As for the similarities and monomyths... ever read Jung?
Indeed.
I guess I will just stop posting a reasoned argument against anything. If I cannot make it known to others that plagiarism is bad, then I suppose no one will understand.
When a person makes an argument, and I offer counter points, and they construe it as a personal attack, it exhibits a certain immaturity that makes it very hard to have a discussion.
I didn't once call anyone a name, nor did I say anything personal.
FlashMan posted an argument, which I found to be poor and illogical. I offered counterpoints, and pointed out where the post was either inconsistent, or I disagreed. Somehow, this post was interpreted as a personal attack on a person I don't knwo the first thing about.
Instead of referring to my argument, I, for the second time in this thread, was called a jerk. Instead of trying to defend an argument they made, I was called a name. Again. Wonderfully mature, and very constructive, I might add, to call me a name as a way to detract from my arguments.
Yes, name calling.
I have made a number of points in this thread. Those unable to grasp the concept of plagiarism, and unable to defend a work that has been labeled by a number of well known and respected critics as poor at best, have resorted to name calling in the place of an argument.
FlashMan: Show where I attacked you, and not your argument or the book. Show where I said anything about you personally and not the argument you made. You say I personally attacked you, but there is no point where that happened. All of my responses were to actual statments you made, hence the reason i quoted them all.
You have also made the statement that I like extremes, a wonderful leap of logic. If you think that about me based on a a thread on a single board, then you are using very limited data to reach that conclusion. Find my other posts here, at least.
You say you are not raising an argument, but you were responding to earlier posts in a debating manner. What did you expect? To make a post with a lot of assertions, and not be challeneged if someone else finds them faulty? We must be accountable for what we post, and what we say.
@Haun: I find it humourous that you had backed off of all of his points earlier in the thread when I refuted them to you, but rallied forth to support him now.
@Koldoon: I know you are saying that I should just not read the book. Certainly, it will be avoided in the future. But I don't like the plagiarism and horrendous prose of the author, and I am expressing this. The only reason I have returned to say more is because others have argued against my point, and I felt that I woudl like to defend and offer counterpoints. I don't see that as being bad.
Also, You can see earlier in the thread where I made my first post that I was relatively benign in my criticism. My ire was only raised when I have been called a name, TWICE, and both used that name calling as a support for their argument, somehow. So yes, I will get stronger in my wording.
Also, Koldoon, you said I might have a pass if I was an expert. I find that unfair; why are my opinions not valid if I am not an expert? Furthermore, I feel that the holy writ comment was unfounded. Just because I write well and have used my training in debate and argumentative writing to post, this does not mean I think of myself as "holy" or whatnot. It is very difficult to infer tone in my statements which are written only.
I'll say this to conclude: I dislike many aspects of the book. Aside from my own opinions, I have offered other people and references to back what I say. In return, I have been called a name, twice, and I have been accused of a personal attack without any of my text saying anything remotely personal. No one with an opposing argument has said anything beyond: 1. No one can be entirely original, or 2. He didn't rip anyone off. I have been accused now of a number of things, yet there is still no repsonse to the plagiarism accusation beyond "it's not that bad," "everyone does it," or "it is not the EXACT same." I am sorry I find plagiarism highly offensive, and damaging to the genre.
I am sorry some people feel that they should be able to say WHATEVER they want without having to own up to it, and that they shoudl be able to assert anything and not be called on it. I disagree.
If anyone wants to respond to the points I make about the book only, I hope you do, and do so with reasoned debate format. I would love to discuss it.
However, I doubt I will see anything other than more name calling, accusations of condescending sanctimony, or urgings to not express my opinion, as I have thus far.
Must you kep mentioning that film? *shudder* It had so much promise...*sob*
And for all the vitriol tossed around the thread, I laugh becuase I fear Eragon will be just as bad.
Luke- Take a deep breath man. Your opinon is as valid as anyone elses. But to be fair, your post came across a bit heavy handed. Not that you are wrong to have your opinion, or even that your opinion is wrong.
Granted, I think some of the names you mentioned may be a bit of a stretch, but some of your other points are valid. Or valid enough to be considered.
my comments are specifically about the book, not the movie, "Eragon"
Indeed, Terry Brooks has created a derivative of Lord of the Rings. However, in Terry Brooks' world (granted, he has numerous books set in the world at this time), he explored and expanded the world to make it his own. One that fans are greatly committed to.
Chris Paolini has not had to opportunity to flesh out his world to the extent of established writers. With only two books written, the Eragon world still relies heavily on outside influences to support the imagery that the readers will understand and relate to.
Continuing to compare Brooks and Paolini, both have chosen the innocent hero thrust into a world-altering situation. Both employ the common themes of elves, dwarves, and dragons (to name a few). Magic is powerful, yet uncommon. To this point, I think that there is no specific plagerism or copying; these are common themes in fantasy writing.
The road to publishing may be a more interesting story. While many fantasy authors well-known today struggled in the early writing years, Paolini was able to employ a short-cut. He had his book published in a limited run by a Publishin House. Do not get me wrong, if I finished a book, I might pay to have it bound in the hopes that it would be purchased and read.
***Opinion***
Where I feel that the audience is being cheated with the Eragon franchise is that it is not being allowed to mature before packaging it for mass consumption. The world has not grown beyond the borders established by the original source material, and with the movie, it is being required to be consumed in its immature state.
What I am saying is that Eragon, as a world, is still too young to be made into a movie. That is has only underscores the fact that the story is still too close to the materials that it is derived from -- namely Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and King Arthur.
It is unfortunate that this promising fantasy world will, very likely, be cut short before it has time to reach its full potential. The movie was sub-standard as an introduction, and the books will be churned out on time rather than quality product.
