Christopher Paolini

[BrianTubbs]

Just to show you how new I am to all this...

Am I right in assuming that Christopher Paolini's books are for teens and young adults? I'm 37 and just bought Eragon. I plan to read it, because I'm a fan of Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings type stuff.

I've also just started a fantasy story that I'm planning as a children's novel, but I don't know what age group to settle on. I figured Paolini might give me some ideas.

[writermom]

He writes YA... but I don't consider his work to be the best example of YA Fanasy. It needs a GOOD edit. Just my 0.02.

[Bk_30]

I liked it, but you could see where Tolkin and Jordan had influenced his writing style. A few times I had to recheck the authors name to see who was book I was reading. I have not read the second book so can offer no opinion on that one yet.




edited because I tried to type like I talk, bad idea

[BrianTubbs]

I started reading it last night. It definitely reminds me of Tolkein.

[Soccer Mom]

I haven't read any of them, but was eyeing them the other day. I do love dragons. Let me know what you think.

[Elektra]

Christopher Paolini should, I think, be a lesson in marketing your book, and not in writing it.

[Warp]

I agree with Elekra on that (while I know very little about marketing myself). There are a multitude of better YA books out there, especially fantasy. If you want you could try almost anything by Diana Wynne Jones (I love her) or The Secret Country by Pamela Dean. That's kind of a pinnacle of YA though. Man is it great! Just my humble opinion, however ^_^

[Bk_30]

Now hold on just a second. I like the story line and the plot, I was just saying that I could tell who influenced his style. As far as marketing is concerned, I picked up the book only because I liked the blurb. I bought it in hardback not because of any "hype"(I had not heard peep one about it), but because it got my attention. After I read it, my sons did, and then my nephew. If you don't like someone's style or voice that's fine, but lets not turn this into one of those "ugly threads".

My point is, I think word of mouth more than marketing(at least in my world) sold his book. Heck I don't like to read Grisham, but you don't hear me cracking on his marketing skill do ya? Authors, just like genres are a matter of opinion.

(ducking flamage from the Grisham remark)

[Niesta]

Paolini is boring to some fantasy lovers because it's very derivative. But folks who haven't read much fantasy (such as Mr. Tubbs and many younger readers) won't have seen it all before (and better written) and will probably enjoy it much more.

Another vote for Diana Wynne Jones.

[soloset]

Third vote for Diana Wynne Jones. Howl's Moving Castle is one of my all time favorites, along with Charmed Life and Dogsbody. Although I picked up a reissue of Dogsbody recently and I'm about 75% certain they've changed the ending slightly.

You could also try The Dark is Rising sequence, by Susan Cooper. I hear a movie is in the works.

[maddythemad]

Christopher Paolini is definitely to be credited for being so accomplished at such a young age, but the books aren't quite my style. Personally, I like books by Shannon Hale (not sure if that's how you spell it, but I haven't got any of her books handy at the moment) and the obvious JK Rowling.

And yes, Paolini's books are YA. Good luck with your book as well, Brian! Fantasy is SO the best genre. *Ducks as mystery, sci-fi, chick lit, and literary novels begin throwing knives my way*

[Elektra]

Grrr...I hate it when people bring age into the equation. Younger people shouldn't be measured by a different yardstick--even if it was good for a 19-year-old, it wasn't really good enough for traditional publishing (going solely by quality here--obviously publishing is a business, and if it's already making money of its own accord I don't blame Knopf for picking it up).

Most books, I think, will sell well enough if you have the time to go to hundreds of schools and pitch it personally.

[Christine N.]

I liked Eragon, but it really was very Tolkien-esque. Didn't make it any less enjoyable for me though. I have Eldest, and someday I'll get around to reading it. I have a big pile of books to get through first.

Age really doesn't have anything to do with good writing, butI'd say that most writing by unseasoned writers is NOT good. (of course, most writing my most people isn't good either, which is why most are rejected.)

[Jamesaritchie]

Paolini is boring to some fantasy lovers because it's very derivative. But folks who haven't read much fantasy (such as Mr. Tubbs and many younger readers) won't have seen it all before (and better written) and will probably enjoy it much more.

Another vote for Diana Wynne Jones.

He's not only derivative, he's also not a very good writer. It's pretty poor stuff all around.

He shows signs of getting better with age, but he's got a long, long way to go.

[Elektra]

Let's do the math here. Say he went to 200 schools. Say he spoke to four classes at each school. That's 200*4=800, and then multiply that by 30 students per class to get 24,000. Now let's say we tack on the extra 6,000 from bookstores, talking to writers' groups, ect. That's 30,000 people that he met personally to pitch his book. Remember also that it would be a high-pressure sale (I'm not saying that Paolini was being overly aggressive, but remember: this is a book they think their teacher is recommending, they've met the author, which makes it more difficult to say no, and--this is the clincher--it's self-pubbed, so there's a "buy it now before it's gone" mentality).

As I've said, I think that any book of average quality would become a very good seller under this marketing campaign.

[UrsulaV]

I stopped reading after about the second chapter. I don't recall it being bad, but it just didn't hold me--it's probably a case, as said above, of being very familiar with the genre, so it wasn't anything I hadn't seen in infinite variation before. This wouldn't bother me, done well, except that between Jordan and Goodkind, if you show me a poor but noble/competent/pensive young ranger about to be thrust into adventure, the odds are good that the book will be thrust into the "Sell to used bookstore" pile.

Nice cover art, though. John Jude Palencar's one of my favorites.

[Mr. Jinx]

I enjoyed Eragon. Not great but a fun read.

However, I didnt care for Eldest at all. There were a few parts of Eldest that were okay but too much that didnt work. At one point I just had to force myself to slog through it and see how it ended.

My biggest gripe with Eldest is that the events and outcomes in several of the key battle scenes were just too improbable.

I think he should have just stayed with the Eragon storyline.

[BrianTubbs]

I'm about 40 pages into Eragon, and I keep getting bored and distracted. I just can't get into the story.

Given that it has been such a bestselling juggernaut in the YA world, my expectations were higher. Maybe it gets better.

[Soccer Mom]

hmm, this isn't amking me want to rush out and pick up the book. I've got to many things on my want to read lists. I think I'll hit some of those first. Thanks for taking one for the team (me) on this Brian :)

[jack scoltock]

I'm 64 and I've read it and the sequel, Eldest, both fantastic books. I'm waiting to read the thrid, due soon.

[BrianTubbs]

Okay, I finished Eragon and have now started Eldest. Eragon had a great concept, good plot, and interesting characters. But....it was very slow getting going. And it had a lot of unnecessary verbage (in my opinion) and slow spots throughout the book. It just seemed to meander at times.

That said, I liked it - once I got into it.

Now, I'm reading Eldest.

I've come to find out that Paolini inspires a lot of anger - not so much here, but elsewhere. A lot of people can't stand him. I don't know why. He's talented and driven. But I give him credit for his success. Maybe some of you can shed some light on this.

[moondance]

I suspect it's a bit of a marmite book. Many people who know a lot about writing think he doesn't do it very well. However, he's clearly done a lot of hard work in publicising it and it happened to catch people's imagination. The same could be said for JK Rowling, about whom many writers are scathing, and Dan Brown (whose 'Angels and Demons' is the only book I have ever literally thrown across the room in disgust. However he's made millions, so what do I know?)

I have 'Eldest' on my bookshelf but haven't dared open it yet. I haven't read 'Eragon' - is it necessary to start with the first?

(No one has yet recommended William Nicholson's excellent Wind on Fire trilogy on this thread, or the equally wonderful Abhorsen trilogy by Garth Nix.)

[Evaine]

Diana Wynne Jones wrote a rather good review of Eragon. She said, yes, of course it's derivative - he was sixteen (or thereabouts) when he wrote it, so he reproduced what he personally enjoyed reading. She also said she could forsee him getting a lot better at writing, and doing something that wasn't derivative - but he's under a lot of pressure now because the first book did so well.

[Niesta]

I imagine some of it is envy (speaking for myself only, that is ;) ). It's not so much the fact that he's been a bestseller before the age of 20 (more power to him, frankly), but rather the knowledge that if I wrote in that overwrought, tell-not-show, tedious, infodump style, no publisher would touch me with a ten foot pole. You can get away with a LOT, being "really good for your age".

That said, I do think he'll improve. There are enough flashes of brilliance that I suspect some day he'll be wonderful. He's got the time, talent, and money(!) to do nothing but the work he loves, and to get really good at it. I will look forward to his later books. You know, the ones that don't have Muad'dib spelled backwards anywhere in the text (that DID make me laugh out loud... but not in a nice way).

[Shweta]

I suspect it's a bit of a marmite book. Many people who know a lot about writing think he doesn't do it very well. However, he's clearly done a lot of hard work in publicising it and it happened to catch people's imagination. The same could be said for JK Rowling, about whom many writers are scathing....

Wow. I found at least the first three Harry Potter books pretty good, but I could not read Eragon. Felt guilty, 'cause it was a gift, but the prologue had so many clunky-writing cringe points to it that I just couldn't continue.
Can't say anything about the book overall, because of that, of course.

I second (or third, or fourth, or whatever) DW Jones! And Nix! And Cooper! Though with the Cooper, do bear in mind that it's written in the 70s, so the protagonists, at least at first, are real dated British schoolkids.

Hm. I'd also highly recommend Megan Whalen Turner, The Thief and sequels. And almost anything by Robin McKinley (Though Deerskin is Not happy fluffy YA, it is a truly harrowing book). Pamela Dean, Secret Country trilogy, for a literate and truly weird spin on the classic kids-going-between-worlds theme. Anything recent by Patricia Wrede.

I, um :blush: am kind of a sucker for YA fantasy.

[Shweta]

That said, I do think he'll improve. There are enough flashes of brilliance that I suspect some day he'll be wonderful. He's got the time, talent, and money(!) to do nothing but the work he loves, and to get really good at it. I will look forward to his later books. You know, the ones that don't have Muad'dib spelled backwards anywhere in the text (that DID make me laugh out loud... but not in a nice way).

Even the stuff I was cringing at clearly had talent. I really really hope he does improve, and work on it... but there's the problem of success. Who's going to edit a winner? And how does one improve without critical commentary?

(I think Rowling has this problem in book 4 (haven't read past that) -- it really needed a critical editor to say "your narrative flow is all over the map". And I think it's a pity nobody did, because it could have been a seriously rocking book.)

Babble babble.

[worthyadvisor]

(I think Rowling has this problem in book 4 (haven't read past that) -- it really needed a critical editor to say "your narrative flow is all over the map". And I think it's a pity nobody did, because it could have been a seriously rocking book.)


(I personally think she makes up for it in the end of book 5 and book 6. IMNSHO.)

[BrianTubbs]

I have 'Eldest' on my bookshelf but haven't dared open it yet. I haven't read 'Eragon' - is it necessary to start with the first?


Eldest starts with a synopsis of Eragon, so it's not necessary. But...I think it's better if you do. If I were you, I would at least borrow Eragon from the library and skim through it - and then read the synopsis at the beginning of Eldest. At least, you'll get a good feel for what's going on - and for the characters.

[BrianTubbs]

Some of the criticism leveled at Paolini is that his books are derivative - inspired in great part by Tolkein. Is that a bad thing?

I, for one, would say that ALL books written today are derivative to a point. But, I grant that the exceptional ones do push the envelope a bit - breaking into new literary territory. Still...is that necessary?

Is it possible that there's a little "literary elite" angst being directed at Paolini?

I, for one, do NOT like literature. If I'm going to read fiction, let it be POP fiction.

[Shweta]

I think some people have more tolerance for the derivative than others. It's personal choice to some extent.

I figure, if I'm pulled out of the story by "Oh not this again", then I'm pulled out of the story. Same for if I'm pulled out of it by clunky writing, or implausible characters, or anything else. I am not going to read further unless I'm interested. But what interests different people is clearly different.

[PODLINGMASTER]

Sorry to say, much of this sounds like plain ole jealousy for Mr. Paolini's success.

I've not read the novels of Mr. Paolini, at least not yet, but to say they are derivative...most fantasy I've seen is highly unoriginal...but the same goes for other genres as well.

For instance--magic, dragons, a middle-earth type setting and an evil wizard or queen or such with a brave young naive warrior setting out on a quest to stop Antagonist while saving the land and growing up along the way...its done again and again. We may make slight variations on a theme but in general this is why we have genres in the first place...the stories are not original and they fall in the same catagories together, whether fantasy, science fiction, or whatever. In fact on the rare occasion that a book falls outside of the norm, it generally has a hard time getting published because of its originality and being non-genre specific.

So we are all pulling from the other books or stories that have influenced our lives and set us to writing.

As to Mr. Paolini's success and how it came about, rather than criticism or nitpicking, perhaps a lesson should be learned of persistence and dedication to our work. I'm quite confident that those who would criticize Mr. Paolini's obvious success, (gee, isn't there an Eragon movie now), would be more than willing to step into his shoes and savor the fruits of it, were they as fortunate.

Podlingmaster

[Shweta]

I'm quite confident that those who would criticize Mr. Paolini's obvious success, (gee, isn't there an Eragon movie now), would be more than willing to step into his shoes and savor the fruits of it, were they as fortunate.

I wouldn't be.

The people I envy, who I'd like to be like, are people like Neil Gaiman and Emma Bull; and if I could have a touch of their brilliance I'd be there so fast.

But I believe I am much happier with myself as I am than I would be if someone had published the stuff I was writing at 16 (looking back at it, the writing and plot were... comparable to Eragon, if not up to its standards, which are admittedly pretty good for 16.)

I would be cringing all the time, not satisfied.

Am I in denial? Don't think so. I... dunno, I really do feel kinda sorry for Paolini. I know when an author has my seething jealousy, and this ain't it :D

EDIT: And I've got to say, it might well make a really good movie. It has good cinematic elements, from what I remember.

[PODLINGMASTER]

I wouldn't be.

The people I envy, who I'd like to be like, are people like Neil Gaiman and Emma Bull; and if I could have a touch of their brilliance I'd be there so fast.

But I believe I am much happier with myself as I am than I would be if someone had published the stuff I was writing at 16 (looking back at it, the writing and plot were... comparable to Eragon, if not up to its standards, which are admittedly pretty good for 16.)

I would be cringing all the time, not satisfied.

Am I in denial? Don't think so. I... dunno, I really do feel kinda sorry for Paolini. I know when an author has my seething jealousy, and this ain't it :D

EDIT: And I've got to say, it might well make a really good movie. It has good cinematic elements, from what I remember.


Your lack of desire is admirable, but what I actually meant was that most people would love to have their book published and doing well with a large publisher and adapted into a movie, (not that you envy his story or writing ability or lack thereof).

