I don't envy writers who don't write well and sell in spite of it. Elizabeth Moon I envy. Jacqueline Carey I envy. I pray to some day write as well as either of them.

I actually, as a writer, rather pity Mr. Paolini. What motivation does he have to do the hard work needed to improve his writing? The money would be nice though.

Edit: I am always bemused by the accusation of "envy" of someone whose writing I think is poorly done at best. What the heck would you envy about that? I WANT to not write well?

I envy Paolini's success. I am impressed that a 16-year-old wrote a book as good as the first one. As good as it was for a 16-year-old, it isn't a great book. And the second is worse. It's like the kid took all the stories he liked and put it into one book and called it his own. At the end of the second book I was like "yeah, you gotta go save Han Solo (his cousin's wife in this version), but you better go ask Yoda (the other 'last rider') why he was holding out on you. Why didn't Yoda want you to face your father (yep, his secret, unknown father/bad guy)?"

I'm anti-Paolini because I see him on the bestseller list and he's not any good. The kid could probably be good with some work, but why work when success is given you? I mean, the kid makes the commitment to write two long novels. That's great. But now he needs to work on his own ideas. The problem is his audience doesn't know that what he's written is a rip off of everything else.

Ah, wouldn't it be nice to have that kind of money without actually having to learn how to write well, or learn to create stories that make people want to read them?

I don't think it's "another person's success" so much as it is a "undeserved success", from what I'm reading here. I've never seen anyone here get worked up over, for example, OSCs success.

Success, as I understand it, came after a larger publisher came across it on his own and liked it, offering to buy it or re-publish it or somesuch.

They are enjoyable enough to read, give or take, and I'm obliged to respect a success story like his (for a young author) glad to see it is possible -- credit where credit is due and all that jazz.

But the Inheritance "cycle" 's success is disproportionate with its ingenuity. Rather it is wildly successful and doesn't have much of an engine under its polished hood.
Which--incidentally--it's not that polished. It's like watching a Datsun 210 win a drag race. Or the Astros win a world series...hehe...

These books certainly don't deserve to add another one, less two. Adding a fourth is likely the result of bad planning on the part of the author who probably didn't know how to wrap things up. (Also known as the George-Lucas Syndrome.) Or else a greedy publisher who realizes his market is predominantly a rich ocean of prepubescents who are more interested in dragons than stories.

I am happy to hear about Paolini's success, and I mean that sincerely good job mate! (Provided there isn't some sort of strange karma that makes it so there isn't enough success to go around, and better deserving work goes unappreciated.)

However, I think there is a plethora of Hatrackers who have demonstrated at least as much (probably more) creativity as Paolini.

You simply lack his opportunities, or else the iron balls it would take to march around in a homemade suit of armor trying to promote a book you just printed out on a lazerjet and illustrated in crayon.

More power to him though.

As for an Inheretence cycle? Urk. Please pass that bucket. *pukes into bucket*

But it does bring up an interesting discussion topic. What recently published works aren't derivative in one way or another? Some to lesser degrees than others sure, But wouldn't you say that what we see, read, and hear is the true basis of the stories we invent? Or more to the point... Our creative works are all derivative of our lifes in some way or another. Unique is a rare quality of todays SF/F, at least in the basic plot line. The most uniques things I've seen have been in characterization.

One can accept that without also pretending that there are no flaws in his writing. They were excusable as a fifteen-year-old; he's twenty-two now, and the fact that he hasn't honed his craft in that time is disheartening and opens him up to criticism.

I read them because I wanted to figure out what made him a success. Was it the writing? No. It was his determination to put his work out there. I don't recall the exact number, but he set up somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 readings. He was persistent.

quote:

---

Yes, his parents owned a small publishing company, but it never did well despite numerous signings and conventions.
Success, as I understand it, came after a larger publisher came across it on his own and liked it, offering to buy it or re-publish it or somesuch.

So I don't think connections had anything to do with it, if I understand the story right.

---

THAT was the reason Knopf picked it up. Connections had everything to do with it, and it is one of the reasons he is so soundly dispised. Do YOU have parents (or other relatives) able and willing to pay for that kind of print run and pay for the enormous traveling it took to do that? He didn't have to "put it out there." His connections got it for him. Well that wouldn't bother me that much if it were even passably good.

And the book is more than just "derivative." As has been pointed out by a huge number of people, it is so close to plagarism, it's scary. Not quite--but darn close. Good lord, the mage blows smoke rings up the chimney? *rolls eyes*

I don't know anyone on this forum who doesn't show more originality in their work.

I find the work he did in Eregon forgiveable in a 15 year old. But the fact is that he hasn't grown in his work and has no reason to do so. And people are being fed this pap as decent fantasy! That's what ticks me off.

Well, the magazines do too so I sympathize there.

