RL Stine

Orlando Bloom

Person who hates me in Art

Post

Ect.

wrote:I don't think it will improve. He doesn't listen to critics and what he's doing now is selling because little kids gobble up epics between reading Harry Potter. Learn the difference between marketable and good.

We will have to wait and see on that. And there is no book that has sold out 1MILLION+ copies that is not even moderately well-written. 1million copies are no joke…….do you believe that all of his fans are little kids who have nothing else to do? Do you realize that there are numerous inheritance forums out there with thousands of registered members? People do not join forums unless they are particularly fond of the forum’s topic. If Eragon is as bad as you assume than I assure you, it would not have sold 1million copies.

wrote:Except for the not-so-minor fact he decided to publish it and accept Knopf's offer, which is unforgivable if you want to use the 'but he wrote it for fun' argument. If he wrote it to pass the time, he shouldn't PUBLISH IT, especially when it's a fan fiction. Get it? But he was faced with the money advance from Knopf, and so he sold a book, which means he's instantly vulnerable to criticism of his book despite his age and inexperience.

Actually, originally and after completion of the book he himself did not plan to publish it. His parents read the book and realized it’s potential. THEY decided to publish it and see how it would go, completely unaware off its imminent success. Knopf books read Eragon and gave Paolini and co. an offer to acquire the book which they accepted. Paolini at this time could not change how he based his story on numerous others. He decided to give it a go with the result of many critics accusing him of making an outrageous rip-off. Paolini planned out his whole story at age fifteen before he even began writing the book. At that time would he have known the outcome, he surely would have made some alterations.

wrote:He's not more mature. He's a pseudo-mature person who attempts to incorporate mature things into his writing: hairless elf groins, Saphira attempting to rape an elder dragon a hundred or so years her elder. Eldest was ripped off of Star Wars. The entire story is. I'm sorry, but it's too close to be the archetypical hero story.

This is his own work, his own fantasy, his own world. He has decided to give the elves hairless groins. Why are you mentioning this point when it’s completely irrelevant? One can also question Tolkien why he gave hobbits hairy feet. But no, there is no question because he has made the fantasy and can design any being however he chooses to.
As for Saphira raping that huge dragon, it is not so. Because she assumed they were the last of their kind and had never before seen any other dragon, she wanted to seduce him so she could reproduce and dragons could once again roam the land. But this dragon thought her too young and therefore gave her a beating for even trying to do so. I do not get what is so vulgar about this. There was no rape attempt.

Many of you say that Inheritance is a mixture of LOTR and Star Wars, yes that is partially correct. But in reality most fantasy stories are highly similar to each other but there is one factor that distinguishes a bestseller from your average good-vs-evil fantasy, and this is how the author makes his world and story and how he makes slight variations in it. Every minor point counts. There are numerous stories in which there is a tyrannical king who has been causing havoc and an insignificant person discovers he has hidden powers and with them he overthrows the tyrant. Eragon is no different to this theme but what makes this story different from others that were not as successful? The answer is the way he designed his story and the extra tidbits he added in the story to make it more appealing. A few minor examples that give the story flair and help it appeal to fans: how Eragon blessed a child and how this child gradually became a main character, how the eccentric herbalist and werecat were introduced, how his cousin Roran has to face an adventure of his own because of eragon, how he is suddenly gifted with the ability of elves, how he finds another rider who can not aid him due to physical limitations. There are many more examples like this. And if I am not mistaken none of these examples were copied off another story. Extras like these mixed with the deep and finely tuned personalities of his characters enable this story to rise above many others and settle in the hearts of his readers.

Do not think that I am a fan of Eragon and consider it above works of Tolkien or Brooks. No, I consider this an epic which is not uber-good nor is it not as bad as extremists make out.

wrote:So it's okay to find roadkill and eat it, as long as the animal doesn't care? They are so in tune with nature that they are practically part of it and sing songs to warp the trees to their bidding. 'cept that they defile the animal by slicing off its fur and wearing it around. And leather is not practical, because Arya wears it as casual clothing. Leather clothing is far too uncomfortable for that...THE HORRIBLE CHAFING.

