Paolini's Update

[Andy]

http://www.alagaesia.com/kvetha/paolini_announcement.pdf

For me, this means up to another 3 years of lowering the fantasy genre. :glare:Your thoughts?

[jordanisonfire]

Ha! This will be a kick in the teeth for Paolini's fans on the Shur'tugal website. Now they'll have to guess where their predictions for Book Three will go in Book Four. I know everything what's going to happen anyway, obviously. Brom is Eragon's true father, the third dragon rider will be Arya, her dragon will mate with Saphira via the ageing spells used on Thorn by Galbatorix or Murtagh, Nasuada or Roran will become the new King/Queen of Alagaesia, the two people who Eragon dreamt about leaving on a boat are him and Arya, the two dragons are Saphira and Arya's dragon and the man on the beach who cries out is Roran or Oromis. Simple, if you think about it or read it off the Shur'tugal website. All fits together.

[Andy]

Heheheh, I think the real "kick in the teeth" is that everyone has to wait another whole year for the next book to come out. I looked at that site's updates, and it seems they even admitted there was nothing new to report a while back. So, how will they be able to handle another year? It doesn't look like any new movies will be coming out soon, either.

[jordanisonfire]

I'm not being mean to Paolini, but he's claiming he continues to write his books every day. Either he's lying or he's a very slow writer.

[Andy]

I'm not being mean to Paolini, but he's claiming he continues to write his books every day. Either he's lying or he's a very slow writer.
That reminds me. NaNo begins tomorrow! Speed writing!:)

[jordanisonfire]

Yep, I've just realised that. I'm going to re-write my prologue, based on the original one (the one on TW about the large guy called Gromm who fought the Imperial Soldiers) and I'm going to improve it on the crits I've had. I'm pretty excited about it, but I doubt I'll get through it all. Book One of the Crusade Series, The Lost Prince, shall be posted tomorrow in the Literature section. :)

[Tncowgirl]

O.o, wow, Shadow, you sure now your stuff, I haven't even started the second let alone the third. I got bored on the first page, probably should push through :D.

[jordanisonfire]

Yeah, the beginning of Eldest is very boring, but it gets better as Eragon leaves Farthen Dur.

[Andy]

http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/wordpress/

I think someone else linked to this at TW. I'd never devote so much time to writing stuff against an author, but some of their articles made me laugh, because they're so true.

[Shaun]

You know, the anti-shurtugal site is an example of people that shouldn't exist. Yes, I'm being that mean. First off, if you truly hate something so much, then stop talking about it. Don't write articles about it, don't put up a website about, etc., especially if all that effort is absolutely meaningless. Their efforts could actually be used to do something else, but they waste it attacking Paolini, who, despite all their whining and cheap-shots and ignorance, is wildly successful and doing what none of them could even hope to do anyway. Yes, I'm taking that shot. Paolini is in a far better position than all of us for good reason. He didn't write a novel that would change literature, he wrote a novel that was entertaining--and that's exactly what it does.

As for his stupid 4 books bullcrap. I don't think I'll read four books. I was looking forward to just one more and then it would be over. He could end the story in a third just fine. This might just be another ploy to pull more money out of his ass, especially since he's taking forever just to write the books. It's not like he is doing anything else with his life. He's a writer for a living. The damned third book should have been done and published already...Paolini is testing my patience basically.

[jordanisonfire]

I agree with what Shaun says. I don't write books because I think I'm going to change literature, I write them to entertain. If I change literature for the better, then I'll be very happy. If my books become legendary like Tolkien's, then I'll be ecstatic. But I don't see why he's taking this long to write.

[Imelda]

Because he's an idiot, and has probably realised he can't write for toffee, so he's learning all over again. :p

[Carraka]

Two words: What the

This is horrible. If I were Paolini, (thank goodness I'm not) I would finish this trilogy--I mean cycle--as soon as possible, and then write something with a better plot. If this expands to five books, I'm going to go insane. Yeah, if Martin expanded from eight to nine, I would also go insane. It would mean more of his writing, yes, but it would mean more waiting, and more Robert Jordan syndroming. Which worries me. A lot.

