Eragon - The Book Club Forum - FictionPress.com

Topic: Eragon

I can't remember how but I came across this page http://members.aol.com/swankivy/eragon.html and because of it I've just bought the book (which is the opposite of what the writer was striving for) because I want to read for myself just how bad it is. Has anyone out there got their own opinions, good or bad?

~Marie Silver~

#1 Jan 20th 2007, 9:28am

Eragon is one of my fave books. But the critique it recieves is probably kinda right too... The story is very cliche and it is quite obviously no meant to be anything other than a teen book. Also, it's rather predictable, the whole story, but I still love it. I've read a few times now, and I keep liking it. If you've gotten to the part with Angela's predictions of his future, and then finish the book, you can pretty much see how the whole trilogy is going to turn out...

Emma

#2 Jan 25th 2007, 8:21am

I thought the critique was kinda harsh considering he was just fifteen when he started it and the book is a huge epic trilogy. I know my stuff at fifteen would have had no chance of being published so good on him.

I wanted to see the film but never got round to it so now I'm going to have to wait till it comes out on dvd. Do you know if it's any good?

~Marie Silver~

#3 Jan 25th 2007, 9:10am

Yeah I know, I do envy his skill, but critics judge according to skill compared with other bestselling novel (Stephen King for example), so that's probably why it was harsh. I admire Paolini, since I have trouble just writing 3 pages and he's writing 3 books! It must be such a compliment to him that his book was made into a movie so fast!! I'm so angry at myself; I missed it too. Here (Spain) the movies come out in English later, but end the same time and it was exactly the pre-exam weeks that they came out, so I completely had no chance to go. It looks good, though I'm a bit bummed at Saphira's color... I always imagined her a deep blue, and they made her grey-blue.... I know, such a little detail, but the graphics are awesome, so that's good. My dad has already gotten the movie, but I refuse to watch it until I can see it on tv (not pc, low quality). I'm such a bad fan...

Emma

#4 Jan 25th 2007, 10:04am

It's cliche, sure, and boring and too drawn out at times, but there's something about it that I like and make me want to read the last book... of course, the fact that it's a trilogy is a cliche in itself, but what the heck...

The Eragon movie was nothing like the book except the characters' names. I liked Saphira (except for her wings), though. She had a pretty head and I loved her eyes. I oved her more when she was a baby. One part that really irked me was when she randomly grew up while flying.

#5 Feb 04th 2007, 7:07pm

I have read the first two books. I found them quite similar to Lord of the Rings, actually. But I did like them. The movie... I have not seen... But I am dissapointed. They took way too much out... WAY too much. They even changed it around some. Saphira does not breath fire until the VERY END of the first book. But in teh movie she's spitting flames all over the place. She could sneeze, and fire snot balls would be everywhere. They didn't even introduce some characters! The dwarve there... I forget his name... It's been a little while since I read the book, and someone stole it, but the first dwarf they met? He's not even IN the movie! I saw a preview of Saphira growing up. I was even more disgusted. Pretty much, she flew in teh air, and *pop* She was a big girl now. I like the books. That's it, though. And even the books seem all too much like Lord of the Rings. And some other movies. Arya? Arwen. Eragon? Aragorn. Brom? Gandalf. And ther eare more, but I can't think of the names. I didn't read the book taht many times. Sorry for you Eragon lovers, I like Eragon too, but... No.

#6 Feb 08th 2007, 5:30am

(sigh) I hated the Eragon series. VERY cliche and with a lot of Pern and Lotr fiddlings in it. I used to love it, but now...(shudders). Honestly, I had high hopes for the movie but when I went out and saw it...let's just say it was bad, very bad. I wouldn't recommend hardcore fans watching it. I, one that hates Eragon, nearly blew a gasket at how much they royally screwed the storyline.

#7 Feb 11th 2007, 6:33pm

Yes, exactly. The book was okay, I guess, but... Too many similarities... Oh well I can't bash him much though... He is a very good writer (Even if it is after other authors), and he tried his best. Not to mention he was 15 when he started...

#8 Feb 12th 2007, 6:25am

Just because he was fifteen doesn't mean we should cut him any slack. The book should be judged on its own not with the author. If Eragon had been written by a thirty year old then a lot of readers would be saying different things about it rather then 'well he was only fifteen so I guess the book is ok'.

