Eragon: For the Haters

[Shaun]

Okay, so, I'm opening up this discussion for all those that hate Eragon and Paolini. Here are the rules to it:

You have to convince me that Eragon is a big tome of garbage not worthy of being sold without using the following as references for your argument:
1. J. R. R. Tolkien (LOTR, Hobbit, etc.)
2. George Lucas and Star Wars
3. The word 'cliche' or anything related to it

Basically, you need to provide me with a legit argument that cannot be applied to works that you would consider to be great literature. Hence why you cannot use the 'cliche' argument because by using that you discount Tolkien and Lucas together, since neither were purely original, and both stole heavily from people before them (in fact, if you knew how much Tolkien actually took from writers before him you would kick and scream 'blasphemy'). So, have at it.

[Crocolyle]

I'll say something when I get my thoughts together (I'm kind of busy right now and just procrastinating). Yet as a note, if anyone tries to take a defensive position, I don't think it'd be fair to cite Tolkien either. In other words, if someone says, "The dialogue is bad" I think it'd be unfair to say, "Tolkien also had bad dialogue and Tolkien's work isn't considered garbage."

Normally, that is considered a logical fallacy anyway... so I wouldn't expect someone to do that, but just in case... if a so-called "better" writer has a flaw, and someone recognizes it to be one of Paolini's flaws, the fact that the "better" writer has a flaw does not excuse Paolini.

[Nyx]

ok well it's cliche...ok I've got nothing to prove my point...

[Shaun]

I'll say something when I get my thoughts together (I'm kind of busy right now and just procrastinating). Yet as a note, if anyone tries to take a defensive position, I don't think it'd be fair to cite Tolkien either. In other words, if someone says, "The dialogue is bad" I think it'd be unfair to say, "Tolkien also had bad dialogue and Tolkien's work isn't considered garbage."

Normally, that is considered a logical fallacy anyway... so I wouldn't expect someone to do that, but just in case... if a so-called "better" writer has a flaw, and someone recognizes it to be one of Paolini's flaws, the fact that the "better" writer has a flaw does not excuse Paolini.

Well, actually it does exclude Paolini. You can't use an argument that could just as easily be applied to other more prominent and respected authors. That's the logical fallacy. It's hypocrisy actually. It's like saying "well you all should stop driving your big SUVs because they pollute and guzzle gas, but I'm still going to drive mine". We exclude Tolkien from extensive critical analysis because of his impact on the genre. If we really wanted to address Tolkien from a critical approach we would find that the cliches exist in frequency, and also that the pacing is skewed horribly within the story. Tolkien was not a great writer. He was an amazing world builder, weaving together dozens of pre-existing cultures, but he desperately needed an editor. But we excuse Tolkien for this because he single-handedly took the fantasy genre and pioneered it into what it is today.
If we can offer exclusion to Tolkien, then we can offer exclusion on many accounts to Paolini for things that we would never address in Lord of the Rings. If cliches are not considered a problem in LOTR, then they cannot be considered a problem in Eragon. Likewise, you cannot use the argument of 'being cliche' on any work of fantasy because that term refers to all fantasy. Another way to say this would be that fantasy has certain 'tropes' or 'motivs' (yes that is actually with a v if you want to go with the root word that is German...or motifs for us American folks), which are used in frequency and are therefore 'cliches'. Since fantasy cannot remove itself from its origins, and neither can it remove itself from 'tropes', 'motivs', or 'cliches' that are born into the genre, the argument of a work being 'cliche' cannot be used at all because to do so would discount all prior works of fantasy.
So, for this to work, someone has to provide a powerful argument that proves that Eragon is not a good book, but rather a pile of complete garbage not worthy of being used as toilet paper, without using the arguments I have presented already. Such arguments are ones that apply to fantasy as a whole.



