posted
I say leave the great book as it is rather than be tarnished by a crappy movie. I really don't need to see the movie, every time i read EG its like a movie going on in my head anyway. The Alvin maker series should be made into a movie. Those books would adapt so much better to the big screen.
Im just saying that the alvin maker series would translate onto the big screen better. Everyone already knows why EG will be difficult to put onto the big screen so i wont even mention them. I just feel AM would be easier to do and come out much better as a finished product.
<Edited thread title, as it's not unreasonable to hold titles to a slightly higher standard than posts themselves due to avoidability issues. --PJ>
[ September 22, 2007, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posts: 81 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Especially after seeing the disaster of a movie version of 'Eragon', I'm inclind to say, and have many times before, that is is better NOT to make the movie than to make a bad movie.
If the writers and directors are not committed to telling the story, then don't waste our time. If you can't convey the emotion and sympathy for the central character, then, again, don't waste our time or your money.
I would like to see Ender done well. I think if they can find the central thread of the story and do so without stripping away it's heart and soul, then it will be a brilliant movie. But who in the movie studios had the vision to do this?
As much as it fell short, the Lord of the Rings movies were the vision of a single director who was willing to risk everything to get this story told, and I think it showed. I think within the limits of movies, LotR was an excellent series.
I only wish the same could be done for the Harry Potter movies. They are so hung up on time (running time) that is dominates all. Yes, the movie are a reasonable approximation of the story. And the latest movie capture the central story better than any of the others, but why should I care? There is no character or plot development, so why should I care that Sirius dies, or why should I believe that Harry cares that Sirius dies? Why should I care about anything, when they don't take the time to make me care?
And that is central to it all, if you can't tell the story with enough heart to make me care... then I won't care. Without the heart and soul, it's just a bunch of kids playing spaceman.
Now, I haven't read the Alvin Series, but I will certainly concede that some books better lend themselves to translation into movies. Further I do see Ender as difficult to translate. But if done right, it could be a spectacular story. So, the final question is, are they willing to do it right? Sadly, the odds are against it.
The most a bad movie of a book can do is to get people interested in reqading the real story of the book, or it can baised them against the book before they even opened it.
I wish they would have done for HP what was done for Shawshank Redemption.
Different genres but at least Shawshank had a lot of heart and soul and fleshed out the short story beautifully.
I don't think I'd even mind a 4 hour HP movie, just so they can get the soul of the story back in. What they did to 4 is not making me want to see anymore HP movies, but I am curious about how an Ender movie can be made and made well.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movie cannot take away what is already in the book, so why not make the movie? It has at least a chance of being good.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The HP movie series has the advantage of not having to worry about the "soul" of the story, because there are already books that portray that perfectly (and that most of the core audience of the movies has read already). Shawshank is completely different: as a short story, there was plenty of room to expand and enhance the work. HP is the opposite. So the movie magicians took the easy route and used the bare bones of the books to make the best movies they could. The books will always be there for anyone to read as a companion to the movie sequence.
So, I agree with Tara completely. Many people love the book. Whether the movie is brilliant or rotten, people will still love the book. Anyone remember the movie Timeline? The movie Ella Enchanted? Terrible movies, but neither can lessen my enjoyment of the original novels even now. I am content that the books I like are superior to any movie version.
Take the time to work out an EG movie; but don't paralyze production just because it isn't a masterpiece of sympathetic emotion like the book. As for the topic creator, who says: "I really don't need to see the movie, every time i read EG its like a movie going on in my head anyway." ...don't see the movie. No one's making you. But why not give it a chance to see if at least it can be a worthy companion to the novel we both enjoy? I personally wouldn't mind seeing a movie made, even if it is "crappy". Just to see someone else's interpretation on the big screen would be great. And if I don't like it, I'll lock myself in my room and read the original, as happy with the book as I've always been.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been hearing about this movie being made for almost 20 years. It's not going to happen. If EG was meant to be a movie, someone would have made it by now. Especially with all the crap that Hollywood puts out consistently. EG will never get made into a movie, thankfully.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Especially after seeing the disaster of a movie version of 'Eragon', I'm inclind to say, and have many times before, that is is better NOT to make the movie than to make a bad movie.