~Marie Silver~

#9 Feb 12th 2007, 8:10am

Well... I know that may be true, but he did try. I am not saying it is any better, however. It is way too similar to Lord of the Rings. he just added a firedbreathing pet to go with it. Which they also over did in the movie.

#10 Feb 12th 2007, 10:46am

Amelia Atwater-Rhodes got her first book published at 13 and she was FABULOUS. Paolini just didn't spend long enough editing it.

#11 Feb 12th 2007, 5:41pm

Editing? Well... That is what other people did for him... What do you mean by that though? He didn't have any spelling errors, did he?

#12 Feb 13th 2007, 4:53am

Editing isn't just about spelling but loads of things like passive vs. active voice, punctuation, grammar, maintaining continuity, losing plot holes and inconsistencies, making sure characters act within their personality and are well developed, checking that the prose works, making sure all sections are necessary... etc.

~Marie Silver~

#13 Feb 13th 2007, 7:32am

Bah... I get it... Well the thing is that he didn't do very well. That's it. I understand. They did edit him, but I guess they didn't quite see... that it was almost... dare I say... copying someone else? Oh well. They weren't that bad though...

#14 Feb 13th 2007, 7:36am

Amelia Atwater-Rhodes got her first book published at 13 and she was FABULOUS. Paolini just didn't spend long enough editing it.

Amelia Atwater-Rhodes is really good. Flavia Bujor (The Prophecy of the Stones) is also good, she wrote that book at 13, but Amelia is better in my opinion. I really want to read her new book Wolfcry, sequel to Falcondance... though it might help if I read that and Snakecharm first :P

#15 Feb 13th 2007, 5:05pm

Read Hawksong, Snake charm, and Falcondance first otherwise you'll ruin a lot of it. Eragon was a let down... it kind of spoiled a lot of people's opinions on teen authors. I mean, not all of us write about the 'generic dragonrider'. Some of us are pretty damn good at writing.

#16 Feb 13th 2007, 5:10pm

I read Hawksong... I need to read her other books. I don't know why I haven't.

#17 Feb 13th 2007, 7:49pm

I haven't read any of them. In fact, I don't think I have even hear of them haha... What are they like?

#18 Feb 14th 2007, 6:28am

JJSLAM2129

Part of the problem with Eragon is on account of the publishers... Sure, we can rant about how incredibly cliched the book was or how it blatantly ripped off other excellent fantasy stories, but the editors and publishers are the ones that ultimately decide what gets published. It just goes to show you that publishers are only in it to make a buck; they rarely give beans for how well a story is written or how original a story is.

There are some stories written by teens (some even on this site) that are ten times better and more fulfiling than the Eragon series, yet they are constantly rejected by publishers. Why? Because unless someone has a good agent or is a well known author already (both of which are had to obtain), publishers only care about what's going to benefit themselves. Publishing is a business, and for business, money and effiency are the goals. Anyone get where I'm coming from?

#19 Feb 14th 2007, 10:22am

It might just be me, but I had the impression that Eragon was selfpublished. I'm probably wrong, and I dont feel like walking upstairs to check the book's publisher, but that's what I thought... Did u know Stephen King got rejected again and again with his first book? He finally decided to self-publish the thing... Those publishers who rejected him seriously had a brainfart... SUCKERS!! =P

#20 Feb 14th 2007, 11:39am

JJSLAM2129

Well, technically, it was first published under his parent's publishing company, then Knopf Co. found it and added their label. What I said was supposed to be directed towards most bad fantasy stories in general; Eragon just happened to be an example. What I said probably doesn't even makes sense any more. Ignore it if you can.

And Stephen King is my hero. ^_^

#21 Feb 14th 2007, 2:16pm

Nykol

There are a lot of authors who’ve been rejected time and time again but they kept at it. If there is a story line that is closly related to a “best seller of all time blah blah blah” then of course that’s what the publishers would go for. After all like it was said… they only care for the story which would bring in the money. In my opinion, Eragon was not copied from Lord of the Rings or any other book I’ve read…(small selection indeed) but it’s similar to the great stories because that is what sells. Fantasy epics are what teenagers like to read so that’s what the publishers will publish…

#22 Feb 17th 2007, 11:48pm

It's kind of sad, isn't it, that Paolini got so much attention over a fairly bad book.