The anti-Eragon website may be pointless and mean, but I couldn't stop laughing. I suppose I'm also pointless and mean. -cries-

[Shaun]

Anti-eragon sites are like people who become too obsessed with Star Trek and start re-enacting scenes from the movies in their basements, build little mock re-hashings of the Enterprise Bridge, and constantly beg and plead with everyone and anyone who was ever once on an episode of Star Trek to come and play in their ridiculously poorly plotted, poorly thought, poorly made fan film that adds nothing but 'loser-syndrome' to fans who have more legitimacy.
And I have read some of the ridiculous crap on that site. The sad thing is, a lot of the stuff they write that discredits Paolini would also discredit Tolkien, which, as far as I am concerned is blasphemy. Tolkien was a genius. Anything that might attack his credibility is nothing short of lunacy. Not to mention, a lot of their points, last I checked at least, could apply to most fantasy. So, by their logic, all fantasy is garbage. They're just morons with nothing better to do.
Now, to another point. Just because I like Eragon doesn't mean I think it has literary merit. It's an entertainment book. That's it. I shouldn't be considered for the canon or anything of that nature. It shouldn't be taught in classrooms, and I hope to god it's not because I've read stuff from authors who are too young to be published that you guys would probably commit suicide over--since you hate Eragon so much and anything that I consider worse than Eragon must be considered heresy to literature in your eyes. So, books like Eragon, because they are only books of entertainment, should never be in classrooms.
Ugh, I hate talking about Eragon. It's a fun book, that's all.

[jordanisonfire]

Once again, I agree with Shaun. His book review actually made me think about what I was saying about Eragon and, eventually, I liked it again. If I was an english teacher, however, I wouldn't show it to my class. Nor would I do a review for school or a presentation on it. It's not that kind of material. Now I'm just parroting what Shaun said, so I'm just gonna stop now...

[Carraka]

Teaching it in class--shudder--

--I do plan on reading the next two books, so I suppose I'm not exactly a hater. I just don't plan on buying them anymore. In fact, I think I'm being a hypocrite. Perhaps I don't actually hate the books, but I tell people I hate them, just because a small part of my mind says that I must, in order to be a writer.

I love analyzing myself, but I probably shouldn't analyze myself in front of you.

I'm not sure if that anti-Eragon website has merit, but I mostly read it for laughs. Where do they say things that discredit Tolkein, though?

[Crocolyle]

I personally think anti-shurtugal is hilarious, even if it is sometimes weird and sometimes more than slightly scary. I didn't find Eragon (I didn't even bother with Eldest) very entertaining. And I was really disappointed, because I was sure I was going to love it after what I heard about it. I actually had to force myself to finish reading it. The plot is cliche and predictable and the characters were extremely boring, and the dialogue was terrible. I thought some parts were interesting, but on the whole it was kind of dull... anyway, Eragon is living proof that our first attempts shouldn't be published (without extensive revision). I mean, I will say that he has talent, but it needs to be refined by the years of self-doubt and heartbreak that most writers have to endure.

[Shaun]

Particularly the article, if it is still there, that dealt with population size. First, it's led out of ignorance, because the people who wrote it fail to understand population anyway, and also fail to understand that smaller settlements of people are rarely put on even real maps of medieval times. A settlement of a few thousand people would likely be ignored on a map, whereas key locations would be remembered.
The article suggested that Paolini couldn't have massed the armies he had in the first book based on the map, which is absurd because by that notion, then, Tolkien could not have massed the armies in his novel either, especially on the side of Sauron.
Plus, I'm tired of hearing about how 'cliche' Eragon is or that is follows the plot of Star Wars. Almost all fantasy deals with a smaller-than-life character doing larger-than-life things. That's just the way it is...

[Carraka]

It's not that Eragon can do extraordinary things. That's perfectly fine. It's the plot "twists". I would elaborate, but I'm sure you've already heard how Eragon is similar to Star Wars, LoTR, etc., and you don't need me to repeat it.

Also--I don't think I read that article. Or if I did, I don't remember it. I'm too lazy to go find it, but what you said makes sense. I do remember reading something about a tavern needing a certain number of people to support it, though. Maybe that was somewhere else.

[Shaun]

You'd be surprised at the amazing level of ignorance of people at sites like Anti-Shurtu-whatever. It's like religious zealots really. They profess to know what they are talking about, but give nothing legit to prove or reinforce their ideas. I, on the other hand, encourage all of you to actually research medieval populations and maps for your own education :P. It's interesting actually. I glance through medieval stuff every so often and it's very interesting what you find out.

And yes, I've heard the whole Star Wars thing before. It irritates me most because Star Wars stole its plotline from somewhere else, yet nobody criticizes it for that, they just say "oh it's wonderful and perfect" and "Eragon stole the plotline, grr". Star Wars just happens to be godly, while Eragon...well...good, entertaining book, absolutely HORRIBLE movie. God, I wanted to shoot myself after that crap. The only thing worse than the movie adaptation was Black Christmas, a film that could very well have been the worst movie ever made...yes, it was that bad. You want cliche? Watch Black Christmas. Just about every single scary movie cliche that you can imagine was done in it.

