posted
I have defended Eragon/Eldest mainly against Lord of the Rings fans several times in this forum. Well, not exclusively Lord of the Rings fan, but those fans seem to be the most fanatic in their objection to any other epic fantasy-style book. The objection is usually that Paolini stoled everything from Tolkien, which I flatly deny.
In these discussions I confessed that I tried to read LotR long ago and just couldn't plod my way through it. But in all fairness, I promised to give it another read now that I am older and have seen the movies and have some idea of what is happening and what is going to happen.
So, I did.
After seeing the movies, I knew there was a good story there, as my friends, oh so long ago, told me when the recommended it to me.
But, good story or no, I still haven't changed my mind. I found it a tedious slog through endless narratives and monologs. Its extreme wordiness makes the story move at a snails pace. Everything has to be name and described in agonizing detail. True that does create a very vivid picture, but it slows the pace of the story to a crawl. No wonder I couldn't get into it.
Also, everything, and I mean everything, has three or more names, and each time this 'thing' is mentioned, all the additional names are also mentioned. Seemed unnecessary beyond the first time to me.
Further, there are places mentioned in the story that don't appear on the maps. After Frodo and Sam got through the marshes and saw they couldn't get past the 'Gates', they went of on an alternate journey to a new location. I had a heck of a time figuring out where they were and where they were going in that segment.
And that is not the only time I was lost. That was one of the problems I had with my original read, everything has so many names, that I couldn't keep track of them all, and suddenly someone would be going somewhere that I couldn't remember hearing described, and couldn't locate on the Maps.
I still haven't changed my mind about Eragon/Eldest, despite vague similarities to LotR, I found it an easier read and easier to follow and understand; a compelling story moving at a nice fast pace. In fact, I find extremely few similarities in comparing these stories beyond very superficial and insignificant similarities.
As always, I am a greater Eragon/Eldest fan than a LotR fan. Still, there is no denying that LotR is a magnificent tale, if you can just wade through the unending narratives and monologs. Though there were times when I just couldn't take it, I scanned quickly through whatever I thought was dragging too long, and moved to a point where something was happening. I also skipped the songs, nice as they were, they didn't move the story forward.
Great story, but a very slow pace.
Now to one final point. Keep in mind that I've only seen the movies, so the trouble at the Shire near the end came as a surprise to me.
I know from discussions and reading about LotR in general what Frodo's leaving the Shire represented. That is, he wasn't just going on vacation, this was a powerful and significant journey. But I don't recall it being explained in the books.
They were going to 'Haven' but from the Maps it seems that Haven is not the final destination, but a sea port area in Middle Earth that they are leaving from. Again from discussions, I get the sense the Frodo is leaving for 'the land of the undying'.
Again, I know this from discussions with fans, but I can't recall anywhere in the book where the nature of the place that Frodo was sailing to was explained. Could someone indicate the general area of the book where this was explained? Or was it ever explained? Just curious.
posted
Wow because you are called Blue Wizard, I thought you were a huge Tolkien fan. I'm sorry you're not. I think if you remember that Tolkien was a linguist, and his original motivation to write the books was to give his languages some context, you will understand more.
I can't explain why it's so great, but it is. Maybe the fact that I had read the Iliad and the Odyssey, Beowulf, the Bible, and other stuff like that which is in the same vein that Tolkien was aiming for, helped me enjoy LotR more. I really do enjoy it. To me it is like holy scriptures or something. I've read it dozens of times, and can't get enough of it.
What other people say is stilted prose I think is noble and high-toned and beautiful. And the hobbits are so funny and delightful and real that they serve to make it personal as well. They bring it down to the level we can connect with. So we get the lofty and the humble both together. I really think this story has everything I could ask for in a story. If I had to take one book with me on a deserted island, I'd take Lord of the Rings.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I think his original motivation to write the LOTR, was to create a faux fairy tale history of England, though he was extremely interested in the languages as well. He felt that England had no mystical beginnings of its own, as even King Arthur is really imported from other countries.
Frankly, I think there are a lot of surface similarities between LOTR and Inheritance as far as the races and names. But frankly I think Inheritance is a more direct rip off of Star Wars. Young boy who is living with his uncle, who doesn't know who is father is, finds himself mixed up with an old hermit, the last (or seemingly last) master of a long since dead race of powerful beings, and the boy finds he is the last descendent of that line of powerful warriors. He runs off with the warrior, who dies sacrificing himself to save the young boy, the young boy allies himself with rebels and becomes their greatest hero, and in the course of doing so, finds out he is the son of the man who destroyed the ancient and noble order from within. Later he travels off into the wild again and takes a real master of the power as his second teacher, who finds his days are waning and he'll soon be dead.
Now sure, there's some more little bits added in, but come on, that is way, WAY more than just mild coincidence or similarity, it's pretty extensive.
I think Lord of the Rings is masterful, by far my favorite of all the series of stories in literature. Though frankly my love goes more to the stories of the Silmarillion than to the six books that make up the LOTR. I don't know if there is ever a direct explanation of the Arda, the Undying Lands in LOTR, I'll find out when I finish rereading the books. But it is explained in extreme detail in the Silmarillion, which is my bread and butter, but I think you wouldn't be able to get past the Music of the Ainur. I love the richness of the details. He's creating a world, an ANCIENT world, of extreme detail and long history, not just throwing together some cookie cutter fantasy land. And I think that comes through in the way he takes care to explain every detail, every instance he can throw history into the mix and give you more background in the people and the places and things.