Actually yes, that is what Paolini is telling us. Elves would not dare to cause animals any harm because they have experienced the hardships animals have to endure in order to survive. But it would not cause the animal any sort of inconvenience cutting its skin off if it is already dead. Would it?
Who are you to judge if leather would be practical for casual clothing for an elf? Or is it that you haven’t even comprehended the fact that elves are magical beings that are far stronger than humans. They have different physical and mental limitations and would not experience the petty inconveniences that humans feel, including those that occur while wearing leather.

wrote:Wait, it's sticking out of the upper side? So it's up through the belt and up his back or his side? Well, that would certainly make no sense, seeing as how when it's through the belt then it'd be nearly impossible to move in that direction because the sword would act as a splint. That's why you would wear a five-foot sword on your back. Put a broom through your belt and lean in that direction, and notice that it makes no sense to travel with a solid, straight object sticking up your side. If Zar'roc was up his back, the middle or so of the blade would be held in place. Unless it's hanging from the belt at the middle and free to move around, in which when he walks the blade would always slap against his legs and the handle would slap his shoulder. Very smart way to travel.

Actually, the sword is 3.5 feet long. Not 5 feet. Eragon wore his sword inside his belt on his side. Definitely the hilt and more of the sword would be sticking out above the belt, below his underarm. I would imagine that the portion sticking above the belt would be around 1 foot. The other 2.5 feet would not cause much inconvenience unless Eragon is 5 feet tall which is highly improbable. Also note that swords hung inside belts are usually positioned diagonally. This is done to reduce the vertical length of the sword and to help prevent this problem you are referring to as the main body of the sword would no longer be on your exact side. The hilt of the sword would be leaning forwards and the bottom-tip of the sword would be pointing behind you. You would easily and conveniently be able to maneuver yourself in any direction without any problem caused by the sword. Also you wouldn’t need to pivot your elbow to a 90degree angle when reaching for the sword as the hilt would be well in front of your side. This would enable you to take your sword out quicker.

wrote:He likes describing, sure, but he published it, to a world that is becoming more minimalist every day, intending for it to be read, despite that the description is his personal style. Not to mention that he actually had an editor, that didn't notice things like it's impossible to eat a blackberry one corpuscle at a time because it'd just be crushed into a pulpy mess. You can't use inexperience and youth for a defense, because he published it to the public, which instantly destroys any credibility that the story is simply written for himself. Why not read a story that is somewhat original, entertaining, and interesting? They exist. George R.R. Martin's series starting with A Game of Thrones (sure, it's an epic, but he does things in an original and realistic way) and Perdido Street Station by China Mieville. If you like description, take the Gormenghast Trilogy by Peake; it's the most descriptive book I've ever heard of, with the biggest vocabulary and most beautiful prose and best characters imaginable. If you think Paolini's description of everything is good, you'll weep tears of joy reading Peake...

Actually anyone can EAT a blackberry one corpuscle at a time even though it would instantly become a pulpy mess, but it would be difficult to CHEW a blackberry one corpuscle at a time because of that very reason.
I am sympathetic towards Paolini because he pre-planned everything in the story when he was 15, and when the offer by Knopf came he could not possibly change what he had done and had to continue his story which was a partial rip-off.
Do not think I am oblivious to the greats. Gormenghast was and still is a personal favorite of mine along with LOTR and Shannara (I have this insatiable thirst for the classics). At the moment Paolini is a child compared to Peake. His books do not contain the rich texture or the fine vocabulary. But I am just trying to express the fact that his books are not as bad as some make out. They make a positive and interesting read.

wrote:I don't. You can't just predict a flourishing career of someone just because they could possibly become better. Face it, he's not so good literary-wise right now. He does know how to make a Frankenstein's Monster of other books and make it appeal to fans, but he will never become as good as Tolkien, let alone people like Phillip Pullman and George R. R. Martin. Yes, Tolkien was an old man, and he waited until he was an old man to publish his books. Paolini decided to ride the young author gravy train with an inexperienced book.

