Eragon, the first book, was a good book. Very much cliche and not entirely original, but fairly well written - for a fifteen-year-old. I figured, that with a few years more under his belt, Paolini would easily blow me away with his next book, if he could do so well with his first. However, I was wrong.
The book begins on the wrong foot. It introduces a crippling feature of Eragon with absolutely no explanation of why or how it affects him in that way. Although some could argue that it would be explained in the third book, I doubt that greatly - as it was taken care of so that the last hundred-something pages of the book had him free of it, it's clear that it won't be returned to.
Then even worse, the death of the Varden leader, Murtagh, and the Twins. Poorly written and not felt at all. It was too sudden and improbably to look even remotely realistic, and then our heroes and absolutely everyone wise around him jumps to the conclusion that they're dead because there's a pit they could have been thrown in to. No one even considers the possibility that they're still alive - which I myself figured out as soon as it happenned.
Then there's the general predictablity of the book. Murtagh being Eragon's brother, the whole thing behind that - half the people who read the first book figured it out before Paolini published the second one. Then there's Nasuada becoming the next leader of the Varden. Heck, I'll betcha right now that Orik becomes the king of the dwarf clans.
And is it just me, or does the character Arya bear a remarkable similarity to the character Arwen?
Also, Roran's story, while it started out well, became more and more unbelievable. Is it just me, or does it seem that no matter what they do, they'll never lose even a single person? Or that they're somewhat invincible, or that every time they need a diversion of sorts it's there?
But worst of all was that the the book seems to follow a formula - in both books, 'horrible occurance and painful death in the beginning,' 'training throughout most of the middle,' 'all of it leads up to a final battle between the Empire and the Varden, and the Dwarves can help too,' and 'in the end, Eragon battles his greatest foe of the book while he is weak and although he wins to a degree he has lost a great deal and will pass out after the battle.'
I just didn't expect the book to be that bad comparatively... ...and I don't know why it was recieved so well by fans. I hate to be a downer, and please, don't think I came to an Eragon forum just to chastise you, but I wanted the real opinions of the fans in the face of the evidence.

I see your points. About murtagh and twin vanished, I always knew that they weren't really dead. I too would like to conclude that they were kidnapped, before we knew they're traitor. Eragon once wondered he thought that "urgals can follow ajihad in the tunnels without any warning; it's not possible" so i concluded there must be traitors who helped clear the way --> it turned out to be murtagh and twins. We all knew that the council of elders longed for power, so when ajihad dead and the rest gone, they didn't waste time to speculate, but try to take the throne of the Varden. Therefore, eragon "pushed" to believed that.

About Nasuada beeing the Varden leader, I have a scenario involving murtagh and her (it's a long story, you may check it out on the topic "What happen with Murtagh and Galbatorix" on Book 3 session) maybe its true, maybe not. But i bet she will role some game on the 3rd book.

As for Carvahall, they lost enough civilians on the war, even children. And i say Paolini did a good job picturing the transformation of Roran.

As for the training... yes! This one i agree with you, it's kinda boring in the middle about those training. But this way CP floor us the background of Eragon's world itself. It's a strong foundation not many writers succeed in doing it (As for harry potter books, JK Rowling never explain why there's magic and why some muggles could do magic, and what it takes to perform a magic, and why any student can say 'Avada Kedavra' and nothing would happen in result.)

I say, overall, I would prefer Eragon to Eldest, because while reading Eragon I feel like I was playing an RPG game. The essence of adventure tasted really good in book 1 but in book 2 it's a little bit... well, not so much. About the storyline too, more adventure happened in book 1 than book 2. Book 2 maybe a little bit full of naration and description of things, explanation about places, history, cultures and the training itself. I'm not saying it's not good, it built our understanding about Alagaesia. Some people may thought this boring, some may love it.
[/i]

I DEEPLY disagree with your point of view, Ryu Gaia. I was blown away by the art and talent with which Christopher Paolini painted every scene and detail with words. I have read both the books 5 times and have not tired re-reading this trilogy.

wow how could anyone not like the books. They are by far my favorite book along with Pierce Anthony and i read alot

well you wont need a explanation as long as you read book one, so i disagree with you

Your fanatascism is applaudable but misplaced. If there's a series that's truly amazaing, it's not Eragon, and it doesn't have to be written by a fifteen-year-old to have marketting credibility - The Death Gate Cycle. There are better books in fantasy than Eragon, which is merely a pebble along the way. Not a very polished one, either.