[jordanisonfire]

I'm not even gonna watch the Eragon movie. I don't want my brain to digest what transpires in it. :glare:

[Crocolyle]

Oddly enough I thought the movie was better than the book (both I thought were terrible though). I guess the bright colors and movements overstimulated me and I merely thought I enjoyed it.

[Andy]

I'm not even gonna watch the Eragon movie. I don't want my brain to digest what transpires in it. :glare:
The movie got really bad reviews. It's like they took out what most of the Inheritance fans liked about the book, and the end result was that few people like it.

My brother and I watched it. And gave commentary. :D They actually did a fantastic job animating Saphira, but that was one of the few things I liked.

[Carraka]

Saphire. Feathers. Wrong.

And yeah, the movie was horrible. Three parts fool, one part brave?

[Shaun]

Actually Andy, the movie wasn't even remotely like the book. You probably would have killed yourself since you hate the book so much. The movie left out all the details that are integral to the story in the trilogy--i.e. plot points that BEGIN the second novel are GONE. Characters weren't even remotely correct. One of the characters in the book is supposed to be an elf with black hair...in the farkin' movie she was blond WITHOUT the pointy ears. THAT is also an integral plot point too because in the second book Eragon changes and gets fricken' pointy ears because of his bond with Saphira--it's a dragon-rider thing that happens to all of them when they actually train.
The movie just got everything wrong. The acting was terrible, the costumes were artificial. The characters were idiotic at best. The ONLY character in the book that isn't actually supposed to know how to fight is Eragon. Yet he looks better as a fighter than some of the characters that are supposed to be accomplished warriors...wait wha?
The only good thing about the movie were the special effects, which were very well done. But that's just because the idiot who did the film was a special effects director before doing this pile of garbage. Like I said, it ALMOST got worst movie of the year from me. And this is coming from a fan of the book...at least the Harry Potter movies don't leave out crucial plot points. The main plot is there so you don't have to adjust the other books too much...

[jordanisonfire]

I think Paolini was so desperate to get a movie out of his book that he let the filmmakers do whatever they want. In an interview by his fans one of them asked about Arya's hair and Paolini just said: "It's the decision of the filmmakers, basically. I have no control over anything that goes on in there." Now, if my book was being made into a movie, I'd want to know everything that went on in there and I'd want to pull the plug on anything I didn't like and add what I think is necessary.

[Shaun]

Well yeah, that's because he's a freaking moron. If anything I ever write potentially gets optioned for a movie, I'll ask for direct involvement in the project. I refuse to let anyone bastardize my story without my permission. Some changes are always necessary in adaptations, but I would never screw up a detail like hair. Paolini is just a spineless little turd. He has a freakin' agent. Request veto power...

[Andy]

Actually Andy, the movie wasn't even remotely like the book. You probably would have killed yourself since you hate the book so much.
Did you misread my post? I said they took out most of what fans enjoyed from the book, which doesn't seem to contradict your reply at all.

[Shaun]

Yeah, I misread :P. Sorry!

[Aet Lindling]

Oh... no. Oh no no no. I actually liked the books for the first two, then I stopped and actually looked at them and realized they sucked. I was going to buy the third for old time's sake and just to see if possibly he actually got a plot/defied expectations and didn't do the cliche ending, but 4 is pushing my patience... >.<U

[Shaun]

I am also not interested in 4 books because Harry Potter is the only series I am willing to wait years between volumes for...Eragon is good, in my opinion, but not that good. Knopf needs to slap this kid so that the two upcoming books are almost back to back.

[Andy]

What amazes me is that it took 2 years of writing book 3 before Paolini even realized he was dealing with 2 books' worth of material. I just don't see how that could happen.

[Shaun]

Yeah, that too. I'm calling BS. I'm getting really irritated with writers I like. Paolini and Rowling are both on my S-list right now.

[The Grinning Man]

You know, the anti-shurtugal site is an example of people that shouldn't exist. Yes, I'm being that mean. First off, if you truly hate something so much, then stop talking about it. Don't write articles about it, don't put up a website about, etc., especially if all that effort is absolutely meaningless. Their efforts could actually be used to do something else, but they waste it attacking Paolini, who, despite all their whining and cheap-shots and ignorance, is wildly successful and doing what none of them could even hope to do anyway. Yes, I'm taking that shot. Paolini is in a far better position than all of us for good reason. He didn't write a novel that would change literature, he wrote a novel that was entertaining--and that's exactly what it does.