I've never read another story that put me THERE, the way LOTR does. And I should add, that I'm not necessarily trashing Inheritance. I do think he ripped off the plot of Star Wars, and I think he was obviously influenced by LOTR, but I still think, despite some at times painful diction and dialogue, that it's a fun story, and I'm anxious to see how it ends.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be nice and answer your question before going into my Tolkien semi-rant. :-p
Frodo's final destination is Valinor, which is basically the home of the gods (edit: aka the Undying Lands, home of the Arda, you're right ^_~) It used to be actually connected to Middle Earth, but the sins of man and elf-kind eventually caused them to be separated, and the ships of the Grey Havens are the only ones that can make the journey from Middle Earth to Valinor. (It has something to do with sailing straight on into space instead of following the curvature of the globe. The concept of the "straight road" or the "lost road" was very important to Tolkien, and had religious significance.) Valinor can be considered Tolkien's use of the Atlantis myth.
I haven't read the older discussions about Paolini vs. Tolkien, but I can say the exact same thing I told my best friend in reference to Terry Brooks Shannara's books--Tolkien basically created the fantasy genre, and in that sense all later fantasy authors owe him a huge debt. That's not to say anything against other epic fantasies, but it's churlish to deny your roots.
As for Eragon in particular, I remember one scene that felt so much like the Two Towers scene where the riders of Rohan surround Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas that I was completely shocked when Eragon's foes didn't turn out to be friendly :-p
Here's another thing about LotR: Tolkien had spent probably close to 20 years working on the history and mythology of Middle Earth before he even started thinking about "a sequel to The Hobbit". Lord of the Rings wasn't the original goal of Middle Earth, it was just a portal for the general public.
Titania is right, it helps to understand that Tolkien's main interest was languages. That's also where the three names for everything comes from--two elvish languages and english.
I'll agree that LotR can move slowly at times and I never actually tried to follow it on the map--maybe the map only shows one name for a place and it's referred to by another in the text. Despite this however, I've always loved Tolkien's work more than any other fantasy series I've ever read. The prose is beautiful and the story goes so much deeper than any other fantasy.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Valinor can be considered Tolkien's use of the Atlantis myth.
I don't mean to take issue, but I think the direct link you're looking for is Numenor, which I believe Tolkien has directly compared to Atlantis before.
And my bad, actually you were right, it IS Valinor, if you want to be specific. Valinor is IN Arda, as Arda is everything, the entire world. Valinor more specifically is the Undying Lands, I confused the two.
quote:That's also where the three names for everything comes from--two elvish languages and english.
Also don't forget that Tolkien created the foundations for Dwarvish, Adunaic (the landuage of Westernesse, of Numenor), and Blackspeech. As well as creating at least two writing systems, the Feanorian and Dwarvish, and I think Celebrimbor created one too. I know he wrote the letters on the Door of Durin, but I can't remember if he created the letters themselves or if they were Feanorian.
Anywho, welcome Eowyn. It's great to meet another big fan of Lord of the Rings and OSC. How much of the older stuff have you read? The Silmarillion I'm guessing, but how about the Unfinished Tales, Histories, the Narn? Also, would I be correct in guessing you're a fan of anime? And if so, what is your favorite anime?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I forgot to add, when you get the chance make your own introduction thread. Tell us about yourself, where you're from, and such.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
:-p My bad too, it's been awhile since I've read the Silmarillion, and this stuff can get confusing. Numenor was Atlantis, Valinor was more like heaven/Valhala/Olympus all in one.
I haven't acually gotten into as much of the older stuff as I would like :-p I've read the Silmarillion, the Lays of Beleriand, most of Unfinished Tales, and the new Hurin novel.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooo, you've made it into the Lays of Beleriand, that's more than most people get to. If you want to get further into the Histories, The Lost Road is easily the best source if you want to learn more about the languages Tolkien devised, and the War of the Jewels and the Peoples of Middle Earth both have some great individual stories. And the War of the Jewels has an expanded version of the history you see in the Silmarillion.
Also, the Letters of JRR Tolkien has a wealth of information directly from Tolkien himself. Whenever someone asks me what famous dead person I'd want to have dinner with if I could, I'd say Tolkien so I could ask him dozens of more questions than people ask in those letters. I can't believe the kind of access people had back then, that they could actually write Tolkien and say "Hey, so what did happen to the Entwives?" and not only get a response, but an in depth, cordial, information laden response.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, there are places mentioned in the story that don't appear on the maps. After Frodo and Sam got through the marshes and saw they couldn't get past the 'Gates', they went of on an alternate journey to a new location. I had a heck of a time figuring out where they were and where they were going in that segment.
The new location is on the maps. They go through Ithilien, past Osgiliath, to Minas Morgul and the pass of Cirith Ungol (named for the spider-queen Ungoliant).
All of these places are marked on the detail map of regions around Mordor and Gondor; it's possible that your version of The Return of the King didn't include this map, in which case it's an inferior version.
