I'v borrowed the book from a friend and read it.. Thinking a bestseller must be good , but i was dissapointed . For one , the whole world of ''aglasia'' is a bastard child of middle earth , without its depth . Almost none of CP's ideas are new , all borrowed from someone other author and used to fill his book . Even the plot isn't original , it closely resembles that of Star wars ( the first trilogy) .. What shocks me is what can pass as good writing these days , any 15 year old can take up a pen or keyboard and produce something of this calibre, and outsell people who actually devote time and effort into creating something fresh and original . Writing is no longer an artform it seems , rather a way to make easy money. The only thing i can give CP credit for is his easy-to-read writing style , aimed for those who don't usually pick up a book ,and the younger audience . Anyone else cares to comment on this book or what it reveals about the market for writers?
Posted by strangenotions (Member # 3525) on :
I completely agree. I am 18 right now, however at the time I read Eragon, I was around 17. I was desperately trying to write a story that I could sustain for longer than ten pages or so and decided that I would read Eragon in order to find out what CP did right with his book. I mean, after all, it did get published and was a best seller. I read the book, and was struck by how badly it was written. I mean, it was an entertaining idea perhaps, however certainly not a classic. Also, if you're going to have an orc-like evil race acting as your bad guy's main army, don't call them Urgles. It just sounds silly. Anyway, I finally finished it and started to read the inner fold about the author. In it, I discovered that CP's parents are publishers. I don't know if that's how he got published, however I bet it certainly didn't hurt.
Posted by First Assistant (Member # 3458) on :
Most conversations about published books belong in "Discussing Published Hooks and Books." Sometimes a topic will start here about a general writing question which uses a published book as an example.
Posted by Swimming Bird (Member # 2760) on :
Books like Eragon (Aragorn?) being best-sellers is reason in and of itself to be a misanthrope.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Well, I heard or read the writer had "connections"...his parents were in some way connected with the publishing industry, and this got the first book through the door and into the office.
I've always found that kind of thing profoundly discouraging...especially since I don't have those kind of connections and probably wouldn't be able to make use of them if I did...
Posted by spcpthook (Member # 3246) on :
I read that he originally self published this and then spent a lot of time and effort touring the us promoting his book at schools for the most part and then he got picked up by a regular publisher after he had sold enough copies. I haven't read the book, but from the rumor mill this success seems to be largely due to marketing--which of course brings us back to mom and dad had money to make it happen.
Posted by pantros (Member # 3237) on :
Wasn't Eragon the dragon in Joel Robeson's books?
Edit: Nope that was Ellegon and the author was Joel Rosenberg.
[This message has been edited by pantros (edited June 28, 2006).]
Posted by LibbieMistretta (Member # 3496) on :
BARF! I HATED this book.
I did the same as you. I am a big NPR listener, and it was being raved over on the radio one day, so I added it to my list of books to get. I made it about a third of the way through before I had to quit in disgust. It's the most hackneyed, trite, overdone fantasy I've ever read. I was able to predict *every single* plot twist, and even the ending (I skipped ahead and read the last dull chapter once I decided to put it aside forever). I finally put it in the break room at work with a note on it: "PLEASE TAKE THIS BOOK. I CAN'T STAND HAVING IT ON MY DESK ANYMORE."
I think the reason I hated it so much is because I wrote fantasy when I was 15 or 16, too, and it sucked equally as badly as Eragon. But I never tried to get it published, because I knew it sucked. If I'd only known that I could have published it anyway, and that I could have been a bestseller...! The knowledge of what I've missed out on made me all road-ragey.
Oh, well. Now I can differentiate between quality can non-quality, so if I ever do get published, it will be because my manuscript lives up to my own standards, and therfore, DOES NOT STINK LIKE ERAGON. If I never make a bestseller list, who cares? At least I didn't write Eragon!