Unless sheltered Paolini drastically changes so that his parents no longer control his life (he has said his mother has expressly forbidden him to speak of religion, and his father deletes posts on IF that criticizes Paolini even if they're just pointing out mistakes in prose and whatnot).

Why can’t anyone predict an illustrious career for a young talented person? Have you forgotten about Mozart? Tiger Woods? And there are many other individuals who were talented while young after which they grew up to become masters of their craft. After a tad bit of tutelage in the field of grammar, I doubt there would be any of his age who shares the powerful writing style and imaginative scope. Yes you may say that his imagination of algaesia was derived of Middle Earth but he created various other characters and places on his own which is a marvel at age 15.
Physically, the strength of a person stops growing at age 22-23, but mental strength constantly grows unless it is forcibly stopped. That is why I predict a promising career for Paolini. With the passing of time his imagination will expand, so will his experience, which is a major factor that affected his books in the negative. With experience his careless grammatical mistakes would also be no more.

His parents lay heavy restrictions on him……..but what’s the relevance of this?

wrote:The philosophies were poorly articulated, because he inserted himself into the perfect race of his world. Imagine that, the all-knowing wise people who are perfect and so in tune with the world they sing to trees, also share Paolini's ideals. But the big bad dwarves who are only known for mining and fighting, and are a superstitious bunch, are instantly bashed by Arya while she is talking 'politely' about why their entire religion is wrong.

Actually, Paolini has all the right to insert his ideals and philosophies in his books. But anyways, I disagree with you. I don’t think Paolini is trying to promote his ideals through this book in any way. Beliefs of both races fit perfectly to what I imagined. The elves, who perceive themselves as the superior beings think they are above things such as religion. They speak in an irritated and disparaging way when the topic of dwarves and their religion is brought up. Elves are the most powerful beings of algaesia who consider religion for the weaker races.
Dwarves who are proud and hardworking do not have a superiority complex and do believe in an elaborate religion of their own.
I do not know about you but I have the feeling that at some point the certainty of elves in themselves will become a weakness and maybe their downfall while the dwarves who share a common faith will thrive.

wrote:Didn't Orin perform an experiment with a barometer or some such? Carnoc, of the anti-shurtugals, noted something like Surda would have to be like 20,000 feet above sea level for the results to turn up. Paolini just really doesn't know what he's talking about, and has no one to contest the idiocy of what he's doing.

First of all, I have no idea who Orin or Carnoc is so I can’t jugde of this experiment. Secondly this is not Paolini’s fault but the editor’s. Authors don’t have to be geography specialists to write a book.

wrote:And by the way, I am not jealous of Paolini. I can write better than Eragon, and I'm fourteen. No, I'm not bragging saying I'm some fantastic writer of epic porportions who will probably be the best Shakespeare, but I know the writing mechanics. Show, don't tell; use adverbs sparingly; do not use unnecessary variants of the word 'said'; and last but not least, I do not derive my plot from my idols. I know how to write literature, not Da Vinci Code.

QUOTE
"I'm sorry," apologized Brom.


Don't think that's bad? Well, don't become a writer.

I'm not jealous of him, sorry. I argue against him because he's supposedly the representative of young authors, being the big one of this generation with his movie and game deals. But I don't want this person to be what other people judge my writing by, like you are here: 'you're just jealous because you can't write like him'.

Don’t mind what I said, it was just speculation. You claim you can write better than him. Try writing a book and see how it goes. I am sure inexperience will also be your main foe.

That quote of yours is a blunder on his behalf which can be credited due to inexperience. A bit of tutelage, mix it with a few more years of writing and you have a Tolkien-in-the-making.

I personally do not think Paolini is a representative of young writers. Everyone represents themselves and no one else.

wrote:QUOTE
He's not more mature. He's a pseudo-mature person who attempts to incorporate mature things into his writing: hairless elf groins, Saphira attempting to rape an elder dragon a hundred or so years her elder. Eldest was ripped off of Star Wars. The entire story is. I'm sorry, but it's too close to be the archetypical hero story.



