I thought they weren't that bad for a fifteen year old.

Ok, the second book was written after he was 20, but still they weren't horrible, even though they had no orginial bone in their inky body.

Yes, no origanality, but still pretty good.

I'm looking forward to the movie. It's no Lord of the Rings, or even Harry Potter (cinema wise if I were to compare it to the books shame on me), but it'll be a nice night out at the movies.

Yes, the movie will probably be good. Not something I'd buy, but maybe see in theaters, or rent.

My friend wants to see it, so why not.

And sometimes a cruddy book makes a good movie.

Ianna wrote: And sometimes a cruddy book makes a good movie.

Have any in mind? I can't think of any.

The Princess Diaries.

Horrible book, fun movie.

I think the movie will be good, if the fight scenes are good. They are what make or break it.


Oh and krim, I take back what i said about you wining. mwahhaha

PG-13 or bust.

That is, in my opinion.

Good for you, even though it's obvious you have no backing other than the fact that you like it because it's entertainment value, even though there are thousands of other similar books with equal or greater entertainment value.

I don't need your confirmation to tell me who has the upperhand in this argument.

anti-shurtugal.com

kthanxbai.

P.S. Paolini published Eragon at 19. He started at 15. Ever heard of the editing process?

Krim wrote: P.S. Paolini published Eragon at 19. He started at 15. Ever heard of the editing process?

Huh? The editing process in general, or how he edited it?

Krim means that it takes years to edit.

And I know, but it was republished when he was nineteen.

And, like I said before, entertainment vaule has some vaule. A lot of books people think are "good" could be ripped apart if you analyzed them enough.

Or in some cases, simply reading them.

There's really no way to debate here except whether you like them or not. There's no reason for anyone to get obessive about hating them.

Though, if you start an anti website you could post all the fans hatemail online.

That's funny to read.

The genre will be dead (again) within 2010.

You heard it here first.

What genre? Fantasy?

Right when i thought No one would ask something like that...

Yes.

...No, it won't. The genre of fantasy will not die, that's the same as saying sci-fi will expire in the next decade...it's not going to happen.

Krim wrote:

wrote:I wanted to apoligize if I offended anyone! I like the Inheritance trilogy and Lord of the rings equally well!

...You thought the Inheritance Trilogy is anywhere near Lord of the Rings? Tell me, have you read any books in your life? Seriously, I'm not trying to flame.

HOW DO YOU LIKE IT? The characters are archetypes. The entire plot is stolen. It has horrible wording, bad descriptions, excessive overwording, laughable villains. He uses 300 adverbs in the first book. Galbatorix not being present doesn't make sense. It's twice as long as it should be. He describe Oromis has a hairless groin. He spent over twenty words describing Oromis impossibly dissecting a blueberry one segment at a time...do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? He was published by his parents. Knopf saw him as a marketing scheme. He wasn't really fifteen when he wrote it. He's 22 now. He doesn't listen to criticism. He is smug. Eldest was the worst book of the year according to Entertainment Weekly. He thinks characters are born of necessity. His books are loaded with implied sex yet is marketed as a kids book. The characters are bland. Book 2 was one chunk of worthless purple prose. Arya is a vegetarian that wears leather. Her mother sheds a SINGLE TEAR after hearing her daughter, the princess of the elves, was savagely beaten and implied that she was raped but made the guards impotent.

Is there one possible reason you like this other than you really don't know what good literature is? Just curious.

Do you think that Paolini is better than Tolkien? Tolkien, a master of the craft, the father of the fantasy epic...

Tell me, do you think Paolini is better than:

Neil Gaiman
Kurt Vonnegut
Poe
Lovecraft
H.G. FRIGGIN' WELLS
Dickens
George R. R. Martin (READ HIM, NOT PAOLINI)
David Eddings (the father of Paolini's magic system, along with
Ursula Le Guin)
Anne McCafferey
George Orwell
Salinger

Paolini is an airport novelist, like Dan Brown, who made it big because he was 'fifteen' when he was eighteen.

It would be great if you SHUT YOUR BAZOO!!!
The only problems with Inheritance are lack of originality and experience. Mistakes such as 'Arya is a vegetarian that wears leather' are only there due to lack of experience. As for all his descriptions, I find nothing wrong with them. It is just that they are not as finely tuned as Tolkien's, this can also be credited due to youth and inexperience.
It maybe you are plainly jealous of Paolini's skill or you regard him as a copycat. But it is not originality that modern readers desire, it is a good fascinating and captivating read.
Paolini did his best to please his fans with his books and he did not fail to deliver.
You may be a conservatist in the field of literature looking only for 'literary skill' in a book.
The times are changing, many new bestsellers yet to come will fail to express originality.