As you said, the world is DULL. It's all been done before. However, I thought it was a pale imitation of the Wheel of Time universe with none of the depth, which itself is a pale imitation of Middle Earth with maybe a sixth of the depth. The characters were all your standard "orphaned boy discovers he has magical qualities and must save the world" or "odd old man has lots of arcane knowledge but you just can't tell why SURPRISE TWIST: HE'S REALLY A WIZARD!!!!" or whatever. OH ALSO IT IS A TRILOGY! WOW, THAT'S ORIGINAL!
I hate the book so much that my friends like to torment me by sending me articles about how successful Christopher Paolini is. Maybe you guys think I'm reacting with too much vitriol here, but believe me, nothing sets me off like the mention of this crummy series. ARRRGH!
I read somewhere that the book was originally self-published (funded by his parents, who sound like overachievers-by-proxy, making their kids do incredible things even if it might damage their careers later), and then the parents media-whored it to death until it started selling (mainly on the point that it was written by a teen-ager) - then they got a house to pick it up for an "official" edition. I can't remember where I read that, though, so who knows if it's true?
I do know that I hate that book, though.
Posted by trousercuit (Member # 3235) on :
According to Wikipedia, the first novel was published by his parents, but Alfred A. Knopf bought it and rights to the sequels when it became popular.
Posted by MaryRobinette (Member # 1680) on :
<yawn> Another trash a bestseller thread. Don't we have a separate forum for this?
Posted by trousercuit (Member # 3235) on :
The "Trash a Bestseller" forum? Yeah, I think we need one of those. It'd be kind of like the "Rants and Raves" forums I've seen on other bulletin boards.
Posted by luapc (Member # 2878) on :
I know what you mean, Mary. It seems that everytime a book does well, a lot of people want to point out errors in it, or explain away the success. Instead, I think as writer's, we should be looking for what is right about the work, and try to emulate some of what made it a success. I don't think trashing success is constructive to a posative writing career. I just hope that some day I have the opportunity to be trashed like this over a best seller of mine!
Posted by trousercuit (Member # 3235) on :
Get the experience early. Post on Fragments and Feedback.
/ducks
Posted by pantros (Member # 3237) on :
luapc, the problem is when people realize that the skills they have cultivated as a writer do not seem to be the determining factor in becoming a best seller. And it is that small percentage of poorly written best sellers that get discussed here.
There are Thirty Five books currently on the NY Times Bestselling Fiction list. Not one of the books currently on the list is being discussed or has been discussed.
So that realization that the skills don't matter is likely false. Most writers become popular because they write well. A few manage to make it because, despite their bad writing, they are good storytellers. Once in a while we see someone who did it all through connections and aggressive marketing.
Posted by Swimming Bird (Member # 2760) on :
quote: Instead, I think as writer's, we should be looking for what is right about the work
Find me just two things he did right in writing Eragon?
No, never mind, find me one thing.
Edit: He got it published, is the best I can do
[This message has been edited by Swimming Bird (edited June 28, 2006).]
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Not every bestseller, or even every bestselling fantasy. J. K. Rowling seems to have gotten through the door on how good the first Harry Potter book was. (I enjoyed it, but haven't yet been motivated to read the others.) I gather she was unemployed, and probably unpublished, when she conceived the series.
Or at least I know of no evidence suggesting Rowling did other than any of us struggling writers would have done---submitting a story to a possible market. Anybody know different?
Posted by Swimming Bird (Member # 2760) on :
In J.K. case, getting an agent on only your second query letter helps a lot.
Posted by pantros (Member # 3237) on :
JK actually got an agent who got her book published through a house that usually did elementary school books. Her path to publication was unusual. The publisher had not previously published first run fiction so they likely had not seen many other fiction manuscripts before Harry Potter. But, the story seemed to be exactly the demographic they usually published for - school students, so they went with it. Their staff probably didn't include the kind of editor that understood what we understand to be the important skills of a good fiction writing.
Posted by trousercuit (Member # 3235) on :
But it sold like hotcakes, so what does that tell us about our skills?
I'm starting to think we put way too much emphasis on writing and too little on storytelling. Even here.