This is his own work, his own fantasy, his own world. He has decided to give the elves hairless groins. Why are you mentioning this point when it’s completely irrelevant? One can also question Tolkien why he gave hobbits hairy feet. But no, there is no question because he has made the fantasy and can design any being however he chooses to.
As for Saphira raping that huge dragon, it is not so. Because she assumed they were the last of their kind and had never before seen any other dragon, she wanted to seduce him so she could reproduce and dragons could once again roam the land. But this dragon thought her too young and therefore gave her a beating for even trying to do so. I do not get what is so vulgar about this. There was no rape attempt

Ok, the feet thing is totally irrevlant. Paolini is just trying to act mature, but can't pull it off. I've been defending the books a bit and I have to say this. Also, this supposedly a children's book...he needs to decide what and who he's writing for.

wrote:QUOTE
The philosophies were poorly articulated, because he inserted himself into the perfect race of his world. Imagine that, the all-knowing wise people who are perfect and so in tune with the world they sing to trees, also share Paolini's ideals. But the big bad dwarves who are only known for mining and fighting, and are a superstitious bunch, are instantly bashed by Arya while she is talking 'politely' about why their entire religion is wrong.


Actually, Paolini has all the right to insert his ideals and philosophies in his books. But anyways, I disagree with you. I don’t think Paolini is trying to promote his ideals through this book in any way. Beliefs of both races fit perfectly to what I imagined. The elves, who perceive themselves as the superior beings think they are above things such as religion. They speak in an irritated and disparaging way when the topic of dwarves and their religion is brought up. Elves are the most powerful beings of algaesia who consider religion for the weaker races.
Dwarves who are proud and hardworking do not have a superiority complex and do believe in an elaborate religion of their own.
I do not know about you but I have the feeling that at some point the certainty of elves in themselves will become a weakness and maybe their downfall while the dwarves who share a common faith will thrive.

Another thing that makes me think Paolini is trying to act super mature. Just because experienced writers can actually do it without it being stupid doesn't mean he can.

And on the same note:

Personal agenda gets in the way of the story. Look at the Amber Spyglass. It's not the whole story being bad, just that Pullman let religion---or rather athesim---get in the way with his story telling. Though Spyglass was just a bad book so...

wrote:We will have to wait and see on that. And there is no book that has sold out 1MILLION+ copies that is not even moderately well-written. 1million copies are no joke…….do you believe that all of his fans are little kids who have nothing else to do? Do you realize that there are numerous inheritance forums out there with thousands of registered members? People do not join forums unless they are particularly fond of the forum’s topic. If Eragon is as bad as you assume than I assure you, it would not have sold 1million copies.

There is a difference between marketable and good. Sorry to tell you, but most of the fans are young, seeing as how it is a young adult book; sure, there are people with different interests, and the occasional adult that is fond of the book, but in all truthfulness it does simply not deserve the hype. You know, seeing as how you've mentioned you know greats such as Gormenghast, that it is not good writing nor anything special character-wise. One could argue about how many books on the market that are selling consistently are actually good.

wrote:Actually, originally and after completion of the book he himself did not plan to publish it. His parents read the book and realized it’s potential. THEY decided to publish it and see how it would go, completely unaware off its imminent success. Knopf books read Eragon and gave Paolini and co. an offer to acquire the book which they accepted. Paolini at this time could not change how he based his story on numerous others. He decided to give it a go with the result of many critics accusing him of making an outrageous rip-off. Paolini planned out his whole story at age fifteen before he even began writing the book. At that time would he have known the outcome, he surely would have made some alterations.

He did make plenty of alterations. Look at the back of the Eragon book, which I just picked up so I could skim through while on the way to pick up Perdido Street Station, and see if my opinion of the book had been altered or if there was anything particularly griping in that section, because admittedly despite its flaws there is at least one part in that book that could keep me entertained for the five minutes it took to drive to Barnes and Noble (unfortunately, I got to the Daret part where they're buying things and put it down).

Read the acknowledgements. If you want me to give some sources of what I'm about to say, read for yourself or I will try to get the copy from the car.

1. He constantly revised the books, proposed ideas to his parents, and then published it after he was content with it. He then set up a marketing plan along with his mother that allowed him to market it. I don't see where it says he ever objected to actually having it published.