I'm really sick of those 'high fantasy epics, except for the original ones. They have a nasty tendency to deteriorate into the usual elves, dwarves, and dragons mess that doesn't have much of a taste of originality.

If someone would just publish a book with some actual really original species or ideas, I would read it. Paolini, unfortunately, fell for that cliche and isn't doing that well.

#23 Feb 23rd 2007, 5:19am

Camine Munei

One of my old reading teachers reccomended this book to me and I read it. I loved it! I bought the sequel, Eldest, with a gift card.

#24 Feb 25th 2007, 5:56pm

Shadowless Rain

I do like the books and yes i think that they are a little cliche but what i can't figure out is how he wrote such big books! I mean I write like three pages then get a massive brain fart and can't think of something to write for weeks on end. Sucks.

And I don't think that I would see the movie unless it on tv seeing how bad it must be. Saphira looked so Cute as a baby!(From previews) At lest they did that good.

I need to read a Stephen King book and seeing that there are fans of his(Her?)work here I'll just creep away before i get yelled at for not reading one. ^^

#25 Mar 05th 2007, 11:28am

Thing is, Paolini spent smething like three years on it. Book size has nothing on actual decency though. Remember 'Quality over quantity'. Plenty of writers on fictionpress are better than him.

Stephen King is a he

#26 Mar 08th 2007, 8:35pm

LOL. Stephen King? Is that the best you think literature can get? I could probably name a few people who would refuse to even call Stephen King actual literature. I mean, he sells a lot, but he's no Faulkner.

Eragon... well, I just have to say his writing style is rather boring and atrocious. I mean, many of the metaphors he uses are simply weird. But you just can't put the book down. What can I say?

#27 Apr 17th 2007, 7:50pm

Compared to Eragon, Stephen King is a god of literature. He writes good prose and compelling characters and can tackle multiple genres with ease. His books have been made into great films. Just because he not Faulkner doesn't mean he isn't good.

And no one said he was the best literature can get, just a good example.

~Marie Silver~

#28 Apr 18th 2007, 3:47am

Well, really, that's it. Stephen King writes in genres. Faulkner forged his own literary path. He copied no one. And after you read his novels, you gained insights into the world. Stephen King just writes down stories just to write them down. I mean, their entertaining. But you'll never remember one of his novels like you'll remember the novels of the great writers of history. In twenty years Stephen King will be but a thing of the past, but Faulkner, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald... they'll all still be praised. And, I really don't believe the popularity definition of quality of art alone is good enough to judge the literary quality of an author.

People who read genres, and I mean, like, only one genre, usually do so simply because they're comfortable with that genre. They rely on the superficial notions of the novel to find what they like. And I mean, that's fine, if that's what makes you happy. But after you've really known literature and read lots of novels from all over the place, and non-genre novels, you'll know what I'm talking about.

#29 Apr 18th 2007, 8:09pm

Stephen King just writes down stories just to write them down.

I don't agree with this. You make it sound like he doesn't give a damn about his books other then to get it out so he can begin the next one. After how many years King is still writing and it's not because he needs the money, it's because he loves doing it.

But you'll never remember one of his novels...Stephen King will be but a thing of the past

I doubt it. His novels are world renowned. Even if someone hasn't read anything of his they known his name and have heard of some of his novels. I've never read The Shining but it is so well known that I known the plot, a couple of characters and some of the famous scenes.

And, I really don't believe the popularity definition of quality of art alone is good enough to judge the literary quality of an author.

Yeah, me neither. Otherwise Eragon would be a genius masterpiece.

But after you've really known literature and read lots of novels from all over the place, and non-genre novels, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Right now I'm reading Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky (which I think it's great) and I've read tons of other genres (some I've liked some I haven't) but fantasy is still my favourite even if it is because of 'superficial notions of the novel'.

~Marie Silver~

P.S. I'm enjoying this debate :)

#30 Apr 19th 2007, 2:33am

"I don't agree with this. You make it sound like he doesn't give a damn about his books other then to get it out so he can begin the next one. After how many years King is still writing and it's not because he needs the money, it's because he loves doing it."