I would wager that you would like these things as well with whatever literary labor of love you are working on or have published already...but giving you the benefit of the doubt (Perhaps success in publishing is not a dream of yours) I'll keep the ante at a quarter.

Podlingmaster

[Soccer Mom]

While I would love to have his success, I'm gonna have to say that not everyone who criticizes a work is necessarily jealous.

I like who I am and what I write. I don't actually want to be this kid. But would I like that type of success? Sure. Who wouldn't? That's why we write.

I don't think it's fair to jump on people who don't care for a writer by pointing fingers at them as jealous.

Just my opinion :D Feel free to up the ante at me :D

[Fillanzea]

I don't find him too imitative of Tolkien. I find him too imitative of Star Wars. Think about it-- farm boy, raised by his aunt and uncle after the death of his mother (the mysterious father is absent), becomes the first new member of an elite mystical warrior sect that was destroyed when a promising and ambitious member of that elite mystical warrior sect went evil and destroyed all the rest of the elite mystical warriors and became the ruler of an Empire... am I the only one who sees the parallels?

I'm not jealous of Paolini's success, though I'd like to have it.

I just... I don't happen to think he's very good.

It's not just that the books are derivative; the linguistics is bad, mixing all kinds of sound systems without any rhyme or reason that I can see. There are rapid shifts of tone between the faux-archaic and the anachronistic. The rhythm of the sentences felt awkward, stiff, uneasy.

I mean, we're allowed not to like books, right? ;)

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

I thought Eragon was by Star Wars out of Pern ... all of what Fillanzea said, with telepathic dragons and riders. Casting by Tolkein?

Derivative I can handle, but the writing is unpolished, as shown in these extracts. They read like they are a couple of edits away from a final draft.

http://www.alagaesia.com/eragonexcerpt.htm

http://www.alagaesia.com/eldestexcerpt.htm

Is this professional jealousy? I have no plans to write epic fantasy.

[BrianTubbs]

Yeah, it's Star Wars set in Tolkein's Middle Earth. Dragon Riders = Jedi. Eragon is Luke. Brom is Obi-Wan. The mysterious voice from the Elves' city that is going to further Eragon's training = Yoda. Yup, I can see that. And all the other parallels mentioned.

But, that's okay with me. I like Star Wars. :)

[BrianTubbs]

This may warrant a separate thread. But if you're writing fantasy, is it necessary to develop a language for the races in the story? I find Paolini's use of the elf and dwarf languages to be clumsy and distracting. But maybe it's great literature - and my untrained, unsophisticated reading brain just doesn't appreciate it as such.

I'm sure I couldn't do any better. The thought of crafting new languages makes me want to forget fantasy if that's required.

[PODLINGMASTER]

While I would love to have his success, I'm gonna have to say that not everyone who criticizes a work is necessarily jealous.

I like who I am and what I write. I don't actually want to be this kid. But would I like that type of success? Sure. Who wouldn't? That's why we write.

I don't think it's fair to jump on people who don't care for a writer by pointing fingers at them as jealous.

Just my opinion :D Feel free to up the ante at me :D

Of course you would like that success. And of course people are allowed to not like something or to like it.
But those who attain success draw this kind of fire, and the same points you might throw his way, might be thrown at you by others.

Of this I am certain though--Knopf thought it was a good book, good series and that's all Mr. Paolini should be worried about. Whatever flaws others might see--he still has attained and many people appear to like it--in fact I would say that as far as his success is concerned, all of the right people like it.

The same sorts of comments are leveled at J.K. Rowling as to her writing skill, but the proof is in the pudding isn't it. If publishers like it and book buyers like it, and hey, if movie studios and producers like it--then who cares if a few writers board members don't.
Now I don't say that to be insulting--no, no, not at all--I'm only looking at the situation realistically.

Get your tickets for Eragon in December, folks?

Podlingmaster

[Christine N.]

Heck, Harry Potter is like Star Wars, except we know Voldemort is NOT Harry's father and Hermione isn't his sister. (But you know his two best friends are gonna hook up at the end.)

[PODLINGMASTER]

Heck, Harry Potter is like Star Wars, except we know Voldemort is NOT Harry's father and Hermione isn't his sister. (But you know his two best friends are gonna hook up at the end.)

If only George knew how many he had inspired...maybe he should get a patent on star warsian inspiration. He'd make a killing evidently.

Podlingmaster

[Aubrey]

At the bookstore today I picked up Eragon and read the first paragraph. The first sentence was something like "The most powerful wind ever blew through" to be followed up a few sentences later by someone (something's) features described with flowery terms like crimson and maroon (what's wrong with red?). All that drama in one paragraph seemed a little much to me, even though I'm probably overly critical.

His writing style surely improves after that, doesn't it?

[Shweta]

I'm sure I couldn't do any better. The thought of crafting new languages makes me want to forget fantasy if that's required.

You don't have to, and it's often better if you don't.
If you want to, there are linguists on this board (myself included) who are happy to give help and bullsh*t checks.

And figuring out a couple of different sound systems that can be written in English is... not that hard. That's really all you need to make two cultures seem like they have different, coherent, linguistic systems, so long as you're not throwing in elvish poetry.

Which was annoying even when Tolkien did it, so please don't :D

[Shweta]

At the bookstore today I picked up Eragon and read the first paragraph. The first sentence was something like "The most powerful wind ever blew through" to be followed up a few sentences later by someone (something's) features described with flowery terms like crimson and maroon (what's wrong with red?). All that drama in one paragraph seemed a little much to me, even though I'm probably overly critical.

His writing style surely improves after that, doesn't it?

I read the whole prologue, and it didn't.
I'm really not at all convinced that this would have been published or popular if it wasn't for the "written by a 16-year-old" sales point. And I would hate to have my stuff published only because it was "written by a".

Jealousy, again

Hats off to Soccer Mom, for saying what I wanted to say, mostly.

But while I want commercial success, I don't really want Paolini's level of commercial success, because as far as I can tell you can only get it with either fantasy that doesn't push the boundaries, or by being seriously cool and with it (like, Gaiman, or Bull); I'm interested in the vague boundaries and the spaces between genres, and I am not seriously cool and with it.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a good aim on my part; just that I would not enjoy writing the kind of fantasy that really sells well. So I won't, and hats off to people like Lois McMaster Bujold, who can do it really well. (edit: Not that she fails to push the genre, just that she does so in the direction of excellence)

I am not jealous of Paolini, or of his success. I am jealous of Patricia McKillip, and Mary Anne Mohanraj, and Ellen Kushner, and Neil Gaiman. Seethingly jealous. I want to be them. --But the worst thing you'll hear me say about them is on the order of "I don't think American Gods is as good as everything else Gaiman's set his hand to".

Because I don't think I can be jealous of writers I cannot respect.

[PODLINGMASTER]

I read the whole prologue, and it didn't.
I'm really not at all convinced that this would have been published or popular if it wasn't for the "written by a 16-year-old" sales point. And I would hate to have my stuff published only because it was "written by a".

Jealousy, again

Hats off to Soccer Mom, for saying what I wanted to say, mostly.

But while I want commercial success, I don't really want Paolini's level of commercial success, because as far as I can tell you can only get it with either fantasy that doesn't push the boundaries, or by being seriously cool and with it (like, Gaiman, or Bull); I'm interested in the vague boundaries and the spaces between genres, and I am not seriously cool and with it.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a good aim on my part; just that I would not enjoy writing the kind of fantasy that really sells well. So I won't, and hats off to people like Lois McMaster Bujold, who can do it really well. (edit: Not that she fails to push the genre, just that she does so in the direction of excellence)

I am not jealous of Paolini, or of his success. I am jealous of Patricia McKillip, and Mary Anne Mohanraj, and Ellen Kushner, and Neil Gaiman. Seethingly jealous. I want to be them. --But the worst thing you'll hear me say about them is on the order of "I don't think American Gods is as good as everything else Gaiman's set his hand to".

Because I don't think I can be jealous of writers I cannot respect.


You may not respect the guy, but he's not 16 anymore. He's an adult now and still writing and being published. I don't like a lot of people's writing but someone must for them to sell books and have the success they have attained...for example--I enjoyed the Dune movie, but when going to read the book DUNE...good grief, it tends to drag on and on a bit...and I like to be swept up quickly into a story like that. So we all have varying tastes and its hard to be too judgmental, when obviously this writer has been successful and I don't really believe you can say its because he was 16 years old and thats it. If that were the case: Then he wouldn't be continuing his success, have a movie coming out, have fan clubs and numerous people that love the books and have more books being published. Those all come from the books themselves and his writing.

That argument is sort of like saying Tiger Woods is only popular because he's a black golfer or he was a phenom at a very young age: These are facts but hey--the guy is a great golfer and continues to be successful.

Podlingmaster

[Shweta]

I think there are many reasons why someone would continue to be succesful, besides improvement in skill, actually. People like reading things by the same author better than by new authors; and the movie is being made because Eragon was popular and there's a string of books-from-fantasy-movies being done now.

Having said that! I have not read Eldest. So I can make no judgement at all about anything other than Eragon. I am not saying I sepise Paolini or that he's a hack; neithr of these is true. I am saying I read part of one book by him and found it flawed in ways that left me untempted to pick up more.
That's really all.

[tommyc7407]

I think Paolini's age is very, very relevant when judging his writing. Because it's pretty shallow writing, really, if we're judging everyone with the same yardstick. But whoever said that he is a study in marketing was right on. His parents, if I'm not mistaken (and I might be) are agents. And so I'm guessing some VERY heavy editing went on. And then there was the school tours, which someone did the math earlier, and that's a pretty good base. And then word gets out, and that's the first thing you hear: HE WAS ONLY SIXTEEN WHEN HE WROTE IT!!

For being sixteen, the book freaking rocks. I tried to write a book at sixteen, and holy christmas, it's hard to think about. Like a couple hundred monkeys trying to bang out a Stephen King book. But if my mom were an editor, and I had that kind of guidance and support, and then a book tour, well, I just don't think that kind of marketing should be overlooked. Everybody knows there are crappy books on the bestseller lists, right along side the good ones, and great books that no one's ever read. Marketing is the name of the freaking game.

Now, if an adult had published it, if not for the hype, then it would have never gotten into my hands unless I was irritated by a fly, and I was standing next to the bookstore display.

Someone said it was great that he was STILL writing. Well, yeah. If you have a bestselling novel, then you KNOW that whatever you're writing is getting published. For me, that would remove the absolute hardest aspect of writing - the uncertainty and self doubt. Of course he's still writing, even with the rest of us praising/criticizing/insulting/second-guessing him.

[tommyc7407]

I think I just called Paolini "it."

I meant "his."

TC

[Toothpaste]

Hmm . . . lots of really good points here. Just wanted to add my two cents. I'm not a big fan of fantasy, but I sent in my headshot and CV to audition for the film of Eragon (I didn't get one, that was no surprise! Still why not eh?) so I bought the book to read. I know all fantasy since JRR is in some way derivitive of LOTR, even the simple concept of it having to be a trilogy. But when I read Eragon, I just couldn't help feeling that I was reading fan fiction. That's what made me close the book. But again, everyone has different tastes, and obviously there is something in the fantasy of having your very own dragon and existing in a Middle Earth like place that appeals to a heck of a lot of people (I confess having a dragon would be kinda cool).

The age debate can rage (he was so young, he'll improve . .. etc etc), but there are young authors out there who have written genuinely well written works. I refer to Gordon Korman of course, the king of YA. As well as Catherine Webb, a young british girl who was first published at 14. Granted they have been published many times since and I am sure they have improved, but at least with Korman, I thought his writing was pretty strong from the off.

[Christine N.]

Um, actually JRR produced LOTR as a single book. It was the publisher's idea to break them into three books and market them seperately, after the first printing, I think.

Just FYI, although there were three 'books' inside LOTR.

[Shweta]

And S.E. Hinton wrote The Outsiders while still in high school, right?

EDIT: Um yes, apparently she did. :)

"I began the first draft of The Outsiders when I was fifteen. Nobody believes that, so I usually say sixteen. My editors say seventeen, just in case...

I didn't know what I was doing. I happily wrote The Outsiders over and over again, not knowing what I was doing. During my junior year in high school, when I was doing most of my work on The Outsiders, I made a D in creative writing. My revenge is to print that fact as often as possible."

http://www.edupaperback.org/showauth.cfm?authid=81

[Toothpaste]

ChristineN - Oh gosh, no, I knew that! What I meant was that because it was divided into three and became so successful (for good reason), since then the three book model has been used very often for fantasy. It doesn't matter that JRR didn't design it that way, he was influential even when he had no intention of being! Dude, that's power.

Sorry for the confusion!

[BrianTubbs]

It seems to me that ANYONE who writes a sword-and-sorcery fantasy story with dragons, elves, dwarves, etc. set in a medieval European-like world is going to be accused of copying Tolkein.

Paolini basically took Star Wars, tweaked it a little, and stuck it in a Tolkein LOTR setting.

I have no problem with that.

I don't think published writers need to be contenders for the Pulitzer Price in literature. I don't think they need or should have to write for the literary elite. I don't think there's anything wrong with derivative pop fiction. If people enjoy it, so be it. If people don't, so be it.

In Paolini's case, enough people have enjoyed his work that he's no longer worried about his next meal. I say "more power to him."

[BrianTubbs]

For those of you who haven't seen the Eragon trailer yet, you can check it out here....

http://media.filmforce.ign.com/media/040/040599/vids_1.html

[Toothpaste]

I agree with you, and I am a fan of authors who are considered by most respectible authours to be, well, crap. Trust me I am not the benchmark of good taste. And it's all a matter of taste as I so often say.

I do not think he is copying Tolkein, please understand that isn't what I meant 'derivitive' to mean. That is a much more serious allegation. I think you are right that all fantasies written that way are going to be compared because before Tolkein this world didn't exist. They are using his lore, but there is nothing wrong with using someone's lore. Every story written goes back to some ancient myth or other, or at least Shakespeare.

That's not my personal issue with the book. My issue is that when one writes any book, be it a typical detective story or one based on a lore, there must be a reason for reading it. There is something new that is brought to it, whether it be plot, or even simply the voice of the author. If not, it has the danger of falling into the trap of becoming an attempt to pretend to have written the lore it is based on in the first place. Fan fiction as I said. Some girl is in love with Harry Potter, so she creates a character in a Potter story based on herself so she can marry him. Which is totally fun to do! But personally I'm not interested in her crush. In his story he just happens to create a protagonist who is a young teenage boy his age who finds a dragon's egg and saves the world. Some people really enjoy reading this because they too have a similar fantasy (in fact the raising the dragon part was my favourite bit, because, like I said earlier, I would love to own a dragon), I personally could see too much of this other motivation (which to be honest since I don't know the guy, could be an entirely false conclusion) to get interested in the story in and of itself. This is not to say I am right and others are wrong. Totally and utterly a question of taste.