2. There are two different versions: the original and the Knopf. He did make a lot of alterations. I don't have a copy of the original, so I can't tell you, but I am informed it has several chapters that were deemed unnecessary. I'm quite sure he had plenty of time to make alterations (though not to the entire plot, obviously). But he could've added more original elements.

3. He accepted Knopf's offer.

wrote:This is his own work, his own fantasy, his own world. He has decided to give the elves hairless groins. Why are you mentioning this point when it’s completely irrelevant? One can also question Tolkien why he gave hobbits hairy feet. But no, there is no question because he has made the fantasy and can design any being however he chooses to.
As for Saphira raping that huge dragon, it is not so. Because she assumed they were the last of their kind and had never before seen any other dragon, she wanted to seduce him so she could reproduce and dragons could once again roam the land. But this dragon thought her too young and therefore gave her a beating for even trying to do so. I do not get what is so vulgar about this. There was no rape attempt.

Why did he give them hairy feet? I don't know, I don't know the specifics of LOTR, it might've made the foot stronger, or maybe they naturally have foot odor that repels skunks. Even if it didn't, there is no particular reason to include the fact that Eragon is staring at the penis of his mentor and wondering "wow, he looks a lot different from the men of Carvahall". Tolkien's elves are impervious to the cold, so they're allowed to be hairless. Oromis is hairless because...Paolini didn't want to describe his pubic hair?

wrote:Many of you say that Inheritance is a mixture of LOTR and Star Wars, yes that is partially correct. But in reality most fantasy stories are highly similar to each other but there is one factor that distinguishes a bestseller from your average good-vs-evil fantasy, and this is how the author makes his world and story and how he makes slight variations in it. Every minor point counts.

- taps finger softly on his copy of Perdido Street Station. - In reality, just because other books are unoriginal doesn't excuse the fact that Paolini is unoriginal. Every minor point counts, but, why the hell does it have to be a minor point? Perdido Street Station begins with a scientist that has a relationship with a red scarab-headed alien that allows for some good character-building, and then he is hired to examine a creature that has defunct wings...yeah. The book is highly-acclaimed. Why should you make slight variations to Tolkien's elves? Why should you have a scene lifted directly from the Belgariad where the elder mentor cuts a bridgekeepers purse, down to the 'wail of anguish'.

wrote:There are numerous stories in which there is a tyrannical king who has been causing havoc and an insignificant person discovers he has hidden powers and with them he overthrows the tyrant. Eragon is no different to this theme but what makes this story different from others that were not as successful? The answer is the way he designed his story and the extra tidbits he added in the story to make it more appealing.

The answer is that he was marketed as a fifteen-year-old prodigy. What extra tidbits are there in Eragon? You know, ones that couldn't turn out to be completely major differences that doesn't make it follow Star Wars with a mix of Le Guin and Eddings? Seriously, it's not any different than any other tyrannical king good-versus-evil book.

wrote:A few minor examples that give the story flair and help it appeal to fans: how Eragon blessed a child and how this child gradually became a main character, how the eccentric herbalist and werecat were introduced, how his cousin Roran has to face an adventure of his own because of eragon, how he is suddenly gifted with the ability of elves, how he finds another rider who can not aid him due to physical limitations.

Roran = a subplot to not bore the reader with three hundred pages of Eragon training. Roran does...what, exactly? Oh yeah, kills the Twins. Which Eragon could've done himself.

The werecat and herbalist = prophecy-makers. Slightly original characters, but secondary characters without any purpose other than to make prophecies.

The child = she did not become a main character at all, what are you talking about? She became a deus ex machina character mentioned in a few paragraphs that defies the very laws Eragon as a book set down regarding the intention of the magician. Eragon intended it as a blessing, and intentions matter; but a simple grammatical error made a huge difference? Why?

Oromis = Obi-Wan Kenobi

Three of those are from Eldest, not Eragon. I'm talking about why Eragon is so successful at the moment, not the turgid mess that is Eldest.

wrote:There are many more examples like this. And if I am not mistaken none of these examples were copied off another story. Extras like these mixed with the deep and finely tuned personalities of his characters enable this story to rise above many others and settle in the hearts of his readers.

