Queezle7 wrote: I haven't.

But, I've already read Lord of the Rings! And Paolini has a better plot than a lot of other authors, especially *shudders* Cornelia Funke.

May I remind you that the plot of Eragon is nearly identical to the plot of the original Star Wars film?

Nearly? I'm not seeing any dragons. So they share a father...So what?

Apart from the dragons.

Hey, Luke has the force, Eragon has a dragon.

Look at it. Boy lives with his uncle, boy discovers something wonderful, boy realizes he is destined for greatness, boy leaves with old man who will be his mentor, boy does not think mentor is anything special, when boy returns to uncle, he finds that uncle is dead, Mentor ends up dying at a later point, boy discovers mentor is actually a very special person...

Need I go on?

Oh, and the 'bond" described between the dragons and the riders is nearly identical to that which Anne McCaffery describes in her series The Dragon Riders of Pern.

You forgot boy finds out that father is a royal jerk and incredebly evil. And both Luke and Eragons childhood homes are burned down. And they both fall in love with warrior-like girls.

The only difference is one has a neon light tube and the other has a fancy lizard.

Athena wrote: And they both fall in love with warrior-like girls.

Who are princesses.

Arya's an elf. Slight difference...

And the stories are still different enough to be different stories.

Queezle7 wrote: Arya's an elf. Slight difference...

And the stories are still different enough to be different stories.

Okay, so, she's an elf princess. Still a princess. (Though I don't believe it actually tells you that until book two...)

...But she's an elf. And he has a dragon. And it doesn't take place in the stars.

I'm seeing some major differences...

Ugh! I'm sorry but I'm getting annoyed. Just because he switched the basic aspects the STORYLINE (not the people in the story, how the events pan out) is the same.

And on that note the settings, and general species are almost completely identical to Lord of the Rings. Urgals and orcs? And the elves and their kingdom. Not to mention the ancient fortress built into a mountain.

Inside of a mountain. Not into.

And I very seriously doubt that Paolini sat down, and thought, hey, since Star Wars is so popular, I'll write and identical story using dragons. Of course, it really isn't an identical story using dragons...

And as for Urgals, everyone needs some sort of bad guy that you don't feel bad about killing. Although Paolini might actually be trying to invoke some sympathy into it. While Tolkien didn't.

Of course, Tolkien is still better. But Paolini is still good.

Queezle7 wrote: And I very seriously doubt that Paolini sat down, and thought, hey, since Star Wars is so popular, I'll write and identical story using dragons.

No, no he didn't, he thought "hey, I'll write a book I'd like to read" (and he's actually said that) and what he wanted to read just happened to be a Star Wars/Lord of the Rings hybrid...

Queezle7 wrote: Inside of a mountain. Not into.

Will you please stop trying to prove your point by captalizing on minor details? Since pointing out the similarities of the books doesn't seem to be working lets move on to writing style.

The man doesn't know how to write. All of his work seems like he wrote it once, and then didn't bother to go back over and improve it. Like it hasn't been properly polished. I'll admit that at first draft sometimes writing looks like this, and it would be an enormous task to edit that saga he has going. Never the less the books are choppy and don't flow well.
Paloni doesn't describe whats going on in an interesting fashion. The best of writers can bend words so that it feels like you are really there. Paloni simply
tells you. He makes up for plainess and lack of emotion with over examining not very interesting scenarios. And his battle scenes are almost painful. Not to mention his horrible grammar.
The books may seem alright when you first read them but compaired to other better authors, Paloni's just a kid who decided he wanted to write a book just like all of his favorites. Too bad he didn't have the talent to pull it off.

Look at the way he writes.

His sentences have no flow, he either uses too few commas, or not enough commas, it is very "choppy".

When he writes, he will describe what is going on, stop a moment for description, (And he rarely begins a new paragraph when he does so.) and then go back to the action.

Example:
"Wind howled through the night, carrying a scent that would change the world. A tall Shade lifted his head and sniffed the air. He looked human except for his crimson hair and maroon eyes.

He blinked in surprise. The message had been correct; they were here. Or was it a trap? He weighed the odds, then said icily, "Spread out; hide behind trees and bushes. Stop whoever is coming . . . or die."

Something better might have been:

Wind howled thorugh the cool night, carrying a scent that could change the world. A tall Shade raised his head and sniffed the air, hoping to find what he was looking for.

He blinked in suprise. So the message he had recieved had been correct. They were here. But what if this was all just a clever trap? He weighed his odds before turning to his followers and hissing, "Spread out, hide behind the trees and bushes. You know what to do."

He turned and took his position. He knew that they had stop whoever was coming. They would do it, or they would die.

He shook his head in agitation, hoping not to be seen. In a crowded city, he could perhaps have passed for a human. But in a forest with no one else around, no one was going to miss the fact that he had crimson hair and maroon eyes.

Or, something like that. I was a little half-assed in my re-writing.

Athena wrote: And on that note the settings, and general species are almost completely identical to Lord of the Rings. Urgals and orcs? And the elves and their kingdom. Not to mention the ancient fortress built into a mountain.

Don't compare Tolkien and Paolini Elves. They are completely and utterly different.

Well certainly the Tolkiens elves have more depth to them. But Paloni certainly did some ripping off there. His are loose copies of Lord of the Rings.

And Tolkien's elves are loose copies from mythology.
Paolini could quite possibly used the same sources that Tolkien did.

Most magical creatures found in books are taken from mythology. I mean JK used centuars, giants, merpeople, hipogriffs, dragons, unicorns - the list goes on.

So they can and Paolini can't?

It's not that Paloni isn't allowed to use magical creatures. It's just that his cast of magical creatures is almost identical to that of LOtR, and he isn't as good an author.

Did you even read Artemis's piece up there? She wrote that in about five seconds, but even that was better than Paloni's original version.

Yes, maybe, but I that might not have been the point he wanted to get across.

He seemed a little more sure of himself in Paolini's version, and a little less emotional. Besides, he'd probably stand out more in a city.