As for most of the books and writers you gave as examples, most of them are not fantasy so they can not be compared with Eragon. As far as the 'Belgariad' series is concerned it is a good read but it fails to captivate the reader as Eragon did.

In reality I am amazed Paolini began writing Eragon at age 15. I am sure he will grow up to be a writer as capable as Tolkien.

Bazoo?

Thing is: He may be a bestseller, but he is not a good writer. Eragon did not captivate me.

As pointed out by Krim, Paolini was not the 'Prodigy' or 'Wunderkid' that everyone seems to claim. Originality doesn't matter to you? Maybe so, It doesn't matter to me if someone copied some minor plot lines or conformed to some archtypes. But the thing is: Eragon isn't just unoriginal, it is a complete and utter ripoff. There is nothing original. Down to his ancient language. Inspiration comes for LotR, Star Wars, Dune to say the major ones. It is one step alway from plaigarism and infirgment of intellectual rights.

Prose? As Krim pointed out, the guy used an entire paragraph to tell a elf ate a berry. That's indefensible.

As for the leather thing: The Trilogy is riddled with those things. How, I ask you does 15 year old Eragon wears a 5 foot sword from his waist? Is he Ten Feet tall? And how come a flimsy leather brindle save magically stop the problem of leg injuries? Won't it require maintenence? You may say that's useless detail; but then Why the Hell was I subjected to an entire para on the subtleties of berry eating?

And The Philosophying! Vegetarianism? atheism? All Poorly articulated. Are you a atheism? Paolini sure is.

Eragon was published when he was 19. Uh huh. 'Began Writing' doesn't matter. The date of publishing does. Hell, Paolini doesn't compare well to JK Rowling. You think he'll best JRR?

Read this quickie: http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/quickreview.htm

Post wrote: Bazoo?

Local joke meaning something like 'hole'.

wrote:Thing is: He may be a bestseller, but he is not a good writer. Eragon did not captivate me.

It may not have been for you, but there are a million other people who will say otherwise. Yes, Eragon has nothing on LOTR or some other works of Nix or Brooks. I am not saying his book is great, but it is not as bad as some extreme critics make out.
Yes he certainly could improve in writing, but I am sure that will improve. I have to read his third book before making a decision on that.

wrote:As pointed out by Krim, Paolini was not the 'Prodigy' or 'Wunderkid' that everyone seems to claim. Originality doesn't matter to you? Maybe so, It doesn't matter to me if someone copied some minor plot lines or conformed to some archtypes. But the thing is: Eragon isn't just unoriginal, it is a complete and utter ripoff. There is nothing original. Down to his ancient language. Inspiration comes for LotR, Star Wars, Dune to say the major ones. It is one step alway from plaigarism and infirgment of intellectual rights.

Think of this: Paolini is 15yrs old, your average boy. He has read great books such as LOTR and Belgariad. He is thinking; why should'nt I write a book and see how it goes? He had no idea this book of his would be a bestseller, but at that time it was a good time-pass. He decides to base the foundations of his tale on his personal favorites and just begins. He has taken considerable time on the written part and after publication he discovers what a hit the book is.
Now he is older and more mature (you can spot this in parts if Eldest) but there is one thing.......he can not change what he has done in Eragon. He has to write sequels for a story which is a rip-off of several others. But you can see that Eldest was not such a rip-off as Eragon.
Think of the authors point of view too.

wrote:As for the leather thing: The Trilogy is riddled with those things. How, I ask you does 15 year old Eragon wears a 5 foot sword from his waist? Is he Ten Feet tall? And how come a flimsy leather brindle save magically stop the problem of leg injuries? Won't it require maintenence? You may say that's useless detail; but then Why the Hell was I subjected to an entire para on the subtleties of berry eating?

Ok, let me explain some of these 'mistakes':
Leather-thing: Elves cannot eat meat, do you know why? Because they have seen the animals' point of view of life, therefore they consider such a thing similiar to cannibalism if you KILL THE ANIMAL TO EAT IT.
But as some elf said, if the animal is ALREADY DEAD, an elf can cut its hide of and wear it or use it for decorating purposes.
5-foot sword: Yes the sword is held from Eragon's waist, but did it occur to you that half of it may be sticking out the upper side?
Brindle-saving-injuries: Yes the wounds would require maitenence, but Paolini already describes so much that there is no need to for added explanations of wound maintenance.