OSC has been saying this for years, which is probably the reason why it hasn't yet been made.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something apparent to me, that I have yet to see anyone else mention is the disturbed events of Ender's Game.
1. Five year-old Ender killing another boy by violently crushing his pelvis. 2. All the story markers that involve the characters to be naked (i.e. nine year-old Petra's nude bathroom visits, the leader of Rat Army's testicle joke desk image.) 3. Vivid and creative language. 4. Nude Bonzo being killed by nude Ender (I seperated #4 from #2 due the levity and necessity of #4's scene.) 5. Ender waking up covered in his own blood from biting himself. 6. Mazer Rackham silently beating the ever-living God from Ender's body (still less than twelve years-old.) 7. And the creepy relationship between Valentine and Peter as young adults.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
I understand your point though, JH. I don't think Eragon deserves to be in the same sentence as! Ender's Game.
However, with something like Eragon, which I thought could have been easily made into movie, I honestly thought they could only go up from the book. I *really* thought that the snotty hollywood execs would take Paolini's work, change almost everything, and make a movie that, while not enduring, or particularly touching, would be acceptable. Instead, they managed to make it worse.
Not to mention the continuity errors.
So Eragon remains a lasting example of how Hollywood can wreck a book... Even one that wasn't all that great in the first place.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: That stuff could all easily be either dropped or changed slightly.
It could, but would you enjoy an Ender's Game without Enders two kills? Just the fact alone that you have to completely disregard the characters ages throughout the entire book and treat them as the miniature super-geniuses that they are, is based on the idea that they are in no way normal or react to such things normally.
And another problem, do you integrate Ender's Shadow into the movie? Hollywood compacts story-lines in every book to movie.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert Hugo: "...I can't believe you just compared Ender's Game to Eragaon."
Is it safe to assume you are directing that comment at me?
Yes, I did compare 'Eragon' and 'Enders Game', but I only did so in the context of this discussion which is - books made into movies. Eragon being a good book made into a bad movie when it didn't have to be that way, and by extension, my concerns that Enders Game will suffer the same fate.
I know there are people who really really don't like the 'Eragon' series, and while I see the flaws, I found them a very captivating read. I'm in the process of reading them again for what I think is the third or fourth time, and the story is just as exciting and captivating as the first time. I was actually up reading until dawn last night because I couldn't put it down.
That said, in any other context, I would not compare 'Enders Game' and 'Eragon'; they are far too different to draw any connection or correlation between them.
I found 'Enders Game' to be very straight forward; that is, I found very little to criticize in the mechanics of the writing.
But I found the continuation of the Ender story to at times be repetitive and long winded. Even so, the story was so good and the characters so interesting that at any point I knew I was just a page or two away from the continuing adventure. So those minor fault never slowed me down.
I've read the entire Ender Series at least four or five time and they never fail to captivate me, and I spent many sleepless night unable to put those stories down.
All that said, I really don't understand people's objections to 'Eragon/Eldest'. Again, I found an exciting captivating story vividly written with engaging characters, and many tens of thousands of people seem to agree with me. 'Eragon' was positively reviewed by several respected literary sources; like 'Publishers Weekly'. It make several 'Best Seller' list including the New York Times and again Publishers Weekly.
Now, I can understand if it simply didn't do it for you; not everybody likes every book. You are certainly free to reject it because of that. But I'm left uneasy by people who level very negative criticism on the book. That smells of sour grapes. I can't help wondering when I read such negative comments, if we are seeing real criticism, or if we are seeing an unnatural loyalty to 'favorite authors'.
In short, I have no problem with "I didn't like it", but "It's terrible" leaves me uneasy and doubtful.
As I said, 'Eragon' is not without it's flaws, but neither is the 'Ender' or 'Shadow' series, and neither is 'Harry Potter'. However, I can see past the mechanical and continuity flaws if there is a good story to be told. And it all cases, these are rip-roaring good stories.
If you want to read something that is trite, cliche, and terribly predictable, try the 'Alex Rider' series.
posted
Yeah, but... wouldn't it be cool, all the same? Plus the later EG saga would translate well, except for they'd probably use cg piggies and the whole incest thing and the even creepier relationship between Valentine and Ender.