Eragon is Dragon but you advance the D up one to an E. The moment I first saw the book title I did that math in my head and a friend said, quite mystified, "Wow. You got that?! There are dragons in it, but not until the later on do you learn blahbiddy blahbiddy blah..."
...
...
Um... yeah, guess I'm a mighty big genius? :\
And as for Luke raging on the project...
ERAGON scrambled is RAGE ON if you move the E up three places.
See? It was designed by the author himself to be raged upon.
Luke I don’t know why I was mentioned in your last post. A man of such study rallying against personal attacks, like you, would not do such a thing. Me rallying behind FlashMan might be funny to you, but Mr. Fleeman what does that have to do with the very serious topic of plagiarism you have been talking about this whole time? NOTHING!
I also never agreed with you just understood that I was being a little hot headed and that by doing this I said "When your right you right" "I'm sorry Luke" to back off and not fight a more intelligent person off and lose sleep about if the guys reading my post on paizo now think I am dumb.
But I did rally behind FlashMan because he articulated what I could not, and that he stood up to you when I backed down so yes Mr. Fleeman laugh away at me! For supporting someone who I think supported my view dead on!
You are more mature right?
How odd. My post in this thread was posted successfully hours ago and I return to find it somehow devoured. Strange magicks afoot!
Here's sort of what I'd said, not that it's particularly worth repeating:
Eragon is just Dragon but you advance the D up one to an E. The moment I first saw the book title I did that math in my head and a friend said, quite mystified, "Wow. You got that?! There are dragons in it, but not until later on do you learn blahbiddy blahbiddy blah..."
How did I get that? I got that because I am Wile E. Coyote, Supra Genius!
And as for Luke raging on the book... ERAGON scrambled is RAGE ON if you move the E up three places. So if we follow the author's own alphabet play formula we can clearly see that the title was actually designed by the author himself to be raged upon. We're getting into some Da Vinci code business up in here.
Ahem.
I would warn against this series, if you are big on Originality, Anti-plagiarism, and fantasy's history.
[snip]
I totally agree 100%.
I have not read the books - but I had heard that the author "borrowed heavily" from other popular works. But I think I went in to the movie pretty open-minded. The way this story copies LoTR and Star Wars is almost comical. He didn't "borrow" from these materials, he used "cut-n-paste"! Now, I can't say I wrote a book at 17 - but if I had used this guy's method, I think I probably could have. Oh well - at least he left out the Ewoks (or were those in the second book?)
:-b
Luke -
I didn't say not to express your opinion.
I said it might serve you better in getting constructive arguments to be nice about it.
I've been reading these boards long enough not to belabor the argument further. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't trying to tell you to shut up or be quiet or anything beyond perhaps giving some conscious thought to the tone with which others might read your post, and a general plea to be nice about calling people miserable plagerists.
Working at a college I am sensitive to the offense of plagarism, but if Eragon could even remotely be eligible for such a claim, no reputable publisher would have touched it with a ten foot pole (or a ten mile one for that matter). Therefore I would hesitate, personally, to call it a plagarised work unless I had definitive proof.
Your posts, whether intentionally or not, come across as mean. I'm not a pro PC vapid liberal, but I value civility and felt you crossed the line of civility in your post. I'm a big believer in free speech, even rude crass free speech. I am one of those crazy people who believe censorship of things like the 'n' word, or any number of other perjoratives is bad for the public good. I also believe that no civil person would use such words in their perjorative context. That's to say, I don't believe people should say something in a mean way if there is a perfectly acceptable polite alternative that fosters civil discourse.
If you wish not to be called a jerk (not a term I used, and I believe I owned up to the fact that I felt you were being unnecessarily mean without name calling), you might consider not taking action or posting in such a manner that opens yourself up to such a claim.
Sometimes you are one of the most articulate people on these boards. This thread is not such an example.
- Ashavan
I have to agree with one thing, your 'tone' in your post does come across as self-righteous and mean. Like if Eragon killed your beloved dog when you were six and you have hated him for it ever sense.
That being said, I did read one of them sights, and found it interesting, however I begin to think to myself.
George Lucas is a money-grubbing scoundrel, and if Eragon really did plagerize from him, he would have certainly already sued and the mass media would have railed this kid by now.
Also, I haven't seen much about the author since his first book came out and all I know was from the 'higher' ups at the bookstore I worked at.
Granted, maybe he wasn't very original, but A) I believe that it was said right that no self-respecting publishing company would come anywhere near him if he did plagerize, and B) he would have already been sued by atleast one of the people )or their estates) that he has been claimed to have plagerized.
That being said, I will still probably end up reading the second book eventually and seeing the movie, and playing the video game... When is the D&D campaign coming out again? [There is not D&D campaign slated for release in the world of Eragon so back off fanboys!]
I have to agree with the haters on this one. I only read the first volume and was subjected to yet another yokel pig boy of high destiny taking on a Dark Ruler. It was derivative, cliche- ridden, with errors in basic writing one wouldn't let slide in a book report, never mind a bestseller. I've not been this uncomfortable since the romantic dialogue in Attack of the Clones.
As a book written by homeschooled prodigy whose parents are publishers, it's a triumph. As a free standing piece of fantastic fiction, it's just embarassing and gives the genre a bad name. Where is the Elric Movie? The Amber Movie? Hell, even a decent Earthsea movie?
And to answer those who say there is nothing new under the sun, no, this wasn't just simple derivation. It was a cut and paste job of every piece of fiction and pop culture the "author" was exposed to. The arguments Jungian archetypes may carry some weight, but if you are going to steal from the best, at least don't look like you're doing it.