Hmm . . . does that last paragraph make any sense at all?

And man would I love to no longer worry about my next meal. Maybe someday. If I wish hard enough. Until then, may I join you in your sentiment? - more power to you Christopher!

[BrianTubbs]

I don't want anyone to think I'm criticizing them for not liking Eragon or Eldest.

I'm only focusing on one criticism that some have levelled at Paolini, namely that his story isn't original - that it's a "rip off" from LOTR, Star Wars, or what have you. It is to THAT criticism that I ask "So what?"

Of course, even there, I respect the fact that some people prefer not to read knock-offs, rip-offs, copycats, or whatever you want to call them. To which I say "Great, No problem." People are certainly entitled to their own personal literary taste.

[wordmonkey]

Here's my opinion of Master Poulini...

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41691

[Imelda]

^ If you're going to diss someone at least get his name right :D

Anyway, I can see where people come from when they dislike Paolini's work. It does need editing, and I can't imagine why it hasn't been done properly. The work is also heavily influenced by others', but I've read stuff that's far worse in those terms.

I think that once Paolini finishes the Inheritance Trilogy and works on something that's less ... derived ... he'll be better.

Having said that, in Eldest, there's a long section on lacemaking. Clearly, the guy just learned about it and shoved the knowledge in. WHY? WHY? I mean, give your critics ammo, why don't you?

Mostly, I can't help but buy the books because I'm jealous he got published, and want to show my support for young writers. :D

[wordmonkey]

I think a lot of people resent him because his Dad had a small publishing business and that's how he got printed. He then did his "tour" and his Dad's company got bought by a bigger publisher and we have this end result.

He stole his core story. OK, I'll give you that the quest isn't that original anyways, but come on, it's Star Wars. He stole his Dragons. How Anne McCaffrey hasn't sued for plagerism, I don't know. He stole his magic. How Ursula Le Guinn hasn't sued, I also don't know. Now anyone who says that there is nothing wrong with a little borrowing, would you be saying that if he "borrowed" for you? And he didn't even do it subtly, it's exactly the same! In both examples.

For me, that is all bad enough, because I work hard on trying to come up with something new. If I write science fiction, I research real science and go from there. My fantasy is all humor based, so in many respects I often skit existing stuff - but I try and bring something new to it, a twist.

But what is worse than his blatant stealing is that he is not a very good writer. I don't care how good he might be. No one here on these forums will sell a book based on how good they might be. He hustled a vanity press project. Great hustle doesn't equate with great writing.

People resent this not because they're jealous, but because a) it's wrong; and b) it makes it harder for the rest of us who do the work. And I mean the REAL work.

[Imelda]

I can't see any similarity between Paolini's and Ursula Le Guin's magic systems. I wouldn't really know about the dragons, because I've never read Anne McCaffrey, but it obviously doesn't bother her.

[BrianTubbs]

I'm finding Eldest to be even slower than Eragon. He's extremely wordy and goes into great detail in areas that (to me) don't need it.

I also agree with the comments about the editing. I feel that I'm reading a second or third draft - not a professionally edited manuscript.

All that having been said...I still don't have a problem with his using the Star Wars plot template and inserting it into a LOTR universe. For crying out loud, A LOT of how-to-write books suggest this very method - that of taking a plot from a favorite story or movie and changing its setting or time period.

[Momento Mori]

Butting into the discussion, I think that an awful lot of YA fantasy is derivative in some way (e.g. Harry Potter at times reads like a combination of Mallory Towers and Dungeons and Dragons) - it's whether you're obvious in your influences. For me, Paolini was a little too obvious about where he got his underlying ideas from so I didn't enjoy the first book enough to want to read the second. That said, it's the same reason why the books became so popular - teens can find bits of ideas that they recognise from elsewhere and pacing wise, I think he keeps up the plot events to keep them interested.

I do however feel that he would benefit from a more stringent editor. There were some incredibly wince-inducing elements to Eragon that should have been tightened up or reworked. But then, it is a skill that comes with practice so maybe he'll see it more for himself as he goes along.

[Good Word]

With all its faults and weaknesses, and even though it needed another edit, I enjoyed Eragon and think what Paolini accomplished at such a young age is admirable.

[Moonfish]

I have read both Eragon and Eldest, and I think he has some skill and some talent - which is why I PERSONALLy feel it's kinda wasted on something so un-original. Dwarves in caves, elves in forests... Fantasy does not have to be so formulaic. But I cannot stomach D&D books either, for the very same reason.
I fell head over heels in love with Ursula K Le Guin's Earthsea-books because I found them so different and original. And Pullman as well (although of course parallell worlds are not that new).

[moondance]

I am halfway through Eldest, and I'm prepared to stick with it, even though I am not finding it terribly inspiring. To be honest, I can't now remember a lot of what happened at the beginning of the book, but then this kind of fantasy doesn't really grip me anyway (LOTR didn't). The writing is OK but I agree that some ruthless editing would not have damaged the book in any way.

Will try to post final feelings when I get to the end!

[britlitfantw]

I own Eragon and borrowed Eldest from the library. If I can lock away my inner-editor as well as my inner-beta reader, I manage to get a pleasant read out of them both. I do think that what he accomplished at 15 is amazing, because to have that amount of stick-to-itiveness is admirable, even for an adult at times. I also know that the reason I have it on my shelf and plan to do the same for Eldest is because I think that the one thing he truly did amazingly well was develop Saphira. She never fails to amaze me, and she is both noticeably of a wisened race and young as a child. For Saphira's creation, I applaud him.

[peevy]

I also recommend Diana Wynne Jones, especially the Chrestomanci books. One of the newer additions to that series, Conrad's Fate, is great! Also, I never felt like Cooper's characters were that dated. In fact, I never really noticed that at all.

I'm wondering if Eragon appeals more often to guys than girls? I seem to hear a lot of guys say they enjoyed it and a lot of girls say it didn't hold they're interest. I couldn't read more than about 50 pages because I just couldn't get into it--and I'm a girl.

As for being a young writer--that seems to be a relevant term. If a person started writing at the age of 10 and published when he was 20, then he's had a lot of experience. Whereas a person who starts writing at age 28 and publishes at 34 has less experience--and therefore is a "younger" writer. This is why it doesn't seem fair to me to say that young (teens and twenties) writers tend to be bad writers. I'm sure it has more to do with experience.

[J. Weiland]

I wonder if Christopher has an alias here at absolutewrite?

[moondance]

I'm wondering if Eragon appeals more often to guys than girls? I seem to hear a lot of guys say they enjoyed it and a lot of girls say it didn't hold they're interest. I couldn't read more than about 50 pages because I just couldn't get into it--and I'm a girl.


I think that speaks for fantasy in general. I suspect that boys IN GENERAL read more fantasy and that girls IN GENERAL are more interested in real-life stories.

Please note the 'IN GENERAL'. I am a female and greatly enjoyed William Nicholson's Wind on Fire trilogy as well as Garth Nix's Abhorsen trilogy. However, if offered the choice between a book by Meg Cabot and a 500 page fantasy, I would probably choose Meg Cabot. There is a part of me that sinks when I read the first few pages and realise that I have to get to grips with dwarfs, orcs, elves etc (unless it's Pratchett).

I suspect that the fantasy gender preference is also tied in with the high number of boys who love playing fantasy role-playing games.

Plus of course Eragon has a male protagonist, which helps to attract male readers.

By the way, I haven't finished Eldest yet. I am finding it quite hard going and I am into the last quarter of the book. Some sections don't seem to advance the plot at all, and if I were his editor, I would have removed them. But the writing is OK and I am not greatly offended by his style.

[heatheringemar]

I think that speaks for fantasy in general. I suspect that boys IN GENERAL read more fantasy and that girls IN GENERAL are more interested in real-life stories.

Please note the 'IN GENERAL'. I am a female and greatly enjoyed William Nicholson's Wind on Fire trilogy as well as Garth Nix's Abhorsen trilogy. However, if offered the choice between a book by Meg Cabot and a 500 page fantasy, I would probably choose Meg Cabot. There is a part of me that sinks when I read the first few pages and realise that I have to get to grips with dwarfs, orcs, elves etc (unless it's Pratchett).

I've heard that before, particularly in science fiction too. The style of writing and subject matter often appeals more to men than women.

I wonder why more sci-fi/fantasy authors don't target females more often? Is it because they are such male-dominated genres?

[Christine N.]

Tamora Pierce specifically uses strong female protags; I think her books appeal to girls more than boys.

I also pretty much only use female MC's; maybe that's a good thing. I don't like writing chick-lit, even if the chicks are young.

[UrsulaV]

I dunno--scifi, sure, I'll give you, but I think there's a very solid female readership in fantasy, more so than a lot of other genres. There's quite a large young-woman-coming-of-age-with-telepathic-pets subgenre, ya know?

Obviously one's specific anecdotes aren't a good count--I generally loathe "real-life" books unless someone's going to get dismembered or possessed by the end, myself!--but I think this is one area where sci-fi/fantasy isn't a uniform genre.

One thing I've heard over and over is that with YA, girls will read stories where boys are protagonists, but boys will only read stories where boys are the protagonists.

Eragon didn't interest me, but it wasn't the fantasy or the gender--I just found it tedious to read.

[Moonfish]

Lloyd Alexander has almost exclusively strong female protagonists. OK, in the Black Cauldron-series we have Taran as the MC but Eilonwyn (I forget the spelling of her name now) is absolutely the stronger character of the two.

[Tallymark]

I made it through the first book, but I was...well, disappointed. It wasn't too bad; the story was a neat idea, and I really liked Saphira, but all the other characters felt flat to me. Especially Eragon. (way too much self-insertion. Fifteen year old boy finds dragon, does a few months of training and becomes suddenly a perfect supah-skilled masterswordsman, and meets a hot elf babe? It may be every teenage boys dream, but it makes for a boring character. Where's the character flaws? What makes him real?). And the writing style just..well, it killed it with the excessive description. I remember reading an interview with him once, where he talked about doing the audio version of the book, and he was saying how when he read the description of the dwarves underground cavern out loud, he realized that he may have gone a bit overboard on the description. And I was like "Good god, NOW you realize it?!" I couldn't feel for the characters for most of the book because I was choking on the long, overly flowy tedious sentences. One of the first things they tell a writer to do is read your stuff out loud to yourself, which ought to have been done before he got it published. And there was too much description on pointless stuff, too little showing characters having real emotional moments and struggles.

Apparently, there's an entire website someone did dedicated to why Paolini is a crappy writer. o.o Personally, just the thought of such a thing existing makes me feel vicarious guilt, because I know if I were a new writer, and I found a site dedicated to why no one liked me, I'd probably cry. (This is NOT to say I don't accept and welcome criticism. I'll openly admit that my writing ain't the best ever. I've got no problem taking a bad review. But c'mon, a whole site dedicated to why I suck? You'd be sad too. On the other hand, after the initial self-hatred fest, it's a good way to learn what you're doing wrong.).

Even though I feel they nitpick a little too much sometimes, they've got a lot of good points and basically say a lot of the same stuff we've been saying here--he borrows a bit too much and his writing style is too wordy and tedious.

http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/

[Mod35tBabe]

I'm also a young writer, at the tender age of 20, but have written a novel I know needs work but after the opinion of a fellow published author I feel I could well be published in the next few years. However, if you consider I've been writing stories since I could form letters, and if you consider having started actual stories with proper starts, middles and ends I've been writing for 10-15 years. However, I'm also a mature person (many think I'm over 25 if they don't see me) - so does that make all the difference?

I read the excerpt, and wasn't terribly thrilled by it. I can't say it made me want to read more, and some parts I got to and thought "gees if he'd put this in the SYW forum they would've picked up that one" - but good on him for getting there anyway. I can only hope the rest of us get a similar taste of success - no matter the age.

I too would be very depressed if I knew there was an entire website about why my writing was bad - but I hope to have the strength and support of friends and family to withstand the criticism.

[wordmonkey]

The thing about opinions on your work is that you really have to give as much weight to the bad stuff as you do the good stuff. If you just buy into the raves, you'll soon get deluded and think you have nothing left to prove or learn.

I think to some degree, this happened to our friend. He was told by family and friends how good he was. The rest of us pretty much have to deal with a Mom who thinks we're on a par with Shakespeare and it goes no further. But unlike you or I, his Dad was in a position to further massage that ego, by printing his book.

Of course, the other option is that you ignore both good and bad opinions.

Truth is, not everyone will like your work. And the ones who don't will be just as loud, if not louder than the ones who love it. If you aren't up for dealing with the critics, maybe it's time to think about a different career.

[David McAfee]

I'm also a young writer, at the tender age of 20, but have written a novel I know needs work but after the opinion of a fellow published author I feel I could well be published in the next few years. However, if you consider I've been writing stories since I could form letters, and if you consider having started actual stories with proper starts, middles and ends I've been writing for 10-15 years. However, I'm also a mature person (many think I'm over 25 if they don't see me) - so does that make all the difference?

I read the excerpt, and wasn't terribly thrilled by it. I can't say it made me want to read more, and some parts I got to and thought "gees if he'd put this in the SYW forum they would've picked up that one" - but good on him for getting there anyway. I can only hope the rest of us get a similar taste of success - no matter the age.

I too would be very depressed if I knew there was an entire website about why my writing was bad - but I hope to have the strength and support of friends and family to withstand the criticism.

I can think of three very successful authors who have legions of people that think their writing is sub-par. Paolini, Rowling, and Brown, and that's just three. There are quite a few others (Jordan and Goodkind come to mind). All three did quite well in spite of this, though. In general, I think fellow writers are the harshest critics.

[Shweta]

I can think of three very successful authors who have legions of people that think their writing is sub-par. Paolini, Rowling, and Brown, and that's just three. There are quite a few others (Jordan and Goodkind come to mind). All three did quite well in spite of this, though. In general, I think fellow writers are the harshest critics.

Well, and there are also very successful authors who don't have legions of people who think their writing is sub-par. I think it's misleading to only look at popular authors who get slammed, because it implies that we're sitting around picking apart everyone popular just because they're popular. I don't think that's true. I think some very popular authors have seriously sub-par aspects to their work, and that some other writers notice this.

Fellow writers ought to be the harshest critics, just like scientists in a field are one anothers' harshest critics (as well as staunchest supporters). We're presumably other professionals in the field, right? We presumaby read more than most people, and know clunky or overwrought prose from smooth, and clever plots from cliched ones, and full-fledged characters from cardboard ones...

