# ERAGON!!! :P



## Dustin (Jun 9, 2004)

Eragon must have been one of the best books I've ever read, the storyline is quite good, the writing excellent, and completely my genre. It's fantasy and if you want a short story/info go here: www.alagaesia.com (the prologue is shit, the book is 100x better than the prologue)

Aksi try Robin Hobb with his 'Farseer' trilogie or Phillip Pullman with 'Swans War'


----------



## Tyson (Jun 9, 2004)

I have read this and I agree it is good but it does resemble lord of the rings and it does have intresting concepts but yes I do love this book also.


----------



## tekp (Jul 3, 2004)

did you both know that Eragon was written by a modern-day CS lewis at 15 when he began writing it?

and i have read it but got bored in the middle


----------



## A_MacLaren (Jul 5, 2004)

No, no, NO! I despise this book. Modern CS Lewis my...foot! This book is the very epitome of everything that's wrong with modern fantasy. Generic to the extreme, it's simply reinforcing the ideas people have about fantasy: That it's uncomplicated chaff. That it bothers only with big ideals and not with the subtle state of human kind. I cannot express my disgust for this book, the author, and the fact that it's been so damned popular.


----------



## aspire (Jul 5, 2004)

well i read Eragon and i found it enjoyable and i'm waiting eagerly for the next book.


----------



## sully474 (Jul 9, 2004)

I thought that it totally sucked. Like a ripoff of LOTR, only focused in on a couple of events.


----------



## Creative_Insanity (Jul 9, 2004)

Dustin said:
			
		

> Eragon must have been one of the best books I've ever read, the storyline is quite good, the writing excellent, and completely my genre. It's fantasy and if you want a short story/info go here: www.alagaesia.com (the prologue is shit, the book is 100x better than the prologue)
> 
> Aksi try Robin Hobb with his 'Farseer' trilogie or Phillip Pullman with 'Swans War'



FYI, Robin Hobb is a woman. . .  :wink:


----------



## Lews (Jul 12, 2004)

Eragorn is a cheap copy of the Lord of the Rings, with no new ideas, bad style and bad characters. The only way this book sells is because of the author's young age.


----------



## redwood (Sep 26, 2004)

Eragon is one of the best fantasy books out there and i cant wait till the next one come out either. (which is in august of 2005)


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Oct 31, 2004)

*Pulls out soap box*


Alright then, for you who say it isnt worthy, then write something better, publish it, and have it become a best seller.


Go on. 



Do it.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Oct 31, 2004)

> Alright then, for you who say it isnt worthy, then write something better, publish it, and have it become a best seller.


Yeah, because that's really the way to judge the worth of a person's opinion. You are not allowed an opinion on anything unless you have done something of equal or greater worth. Now _that's_ the way to run things.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Oct 31, 2004)

A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> > Alright then, for you who say it isnt worthy, then write something better, publish it, and have it become a best seller.
> 
> 
> Yeah, because that's really the way to judge the worth of a person's opinion. You are not allowed an opinion on anything unless you have done something of equal or greater worth. Now _that's_ the way to run things.





If you think its so bad, then do what he did. You say its not a good story. Then make a better story that people enjoy just as much. Write a three novel trilogy, have it picked up by a publisher and get a deal, and see where it goes. Im serious. Im tired of people saying other writers works arent good enough when they themselves dont have anything to show.


----------



## Pendulum (Oct 31, 2004)

demonic_harmonic said:
			
		

> A_MacLaren said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Talia_Brie (Oct 31, 2004)

My ability as a writer should not limit my ability as a reader.

There are plenty of people who can't write, but know a bad book when they read one.

I've never read Eragon, so I can't comment on it. But as a published work it should be compared against other published work, not against A_MacLaren's unpublished work.

You supporters of the book should compare it against other work in the genre adn tell everyone else why it stands up, not just say "You do better". That is a childish response to criticism.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Oct 31, 2004)

Sigh...


> If you think its so bad, then do what he did. You say its not a good story. Then make a better story that people enjoy just as much. Write a three novel trilogy, have it picked up by a publisher and get a deal, and see where it goes. Im serious. Im tired of people saying other writers works arent good enough when they themselves dont have anything to show.





> But I agree. I mean, it's fair to criticize the book, but when you start saying it's terrible, I'd like to see you do any better.


You know, I might just quote myself here.


> You are not allowed an opinion on anything unless you have done something of equal or greater worth. Now that's the way to run things.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Nov 1, 2004)

Err...I don't want to get into a big fight or anything, but I want to state my opinion about Eragon. 

True, I did enjoy the book and its concept, but I was quite disgusted by the fact that Paolini's work wasn't really original and that he just as easily took other's ideas as his own. That, in a way, slightly pissed me off. Sure, he's young, but that still no excuse. Burrowing a FEW ideas is quite alright, cause readers do need influence from authors, but to TAKE ALMOST EVERYTHING from many other books should be considered STEALING in Paolini's case, including others.