Middle Earth had it's root's in Anglo-Saxon Sagas and wove a rich and satisfying tapestry. Alagaësia, on the other hand, is an polyester Elvis Velvet painting.
The thing is, I'm sure the movie will do fine, it's Big Mac Fantasy: big, bright, tasty and pushed by a massive corperate machine that doesn't want you to think about it too much, and it'll probably leave you with the same guilty, slightly nauseous feeling
Here endth the rant- my own secret shame is bad fantasy movies- Hawk the Slayer, Krull, Willow. I may pick Eragon up in a bargain bin in about two years, but I doubt it.
SORRY- PREMATURELY POSTED- THIS WAS THE FULL TEXT
I have to agree with the haters on this one. I only read the first volume and was subjected to yet another yokel pig boy of high destiny taking on a Dark Ruler. It was derivative, cliche-ridden, with errors in basic writing one wouldn't let slide in a book report, never mind a bestseller. I've not been this uncomfortable since the romantic dialogue in Attack of the Clones. And at least Lucas had the manners to plagarise himself for the prequels.
Christopher Paolini may not have known it, he may have thought that his new world was fresh and exciting. It's not- it's a cobbled together mess and skirts between plagarism and just derivation that one hardly knows where to look next. Terry Brooks grew into his fantasy world, making it his own. Paolini doesn't have this luxury, so it's tough when he grows up as a writer in public. I can understand that, but it doesn't excuse his mistakes.
As a book written by homeschooled prodigy whose parents are publishers, it's a triumph- a real doozey. As a free standing piece of fantastic fiction, it's just embarassing and gives the genre a bad name. Where is the Elric Movie? The Amber Movie? Hell, even a decent Earthsea movie?
And to answer those who say there is nothing new under the sun, no, this wasn't just simple derivation or similarities. It was a cut and paste job of every piece of fiction and pop culture the "author" was exposed to. The arguments of Jungian archetypes may carry some weight, but if you are going to steal from cultures, at least don't look like you're doing it. Remember when Homer Simpson got to design his dream car? This is the kind of unweildly mess we have in print.
Middle Earth had it's root's in Anglo-Saxon Sagas and Tolkiens own skills as a linguist, weaving a rich and satisfying tapestry. Alagaësia, on the other hand, is an polyester Elvis Velvet painting.
The thing is, I'm sure the movie will do fine, it's Big Mac Fantasy: big, bright, tasty and pushed by a massive corperate machine that doesn't want you to think about it too much, and it'll probably leave you with the same guilty, slightly nauseous feeling.
Oh, and Flashman, personal invective towards Luke Fleeman isn't a particularly effective or intelligent way to win a debate and invalidates your claim to being devil's advocate- it reduces the discourse to that of one baboon hurling feces at another.
I'm sorry, but attacking a critic of a piece of fiction is redundant- try defending the work instead. If it has merits, they should be apperant in your argument (I've yet to see it). Christopher Paolini is (now) a big boy and can take the blows. If not, he has no business being a writer- being a paid creative is laying out you innermost self to public inspection. If he can't take the sting of someone saying his innermost self is colonised by what he's read, then tough- he can cry himself to sleep on his big bed of money. And this ain't condescention- it's just life.
Originality may be non existant and just a case of hiding your sources well, if that's the case, then Eragon is an abysmal failure on even this level. The assertation that kids should be "determined enough" to plough through garbage to find a decent book is just silly. It's tough enough getting kids to read- do you really want an obstacle course thrown in? This isn't shortchanging children- who the hell wants to sit through a bad book, unaware that the world is filled with great writing to every taste, even bad taste? I hardly think reading the Harlequin catalogue in the hopes of finding the next Anna Karenina is worth the effort.
As to a previous argument that D&D is of itself derivative, I say yes and long may it be so. We all play so we can capture something of the wonder of those first great books we read- we all want to rewind from the Grey Havens or where ever and just keep going. D&D is the fufilment of the road going ever on.
At the end of the day, life is just too short to waste it on reading bad books, and hardly long enough to go wasting it on bad movies (more on that later). I gather that the movie cuts the book to ribbons- maybe it'll be an improvement, but if not, it'll just end up being another failed fantasy movie that no one will miss it.
Here endth the rant- my own secret shame is bad fantasy movies- Hawk the Slayer, Krull, Willow. I may pick Eragon up in a bargain bin in about two years, but I doubt it.
@My tone and posts:
My intent was not to be mean, but it was to be heavy-handed. I do feel strongly, and I said so. I do feel that I may have hardedned my tone once I was called names twice. I still feel this was unwarranted, and decided to take a hard line because of it. I don't think any tone warrants name calling, which is unproductive and does not help anyone.
I apoligize if it offeneded, it was not intended to. However, I will not back off of my extreme dislike for the book, and for its methods, because Plagiarism is a big deal. I have no problem with anyone on this board, or with their opinions, but I will continue to offer counterpoints where necessary.
@Plagiarism: I will repeat that I am not trying to be mean. But I am wording strongly, because it is a large issue. In my field, (History) Plagiarism is a cardinal sin. When you realize that a person who writes or creates for a living works hard, and that all they own is their words and thoughts, then you realize the importance of protecting that. Tolkien worked his whole life to create a mythology, and he deserves better than that.
@Other points:
Fishkun: I agree with the Brooks/Tolkien comparison. My invective is for Eragon. If Paolini rights the ship, and begins to write original fantasy of quality, I will give him his due. There is time, and I would give his future works a chance. But I cannot in good conscience give this book a pass from its sins.
Here endth the rant- my own secret shame is bad fantasy movies- Hawk the Slayer, Krull, Willow. I may pick Eragon up in a bargain bin in about two years, but I doubt it.
Bad fantasy huh? I strongly believe that Willow should not be in your list, it really is a good film.