That said, the fact that three characters had the temerity to have adventures somewhere you couldn't immediately find on the map is not, as far as I can tell, sensible grounds for criticism.
quote:I found it an easier read and easier to follow and understand
Well, yes. It's a children's story written by a child, with a precocious twelve-year-old's vocabulary and a teenager's plotting. In the same way, "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" is an easier song to learn in its entirety than, say, "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring." Eragon is potato chips; Lord of the Rings is a baked potato.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget the sour cream and chives, Tom. Fresh chives. Straight from the garden, rinsed in fresh spring water, and snipped with scissors, not mangled and chopped. *twinkle*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might even say that it's heaped so high with toppings that some people find them extraneous, maybe even to the point that it detracts from the potato flavor they were looking for.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TOM: "The new location is on the maps. They go through Ithilien, past Osgiliath, to Minas Morgul and the pass of Cirith Ungol (named for the spider-queen Ungoliant)."
Eventually I figured out where they were going. But I don't find either Ithilien or Cirith Ungol on my maps, so until Minas Morgul is mentioned I was lost. It's more when they were at the marsh discussing where they were going that it was confusing. Then once they started I still wasn't quite sure which direction they were heading, but from looking a the maps, the only logical direction and observable gap in the mountains was a Minas Morgul.
As I've said in the past, the story is everything for me, but pacing is important too. That is one of the reasons I can't read most 'classical' literature; it seems to be pages and pages of nothing happening. Just fancy people sitting around in fancy clothes having tea.
I do think LotR was a good story, even a great story, but I'm not sure I could have slogged through it without having seen the movies first. I think to some extent that is just a quirk of the nature of my reading habits. In a sense I can't abide books that get bogged down in atmosphere wherein the setting trumps moving the story forward. Though I would never put Tolkien quite into that category.
Oddly, a book that in a sense is very much an 'atmosphere' book is "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell". I say oddly because that conceptually is a book I should not have enjoyed; lots of atmosphere and a slow paced story, but I actually did enjoy it. Despite all the atmosphere I was captivated by the characters and the story did move reasonably fast.
Tolkien has certainly created a rich and detailed world, actually many rich detailed worlds, but for me there were many times when the detail slowed the story to a crawl. However, like many other books that slow at certain points, if I am sufficiently invested in the characters and the overall story, I can slog though it knowing that better times are coming.
To some extent I found that true with the continuation of the 'Enders Game' stories. At times they were painfully repetitive, but I cared about Ender and the other characters and they were far more important and interesting to me than any side track or distraction I may have perceived. Keep in mind that I love those books and have read them many times.
Part of my point here is to indicate that all authors are flawed, but if they have created interesting characters that I am emotionally invested in and have set them in interesting locations and given them interesting things to do, then I have no trouble over looking those flaws. In fact, they are minor to insignificant to my enjoyment of the books. So, yes, Paolini is flawed, but that in no way takes away my enjoyment of the books or my eager anticipation of the conclusion of the story. I'm especially interested in the resolution of the Murtag story line.
Lastly, I'm finding undercurrents of an interesting psychological phenomenon. Some people find a book they love, and they become so emotionally invested in that book, those characters, and that author that they will not read, and if they do read, they refuse to enjoy these other books out of loyalty to their favorite author.
Though I don't accuse anyone here, and like I said it is more of an undercurrent, but I get the sense that those who are fanatically loyal to LotR can't bring themselves to enjoy any other fantasy book like Eragon out of fear of betraying Tolkien. Trust me Tolkien would love it that you are reading and enjoying other books, even if those other books do, apparently to some, rip him off.
Still some people just don't like some books, that's more than fair. If you don't like Eragon/Eldest then you don't like it and that's that. I only ask that you give it a fair and unbiased chance. I gave LotR a fair chance and have no regrets.
quote:But I don't find either Ithilien or Cirith Ungol on my maps...
Look at the detail map of the area around Mordor. Ithilien is the narrow strip of land between Mordor and Gondor, and is labeled vertically. Cirith Ungol is labeled and marked with a tiny cross.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've devoured LotR at least once a year or so since age 7.
Eragon I kept losing interest in around chapter three. None of the characters seemed to have a real "voice" beyond that of the author.
I don't consider "simple" to be bad. Bland and poorly written though?
There used to be (and maybe there still is) a really priceless interview online where a ready-to-pop-with-enthusiasm Paolini was being interviewed along with Phillip Pullman and Tamora Pierce. Pierce and Pullman were giving very professional, intelligent, restrained answers. Paolini was going off like a firecracker, gushing all over the place, continually pointing out that some aspect or element of the other two's works was also in his totally cool books. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As I've said in the past, the story is everything for me, but pacing is important too. That is one of the reasons I can't read most 'classical' literature; it seems to be pages and pages of nothing happening. Just fancy people sitting around in fancy clothes having tea."
Classics in general are books that people liked so much that they last a long time and people from different times and places find them great too. So there's potential there for you to hook up with some really fantastic books, although they take a bit more of a stretch culturally and intellectually for you to "get" them.
Not all of them will appeal to every reader. I personally can't stand Dickens and don't see what other people see in him. But being an intelligent reader means stretching your mind to find enjoyment in a wide range of stuff. If I could somehow learn to "get" Dickens, it would be a good thing. It's true that Tolkien is cherished more by people who love good books, including those from other times and places.
