Eragon

I will have to disagree at almost every possible point with Mister always, I love reading other peoples opinions, they may see things from an entirely different angle, and knowing more of the larger picture allows me to enjoy the book/story in question far more.

This said, I do not like Eragon, I got frustrated with the sheer amount of Star Wars in it and decided to go and rewatch the movies again instead, at least the original trilogy was well written.

Edit: also, I DO analye my food carefully. I am a very picky eater. I'm in a friggen first world country, and I am middle class, I can afford to scrutinize what I put in my body. I won't eat processed cheese any more then I will read a processed and recycled plot.

edited 2nd Nov '09 8:02:54 PM by Lanceleoghauni

Just adding in my two cents: I only saw the movie and thought it was terrible. Couple years later, picked up the book. Read one chapter. Lulz ensued. Never got any further. Went to Anti-Shurtagul and enjoyed myself for awhile.

I use Inheritance as a How NOT to write fantasy guide, and if my book makes it, I will publically challenge CP to a boxing match. I'm not good at boxing or anything, I just want to punch him in the face for writing such a peice of crap.

Maybe I'll challenge his publisher to a fight too, he/she has to take some responsibility.

... Well fuck. Now I know how Twilight fans feel when someone tears apart the series... That said I'm never going to bring up Eragon here as I prefer not being mocked for liking an average series.

stupid doubleposting...*grumble*

edited 17th Dec '09 6:44:18 PM by Jinxed Blackcat

I read through the first book exactly once. Upon finishing it, my reaction was.... actually I don't even remember what my reaction was. It was that forgettable. I did not feel compelled to read any of the subsequent books.

When I first read it in middle school. I, admittedly, liked it but even then I thought it was Strictly Formula it didn't bother me that much until I found out exactly how derivative it really was.

I admit, I genuinely enjoyed the first book. Thought it was a real page-turner.

Though I was annoyed at the "why should I pander to your incompetence?" point about training. I know that I'm not a teacher, but I'm pretty sure that education (physical or otherwise) does not work that way.

edited 20th Dec '09 10:23:30 PM by Pannic

"Pander to your incompetence?" I'm pretty sure that's one of those things you think, but never say.

Every kid's different, though; that's one thing that people forget, what with the cookie-cutter educational models that get foisted on us all through school. Some people positively thrive on verbal abuse - their immediate response is "I'll show them!", and at the end they've learned more than they would have with a gentler approach.

I want write a book and get famous for it just so I can stealthily insult CP in a way similar to Colbert's critique of the Bush administation at that White House function.

Also, I didn't even like the book when I turned my brain off, like I did with Harry Potter or Batman TBATB. That's saying something.

edited 22nd Dec '09 10:11:46 PM by Canondorf

"I want write a book and get famous for it just so I can stealthily insult CP in a way similar to Colbert's critique of the Bush administation at that White House function."

Does Paolini really deserve that, though? I mean all he's really done wrong is blatantly rip off better authors, use a misleading publicity campaign to make a name for himself...

Oh yeah I see where you're coming from... .

Actually the way he/Random House publicised him really annoys me. I mean, virtually every time they mention Paolini's name they refer to how he 'was only fifteen when he finished his first draft'. I mean whoopdi-frigging-doo.

It isn't hard to finish a first draft of a novel when you're fifteen. Some people have actually published things at that age or earlier, and that's a big achievement. But most authors, as far as I know, concede the first draft of the first novel they ever wrote was a piece of crap.

Many authors conceded that the first draft they write of any novel is vastly different and inferior to the finished product. Paolini himself talks about how he did extensive revision to polish up the draft to publishable level. So why is it worth mentioning? Because people who don't know any better think it means he's exceptional.

When Paolini finished his first draft is mentioned more than when he actually published his first book. In contrast, how old he was when he actually published the book is seldom mentioned (he was 18 or 19), leading to convenient confusion. People remember he published the book when he was young, they remember reading he was fifteen when... oh, it must be that he was fifteen when he published Eragon. I have even read in a professional article in a Australian newspaper stating as a fact that he was fifteen when he published that book. I'm pretty certain that whoever is in charge of Paolini's publicising is very aware of all this. But maybe I'm just overly paranoid/cynical/suspicious/whatever.

/End Rant.

edited 23rd Dec '09 2:16:58 AM by Whoeverski

I honestly didn't mind book 1. It was a fun enough story even with all the plagirism; and the final battle with Durza was pretty cool. I would honestly do a fix fic after book 1.