Hawk the Slayer I saw once, and for a 70s 80s movie it was ok, it did have Jack Palance in it.
Krull....didn't it feature a spinning four bladed thingie?
On the whole "Jerk" debate:
I've read Luke's post and nothing what he stated warranted him being called a jerk.
I saw the movie with a friend who is as big into D&D as I am and my roomate who is not so involved in the fantasy genre, at let me say this...
"Umm... If Jeremy Irons gets magic from his dragon, and his dragon is dead, how can he still cast spells?"
"Shade huh? That's original!"
"Whoa, that dragon aged several hundred years cause it flew into a cloud! Killer!"
"Hmm, simple young farm boy goes into the woods and finds an artifact/sword/dragon egg/UFO crash/unconcious girl/monster? Then he has to journey far away?! And save a girl who he sees only in dreams? Wow you guys! This isn't Eragon! It's Final fantasy. Or Zelda. Or Earthbound. Or Star Wars. Or Dragonlance. Or Elminster book 1. Or god knows what else I can't think of."
"Dude, shut up. I didn't fork over 8.50 to hear your complaining. But you are right."
"I concur, and I didn't understand half the crap you said!"
The movie sucked. It wasn't future war bad, but I felt I was playing final fantasy 12 or some other rehash of the SAME OLD STORY i've been hearing since Breath of Fire.
"Why couldn't they take all the money that went into this and put towards...oh I don't know... Crystal shard movie?"
"Cause Eric, that would be cool"
So many better fantasy books out there that could of been made movies. Alot. I'll list them now.
Any Salvatore. ANY
A good hunk of Wiese and Hickman. Before all the good characters died off and were replaced with wussy kids of said characters.
Ed Greenwood has a couple good ones. Waterdeep would overtake this.
J King's Onslaught Cycle. MTG has some good novels behind it. Even if it is a horrid game.
Wheel of Time. Sword of Truth. My friend said Game of Thrones. Erm.... The something of Athuluas.
Please, don't support this rip off. It stunk worse than the LOTR movies.
Well, I can't speak to the book.
But I saw the movie last - prepared to be hugely disappointed - given the reviews on the board - but found I quite liked the movie. Again the movie - I have not read the book.
I have no problem with the farm boy rises to be a hero - no its not that original, but it is a "classic", MANY stories are common boy rises to his destiny.
I thought there were a number of elements in the movie that were original - dragons with feathers (actually made some sense to me), dragons as a source of magic for their rider, the aging of dragons - I thought all of that was kind of neat.
I also liked that the armor and weapons had their own style, and the interlocking metal pieces on fabric or leather might even work to some degree.
There were plenty of things I didn't like - but I can't think of a fantasy or sci fi movie that didn't even LotR - but people have bashed the poor thing enough.
As sword and sorcery on film goes I thought it was quite a bit better than the average.
As to Elric - well yes I would love to see Elric on screen animated or live action - but its a more complicated story not really suited to a 2 hour medium - Eragon worked in part - at least as presented - because it boiled down well to 2 hours.
Here is a another show of support for Mr. Fleeman. I don't mind a little "being mean" now and then. In fact, I think we need a little more of it.
P.S. Dragons with bird wings are still stupid.
They may be stupid - but they are original.
Besides "dragon feathers" would make a cool mild expletive, try it, "Dragon Feathers!" it really flows off the tongue.
Zombies are stupid - braindead - undead - and smelly too ;-)
|
I am noticing something in most of the posts by people who are hating the books. You guys are either trying to compare the author of Eragon to Tolkien or other world class writers OR I am hearing rumblings that he wasn't matured enough to write this (these) book(s).
On point 1.....He wasn't trying to be a Tolkien or a Salvatore or a Wells. He is writing novels for younger readers. I believe the target audience is 10-15 yrs old. I have tried to read the younger reader books that have been put out for Dragonlance and I can't read them. They are too immature for my taste. Doesn't mean that younger readers won't like it, and obviously they do or there wouldn't have been a movie made. Complaints about the world not being fleshed out....The Demon Apostle by R.A.Salvatore, not a very well fleshed out world in the first book, but a couple books later and it all works well. I like Salvatore but he is better when he doesn't need to fully flesh out a world (like when he writes in the Realms). Tolkien's world is great.....but a very hard read for someone 10-15 and may turn some off towards fantasy when they try to read beyond their vernacular.
Bottom line: The dude wrote a good young reader's novel, not a book to cater towards intellectual giants (not that the 2 can't mix, but assuming they do is ridiculous).
Point 2......Yes, he was young when he wrote the book. So what? His parents gave him a leg-up into the world of publishing. So what? His parents probably saw a blossoming talent and strove to nurture it and did everything in their power to help his talent be recognized. Sounds like good parents to me, not an automatic reason to denounce his works. Maybe some are a little jealous that he didn't "serve his time" and eventually create the next Middle Earth. Once again it is a younger reader's book, not Tolkien's little mind-romp.
I think most naysayers are trying to hold this book/movie up to the light next to LOTR and others and saying it doesn't measure up. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to be a fun, pleasant book geared towards young readers. I think it has pulled that off well judging by how well it has sold and that it was deemed popular enough for Hollywood to invest in making a movie of the book.
Kudos to the author and to all the "smart" people who are trying to judge this book according to how it looks next to world renowned worked of literature, try broadening your mind and looking at it in the perspective of a young reader not a super educated, seen every cliche' a thousand times, adult.
Also those who are beating on him for catching some breaks need to go cry in the corner about how their parents never nurtured them. The guy had connections and used them to cut a corner or two. Who wouldn't? Seems like a very petty reason to down his stuff.
