Eragon: I Liked It

^^ He wrote a review of Half-Blood Prince talking about Rowling like she's only just become a master. There's a link to that on Paolini's article on this site. He also did the foreword to The Acts of King Arthur and his Noble Knights, which I have not read, but this guy did: http://stevereads.blogspot.com/2009/03/acts-of-king-arthur-and-his-noble.html Okay, it's not exactly Steinback's best work, but still... I don't think Paolini should be saying things like that with credentials like his.

edited 10th Sep '10 9:54:37 PM by narakunohana

Found it.

Best line has to be:-

One of the great pleasures of these novels has been watching Rowling's storytelling skills develop. And she certainly spreads her wings in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

YES BUT YOU DONT HAVE TO IMPROVE YOUR WRITING SKILLS, DO YOU?

^ Yes. Exactly.

There are trees DYING because he thinks he's God's gift to the literary world!

Oh, wait, he's an atheist, right?

So Paolini's a presumptous jackass. Doesn't mean his books are as necessarily bad.

^ I usually call them So Bad, It's Good, but that doesn't keep us criticizing them heavily. Our irritation at his ego makes it FUN to tear it all down.

Y'know, I gotta wonder if the hate towards Eragon is because most fantasy stories the same demographic of the Hatedom are into are also mostly escapist fantasy, with your ordinary orphan gaining great magic powers etc, but also have good stories and plot that justify it. Eragon's bad writing makes it stand out painfully.

So Paolini's a presumptous jackass. Doesn't mean his books are as necessarily bad.

It's the bad writing that's the clincher there.

One of the great pleasures of these novels has been watching Rowling's storytelling skills develop. And she certainly spreads her wings in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

The link's broken, so I can't read the full article, but the part you highlighted here... he's arrogant because he enjoys Rowling's writing getting better?, which it kinda did?

Or am I missing something?

It comes off as condescending. JK Rowling was always a much better writer than Paolini.

It comes off as condescending. JK Rowling was always a much better writer than Paolini.

Wait, so the fact that he thinks her writing improved and he enjoys seeing that shows condescension?

Yeah, it doesn't sound condescending so much as analytical? Maybe with the rest of the quote it's worse or something.

I don't really hate Eragon or anything, but Brisingr was really hard to get through; I would say not enough of importance happens and the characters and concept aren't original or good enough to make it work drudging through a tedious 800 pages or so to see what happens. So Okay, It's Average.

Brisingr reads more like a collection of short stories about the Inheritance cast than a cohesive novel. The book has entire chapters dedicated to things that are never relevant again: the two women Saphira blesses, the mad old man in the tower, and Blodgarm's introduction, just to name a few.

Wait, so the fact that he thinks her writing improved and he enjoys seeing that shows condescension?

It's something about the way he said it. It's sort of like he's saying "there, there, child, you're not so bad after all" (accompanied by a patronizing pat on the head). Only he's saying it to JK Rowling, who is not only a better writer and storycrafter than him, but older and much more successful.

It may not have been intended in that spirit, but that's certainly the way it came across to many people.

edited 12th Sep '10 9:59:37 PM by Oonerspism

And even if he didn't mean to be so condescending, just look at how great he thinks he is. Then again, that is could born from ignorance— I hear rumors that he is not exposed to bad reviews, thanks to his parents, but these are not confirmed as far as I know.

I always found that to be one of the Anti's weakest arguments, not in the least because it was hypocritical. One the one hand, when told by fans that they can criticize Paolini once they've written a book, they respond that they don't have to write a book to criticize another book, which is true.

Then they turn around and call Paolini arrogant for criticizing Rowling. Wut?

...Darn it. The thread isn't quite about the title's subject, anymore, is it. I just want to say that I share the Original Poster's sentiments, and would personally like to curse the Internet and the hatedom for making me ever feel guilty for liking the series. I shouldn't be doing that. I should be able to just read the third book already and not worry about what I "should" be enjoying.

I thought Eragon was okay.

I always found that to be one of the Anti's weakest arguments, not in the least because it was hypocritical. One the one hand, when told by fans that they can criticize Paolini once they've written a book, they respond that they don't have to write a book to criticize another book, which is true.

Then they turn around and call Paolini arrogant for criticizing Rowling. Wut?

Well, it was. Their own arrogance doesn't change Paolini's.

It's not just that one quote, though. We have multiple quotes from Paolini, even just in this thread, that make it clear that he thinks he's a very, very good writer. In that context, it definitely sounds like he's measuring Rowling in comparison to his own genius.

So the problem with Paolini is a confluence of factors that wouldn't necessarily be bad on their own. Teenaged/young writer? Rock on. Published an unimpressive fantasy novel? Meh. Egotistical author? Annoying, but it happens. But an egotistical teenaged author of an unimpressive fantasy novel? Bad combination.

Enlong: Like whatever books you want to like. What we say about them on here really shouldn't matter.

edited 13th Sep '10 12:52:48 AM by jewelleddragon

I'm not saying he's not arrogant, I'm just saying that's a poor example, despite it being the one that most go to when trying to argue that he's arrogant, not to mention hypocritical for the aforementioned reasons.

Seconding Dragon. I mean, I'm the one piece fan that likes the 4kids Opening. You can like bad stuff. There is a difference between liking something and not admitting the flaws.

@OP - Nah. I thought the first book was actually okay, if not a tad cliched and blandly written. Eldest enraged me to no end with how bad it was, but mostly because it hit me it was basically Star Wars.

Would you believe I read the books, saw the similarities, and just went "Hey cool, Star Wars references in a different setting. Neat."

I will, however, admit with no prompting that the movie was horrible.

Paolini claims to have never seen Star Wars, I think.

Well, that's an Exact Words dilemma if I've ever seen one.

Don't need to watch a movie to know the plot, especially one whose plot is as pervasive as Star Wars's.

I think the Star Wars thing is overblown. Makes more sense to say that it's standard fantasy, with the worldbuilding trappings of Tolkien without the follow-through  ^*