So, Nyx... :P :P :P :D

[jordanisonfire]

I'm sick of this argument, really. He's published, he's got millions of fans worldwide. Get over it, people! The only thing that's gonna bring him down now is an assassination. He's got a movie out, for Christ's sake! If you don't like his book, fine, you can sit in the corner and sulk, but don't try to preach to us, if you do. It's really annoying. As Shaun said, spend your time on something more worthwhile than sitting on your computer and going on websites to bitch about him.

[Andy]

Interesting challenge, Shaun... :devious: Unfortunately, I don't have either book on me, so I can't really offer any arguments with evidence to support them. Maybe I'll get one from the library soon.

Anyway, I'll probably argue:
- Forced/unnatural dialogue
- Two-dimensional characters/poor characterization
- Lots of unnecessary descriptions and infodumps

[The Grinning Man]

It's boring, not hideously bad, because the characters are all one-dimensional when they're not archetypes (is that a violation?). It feels like Anne McCaffrey fan fiction and the dialouge is terrible. The prose is juvenile, with far too much of the 'telling' and smilies that are so forced and period-specific that they've induced gagging on my part.

I did like rather like the relationship between Eragon and the Dragon for a bit.

I'm sick of this argument, really. He's published, he's got millions of fans worldwide. Get over it, people! The only thing that's gonna bring him down now is an assassination. He's got a movie out, for Christ's sake! If you don't like his book, fine, you can sit in the corner and sulk, but don't try to preach to us, if you do. It's really annoying. As Shaun said, spend your time on something more worthwhile than sitting on your computer and going on websites to bitch about him.

I do spend my time on places more worthwhile. But I reserve the right to bitch about him, because he's a shitty writer and I have a voice. And I won't have my voice suppressed by people who disagree with me.

[Rafael Domination]

Hmmmm....I've never really read Eragon, and even when I did find out about the plot on Wikipedia (sorry Shaun) it really didn't interest me. Plus, I hated the art-work on the front cover. I mean, was that a dragon or a bald horse? :D

[Crocolyle]

Well, actually it does exclude Paolini. You can't use an argument that could just as easily be applied to other more prominent and respected authors. That's the logical fallacy. It's hypocrisy actually. It's like saying "well you all should stop driving your big SUVs because they pollute and guzzle gas, but I'm still going to drive mine". We exclude Tolkien from extensive critical analysis because of his impact on the genre. If we really wanted to address Tolkien from a critical approach we would find that the cliches exist in frequency, and also that the pacing is skewed horribly within the story. Tolkien was not a great writer. He was an amazing world builder, weaving together dozens of pre-existing cultures, but he desperately needed an editor. But we excuse Tolkien for this because he single-handedly took the fantasy genre and pioneered it into what it is today.
If we can offer exclusion to Tolkien, then we can offer exclusion on many accounts to Paolini for things that we would never address in Lord of the Rings. If cliches are not considered a problem in LOTR, then they cannot be considered a problem in Eragon. Likewise, you cannot use the argument of 'being cliche' on any work of fantasy because that term refers to all fantasy. Another way to say this would be that fantasy has certain 'tropes' or 'motivs' (yes that is actually with a v if you want to go with the root word that is German...or motifs for us American folks), which are used in frequency and are therefore 'cliches'. Since fantasy cannot remove itself from its origins, and neither can it remove itself from 'tropes', 'motivs', or 'cliches' that are born into the genre, the argument of a work being 'cliche' cannot be used at all because to do so would discount all prior works of fantasy.
So, for this to work, someone has to provide a powerful argument that proves that Eragon is not a good book, but rather a pile of complete garbage not worthy of being used as toilet paper, without using the arguments I have presented already. Such arguments are ones that apply to fantasy as a whole.



So, Nyx... :P :P :P :D

The reason why the Tolkien Defense doesn't work (i. e. Paolini's bad dialogue can be excused because Tolkien had bad dialogue) is:
1. Paolini's dialogue is far worse.
2. Paolini has many other problems with his writing that Tolkein doesn't have. So while Tolkien does have bad dialogue, Paolini has worse dialogue, weaker characterization, terrible description, is much more boring etc. So while Tolkien's writing has a few flaws, Paolini's flaws are not only greater, but more numerous.
3. If we can't use Tolkien in our arguments, you shouldn't be able to use Tolkien in your rebuttals. That would be hypocrisy.