Forgive my third post for being vaguely bellicose, but I think that anti-shurtugal is as important, if not more important, than Paloini's work.

Firstly, having read the content in the site, I don't think "attacking" is the proper term. If you want "attacking" check out this blog (http://badwebcomics.blogspot.com/). [Content Warning; Language] Anti-shurtugal is downright fuzzy in comparison. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem as if they hate Eragon, but rather, they lament it’s popularity in light of its derivative subject matter.

Now, I won't try to argue the merits of Eragon & Co. or this website, but every yin has its yang, and every cult of rabid fans has its detractors. Eragon has quite a cult, despite the rather derivative material. Considering this, fansites hold as much merit as anti-fansites.

I, personally, am a firm believer in the need for more criticism in the world of the media. Without it, every book/movie/TV release would be an endless, masturbatory ring of compliments and mediocrity. But by the same token, fans are allowed to be fans, and I would never dream of wishing them all to disappear. Yin, yang. Balance.

[Shaun]

There's criticism, and then there's critical revenge. Anti-shurtugal is just a site of a bunch of losers who are upset that something they don't like actually is successful. They're spiteful, annoying people.
Real criticism doesn't bash the literature, it critically analyzes it from a logical standpoint. Anti-shurtugal never does this. This is also why I don't argue the idea of derivativeness with people because to use that argument is also to say that Tolkien is not good literature either because he was the first person to really do it.
I don't mind criticism when it is actual literary criticism. But it's not literary. It's just angry, jealous idiots. They're as mindless as religious zealots.
True criticism revolves around addressing the book in the correct context. "This book sucks because it got popular even though it isn't really that good" is an idiotic statement because, well, obviously it is good or it wouldn't have been popular. I don't think Tolkien is really that engaging of a writer, but I know for a fact that his books are popular and are good, despite how I feel about his ability to write. Harry Potter, while a wonderful series to read, has so many flaws that most people would have a fit, yet its popularity cannot be ignored and neither can its effect on literature. See where I'm going with this? A true criticism of Eragon would have ignored the 'derivative' argument and gone straight to the structure of the novel itself, the development of the characters, its world building, etc.

[Andy]

I think the site does do analyze it. They analyzed characters (at least one so far, as I can tell), and they wrote an article on sexism in the book.

And there has to be a line for how derivative a book can be before it starts to get ugly. There's a big difference in the amount of originality between Tolkien and Paolini.

[Shaun]

Not really. There's a big difference how originality is perceived between Tolkien and Paolini. That's the difference. Tolkien is believed to have written the most original work of Fantasy. The reality is, he didn't. He stole from mythologies and cultures of human history as readily as Paolini re-used the already common 'Star Wars storyline', which was also taken from pre-existing literature.
But if you tried to explain that to the hater sites they would hit you over the head and argue vehemently without knowing what they are talking about.

If you want me to actually do a critical analysis of their arguments and tear them to pieces and insert logic where there isn't any, I will. But it'd be a severe waste of everyone's time. True criticism is not porn out of hatred for something due to popularity. Is Paolini a fantastic, amazing writer? No, not by a long shot. He has a lot to learn, and he has learned some, but not enough yet. He does at least avoid some of the more wretched mistakes in writing that I have seen by younger authors that shouldn't be published. Are his books worthy of being remembered as great literary achievements? No, they should be forgotten in ten years or so. His literature is not influential on any demographic except young writers who now have a glimmer of hope to get published earlier in their careers. His books are simply books meant to entertain, which is exactly what they have done for millions of people. It's along the same lines as The Da Vinci Code, which, while a good story, is not profound literature and very well should be forgotten in the near future. Literature that entertains is always forgotten. Literature that is profound and influential should be remembered. Hence why Asimov, although not a great writer as far as the technical aspects of writing goes, is still remembered to this day. His work challenged the boundaries of science fiction and addressed issues that most people weren't entirely ready to face yet, and in a lot of ways are still not ready to face. Are we prepared for the consequences of intelligent machines? What about trying to discovery God scientifically? Are we prepared for that? Are we prepared to accept human fallacy and realize that no matter how precise we try to be it will always overrule our logic?
I recognize Asimov as influential and highly entertaining because of his ideas. I find Paolini as entertaining and nothing else. His books shouldn't be in a canon, or in a best of fantasy list or anything like that. They don't deserve to be there. But it's entertainment.