The Alvin Maker series would be awesome, although the effects, I admit, could be pretty hokey. And listening to some New York actor trying to sound like he's from the frontier south would irk me.
But I'd still wait in line, buy the tshirt, watch the movie, and be happy.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding AJFleckenstein's list of scenes from Enders Game. Keep in mind most of those things can be implied. We don't actually have to see Ender kick this kid in the head to know that it happened (re: Ender's first kill).
All that means is it will be rated PG-13, but nearly all films are rated PG-13 now days, but that doesn't stop young kids from seeing them.
As to the 'naked' scenes -- solution, they put clothes on. Again, kids in t-shirts and underwear are quite common on TV and in movies. That is a simple scene to change.
Even that darker scenes and the Mazer/Ender fight scene can still happen but be softened from a cinematic perspective. Example, you see Mazer swing, you see Ender fall, but you don't actually see Mazer's knuckle crunching into Ender's face.
I see all these as easily solvable.
Still, I can't imagine the movie with anything less than PG-13. It is a dark movie.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Especially after seeing the disaster of a movie version of 'Eragon', I'm inclind to say, and have many times before, that is is better NOT to make the movie than to make a bad movie.
It's not like "Eragon" was working with good source material.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the apparent Harry Potter spoilers. Shoulda known better than to read a thread on this side of the river.
I may be mistaken, but doesn't Publisher's Weekly *only* publish positive reviews? Aren't they basically about creating blurbs for book covers?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I said, 'Eragon' is not without it's flaws, but neither is the 'Ender' or 'Shadow' series, and neither is 'Harry Potter'.
"This cigarette holder I made out of clay is not without its flaws, but neither is Michelangelo's David."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, I was going to say that it is ridiculous to say that Ender's Game or Harry Potter is the modern literary equivalent of David... but what else can we say is? A dry thesis paper? These books connect with you. There isn't an author who I can compare to Salinger, Vonnegut, or the like who is alive today.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol, no, there's a player for the Buffalo Sabres named Jochen Hecht, and I have no idea how common Hecht is for a name (he's German). Just would've been an odd connection.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is also a chess grandmaster whose name is Hans-Joachim Hecht, and that is of considerably more importance to me than Jochen.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've asked for this thread to be either locked or the title edited, just so if it happens, it isn't the mod being heavy handed. It's me being uptight.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eragon being a good book made into a bad movie when it didn't have to be that way...
Eragon wasn't a good book in the first place.
Firstly, its almost a direct rip-off of LOTR. Anyone who has read both Eragon and LOTR can see this; the names of places and creatures are freakishly similar and you can plainly see where the amateur writer got his inspiration from. I found it a little sickening, staunch originalist I am and all.
From Wikipedia:
"It must be noted that the word "Urgal" resembles J.R.R. Tolkien's "uruk", related to "orc". Their descriptions are also very similar. Both Urgals and orcs are naturally violent and barbaric, and both constitute a large part of the antagonist forces in their respective series. The Uruk-hai of The Lord of the Rings (larger and stronger than other orcs, able to run long distances at great speed) are paralleled by the Kull in Eragon."
It's blatant shit like that, that bothered me about the series.
And I'm not the only one who thinks this:
"...Eldest, the endless, overheated sequel to Christopher Paolini's best-selling 2003 Lord of the Rings knockoff, Eragon." -- Jennifer Reese, from EW.com Full article at EW
On a personal note, I kept confusing the name 'Eragon' for 'Aragorn' throughout the entire thing.
quote:I know there are people who really really don't like the 'Eragon' series, and while I see the flaws, I found them a very captivating read.
How? I struggled through it, completely driven by a very weak curiosity and having nothing better to read at the time. I'm wondering if you've even read LOTR which would explain why you don't see the blatant rip-off Eragon is.
quote:All that said, I really don't understand people's objections to 'Eragon/Eldest'. Again, I found an exciting captivating story vividly written with engaging characters, and many tens of thousands of people seem to agree with me.