In each of these cases, they're getting people to read, so go them. And they're successful, so presumably they strike a chord, and go them. But I've read (or tried to read) all the ones you mention, and I think there are good reasons why people pick apart their writing*.

I guess it depends on what you think validates someone. If you think sales validate a writer, and so we have no write to critique popular writers, then I'll agree to disagree, and please ignore everything I say. I will never sell like those people do. But I do think I can normally string sentences together better than most of 'em, and put together less cliched settings and characters. If I didn't, I wouldn't be trying to be a writer.

* Even Rowling, who I actually mostly like.

[David McAfee]

Well, and there are also very successful authors who don't have legions of people who think their writing is sub-par. I think it's misleading to only look at popular authors who get slammed, because it implies that we're sitting around picking apart everyone popular just because they're popular. I don't think that's true. I think some very popular authors have seriously sub-par aspects to their work, and that some other writers notice this.

Fellow writers ought to be the harshest critics, just like scientists in a field are one anothers' harshest critics (as well as staunchest supporters). We're presumably other professionals in the field, right? We presumaby read more than most people, and know clunky or overwrought prose from smooth, and clever plots from cliched ones, and full-fledged characters from cardboard ones...

In each of these cases, they're getting people to read, so go them. And they're successful, so presumably they strike a chord, and go them. But I've read (or tried to read) all the ones you mention, and I think there are good reasons why people pick apart their writing*.

I guess it depends on what you think validates someone. If you think sales validate a writer, and so we have no write to critique popular writers, then I'll agree to disagree, and please ignore everything I say. I will never sell like those people do. But I do think I can normally string sentences together better than most of 'em, and put together less cliched settings and characters. If I didn't, I wouldn't be trying to be a writer.

* Even Rowling, who I actually mostly like.

Wow. I think you seriously misinterpreted my post. I wasn't implying that other, less financially successful writers are only complaining due to jealousy, only that sub-par writing does not necessarily mean a person can't be published and yes, even successful. Not that anyone shouldn't strive for better, though.

Writers are the harshest critics, it's true, and with good reason. Writers know good writing (at least when it comes to other people's writing. Some writers are blind when it comes to their own). You seem to imply I think that is a bad thing. I don't. I think it's perfectly normal.

[maddythemad]

I'm not arguing against anyone, because I know no one said this, but I think that as long as an author has genuine readers who buy the book and look forward to the next one, then they deserve every penny that they earn.

[Shweta]

I'm not arguing against anyone, because I know no one said this, but I think that as long as an author has genuine readers who buy the book and look forward to the next one, then they deserve every penny that they earn.

Agreed, Maddy. Those of us who sell stuff have worked to earn their bread! :D

[Silverhand]

Shweta,

I feel your analogy is a good one, but off.

In the scientific field, they tend to only be harsh critic's if they can prove or plausibly theorize that the other person wrong.

The problem with writers...especially critiquing someone else who has sold millions of copies...is that most of us cant theorize anything based upon our own qualifications. What I mean by this is: we may not like the style, or the dialogue, or the possible infringement of ideas...but the readers (who are the real guide to whether our work has merit) do.

Does the character of Eragon suck? Maybe to you it does. Maybe you or I could write a more compelling one. That doesn't change the fact that the kid, through marketing means or otherwise, was able to connect with a shite ton of readers. Maybe the readers WANT characters who aren;t flawed..and maybe they dont. :) The point is...it is very hard to snub our noses at someone elses talent...when they are so successful.

It is like me saying Albert Pujols swing is flawed. The dude is the best hitter in the National League...and has had WAY more success then I ever will. THus, even though I know the game and how much talent I have, I just don't think it is right to criticize him. /shrugs

[Shweta]

Shweta,

I feel your analogy is a good one, but off.

In the scientific field, they tend to only be harsh critic's if they can prove or plausibly theorize that the other person wrong.

While that's true of published reviews, it's not true in the community. Harsh questions at talks happen. People criticising your methods, your core assumptions, thinking critically about what's good *and* what's bad about particular studies... hm, well, perhaps this is more true in the social sciences than the hard sciences.

The problem with writers...especially critiquing someone else who has sold millions of copies...is that most of us cant theorize anything based upon our own qualifications. What I mean by this is: we may not like the style, or the dialogue, or the possible infringement of ideas...but the readers (who are the real guide to whether our work has merit) do.

Depends on what the merit is. I think it's very important to acknowledge that Paolini reached a wide audience, and to think about how he did -- either to emulate some part of his method or decide to find a different one -- but that doesn't mean we have to agree that commercial success alone defines a writer.

Maybe the readers WANT characters who aren;t flawed..and maybe they dont. :)

Sure, I think some readers do. And some readers want cliches. The question is, do you want to write that?

The point is...it is very hard to snub our noses at someone elses talent...when they are so successful.

No, it is hard to snub our noses at their success. And it is unwise to snub our noses at their talent. But it is useful to think about what they did and didn't do critically. Whether we like their work or not.

After all, we are not just here to be critics or fanboy/girls. We're writers too. I'm not suggesting a literary-critique of Paolini. I just think it is not useful to confuse talent/skill and success.

The book sold.
It had selling points.
It also had some flaws that made initially-sympathetic readers stop reading. (I am a reader, too, and a widely-read one, and I could not get past the prologue).

It is useful to know what all of those are.

It is like me saying Albert Pujols swing is flawed. The dude is the best hitter in the National League...and has had WAY more success then I ever will. THus, even though I know the game and how much talent I have, I just don't think it is right to criticize him. /shrugs

If you're trying to be a better hitter, it is right to think about how his swing is flawed. In fact, it is self-defeating not to.

That is my point.

[Lisa McMann]

My 13 year-old son loved Eragon and Eldest. He can't wait for the third book.

That makes me happy. Obviously, Paolini has done something right for his audience (which is not 38 year-old moms like me). More power to him -- he's getting my son excited about books. :)

[Silverhand]

If you're trying to be a better hitter, it is right to think about how his swing is flawed. In fact, it is self-defeating not to.

That is my point.

Actually, it is better to study...emulate...and even break down the swing of the BEST hitter in baseball, rather then trying to look at its flaws. It would make no sense to point out his flaws when he is obviously doing something better then I am.

Now..if that success ever stunted, THEN you look at the flaws. /shrugs

The same thing should apply.

[Danger Jane]

Don't feel like arguing about the quality of Eragon, or about whether or not it's justified to point out flaws in an established author's work, because I'm sick and have no energy.

As far as successful YA fantasy goes, you might check out Phillip Pullman and Tamora Pierce. Tamora Pierce has done a great job of targeting the teen-YA audience.

[RG570]

The first thing that struck me when I picked up Eragon was that there's a dragon on the cover, and the title is "Dragon" but with the first letter shifted one space forward. I thought that was pretty unimaginative.

"Unimaginative" pretty much sums up the rest of the story. His riffing on vegetarianism was offputting. And the whole thing was just one dimensional and sophomoric male fantasy.

I guess it's good that people have enjoyed it. Of course I'm jealous that he's now a millionaire and will never have to pick up a shovel. Hopefully he'll use his limitless free time to learn how to write.

[JoeEkaitis]

The first thing that struck me when I picked up Eragon was that there's a dragon on the cover, and the title is "Dragon" but with the first letter shifted one space forward. I thought that was pretty unimaginative.One would almost expect the sequel to be Fragon.

[james1611]

gone

[LitFa]

I have never read the books but I did see the commercial for the movie last night, it looks like it should be exciting. There are several members in my family who enjoy this type of book and movie so I will have to recommend that they check it out.:)

[james1611]

gone

[Toothpaste]

"Are the vast number of readers, Publishing professionals like agents, editors, etc, all wrong and A.W.'s unpublished or meagerly published are all right about his work?"

james1611,

Hmm, that was an quite a nasty dig there. I don't think anyone ever said that. People are just expressing opinions, having a nice debate. You say, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions of course, but it still sounds like professional jealousy, opinion or not." Okay, so even though you acknowledge that it may just be opinion, it still doesn't matter because it sounds like jealousy? Well just because it sounds like jealousy to you doesn't make it so. If people don't like a book, does that make them petty and small? I really think that most of the people, though not all, who have commented here have been merely expressing what they didn't like about the book (or in some cases did). I don't like Eragon. I don't like fantasy. I find the book derivative. Personally. You like the book, despite not liking fantasy. I do not think any less of you, or your abilities as a writer (as I have no idea what they are), which I assume you were aiming at by bringing in the qualification "unpublished or meagerly published". I understand your message, that he must be doing something right to have had two such successful books, and I agree. It isn't that I don't. He is obviously telling a story that many people love and want to hear. And that is a wonderful thing. It's just that I hate it when things degenerate into insults on these boards, when people are just trying to have a debate. Why is it necessary?

[Shweta]

Thanks for defending me, but I don't think that's namecalling, Toothpaste.

I agree with James, to at least some extent.

Kudos to Paolini for managing to sell books in an age when most kids/YAs don't even want to read. And kudos to him for writing a story that at least some people find appealing. I'd like to do that, and I intend to.

I happen to think Eragon is seriously flawed, in a way that made it unreadable to me -- allowing that I'm not the target audience, I read a lot of YA and think some of it is the best work I've ever read. So what's the difference?

Because I would like to write YA like Diana Wynne Jones and Megan Turner and Lloyd Alexander and Peter Beagle and Caroline Stevermer and Patricia Wrede and Robin McKinley and Tamora Pierce and... well, you get the idea :D

I happen to think it's useful to see how these people diverge from Paolini, because they're the ones I'd like to emulate; and for that I find that it's useful to think critically about everyone concerned. But given that, I do agree with James that simply criticizing isn't much use.

I think if you learn from it, though, it is useful.

[Tallymark]

I have to agree with Toothpaste; it's awful hard to have a serious critical discussion when everytime you say a negative thing about an author, people tell you you're "just jealous". Of course everyone wants to write a wildly successful book, but y'know, I bet people who *like* his writing would be pretty happy having his fame too. I bet they'd also like JK Rowling's level of success--and I thoroughly enjoy her books. So if I dislike him because I'm "just jealous", shouldn't I dislike Rowling too? It's the same thing with the Dan Brown arguments--people say we're all dissing Dan Brown just because we're jealous, but Micheal Crighton is just as popular and has had a ton of movies made of his stuff, and I think he's a great writer. If jealousy is what motivates me, shouldn't I be bashing them both? The jealousy card isn't a fair one to play in a discussion because it's an all-purpose negator.

It's like politics; the republicans won't listen to the democrats because they're 'crazy liberal kooks', and the democrats won't listen to the republicans because they're 'crazy warmongers'. But if y'sit down and talk to people, you'll usually find that there's a good reason they have the opinions that they do, even if they're opinions you don't like. That's what we're trying to do here.

I dunno, I don't mean to rant, I just hate it when people discredit everything I say because they think its all self-motivated. I know you probably didn't mean the comment that seriously and were just defending an author you like--which is what I would do too! But seriously, it's not jealousy at work here, at least not for me. As I read his book, I didn't find myself comparing his writing and mine...I found myself comparing his writing and the writing of my favorite fantasy authors. I'd think about David Eddings and the brilliant charisma and life he gives his characters (though I'll admit, his recent series is too meandering for me, and I don't think it's terribly great writing. And this is an author I truly love that I'm criticizing here, so don't think I only criticize supah-famous newcomers ^_~ ). I'd think about Rowling and the whimsy her magic has. I'd think about Tolkein, and Neil Gaiman, and all kinds of others, and I would just be confused as to why people weren't ranting and screaming about them--they're all hugely popular, but there isn't the same media push Paolini is getting. I was disappointed because they'd been so much hype about this book, but it couldn't hold my interest in the same way the other writers could, partly for stylistic reasons, and partly because the character development just seemed to be lacking something for me. I'd rather write like my favorite authors and enjoy a moderate level of success, because I'd be so proud of my creations if I could attain that level.

There are aspects of Eragon that I thought were quite good. His imagery was lovely and vivid, I just wish he hadn't been as long-winded with it. And Saphira was a fantastic character. And who doesn't love a good epic battle? But it just didn't click with me, for the reasons above. That's just my opinion.

[Momento Mori]

james1611:
I'm most of the way through the book and really enjoying it and I'm not really a Fantasy fan, as far as dragons, wizards and elves, middle earth type of stuff. But I'm finding it richly told and interesting.

I think it's the fact that you don't read a lot of fantasy that might explain why you're enjoying it. Many of the people who are more critical of the book do read a lot of fantasy and much of what Paolini is doing is riffing on stuff that's been done before and better by other fantasy authors.

Paolini's book (at least for me) is like the literary equivalent of a teenager's Youtube fan-tribute to the Stones-Beatles-Who. It meshes a lot of things together and there are occassional moments where you think it works quite well, but it's not new or innovative and a big hook for its appeal is the fact that it's been done by a teenager.

None of this is to say that Paolini can't/won't go on to do great things, but Eragon isn't (for me) a great book and it didn't hook me enough to want to read the others (or indeed, see the movie adaptation).

By contrast if you want to read some well-written fantasy, I would strongly recommend Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus trilogy, which is about djinn and magicians in an alternative Britain. It's a lot of fun, well paced and very evocative.

[Christine N.]

Well, now, I enjoyed Eragon. It was difficult in places, and yes, I know it was pretty thinly disguised Tolkien Fanfic. It was obvious, except in rare places, and even then I could find something to compare it too. The city underground - Mines of Moria, hello?
But he had a couple of original characters I liked; mostly the dragon.

BUT (again)one thing I've learned reading, writing for and hanging around with kids the ages these books are written for. They LIKE familiarity. Books LIKE Harry Potter are popular, because they like that type of adventure. Multiple book series are popular, because the characters are familiar.

So I expect Eragon is popular with kids BECAUSE of it's familiar nature. And there's nothing wrong with that. A lot of kids like my book because it's really like a fairy tale, with lots of familiar archetypical characters (but original).

[Shweta]

By contrast if you want to read some well-written fantasy, I would strongly recommend Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus trilogy, which is about djinn and magicians in an alternative Britain. It's a lot of fun, well paced and very evocative.

But the third book isn't out in paperback yet. *swear swear mutter*
And by the end of book two you really want to read book three, not because of any cheap cliffhanger but because... argh!

Stroud is not someone I want to write like because I think... I have no hope. Managing multiple sympathetic viewpoint characters in massive conflict is... well, I'm just glad he does it!

[Momento Mori]

Shweta:
But the third book isn't out in paperback yet. *swear swear mutter*

Oh. It is in the UK ... (Sorry!).

Christine N.:
I expect Eragon is popular with kids BECAUSE of it's familiar nature. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I can agree with that.