This book is, in short, Standard Adventure Quest Junk. A person wanders in the forest (And of course, he's the best hunter in the village). He finds a blue rock. "It must be my destiny to have this!" He cries. 

Then his family gets killed (How many times has this been done? A thousand times? More?), and he finds that his blue rock is an egg (gasp!). Then the storyteller (who would be much better left as an ordinary person) turns out to be a Dragon Rider, and travels with Eragon (That's one letter off from Aragon AND Dragon! What imagination!). 

Then they wander around rather aimlessly, and Eragon gets a magic sword, a fully grown dragon, and magic to blow things up with. (While we're giving him weapons, why not hand him a sword of Vorpal Slaying +12, and a Holy Hand Grenade?). 

Then, they kill some guy who's supposed to be evil, and rescue the elven princess (Cmon! That was the ultimate in cleashe!), and then they wander across a large desert. Then they come to some sort of city and slaughter a few baddies. Then they relize the evil guy they killed wasnt dead, so they kill him now. 

That's the storyline. I was not impressed. In this world, the evil king sits quietly on his throne and waits for some young loser to come and kill him. He has no powerful servents left (the author saw fit to kill them off before the story, leaving him with nameless wizards). And the politics in the world are perposterous. How does it work? If you're lucky enough to find a Dragon egg, then you instantly become a noble, and if you dont, then you are no more than a pesant, so get back to work. 

And you could see where a whole passage was effectively lifted out of Belgarath the Soceror! He barely changed the wording! It's about frustrating people until they get sick of it all and just yell some word at the impossible task they've been given to instantly learn magic. And when Eragon's summoning magic, it gives the impression that magic is just a tumor in his brain he lances to boil pus over people. 

The main character was like a total flop! He is constantly crying, fainting (6 or 7 times in the damn book), whining and always getting angry at the most pointless things. Paolini lacks depth and emotion in his character. The characters are so poorly done, that I can hardly relate to them, much less feel an sory of feeling for them. I mean, c'mon! Even the Harry Potter series has got me feeling worried over Potty boy here!

So, in conclusion, Eragon was a poor first attempt at fantasy, bringing nothing new, and no interesting interations. It wouldnt have gotten published if his parents wern't working at the publishing company, and wouldn't have gotten any sales if the author didnt go around saying "Buy my book!" and spending more time getting magazines to generate hype then he did writing this 500 page monstrosity.

Oh, and one more thing. The egg awakes Eragon in the middle of the night and guess what? He is ANGRY with it! (GASP!) 

How incredibly stupid and fake is that? Really?! I mean, if a blue stone is juggling around and making noises at night, would your first reaction turn out be angry with it? Oh please, Paolini still needs to work on it.

Though, despite my comments, I did (strangely enough) like the book. Yet, I don't think I'm going to buy the next series. Probably just borrow em from the library. Well, whatever.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 1, 2004)

While it is definitely odd for you to say you enjoyed the book when you've just panned it, I can definitely see where you're coming from. Even an unoriginal book can be enjoyable, just on a different level. I mean if Paolini did steal all the best bits from the last 30 years of fantasy fiction, how can you help but enjoy it :twisted: 

Now, I haven't read it, so I can't say, but Shadeslayer has done exactly what needs to be done on these threads. 'I didn't like it, and here is why'.

Well done.


----------



## BookwormA (Nov 1, 2004)

I have heard great reviews in several magazines, as well as several here, but also several not as good.  No, I have not read the book, but I want to ask if you believe it would be a waste of my time getting this book


----------



## Shadeslayer (Nov 1, 2004)

Do I recommend it? Now, this is a tough question, for I have highly mixed feelings for this book. However, I can tell that your a Lord Of The Rings fan by your pictures, and trust me, once you have read this, and if you are a true Tolkien fan, you wll we absolutely disgusted by this book as I have. 

Now, because of my weird mind (but maybe because its took so many things from Tolkien), I did like it. But as you can tell from my review of the book, it bothered me as well.

So do this: 

Do no buy the book at first if you are a Tolkien fan. Burrow it from a library if you are interested, though I do think you will detest it once you have finished with it. But if you like it anyways, buy it. *Shrugs* Its not my matter to make opinion for anyone. But anywho, my above review was how I really felt about this damn, unoriginal book that so throughly copies many other great work. Pisses me off really. And what really pissed me off was that Paolini didn't decide to add Tolkien to his "Aknowledgement." My temper would have lessened if he had at least thanked Tolkien. Oh well, though.

Anywho, I suggest you borrow the book first and then make an opinion of whether you want it or not.


----------



## BookwormA (Nov 1, 2004)

Okay, great.  Thanks for the advice


----------



## desired_destiny (Nov 1, 2004)

Eragon! Yes, I was about to buy that at the book store, but i found myself short of money...


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Nov 1, 2004)

A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> Sigh...
> 
> 
> > If you think its so bad, then do what he did. You say its not a good story. Then make a better story that people enjoy just as much. Write a three novel trilogy, have it picked up by a publisher and get a deal, and see where it goes. Im serious. Im tired of people saying other writers works arent good enough when they themselves dont have anything to show.
> ...