Edit: I know a lot of 15 year olds who sit down and write books. Most are rather derivative. But getting that first book on paper is an accomplishment. I give any 15 year old who will do it that much credit. Paolini has that much coming and frankly, until he does something as an adult with at least a modicum of originality, no more than that.

And annepin, when I was reading my PW this morning it just hit me wrong so I posted what I was thinking about. It's not something I'm going to spend a lot of time on. But extending a rather poor trilogy to a CYCLE? I mean, give me a break.

But I did read them (from the library... I wasn't about to buy them) to try to decide if they were popular just from the "written by a 15 year old" hype (long since no longer true) or if there was something there that attracted readers. Seriously, they are close to the most poorly written fantasy I have ever read and very much the most derivative (I am tempted to call them plagaristic even though technically they aren't plagarism). They make Goodkind look like a fount of originality.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited October 31, 2007).]

quote:

---

Hm, well, I guess I jumped to a conclusion there. I just couldn't, and still can't, figure out the point in getting upset over another person's success. My philosophy is just to keep my head down and keep on writing what I'm writing.-annepin

---

quote:

---

saved myself the upset and only wasted an hour and a half of my life by watching the movie. It could be labeled a comedy. The moment he walks into the creepy village I said "where's the fortune teller?" Sure enough...not a few minutes later and there she was.

---

[quote]I think alot of people are hypercritical of Paolini. In all honesty He has accomplished more than I ever have. Just being able to come up with a story and put it all down on paper is admirable.

But it does bring up an interesting discussion topic. What recently published works aren't derivative in one way or another? Some to lesser degrees than others sure, But wouldn't you say that what we see, read, and hear is the true basis of the stories we invent? Or more to the point... Our creative works are all derivative of our lifes in some way or another. Unique is a rare quality of todays SF/F, at least in the basic plot line. The most uniques things I've seen have been in characterization.

Give the kid credit where credit is do I say. [quote]

Yep, I give the kid credit. He had the attention span to sit down and write two 500+ page novels. That takes a lot. He had the dedication to tour through school libraries and conventions pushing his book. That takes a lot too.

As has been said, nothing is new. All the ideas out there have been used, its the spin we put on them that make them new. But little that Paolini does is new. In fact, just about every element comes from something else, with very little new 'glue' to hold it together. His work is just a mediocre copy of better men's (and possibly women's) work.

I give Paolini credit, but not much.

I also get tired of the excuse that goes: "He's pretty good for a fifteen-year-old." Maybe, but that doesn't excuse anything. Who prints a fifteen-year-old? I didn't know the publishing industry had a sliding scale for age. If you're young you have an excuse to be crap? Well, maybe I should invent the pen-name Dristopher Caolini, put on some dorky glasses, get a bad haircut, and tell everyone I'm 15. Maybe I'll make it then!

There are many formulas to becoming a published writer. The best one I've come up with is this: Write the best stuff you can + a whole lot of luck x a butt load of persistence = a published novel.

quote:

---

(Provided there isn't some sort of strange karma that makes it so there isn't enough success to go around, and better deserving work goes unappreciated.)

---

This is somewhat random, but humor me for a moment. There is only so much success to go round. I have limited free time during the year, therefore I'm only going to buy a limited number of books during the year, therefore the bookstores are only going to order a limited number of books a year, therefore publishers are only going to print a limited number of books during the year, therefore publishers are only going to buy the rights to a limited number of books during the year, therefore there is a limited amount of "success" to go round.

quote:

---

...therefore there is a limited amount of "success" to go round.

---

TheOnceandFutureMe,

Ah, I see you have the makings of a natural-born economist.

Your point is true, only a finite amount of books will be published, and it is likely that any given book that is published is a representation of whatever other book would have been published instead, in other words opportunity cost.

But--let's take it a step further. Harry Potter, for example, might have displaced some other would-have-been published book(s), but it also inspired countless people to read and read more often. Leaving them hungry to find something to read. This induces demand, which signals the market to increase production, which yields a greater quantity supplied. In other words through Harry Potter's success, it can be argued that other writers were given a chance at success that otherwise would not have. I can't prove it, but the math is sound.

On the other hand, which there is always another hand, a particularly terrible book might reduce demand for more reading if it gave the reader a bad experience and he swore never to read again. But such a book's effect on the aggregate level is probably immeasurably small.

So, I'm making the assumption that the number of people who find a good book and are left hungry to read more is a greater population than the group of people who read a bad book and quit reading altogether. In addition I think good books are disproportionately read than bad ones. (Though Eragon is counter-evidence to this.)

So, my ultimate conclusion is that if you are submitting a book to knopf publishing and they really liked it and would have published it, except now they're giving Paolini a fourth book contract instead then yes you bear the cost of his success.

quote:

---

Maybe after kids read the first one, they went looking for more fantasy and found it? I'm sure most bought book 2, then realized how it wasn't as good as fantasy by good authors.

