Eragon

[Bentony]

Eragon is very derivative, but to be honest, so is most of the stuff written in this genre in the last 10 years. THe biggest weakpoint in Eragon is the youth of the author - I feel that if he were to rewrite the books when he was 35 you would get a much better tale.
That said, I will read the next one.

 

[Lysalis]

As somebody who never read something of Mccaffery, I enjoyed Eragon and particularly Eldest a lot. I liked the characters, the storyline, the writing style. I found the books captivating and sweeping. The whole time I was reading it, I was amazed as what a boy of 15 managed to write. I'm sure with more experience in life and older he'll be even better. I just have to say: Chapeau Paolini!

Though, I'm afraid of reading anything of Anne McCaffery now, as not to destroy the enjoyment of reading the Eragon books, also in hindsight.

 

[Pyan]

Hmm...I'll have a small bet, Lysalis, that after you read the Pern books, you'll look at that last post with disbelief that you thought that at the time...

 

[murphy]

Hmm...I'll have a small bet, Lysalis, that after you read the Pern books, you'll look at that last post with disbelief that you thought that at the time...

It depends upon which Pern books she reads. The later ones are not as good as the earlier books.

 

[Pyan]

True, unfortunately, Murphy - but the first eight or so, in order of writing, are far superior to Eragon, IMHO.

It was only when she started running out of main-plot ideas, and started doing peripheral stories that the quality declined somewhat.

 

[Overread]

sometimes I wonder in these cases (like with Fiest) if its a case of the publisher forcing the author on to keep writing in a single worldset - I do admire authors like Hobb who do try to draw a line and say no to a new series without good ideas.

 

[ghost8772]

Depends on the Author definitely, some keep writing because its what they know. others are bored, and yet others have fans CLAMORING for more...... this gets the publishers to cracking the whip... there were some defiinite stories of Ms. McCaffrey's that came across sketched together, then filled up. MHoP is a definite. feeling was she wrote the book so make publisher happy since people WANTED the story of his life.

 

[Pyan]

Yes, she didn't half have to bend things to get Robinton to witness things that we'd no idea he was present at. It felt wrong, somehow, exactly as ghost says - it definitely feels as if it's written to order...

 

[bunnypeaches]

I have only read Eragon, not the second one and I have seen the film (not through choice) and the first thing I thought of was how much of a rip off it was of the Pern books. And how much shoddier Eragon seemed to be in comparison. Unfortunately I don't know any other people who have read McCaffrey's series or even Mercedes Lackey's Joust/Alta/Sanctuary books (I forget what the trilogy's called), so I had to kind of mutter to myself and try not to get to agitated by the whole thing.

It always upsets me that people (like my boyfriend) who have limited knowledge of SF/Fantasy books watches a film like that and thinks it's a really imaginative story, just because he has nothing better to compare it to. And there's a generation of kids who have read those books or seen the film who are going to think it's the best thing ever, when to me it felt slapped together and generally very immaturely written. I didn't know the author was so young though, that explains a lot.

Still, I think worse than the book itself was all the hype surrounding the book, and never once have I heard anybody even make comparisons to any other dragon stories, as if Paolini is the first to have thought of it.

 

[bunnypeaches]

Oh, and I agree about the later Pern books, being nowhere as good as the first few. Although The White Dragon is my favourite one, and I think that's about number 5?

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

I've read the first two Inheretance books, though the second knocked me out of the series. I can honestly say that I read the last page in Brsinger to see the evil king vanquished, and it was a rip off. He ended the trilogy without ending the books.

He used too much magic (I mean, why have a dragon if you can say a word and fly?), and didn't kill the king. He should have stopped after the first book if that was his intention. At least then we had a good combination of magical and draconic abilities. After reading the end of Brsinger, I now hope they don't make Eldest into a movie. I'm not sure how they could anyway, Murtough had two different personalities in the books and the movie.

 

[devilsgrin]

the "trilogy" has become a Saga... so there are more books on the horizon... alas...
From what i understand, there have never been intentions to make Eldest into a movie. considering the woeful job done on Eragon... and its extreme flopping at the box office... no Eldest film. YAY!!!

 

[AE35Unit]

Tell you what. Wish I could have written a book when I was 15! Fair play to him!

 

[ghost8772]

Tell you what. Wish I could have written a book when I was 15! Fair play to him!

likely you'd have turned out a fanfic book just like Paolini did.

White dragon was early half dozen. depending on when written. don't have them convenient to check copyright dates.

Bunny, I know EXACTLY how you feel. have people regaling how awesome Eragon is. But they have never heard of Anne McCaffrey. really just wanna throw the book at them. Paolini's preferrably, don't want to damage my pern copies.