 


That was awesome. Nothing but quotes. Yes. Dig that come back into me. *Continues reading terrible book written by unimaginative kid who some how wrote a best seller at age 15.*

Wow, yes. Tolkien was creative. Do you know that all he ever did was rewrite Bible stories? Oh yes let's all deny it. You know it's true. But with Elves. And magical swords. And some little helpless individual that grows to become a tragic hero.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 2, 2004)

Look, I'm just making a point. You're not going to make a decent point or have anyone respect your opinion by saying 'you can't criticise unless you do better'. That's childish.
Don't bother getting into Tolkien, because you're not going to lure me into debating his work to divert attention from your wavering, thin arguments about Eragon. As much as I'd like to.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Nov 2, 2004)

Too True, A_MacLaren. Give us something about Eragon that you thought was serious, deep, and hard thinking. I'd like to talk to you about that.


----------



## asdar (Nov 2, 2004)

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Nobody is nominating this kid for a pulitzer.

I've got a 6 and an eight year old and when I'm trying to teach them how to write I start with the question of "What do you like?"

It's not too surprising to me at all that someones first book would be a conglomeration of his favorite styles and stereotypes.

The book is well written with character development and a clear storyline. Tolkein was an old man when he wrote LoTR, I'm not saying that this kid will ever develop into a writer of that caliber but it's a good first book. 

I'm not saying you shouldn't judge another writer if you haven't been published but I will ask you to look at your own efforts and imagine what your first published novel should be like. 

Asdar


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Nov 2, 2004)

asdar said:
			
		

> I don't know what all the fuss is about.
> 
> Nobody is nominating this kid for a pulitzer.
> 
> ...





thank you. im not saying you cant say 'this was not my type of book,' but 'that was trash' is something completely different. he was 15. i dont see any of your work on a bestseller list, seriously.

and i wasnt trying to divert attention. have you ever read the sillmarillion (however its spelled). Its nothing but the Bible. Lord of the Rings is based on Jesus and Satan. You can look that up yourself, thats not my theory.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Nov 2, 2004)

I still want to know why you enjoyed the book. You can't just back up your argument with saying, "I'd like to see you become a bestseller!" That's childish and not related to the topic. The TOPIC IS ERAGON, and all I want to know is why you like it. Tell me, and all of us about ERAGON, and not about Tolkien. If you want to talk about Master Tolkien, look on another page of him on the Forum. But this a chat for Eragon, and I would like to know your opinion about the book and gladly respond to it.

Thanks,
Shadeslayer

(Unless, of course, you've never read the book, or just don't simply have an opinion, then don't bother.  :wink:  :wink:


----------



## daniela (Nov 2, 2004)

[ot:c911e29d57]Shadeslayer is right this topic is about Eragon.  If anyone would like to discuss whether or not you can judge a book and call it "trash" without having something published yourself, visit the lounge where I will be starting a topic about it.[/ot:c911e29d57]

As for my opinion on Eragon (I freely admit that I could not bring myself to read it the whole way through) read the quote below.



			
				daniela said:
			
		

> Personally, I think many people are amazed mostly because Christopher Paolini was fifteen when he started writing Eragon. The age factor blinds them to the truth that this book is merely average, and not a masterpiece. However, I do feel that as long as Paolini does not get a fat head over all of the praise he has received and attempts to grow as a writer, he may come out with a novel in his late twenties or early thirties that will blow everyone away for the *right reasons*. The one redeeming value this book has for me is that like the Harry Potter series, it gets children interested in reading instead of relying on T.V. for entertainment. Any author able to draw junior couch potatoes away from the boob tube for a few hours is worthy of some laudation.



--DM--


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 2, 2004)

All right, all right. Here we go.
I read a lot of Eragon. I didn't finish it, but I got about two thirds of the way through. I didn't like it for many reasons. As much as I didn't like the writing (it was clichéd and dull, but we've done this), my biggest problems emerge from the reputation this book has. I don't mind that it's a bestseller. Lots of books are bestsellers. I do mind that this guy had parents rich enough to launch his mediocre work and get it distributed at major book chains. I also mind that after seeing the calibre of work here and on LitOrg, Paolini can get this lucky. That's the extent of it, really. People are hailing him as, if not a genius, a damned good writer. And he's not. He's barely a competent writer. I've seen a lot better on the internet, but most of us aren't going to make it because we're not trust-fund babies whose parents can afford to coddle us by publishing our books.
Plus, it's a giant leap of pretentiousness (is that a word?) to even assume that your first novel that you wrote when you were fifteen is worthy of publication. It annoys me that Chris Paolini thought like this and was apparently right. It just shows me that the reading public are often dumb, and that publishers would rather publish something uncomplicated and easy to read than something that's going to challenge you.
I know it's a kids book, but I've read plenty of better kids books that don't rely on tired fantasy clichés and haven't been as widely hailed as this has. And they deserved to.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Nov 2, 2004)

The fact that Paolini had rich parents and enough money to get his book out doesn't mean that that is what made people read it. You can have all the money in the world and still not get people to enjoy a book.