FH
I am noticing something in most of the posts by people who are hating the books. You guys are either trying to compare the author of Eragon to Tolkien or other world class writers OR I am hearing rumblings that he wasn't matured enough to write this (these) book(s).
On point 1.....He wasn't trying to be a Tolkien or a Salvatore or a Wells. He is writing novels for younger readers. I believe the target audience is 10-15 yrs old. I have tried to read the younger reader books that have been put out for Dragonlance and I can't read them. They are too immature for my taste. Doesn't mean that younger readers won't like it, and obviously they do or there wouldn't have been a movie made. Complaints about the world not being fleshed out....The Demon Apostle by R.A.Salvatore, not a very well fleshed out world in the first book, but a couple books later and it all works well. I like Salvatore but he is better when he doesn't need to fully flesh out a world (like when he writes in the Realms). Tolkien's world is great.....but a very hard read for someone 10-15 and may turn some off towards fantasy when they try to read beyond their vernacular.
Bottom line: The dude wrote a good young reader's novel, not a book to cater towards intellectual giants (not that the 2 can't mix, but assuming they do is ridiculous).
Point 2......Yes, he was young when he wrote the book. So what? His parents gave him a leg-up into the world of publishing. So what? His parents probably saw a blossoming talent and strove to nurture it and did everything in their power to help his talent be recognized. Sounds like good parents to me, not an automatic reason to denounce his works. Maybe some are a little jealous that he didn't "serve his time" and eventually create the next Middle Earth. Once again it is a younger reader's book, not Tolkien's little mind-romp.I think most naysayers are trying to hold this book/movie up to the light next to LOTR and others and saying it doesn't measure up. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to be a fun, pleasant...
Sure, he caught a break, but just beacause he's the Tori Spelling of Fantasy literature doesn't give him a free pass- if it was put out by a local small publisher, it'd still be plagarism. None of the comparable books you mentioned were as guilty of this sin as Eragon.
As to the asseration that we're being too harsh in comparing him to some fantasy writers because he's writing for kids, doesn't hold up- Philip Pullman, Eoin Colfer and Gareth Nix don't seem to get the same abuse, and there's a reason for that.Jealousy doesn't come into this- he hasn't served his time and it shows. His parents may be supportive and indulgent, but this kind of nepotisim can ruin his talent at this formative stage too. I'm not in the least bit surprised that the sequel has been lambasted- like I said, growing up in public as a writer isn't easy.
The basic fact still remains- he produced a dervative piece of hack work.
To say that it was a book just for younger kids just does a disservice to them. There's enough intellectually empty garbage bombarding kids from every angle, we don't need to add to it by passing off a diverting piece of mental chewing gum as the next big thing.
Here endth the rant- my own secret shame is bad fantasy movies- Hawk the Slayer, Krull, Willow. I may pick Eragon up in a bargain bin in about two years, but I doubt it.Bad fantasy huh? I strongly believe that Willow should not be in your list, it really is a good film.
Hawk the Slayer I saw once, and for a 70s 80s movie it was ok, it did have Jack Palance in it.
Krull....didn't it feature a spinning four bladed thingie?
On the whole "Jerk" debate:
I've read Luke's post and nothing what he stated warranted him being called a jerk.
Yeah, Willow's on the bubble- good fun though.
If Disney ever tire of Narnia, another attempt at Pyrdain and the Black Cauldron would be cool- that's one pig boy with a destiny I could sit through.
Fakie, you have a point that we can't compare him to Tolkien, quality wise. I bring up Tolkien for the plagiarism issue. But past the plagiarism issue, I would offer this:
As a children's novel, it should still be good. Furthermore, it SHOULD be measured against others in its field, which include the Hobbit, Narnia, A Wrinkle in Time, Harry Potter and The Dark is Rising. He doesn't match up well.
Furthermore, I think it is unfair to allow bad writing and theft be lauded for creativity, and nto at least be countered with opposing facts.
|
|
As a children's novel, it should still be good. Furthermore, it SHOULD be measured against others in its field, which include the Hobbit, Narnia, A Wrinkle in Time, Harry Potter and The Dark is Rising. He doesn't match up well.
I read a few of the Harry Potter books and found them very hard to read because the writing style wasn't anything all that good. Narnia is a snore-fest to read for me now. It HAS been measured against others in it's field.....Best Seller. Somebody likes it enough that a huge amount of kids are reading it. That tells me that kids find it to be a good story that they can relate to and enjoy reading, otherwise it wouldn't have caught the attention of movie makers who were looking to cash in on kids wanting to see fantasy books they have read on the Big Screen. I, personally, find it hard to read because it is a juvenile book, not because the author is bad, a hack, a thief, etc. but I am an adult. I also find it hard to get into running around with Heelies on. Doesn't mean they are sucky designed rollerskate alternative.
All I am saying is that to see this work in the proper light, you need to see it from an unbiased viewpoint of someone within the target demographic, I.E. an 11 year old who likes faerie tales, magic, and dragons.The plagerism issue is simply a matter of using preconceived notions to get a point across. May as well accuse Tolkien of plagerism for stealing ideas from popular (and obscure)myths and legends. D&D Monster Manual stole all kinds of monsters from folk tales and legends and nobody is yelling foul over them not adding in lil' footnotes about where they stole the Tassaraque from. It is a none issue.
FH
|
I also find it hard to get into running around with Heelies on. Doesn't mean they are sucky designed rollerskate alternative. FH
Are Heelies those weird shoes I see the kids in the mall wearing, with the little wheels on the bottom? Man, for some reason it freaks me out when I see them roll by on those things.
|
|
I also find it hard to get into running around with Heelies on. Doesn't mean they are sucky designed rollerskate alternative. FHAre Heelies those weird shoes I see the kids in the mall wearing, with the little wheels on the bottom? Man, for some reason it freaks me out when I see them roll by on those things.