You might try gradually reaching out to books that are a bit of a stretch for you, then when you find something you enjoy, go farther still. Reading should be about pleasure, not slogging through something you hate. But you're missing so much good stuff! I hope you can find a way to stretch your mind to the extent that you like more and more stuff, so you don't miss all those books that are so yummy and good.
posted
I won't insist that everyone must like LotR, but I will insist that the 'similarities' between it and Eragon are more than 'vague', to say the least.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though I don't accuse anyone here, and like I said it is more of an undercurrent, but I get the sense that those who are fanatically loyal to LotR can't bring themselves to enjoy any other fantasy book like Eragon out of fear of betraying Tolkien. Trust me Tolkien would love it that you are reading and enjoying other books, even if those other books do, apparently to some, rip him off.
And yet even though you say you aren't accusing us, you imply it pretty heavily in the next few sentences.
I can't believe you have the temerity to post that here - a place where we endlessly discuss post-Tolkien fantasy series we have read that we adore.
I haven't met the Tolkien fan yet who didn't enjoy other series, or felt that people writing after Tolkien were guilty of "ripping Tolkien off" Maybe because Tolkien himself "ripped people off" and didn't consider it a bad thing.
In short, none of us cares if someone writes fantasy that owes homage to Tolkien, because in a sense ALL fantasy owes homage to Tolkien. We just get churlish when someone does so badly like Paolini.
It's not some uppity loyalty to Tolkien that keeps many of us from enjoying Paolini, it's the fact that Paolini is a poor writer.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well since we're apparently exchanging not-accusations about 'fanatical' fans, I'm 'not accusing' you of being such a fanatical fan of Eragon that you don't notice how bereft of original ideas or compelling characters the stories truly are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bella, Kwea, and I suspect I should throw Tom in their too, this isn't just a phenomenon that I see here in this group. Though I should say that it was a qualified statement, and couldn't apply to you unless you are self-defined 'fanatically loyal to Tolkien'. I see it in the 'real world' too.
For example, my sister and her son are HUGE Eragon/Eldest fans, but they won't read Harry Potter despite how popular it is, and despite that they can buy the books individually for about $7.00 each, or for that matter, they could borrow them for free. And while they don't say it, I get the sense that subconsciously they can't bring themselves to love another character as well as the love Eragon.
Really, we are talking about something that I perceive as being subconscious in some people. Certainly not true of all fans. I like Eragon, but I don't want to marry him. The same is true of Ender, Bean, Petra, Harry, Ron, Murtag, Frodo, Samwise, ...; I love them all, and feel that love for those characters and their stories very deeply, but I'm not 'in love' with them.
I'm more than willing to reach out to new characters and new stories like Fletcher Moon, Artemis Fowl, John Mandrake, Joey Margolis, and even oddballs like Ignatius J. Reilly. Mainly the story has to be interesting and it has to keep moving, and it has to make me care. If I don't care about the characters or their stories, why am I wasting my time.
As I already said "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell" is a book that on the surface I shouldn't have liked, but I did. It walked a fine line between atmosphere and keeping the story moving. It's not one of my favorites, but I did enjoy it. So, I'm more than willing to try new things.
The problem I do have is that I can't afford to buy books I don't like, money is too tight for that.
Lastly, if Paolini is such a bad writer then why do millions love his stories? Bad writer or not, he still tells a rousing good tale, and for me, that carries a lot of weight.
quote:Lastly, if Paolini is such a bad writer then why do millions love his stories? Bad writer or not, he still tells a rousing good tale, and for me, that carries a lot of weight.
Why do you hold that up as a standard? Readership isn't an indicator of writing quality in either positive or negative directions. Lots of people read and enjoy and even believe in the National Enquirer, does that make it journalism? Lots of people loved and love Dickens, does that mean he was a good writer?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Though I don't accuse anyone here, and like I said it is more of an undercurrent, but I get the sense that those who are fanatically loyal to LotR can't bring themselves to enjoy any other fantasy book like Eragon out of fear of betraying Tolkien. Trust me Tolkien would love it that you are reading and enjoying other books, even if those other books do, apparently to some, rip him off.
Steve/BlueWizard
This sounds a little upside-down to me. It's more likely that LOTR fans tend not to like Eragon because these books are very different rather than too similar. Likewise, someone whp likes Eragon might object to HP's more whimsical tone.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you understand, Rakeesh? Making lots of money=Quality of content.
And if something makes money and you don't like it, the only possible reason is that you're a spiteful snob who hates fun things. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: There used to be (and maybe there still is) a really priceless interview online where a ready-to-pop-with-enthusiasm Paolini was being interviewed along with Phillip Pullman and Tamora Pierce. Pierce and Pullman were giving very professional, intelligent, restrained answers. Paolini was going off like a firecracker, gushing all over the place, continually pointing out that some aspect or element of the other two's works was also in his totally cool books.
quote: The problem I do have is that I can't afford to buy books I don't like, money is too tight for that.
Well, thank the skies for the wonderful thing we have in this country called the public library. For those of us still in school, we have a school library. If we're near colleges, or the state capital, we even have those libraries!