Why did I enjoy it? Very simple. Cool story line. Loved the characters. And it was, in fact, creative. You are saying to get off the Tolkien topic, when you are telling me that Eragon is a rip off of LOTR. Then you expect me to not say anything about the book?  LOTR was simply Bible stories rewritten, so in fact, the only imaginative thing about Tolkien was that he made up a language.  So I am not mentioning him to get off topic, but to prove a point that he was not all that creative either.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 2, 2004)

Was it creative or wasn't it? A huge number of people say Eragon is derivative (again, I haven't read it). The similarities between it and LOTR seem to be reasonably heavy. Saying Tolkein re-wrote bible stories and therefore wasn't creative does not make Eragon creative. Two wrongs don't make a right. However, Tolkien writing stories of good versus evil doesn't necessarily constitute re-writing bible stories (haven't read the Bible, or the Silmarillion).

But keep in mind, Tolkien created an entire language, and centuries of back-story and legends before writing LOTR. You might be going a little far to say he wasn't creative.

But that's way way waaaaaay off topic.  

Eragon got a lot of publicity as a result of Paolini's age, and as a result got a high readership. That doesn't make it good either. 

Also, I'm not sure how comfortably I am will people saying "It was good considering he was 15 when he started writing it." It's either good or it isn't. The author's age shouldn't be a mitigating factor to lack of quality. The book might be better than most 15 year olds can write, but my writing was shit when I was fifteen, so that's not much of a qualifier.

As Daniela said though, it appears as if Paolini has got a lot of potential, and I expect that in 10 to 15 years we might be seeing a revised edition of Eragon, just as Stephen King has recently released a revised edition of The Gunslinger.

I don't know, these are just my thoughts from what I've heard about the book.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Nov 2, 2004)

Umm ... excuse me demonic harmonic, but didn't you say before on the forum that Tolkien was creative? Confusing. Anywho, I disagree with the fact that you think Eragon is creative. Paolini didn't bother to come up with any original ideas, but took many ideas and plotlines from many other books. 

We've heard that all art is imitation (and that therefore to imitate and even copy is OK); and that imitation is the highest form of flattery. In some aspects of art, literature, and life this holds true, but not here. There is too much imitation, and not enough originality. We have (from what I'm familiar of, anyway):

* The Thirteen Forsworn (Jordan's Forsaken)
* Elves on silver ships from across the sea (Tolkien)
* Urgals and Kulls (Orcs and Uruk-Hai from Tolkien with bits of Trollocs blended in from Jordan)
* Dwarves who are absolute reproductions of those from Tolkien, from their mountain city to their use of axes, and even the description of "hewing" heads off Urgals (er, Orcs)
* A Shade (Jordan's Fade, although with an intriguing difference - and it's not the color of the hair)
* Dragons and everything that comes with them (McCaffrey, although she doesn't seem to mind, if her blurbs mean anything)
* A "magic-user" (former Dragon Rider) who refuses to reveal his true nature for no good reason other than to cause dramatic tension (take your pick from any of the lesser derivative works)
* Ra'Zac (All wicked lords need hand servants...and they all get them, no different here)
* Somebody says "Hellfire!" This is an uncommon oath in the "real" world, but not an uncommon oath to Thomas Covenant. There were a couple of other Covenant similarities, but I didn't make note of them.

There are more, but this isn't intended to be exhaustive. Given what some truly great high/heroic fantasists have done (Tolkien, Donaldson, Martin, Williams, and Jordan), it is absolutely essential to make your own work your own. Is it easy? Not a chance. There are only so many original ideas, only so many different ways to write a high/heroic fantasy, but if you're going to do it, you can't just take what others have done, tweak it a bit, toss it into a blender, and put it out there as your own original work. This is NOT an original work.

People who haven't read hardcore fantasy books certainly do not know this. When I read Eragon, I felt as if I were reading another bad re-write of the same book from several authors. *Sigh* 

Lets hope it can be helped.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Nov 2, 2004)

Whatever. I guess I understand what borrowing is alot more.  That would, however, require people to have tons of younger cousins and siblings who look at your work, take it, borrow some ideas, then add in some of their own. Its a start, and sometimes they can make it even better than it used to be. You have to see creativity for what it is.I know I'm going to get 'What the hell are you talking about' commments, but my original point was that I liked the book, thought it was creative, and didnt see how people could call it junk. God, just...get over the fact that he borrowed things from other stories and enjoy this story for what it is. It's fiction, fantasy. Maybe it even takes place in a world very much like the others. Who cares? Seriously. That doesnt make it horrible. If it was horrible, no one would have enjoyed it. 


The Dark Tower from King does almost nothing but borrow, (most of the time as to go as far as add exact things into the story from other places), but its still a great read, very creative, and enjoyable. Eragon is the same way, but just written on a younger scale. 