That's them. Curse those youngsters and their mobility!
FH
|
I would like to point out the need to be careful about the use of the word "plagiarism." A work of fiction can be hackneyed, derivative, and formulaic (I don't personally know whether it is or isn't) without being plagiarized.
While taking another's ideas in a scholarly article is plagiarism, copying a tried-and-true formula in a work of fiction is not. Otherwise all those action film scriptwriters would be in jail.
While taking another's ideas in a scholarly article is plagiarism, copying a tried-and-true formula in a work of fiction is not. Otherwise all those action film scriptwriters would be in jail.
No bloody loss- the formula cribsheet for Hollywood is just worn out.
I bring up Tolkien for the plagiarism issue.
I fully accept your point, Luke. Without the Legends of Charlemange, there'd have been no Strider, without the Neiblung, there'd have been no Rings of Power. Using tried and true story archetypes isn't my issue with Eragon, it's the fact that he's just stealing the surface gloss, the superfulous detail and putting it together and calling it something it's not. It also makes it a lot easier to spot the superficiality of his work and call him out on it. Tolkien's Hurin is his version of Oedipus or Seifried, and power to him- he made something new from some of the most revered stories in Western culture. However, if one was to take just the surface gloss of, say Oedipus, and put into an Eragon mold, the result would be salacious, tasteless and probably unreadable.
I read a few of the Harry Potter books and found them very hard to read because the writing style wasn't anything all that good. Narnia is a snore-fest to read for me now. It HAS been measured against others in it's field.....Best Seller. Somebody likes it enough that a huge amount of kids are reading it. That tells me that kids find it to be a good story that they can relate to and enjoy reading, otherwise it wouldn't have caught the attention of movie makers who were looking to cash in on kids wanting to see fantasy books they have read on the Big Screen. I, personally, find it hard to read because it is a juvenile book, not because the author is bad, a hack, a thief, etc. but I am an adult. I also find it hard to get into running around with Heelies on. Doesn't mean they are sucky designed rollerskate alternative.
I found Narnia to be more of a thickly laden allegory, rather then a true fantasy- a more preachy and extravagant "Wind in the Willows". That's not to say it's not a great read- kids can see what Lewis is trying to teach in practical terms as well as get some sense of wonder. Personally I think Philip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy is the anti-Narnia, and all the better for it.
I agree on Harry Potter- they're more clearly juvenile, and I'm unsure whether Rowling can make the leap to an adult audience (which apperently she'll be doing after book seven). As a kid I ate up the Hardy Boys and The Three Investigators and think the first Potter Books can claim more of a lineage from those kind of books then almost any other. They have a clear mystery, a series of clues and a surprise twist. Talking to younger readers, they find double guessing the mystery and teasing the character relationships out the best part. That said, the series felt like it has been running out of steam, so the sooner she puts it all to rest, the better. I just don't know if she can tie up all those loose ends in anything smaller then a doorstop.
While taking another's ideas in a scholarly article is plagiarism, copying a tried-and-true formula in a work of fiction is not. Otherwise all those action film scriptwriters would be in jail.
No bloody loss- the formula cribsheet for Hollywood is just worn out.
As a children's novel, it should still be good. Furthermore, it SHOULD be measured against others in its field, which include the Hobbit, Narnia, A Wrinkle in Time, Harry Potter and The Dark is Rising. He doesn't match up well.
I read a few of the Harry Potter books and found them very hard to read because the writing style wasn't anything all that good. Narnia is a snore-fest to read for me now. It HAS been measured against others in it's field.....Best Seller. Somebody likes it enough that a huge amount of kids are reading it. That tells me that kids find it to be a good story that they can relate to and enjoy reading, otherwise it wouldn't have caught the attention of movie makers who were looking to cash in on kids wanting to see fantasy books they have read on the Big Screen. I, personally, find it hard to read because it is a juvenile book, not because the author is bad, a hack, a thief, etc. but I am an adult. I also find it hard to get into running around with Heelies on. Doesn't mean they are sucky designed rollerskate alternative.
All I am saying is that to see this work in the proper light, you need to see it from an unbiased viewpoint of someone within the target demographic, I.E. an 11 year old who likes faerie tales, magic, and dragons.The plagerism issue is simply a matter of using preconceived notions to get a point across. May as well accuse Tolkien of plagerism for stealing ideas from popular (and obscure)myths and legends. D&D Monster Manual stole all kinds of monsters from folk tales and legends and nobody is yelling foul over them not adding in lil' footnotes about where they stole the Tassaraque from. It is a none issue.
FH
I fully accept your points. Without the Legends of Charlemange, there'd have been no Strider, without the Neiblung, there'd have been no Rings of Power. Using tried and true story archetypes isn't my issue with Eragon, it's the fact that he's just stealing the surface gloss, the superfulous detail and putting it together and calling it something it's not. It also makes it a lot easier to spot the superficiality of his work and call him out on it. Tolkien's Hurin is his version of Oedipus or Seifried, and power to him- he made something new from some of the most revered stories in Western culture. However, if one was to take just the surface gloss of, say Oedipus, and put into an Eragon mold, the result would be salacious, tasteless and probably unreadable.
D&D relies on certain stereo types to allow for easy play- gruff dwarves, singing elves, etc. When we play, we're not creating High art or charging people to watch us. Big difference, we're playing with these cliches and making them our own- the monsters are elements without a story when we get them.