Christine N.:
But he had a couple of original characters I liked; mostly the dragon.

Actually, the dragon reminded me of Polgara from the David Eddings Belgariad series. But with scales.

[james1611]

gone

[james1611]

gone

[AnneMarble]

But the third book isn't out in paperback yet. *swear swear mutter*
My Barnes & Noble has the third book (hardback) for $6.98. If you have a B&N near you, you might want to call them and find out if they have it at a bargain price.

And thanks for reminding me to read the copy of Book Two I bought when it first came out. (All those blasted books pile up. Someday they'll find me buried under a heap of problem novels... :tongue )

[moondance]

Well, I struggled through to the end, and I have to confess that I think it was a bit of a waste of my time. It's OK, but I didn't get any sense of progressive throughline - there wasn't enough difference in the pacing of the various sections. I have donated the book to my school's library since I shan't be reading it again!

[Momento Mori]

james1611:
I think saying it's popular because he was a teenager is a bit dismissive.

I think you've misunderstood my point because that's not what I said. It's not only popular because he's a teenager. There are flashes of talent in there but (in my opinion) it's raw, under-developed and needs more work because you can see the influences too clearly.

As I clearly said, his age was what was used as the marketing hook and you can't deny that when it came to publicising Eragon, the publishers were definitely pushing his age as a big selling factor in the "look at this book - the author's only a teenager!". Maybe a different strategy was used in the US, but it was certainly the hook that got emphasised when he promoted it in the UK. Almost every interview or review in the UK press that I read made the point of saying that it was well done considering his youth.

james1611:
by the way, those who signed him and optioned it for the movie and video game and whatever else weren't teenagers...they're obviously what you would term, "smart."

I don't think that I've said otherwise. Eragon sold millions of copies - it was therefore a good bet for a film studio because, like Harry Potter, there's a ready made audience who will want to see it and by selling it as a family film during the Christmas break, they can maximise their returns.

However, I don't think that you should confuse the fact that it will make money with the issue as to whether it's a good book. There must be a Da Vinci Code equivalent to Godwin's Law by now :), but it's still a good analogy for a pretty poorly written book making millions of sales and being a profitable film.

james1611:
I just like a good story. All fiction is a rehash of something else for the most part and if the publishing industry is any indicatior

True - afterall, there are only supposed to be 7 basic plotlines. However, the better writers are the ones who can tell an old story in a new, original and exciting way. The writers who are still developing are the ones who flash up in neon lights what their influences are. As I said, Paolini makes a poor job of hiding his influences and therefore, for someone who likes a good story and reads a lot of fantasy anyway, it becomes too derivative to be a really enjoyable read.

james1611:
I don't hear other "successful writers" trashing this guy's work. Maybe I'm just naive, but perhaps they are just being professional or maybe they are busier trying to understand what people love about the books rather than trying to tell everyone what they shouldn't love about them.

By that logic, professional writers only express an opinion about a book when they love it or can see why other people love it. That simply doesn't fly. You only have to pick up the book review section of The Sunday Times in the UK to see that some guest reviewers (who are published writers) will happily rip into a book if they think that it's poor.

I don't think the fact that I'm an as yet unpublished writer negates the value of my opinion that the book is poorly written, any more than the fact that you're only a "meagerly published" reinforces your opinion that it's a good read. I certainly don't think that the fact that I'm unpublished means that my opinion can be automatically written off as being unprofessional or sour grapes, which is what you seem to be saying to anyone who holds a different view to you.

MM

[Ronnie]

Here's what I know. My 12 year old got so excited about these books that when someone suggested he would also like Tolkien he started reading those as well. Yay! I think he's now read like 6 Tolkien. He's also read the other trilogy by Paolini (can't remember its name now).

This is the same child who thought HP was stupid by the way. He wouldn't even watch the movie.

Oh, and he's starting "writing" his own fantasy story. He keeps pointing out to me how young Poalini was when he started writing and gets inspired by that.

[Momento Mori]

Ronnie:
This is the same child who thought HP was stupid by the way. He wouldn't even watch the movie.

Heh - my neighbour's son (13) felt the same way about HP. But he loved Philip Pullman's Northern Lights trilogy and he's the one who got me into Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus Trilogy.

Ronnie:
He keeps pointing out to me how young Poalini was when he started writing and gets inspired by that.

That's great! Regardless of my own opinions on Paolini's writing style, anything that gets children to read and write has some worth.

[Oliveman]

I would like to jump in here.

I am a young writer, very much near to the age when Christopher began writing Eragon, and am working on my first book, which happens to be the genere I exclusively read for pleasure, and have loved since a young age. I have read around half the book, and my mixed feelings about it forced it out of my hand. The imagry and passion imbued into the first book grabbed on to my imagination, and I could feel myself flying along with Saphira and panicing as the Urguls chased me down abandoned streets. I was trying to work on my own book at that point, though, so I couldn't read the book clearly without thinking about the hand that wrote it. Perhaps the allure of possibility got in the way, rather than jealousy. Fast forward to Eldest, which I picked up a few months later, just to read a few passages (I know, I am a plot murderer), and I found out that he style broke considering, and for me, at least, the vision faultered and was seduced by larger than life scenes and anime-type passion and of course.. firepower. The plot twists I read seemed either too obvious because of past stories, or just too unrealistic to really be the product of logical choices from all the players. That being said, I completely understand the writer's dilema, and I can see where the pressure got to Paolini. But would I recommend the books? Sure! But, not in the same strength that I would for other fantasy novels, like Harry Potter, for instance. Just saying that it is worth your time to read it, trying to think about it as I did, in terms of who wrote it, while avoiding any animosity you might feel on a personal level, to just enjoy the words and the way in which they were, in your opinion, formed. The direct style of these books allow you to, easily.

I hope to contact Paolini in the future to create some sort of young writer's society, so please message me with your opinions on this proposition, if you are interested in becoming a part of it.

[BrianTubbs]

I'm having a tough time w/ Eldest. I just can't get into it. I do feel that it plods along too slowly in much of the book. Too much description, etc. I say that as a reader, not a writer. Who am I to argue w/ success after all?

I am looking forward to the Eragon movie. Looks cool.

[Silverhand]

So whats the verdict on the Eragon movie?

[Bufty]

It got absolutely panned on this side of the pond.

So whats the verdict on the Eragon movie?

[LitFa]

critics gave it an average grade of C, yahoo users gave it an average grade of C+, it came in 2nd at the box office with 23 million.

[Jamesaritchie]

I didn't think the book was very good, but the movie is infinitely worse. The dialogue is atrocious, laughably bad and cliched, and the plot is just, well, silly. I suspect most fantasy lovers will go see it, but I doubt anyone will want to see it twice.

[Bufty]

Jonathan Ross, the movie critic here, said the script was shoddy, the casting bad and he was dreading having to sit through it again when he takes his son to see it.

I didn't think the book was very good, but the movie is infinitely worse. The dialogue is atrocious, laughably bad and cliched, and the plot is just, well, silly. I suspect most fantasy lovers will go see it, but I doubt anyone will want to see it twice.

[ebrillblaiddes]

So whats the verdict on the Eragon movie? I know someone who likes it, but he's obsessed with dragons, so it's hard to say just why he likes it. Plus he seems to want to go out with me, so I already know his taste is questionable :tongue

Haven't seen it myself, and probably won't since I'm not a movie person.

[Akuma]

As for the movie, from the trailer, it looked horrid and my sister affirmed my predictions. Apparently, the entire movie tends to be 30 seconds of action over on this continent, 30 seconds over here, etc., etc.

The book wasn't that great--a bit too cliche for my tastes. Paolini's a good writer, in his own sense, but I don't think he's found his own voice yet. I'm looking forward to when he really starts to write in his own voice, if he chooses to develop in that area.

[Melanie Nilles]

The book wasn't that great--a bit too cliche for my tastes. Paolini's a good writer, in his own sense, but I don't think he's found his own voice yet. I'm looking forward to when he really starts to write in his own voice, if he chooses to develop in that area.

IF he choose to develop in that area. With the kind of success he's reached at an early age, what's the incentive to improve? Other than most fantasy-fan adults, especially writers, bashing the work for its faults, of which it has many.

That's the problem I see with the road he's taken...no bumps for him to learn to smooth out. And since he decided not to go to college (based on his acknowledgements in the book, or was it his website?) he won't even have those life experiences or an education to fall back on.

I feel sorry for the kid (and compared to me, he is a kid) in a strange sort of way. He's had no hard times to really teach him how to face the challenges that life throws at us.

Melanie

[ebrillblaiddes]

IF he choose to develop in that area. With the kind of success he's reached at an early age, what's the incentive to improve? Other than most fantasy-fan adults, especially writers, bashing the work for its faults, of which it has many. Well, if he keeps writing (and why wouldn't he keep doing what he's being so emphatically told he's good at?), there'll be at least some slow growth...so presumably, five years or so down the line, he'll look back at something he's working on now and say "Wow, this was crap!" (my crap-recognition window is down to about two years these days, but that's after some training) and, if he's got the necessary capacity for self-reflection, realize that he's got a lot of honing of his craft yet to do. Though I haven't read the books, it seems like the general consensus is that there's some raw talent in with the extremely excessive derivativeness--and talent has a way of finding its way when it has a chance.
That's the problem I see with the road he's taken...no bumps for him to learn to smooth out. And since he decided not to go to college (based on his acknowledgements in the book, or was it his website?) he won't even have those life experiences or an education to fall back on. Lots of people don't go to college right away, if it seems at the time like they can get away with it...the good news is, if he eventually decides he needs some more education on something, he'll at least be able to afford it.

I'm not so sure about universities as environments for learning writing anyway--there's something about the GPA-centrism that makes the focus of a class either "get the best grade possible" if it's standard-graded, or "pass with as little effort as possible" if it's pass-fail graded. Though, that said, the pressure-cooker aspect does a pretty good job of forcing a certain level and type of maturation.

[Canada James]

So whats the verdict on the Eragon movie?

I thought it was great. The effects were incredible. The story made me laugh out loud at inappropriate times (often I'd whisper the end of the sentences that either Obi-wan, Gandalf or Vader would have said). His influences were obvious, but then so are Rowlings to anyone who has read Jane Yolen {shrug}.

When I met Paolini last year I asked him if he'd be taking time off to go to University, and he seems to feel he's above that. I think that's too bad, and I hope he changes his mind. He could be a memorable writer, but I have a feeling he'll be a flavour of the month instead. The good news for him: his one-hit-wonder has earned him millions.

Of course, I don't think Rowling will write anything after Harry Potter, either.

[Toothpaste]

I disagree, I think Rowling will write something later. But probably under a pen name. Not that her fans wouldn't figure out who she was.

[scarletpeaches]

Rowling's already said she will carry on writing.

[alaskamatt17]

While I enjoyed Eragon, it definitely has its share of flaws. The dragon was well done, easily my favorite dragon character to date in any fantasy story I've read. Everything else ... well, I've seen it before. The plot is very close to that of Star Wars: A New Hope, and the human characters are nothing new. The prose is decent, nothing special. Paolini does have a very straightforward style, though, which is good for pulling readers into the story.

At least the book was much better than the movie, which I would recommend avoiding at all costs.

[My-Immortal]

At least the book was much better than the movie, which I would recommend avoiding at all costs.

I haven't read Eragon yet, (it's on my to-read list for 2007), but I did see the movie today....and well....I am hoping the book is better. I did like parts of the movie (I guess I have a soft spot for most fantasy movies), but much of it seemed like a shallow fantasy version of Star Wars set in a watered down Middle Earth. I really wanted to love this movie - I loved LOTR and Narnia - but sadly, it just didn't happen. Some of the characters seemed as if they COULD have been interesting if they'd been given more screen time and I'm hoping that these characters are more fully realized in the book.

I am a fan of Jeremy Irons and John Malkovich and I would have loved to have seen more of them in this movie.

It wasn't a horrible viewing experience IMO, I've seen much worse, but I am glad that I saw it as a matinee and I'll probably end up buying the DVD when it comes out, but only after it's been discounted. Hopefully, the sequels will be done better.

Take care all -

[Melanie Nilles]

Lots of people don't go to college right away, if it seems at the time like they can get away with it...the good news is, if he eventually decides he needs some more education on something, he'll at least be able to afford it.

You say IF he decides...that was exactly my point.

Who cares if he can afford it. He'll never have to struggle in life--good for him. However, it won't help his writing. I can't say my characters are true representations--they're fiction. However, I write from my experiences and that is what gives them depth. I think others here would agree with that assessment of their own writing.

Also, a college degree does more than add to your knowledge. College courses, particularly the upper level courses, teach you to think critically and look deeper at the world around you rather than to accept only what's on the surface. Sure that can come with time, but the road will be longer and probably easier, which doesn't compare, IMO, to taking even the dullest courses just to reach a goal of having a degree.

You don't learn from success. You learn from failure. That is, you learn what you did wrong so you can improve. Success teaches you nothing--no incentive to analyze your flaws and strengthen them. Unless a person has faced the struggles to reach true success, they get spoiled on it. I've seen it in many areas of life.

After reading his first two books, I have no interest in anything else CP may write. I don't believe he will improve enough for me to want to read anything else. Eragon had some good ideas, even if they were derived from other sources and thrown together in an almost new way. But Eldest took it downhill--dull and boring with a duex ex machina thrown in that totally turned me off.

These are just my opinions based on my experiences. Everyone's will be different.

Melanie

[ebrillblaiddes]

You say IF he decides...that was exactly my point. Yeah, give the kid some time to come down off the high from his own hype.
Who cares if he can afford it. He'll never have to struggle in life--good for him. However, it won't help his writing. I can't say my characters are true representations--they're fiction. However, I write from my experiences and that is what gives them depth. I think others here would agree with that assessment of their own writing. Well, I'll agree that the struggles are less likely to walk right up and bite him than other people...but still, he could get in a car wreck and lose a leg or something. Life happens to everyone, one way or another. The range of his possible experiences has been narrowed a bit by succeeding too early, but that doesn't mean nothing'll ever shake him up.

I still think he'll go through the same slow semi-accidental growth process as lots of literary teenagers who think they "just need to be discovered" (shame disclosure: I was one of those, when I was 15 or so, and HOO BOY was I bad!) until he looks back at something he wrote when he thought at the time that he was pretty good, realizes that he wasn't, and realizes that it's a journey. And then he'll do what he should be doing now--workshops, college with a writing or literature major, that kind of thing.
Also, a college degree does more than add to your knowledge. College courses, particularly the upper level courses, teach you to think critically and look deeper at the world around you rather than to accept only what's on the surface. Sure that can come with time, but the road will be longer and probably easier, which doesn't compare, IMO, to taking even the dullest courses just to reach a goal of having a degree. I think that's partly what I meant by "forced maturation." The problem is, at least in the colleges I went to for undergrad, the learning was almost considered more of a byproduct of the grade-earning process than an actual goal. Looking back, I think I would have gotten more out of it if I'd deliberately gone on the six-year plan and taken lots of interesting electives instead of making sure every credit counted (so I could get in and out in four years) and was if possible a GPA builder. If he waits a few years, realizes that he needs to improve his writing, and then goes back to school for that, I can see how that could go a lot further than going to college because "that's what you do after high school."