I meant that I thought both authors were creative, but that by what YOU say, then Tolkien is not creative. (I have a bad headcold and am not reading what I write, so if it comes out jumbled or confusing, I end up hitting enter without realizing that I didnt explain things correctly.) Some Tolkien fans love the Sillmarillion the best. And what is it? The Bible. All he did was change characters and forms. Yet some say its better than LOTR, which is still based on the Bible, but the new testement. So if you are going to say that Paolini stole ideas and just redid some things, just look back to Tolkien. Really.


----------



## Shadeslayer (Nov 2, 2004)

Nice point, and I respect it. But before i sign off, my real question is this:

Why do you think this book is good besides:

"Oh, its was creative, and cool."

I want to know why you thought it was deep and worth your time. Tell me. I'm interested. I've read the book, and all I could say is:

How can you enjoy Eragon when its already been read in a more serious, and excellent manner in another book. My point is, it so throughly copies, that it would be a waste of time reading this book, and if you want a version of this, but much better. I advise you try:

The Dragon of Pern Series

Besides that, I still think Tolkien was original even if he did take influence in Norse Mythology. Fine, say what you want, but the man still made his own world, unlike Eragon who copies other brilliant works too. This book written by the 15 year-old just did a revised world of Middle Earth. Why waste your time reading that, when you can read a more excellent verson.

However, I still want your opinion. And I'm sorry if I have caused any offence in what I've said. I don't want to start another fight, less with you, like before with...*cough, cough*... Talia Brie knows what I mean. Anywho, still waiting for opinion. Again, fine point you made there.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 2, 2004)

I can see we're trying hard to avoid a repeat of the Terry Goodkind incident. :twisted: 

Debates on the creativity of Tolkein and LOTR should be moved to another thread. Feel free to open one up.

I think a book can be an enjoyable read even if there are problems with it. I campaign for Matthew Reilly on this site, and I think his characters are stereotypes, and his storylines shallow, but they are exciting to read. Maybe that's what demonic is trying to say.

And we'll leave the Dark Tower comment alone, or else some wrath will be felt. :evil:


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 3, 2004)

*Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...*



> The fact that Paolini had rich parents and enough money to get his book out doesn't mean that that is what made people read it. You can have all the money in the world and still not get people to enjoy a book.


No, but he does get exposure and a chance to gain a real, paying readership of customers from respected book chains when a thousand better writers are languishing on the internet, unread and unnappreciated. This is more of a personal gripe at his good luck than a serious criticism.



> You are saying to get off the Tolkien topic, when you are telling me that Eragon is a rip off of LOTR.


When did I say this? Please, provide me with evidence and I'll gladly eat my words and revise my opinion.
Another thing; You'll notice I only said one thing about Tolkien. Other people brought it up, but not me, except that one time. Look, I'll even quote it and save you the trouble.


> Don't bother getting into Tolkien, because you're not going to lure me into debating his work to divert attention from your wavering, thin arguments about Eragon. As much as I'd like to.



My problems with Eragon are:
1) *Paolini's a mediocre writer getting more attention and praise than he deserves.* And I'm glad for him, I really am, but I think that there are better writers who deserve it more.

2) *Paolini didn't get popular by being interesting, but by being pleasantly dull.* A tricky one, this, but let me explain. I'm not against airport fiction, or kid's fiction. I only get upset when people start giving the book credit outside of those genres. It doesn't deserve that kind of attention.

I'll admit it's not my kind of book. But my problems with the book extend beyond the book itself. I'd rather it wasn't as popular as it is, but I blame publisher hype and publicity for it a lot more than I blame Paolini.



> I can see we're trying hard to avoid a repeat of the Terry Goodkind incident.


Damned straight. I don't want this thread closed, because I don't think we've breached any rules. This is fun.


----------



## blademasterzzz (Nov 3, 2004)

I agree that it was very cliched... 

It was done... perfectly. The writer has incorporated every epic fantasy element - and that's what makes the book so ordinary. I reckon it's a bestseller because of Paolini's age. 

Seriously, he added almost NOTHING original. Everything is prescripted, and events are forseable. 

Sure, it's fun to read, but it's nothing special. Didn;t make me think or feel good when I finished it. I just though, Geez, that kid's borrowed way too many ideas. 

Well... just my opinion.


----------



## Grimmwulf (Nov 3, 2004)

Actually, Shadeslayer, I see that you copy and pasted from reviews on amazon.com. I read the reviews there one day when I was bored, I don't know whether they are valid or not, but I'm not even going to try Eragon out. It's just funny that you say he's uncreative and unoriginal, yet you copy and pasted in your reviews, nice one, slick.

Oh, and Tolkien didn't copy from the bible, he drew from NORSE MYTHOLOGY.  I read the first 30 or so pages of the silmarillion and couldn't get past that, and I'll agree that's formatted a lot like the bible, but it's more mythology than bible stories, oh wait...

Also, it's more Satan vs. the Archangel Michael.