---

Hmm. That seems true. However, even if an immensely popular book generates more business, all that does is create more "success" to go round. There is still a limited amount. I agree that a single book makes very little difference. I'd think about this more, but I should get to work on my nanowrimo novel.

quote:

---

Which brings me to my point. If it's acceptable to crit published works here, why don't we do more of it? It's not just how to improve our own writing, important as that is. It's also a question of how the established writers, even the bad ones, managed to get there, and what can be learnt from it.

---

quote:

---

Christopher Paolini's Inheritance Trilogy, the first two volumes of which have sold 12.5 million copies worldwide, has officially become a "cycle," with Knopf's announcement this morning that there will be a fourth novel.

---

I doubt there is anything cyclical about Paolini's books. Not unless the fourth book leads back into the first. And the overall time line is a loop... hey maybe that's the kind of ingenuity he needs to save his series from future obscurity!

Genuine ignorance here. Don't know enough about the eragon stuff.

PS: If I had a 'hand-up' in the industry would I grab it?
With both hands! (and teeth... and eyelids)

Also I watched the announcement video on paolini's site. It was pretty comical. he tells us his motivation was that he made his book too long and didn't want to cut anything out. (Bad planning) and admits to bad outlining and excuses as a product of his youthfulness with a wry smile. At the end he tries to hook us into buying his next book by telling us (paraphrasing) "I started off book 2 by having a main character die, and so I thought it'd be really great if I had a main character die at the end of book 3. That that'd be the perfect ending. But I won't tell you who, you'll have to read it yourself..."

This feels like a rookie mistake to me, but I suppose I can't talk because he's published and I'm not. But dammit I'm going to talk anyway . I think this is a cheap and shallow way to hook readers. And when the devoted readers get to that part of the book, when someone's life is in the balance, the suspense just won't be there. It's hollow. And it's bad marketing, I think. If your characters and plot can't hook me after two books, a contrived and well-advertised character death isn't going to do it. Maybe he thinks it worked for deathly hallows, but even if it did it isn't likely tow ork for him. Or, at least, it shouldn't. This sort of tactic shouldn't ever work.

quote:

---

"So why did they make it a movie if it was so bad a book?"

---

For the same reason Hollywood makes all of its movies. Its the money, honey. While Hollywood may be full of "artists" like screenwriters, actors, directors, special effects artists and so forth, it's business people who make the decisions.

So, after the success of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, Hollywood has realized it can make money off of fantasy. The executives don't know a thing about plot, story, characters and so forth. All they see is "big budget fantasy flicks make money."

By that time, the author had an agent who pitched the idea to movie executives. All they saw was "big budget fantasy flick" and thought, "Make money!" And they did. They didn't look at whether the book was good, they looked at the sales. (And that's a reasonable guideline from their perspectives.)

According to RottenTomatoes.com, only 18 of 114 critics liked it.

It grossed around $75,000,000 US. (The estimated budget, according to IMDB, was about $100,000,000. So it doesn't appear to have made any money.)

Of course, that's a somewhat lighthearted take on the process. For me, seeing the trailer with the dragon-riding kid shouting, "Let's finish this!" was enough to convince me I wouldn't like it. When I finally got around to watching it, I was right. I did chuckle at what were likely meant to be important plot points.

By comparison, the most recent Harry Potter movie had an estimated budget of $150,000,000 and has so far grossed almost $300,000,000 (and I don't think its out on DVD yet.)

I think the big budget overhead keep them from making too many of such movies, but they do see them as lucrative. Basing movies on popular books gives them a built-in fan-base, which they see as a guaranteed ticket-sale minimum. (That applies to any movie. It's surprising how many are based on novels but don't push that point.)

I am envious! I toil and struggle to masque the inspirations in my art, so they do not receive the dreaded "derivative" badge. This yokel watches Star Wars and reads Lord of the Rings and does what MOST of us did, and writes a THINLY veiled and painfully inspired novel, BUT!!!

But! His parents, savvy publishers and possibly deranged, decide to polish it a bit, and shop it around, with no success, I might add!

Then they publish it from their own house with a little additional polishing, note this story by a 15 year old has now undergone 3-4 years of polishing, and is NOWHERE near as impressive from a college freshman as a HIGH SCHOOL freshman.

Anyway, they publish this HIGHLY polished work, scary to think they "polished" this soooo long, and it receives so-so acceptance. It takes off when a larger publisher is looking for something to capitalize on a trend and the rest is history.

I will say that the first book seems LESS plagiarized than the second, which says alot...

So in closing, yes I am envious and jealous that someone that brings nothing to this genre/industry/art, has received such success.

Paolini may take this early encouragement and write better stuff later on. There were no online forums in Hinton's day so the abuse couldn't go as public as that on Paolini.