Ah, library books! I can check 'em out. I can crack 'em. I can devour 'em. I can love 'em and read 'em, or I can hate 'em and return 'em . . . heck! I can even return 'em late without the .05 a day I used to be charged for overdue items two decades ago! I can even go back to the library and try the same books over and over and over again.
What bliss. How cost free. Well . . . except for transportation, of course. But! I can bike there. I can walk there. I can skateboard or rollerblade or run there. I can grab the public bus for .75 one way. I can carpool. I can drive my own car, if I have one. I can drive my parent's car, if I have earned that privilege from them.
And if I really, really, really, really like the book I borrowed from the library, I can save my change and eventually buy a new hardbound copy, a new paperback copy, or haunt my local used bookstores for a used hardbound or paperback copy. Heck! My local used book store even has trade-in credits!
Yippee! So many options! I love it!
So -- really. No excuses for not trying something new, except you don't wanna -- and really, that's A-OK with me. Everyone has the right to pass. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lastly, if Paolini is such a bad writer then why do millions love his stories? Bad writer or not, he still tells a rousing good tale, and for me, that carries a lot of weight.
Because we're already familiar with it, as most of us have seen Star Wars or read LOTR. We can easily identify something that we've already seen, so it doesn't matter how well or poorly it's dressed up, we already like the story!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because they don't know any better Sorry, someone had to say it.
I think you're right but only in a non-mean way. They don't know any better out of ignorance, not stupidity, if that makes sense. Many of the Eragon fans have not actually read any good fantasy fiction, so they are immediately drawn into this world because of some of the things that make fantasy so great - worlds with dragons, magic, and interesting character types.
Once, however, those readers get ahold of good fantasy, with fewer cliches and much better dialogue, I think they will recognize Eragon for what it is.
Remember Terry Brooks' Sword of Shannara series? I loved it as a kid. It was what defined fantasy for me. Until I found real fantasy and realized how bad it was. I think a lot of Eragon readers will have similar experiences.
It may not be Tolkien that they find and enjoy later - he's not for everybody - but it may be some other great fantasy, like George R.R. Martin, or Lois McMaster Bujold. Then they'll look back at Eragon and say "I used to like this? "
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paolini is a bad writer obsessed with his own narrative voice and vocabulary.
Tolkien is a good writer, obsessed with the narrative voice as a matter of scene and atmosphere. If you don't believe it, check out the enormous narrative differences between the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. (Or, between the Shire chapters and any chapter that includes Aragon or Legolas)
I don't really like either book, but Eragon is tremendously bad writing. I think the plot, stripped of Paolini's stylistic offal, is a romp, though.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R, I know you really believe what you are saying, but I'm sorry, I simply can't see it.
"Paolini is a bad writer obsessed with his own narrative voice and vocabulary."
OK, we can debate the 'bad writer part', but 'obsessed with is own narrative voice and vocabulary'. So, really, Tolkien is not 'obsessed with his own narrative and vocabulary'. I find that hard to believe. The long overwrought hyper-Shakespearian monologs would seem to indicate otherwise.
Not accusing you, but some people seem to have the attitude that Tolkien can do no wrong, though certainly I wouldn't be one of them.
On the other hand, clearly Paolini needs to grow as a writer, but still, I couldn't really see anything wrong with his books, and am amazed and baffled when I hear people make claims that Paolini is a terrible writer.
Again, millions of people thoroughly enjoyed his books and his story, I being one of them. An engaging well paced story with vivid believable characters and places, and lots of action, adventure, suspense, and mystery.
I simply can't understand how millions of people can be so thoroughly enthralled and captivated by such alleged 'bad writing'? Trust me, I've read bad writing, even good-bad writing. If you want bad writing, read the Alex Rider Series. Though let me say, that I am in no way prepared to worship Paolini nor will I firmly uphold his infalability.
But to the story itself, beyond minor criticisms that I can find in any book, I really can't see anything wrong with Paolini's writing or his story. I found the characters engaging and believable. I found the dialog and narrative styalistically consistent, contained, and appropriate for this type of story. Tolkien is the one that I thought over did it.
So, I'm not saying anyone is wrong in their criticism. I am merely saying that I am completely baffled by it. There are frequent claim that is dialog is overwrought (or similar), but it seems completely appropriate to the story, consistent (stylistically) and easy to follow. Paolini's dialog seem very and reasonably contained; Tolkien dialog seemed excessive on several fronts.
Further, I never once got lost (geographically speaking) in Paolini's books, but I did several times in the LotR series.
Finally, I am not here to tear down Tolkien, in his own style, he has written a fabulous and timeless adventure. What I am really saying is that I'm just totally baffled by the extent and extreme of the criticism of Eragon/Eldest, because I simple didn't see it in his books the way people are presenting it here.
Finally, finally, and really finally, as to the criticism that I, and others, like Eragon/Eldest because we are either too stupid or ignorant to know better, I completely reject that. (Although, I do understand the context of that statement, and take no offense in it.) That is just pure Cow Cookies, Meadow Muffins, Road Apples, Bull Dung. A good story is a good story, and that is that.
I would never say that there aren't better writers and better stories than either Paolini or Tolkien because there probably are; there most surely are. But when I hear someone make a statement like this, I can't help but wonder if they are a fair judge of a good story. I can't help but personally wonder if they are not slaves to hyper-pretentious, self-indulgent, literary-critic-approved, can't- think-for-themselves, hate-everything-that's-popular readers.