EDIT: Also, The Lord of the Rings resembles more the "The Ring" by Wagmer IIRC, which derives from a norse saga itself.


----------



## blademasterzzz (Nov 3, 2004)

I couldn't stand the silmarillion... It REALLY was like a bible... It got boring so soon, I was really disappointed


----------



## Silver Hawk (Nov 3, 2004)

Acually, Grimmwulf, I...err..did that. You see, I snuck onto her account and did that. Shade's on vacation right now and err...I don't want you guys holding anything against her when she gets back, however, it looks like she's going to find out anyways. The main reason I logged onto her account was because I had forgotten my password and couldn't find a way to get it back, I'm stupid you see....and then I found it on...umm...under my desk. So yeah, she's going to kill me when she's get back from England. Don't hold anything against her, but she will kill me. And yes, I will shamelessly admit that I copy and paste reviews. But what's the big deal. *Sigh* Oh, she's going to be pissed.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Nov 4, 2004)

What makes Eragon 'deep' as you say?


Let me use the old quote 'You would have had to have been there.'


I guess there are things in there that aren't meaningful and deep if you haven't had the same experiences as me. I say this humbly, not in a defensive manner. I can say things, and I will if you really want some of my life story. But I'll save that for now.


Also, just...think about it. I guess you won't take this as a valued argument but...


A 15 year old boy did not write this to make a million dollars. He didn't write this to make the best seller list. He didn't write it to be famous. He wrote it because...he wanted to. He did something he enjoyed, and put his heart and soul into it.  Whether or not you believe it to be one of the biggest rip off jobs, it doesn't matter. He didn't sit down and say 'I think I'll just mess together the books I read and rewrite some of it.' He probably didn't even notice most of the connections you did.  He wrote a story, made quite a lovely tale, then finished it, and his parents helped him publish it. He didn't use alot of money to get word around about it. He self published, then someone from another publishing company picked it up one day, read it, enjoyed it, and offered to republish it under their company. 


There were actually quite a few times when I thought I had come up with an original idea, only to find that it was almost the exact same idea or story line as something already out there. He might not even have read everything you did. Yes, he read LOTR. So what? It obviously impacted his writing, but I doubt he purposely 'copied' Tolkien's work.


Grah. Whatever. To be perfectly ghetto about this all : I think he gots da skillz.


----------



## Farror (Nov 4, 2004)

You say Tolkien nothing but copy straight out of the bible? And yet he created a world, and introduced a totally revised version of three mythical creatures.

Actually, what I wanted to say, is that I want to see you do better. Exactly as you said it.


I read the book, it was dully written, and very cliched. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 5, 2004)

Here's a question.

Is there a difference between copying someone else's ideas, and paying homage to that person?

Feist's elves call themselves the 'eledhel', which is the name Tolkein gave the elves. They are also ideologically identical to Tolkein's elves, as are Feist's dwarves. I don't think anyone has ever accused Ray Feist of copying Tolkein as a result. But Feist openly admits that the elves and dwarves in his stories are offered in homage to Tolkein's work.

The beginning of the Wheel of Time, The Eye of the World, has the first 100 pages set in the village of Eomon's Field (sp?), which Jordan has openly admitted as his version of Hobbiton and The Shire.

The genre itself owes a lot to Tolkein. Is it any surprise that his ideas find their way into other works?


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 5, 2004)

The difference between an homage and  rip-off is that an homage is a reference to an earlier work, not a copy.
If Feist had called an elf Eldehel, that would have been an homage. Calling all elves Eldehel and making them near-identical to Tolkien's elves is a rip-off.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 5, 2004)

A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> The difference between an homage and  rip-off is that an homage is a reference to an earlier work, not a copy.
> If Feist had called an elf Eldehel, that would have been an homage. Calling all elves Eldehel and making them near-identical to Tolkien's elves is a rip-off.



He calls them Eledhel as a race, and he has made them ideologically (culturally) identical to Tolkein's elves.

Personally I don't think this is ripping off, at least not in the case of elves, because Tolkeins' elves have become the generic convention for elves. Fantasy Elves are now those derived from Tolkein. You rarely see elves that are not drawn from the mould Tolkein formed. And I've just said the same thing three times.

Also, Feist openly admits he based his elves and dwarves on Tolkein. He is making no effort to hold them up as his own work. Calling them Eledhel is his way of doing that, and he has also made this statement in interviews etc.

Paolini has not made those statements. Is that the difference?


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 5, 2004)

An homage wouldn't be such a major part of the story. It would be a reference, not a piece of the development of the plot, character or world.
Just saying 'It's okay, because it's an homage' doesn't really detract from the fact that Feist used an entire concept for his own. He barely changed a thing about Tolkien's elves. And you're right, these have become the fantasy standard, but most writers bother to put a bit on orginality into their elves.
A comparison:
I'm writing a fantasy story. I choose to set it in a school for wizards called 'Pigwarts' (stupid name, but this is just an example). It's about the adventures of students at this school.
When challenged about the originality of the idea, I say 'It's okay, it's just an homage.'
Acceptable?