When I retire (probably in about 130 years if I have to pay my student loans off first, LOL), I think I might call a do-over and spend a few years doing college right.
You don't learn from success. You learn from failure. That is, you learn what you did wrong so you can improve. Success teaches you nothing--no incentive to analyze your flaws and strengthen them. Unless a person has faced the struggles to reach true success, they get spoiled on it. I've seen it in many areas of life. I can't disagree with this part; the screwed-up stuff in my life informs my writing, gives it depth. BUT--because of how it's possibly going to stunt his growth as a writer--I wonder if Paolini will eventually come to the conclusion that his success was his failure.

And I'm not saying everything's eventually going to turn out right...just that we can't say, now, which way the next few hands of cards are going to play out. I think it depends on whether he has the capacity for critical self-evaluation. No way to tell now, when he's hyped out of his mind.

[Christine N.]

As far as Eragon being extremely derivative; while yes, we all sort of poke at it, myself included, I don't blame the author.

Why? Because he wrote it for himself, originally, for his own entertainment. It wasn't really his goal (at least, not at first) to have it published. When his parents volunteered, I'm sure he thought it was great fun, but still just an amusement.

So really it's Knopf that is to blame for putting it on the shelf. Obviously they made a good move, seeing how popular it became. Thinking on it, I'm pretty certain that Christopher actually made it derivative, if not on purpose, but because it was what he knew when he wrote it. I don't imagine he thought anyone else would ever read it.

So there's that part of it. We, as writers, strive for originality, carefully crafting our stories, hoping to catch a publisher's eye. That's the goal. It wasn't his.

[scarletpeaches]

I'd think that a very good point, were it not for my toe-curling aversion to the thought of some specky little spod getting published by accident!

[Toothpaste]

I dunno, I get the impression from checking out his website, and from what others on here havae written about him, that he thinks awfully highly of himself. I can imagine him writing this book with a view towards publication actually. Not that that is a bad thing.

[Christine N.]

Well, yes now. But he's never hidden the fact that it was for himself orginally. He's obviously a smart kid, graduating high school early. And his parents were the ones who put their money behind it, sending him on tour.

I think he's really more of a story about luck than anything. And the public eats it up, so obviously there's something to it.

[Melanie Nilles]

Well, yes now. But he's never hidden the fact that it was for himself orginally. He's obviously a smart kid, graduating high school early. And his parents were the ones who put their money behind it, sending him on tour.

I think he's really more of a story about luck than anything. And the public eats it up, so obviously there's something to it.

I could have graduated high school early too had I also been home-schooled (or had the fortune to go to a large school with an advanced program). As it was I at least graduated with honors.

I agree that his good fortune has been purely luck. But it can't last forever. I'd like to see what becomes of him in ten years, when all the hype about his trilogy is waned and he's trying to publish or sell other works.

Melanie

[Elektra]

It's actually pretty easy to graduate early nowadays, so long as you're not really into something (taking as many theatre or art classes as you can get, for example).

[ebenstone]

I find it facinating how polarizing this series is. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground. I find it all kind of amusing. I'm torn. I own the first book, got about 50 pages in and put it aside. Other books I own are higher on the list. But we can't fault the kid. He was home schooled with limited social interaction who wrote a novel at 15...considering I can't get my students to write 1 page this is impressive...and was lucky enough to get it published. From the reviews I've read, his social ineptitude (right word?) shows. And its not a personal attack, it's just reality. All he really had to base his work on was the work of others and a little Mary Sue-ism, no tinge of experience or wisdom from lessons learned. Again, I haven't read the books, so I base the comments on my knowledge of 15 year olds and what little I have read.

[britlitfantw]

Christopher Paolini, as I believe others have stated, wrote a story about a boy his own age who was partnered with a dragon and got to go off and have grand adventures. It was clearly a story from his heart, in the sense that if he could be that fifteen year old boy, he'd be there in a heartbeat. There's nothing wrong with writing down your dreams, and there's nothing wrong with embellishing your dreams with adventures from masterpieces like Lord of the Rings. His parents published his book and he took it to the schools, not, I think, to lure a publisher, but to share a story that obviously delights him.

Knopf published Eragon. He didn't send it to them. He didn't seek them out. If you were in his place, would you really have said no? He may be a mite pompous, a bit too big for his britches, and sure, perhaps the book isn't good enough to deserve a movie, but he wrote a story that partly enchants me. He had things handed to him on a gold-encrusted platter; who can blame him for saying, "Good God, sign me up!"

And on another note ... :)

He was home schooled with limited social interaction who wrote a novel at 15

I don't think we can place the "fault" on "limited social interaction", as you put it. I don't mean to pick a bone, but I haven't read anything to state that he was socially introverted. All this talk about homeschoolers being loners is a myth, and I can speak from personal experience.

***

Well, that's my two cents. *ducks from the mushy peas*

[Beyondian]

[quote=britlitfantw]

I don't think we can place the "fault" on "limited social interaction", as you put it. I don't mean to pick a bone, but I haven't read anything to state that he was socially introverted. All this talk about homeschoolers being loners is a myth, and I can speak from personal experience.

[endquote]

While I personally dislike Eragon, I agree with britlitfantw on this point. Being homeschooled has less to do with the quality of Paolini's work than the fact that his parents pushed his book towards publication before it was ready.
I was homeschooled, as are my three brothers. To be honest, my eldest brother has been writing his novel since he was about 8 (it has been through many many revisions), my second youngest brother has been writing his since he was 14, and I started my first novel when I was 16. If my parents had taken my first book and self-pubb'ed it, then I would be a very embarrassed person today. My first book was by no means my best work. I have, however, moved on and continued to grow and develop as a writer. Homeschooling doesn't mean that children will be socially introverted or loners.
Heh heh... um. Yeah. (Takes medication)
Sorry for the rant... and I'll stop hi-jacking the thread now. Honest.

[Moon Daughter]

I was reading this thread and noticed many people talking about "YA fantasy". I'm unaware of what "YA" really is. Could anyone explain this to me please?

Amanda

[Elektra]

While I personally dislike Eragon, I agree with britlitfantw on this point. Being homeschooled has less to do with the quality of Paolini's work than the fact that his parents pushed his book towards publication before it was ready.
I was homeschooled, as are my three brothers. To be honest, my eldest brother has been writing his novel since he was about 8 (it has been through many many revisions), my second youngest brother has been writing his since he was 14, and I started my first novel when I was 16. If my parents had taken my first book and self-pubb'ed it, then I would be a very embarrassed person today. My first book was by no means my best work. I have, however, moved on and continued to grow and develop as a writer. Homeschooling doesn't mean that children will be socially introverted or loners.
Heh heh... um. Yeah. (Takes medication)
Sorry for the rant... and I'll stop hi-jacking the thread now. Honest.

A disclaimer: I've never read the book, only seen the (horrible) movie. But going by the movie, it does seem that Paolini had very limited social interaction with girls his own age. A pretty, scantily-clad princess gasping on a table the whole time, needing to be saved? Come on.

[britlitfantw]

I was reading this thread and noticed many people talking about "YA fantasy". I'm unaware of what "YA" really is. Could anyone explain this to me please?

Amanda, YA stands for young adult. There are different age distinctions for it, such as 13-19, but I think a more accurate description is 14 to early twenties.

As for your comment, Elektra, I went to see the movie yesterday, and I think it was handled much better in the book. Obviously, in both cases she was still in trouble, but in the book she appears to him in his dreams and is much more ethereal. Not only that, but in the book she is dead set against him having a crush on her -- her feelings were nowhere near as obvious as they were in the movie. :)

[Elektra]

How did you feel about the movie? I thought Eragon could have won the award for world's most passive character. It was like watching driftwood for an hour and a half.

[britlitfantw]

I think that the real quality went out of the movie when ... (Spoiler Alert, highlight to read) --> ... when Jeremy Irons bit the dust. <-- The movie was still enjoyable after that, but I have to agree with you about Eragon being passive, although I felt like the actor did all right for being an unknown. I was surprisingly pleased with the casting choice for Murtagh, and the part that I most enjoyed was the reason I went to see it in the first place -- the bond between Eragon and Saphira. Every once in a while during the flying scenes, I felt like I was in an IMAX movie. :)

Overall, I'm glad I saw it, and will probably see it again on DVD. Not sure yet whether I would spend the money to buy it, though.

[maestrowork]

I dunno, I get the impression from checking out his website, and from what others on here havae written about him, that he thinks awfully highly of himself. I can imagine him writing this book with a view towards publication actually. Not that that is a bad thing.

Too much money and fame at a young age, especially with pushy parents, could be a disaster for a person. I hope Christopher has the maturity to grow as a writer/artist and not let it all get to his head. Is he going to be an Elijah Wood or a Macaulay Culkin -- only time will tell.

[Moon Daughter]

Brit, thanks for responding to my question. I can't believe I didn't figure that out on my own. I feel very stupid at the moment, lol.

Amanda

[Toothpaste]

Okay I don't mean to get petty or anything, well maybe I do just a bit, but has anyone read his website? He talks about his writing as:

" . . . the heart and soul of my being. It is the means through which I bring my stories to life."

Isn't that conclusion glaringly obvious?

Okay Toothpaste is done being petty for the day. I know people like his stories, I just wish he was a bit less ridiculous about the whole thing. More down to earth. Ah well. What does it matter really?

[Christine N.]

He sounds like a lot of new writers.

I think I used to think of it that way, until I realized I needed to be more business like. I'm sure someone handles all his business stuff, so he's free to be full of...whatever... that makes his heart and soul feel happy.

[Melanie Nilles]

Okay I don't mean to get petty or anything, well maybe I do just a bit, but has anyone read his website? He talks about his writing as:

" . . . the heart and soul of my being. It is the means through which I bring my stories to life."

Isn't that conclusion glaringly obvious?

Okay Toothpaste is done being petty for the day. I know people like his stories, I just wish he was a bit less ridiculous about the whole thing. More down to earth. Ah well. What does it matter really?

I agree, which is what I think turned me off fully respecting him as a writer. I think his immaturity shows itself pretty clearly, both in his stories and in his own words.

Melanie

[Elektra]

I just wish he was a bit less ridiculous about the whole thing. More down to earth. Ah well. What does it matter really?

I wonder if this is a product of homeschooling? Perhaps, if you're with your parents most of your life, you just don't realize that everyone isn't as interested in the little things as they are. Does anyone know if he was part of some sort of organization, like most homeschoolers?

[Toothpaste]

Actually I think people aren't quite picking up on what I personally thought was strange. The first thing was very simply the use of the words "the heart and soul of my being" which is awfully dramatic to me, but whatever. But the thing that gets me is that he tells us that "writing .. . is the means through which [he] brings his story to life" - well, yes, obviously it is. If he was a film director, it would be movies. If he was a mime . . . It is just the strangest and oddly most pretentious thing I've read on his website. Flowery language aside, that statement totally floors me for some reason.

I mean I can understand writing about yourself and your writing ahem*my blog*ahem, especially if you are famous. People want to know all the nitty gritty stuff. I think in this case this is just a personal irk I have, and really really petty and pointless!

I don't know anything about his homeschooling at all. Would be interesting to know just as a general thing to know about.

[Just Me]

Actually I think people aren't quite picking up on what I personally thought was strange. The first thing was very simply the use of the words "the heart and soul of my being" which is awfully dramatic to me, but whatever. But the thing that gets me is that he tells us that "writing .. . is the means through which [he] brings his story to life" - well, yes, obviously it is. If he was a film director, it would be movies. If he was a mime . . . It is just the strangest and oddly most pretentious thing I've read on his website. Flowery language aside, that statement totally floors me for some reason. That's because it's yet another example of Chris's trying to say something deep and meaningful and, ah, not quite succeeding. I think that's what bothers me about him, too. He's NOT Ayn Rand. He's NOT George Orwell. He's NOT even fricking Orson Scott Card. But he seems to have this idea in his head that he's writing some wonderful, powerful, breathtaking epic when pretty much the rest of the world knows that he's writing fluff. Not that writing fluff is a problem; fluff can be fun and tasty sometimes, especially with chocolate. But if you're writing fluff and taking yourself seriously, that can lead to... problems.

~JM

[Toothpaste]

Yes exactly! Thank you Just Me (and by the way welcome to AW!)

[Momento Mori]

I've already set out my views on Paolini's books earlier in the Thread, but in the interests of fairness, I just wanted to point out that in an interview he gave to The Times just before the movie came out, he did seem to recognise that Eragon was not the best thing ever written and he suggested that he'd quite like to go back and fix some problems that he now sees in it.

To paraphrase, he said that he thinks that he's improving as a writer as he goes along but still has a lot to learn. What interested me was that he originally wanted to write Eragon as a screenplay, but found that he wanted to bring the world he was imagining to life, which is why he switched to writing it as a novel.

As for his description of how he sees his writing, I agree that it's flowery and I think it's more proof that he needs a good editor, but he's not alone in making statements like that. I've often seen or heard writers describe their work as the heart and soul of their being - they're not great writers, but they are published.

[dclary]

For a first book, Eragon is not half bad at all.

And having just read it and Terry Brooks multi-year best-seller The Sword of Shannara, I'd say it (and he) are better.

[andracill]

I liked SWORD OF SHANNARA...I was ten when I read it, however ;) Haven't read ERAGON, have no desire to do so. heck, I don't even like what *I* wrote as a teen -- don't need to read what he wrote as a teen!

[britlitfantw]

I wonder if this is a product of homeschooling? Perhaps, if you're with your parents most of your life, you just don't realize that everyone isn't as interested in the little things as they are. Does anyone know if he was part of some sort of organization, like most homeschoolers?

I remember reading somewhere that he graduated through correspondence courses. As for your first statement, I obviously can't speak for him, but I'm going to have to deny your statement. It again implies that homeschoolers have no social life, which we do. Sometimes, as a result of spending more time with adults as well as peers, homeschoolers end up being able to relate across the ages, an impressive skill that many people lament that teenagers don'thave.