It actually is a rather big rumor now that he isn't even trying anymore.

"I doubt it. His novels are world renowned. Even if someone hasn't read anything of his they known his name and have heard of some of his novels. I've never read The Shining but it is so well known that I known the plot, a couple of characters and some of the famous scenes."

They aren't really "renowned" ;) . LOL. That's the literary highbrow in me speaking, though...

There are really two kinds of fiction: popular fiction (and genre fiction is obviously the largest subset of this), and "literary" fiction (that title is somewhat self congratulatory, don't you think?). I really refuse to damn either side. But recently I've started reading far more of the second kind, the kind that's favored by the literary elites (Hemingway, Faulkner...). And honestly, I'd rather read run of the mill literary than run of the mill popular. But I wouldn't recommend reading all of either kind to the exclusion of the other. Narnia is brilliant, I'll say that. And Eragon is fun. The Great Gatsby, however, is simply powerful. So is "Of Mice and Men", by John Steinbeck. I wouldn't go without either of them.

The comment about the "superficial elements" was a personal pet peeve I find with many readers. They read certain genres of fiction, and only that genre, simply because that's what they've always read. They refuse to read anything without those elements. I know I shouldn't be quite so bitter. I shouldn't expect everyone to be a literary expert, and it's fine for them to like what they like. But the other day I heard a women say "I'm going to Barnes and Nobles to buy some more of those Christian Romance novels" and I honestly cringed. Christian Romance novels! It's all trash. Life's short, and they waste their time on that, whenever they could be reading "Their eyes were watching God"? Oh well...

"Right now I'm reading Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky (which I think it's great) and I've read tons of other genres (some I've liked some I haven't) but fantasy is still my favourite even if it is because of 'superficial notions of the novel'."

Fantasy's my favourite too, out of genre fiction. I've always read it. I've always liked the open-ended feeling, and the sense of expanse and freedom that is usually provided in a fantasy framework. The good vs. evil thing is always overexaggerated and usually uninspiring, but you can't help smiling once that hero wins. It's just fun reading it.

I refuse to completely condemn any one genre. But whenever a popular work of fiction got popular by conforming to a specific genre, you can usually already tell the plotline...

#31 Apr 20th 2007, 5:10pm

P.S. Me too ;)

#32 Apr 20th 2007, 5:10pm

Right, my turn again now. :)

It actually is a rather big rumor now that he isn't even trying anymore.

I haven't heard this rumour but if you're not going to try anymore, why bother. I mean a novel is hard work and if it you don't care you'd just stop wouldn't you. And it is just a rumour. (Then again I haven't read his latest novel.)

Narnia is brilliant, I'll say that. And Eragon is fun.

I'll give you Narnia as being brilliant but Eragon? It's all purple prose and clichés.

The Great Gatsby, however, is simply powerful. So is "Of Mice and Men", by John Steinbeck.

I had to study Of Mice and Men for my English Literature GCSE. I liked it, I thoughht it was powerful and it came to life for me. The ending is so sad but right for the book.

But the other day I heard a women say "I'm going to Barnes and Nobles to buy some more of those Christian Romance novels" and I honestly cringed. Christian Romance novels! It's all trash.

Christian romance, what exactly is a Christian romance? I mean I'm a Christian but wouldn't read one of these.

Absolutely. That's exactly why I like Stephen Kings 'The Dark Tower' :)

I refuse to completely condemn any one genre. But whenever a popular work of fiction got popular by conforming to a specific genre, you can usually already tell the plotline...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'conforming to a specific genre'. When your write it's with a specific genre in mind. Do you mean writing in a genre and comforming to the rules within that genre?

~Marie Silver~

And BTW I've just realised I'm coming on like some Stephen King fanatic when really I only really love his Dark Tower series. There's loads of authors I admire more.

#33 Apr 21st 2007, 3:14am

My english teacher once said that literature is when you read a book and realize that there's more to it than what you understand. Symbolism, foreshadowing, etc. With "Of Mice and Men", you can feel that... Candy's dog vs Lenny's death is one example. You can sense the symbols, even if you dont understand them. With authors like Stephen King, usually, what you see is what you get. You can try to dig deeper, but it doesnt feel right. Don't get me wrong, he writes wonderfully and his books ROCK, but there's no deeper message. I think that's what divides 'popular fiction' from 'literary fiction': what's under the surface.