Really, 'tens of thousands' of other's opinions should tell you something other than "oh, they just don't like it." I'm inclined to believe you read the first sentence of whatever Eragon criticism you encountered and stopped, (among the usual single-line "It's terrible" tripe).
quote:But I'm left uneasy by people who level very negative criticism on the book. That smells of sour grapes. I can't help wondering when I read such negative comments, if we are seeing real criticism, or if we are seeing an unnatural loyalty to 'favorite authors'.
No, my stance is an 'unnatural' loyalty to good writing and ORIGINAL story-telling. You can't be a good book or good anything when you've ripped off someone much better then you. That is my stance.
On writing; Paolini's was so dry and technical at times, especially when he starts describing scenery with exact measurements, (I can understand wanting an exact picture, but it just makes. the. writing. flow. feel. disjointed). I felt like an architect's drawing was being whipped out whenever Eragon walked onto a new scene.
quote:As I said, 'Eragon' is not without it's flaws, but neither is the 'Ender' or 'Shadow' series, and neither is 'Harry Potter'. However, I can see past the mechanical and continuity flaws if there is a good story to be told. And it all cases, these are rip-roaring good stories.
But in Eragon's case, the flaws were so loud I couldn't hear the story over them. And that is a problem that neither Ender's Game or Harry Potter had; there were sentence structures I didn't agree with, but they weren't rip-offs of other books before them.
quote:If you want to read something that is trite, cliche, and terribly predictable, try the 'Alex Rider' series.
I know there are worse books than Eragon. but that doesn't blind me to the fact that Paolini's book was a rip-off of a series I respect, (not to be confused with 'obsess over'). Pair that large flaw with stilted writing that really should've been re-worked before publishing and you've got a mediocre book. And I'm not even going to go into the Star Wars parallels between Eragon and Luke.
That said, you have your opinion and I have mine, but mine is just saying yours is wrong.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Sorry to sort of hijack this thread, but I liked this book and feel the need to defend it. Most of my comments are directed toward Snakefire.
quote BlueWizard: Eragon being a good book made into a bad movie when it didn't have to be that way...
Quote Snakefire:
Eragon wasn't a good book in the first place.
Firstly, its almost a direct rip-off of LOTR. ...
Why am I not surprised that you are a Lord of the Rings fan?
Regardless of what you think of Eragon as a piece of literature, it still was a fantastic foundation for a movie. The movie makers compromised that potential, to give us one of the biggest crap fests to ever hit the screen. Which brings up my point regarding 'Ender', if you aren't committed to really telling the story, then don't waste your money and our time. If you aren't going to do it right, then don't bother to do it.
From Wikipedia:
"It must be noted that the word "Urgal" resembles J.R.R. Tolkien's "uruk", related to "orc". Their descriptions are also very similar. ..."
Here is a new bulletin, Tolkien did not invent mythology. He did not invent dwarves or elves or giants or wizards or anything else. Like all authors of this kind of 'medieval' fantasy, he borrowed from an ancient bank of mythology and twisted it to suit his own ends.
I don't see Paolini or Rowling borrowing from existing mythology as being any different than Tolkien borrowing from mythology.
As it stands, any author after Tolkien who dares to set his world in a mythical before-time/history place and fill it will horseback riding heroes and mythical creatures is accused of ripping off Tolkien, but keep in mind, that before-time horseback riding heroes in lands filled with mythical creatures FAR predates Tolkien. He didn't invent it, he just did it well (at least in some people's opinions).
This is exactly what I mean about unnatural loyalty to favorite authors. Get over it; Tolkien is not God of the mythical world.
quote BlueWizard: I know there are people who really really don't like the 'Eragon' series, and while I see the flaws, I found them a very captivating read.
Quote Snakefire: How? I struggled through it, completely driven by a very weak curiosity and having nothing better to read at the time. I'm wondering if you've even read LOTR which would explain why you don't see the blatant rip-off Eragon is.
Oddly, that is exactly how I felt about Lord of the Rings, it was impossible to keep track of the story, it plodded along at a snails pace, and in my opinion was a grindingly dull tedious read. Which explains why I started to read it, but never finished.
Though I will concede that I tried to read it many years ago, and now after seeing the movie and having a general idea of the story, I am considering giving it a second try. Though I have to admit the thought fills me with dread.