What bothers me so much about Eragon isn't the book itself (it's certainly no more mediocre than plenty of other High Fantasy works, a genre I don't care for at all); the book itself is forgettable, but not a crime against humanity. What does bother me is the author's unbearable smugness. He doesn't realize that you don't get a smug license just for having written, you don't earn it unless you've written well.

The main problem for me is Paolini seems to have messed up morals, now if this was really some spoof of High Fanasty books, were the good guys are really evil and The Empire is a force of good it would be fine, but no you're suppost to agree on what Eragon says and does.

As a person whose prime passion in life is writing and reading, I tend towards analyzing works of literature. Reading a book mindlessly is fine. I do that too. Who doesn't? But, for me, a good part of reading is analyzing, too. After all, how can there be good writing if there was no bad writing?

And when I first read Eragon as a kid, I had no idea what good writing was. It was just a book that I read that I thought was interesting because it was some guy riding a dragon and had magic and used a sword. As a parent, you don't exactly encourage your kid to only read good books. Parents, I think, are happy that their kids are interested in reading at all.

Looking back, I see that it was rather cliche, derivative, and well, odd. Sadly, I did read Eragon before The Fellowship of the Ring. Paolini's beliefs came into the book at strange angles. I once felt that The Inheritance Cycle was pure and utter crap that did not deserve to exist. My opinion has become less extreme and while I do still think it isn't great writing that does not deserve to be placed even near Tolkien, it isn't worth people hating it so much. But the people who hate Eragon don't deserve to be hated, either. In the end, it comes down to respecting someone else's opinion, no matter how crazy it is.

As for the whole "Paolini was a genius for writing a book at fifteen" I disagree. It doesn't take talent to complete a book, it takes hard work. He had the determination to write a whole book and the imagination to come up with the story. I admire him because yes, he did write a whole book from beginning to end. He stuck it out and finished it and that's impressive. Not everyone can write a book from beginning to end. I don't admire his writing, his story or really anything from the books. (And besides, hard work is worth a lot more than talent.)

There's a pretty good chance at fifteen, your writing is gonna suck. It's not your fault. Good writers aren't born, they're made. If you think your writing is good because you got published, well, that's the fault of the people around you for not enlightening you. Getting published isn't difficult. Somewhere down the line someone is going to like your book and want to publish it. That's why bad writing is published. True writers always seek to improve.

edited 15th Feb '10 4:54:38 PM by Gallows

I have a confession to make.

I like the Inheritance Cycle.

A lot of people on this site seemed to be upset that it's being compared to Tolkien's works but I don't understand why. Sure it's not nearly as deep and well woven as Tolkein's works but it wasn't suppose to be. Tolkien was a professor who spent his entire life working to tell the story of Middle Earth with heavy emphasis on the scholarly aspects. Paolini's just trying to tell a story. I kind of see the Inheritance Cycle as Lord of the Rings for the mainstream. Remember not everyone is as geeky as tropers are.

The other complaint seems to be it's similarity to Star Wars, well Star Wars wasn't exactly the first to tell that story either and it's not everyone's favorite version of it. It's a story that's been written and rewritten many times in many settings, there's nothing wrong with that, different versions appeal to different people.

As to the quality of the actual writing, I have to admit I do find the first book hard to read now that I've read the other two. It's obviously inferior to the other two but I consider them to be of decent quality. Absolute literary masterpieces? No, but they aren't really suppose to be, they are mainstream books, the mainstream actually isn't overly found of masterpiece literature.

Now Eragon, no he's not the perfect hero but that's what makes the story different. Maybe the question we should be asking isn't whether Eragon meets our standard of hero but whether are standards for a hero are realistic.

And Finally, how the media received the book: WHO CARES! A book should be judged on it's own merit not on how other people see it.

I'm not saying ya'll are wrong for disliking the book. Everyone has different tastes, that's why there are so many genres. I am, however, suggesting that maybe you are being a little bit more critical than necessary. A book isn't trash just because you didn't enjoy it. (I have to constantly remind myself of this anytime anyone mentions Moby Dick.)

Tossing my two cents in, I liked the book when I first read it(hell I loved it), then I found Tolkien. Its a good book for its age bracket but not a great book by any stretch of the imagintation. I now fill my okay-its-average fantasy book need wit the Drizzt series(another can of worms right there). I am interested to see what happens and the end, just the wiki version of events.

OK, I just need to say this. I don't care what kind of responses I get for it.