[Rafael Domination]

Actually, this is a good thing for us!

If an author as sucky as that can accomplish so much, then that means we teenagers, some of which write better than him - not me, but some of us - can actually make it as authors! WOOOHOOOO!!!! :D

[Nyx]

Actually, this is a good thing for us!

If an author as sucky as that can accomplish so much, then that means we teenagers, some of which write better than him - not me, but some of us - can actually make it as authors! WOOOHOOOO!!!! :D

Well that sure is comforting...;)

ok so I agree with Shaun on the not using the cliche arguming (hence the me crossing it out before). But as others have already said this: the book was very boring. If a book is that long, then it should be worth reading, at times it was like it was written just for the sake of quantity. The dialogue others have pointed out so I won't repeat it again.

[Shaun]

Well that sure is comforting...;)

ok so I agree with Shaun on the not using the cliche arguming (hence the me crossing it out before). But as others have already said this: the book was very boring. If a book is that long, then it should be worth reading, at times it was like it was written just for the sake of quantity. The dialogue others have pointed out so I won't repeat it again.

I can agree with that. Much of the middle of Eldest was excessive and useless. The problem with Paolini is that he hasn't learned from his predecessors what doesn't work anymore. Eldest could have been cut down a good 100 to 150 pages. Eragon too had a problem of a little more than was necessary, considering what actually happens within the story. But you also have to remember that his editor isn't having him cut this stuff either, and usually editors send a lot of revisions back to the author, so either Paolini flatly refused to change things or the editor ignored the issues. Considering how Paolini conducts his interviews I'm leaning towards the former rather than the latter...

[Hypocrit]

It's ridiculous you expect us to NOT use Star Wars considering the plot is well... Star Wars.

So far as the actual writing? Come on now it speaks for itself. I'ts not interestung, offers no new fantastical characteristics, like Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea did, and hte writing is not... good. I don't know how else ot say it really. The guy simply isn't the best writer. He's not good at description or clever portrayal or interesting plot set up or emotional description or... did I miss something? Oh yes, character names. :P

Honestly though, it's shit. I'm not gonna try to convince you, you can dumb yourself down if you like. I just personally see it as trash literature. Seems to me it is read by the same type who think the "Da Vinci Code" is deeply controversial and a major break through.

[Nyx]

I can agree with that. Much of the middle of Eldest was excessive and useless. The problem with Paolini is that he hasn't learned from his predecessors what doesn't work anymore. Eldest could have been cut down a good 100 to 150 pages. Eragon too had a problem of a little more than was necessary, considering what actually happens within the story. But you also have to remember that his editor isn't having him cut this stuff either, and usually editors send a lot of revisions back to the author, so either Paolini flatly refused to change things or the editor ignored the issues. Considering how Paolini conducts his interviews I'm leaning towards the former rather than the latter...

So by agreeing to this, aren't you saying that you are already convinced that this is a book worth hating?:P

[Shaun]

Nope, because the book still works regardless. The fact of the matter is, Paolini is successful. That means that some large number of people are buying his books. So, he's done something right.

The plot resembles Star Wars because they use the same archetypes. Star Wars stole all its archetypes straight from something else too, so if we're going to bash Eragon for having a similar plot with similar characteristics we have to do the exact same for Star Wars, which in my opinion is blasphemy...so, we won't go there.

And I don't consider it dumbing myself down for enjoying a book. It may not be highly literary, but it's still entertaining, and in reading Paolini's work that's all I'm looking for.

As for the writing, I've seen worse writers get more recognition than Paolini...so, is Paolini bad because he's not so bad he's one of those writers and also not good to be one of the great writers? It must suck to be right in the middle...