That was rather analytical wasnt it? hihi

#34 Apr 22nd 2007, 12:43pm

That was rather analytical wasnt it?

It was and also very well put :)

~Marie Silver~

#35 Apr 22nd 2007, 1:58pm

Phoenix-fire11

My opion on the eregon seriers is that they rather stink. Some people say you can't put the book down. I couldn't pick it up. I pushed myself through the first one but the second was so boring I couldn't get through it all. All Eregon did was sit on a boat in the beginning. His cousinn was kinda interisting but even though they were under siege nothing would happen time and again! The movie was bad to. Saphira was cute has a baby but then she just jumped into a big girl and that was stupid! Also every scene was trying to be the most dramitic. not every thing is action you know. So a thought that Awin was better in the movie becuase in the book she was a jerk. Eregon saved her life and in return she was all snotty and better than him. I kinda liked Brom becuase he had the best line in the entire movie! or those who watched it it was the one were he explains were he got the chikens. Funny! I do agree that it would be hard to sit down and write three novels but the thing is that he got so much attintions for steallig some one elses work! Maybe if it wasn't that famous than I would go easy on him but he got all that attemtion just becuase he was fifteen. the only thing I can figure is that people don't want to read four different seriers so they just read eregon. Don't be offened, please. I understand if you like it but this place if for opion so i gave it.

#36 Apr 25th 2007, 5:41pm

"I'll give you Narnia as being brilliant but Eragon? It's all purple prose and clichés."

LOL. I didn't say that Eragon was brilliant. I said it was fun to read. I'd shoot myself before I called Eragon "brilliant".

"Christian romance, what exactly is a Christian romance? I mean I'm a Christian but wouldn't read one of these."

Well, I was really just critiscizing her for limiting her reading to such a ridiculous extent. I mean, ninety-nine percent of what comes out of publishing houses probably isn't fit to be read (darnit... the literary highbrow in me just keeps jumping out of his cage). To really read good fiction, you have to dig all over the place and in all times. All the good literature in the world can't be found in one single genre. She should read outside of that, maybe she'd be surprised at what she found. The romance genre in particualar, however, is almost all cliche, and there really isn't any good fiction in it. So to only read a bad sub-genre in a bad genre...

"I'm not sure what you mean by 'conforming to a specific genre'. When your write it's with a specific genre in mind. Do you mean writing in a genre and comforming to the rules within that genre?"

Not really. The newer stuff I've written you'd be hard pressed to find a genre it conforms to at all. To write you don't have to write in genres - realize this and you really expand your literary horizons. The only reason "genre's" even exist is because in the eighteen-hundreds crappy authors of popular fiction started copying good orignial writers. Now, for some odd reason, the reading public seems to believe that fiction, music, and any art can't exist without genres. I mean, all art will probably have some sort of influence. But really, try defining the genre of a Faulkner novel.

"And BTW I've just realised I'm coming on like some Stephen King fanatic when really I only really love his Dark Tower series. There's loads of authors I admire more."

Well, I'll admit that Stephen King's as good as it gets - whenever it comes to popular fiction, that is ;) .

#37 Apr 26th 2007, 12:10am

HA!

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd call Eragon a truly great novel. It's just a guilty pleasure of mine.

#38 Apr 26th 2007, 12:12am

Well, that's not an exact definition. Literary fiction would be hard to define. But it usually does have some sort of deeper meaning, although it doesn't necessarily need to be symbolic.

#39 Apr 26th 2007, 12:14am

nightfallen

I happen to love the Eragon books. Sure, there's a lot of stuff you'd find in LOR or Pern or most other books, but I think he meant it to be that way. I read somewhere that it was a mix of his fav books.

And besides, he was FIFTEEN! it doesn't matter if it's cliche. What matters is that a fifteen year old wrote two (soon to be three) giant books and has made the Bestseller rack. Lay off people.

I think the reason I like his books is because it's a coming of age theme and I can relate to that (Even though Eragon is too arrogant sometimes and it's a really big fantasy theme). What I don't get, is how the hell people can compare it to Star Wars! I don't see Star Wars at all, I see Norse and Celtic mythology. I see dragons and magic, not spaceships and lightsabers.