I found Narnia to be more of a thickly laden allegory, rather then a true fantasy- a more preachy and extravagant "Wind in the Willows". That's not to say it's not a great read- kids can see what Lewis is trying to teach in practical terms as well as get some sense of wonder. Personally I think Philip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy is the anti-Narnia, and all the better for it. Kids books can be a drag for adults, certainly, and I tend to only venture in this territory since it impinges on my work. The criteria is very different, but at the same time, since they will be the formative work many kids will be first exposed to, they need to be held to a higher standard. A bad book can turn a kid off reading. Period. Sales are no indication of quality- many bandwagon children's fantasy is the print equivilent of a Happy Meal.
I agree on Harry Potter- they're more clearly juvenile, and I'm unsure whether Rowling can make the leap to an adult audience (which apperently she'll be doing after book seven). As a kid I ate up the Hardy Boys and The Three Investigators and think the first Potter Books can claim more of a lineage from those kind of books then almost any other. They have a clear mystery, a series of clues and a surprise twist. Talking to younger readers, they find double guessing the mystery and teasing the character relationships out the best part. That said, the series felt like it has been running out of steam, so the sooner she puts it all to rest, the better. I just don't know if she can tie up all those loose ends in anything smaller then a doorstop.
Welp my wife had free tickets to the movies, and we needed up seeing Eragon, it wasn't all that bad. Though I did make silly comments during the movie about the 'King' whom was the worse actor of the movie... heh.
About a week ago I saw this movie and posted...
Thank the gods on high, the site ate my post, cause it was the foulest, nastiest, meanest thing I have ever thought much less put to words.
As soon as I realized the site ate it, I was like "Whew! Thank goodness!" I think people might have hated me forever if it had posted.
Needless to say...I misliked this film.
Oh my... your that guy I hear so much about on these boards... Greg Logue along with your buddies...
umm...
Richard Vaughan & Nicolas Pett.
Whew... if you dislike this movie then its must be a steaming pile of dung...
Everyone in the name of Richard Logue we must march on the movie theaters and protest this movie.
Personally I don't prescribe much to what that scurrelous Nicholas Pett has to say about anything...
Nah, I didn't like Eragon, but by no means do we need to protest it. I figure the more exposure fantasy gets the better it is for all of us in our rarifed hobby.
Actually, the worst thing about the movie was the script I think, and the directing...ouch. Any director who can't think of any better way to tell a story than a series of close-ups of people's faces while they talk needs to go back to film school. Just my two cents though, seems a lot of people really liked the movie.
Heh. I agree about the fantasy part, and this movie wasn't the worst fantasy exposure I have ever seen. On that note and all joking aside as I said it wasn't ALL bad, but then again I was subjected to the original D&D movie......... Atleast Brom was a better character then that awful mage he played.....
but then again I was subjected to the original D&D movie......... Atleast Brom was a better character then that awful mage he played.....
So very very true!
|
Well, a lot of people have complained that Terry Brooks ripped off Tolkien in his first books in the Shanarra series and that so did that guy; think it was McKeiran in his Dark Tide or something like that triogy, but I liked them; i dont know; is really just the genre. (...)
I agree with you, Valegrim.
I read Shanara I as a child and loved it. Later I read LotR and loved it. I read the whole first Shanara trilogy later: Book I now felt like a copy of LotR, but the series grew better and better and more on its own.
It is similar with Eragon. Book I was ok (even though a considerably more easily accessible one in comparision to LotR), but book two is considerably better and defitely worth reading.
I am wondering how many variations are possible at all to a subject that is building on the ever same elements elves, dwarves, a youth being torn from a "normal" life and forced to grow into a hero, and the ususal dark uber-adversary and his minions...
On a different note: Eragon, the movie is crap.
|
|
(...)
Actually, the worst thing about the movie was the script I think, and the directing...ouch. Any director who can't think of any better way to tell a story than a series of close-ups of people's faces while they talk needs to go back to film school. Just my two cents though, seems a lot of people really liked the movie.
I talked to a colleague of mine who was in Eragon with her children. She isn't into fantasy, but thought, that the movie wasn't that bad and wanted to try the book. Not so bad after all, if new people ponder to read fantasy, is it?
I am quite sure that the very same person wouldn't have said the same after having watched LotR I (even though most people would agree that this was clearly the better movie).
I totally agree that Eragon (the movie) falls very short of the book. Some of my players and I watched the movie. Those who hadn't read the book thought it to be ok. The others (me included) were rofl again and again. I never watched a movie that concentrated only on the first and the last 100 pages of a book.
It was too obvious that the special effects for the Dragon had apparently eaten away the whole movie funds. No money left for more movie time, an adequate depiction of the dwarven city or even the whole medium part of the book that contained some parts of in city investigation... Bad actors and a bad plot instead...
Yet many non fantasy readers seem to like it and that is what matters after all.
|
NEVER SEE ERAGON IF YOU ARE AT ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE GENRE! The movie was a tremendous disappointment. Even if one were to ignore the obvious parallels with Star Wars, the movie is irredeemably sentimental, the characters are infinitely predictable, and the story meanders without regard to any over-arching theme. The writers and directors of Eragon make Ed Greenwood and L. Ron Hubbard look like J.R.R. Tolkien and H.P. Lovecraft. I've seldom seen as big a piece of go se in my life.
-Mr. Shiny
first book was passable
second book was mind-numbing
Eragon the movie was fast paced and painless with decent CGI
Pretty generic stuff. Malkovich is particularly lame.
If Swords n Sorcery is a monkey on yer back, the movie is a banana.
The only reasons that Eragon kid got published are:
a) His parents are in the industry and were able to sell him to another publisher effectively because:
b) They homeschooled him so he didn't have any commitments, could finish his book, and then go on a promotional tour of the US as a "brilliant literary prodigy." Instead of stage parents he has best-seller parents. He's the Britney Spears of literature.