It's not that I dont like them, but rather that I don't think that they're all that good comparatively. Paolini is okay, but not great. It's somewhat sad that he's being idolized as he is, while the rest of the fantasy genre - the good stuff - slowly succumbs to the ravages of time.



It's not that I thought it was boring. If I was comparing it specifically to Eragon, yes, I would have thought 'boring,' perhaps, if something that good of it. But I'm comparing it to books like "The Death Gate Cycle," and the "Ender's Game" series. Not in plot, but in development and writing style.

The first rule in criticizing any book, movie, music or other works of art including things on the internet regardless is if you can write or make this better....... Then why didn't you in the first place?

Even if you have read thousands of books and you like certain books over others because it is your preference, this does not mean that it could have been written better or written worse and had the same effect. It was written what it was at the time for good reason. Writing is a story line that a lot of the things that go into the writing are off the basis of the writers thoughts and feelings at that certain point in their life experiences. If everything were to be edited to your liking and compared to the best writers in the world then all stories would be the same and nothing would be even remotely unique. Just think about it

Eragon was an amazing book with the character Depth and the detail that was given to the point that you weren’t bored and the fast moving pace after the Raz'ac come.

CP's Writing did improve in the second book. It didn't get worse. You have to remember who is writing the story.....it is not you the criticizer but the writers thoughts your reading. If you have a problem with it.......then why didn't you write it first? seriously. I bet if you were to write a book it would be a disaster. There is so much that goes into projects like this that to write like this is a gift from birth not anyone can do it WELL out of no where. Also if everything were explained then it would be a never ending book. The reason I say that is because everyone finds things they wished were explained better, but none of these are in the same spot for the most part except for maybe a few. Since everyone that reads this book is drawing meaning out of the text in different ways based off their different life experiences of what they know....nothing can truly be criticized without it being just grammar rules. He can write what he wants. Some like it some don't. It is all preference.

Also when you read the first book it was new to your mind. When you read the second book it was not. In the first book you were just amazed. In the second book you got bored and had nothing better to do, but pick it apart. Also why everything just so happens to flow at there figure tips is because the story must go on! Not everyone likes Romanticism or Realism writing where everything happens normally and everyone ends up dying because they are not so fortunate. I hope you see what I am saying.

"You have to remember nothing is original. Not even The Lord of the Rings was completely original. Ideas of types of literature were made long ago and to this day are used in common themes. Literature that was written long ago was based upon the types of writings people liked to read back then...the Type of writing may have faded out for the time but it is not gone completely. All ideas in writing aren’t completely original and most are borrowed from so many others. There are only so many ways you can write a conflict in a story. It is the setting and characters and emotions shown by there individual personalities and the scenarios that are created that can be different from book to book and writer to writer. What Chris has done with his ideas is truly amazing though. His writing; like he says holds one of the types of literature our new generations enjoy to read the most and that is " The coming of age type of stories" Literature themes like Romanticism and Realism are just examples of types of writing themes that have come in and faded out, but not completely. I enjoyed Eragon and Eldest so much that I have read them several times and “Book talked” his books to so many people. It feels good to give him the recognition he deserves for his great accomplishment of writing a wonderful amazing book at 15 years of age."

Even with everything that I have said above, I appreciate your differing viewpoint/perspective. We grow through self-analysis and reflection, and it is good to thoroughly look at other peoples' work. It is always easier to point out weaknesses; we are trained to do so from the beginning of our lives. I encourage all to look at the strong points and if you are to take a condescending view, do it with the understanding that for your complaints to have merit, you will have to accomplish the same feats as the source, in this case the author. Once you have published your own books and placed your writing/ideas in the public eye for all manner of criticism, then you can legitimately criticize those that are now your peers. Thank you for your view, it only makes my appreciation stronger.