The sense I have gotten from his interviews is that his life, not his schooling, was a bit unusual. How many parents let their kid have a forge? All in all, I think his writing was thought to be just good enough, and his age and the thought of a picked-off-the-streets story pushed it over the edge. There are many better written books out there, as well as some less pretentious authors, and his books should have been edited and plucked more carefully, but give the kid a break.

As Momento Mori mentioned, Paolini has acknowledged that his work is not the best it could be, but what is he supposed to do now? The books are out there, there is hype for the third one, and it's a moneymaker for he and Random House.

... I really didn't plan to step into this thread, particularly not jump in head-first. Train wreck syndrome? ;)

[Elektra]

I realize most homeschoolers spend time interacting with others, which is why, as you might notice, I asked if his experience differed from the norm. I've met homeschoolers who varied so much in this respect that some went to a part-time school for homeschoolers, while one actually lived with his parents in a one-room-shack without electricity and rarely left.

[britlitfantw]

I realize most homeschoolers spend time interacting with others, which is why, as you might notice, I asked if his experience differed from the norm.

My apologies to you, I didn't mean at all to sound harsh in my reply. I have been known to be overly sensitive when it comes to homeschooling myths, and honestly, from the post of yours:

I wonder if this is a product of homeschooling? Perhaps, if you're with your parents most of your life, you just don't realize that everyone isn't as interested in the little things as they are. Does anyone know if he was part of some sort of organization, like most homeschoolers?

The way you phrased it at the beginning there, it made it sound like your assumption was that we all spend our lives solely with our parents, since in your first sentence you had a very general question with nothing to modify it at the end, i.e. a product of homeschooling for some students. I completely apologize that we got our wires crossed, and I shall now cease from hijacking this thread. Sorry, y'all, and you too, Elektra. :)

[Elektra]

No problem at all--just wanted to clarify that I don't think all homeschoolers are pasty shut-ins.

[triceretops]

I was ready to heave a crap pile at this kid, knowing that his parents might have actually co-written (instead of edited) this first book. Apparently they followed it very closely, monitoring the progress, and offered assistance at every turn. I did wonder if his parents hadn't been involved at all, how far this book might have gotten. I've always been curious about how much interaction went on here.

But...

On the other hand, I can remember my own feeble and admitted attempts to write my own "Journey to Serpents Rest" which was a blatant ripoff of LOTR, and this was when I was 29-years-old. Would I have signed a contract if it had been offered to me? Damn betcha I would have. In fact, I thought I could do a better job of an epic fantasy quest. So I don't think his expectations were out of line. And for his age, and life experience, minimal to say the least, I think he did a pretty fair job of knocking out a story that people want to read--especially his own peer group.

I saw him interviewed just recently, and got the impression that he was an intellect, or nerd, certainly an avid book reader. And I find no fault in that. I kinda like the dreamers, the sword forgers, the romanticists at heart. He can only improve in the craft, and he certainly has the head start that I wished was afforded to me, had I got off my duff and truly understood that I was destined to be a writer. I see Christopher as a sensitive loner, somehow, and that he got a lot of his inner turmoil and drama out of his system through the expression of the written word, the only way he knew how.

I shudder to think where he'll be 30 years from now. All he can do is improve, if he remains dedicated to the craft.

Tri

[thepainpasses]

I haven't gotten very far in Eragon, as I'm helping a friend with a reading disability read it (because it interests then, not because of the reading level of the book), but I've actually found it interesting. Even though it does sort of read to me as a book he'll look back on five years from now, as he's grown as a writer, and wish he could do a major re-write on.

But still, as Tolkien-esque as he may be, it's primarily becuase he's created his own sort of world, with his own sort of creatures. And originality should hardly be frowned upon just because someone else came up with an original world first.

But yes, Eragon is most certainly a modern representation of YA fantasy.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I know I'm not a regular on this particular part of AW, but when I saw this thread about Christopher Paolini, I thought I'd take a quick look.

I just got a copy of the sequel to Eragon, Eldest, as a Christmas present. I haven't read very far into it, but I think the writing is pretty decent. I haven't looked into Eragon at all, so I don't have any way of comparing Mr. Paolini's writing in Eldest to his earlier works. However, his writing, though not top-quality by many standards, I think does hold its own in keeping me as a reader interested. Also, I find the book, as far as I've read, to be decently enjoyable.

[Roger J Carlson]

I write YA SF and Fantasy, so I finally decided that I needed to read Eragon. I managed to get to page 200 before I quit in dismay. The only thing I can wonder is how this poorly written fantasy got to be a blockbuster, when my own poorly written fantasy got bounced? Fortunately for me, I will be spared the embarrassment of explaining how it wasn't my best work. No matter how good Christopher becomes as a writer, he will be forever apologizing for this book.

[CelticRose]

Another one for Wynne. She is great. Also Nix & Garner. Ursula le Guin in small doses; I'm not a fan of her style.

[ebenstone]

I was rereading an earlier post I had written and I just wanted to say I was not taking pot shots at home schooling. While I am a high school English teacher, I understand the value of home schooling. Thanks!

[alainn_chaser]

There are many fantasy authors I would suggest before Paolini. His plot ideas are fairly cliched and if you don't believe me watch Star Wars IV than read Eragon and you'll see what I mean.

It also depends on your target readers. Pretty much all the authors mentioned so far are good. Pierce has a large market on fantasy for girls. Croggan and Bell are also pretty good fantasy authors though sometimes their characters can be a little hard to connect to.

[Haphazard]

I'm about 40 pages into Eragon, and I keep getting bored and distracted. I just can't get into the story.

Given that it has been such a bestselling juggernaut in the YA world, my expectations were higher. Maybe it gets better.

The first time I read Eragon before I'd been corrupted by other's opinion, I thought all through as I was reading it, "where's the good part? There's got to be a good part!" and the good part never happened. Eldest was even worse, but then again by then my expectations were pretty low to begin with.

So yes, in my opinion, Eragon wasn't a fun read at all. I know having a 'good part' may not be the most accurate judge for a book's quality, but it can be a good judge of entertainment value.

[Danger Jane]

no, there has to be a good part, or it sucks.

[scarletpeaches]

I've read 8 or 9 books this week. Okay, most were books I'd already started and I only needed to read the last few chapters, but nevertheless. Thatsa lotta readin'.

So after the book I'm on just now, I'm going to punish myself with Eragon. I'll do it. Who's with me? RAWR!!!

[Haphazard]

no, there has to be a good part, or it sucks.

There are a lot of classics, that in my opinion didn't have a good part, but they have a 'lesson' or whatever in them, and a lot of times it's the writing style that irks me. Eragon didn't seem to have a point like these classics I've been forced to read through, either, so yeah, it rates pretty low. But saying a book has low entertainment value and that it sucks aren't the same.

[Danger Jane]

They are to me. Stuff doesn't have to happen for me to be entertained. It can be deep, meaningful, and totally literary, but I'm not bored. The tension was superficial in Eragon. Nothing meaningful happened and I didn't care about the characters, AND the writing was mediocre. It sucked.

[reenkam]

I've read 8 or 9 books this week. Okay, most were books I'd already started and I only needed to read the last few chapters, but nevertheless. Thatsa lotta readin'.

So after the book I'm on just now, I'm going to punish myself with Eragon. I'll do it. Who's with me? RAWR!!!

That's a really harsh punishment, don't you think?

I think I'll stick to the self-flagellation, tyvm

[Haphazard]

They are to me. Stuff doesn't have to happen for me to be entertained. It can be deep, meaningful, and totally literary, but I'm not bored. The tension was superficial in Eragon. Nothing meaningful happened and I didn't care about the characters, AND the writing was mediocre. It sucked.

Stuff doesn't have to happen for me to be entertained, either, and a lot of times stuff does happen and I'm not. I like literary stuff, but certainly not all of it floats my boat, and a some it bores me, but it still has some sort of merit. Just because I don't like it doesn't make it not have merit. Eragon isn't literary, though.

[scarletpeaches]

One thing I want to know.

Is it Ee-raggon or Erra-gone?

[Danger Jane]

era-gon??



I don't think Eragon has any merit. I think it sucks. Obviously it's all opinion but if you want me to preface all my posts with that...sure.

[Haphazard]

era-gon??



I don't think Eragon has any merit. I think it sucks. Obviously it's all opinion but if you want me to preface all my posts with that...sure.

I don't know, I thought I should be polite here. So I was going to try to say nicely that I think it's not good.

But it does suck. Why does the vegan elf chick wear leather, anyway?

[reenkam]

i always thought it was air-ah-gone

[Danger Jane]

I don't know, I thought I should be polite here. So I was going to try to say nicely that I think it's not good.

But it does suck. Why does the vegan elf chick wear leather, anyway?

Why did Grace Slick wear leather??

because it's HOT

but well he's a confused little boy when he wrote it, that's why.

I guess I'm just sick of talking about eragon.

[vfury]

I tried to read Eragon last Christmas because I love dragons and I wanted to read the book before I saw the film. I got twenty pages in before I gave up, and I rarely give up on books. It was just too similar to Tolkien for me to take. I have to give him props for his marketing persistence - it takes guts to do that much self-promoting - but I kind of wish he'd got maybe his fourth or fifth novel published instead of his first because every writer (hopefully) improves as they go on.

If my first novel had been published back when I was twelve, I think I would die of shame now by being associated with it. There were very, very good reasons for it being rejected.

That said, so many kids love the books and I keep getting asked when the third one is out, so people obviously love it.

And I won't even mention the film...

[Chicken Warrior]

Bleh, I thought I was alone on this so it's nice to know there are others that unfortunately can't appreciate Paolini. Then again, I also slogged through LOTR, and never read the third. But they were still more enjoyable reads.

[Danger Jane]

I got 100 pages into LOTR and failed miserably. I can't do epic fantasy.

[TurkeyLurkey]

Loved LOTR until the last 30 or so pages of it. It really should have ended with Frodo's recovery after the destruction of the ring. But, plot aside, Tolkien is a great writer. IMO

Read CS Lewis's, The Magician's Nephew, but wasn't a fan.

Also attempted the Redwall series, and lost interest 1/3 of the way through.

However I loved Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH.

Another good one is A Wrinkle in Time.

[ottorino]

I'm surprised everyone slams Paolini so much. Would it be the same if he were a regular board contributor, with thousands of post to his credit?

I thought we were here to learn and support one another, not savage the first to succeed.

I know, there are plenty successful writers who aren't bashed. But this Paolini hating seems perverse. After all, isn't it just a question of taste?

Anyway. I read the first two books and enjoyed them. Sure, they could have been better. But I haven't written anything so grand and I'm twice the kid's age.

You go, little man!

[Chicken Warrior]

That's kind of what I was thinking but I didn't say anything. Because I'm a wimp. :D

But notice I said I cannot appreciate him, and not that he's bad. With all honesty, I found the writing literally hard to follow, not so that I was confused, but so that I was constantly stumbling through his paragraphs. Now, in a book this popular, I figure that has to symbolize some kind of originality and a voice that I'm just not 'getting'. I like the fact that Paolini self-pubbed, and he deserves his success as much as the next guy. I just can't imagine reading his stuff. But hey, I can't even get through the HP books.

[scarletpeaches]

I'm surprised everyone slams Paolini so much. Would it be the same if he were a regular board contributor, with thousands of post to his credit?

Yes.

I have nearly 7k posts and people here don't hesitate to tell me when I'm in danger of disappearing up my own arse. Long may it continue.

Paolini's a stuck-up little twerp who needs taking down a peg or two. Would I say that if he were a member here?

Well, Christopher - you're a stuck-up little twerp who needs taking down a peg or two.

I thought we were here to learn and support one another, not savage the first to succeed.

We're not savaging the first to succeed. We're pissing all over people who succeed because mummy and daddy marketed the book and who then turn into a spotty little Herbert who thinks he's the next Tolkien and starts giving out advice on how to write a book when his own aren't even fit to wipe your arse with.

I know, there are plenty successful writers who aren't bashed. But this Paolini hating seems perverse. After all, isn't it just a question of taste?

If books that are rip-offs of classics of the genre is a matter of 'taste', then yes.

Anyway. I read the first two books and enjoyed them. Sure, they could have been better. But I haven't written anything so grand and I'm twice the kid's age.

You go, little man!

When I was Paolini's age my shopping lists were more eloquent and readable than his novels. I've never managed to finish Eragon yet, but I'll manage it one day just so I can say I have.

But is it good for something written by a 15-year-old? Christ no. Even my first drafts at age sixteen were better than the tripe that's published as his final edits.

And yes, I would say that to his spotty little face. And Dan Brown, too.

[moondance]

*applauds scarletpeaches, especially with regard to the Dan Brown reference :)*

[Chicken Warrior]

Wow, this is starting to get dangerous.

I think this is at least partly that inevidable anti-celebriatism working here, and there is NO way this thread would exist if Christopher was a member. I'm sorry, but that's bulls***. I'm not saying people wouldn't critique his work honestly, but not this.

He wrote what he wanted and people read it and many of them enjoy it.. I call that success, and not just commercial.

[Haphazard]

I believe that if Christopher Paolini were on this website, we wouldn't be having this discussion. A lot of rumors have been flying around that his father likes to shut down any critique on the sites his son visits.

I'll admit that I'm not the authority on books, but I did not enjoy reading his books and could not find anything useful in them or even hints of a deeper purpose. So, therefore, I think his books are bad. If other people enjoy them, that's good for them, but I don't think that Paolini should be used as an example for kids who write.

I believe some of the hatred for him comes from that he manages to rip off a lot of existing fantasy and that a lot of young writers who work hard to be original get this book shoved in their faces. It's not really jealousy in that he was published, just resentment. But that's my .02.

[scarletpeaches]

I believe that if Christopher Paolini were on this website, we wouldn't be having this discussion. A lot of rumors have been flying around that his father likes to shut down any critique on the sites his son visits.

Oh man...that makes me pray he joins AW. I'd love to see Pa Paolini try to shut me up...

[scarletpeaches]

...I think this is at least partly that inevidable anti-celebriatism working here, and there is NO way this thread would exist if Christopher was a member. I'm sorry, but that's bulls***...

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit.

The mods might shut the shit down on a thread seen to pick on one particular member - but only if he was known to be a member. He could be here, anonymously.

I hope he is. He might pick up a few tips.

[Chicken Warrior]

Okay, this isn't at all what I would consider constructive criticism and I would damn well hope that any mod would shut this down if it was directed at (or about) an existing member. And quite frankly, I don't think we should act differently because he is not a member.

I'm not trying to censor anyone here, but blasting authors based on rumors and what they've come to 'represent' beyond their control is not fair or helpful or interesting or encouraging or insightful. It's just ranting, and I find it discouraging that you hope he would be here to witness this ranting which seems to be against him as much as his books, from what I can tell.

