love interest. She has no character development ? all the prose concerning her talks about how beautiful she supposedly is. Eragon loves her, and she will inevitably fall for him as well. I will refrain from commenting on how this reflects on the author.

9. They often have special companions/sidekicks (eg a talking cat). Saphira is Eragon?s sidekick. She exists to make him cooler and more powerful and be his horse who talks. This might be more endemic to the story being all about Eragon and the fact that it's from his perspective, but although the author likes to say Saphira is his equal, she is not written as such.

10. They are more powerful than even the most powerful characters. Eragon is ridiculously powerful. He can out-match the most experienced swordsmen after having first picked up a sword a mere few months earlier. There is no-one in the Varden who is anywhere close to matching him in magical ability. He is more or less a one-man army ? no-one can face him in open battle and win (except for Murtagh, who apparently only won because he cheated).

11. They own special personalised weapons/other special items which no-one else has. Eragon has Zar?roc ? one of only two special magical shiny rider?s swords definitely known to exist. It can cut through anything, it has a cool red blade and an improbably big ruby set into the hilt. It also has a cool name. It is unbreakable and never needs to be sharpened. Too bad Murtagh steals it. But oh, we can't have a rider without his super awesome Rider sword... I know, we'll Deus Ex him a new one (and spend a god awful amount of time doing it for no reason) and make it even more awesome and powerful... and blue.

12. They have silly, overly fancy names, often including titles. Eragon Shadeslayer, Argetlam, Shur?tugal, Eragon-finiarel? blah blah blah. He has enough ?cool? titles/extra names to make a personalised stationary designer gibber.

13. They learn things with unrealistic speed. Our ?hero? manages to become a master swordsman in under a year. He learns how to read and write in a week. Let me repeat that one for you, he learns to read and write in a week. He masters magic in a very short space of time. Honestly, if every rider progressed like this, then when they began their training at 10, they would master everything they possibly could be 12. Scary thought really.

14. They are extremely annoying... this one was more for me.

I will refrain from drawing lines between Eragon's Gary Stu aspects and his apparent psychological disorders and how they might relate to the author in that Gary Stu, I don't know Paolini and I would not presume I would from this... but I have read his writing... and if it isn't completely obvious, I find it slightly... unimpressive.
 

SilverKyo

New member
Apr 15, 2009
211
0
0
spartan231490 said:
JambalayaBob said:
...This is mostly a thread for fans of Paolini...
Not really, this thread is to ask if you're getting the book, and the opinion of most of the comments seem to be pretty even. About 1/3 are excited for it, 1/3 don't really like it, and 1/3 don't really like it but might pick it up for closure or don't know what Eragon is.

Of course these are generic category, but the comments on this thread are actually pretty even up abut the whole thing. For evidence, I point towards to poll, the original point of this thread. ("Yes" and "not excited" are not the same thing, considering that's probably what the "reading it for closure but that's it" people probably picked... myself being one of them.)
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
Are we excited about this now? Why? The last book came out years ago. The next one isn't coming for four months.

Anyway, pretty everything that can be said about this series has been said. Yes, it rips off of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but so do many other stories. Yes, there are plot holes deep and numerous enough to drain the oceans.

There's something almost pathological about the way people take this dreck and subject it to microscopic analysis. Critics take every lazy cliche and hasty word choice and try to extract hidden meaning from them. Readers react with shock and dismay that the crayon drawn backgrounds are not, in fact, a stunning and detailed landscape. How many unworthy series have ever been subjected to such intense scrutiny?

I do think that people are overly mean-spirited about all this. Paolini's been attacked for being published by his parents, for having a bad movie, for cosplaying, for being homeschooled (as though he had a choice), for his silly sayings (may your sword stay sharp!), and so on. It's all well and good to fairly criticize a less-than-stunning series, but it's really crossing the line to make personal attacks.
 

Bobbity

New member
Mar 17, 2010
1,659
0
0
spartan231490 said:
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.
What if I were to tell you that not a single thing in Paolini's books is original, and that if you were to read such things as the Belgariad, the Wheel of Time, A song of Ice and Fire, The Lord of the Rings, A Wizard of Earthsea, the earlier Raymond Feist stuff, or even Terry Pratchett, you realise how utterly unoriginal he is? What if I recommended that you read those books - good fantasy; well written fantasy - in case they change your perception of Paolini?

Would you be willing to read some fantasy that comes recommended by the greater community of this website, and then tell us if your perception has been at all altered?
 

randomrob

New member
Aug 5, 2009
592
0
0
I've read them, and I don't like how all Paolini has done is take the plot of the original Star Wars trilogy and mix it up with the Lord of the Rings and The Dragon Riders of Pern series. Look at the plot of Eragon and Eldest: Farm Boy discovers he has the potential to join an ancient monaistic order, he is trained in this by a mysterious old man who later dies. He then gos to a forest location and is trained by a physically unassuming member of that ancient order. He uses his fathers old weapon, which he then loses in a battle with a dark warrior who serves the emperor and he discovers he is related to. See the similarities? Paolini is just a nerd who can rearrange what he has read/watched into something readable.
 

Soulfoodman

New member
Dec 20, 2009
98
0
0
Most definitely. This series was one of the many that made me love reading as a kid. I'm really happy to finally get to read the conclusion.
 

Grimbold

New member
Nov 19, 2009
101
0
0
When I read the first and second book I had to read the whole day through and could not stop. There is something to his writing style. Although the setting and the story are just unoriginal basic fantasy stuff and Star Wars ripoff. I have not read the third book yet.
Are the 3rd and 4th ones more mature than the others? Because I fear I might have become too old and demanding for this shit.
 

Manji187

New member
Jan 29, 2009
1,444
0
0
No thanks, I'm good.

Still have to read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series and George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series. You know...the actual QUALITY stuff.
 

Hypertion

New member
May 10, 2011
137
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!​

too all of this....

i say this....

FINALLY! i really liked the past few books.... been wondering whats taking him so long....

i hope we get a good ending!
 

gruggins

New member
Apr 24, 2011
119
0
0
i used to think that the inheritance cycle was a good solidly-written series.
that all changed when I read the belgariad series by david eddings.
chrisopher paolini STOLE 80% of that series' basic plot!
the two series are nearly the same when it comes to plot and the only "new" thing it adds is is dwarves and dragons.

dont believe me? on the back of one of the belgariad books (cant remember which one) there is a quote from cristopher paolini praising the book.

and besides i find it funny how it so discreetly went from being "the inheritance trilogy" to being "the inheritance cycle"
 

headphonegirl

The Troll under the bridge
Oct 19, 2009
223
0
0
I liked the first two, then Brisngr came out and I just couldn't get into it , i've not picked it up since, so put me down as no.
 

oden636

New member
Jun 15, 2009
168
0
0
It probably will be Arya makes sense as she is now a shade slayer as well and the whole romance works. I hope its not Roran hes too cool as it is. I want the final book to be good but i have this horrible feeling it will be poor and i will shout Brisingr and then terrible things will happen.
 

jamart

New member
Feb 16, 2011
84
0
0
Dude, less roaring drunk, than dead of complete and utter liver failure/liver implosion
 

Jacob Haggarty

New member
Sep 1, 2010
313
0
0
I really did enjoy eragon when i first read it, but i tried it again the other day, and it just seemed dull. I got about two chapters into eldest before i gave up, and haven't even considered brisngr. Let alone the new one. So no, not dreadfully excited.

On a completely unrelated note, i haven't seen a thread about books on these forums before now.