Quote BlueWizard: All that said, I really don't understand people's objections to 'Eragon/Eldest'. Again, I found an exciting captivating story vividly written with engaging characters, and many tens of thousands of people seem to agree with me.
Quote Snakefire: Really, 'tens of thousands' of other's opinions should tell you something other than "oh, they just don't like it." I'm inclined to believe you read the first sentence of whatever Eragon criticism you encountered and stopped, (among the usual single-line "It's terrible" tripe).
Not really sure what you point is here. 'Eragon/Eldest' are significant Best Sellers, though I have to wonder if you don't have a distorted idea of what constitutes a best seller.
Books don't sell like 'best seller' records/CDs. It is extremely rare for a book to sell a million copies. So, 'tens of thousands' of satisfied customers represents an extremely high sales volume.
According to Chris Anderson in The Long Tail:
"In 2004, 950,000 books out of the 1.2 million tracked by Nielsen BookScan sold fewer than ninety-nine copies. Another 200,000 sold fewer than 1,000 copies. Only 25,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. The average book in America sells about 500 copies. In other words, about 98 percent of books are noncommercial, whether they were intended that way or not." (pg. 76).
'Eragon/Eldest' by the standard indicated above is in the very small top percentage that qualifies a book as a commercial success. 'Eragon/Eldest' was a very commercially successful book, and has many many thousands of fans. Further 'Eragon' was published in 2005, whereas LotR was published back when dinosaurs roamed the earth (1955). Which means that LotR has had decades to build a following.
As to my reading of 'Eragon' criticism, I do read it thoroughly, but it is usually the same old tired 'Tolkien is God' and how dare anyone rip off God of all dwarves, elves, riders, demons, and monsters. In other words, the same old unnatural obsessive favorite-author hero-worshiping.
That's why I make a distinction between those who simply didn't like Eragon/Eldest, which I completely understand, and those who feel the need to cut it down in defense of lord god almighty Tolkien.
And for the record, I just finished reading Eragon/Eldest for the fourth time, and still found it just as captivating, exciting, and fast paced as the first time I read it. Very few books can hold my interest at that level. (Ender/Shadow Series = 6 times, Artimes Fowl = 4 times, Harry Potter = 8 times, Bartimaeus Trilogy = 3 times, etc...)
You didn't like the book and found it slow and over wrought. Well, news flash, that is exactly how I feel about LotR; dull, tedious, confusing, and plodding.
Which probably explains our difference of opinions.
I don't ask much from a book, or a movie for that matter. Just keep the story moving, hold my interest, give me characters that are interesting and that I care about, and give them interesting and pointed things to do, and I'm a happy reader. IN MY OPINION, Paoline delivered, Tolkien, despite his great reputation, did not.
But again, I concede that I read Tolkien many years ago, and perhaps, I simply wasn't in the mood at the time. So, I am willing to give it a second chance. Especially now that I know more about the story.
Once again, to all, sorry for the distraction from the central point of this thread.
posted
He was a talented kid who started writing a huge project before he was ready. The books are not horrible, but they don't comprise the best literature either. And the movie could have made it better, but instead, it actually took the elements in the book that would have been better in a movie, and ruined those.
Eragon reeks of nothing other then a story too big for it's author. To cover up the sparse limbs on his gigantic tree, Paolini had to use some cliches, and graft them in.
His second books, although very superficial in terms of broadaning our understanding of elves and dwarves (And suffering from very bad and disjointed description), took the cliche elements and made them a little bit better. Things that were good in the first book got a tad bit worse, in my opinion, but things that were worse, got a whole lot better.
quote:"It must be noted that the word "Urgal" resembles J.R.R. Tolkien's "uruk", related to "orc". Their descriptions are also very similar. Both Urgals and orcs are naturally violent and barbaric, and both constitute a large part of the antagonist forces in their respective series. The Uruk-hai of The Lord of the Rings (larger and stronger than other orcs, able to run long distances at great speed) are paralleled by the Kull in Eragon."
The whole oruk/urgal comparison seems incredibly unfair to me (And has since the first book). Should Paolini have changed some letters around, and given them wings, so that they would be different from LOTR? In the second book Eldest, Paolini shows just how different urgals are from orcs. ***Spoiler*** Urgals are shown to be a sentient speicies, with traditions and customs of their own. The Kull are anyway.