 

[devilsgrin]

Tell you what. Wish I could have written a book when I was 15! Fair play to him!

the only admirable thing paolini has done, was to be able to plod through writing his derivitive piece of drivel. 15 or not... it would be hard with a book that bad. Please don't forget that it was only published because his family owned the production company... not through any literary merit or talent.

 

[bunnypeaches]

Bunny, I know EXACTLY how you feel. have people regaling how awesome Eragon is. But they have never heard of Anne McCaffrey. really just wanna throw the book at them. Paolini's preferrably, don't want to damage my pern copies.

I have that problem with so many books though! Or worse yet, films of books. When people come up to me and say things like "Hey, have you seen The Golden Compass? It's awesome!" I just want to slice them open and stuff their mouths shut with their own innards. Or something to that effect... It just frustrates me why people have to take perfectly good stories and turn them into something horrible just to cater to people too lazy to read.
Kids these days!

 

[ghost8772]

I have that problem with so many books though! Or worse yet, films of books. When people come up to me and say things like "Hey, have you seen The Golden Compass? It's awesome!" I just want to slice them open and stuff their mouths shut with their own innards. Or something to that effect... It just frustrates me why people have to take perfectly good stories and turn them into something horrible just to cater to people too lazy to read.
Kids these days!

Age old issue... at least since the movies started grabbing books as material... come to think of it thats been always. Anyways, yeah, get a number of people who think they are "better" than the person who read the book because they were CLEVER and watched the movie instead. I'll admit there were a few movies that I enjoyed more than reading the book that preceded it, but those are rare instances. Usually those movies took a title from a famous work, kept some of the names, and not much else. Two movie-novel comparisons that still have me grinding teeth are Dracula, and Starship troopers.

the 90's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" had all the events the book had, but spun it into a love story. Changing the gist of the story was bad enough, but a few years later I ran across a novel "Bram Stoker's Dracula, based on the movie by Francis Ford Coppola" and my jaw dropped. 90% of the novelty of the book was the way it was written. building a story from journal entires, newspaper clippings and the like. that thing felt like an insult.
Starship troopers the movie, kept the worlds, the names, and one or two events, but otherwise left out great big chunks of the plot that made the novel great in my opinion. but as far as action movies went, it wasn't bad... like I, Robot though, it only really had the name there to draw in an audience. nothing of the story was the unique bits FROM the story.

but yes, usually I let people feel they are better, and MUCH more clever than I because they skipped reading to watch a movie. if they get too full of themselves, I deflate 'em with a peeves, a 30 second bomb, or otherwise bit from the story that was relevant that hollywood decided to leave out.

 

[AE35Unit]

the only admirable thing paolini has done, was to be able to plod through writing his derivitive piece of drivel. 15 or not... it would be hard with a book that bad. Please don't forget that it was only published because his family owned the production company... not through any literary merit or talent.

I thought the movie was entertaining tho. And its pointless rearing up and saying Yes but its nothing like the book because we're talking two different mediums here. The Tarzan movies entertained countless hordes years ago even tho they probably never realised he was based loosely on a series of books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I certainly wasn't aware of that when I was watching Tarzan every sunday with my brother,and later when I learned the truth it made no difference. TV/film is entertainment primarily. Books are different,more personal I think.

 

[ghost8772]

I thought the movie was entertaining tho. And its pointless rearing up and saying Yes but its nothing like the book because we're talking two different mediums here. The Tarzan movies entertained countless hordes years ago even tho they probably never realised he was based loosely on a series of books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I certainly wasn't aware of that when I was watching Tarzan every sunday with my brother,and later when I learned the truth it made no difference. TV/film is entertainment primarily. Books are different,more personal I think.

yes, but when you found out that the 30's movies of Tarzan were kinda based off the books, did you check the books out, or did you try to pass yourself off as "better than" someone who had read the Tarzan novels? that is my main pet peeve. I try to enjoy a movie based on a movie's merits, not that it was based off a book, some of them as said above left such a foul taste in my mouth on abusing a good name like that....

Honestly I made it through 4 Tarzan novels, but couldn't get into Jewels of Opar, Burroughs may have had an interesting viewpoint, but his use of stellar coincidence as a plot mechanism drove me away. both Tarzan and John Carter books. Didn't even make it through the 3rd book of those. coincidences piled too high to plow through anymore.

 

[AE35Unit]

No i didn't pass myself off as better than someone who read the books,not sure what you mean there but I'd never say I was better than anyone else.
And I've no desire to read the Tarzan books but maybe one day I will-i have read his first Barsoom book tho,A Princess of Mars which is an ok adventure,not bad, a bit dated,but a bit of fun.