Pete

why are you on this site if you dont like eragon? i loved it i was almost the best book iever read so...

To HitNRun: Actually, I am writing a book, partially in response to Eragon just to prove that I can do it better. I'll post the first chapter here when I'm finished with it, I've been spending the last two weeks writing and polishing it. I'm going to spend most of the book on character development, because the plot is somewhat cliche - but not in any manner resembling Eragon's plot. As for my opinions on Eragon's character development, I'd say it's shoddy at best when compared to some of the books that I've read. And please, don't think that I'm saying that just because it's my opinion, but if you read some of the things that I have, you'll realize it too.
Ah, and as for why I didn't write it in the first place - I don't particularly like the concepts involved with the book.

To Roran Stronghammer: Well, for two reasons, really. Partially because in order to battle an enemy, you must understand them first, and I see why you're all so impressed with Eragon and Eldest - because you haven't yet seen all there is to fantasy. The other reason is to show you the way, so that you can see the greater scope and the true masterpieces of the genre.

so you consider us enemy? why, how come im confused?

I was speaking metaphorically.

Harry Potter was supposed to be the best read for young readers, it did not impress me very much, but still I think anyone who can write a book is awsome, I dont go to Harry Potter forums and critisize the book, you do not have facts that prove the book was poorly written, you have opinions, one wich most of the people here will dissagree with no matter if you get a signed document from the the greatest book critic in the world. So since you were looking for other peoples opinions on yours here are mine:
Both books were great
Eragon is cursed by the dark spirits that controled Durza and thats why his back hurts him, I admit it took some imagination to think up a reason but who minds that. A nearly all powerful dragon droze the lesser spirits curse from him and gave him a blessing aswell.
Of course the ambush is realistic, the Twins hid the Urgals until they were in a position were the death of the Varden leader would be demoralizing. It did happen rather fast but thats what ambushes do. Of course I figured the Twins were evil and probably still alive, no effort was made to make them seem remotly good in anyway wich i dont mind at all.
So what if readers predicted Murtagh was Eragon's borther, I was surpirsed by the amount of stuff he had gone through, I didnt think a dragon egg would hatch for him,or Galby would make him swear oaths and all that.
Of course Orik will lead the dwarf clans he is the old Kings adopted son because he didnt have an heir.
Arya doesnt at all remind me of Arwen other than the fact that they are both quiet. Arwen embraced the love of a human and di no fighting or magic while Arya rejects Eragon (so far) and is a warrior and powerfull spell caster.
Oh my, what a shame Roran and the villagers were not plagued by death along the road, you know that totaly ruined the book for me
The training I found as an interesting part of the book and the battle was great, exept the part were a weakened Eragon was defeated.

Like I said your evidence is mere opinions everyone has them
Also if the book you have deemed good Enders Game is anything like Enders Shadow it would bore me to sleep, but thats my opinion

o ok srry if i sounded rude

Ok well if you can do so much better and have the brain of a 15 year old and publish it and get just as many if not more people to buy your book and read it and have fox even make a movie out of it also then I will believe you.

Your reasons are not good enough.

If fame is what you want in this world then good luck. This is not the way to do it by saying you can do something better.

But I will give you this warning:

If you try to fit in with this world, you become invisible.

If you try to be different from this world, you get the joy of being ignored and you become a world outcast that none believe or care to talk to because your passion towards peoples works are so negative.

If you become famous you will become a puppet who is told what he or she can and can’t say to the public to keep your job. You can’t win either way.

What a waste of time since you are not in any way open to suggestion and have a closed mind.
If I am ever blown away by someone’s reasoning against something I say, I will at least consider it.

And if it is that good I am not afraid to admit I was wrong. Why because admiting to something that you didn't know that you were worng to is what builds character.

This comparison is over because I say it is over.


Locked