You are mistaken. Oromis = Obi-Wan Kenobi. No one cares about Roran and he isn't really much of an interesting character. He leads people and occasionally dispenses wisdom. The way he does it = bad speeches about Ra'zac eating flesh and other stuff that doesn't separate him as a character. Solembum and Angela only serve to make a prophecy, and they do nothing that warrants them actually being an interesting extra tidbit.

Pray tell, what are these finely tuned characteristics? Roran's natural leadership that doesn't really do much except make him a natural leader? I mean, it's not like he's really explored as a character. He has the brief moment that you can tell is poorly executed, like his love of Katrina and hatred of Sloan. Eragon is a Gary Stu that just...is stupid.

"What do elves worship?"
"We worship nothing?"
"You worship the concept of nothing?"

Murtagh's change from good to evil? I mean, it's not like it's turned into a sappy moment or anything really moving. It's just, oh, yeah, Murtagh is the evil rider with the hand-and-a-half sword, who woulda guessed? I mean, it says he was sworn oaths and stuff but...I as a reader don't give a Cabbage FTW!.

wrote:Do not think that I am a fan of Eragon and consider it above works of Tolkien or Brooks. No, I consider this an epic which is not uber-good nor is it not as bad as extremists make out.

k.

wrote:Actually anyone can EAT a blackberry one corpuscle at a time even though it would instantly become a pulpy mess, but it would be difficult to CHEW a blackberry one corpuscle at a time because of that very reason.

Oromis "disassembled it one corpuscle at a time and slipped the segments between his port-red lips". Seriously, do you see any legitimate point in that? Other than to show the color of Oromis' lips, which is of the utmost importance.

wrote:I am sympathetic towards Paolini because he pre-planned everything in the story when he was 15, and when the offer by Knopf came he could not possibly change what he had done and had to continue his story which was a partial rip-off.

They could've changed it all. Do you not understand the concept of a rewrite? Eragon could've actually been a noble and it wouldn't have changed barely any aspect of the book except that pesky Roran and Katrina subplot, at the same time eliminating the Star Wars "I am your father" moment. Murtagh could've been a hippopatamus.

wrote:Do not think I am oblivious to the greats. Gormenghast was and still is a personal favorite of mine along with LOTR and Shannara (I have this insatiable thirst for the classics). At the moment Paolini is a child compared to Peake. His books do not contain the rich texture or the fine vocabulary. But I am just trying to express the fact that his books are not as bad as some make out. They make a positive and interesting read.

They are pretty bad, seriously. We can speculate on the possibility he becomes the next Peake all you want, but I doubt just because you think someone has promise that he will be the one to become the next Peake. Why can't Dan Simmons or China Mieville be the next? He has a possibility, like all writers, but uh...at the moment, we have no way of knowing. Right now, I'm arguing about his current state as a writer.

wrote:Why can’t anyone predict an illustrious career for a young talented person? Have you forgotten about Mozart? Tiger Woods? And there are many other individuals who were talented while young after which they grew up to become masters of their craft. After a tad bit of tutelage in the field of grammar, I doubt there would be any of his age who shares the powerful writing style and imaginative scope.

...

... You do know that about once in every five hundred years you get a Mozart, and Tiger Woods had potential but not everyone with potential became Tiger Woods. Mozart was performing at the age of nine, infront of aristocrats. Paolini is uh, publishing fantasy novels that are mediocre at the age of nineteen. He's not Lovecraft or Mozart.

People of his age? You mean, 22 year olds? Not to mention refining him would take about, what, to be nice, I'd say three years for him to completely master his craft. That makes him 25. Are you saying that he has imaginative scope? I'm serious, where is his imaginative scope? There is a very major difference between adding a few minor characters like a werecat or a cursed child and being original. China Mieville.

wrote:His parents lay heavy restrictions on him……..but what’s the relevance of this?