[This message has been edited by trousercuit (edited June 28, 2006).]
Posted by Swimming Bird (Member # 2760) on :
What element of the story telling was original to you, though? That's what I'm curious about.
It probably sold so well because the little kids who bought it had no idea where he ripped off so much of the stuff that kept them turning pages.
Posted by trousercuit (Member # 3235) on :
Oh, I haven't read Eragon. I was commenting on Harry Potter.
EDIT: I don't think "original" is the best criteria for the "people who don't usually read" or "people too young to have read much" markets. In fact, I'm quite sure I didn't mention anything about originality at all.
[This message has been edited by trousercuit (edited June 28, 2006).]
Posted by discipuli (Member # 3395) on :
Harry potter does deserve some credit , while her writing isn't top notch her stories are fairly original and not too cliche .. Plus she is extremely easy to read.. and she DOES try to instill some morality in younger readers ( racism --> anti racism) .
Posted by Shendülféa (Member # 2964) on :
Back to Eragon, I read the first few pages of it and couldn't bear to read much longer. His writing is horrible and there were so many rip offs from better stories that I stopped reading in disgust.
Now, I did not decide that I hated it because it has sold so well, but rather that it is, in fact, a poorly written, hackneyed story. I might bring myself to read the rest of it out of curiosity (and so that my friends stop pestering me), but unless his writing improves (and from the sounds of it, it does not), I doubt I will much enjoy it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't trash best sellers because they do well. Most of the time I like the best sellers, but, like Eragon, there are some out there that leave me perplexed as to how they sold so well and why in the world people actually like them.
Posted by MaryRobinette (Member # 1680) on :
quote:The "Trash a Bestseller" forum? Yeah, I think we need one of those.
Who was Rowling's publisher in the UK? I thought the "elementary school publisher" was Scholastic...but I also know they've always published fiction on a regular basis. I'd always assumed she sold her books to her UK publisher first...
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
I haven't read Eregon, so I have no idea what validity, if any, there is in the criticisms leveled against it here.
I have tried to read one or more of the Harry Potter books. I'm content to leave my comments at "hey, it's for kids, and the movies have been kinda fun." Of course, I haven't seen much of the last one...it looked fun, but I was tired so I went downstairs for a nap. Okay, it didn't help that I'd recently tried to read the book that one was based on and gotten a severe case of "don't care" about the story.
I think that there's a danger in worshipping at the altar of publication. First danger, and the one that affects most of the public, is the danger of thinking that a work has to have some kind of value to get published. This is simply untrue. Much that is utterly worthless and even destructive to real art gets published. Publishers are in the game to make money, not to promote the arts.
Second danger, and this is the big danger to writers and other artists once they realize the first danger, is thinking that being published and pleasing the audience have nothing to do with art. It is true that most of the very best art isn't hugely popular, and that most of the hugely popular "art" isn't very good, but that doesn't have anything to do with the relationship between art and the audience. Great art is all about speaking to an audience. It isn't about whether the audience is large or small, powerful or impovershed, old or young. It is true that art that truly touches the core of humanity will endure for generations and across cultures, because humanity has dominated the planet for millennia and will continue to do so for a few more years at least. But art can still be great even if it's for a very small audience, even an audience that is extinct.
It still has to be for that audience, though. Otherwise it simply isn't art.
[This message has been edited by Survivor (edited June 29, 2006).]
Posted by Heresy (Member # 1629) on :
Survivor, can I worship at the alter of your wisdom instead? Okay, so I'm kidding a bit in the wording, but I think you're so right that real art is about reaching the audience, most especially in writing. I try to keep that as my guide when I'm writing. I think that, in the end, even the editors are part of the audience, and if I can do the job of reaching the audience, then the work is publishable, if I can find the right home for it. In the end, that act of touching the audience is the important part. The rest should (in theory at least) follow. Idealistic, maybe, but it's what keeps me writing.
Posted by Eon (Member # 2270) on :