And, there's a fundemental difference in that the Urgals didn't come from the bad parts of elves. They're actually not related at all in his series.
Or didn't you read LOTR?
I don't see why people actively hate Eragon. There have been worse books written... But those worse books were not as popular as Eragon is. So why is such 'terrible' fiction so popular?
Perhaps this is the same question the New York Times asked themselves before they created a Children's Bestseller List because of Harry Potter.
***Edited for clarity, since I have the language skills of a sock***
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And for the record, I just finished reading Eragon/Eldest for the fourth time, and still found it just as captivating, exciting, and fast paced as the first time I read it.
Years from now, you will probably have this statement used against you when you try to run for political office. It's just that wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I didn't mean to come off as a worshipper of Tolkien. I’m far from it.
Moving on...
quote:Regardless of what you think of Eragon as a piece of literature, it still was a fantastic foundation for a movie. The movie makers compromised that potential to give us one of the biggest crap fests to ever hit the screen…if you aren't committed to really telling the story, then don't waste your money and our time. If you aren't going to do it right, then don't bother to do it.
This part I agree with you on. If the movie had fleshed out the story a good deal more, I would have admittedly enjoyed it. And possibly better than I had the book.
quote:Here is a new[s] bulletin, Tolkien did not invent mythology. He did not invent dwarves or elves or giants or wizards or anything else...
No, he didn't invent all those things, (dwarves, elves, trolls etc). The similarity between Paolini's Urgals and Tokien's Orcs is what struck me the most. The names and places, not so much, and I’m not even going to argue on that point.
No Tolkien isn't a god and I'm not about to call him one. Is Paolini a thief because he used dwarves and elves and has a medieval setting like Tolkien? No. Could he be because he used a similar race of creatures? Sure. That's my point.
I acknowledge the fact that writers are influenced by outside sources, but when you do it in a way that is so mind-numbingly blatant, that's where you run into problems.
quote:All that said, I really don't understand people's objections to 'Eragon/Eldest'. Again, I found an exciting captivating story vividly written with engaging characters, and many tens of thousands of people seem to agree with me.
Really, 'tens of thousands' of other's opinions should tell you something other than "oh, they just don't like it." I'm inclined to believe you read the first sentence of whatever Eragon criticism you encountered and stopped, (among the usual single-line "It's terrible" tripe).
I misread that part of your post and thus made the massive fail you have so kindly pointed out. Ignore that, it just adds to the mess.
quote: As to my reading of 'Eragon' criticism, I do read it thoroughly…
Oh good, I’m dealing with someone intelligent and not a mindless fan-boy, (that was not sarcasm by the way).
quote:…those who simply didn't like Eragon/Eldest, which I completely understand, and those who feel the need to cut it down in defense of lord god almighty Tolkien.
I feel sorry that you’ve run into those people, but I’m not one of them okay? I’ve tried to explain to someone why I hated Frodo and Bilbo, to someone who knew the lineage of the different races backwards, (which is just a toe past obsession, in my opinion). Predictably, she steamrolled my opinion with many shakings of the head.
Believe me, I know what it feels like to deal with Tolkien worshippers, (like Snapewives, only they can spell).
quote: You didn't like the book and found it slow and over wrought. Well, news flash, that is exactly how I feel about LotR; dull, tedious, confusing, and plodding.
Which probably explains our difference of opinions.
Not slow, just dry and over-technical about measurements and such. I never said slow; its pace was fine.
I will admit that I’m curious to see how the trilogy ends (and that writing generally gets better with time) so maybe, maybe I’ll try Eldest. Hey, it’s only fair right? You’re considering trying LOTR again and I’m thinking about Eldest.
But anyways, if you want to continue this further, please email me. I think I’ve clogged up the thread enough.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
I don't see why people actively hate Eragon. There have been worse books written... But those worse books were not as popular as Eragon is. So why is such 'terrible' fiction so popular?
The kid published at nineteen. I bet much of the rabid hate is generated by people who fancy themselves better writers, but don't have the guts, determination, talent, or the right parents to get published OR sell so many copies.
Leastaways, that's why I hate them. I try not to. I usually don't hate books. I'm a good person.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