I quite honestly, without sarcasm, enjoyed the first book. It wasn't the best book I'd ever read, but I liked it as a fairly entertaining fantasy book. Plus, there were dragons. That's all I really needed to know. I was happy with that.

...and then I made the mistake of going on the internet and allowing the Hatedom to make me feel bad for having enjoyed it.

You know what, I'll say it again. I honestly enjoyed Eragon. I liked Eldest, too, though I did feel like the Bom plot dragged a lot. And I'm going to read Brisingr, even after having been exposed to the internet's opinion of the series, because I am sick and tired of letting the internet color my opinion of something that I liked.

I have to admit I do find the first book hard to read now that I've read the other two. It's obviously inferior to the other two but I consider them to be of decent quality.

Oh geez, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to take an issue on this . Eragon is the most enjoyable, it's got Murty and less politics. Brisingr and Eldest are Murty-less and... just preachy in places. Eragon less so.

Maybe inferior wasn't quite the right word to use. I liked the first book I just thought some of the writing was a little clumsy at times, the story itself does have some plus points over the other books. (And I like politics so...)

I thought the first book was alright, the Purple Prose made reading it take a long time, but wasn't otherwise a problem. There were other flaws, but I was willing to overlook them.

Eldest started off on the wrong foot by having Murtagh seemingly killed offscreen; but it did make a sort of logical sense: not everything important would happen in the hero's sight, though I thought it was a shame that Paolini sacrificed an interesting character for the sake of Anyone Can Die, and never bothered to give the people responsible (the twins) names. I can't remember much about the middle of the book, though meeting the other races was nice (I disliked how Eragon's elven ival was dealt with, and how the warnings Eragon recieved about elf politics were completely ignored). What happened to Elva was just Diabolus ex Machina, considering that blessing was presented as a Crowning Moment Of Heartwarming in the previous book.

Then there was the big battle, our heroes show thei nastier sides, and Murtagh is back as the Rival Turned Evil; which would have been better if there had been any buildup to it. Luke, I Am Your Father wasn't the worst part of it, that part actually made sense. The worst part was how he was brought back simply to give the book a downer ending, while negating the deconstuction at the beginning.

So, yeah. I haven't read the third book, and there hatedom here definately likes to Accentuate the Negative, but the second book was worse than the first, and it wasn't flawless to begin with.

Well, though I may get flamed for it, I admit, I like the Inheritance Trilogy.

I started reading a while back and i liked it. The other two are much better than the first. And the film adaptation sucked. Badly. But then, we all knew that.

Then I started hanging around TV Tropes and saw the massive Hatedom it had. At first I almost stopped liking the books, but luckily I grew up and started ignoring the Hatedom..

It's true that there are some flaws in his writing,but that doesn't make it the worst thing ever as some people like to say. And the prose does get rather purple at times, but that never bothered me that much. It's not the best book ever, but it's still rather good, better than average.

He did rip off three series for ideas, but I find that more a homage than the grave sin most see it as. The Doctor Who reference was fun, too.

edited 20th Feb '10 8:35:20 AM by Chaosjunction

Eh, I got into the series because of dragons, and how my family's friend knows how I like dragons.

Yes, yes, the series is not the shining beacon of masterpiece, but darn, I enjoy reading it mindlessly and wishing for Eragon to remain single and not with Arya, as well as whether or not he gets an Heroic BSoD after realising some of his actions. Like with Sloan.

I read it and I seriously don't think it's that bad, but it's not a masterpiece, either. All the haters exaggerate, and that really gets on my nerves.

The movie made the book seem even worse. For starters, it COMPLETELY derailed the characters and boiled the plot down to a Star Wars ripoff.

On the other hand, I cracked up when Galbatorix took a nut shot to Vrael. Seriously, the only reason he's king is because he took a cheap shot to the groin????

No one hates people who like Eragon. People hate the people who refuse to see the flaws in it. All stories have flaws, and people like them just the same. The problem is when people try and wave away those flaws.

Honestly? I like those books. Sure, they're hardly amazing works of literature. Yes, there's tons of things wrong with them. But they're nowhere near as bad as the Hatedom says they are.

I really enjoyed reading them. Isn't that what matters? A series shouldn't have to be literary gold for someone to enjoy it. I know that the books are far from perfect, and I'm OK with that. I like them, but they're certainly not my favorites.

Honestly, most of the criticism that the books get is perfectly valid. There ARE a lot of stupid things about the series. But somehow, even knowing that, I still liked them. They're entertaining.

That said, from what I've heard about the author and his Small Name, Big Ego syndrome, I'm glad I don't know him. :P