I'm NOT saying YOUR ARE THAT, I saying I can't help wondering. Really, no offense intended. It about what I'm thinking, not about who you are.
quote:A good story is a good story, and that is that.
Not if it's told badly. You seem to be saying the story is the thing, and style is not important - Paolini's work is good because the story is good. Well, I reject that. There are lots of great stories out there, the trick is not telling a good story, it's telling a good story WELL. That's where Paolini falls down.
Truly, do you want me to quote examples of where I find Paolini's dialogue childish and mind-numbingly bad? Because I can. Do you want me to quote passages from Tolkien's work that are heart-stoppingly beautiful? Because I can.
Can I find places where Tolkiens writing is stiff and some stretches a bit boring? Sure. But here's the thing - I can find NOWHERE in Paolini's fiction where anything is so well written I find it worth quoting, worth remembering, worth memorizing. Whereas with Tolkien, there are dozens of passages that are worth it. Places that move me to tears even though I've read it a hundred times before. Paolini's writing doesn't move me at all. Not one bit.
Your backhanded slams at those of us that don't like Paolini are tiresome. You couch all of them with language like "Oh, I'm not REALLY saying you're like that...but I can't help wondering." At least be straightforward and say what you mean.
And, by all means bring to the table some proof. Start quoting some of Paolini's work you find well-written - bring to us some dialogue you find riveting and prove to us he can write characters with depth. I'll happily pony up the Tolkien quotes to hold down my side of things.
Or if you're content with taking passive aggressive shots at us, then by all means. I'll just retreat to my ivory tower and read my literary-critic approved fiction and look down my nose at you because you like "popular" fiction. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are frequent claim that is dialog is overwrought (or similar), but it seems completely appropriate to the story, consistent (stylistically) and easy to follow. Paolini's dialog seem very and reasonably contained; Tolkien dialog seemed excessive on several fronts.
Further, I never once got lost (geographically speaking) in Paolini's books, but I did several times in the LotR series.
Let me reiterate: Paolini wrote a children's book. It was easier to follow and easier to read and easier to mentally navigate because it wasn't as complex.
Lots of books are easier to read than Lord of the Rings. And lots of books are harder. That isn't a comment on their quality.
You should try Joyce's Ulysses some time. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And for the last time...IT'S NOT PAOLINI'S STORY! You keep defending the story, which he clearly borrowed from others. If the story is the best part, and the rest is weak, then you really aren't doing him much of a favor, except to say that he's not that bad at not screwing up other people's ideas.
So, allegedly Paoline ripped off Star Wars; know what - I don't care.
So, alledgedly Paoline ripped of Tolkien; know what - I don't care.
Some say that Shakespeare wrote every story ever told, and that all others after him, are simply creating variations on his themes. And you know what - I don't care. A good story is a good story. I don't know what you read, but I read a good story.
The sense I'm getting is that many people are rating these books against some alleged literary standard. In case you haven't guessed - I'M NOT.
Here is the most important measure to me, was it captivating and interesting, and did I care about the people? And guess what, it was and I did.
I really don't care about pretentious impressions of alleged literary quality. I care about whether I read an entertaining captivating story - and I did.
On one hand, I'm somewhat self-conscious about my comments because I suspect I am coming off as a Paolini fanatic - I'm not. I simply enjoyed the books, and even after several reads, I simply can not see the criticisms that are leveled against him. Other than some minor criticisms, which I've acknowledged, and of which I can find similar problems even in the best of books.
I'm not here to praise Paolini or to condemn Tolkien. I'm here to say that when I find a good story and enjoy it; I'm happy and satisfied. And when I find people who vehemently condemn that story; I am utterly baffled.
OK, some of you simply didn't like it; I get that. But by the same token, some of the criticism seems a little over the top (here and in previous discussion).
A few last point-
Easy Reading - There is a difference between having to pause to check the maps to gain a point of reference, and having to stop and do research just to figure out where the heck the story is going.
I don't consider forcing me to stop because the narrative is so confusing I can't figure out who is going where as good writing style. And even after extensive examination of the maps, still not having been able to resolve the question. That massive break in the flow of the story, is not what I would call good writing.
Keep in mind that was only in a couple of places, and mostly it was resolved by simply continuing to read until it became clear.
Passive-Agressive Comments - Hear and think what you will. But I made it clear that my statements were about my thoughts and impressions, and not about other posters. Those are my valid thought upon reading comments, and most important of all, I own those thought. But, I also acknowledge that my thoughts don't create reality. Consequently, I retract nothing.
Paolini vs Tolkien- I'm not against Tolkien, but I feel uneasy when I bump up against what appear to be Tolkien fanatics. I see Tolkien's flaws, but I also see the quality of his story.
I'm not a Paolini worshiper or Paolini fanatic, but I thoroughly enjoyed his books. I don't consider them the best books I've ever read; but none the less, satisfying and enjoyable. Despite enjoying them, I can still see minor flaws in Paolini's style and writing, but nothing more than minor. Nothing more that I can find in virtually every other books I've read.
So, I guess the line has been drawn, you didn't like it, and I did.
quote:There is a difference between having to pause to check the maps to gain a point of reference, and having to stop and do research just to figure out where the heck the story is going.