That he said he doesn't read criticism, though I think he does get a few peeks on the side. His parents lay heavy restrictions on them, like not speaking about religion, and basking him in praise. They're sheltering him.

wrote:Actually, Paolini has all the right to insert his ideals and philosophies in his books. But anyways, I disagree with you. I don’t think Paolini is trying to promote his ideals through this book in any way. Beliefs of both races fit perfectly to what I imagined. The elves, who perceive themselves as the superior beings think they are above things such as religion. They speak in an irritated and disparaging way when the topic of dwarves and their religion is brought up. Elves are the most powerful beings of algaesia who consider religion for the weaker races.
Dwarves who are proud and hardworking do not have a superiority complex and do believe in an elaborate religion of their own.
I do not know about you but I have the feeling that at some point the certainty of elves in themselves will become a weakness and maybe their downfall while the dwarves who share a common faith will thrive.

And yes, I know he has the right...but he has to do it, you know, good. Despite the history behind the elves and dwarves, look:

the superior race called wise by all, which really hasn't been disputed yet: atheists and vegetarians. Eragon is appaled that he eats meat after realizing how in tune with nature he is. Uh...so er, they're basically the best rest of all the land, and they're saying eating meat and religion is bad...and that's not some kind of self-insertion?

The dwarves are the common working class, devotedly believing in religion despite what evidence is given to them.

The immortal, carefree, beautiful, flawless elves > the superstitious ol' midgets with beards.

But hey, he could surprise me by having a dwarf bite an elf's leg and then they go into Celebtrity Deathmatch, and the elf loses.

wrote:First of all, I have no idea who Orin or Carnoc is so I can’t jugde of this experiment. Secondly this is not Paolini’s fault but the editor’s. Authors don’t have to be geography specialists to write a book.

...Authors do something called research. Orin = King Orin of Surda. Carnoc = an anti-shurtugal. It was some random proposition about vacuums existing, and it made no sense. Paolini put it in there for some possible relevancy later on, but the experiment itself makes no sense. And guess what, a writer is supposed to not rely on his editor to always make sure that he is not making an idiot of himself.

wrote:Don’t mind what I said, it was just speculation. You claim you can write better than him. Try writing a book and see how it goes. I am sure inexperience will also be your main foe.

That quote of yours is a blunder on his behalf which can be credited due to inexperience. A bit of tutelage, mix it with a few more years of writing and you have a Tolkien-in-the-making.

I personally do not think Paolini is a representative of young writers. Everyone represents themselves and no one else.

Yes, credited due to inexperience. Which shouldn't have existed in the first place. Because he had himself published when he was inexperienced. Not to mention he had EXPERIENCED editors at his disposable on the Knopf rewrite.

I said I can write better than Eragon, and seeing as how Paolini has over half a decade of experience in seniority, I won't match up my writing with his until I'm his age that was when Eldest was written. Why can I write better than the book Eragon? Because I don't say "Sorry," apologized Brom and I don't use a common hero archetype. That simple.

And by the way, writing a book is the job of a writer, like chopping down a tree is the job of a lumberjack. I'm not going "WOW, THAT LUMBERJACK SURE IS MIGHTY FINE". I'm not impressed that a person is doing his job.


And dear lord, that took so long...try to make your response shorter next time.

I have to say Krim is in the right...

Krim wrote: And dear lord, that took so long...try to make your response shorter next time.

Sure thing but you will have to wait a long time, I am just packing for a vacation. I'll be back with my computer in 3-4 weeks.

Have fun.

Am I the only one who was disturbed at the prospect of vegetarian elves wearing leather? Not so much the skinning of death animals, but what ancient folk like the Alagaesians might have had to do in order to get leather? It seems to be like the author just wanted to have the image of Arya wearing leather but didn't feel like coming up with a good explanation so he just disregarded it and hoped that someone else would come up with one after the fact.

wrote:Who are you to judge if leather would be practical for casual clothing for an elf? Or is it that you haven’t even comprehended the fact that elves are magical beings that are far stronger than humans. They have different physical and mental limitations and would not experience the petty inconveniences that humans feel, including those that occur while wearing leather.

This seems like something the text should have brought up, don't you think? After all, we are all stupid, close-minded, insignificant humans and don't have the frame of reference to automatically assume that the super god-like elves with humanoid forms are immune or resistant to physical discomfort.