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 5, 2004)

But, that is following major plot points (which appears to be what Paolini did.) Feist based part of the setting, the environment, on Tolkeins elves. Feist's elves are not major players in the story, with the exception of the Tomas/Ashen Shugar story (which is original, or at least, not drawn from Tolkein). It's almost the equivalent of saying, "Tolkein has trees, so anyone else who has trees is ripping him off." Almost.

And I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but this is just too much fun to let go. :twisted:


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 5, 2004)

Am I the easiest person to bait in the entire world?

My comparison may not have been brilliant, but let's put that aside for a moment.
You'll note I had "world development" in my list of ways to rip things off. Feist just lifted an entire species and dumped it into his own book, renamed the characters, and continued on his merry way. That's not an homage, that's nearly a breach of copyright law.

A better comparison:
I'm writing a fantasy novel. In my novel I have a race of very short people who live in holes, who are not dwarves. I call them 'harfoots'. They have no bearing on the plot.
Ripoff of homage?


----------



## Farror (Nov 5, 2004)

Perhaps "hairfoots" would work better? 

Elements of worlds are often taken, but when plots start being repeated fairly obviously, it is most certainly not a homage.

I can name about 10 fantasy novels off the top of my head that use Tolkien's tall, wise and beautiful elves, but I cannot name ten novels that have copyed trollocs, mydralls and orcs, have taken elements of the journey from Tolkien and Jordan, the main conflict, dragons, is very, very close to Anne McAffrey's version of dragons. Telapathy, inteligent, a fixation on what the dragons eyes are doing.

Anyway, that was just a few thoughts.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 5, 2004)

A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> Am I the easiest person to bait in the entire world?



Yes.  :twisted: 



			
				A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> I'm writing a fantasy novel. In my novel I have a race of very short people who live in holes, who are not dwarves. I call them 'harfoots'. They have no bearing on the plot.
> Ripoff or homage?



What do you think halflings are? Remember Magician came about from a RPG background. Midkemia is a world Ray and his university mates used to play games in.

Farror's points are more relevant to the discussion though.

And whose side am I on? I'm on the side of continuing the debate :twisted:


----------



## Farror (Nov 5, 2004)

Give me something to debate about then. As it is, none of my points have been opposed.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Nov 5, 2004)

I was going to post, but then this debate will never end. It's like politics or religion. I found the book meaningful and creative. I have tried to explain and you just want more. I don't know how much I could explain until I would have to give you my brain. So, farewell to this thread.


*Picks up Eragon and leaves*


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 5, 2004)

Oh, you read your book. Read it and be damned. Ah-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!

...Sorry.
I'm not really sure what anyone is arguing about any more, so I can't really retort.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Nov 5, 2004)

*laughs for a minute*


what the hell ARE we fighting about? this thread has changed directions so many times. 


since i cant remember what we are doing either, i shall put a book mark in Eragon, set it down, and wave my little white flag. shall we bring out the peace treaty?


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 6, 2004)

Ah, it's all in good fun. Let's agree to disagree until I get bored again.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Nov 6, 2004)

Sounds good to me. Everyone is equal. (But some animals are more equal that others...)



GRAHHH!!!! *dies from quoting animal farm*




You know what? I think you are just jealous that Paolini get more wierd looking women than you.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 6, 2004)

Shredded paper for hair is really what I want in a companion.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 7, 2004)

Farror said:
			
		

> Perhaps "hairfoots" would work better?
> 
> Elements of worlds are often taken, but when plots start being repeated fairly obviously, it is most certainly not a homage.
> 
> ...



On another thread we're saying originality might come from the author's perception (or at least I'm saying that - not sure if anyone has agreed with me yet). If Paolini's exposure to fantasy fiction is limited to Tolkein, McCaffrey and Jordan, then the elements of his own fiction will no doubt draw from that experience. 

I'm also proposing that originality might be a matter of intent. If Paolini did not intend for his book to be a rip-off, then some level of originality is present. Maybe the way he mixed the three author's work together was intended to be original, but is criticised because his experience with the genre is so limited. Perhaps if he'd read more authors the similarities would not have been so obvious?


----------



## Farror (Nov 7, 2004)

Various colours of dragons, each colour has different characterisics and it makes a big difference. The colour of the dragon reflects upon it's rider.

The dragon riders themselves are a race (sort of) above, they are stronger, faster and use magic. If you've read the Magician series, by Raymond Feist, you'll see huge similarities between them and the Valheru, ancient lords of Midkemia.

Now I'm not usually to picky, but it seems to me that a book should at least be built around an original idea. Dragon riders is the main idea of this, and the dragons belong to Anne Mcaffrey, while the riders are the work of Feist.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 8, 2004)

The idea of different coloured dragons having different characteristics is also a staple of fantasy role playing games like D&D. The idea of riders for dragons is evident in Feist, Hickman and Weis, and all other writers for the Forgotton Worlds and D&D. Taking a step and giving dragon riders magical powers, while not exactly innovative, needn't necessarily be an extraction from one fantasy work.