This is neither here nor there, but I think you're drastically overstating the importance of maps. I've read a great deal of fantasy that didn't provide maps at all. Hell, I've read a lot of history books where I wasn't 100% sure of the geography of the area, and it has never effected the story. They tell you where the different groups are going, and frankly cartographic knowledge of the area is fairly low on the list of important things you need to know to keep the story going. Maps are a fun addition to a story and can make following along a little extra fun, but for the most part they are hardly necessary.
Don't take me for a Tolkien fanatic, despite the fact that I'm listening to the Complete Recordings of Fellowship, I'm in the middle of "Knife in the Dark" in Fellowship, and I have half a dozen Tolkien books on my Christmas list...okay scratch that, I guess I probably do qualify as a Tolkien fanatic, but I think I'm a special case. You'll find plenty of people on Hatrack who love LOTR but find the Silmarillion and such unreadable, whereas I think they more enjoyable that LOTR itself. But I'm weird, and reading an Elvish history book is how I get my kicks
Anyway, my point is despite that, I've actually spoken up for the Inheritance Trilogy on this thread and elsewhere on Hatrack. I DO think he more than borrowed from Star Wars, I think he took the entire basic plot and swapped it into fantasy mode, and a lot of the names and place bear striking resemblances to Tolkien names, I can think of at least one that is exactly the same. But I also think it's a fun story, in the same sense that I think some of the not as good Star Wars books or Tom Clancy novels are fun, but not terribly well written, and I don't care that they aren't literary masterpieces because I still think they are fun, and I reread them from time to time for the heck of it. And I am awaiting the final book in the Inheritance Trilogy, and not just because I want to see Eragon Skywalker defeat Emperor Galbatorix Though I proclaim here and now, if he has the help of ANY woodland creatures, I'm never reading it again. You'd think he'd have the sense to at least take what good Lucas gave to the world and leave the Ewoks behind.
I'm not sure what you were really setting out to accomplish in this thread thoug Steve. It looks like you were, from the start, setting out to defend Inheritance specifically from Tolkien fans. Those fans have arrived, and when you've assaulted Tolkien they've defended it, and I think very fairly (myself included) pointed out the obvious and glaring flaws in Paolini's work. Your defense seems to be "So what? I still like it!" Isn't that sort of the point where we've all reached an impasse?
I think we're one step away from sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NOT LISTENING!" Well, actually this is online, so I guess that's sticking our fingers in our eyes and yelling "NOT READING!"
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some say that Shakespeare wrote every story ever told...
Shakespeare often used stories that existed long before him. Creating new content wasn't a big requirement of the time. People liked to see familiar stories they already knew done well. That's where Shakespeare wins. He told the same stories really well with layered characters, dirty jokes, blood, violence, and drama. There was something for everyone at the time. (Not so much now with the funny language and wordplays that have to be explained.)
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some say that Shakespeare wrote every story ever told...
I don't know who you're listening to, but Shakespeare didn't write anything truly original. In fact, much of his stuff was purely ripped off, not that it was a bad thing for the time - no such thing as copyright, after all. Or standardized spelling, which makes things really interesting if you go back and read folio scans.
Again, I'd love to see you bring some things to the table you think are indicative of Paolini's talent, so we can discuss them. That's what us literary-type snobs like to do - look at the text itself and draw conclusions.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is the most important measure to me, was it captivating and interesting, and did I care about the people? And guess what, it was and I did.
Here's the problem: I had already read the writings that Paolini was 'borrowing' from, so the characters weren't captivating and interesting, and I didn't care about the people or the story. Because I'd already read the completed version.
Perhaps if I hadn't, I would've enjoyed Paolini more.
And as for LotR being confusing...I'll give you his writing style in quite a few places, but geographically? Come on, man, if you can't follow that you're just not paying attention.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, like I said, the lines are clearly drawn and are not likely to change; so be it.
One small minor point to Lyrhawn -
"This is neither here nor there, but I think you're drastically overstating the importance of maps."
It has nothing to do with maps, that merely illustrated my point.
What it was really about is -
"That massive break in the flow of the story, is not what I would call good writing."
It is especially about that when I can see how that particular scene could have been written with more clarity and without stylistic compromise.
I could have just as easily used the illustration of Tolkien's many overwrought hyper-Shakespearean monologs. When they are so long and overwrought, and hyper-Shakespearean that I am draw out of the story, then I say that is bad writing. Keep in mind that hyper-Shakespearean as they all were only rarely was it enough to pull me from the story.
As to 'borrowing' from others, it's not that I just don't care, but there is a reason I don't care, and that reason is everyone borrows from everyone.
Take the mentor, for example, that is found in nearly every movie (or book). With cop books and shows, it is always the rookie and the veteran. In kid movies there is always some eccentric but kindly adult to help out. In fantasy, there is always a Gandalf, Dumbledore, Brom, etc.... That's not 'ripping off' that is just a natural characteristic of the genre. There is always a wise mentor, and that wise mentor always dies before his time. That is why Gandalf seemed to die, that is why Dumbledore died, that is why Obi-Wan died, because that is how the story always goes. The hero always has to take on the burden before he is ready.