Yes, the text should have brought it up.

Instead, we were subjugated to sexual images of some geek trying to be mature, atheism, vegetarian promotion, and experiments that make no sense.

Ianna wrote: Instead, we were subjugated to sexual images of some geek trying to be mature, atheism, vegetarian promotion, and experiments that make no sense.

Yes, we did. I tried to ignore some of it though.

Rekhyt2238 wrote:

Ianna wrote: Instead, we were subjugated to sexual images of some geek trying to be mature, atheism, vegetarian promotion, and experiments that make no sense.

Yes, we did. I tried to ignore some of it though.

It's really hard to ignore the hairless elf groin. Really REALLY hard.

Yeah, it is.

I think he needs to:

1) Stop the stupid stuff.
2) Stop trying to act mature.
3) Stop giving me the image that he's a get fullfilling his fantasies.
4) Explain the story more.
5) Decide who he's writing for.

Oh, I forgot, the answer to everything, including leather, is Magic. Even when the question is "Do you like apples?", the answer remains the same.

My bad.

If they are far stronger, why aren't they all wearing leather? Or uh, if they are stronger, why not just wear a suit of plate armor? They are stronger tenfold than any normal human. Magic. Because you couldn't see their beautiful alabaster bodies? Magic. So Arya's skin is immune to chafing? Maybe Eragon, being half-elf, is immune to blades and magic. And then he'll try to be expelled as a teacher and Ms. Umbridge comes and shoots red lasers at him?

And Islandzi's cape of plucked goose feathers. Oooo, here comes PETA!

I faintly remember having a arguement with Krim before about this, lead to othere things so i'll just stay out of this one :)

I liked the first one and the second one was ok, the ending kinda saves it though. Dragon battle was a fun read. Anyway nothing great but a fun read.

Inheritance is a book, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, the production of a yuong teenager, so yes, not that well written. I don't hate it, but yes, I find various parts of it stupid.

Apocrypha wrote: Inheritance is a book, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, the production of a yuong teenager, so yes, not that well written. I don't hate it, but yes, I find various parts of it stupid.

I only find parts of it stupid as well.

1) The creepy Eragon/Arya "romance".
1a) That creepy, emotionless, robotic Eragon-bot.
2) The creepy Saphira/Glaedr "rape thing".
3) The lack of characterization for anyone.
4) The sheer monotony of the plot: "Travelling training travelling training travelling travelling travelling travelling battle battle battle travelling travelling".
4a) The fact that we never got to see Galbatorix, one of the central figures of the plot
4b) The fact that we never got to hear about Galbatorix from anyone but his enemies
5) The bit with the hairless elf groin.
6) The shameless intellectual theft
7) The fact that it was only published at first because Paolini's parents were publishers and only picked up because of that strange story that Paolini wrote the whole thing at fifteen.
8) The simultaneous preachiness and hypocrisy of the storytelling ("It's wrong to eat animals, saith the Elves!" "It's okay to wear animal skins, saith the Elves!" "We are perfect. Obey us. Dwarves are stupid. Everything they believe is stupid! Saith the Elves!")
9) Did I mention Eragon and Arya's oily, creepy romance (it's really just Eragon fixating his annoying attentions on Arya despite of how obviously uncomfortable this makes her.
New
10) That incredibly lame 'Ancient Language' thing.
11) "Sorry," apologized Brom.
12) The magic system's dramatic change from Eragon to Eldest.
13) Aye!

Am I missing something, or is that not 'parts', but the entire thing?

I think it was a joke, saying the whole thing is bad.

Krim wrote: Am I missing something, or is that not 'parts', but the entire thing?

I liked everything else about the book except for those bit. Like the names of the characters are by the most part pronounceable.

I agree.

But here's a few more.

1) Paolini and his whole atheist thing. Because you know, it was just stupid as said before.

2) The stupid scenes with Eragon and the ants. I reminded me of something...one of my favorite movies...

3) Elva.

4) The lack of description on some of the characters looks, say Angela, but the description time given to a leaf.


I'll think of more but still...I kind of think I'm now leaning towards the haters side.