#40 May 04th 2007, 9:19am

Well I do get that... I understand that completely. Quite honestly, I do like his books; he did well especially for his age. And I do not see Star wars in it either,m however, I must say that I do see similarities to LOTR. Arya? Arwen. Eragon? Aragorn. Brom? Gandalf. With style. That dwarf guy? hehe forgot his name anyway, Gimli. Of course there are similarities, but maybe he didn't mean it to be. Besides, at least he had kind of a different story plot. Oh and the big bad guy, Galbotorix, Sauron. Anyway, I am sure he didn't mean to copy anything. He did well.

#41 May 04th 2007, 9:35am

Night, crap written by a 15 year old is still crap.

#42 May 12th 2007, 2:21pm

Lol, I think that quote should be on the book.

~Marie Silver~

#43 May 14th 2007, 2:43am

JJSLAM2129

How the heck do you NOT see Star Wars in that at all? Seriously. As brought to us by A-ZCentral Entertainment:

"Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away/the magical land of Alagaësia, a humble farm boy named Luke Skywalker/Eragon is about to embark on an epic quest. After his uncle Owen/Garrow is killed by soldiers of the usurping Emperor Palpatine/King Galbatorix, he is taught by a mysterious old man named Ben Kenobi/Brom about the ways of the Jedi Knights/Dragon Riders, the ancient defenders of goodness and peace who were betrayed and slaughtered by one of their own.

This double synopsis could go on and on, from the beautiful princess Arya and the evil sorcerer Durza (Leia and Darth Vader, natch) to the resistance fighters known as the Varden. Meanwhile, the magical world of elves, dwarves and wizards is an equally obvious copy of The Lord of the Rings, right down the multisyllabic names derived from ancient languages.

...Through similar shortcuts, the 17-year-old hero's coming-of-age story is compressed into what seems like about a week, during which he becomes both a mighty warrior and a powerful wizard. Luke Skywalker at least got a Jedi-training montage, but Eragon breezes through adolescent angst in a heartbeat."

I could kill it into the ground all day, but I think I'll stop here for now. Hopefully, you get the picture.

#44 May 14th 2007, 12:04pm

Thus, Eragon was slammed even lower into the dirt. Sheesh, I think his stories are about to meet the first layre of hell if it gets any lower haha

#45 May 14th 2007, 12:09pm

Poor, poor Paolini. As a teenage writer, I would be absolutely crushed to read this. Most of it is true... but... who's willing to admit they did like the books?

(me)

Lol

#46 May 14th 2007, 4:30pm

I like them enough that I'm willing to read--probably buy, actually--the third one. I'm sure it's just another 2+2=4 kind of book again, but you never know...

#47 May 14th 2007, 4:38pm

Nykol

Hmm just to TRY and defend the wonderful world of fantasy I’ll say this. ALL epic stories can be compared to one another. That’s what an epic adventure is... a journey. it usually begins "Once upon a time in a far away land there lived a young boy/girl who was about to start on a voyage/journey/adventure. The Belgarion series, Ulysses, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Tom sawyer and Huckleberry fin. The list does go on and I don’t see anyone else comparing those other very popular and awesome books of stories. Even fairy tales have some similarities. The destroyed/lost princess/prince/warrior tries to claim/save the throne/land/world from an evil uncle/father/brother/king. The henchmen/man are/is then ordered to get rid of the protagonist but either fails because they are weak or have/has 'seen the good' or thought the job was 'done' or they turned on their 'master'.

All stories have an antagonist and a protagonist and they have little things called conflicts. These conflicts may include the antagonist vs. the protagonist but they also involve other characters or situations. Stories have always been this way and I do hope they will continue. Another thing about stories is that they can echo each other without being defined as plagiarisms. I don’t think that its a great shock or necessarily a bad thing if Eragon resembles Star Wars for they are both epic adventures and there fore will have some similarities.

I hope that makes sense… if not tell me and I’ll try again. :s

#48 May 14th 2007, 4:53pm

Paolini isn't a teenage writer anymore...

I think it took him until like 18-20 to finish Eragon. He simply started at age 15. And he's even admitted he had to re-write the first three chapters. He's 22 (maybe 23 or 24) right now.

#49 May 16th 2007, 8:06am