[OverTheHills&FarAway]

There are a lot of classics, that in my opinion didn't have a good part, but they have a 'lesson' or whatever in them, and a lot of times it's the writing style that irks me. Eragon didn't seem to have a point like these classics I've been forced to read through, either, so yeah, it rates pretty low. But saying a book has low entertainment value and that it sucks aren't the same.

Alright, I don't want to start everyone up again and make 'em grab their pitchforks and torches, but...

Alright, I need a clarification. The reason many of our classics still exist and are still read is because they have lasting value, as both great pieces of literature and great entertainment. I mean, come on. Dickens was a serial writer, he wrote to entertain the masses. He was PAID BY THE WORD. The reason they've come down to our day is because people ENJOY READING THEM. And, the reason they're assigned in class (and by my experience you end up hating ANYTHING you are forced to read...) is because they have inherent value as pieces of literature that deserve to be considered again and again. Shakespeare...he wrote his plays to entertain the poor people of England. Yes, he was a master, and that's why we still read him, but...he put in characters and jokes and mishaps to MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH.

I'm sorry. Tastes differ, surely, but what are these "classics" that don't have "good parts?" And why are they still with us? There HAS to be a good part for them to survive and still be read.




Okay, end rant. And thread can now get back to bashing people who think too much of themselves and need to learn how to self-edit.

[Toothpaste]

Okay, this isn't at all what I would consider constructive criticism and I would damn well hope that any mod would shut this down if it was directed at (or about) an existing member. And quite frankly, I don't think we should act differently because he is not a member.

I'm not trying to censor anyone here, but blasting authors based on rumors and what they've come to 'represent' beyond their control is not fair or helpful or interesting or encouraging or insightful. It's just ranting, and I find it discouraging that you hope he would be here to witness this ranting which seems to be against him as much as his books, from what I can tell.

Yes some arguments have veered off into the personal, but I think the general points being made are to do with the quality of his writing. Most of the people who are posting here in the negative about Paolini are because are doing so because they don't like his writing.

As far as kids who made a success in the publishing industry, I'd take Gordon Korman over Paolini any day (I got to meet Mr. Korman on Wednesday, it was SO COOL!!)

[Haphazard]

Alright, I don't want to start everyone up again and make 'em grab their pitchforks and torches, but...

Alright, I need a clarification. The reason many of our classics still exist and are still read is because they have lasting value, as both great pieces of literature and great entertainment. I mean, come on. Dickens was a serial writer, he wrote to entertain the masses. He was PAID BY THE WORD. The reason they've come down to our day is because people ENJOY READING THEM. And, the reason they're assigned in class (and by my experience you end up hating ANYTHING you are forced to read...) is because they have inherent value as pieces of literature that deserve to be considered again and again. Shakespeare...he wrote his plays to entertain the poor people of England. Yes, he was a master, and that's why we still read him, but...he put in characters and jokes and mishaps to MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH.

I'm sorry. Tastes differ, surely, but what are these "classics" that don't have "good parts?" And why are they still with us? There HAS to be a good part for them to survive and still be read.




Okay, end rant. And thread can now get back to bashing people who think too much of themselves and need to learn how to self-edit.

Actually, I think that Dickens would be considered under one of the people not to be enjoyed but to be appreciated for the historical content of his literature. The purpose for literature is not just to entertain, but a lot of times it's used to learn about the past and perspectives of it. If I was born in that time, I might have found him entertaining, but now I hate him and his writing style. I found Johnathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels dreadfully boring, but I still appreciate the satirical content. This also counts for most scientific and legal documents that are also boring to read, but tell a lot of things about the time period, but aren't exciting and weren't meant to be exciting. This also counts for folk tales that don't have what today's audiences want, but still tell a lot about the people who created them. I find that I can't enjoy a lot of classics in the same way I enjoy more modern books, but I can still find value from an anthropology perspective. Whether you like it or not, your writing has your fingerprints all over it, and it may say something about the author, too.

Why is Romeo and Juliet as famous as it is? I don't know, I didn't like it too much, and it's certainly not one of Shakespeare's better plays. I mean, Romeo's a whiny little prat, but everyone has to read it in high schools anyway. I hate it, but people love it the world over. I guess I can't account for other people's tastes.

So, I guess if Eragon were older and I was studying the background of the book along with the book itself, and seeing how everything fits together, I might be interested in it, but without it, all I'm left with is the actual story. I suppose we could call Eragon a glimpse into his psyche, but I'd rather not think about that.

Sorry if I was being unclear about content.

[scarletpeaches]

As a side note, Paolini says that Eragon started out as being him (No! Surely not?) but eventually developed into a separate character. Yeah, right...

Well, at least he admitted the MC started off as a Gary Stu.

Once I've finished the book I'm reading I'm going to start on Eragon and I will finish it - on the third attempt - so I can go by his entire novel, rather than a certain number of pages and his pretentious behaviour in real life.

[Haphazard]

As a side note, Paolini says that Eragon started out as being him (No! Surely not?) but eventually developed into a separate character. Yeah, right...

Well, at least he admitted the MC started off as a Gary Stu.

Once I've finished the book I'm reading I'm going to start on Eragon and I will finish it - on the third attempt - so I can go by his entire novel, rather than a certain number of pages and his pretentious behaviour in real life.

Out of respect to any author, I don't connect a book with an author's psychology at the time they wrote the book until the author is dead. So, umm, unless he gets hit by a bus or something, I won't have to think of that for a long, long time, and for that I am grateful.

[OverTheHills&FarAway]

Actually, I think that Dickens would be considered under one of the people not to be enjoyed but to be appreciated for the historical content of his literature. The purpose for literature is not just to entertain, but a lot of times it's used to learn about the past and perspectives of it. If I was born in that time, I might have found him entertaining, but now I hate him and his writing style. I found Johnathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels dreadfully boring, but I still appreciate the satirical content. This also counts for most scientific and legal documents that are also boring to read, but tell a lot of things about the time period, but aren't exciting and weren't meant to be exciting. This also counts for folk tales that don't have what today's audiences want, but still tell a lot about the people who created them. I find that I can't enjoy a lot of classics in the same way I enjoy more modern books, but I can still find value from an anthropology perspective. Whether you like it or not, your writing has your fingerprints all over it, and it may say something about the author, too.

Why is Romeo and Juliet as famous as it is? I don't know, I didn't like it too much, and it's certainly not one of Shakespeare's better plays. I mean, Romeo's a whiny little prat, but everyone has to read it in high schools anyway. I hate it, but people love it the world over. I guess I can't account for other people's tastes.

So, I guess if Eragon were older and I was studying the background of the book along with the book itself, and seeing how everything fits together, I might be interested in it, but without it, all I'm left with is the actual story. I suppose we could call Eragon a glimpse into his psyche, but I'd rather not think about that.

Sorry if I was being unclear about content.


I don't really think we'll have Eragon a hundred years from now. What I'm saying is that to be considered GOOD (and I mean really good, the kind of good that makes writing an art form, not a commercial mass-produced airport rack industry) a piece of writing NEEDS BOTH. Sure, it's about people's tastes. But the fact still stands that most of what we have now to consider CLASSICS were originally written to entertain, and the that we still have them is a testament to their lasting literary value.

I love Romeo and Juliet, most Shakespeare for that matter. I had a hard time getting through most of A Tale of Two Cities because it was so foreign to me, but the last one hundred pages flew by because I could connect with the characters...

I guess this is a discussion about what constitutes "entertainment." I'm entertained by real, three-dimensional characters I can identify with, going through hardships, that I can root for, feel happy when they win and sad when they lose. I like clever word play. I like to be challenged. I like to learn, as well as have my heartstrings tugged.

Other people are entertained by other things. Usually, though, the people that are not entertained by the things found in good literature do not go out of their way to read it, so they can be counted out of the picture.


And scientific and legal documents? I don't think these come into play in this discussion. They are not literature. They are not fiction. They really don't count, because they are not intended to entertain. But fiction IS.


Fiction is making connections with people and places that are not ourselves and to find commonality in everyone. And since there are many many many people in this world, there are many many people who are one thing and not another. Everyone is attracted to something else. We are all human. We at least have SOME things in common. And one is that we like to be entertained.


So you can't deny that "classic" pieces of literature entertain SOME PEOPLE (Including me, I even like Dickens because he tugs at my heart strings and entertains me, I like Shakespeare for the same reason, I like Neil Gaiman for the same reason, I like anyone I like for the same reason.) Just not everyone enjoys classics. But they have lasting value, as you said, as pieces of literature to be studied for their inherent value.

What entertains you?

[Haphazard]

What entertains you?

I tend to be very finnicky about what I like; what really embraces me is the style of the writing, and in graphic novels, it's the art style, and in a lot of music, it's the lead singer, and etc. That's probably why anything historical is so difficult for me to read, because the style is so different, and that's also probably why I can't stand Dickens, because he was paid by the word. I love Vonnegut, even though most of his characters are flat, and I don't really care whether they win or lose. I ended up dropping the book Odd Thomas because even though the premise interested me, I hated how the style pretended that everything that happened was so dramatic. The paragraph breaks annoyed me that much. It's why I wasn't able to get through two pages of The Hobbit.

So, yeah, I'm probably not a very good judge of the entertainment value of books, either. If I find the style engaging, I'll eat it up, and if I don't, I'll find reading a chore.

Characters are good too, but I have a hard time imagining them a lot of the time, and a lot of times the setting is what engages me. But most of it rests on style.

[OverTheHills&FarAway]

I tend to be very finnicky about what I like; what really embraces me is the style of the writing, and in graphic novels, it's the art style, and in a lot of music, it's the lead singer, and etc. That's probably why anything historical is so difficult for me to read, because the style is so different, and that's also probably why I can't stand Dickens, because he was paid by the word. I love Vonnegut, even though most of his characters are flat, and I don't really care whether they win or lose. I ended up dropping the book Odd Thomas because even though the premise interested me, I hated how the style pretended that everything that happened was so dramatic. The paragraph breaks annoyed me that much. It's why I wasn't able to get through two pages of The Hobbit.

So, yeah, I'm probably not a very good judge of the entertainment value of books, either. If I find the style engaging, I'll eat it up, and if I don't, I'll find reading a chore.

Characters are good too, but I have a hard time imagining them a lot of the time, and a lot of times the setting is what engages me. But most of it rests on style.

That's really interesting. Well, I can see then why you wouldn't like a lot of classics. The style isn't very modern, and really does take some time to get used to. I guess I just have this ability to really connect with pretty much ANY well-developed character. I couldn't get through Slaughterhouse Five or Cat's Cradle because, although the style was engaging, the characters might could have gotten mauled by a pack of ravenous weasels and I wouldn't have cared. In fact, that would have made it a WHOLE lot more interesting to me....I am weird.

It took me about half of The Fellowship of the Ring to get into the style. But the adventure carried me through until then, and after that...I was hooked. Even though Peter Jackson made the characters SO MUCH MORE REAL in the movies....

But I will say this--I hardly ever can visually imagine them, in my head. Oftentimes they are just a blur of color or emotion, or a vague shape with the correct hair color and build that I can associate with them--I go for words and emotion. That's me. Even though I am a VERY visual person. I write comic scripts, for goodness sake! But even though I'm a good artist, I can never get the faces right. I just don't...see concrete characters. In my head. They're just blurs. I don't even know what JULIAN looks like, other than he's small and has light-colored hair and looks like his brother but better. Couldn't draw him AT ALL.

[Haphazard]

That's really interesting. Well, I can see then why you wouldn't like a lot of classics. The style isn't very modern, and really does take some time to get used to. I guess I just have this ability to really connect with pretty much ANY well-developed character. I couldn't get through Slaughterhouse Five or Cat's Cradle because, although the style was engaging, the characters might could have gotten mauled by a pack of ravenous weasels and I wouldn't have cared. In fact, that would have made it a WHOLE lot more interesting to me....I am weird.

It took me about half of The Fellowship of the Ring to get into the style. But the adventure carried me through until then, and after that...I was hooked. Even though Peter Jackson made the characters SO MUCH MORE REAL in the movies....

But I will say this--I hardly ever can visually imagine them, in my head. Oftentimes they are just a blur of color or emotion, or a vague shape with the correct hair color and build that I can associate with them--I go for words and emotion. That's me. Even though I am a VERY visual person. I write comic scripts, for goodness sake! But even though I'm a good artist, I can never get the faces right. I just don't...see concrete characters. In my head. They're just blurs. I don't even know what JULIAN looks like, other than he's small and has light-colored hair and looks like his brother but better. Couldn't draw him AT ALL.

Though I draw, I'm an auditory person. That's probably why I go for style so much. Also, names are so important to me because somehow they spell out a character's appearance. You won't have a Sondra with black hair, and you won't have a Hortense with blonde. For me, a character has to have something that sticks out about them or I won't notice them, not appearance wise, but personality-wise. I can't stand bland characters, but I'll still read it if the style is good because I'll care more about what the author has to say than the characters.

The reason why I draw characters when they're only half-formed is so that I have enough information to get their appearance but I'm not too attached to them that I can shape their appearance while putting it on paper.

So yes, when it comes to historical fiction, I don't care if the characters or plot are 'timeless,' as they're usually claimed to be, I'm bored because of the way it's written. This seems to be hard for people to believe, and they just think that I hate classics. Phooey on them.

[clockwatcher]

Just to show how out of touch I am, for a second I was like, "Huh? The guy from Law and Order SVU writes YA?" (his name is Christopher Meloni)

[Danger Jane]

They're not really CLAIMED to be timeless.

It's more like...they're human.

And humanity hasn't really changed much in the last 13,000 years or so.



But if characters don't matter to you then I can see how that doesn't make a difference.

I hardly imagine them in my head, either. Only rarely do I have like, the whole "actor who is your character" thing. I'm as auditory as I am visual: very.

[sanctuary6284]

I've read both Eragon and Eldest. I enjoyed them at the time, but I know that I'll never read them again. Not because I didn't like them but because I find his writing style hard to deal with. Yes, he is getting better at it, but unless he decides to rewrite these later in life I can only see them as one time reads.

When I compare his writing to some of my favorites (Pratchett, Pullman, Jones, Pierce, and even Rowling), it makes it plain to see that his writing has a long way to go. As for its derivative nature, I don't mind at all. Some people get upset about it but I think its always interesting for people to take old ideas and attempt to reinvent them. If they do it well I applaude their work. If they don't do it so well I wish them better luck next time.

In Paolini's case I say, "Better luck next time. Also don't try to cram every single detail about your world into three books. Talk about it on blogs or write up an encyclopedia but don't make your readers crawl through all that exposition. Other than that keep practicing writing and I'll look forward to seeing improved works in the future."

$.02