You noted above that Tolkein's elves appear in the writing of several different authors. In fact so do multi-coloured dragons and dragon riders. How many people need to write about one element of fantasy before it becomes an accepted convention of the genre? Tolkein's elves are essentially fantasy elves. Very few writers write them differently. Multi coloured dragons are also standard in the genre, and in fact in traditional mythology. While McCaffery wrote many novels about them, she was by no means the only one. Other people have used the concept. I wouldn't necessarily say multi-coloured dragons can be attributed to any one author, but rather are generic of fantasy fiction.

Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you personally. I haven't read Eragon and I probably never will, I'm just on the side of continuing the argument. It's just lots of fun. :twisted:


----------



## blademasterzzz (Nov 8, 2004)

ripping off:
I am not saying Paolini did it INTENTIONALLY. He must have read a zillion different fantasy books, and just simply created his own version. I don't object to this being a work of his soul or anything, I;m just saying he wasn't very original.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Nov 8, 2004)

I've been involved in a similar argument on a different set of forums. Here's my blog entry regarding artists and audience interpretation of art.
http://journals.maxpaynedev.com/user/MacLaren/2004-11-08


----------



## Farror (Nov 8, 2004)

In regards to Talia's comment about multi-coloured dragons, I was refering more to the impact the dragons colour had upon it's rider. The fact that the riders would arm themselves with magical armor and swords suiting the dragons colour is something taken straight out Feist's work.

The dragons behavior, and what the author describes about them, is ridiculously similar to Anne Mcaffrey in particular.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Nov 8, 2004)

Why are we all still arguing about this? Seriously, does it even make sense? I believe we all stated our opinions and arguments, and no matter how much we try to get our points across, no one is going to win. 

It's like religion or politics. Everyone will walk out of here on the same level that they came in. I can't even argue this anymore because it really is that pointless.


----------



## bobothegoat (Nov 8, 2004)

> It's like religion or politics. Everyone will walk out of here on the same level that they came in. I can't even argue this anymore because it really is that pointless.



I don't know... I've been pretty much convinced that I probably won't read it though.  It doesn't seem to me that there is any thing fresh to be found in it.  So I'd like to thank this thread for stopping me from buying a bookt that I may or may not have bought otherwise.


----------



## Farror (Nov 8, 2004)

It's fun. That's why we keep coming back.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Nov 8, 2004)

Farror said:
			
		

> It's fun. That's why we keep coming back.



:thumbl:  :thumbr:


----------



## Akumu (Nov 15, 2004)

We can't really be objective about this book, though, can we? I mean, it was written by a 19-year old. I'm 17 now and I know that I wouldn't be able to write a book like that (I'm talking about the lenght and the good story here, not the style which is, quite frankly, crap), at least not now. He managed to make it unputdownable (someone should make this word illegal) for most people and that's why I respect it. Originality is another issue, and so is style.

I couldn't believe some of the stupidity you can find in the book, such as (I don't remember the exact scenario) when someone (possibly Eragon) was carrying someone and then put him down on the ground. The phrase Paolini used was "He deposited him on the ground." Excuse me? Deposited? Are we talking about a frickin' ATM machine here? I'm simply saying that there's a lot of overwriting, and I'm the type who likes clear-cut, minimalistic writing, if you will, more than the former, so I had a problem with that.

As for the story itself, I have no complaints (other than the obvious plagiarism of the Lord of the Rings---does this guy really think he made up all those names himself? Eragon; Aragorn? Come on...). There's even plagiarism to Star Wars, believe it or not. The evil Empire, the revolutionaries, him not wanting to choose sides, but then the Empire kills his uncle (ok, so in Star Wars there was an aunt, too) and he is tutored by Brom (Ben) in the art of the sword (lightsaber) and magic (the Force). Coincidence? May be, but I don't think so.

There's nothing more educational for a young writer than a book by a young author. That's why it was a learning experience for me. The book is interesting, has a good pace and a great setting (I was really impressed by how he managed to do the setting, it's pure and well-dictated), and will sell to a lot of kids which was probably Paolini's main motivator for writing this story anyway. Let's be realistic.

Also, if you don't know how the book came into print, I'll tell you. It was self-published first, and then Random House bought the rights. So, naturally, there was no time for editing, and the book was published the way it was edited by Paolini's parents. The next book will have to go through the Holy Editing Process and will make the book more readable to my opinion.

This is just the beginning, though. This guy is going to do better in the future. He has all the predispositions. I'm eagerly waiting for the next book.


----------



## aaden (May 25, 2005)

Shadeslayer said:
			
		

> Though, despite my comments, I did (strangely enough) like the book. Yet, I don't think I'm going to buy the next series. Probably just borrow em from the library. Well, whatever.



i'm not going to quote your whole post, but i do most certainly agree with everything that you said.

despite its shortcomings, i managed to like the novel. 

i found it 'cute', somehow. i think i liked the dragon.


----------