I admit Paolini overdid it with the paragraph of berries, but what can one do about it? The guy obviously likes describing. Inexperience and youth drives many to do foolish things. No one says this book is perfect or even close to Tolkien. Just that it is an interesting read. Your average person would prefer a good story to a well-written but uninteresting one.

wrote:And The Philosophying! Vegetarianism? atheism? All Poorly articulated. Are you a atheism? Paolini sure is.

Eragon was published when he was 19. Uh huh. 'Began Writing' doesn't matter. The date of publishing does. Hell, Paolini doesn't compare well to JK Rowling. You think he'll best JRR?

Read this quickie: http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/quickreview.htm

No I am not atheist, but by the looks of it Paolini is. His Philosophies and religions were all mildly interesting and although not Tolkien stuff, they surely were not poorly articulated.
It will be decided whether Paolini is worthy or not after his third book, and I am sure he will have improved. Tolkien was an old man when he wrote LOTR and Paolini will have improved considerably at that age. I predict a flourishing career for him.

Hole hole or eh, offensive hole?

wrote:It may not have been for you, but there are a million other people who will say otherwise. Yes, Eragon has nothing on LOTR or some other works of Nix or Brooks. I am not saying his book is great, but it is not as bad as some extreme critics make out.
Yes he certainly could improve in writing, but I am sure that will improve. I have to read his third book before making a decision on that.

Eh, rough rule of thumb: don't trust those who shower insults or praise. Come to think of it: A odd dozen million believe the 9/11 was the divine act of jihad. 82,431,390 people thought the holocaust was the only way to go.
I don't buy go with the flow arguments.

wrote:Think of this: Paolini is 15yrs old, your average boy. He has read great books such as LOTR and Belgariad. He is thinking; why should'nt I write a book and see how it goes? He had no idea this book of his would be a bestseller, but at that time it was a good time-pass. He decides to base the foundations of his tale on his personal favorites and just begins. He has taken considerable time on the written part and after publication he discovers what a hit the book is.
Now he is older and more mature (you can spot this in parts if Eldest) but there is one thing.......he can not change what he has done in Eragon. He has to write sequels for a story which is a rip-off of several others. But you can see that Eldest was not such a rip-off as Eragon.
Think of the authors point of view too.

Which might be. If Eldest was a good deal better that Eragon. And sorry, It wasn't.
It was your basic Star War Rip off (again) Nice little betrayal by Mutragh (Vader).
And I hated the Philosophying. Hated it. He had nothing new to say, and nothing faintly provacotive. Arya\Eragon romance is totally stale. The Political saga and the fantasy epic really don't go together.

wrote:Ok, let me explain some of these 'mistakes':
Leather-thing: Elves cannot eat meat, do you know why? Because they have seen the animals' point of view of life, therefore they consider such a thing similiar to cannibalism if you KILL THE ANIMAL TO EAT IT.
But as some elf said, if the animal is ALREADY DEAD, an elf can cut its hide of and wear it or use it for decorating purposes.
5-foot sword: Yes the sword is held from Eragon's waist, but did it occur to you that half of it may be sticking out the upper side?
Brindle-saving-injuries: Yes the wounds would require maitenence, but Paolini already describes so much that there is no need to for added explanations of wound maintenance.

I admit Paolini overdid it with the paragraph of berries, but what can one do about it? The guy obviously likes describing. Inexperience and youth drives many to do foolish things. No one says this book is perfect or even close to Tolkien. Just that it is an interesting read. Your average person would prefer a good story to a well-written but uninteresting one.

Fine, I'll buy the leather thing.
But explain the sword. What, is the poor guy going to hang it off his chest? Or is he atleast 7 foot tall?

wrote:No I am not atheist, but by the looks of it Paolini is. His Philosophies and religions were all mildly interesting and although not Tolkien stuff, they surely were not poorly articulated.
It will be decided whether Paolini is worthy or not after his third book, and I am sure he will have improved. Tolkien was an old man when he wrote LOTR and Paolini will have improved considerably at that age. I predict a flourishing career for him.

Ever read a Carl Sagan? Or is your knowledge of life derived from Tom and Jerry? Paolini has zit to say about religion and life. He said it anyways.
'And, Eragon concluded, there was life elsewere in the universe.'
Cheesest moment in Fantasy.

I can't predict the future, but right now Paolini is an idiot with a theasarus, trying to look smart.