To some extent, that is the very essence of 'genre'. In the cowboy genre, there are alway black hats and white hats. In the suspense genre, you alway know who did it an wonder if and how they will catch him. In the mystery genre, you wonder who did it and how they will catch him. In the cop genre, it is alway one to two good but rogue cops against the world.
I mean really isn't every cowboy movie essentially the same moive (or book)? Isn't every mystery essentially the same mystery and the same story? Yet each author or screenwriter tackles the same-old-story from a new and unique perspective, and that is what I'm looking for.
I already know that virtually all fantasy writers are writing the same story, so I really don't care about that aspect. What I care about is how uniquely they interpret the story, and how well the present it in their own perspective.
As an example of a classic genre movie, how many have seen the independent film 'Brick' with Joseph Gordon-Levitt?
On one hand there is an interesting story, but on the other hand the director is consciously trying to create a movie the blends genres. He started out with a conscious intent of blending a gritty old fashioned detective story with a high school setting. I already knew that going into the movie. But because it is well-crafted, for an independent film, I'm not drawn out of the story by the directors stylistic choices.
This particular film successfully blend many genres into a interesting quirky suspenseful movie.
My central point is that everybody is ripping everybody else off. Everyone is following the frame work of their genre. I don't care that they do it, I care that they do it successfully.
Someone mentioned Orcs, by his own admission, Tolkien got Orcs from 'Beowulf'.
George Lucas drew his inspiration from -
"...inspirations for his films, for example the novel Watership Down and the critically-acclaimed Dune. Lucas acknowledges that the plot and characters in the 1958 Japanese film The Hidden Fortress, directed by Akira Kurosawa,..."
"...also played a role in the conception of Darth Vader, ... intentionally resembles the black kabuto of the arch-villain in Kurosawa's Seven Samurai."
"Another influence in Lucas's creation of Star Wars was the writings of Joseph Campbell. ... Lucas has stated that his intention was to create in Star Wars a "modern mythology" based on Campbell's work." (all quotes - Wikipedia)
So, again, the reason 'I don't care' is not that I am stubborn, but because I don't see that it matters at all, if the result is a good interesting story.
Some would say that Lucas in Star Wars simply retold the standard cowboy movie with spaceships, or the generic 'Knight in Shining Armor' with spaceships. Some would say that Luke Skywalker is merely Frodo with a spaceship, or that Frodo is merely Luke with a horse and swords. And don't think for one second that Light Sabers were an accident. I mean sword fighting Space Cowboys, if that isn't an obvious, and slightly hilarious, blend of stereotypical genres, then I don't know what is. And you know what else, like I said, I don't care. Lucas blended his quirky mix of genres brilliantly.
So, for me, it doesn't matter if Paolini ripped off Star Wars. If he retold the story, I think he did it in an interesting and captivating way, and that's all I ever wanted.
Some of you didn't like Eragon/Eldest, and that's OK, because not everybody like everything. Minus my criticisms, I DID like LotR, but question whether I could have liked as well as I did had I not seen the movies. I still find it a hard slog and confusing in places.
I've read Eragon/Eldest several times and enjoyed it every time. I also agree with the standard and somewhat uniformly accepted minor criticisms of the story, the style, and the author. But at the the major and extreme criticisms, as I've said before, I'm baffled.
posted
Paolini read like an RPG to me... except he wasn't rolling the dice to get more interesting plot twists, to make the adventure less predictable.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I could have just as easily used the illustration of Tolkien's many overwrought hyper-Shakespearean monologs. When they are so long and overwrought, and hyper-Shakespearean that I am draw out of the story, then I say that is bad writing. Keep in mind that hyper-Shakespearean as they all were only rarely was it enough to pull me from the story.
[...]
Someone mentioned Orcs, by his own admission, Tolkien got Orcs from 'Beowulf'.
I'm sorry, I've been staying out of this so far because I haven't read anything by Paolini.
But Tolkien isn't "Shakespearean." He hated Shakespeare. He was an Anglo-Saxonist. He was writing in the tradition of glorious epic poems, of myth. Some people can't stand his style. I happen to really love it - I love epic poetry, Welsh myth, all those wacky rhythms and patterns. I also happen to like Shakespeare. But Tolkien is not Shakespearean. What he is doing is far older and grander than Shakespeare.
If you don't like epic style, hey, not everyone does. But that doesn't mean it is bad. It's just a different style, voice, etc.
And he may have borrowed the word "orc" from Beowulf, just like he borrowed the names for almost all the dwarves in The Hobbit from the Prose Edda, but he didn't borrow the concept or character of orcs from Beowulf. There aren't any goblins or goblin-like creatures in Beowulf.
I was 12 when I first read LOTR. Most of my siblings got into it around that age. I never heard that any of us ever had trouble following it on the map. It's honestly not very complicated or difficult. Stilted dialogue is far more likely to yank me out of the wonderful suspension of disbelief.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Easy Reading - There is a difference between having to pause to check the maps to gain a point of reference, and having to stop and do research just to figure out where the heck the story is going.
I just want to say something here:
Steve, if you're finding yourself lost and confuzzled at points throughout the story, then... just allow yourself to be lost and confuzzled. This story is written from the point of view of the Hobbits. And they understood nothing of the wide world outside the Shire. Heck, they didn't even understand everything *in* the Shire outside of their own lifetimes.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's great to have you here.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
"
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