[Crocolyle]

It's clear from your post that you haven't really perused the Anti-shurtugal website. While yeah, the talk of Eragon's derivative nature does get old, and some of their jokes are tasteless, and what matters most about a story or book is whether or not it pleases the reader (I thought it was boring and poorly written. I barely got through it to be honest), Anti-shurtugal does make several arguments (using quotes from the books) about writing mechanics and characterization in Eragon.

http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/wordpress/?p=24 Here’s an analysis of Paolini’s use of language from bad dialogue, unnecessarily long words, malapropisms, telling instead of showing, etc.

http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/wordpress/?p=20 An analysis of the character of Eragon. It discusses how he's an unrealistic character with very little of a personality. Unfortunately, I don't think this article is very good. the other one is though.

Furthermore, all literature will have people who love it and hate it. I'm sure there are hundreds of anti-Harry Potter sites. Critics are entitled to their opinions and should be free to analyze any book that they please. I wouldn't say that they are exactly religious zealots, most of them are actually generally courteous to fans who are courteous towards them (I used to regularly read the message board). They also don't strike me as being particularly angry or particularly jealous. Just harshly critical.

An,d hey, if you're so upset with people tearing apart Eragon why would you go on that site? They read Eragon because they thought it was going to be good or they like critiquing literature. Do you read what the critics say because you think their criticism will be good or because you like criticizing critics?

[Shaun]

It's clear from your post that you haven't really perused the Anti-shurtugal website. While yeah, the talk of Eragon's derivative nature does get old, and some of their jokes are tasteless, and what matters most about a story or book is whether or not it pleases the reader (I thought it was boring and poorly written. I barely got through it to be honest), Anti-shurtugal does make several arguments (using quotes from the books) about writing mechanics and characterization in Eragon.

I've been to Anit-shurtugal once. I read some of it, I laughed for about twenty minutes because it was idiotic, and never went back.

http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/wordpress/?p=24 Here’s an analysis of Paolini’s use of language from bad dialogue, unnecessarily long words, malapropisms, telling instead of showing, etc.

Okay, same argument can go against the following great authors who have written great books: J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Dickens. Mark Twain, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley...should I go on? The dialogue aspect directly reflects upon Tolkien who was a king of stilted dialogue. In fact, most of the great fantasy works since Tolkien, at least up until the last 30 years when more urbanized fantasy took precedence, used stilted dialogue.

Furthermore, all literature will have people who love it and hate it. I'm sure there are hundreds of anti-Harry Potter sites. Critics are entitled to their opinions and should be free to analyze any book that they please. I wouldn't say that they are exactly religious zealots, most of them are actually generally courteous to fans who are courteous towards them (I used to regularly read the message board). They also don't strike me as being particularly angry or particularly jealous. Just harshly critical.

Critics don't attack a book's popularity. Critics attack the structure, and only the structure. Anti-shurtugal and their ilk didn't attack Eragon because it was just a book that sucked, they attacked it because they were upset that it actually did its job to entertain people and became popular.
Yes, you should be free to analyze a book from an objective viewpoint. They haven't a hope in hell of being objective. Critical analysis ignores bias and prejudice.

An,d hey, if you're so upset with people tearing apart Eragon why would you go on that site? They read Eragon because they thought it was going to be good or they like critiquing literature. Do you read what the critics say because you think their criticism will be good or because you like criticizing critics?

I don't read their sites. It's the same reason why I don't join Harry Potter website. I've got better things to do with my life than waste time with mindless dribble. Plus, I'm actually studying literary theory, which is notoriously boring, and have learned a great deal of ways to address the text. Almost all the forms tell you to ignore bias and prejudice, which is something I've had to learn to do to write proper papers.

[Shaun]

As a bit of irony, well maybe not irony, but just to add some hilarity to this discussion...

I just got linked (my blog did) by the Anti-Shurtugal blog on a post I wrote a hell of a long time ago. It was about 'selling out', which is actually being misread as me writing some trash book that will sell lots of books, which if anyone knows me is far from the case.

I just thought it was funny that we're discussing the group here and I'm getting linked all over the place for my article. I had about 70 visits since 5:30 PM today :P

[Andy]

That's hilarious. But they're got a lot of posts there. Which one was it?

[Imelda]

Need me to track anyone down and yell at them? I'll do it. *Scowls*

[Shaun]

It was at community.livejournal.com/antishurtugal I think. I don't remember exactly. It's funny because they misread what I wrote to think that I'd just write complete garbage to get published and rich, which isn't the case.