[jordanisonfire]

Maybe Paolini was trying to be like Tolkien and pave a way for the next generation of Fantasy writers, but failed miserably. I think the LotR books are a bit boring in some places, but they're still a great inspiration and they show me how I should expand on my characters, but not to over-do it. Such as the Treebeard chapter in The Two Towers. That was just... difficult to keep going through, there was so little information given over a long span of pages.

[Andy]

The plot resembles Star Wars because they use the same archetypes. Star Wars stole all its archetypes straight from something else too, so if we're going to bash Eragon for having a similar plot with similar characteristics we have to do the exact same for Star Wars, which in my opinion is blasphemy...so, we won't go there.
You know what? You said not to use the Tolkien/Star Wars/cliche arguments, but I'm going to. Sorry. It's because I have a big problem with the way you seem to suggest all fantasy is equally derivative, and thus we cannot judge them on their derivativeness.

The reason me and so many others keep comparing Paolini to Tolkien and Star Wars is because there's a big difference between what Tolkien did and that Paolini did. Is all literature derivative? Yes. But what all the people who dislike Eragon keep saying is that there's a point where you've taken so much from one or two previous works that you can't really call your work your own, where it heavily resembles what you borrowed from, and where it becomes shameful.

You cannot say Paolini can't be criticized because what you criticize him for, you could say the same about Tolkien. But this isn't true. Paolini's cliches are blatant and his characters totally unoriginal. Take any character from LOTR: Frodo, Gandalf, Pippin, Treebeard, Saruman, Theodin, Eomer, and try to find the places where Tolkien took ALL of them from. For nearly all of his characters, you cannot. They are original, a unique mix of personalities, goals, histories and such.

You cannot say the same for Paolini. Thus where the Star Wars criticism comes into play. Have there been any stories in the past where a farmboy living with his uncle finds something strange and the brings it home, then leaves home for a while, returns to find the uncle dead, then leaves with an old man who used to be a member of a group of legendary protectors of the land, and then helps the boy become the next one, when all others have died out except for the evil guy? Yes, Star Wars. The plot of Eragon is nearly identical to Star Wars (there's more in common than just archetypes). The princess is there, the rogue hero is there, the wise old mentor in Eldest is there, and the only not-small difference is that it takes place in a cliche fantasy land, not space.

Tolkien did nothing of the sort. While he did use many cliches, he pulled influences from a variety of sources and turned them into something nobody had seen before. That's what writers are supposed to do. Paolini's story is rubbish because he has taken a story almost identical to Star Wars and gone and called it his own. That's plagiarism. The fact that he's become famous for it and gotten so many fans is why those who see through his actions for what they are are angry, and why he has so many anti-fans.

What you're doing, Shaun, is saying that there can't possibly be a terrible story as long as it's readable and makes sense, regardless of how much plagiarism there is.

What would you say if I wrote a new story about a creature called a "margin" who was visited by twelve "smorfs" and a wise old witch and took them all on an adventure where they visit a village of immortal and beautiful "wandlings", then into a cave full of "borbogs", where the margin meets a despicable creature and takes a magical headband which makes him invisible, and in the end, five forces do battle, and the evil griffin guarding a hoard of treasure is killed. And then I'll put the story in outer space.

If you're thinking The Hobbit, you're right, because I took everything from it. But under your interpretation of what should be acceptable literature, Shaun, my story should be just as worthy of publication as all other stories. Is it? Because I certainly wouldn't like it if someone did that to my story. I'd file a lawsuit. :)

Sorry if that all sounded frustrated. I'm not angry. I think it just came out that way. I think this might be one of my pet peeves or something. :D

[jordanisonfire]

I'm enjoying this argument. A lot. I stand by my statement, but I still enjoy people arguing over this. End spam.

[Andy]

I'm enjoying this argument. A lot. I stand by my statement, but I still enjoy people arguing over this. End spam.
I'm not just arguing against Eragon. It's the entire argument that there are not differing levels of derivativeness that bugs me.

[Nyx]

I think this is the best literary discussion we've had on the site so far...ok sorry for the spam I just thought I'd put that out there.:)