Countless 15 year olds begin writing fantasy novels. I did. Then they get distracted by girls/boys and exams and never get the chance to finish. Later they come back and look at their adolescent wish-fulfilment hero fantasy with fond embarrassment. In fact I'd wager fantasy is the only kind of book most middle-class 15 year olds could write. Most of their life experience is theoretical or vicarious.
I've read the first third of Eragon, and I couldn't stomach getting past that because it was so atrociously written. Actually "atrocious" is a bit harsh; I'll just say that it was obviously written by a teenager, and there's a reason teenagers can't normally get their stuff published: Writing is not really about talent. Sure it takes some, but overall it is bloody hard and takes years of practice and honing your technique. There is no such thing in the field of writing as a 15 year old who makes up for experience and practice with sheer talent. That's a myth, as Eragon proves.
I GUARANTEE you that if I had sent Eragon to a publisher with a letter saying "Hi, I'm an unpublished 28 year old fantasy novelist, here is my magnum opus." They would read the first page and throw it in the trash, laughing derisively.
I agree wholeheartedly with Luke (hmmm... I usually do where literature's concerned). How old the guy is/was (and he finished the book when he was 19 by the way, he only started when he was 15) should be completely unimportant. Quality should be all that matters, and in terms of quality, Eragon is exactly the sort of book that most 15 year old D&D players could (and do) write, and would be rejected if submitted for publication under normal circumstances.
I think to support this author is to support gimmickry and exploitation over good writing. If the publishers hadn't been able to traipse him around American high schools in a minstrel suit to advertise the thing, you can be sure that the Nine Hells would have frozen over before he got that stuff looked at by a major publisher. I mean come on, the dragon-riding hero's name is just "Dragon" with the "D" replaced by the very next letter of the alphabet!
Jealousy doesn't come into this- he hasn't served his time and it shows. His parents may be supportive and indulgent, but this kind of nepotisim can ruin his talent at this formative stage too. I'm not in the least bit surprised that the sequel has been lambasted- like I said, growing up in public as a writer isn't easy.
Exactly. I really feel sorry for the guy. If you've ever read an interview with him he is terrifyingly arrogant, as you would expect him to be, but where is his life experience coming from, the raw material of a writer? He is being cheated; hailed as a prodigy so that large companies can make money off kids, because kids don't know better. They'll read what they're told is good or cool to read.
When he is 35 and he sits down to write a heartfelt, meaningful book from his own real experiences (assuming he does), what's he got? A book about being a best-selling writer who didn't have to suffer the usual difficulties and was catapulted to success on a hype campaign? He doesn't even share the common cultural touchstones of school and a nine-to-five with the vast majority of readers. As Firbolg says, there is a huge potential for his talent to be ruined. It would take an extraordinary person to face up to the fact that perhaps they didn't deserve all of the adulation heaped on them, and to actually start trying to really learn their craft as a writer, and only time will tell if Paolini is that sort of person. Interviews I have read with him don't leave me hopeful; he seems to be pretty sure he knows everything there is to know about writing already, and who can blame him? He's a best-seller.
Dead on. Because he became a best seller, there is going to be difficulty in improving his writing. To him, he probably feels justified.
Oh well.
Dead on. Because he became a best seller, there is going to be difficulty in improving his writing. To him, he probably feels justified.
Oh well.
Oh hell yes to the above- I've finally caught an interview with the "author".
He came across as smug, cock-sure and more then a little pompous- one can only hope his buying public gives him pimp slap he needs to take the shine from his arrogance.That said, he'll probably go the way of King and Rowling with their distain for editorial input. Get ready for a new doorstop book soon...
... think it was McKeiran in his Dark Tide or something like that triogy, but I liked them ...
That's not surprising, though. As I understand it, Dennis L. McKiernan wrote The Iron Tower trilogy AS a sequel to The Lord of the Rings. He approached the Tolkien people with the manuscript as such and they (politely) declined. He just changed the names and went from there.
And, BTW, I liked them, too. Terry Brooks' Shannara series, as well.
If you liked the book: this movie sucked.
If you hated the book: this movie sucked worse.
If you like movies: this one was sub-par.
If you liked the book: this movie sucked.
If you hated the book: this movie sucked worse.
If you like movies: this one was sub-par.
So there for IT SUCKSSSS!!!!!
I would also like to add, as a person who has read the books, the following:
Eragon does use a good deal of material that was seen in Star Wars--not only the farmboy hero but also the evil alliance usurper and the rebels. It has been argued that this is a common theme, but as Star Wars is prominent and Paolini probably saw the movies, the idea that Eragon was not at all influenced by Star Wars is a little silly.
As a children's novel, it should still be good. Furthermore, it SHOULD be measured against others in its field, which include the Hobbit, Narnia, A Wrinkle in Time, Harry Potter and The Dark is Rising. He doesn't match up well.
I agree that these books are MUCH better than Eragon, but I still enjoyed the novel. I agree that it was a little too similar to STar Wars, but I didn't let that damage my opinion of the book. Granted, I haven't read the thing recently, and I might not reread it again for a while. I read all of the above (I did not finish the Dark is Rising series for unrelated aesthetic and setting issues), and the Sword of Shannarra (same issue and TDIR), and I still liked Eragon. I do not think that this is an issue.
The movie still sucked.
I've got to say that when I read through Eragon and Eldest, not once did I draw compaisons with Star Wars.
Truth be told I did find them quite enjoyable, and thought that the second was as good as the first (though the brother thing was obvious from the very beginning, back when they first met), and am indeed looking forward to the third book.
I suppose I should also admit that I'm not all that keen on Star Wars, so whether that has some bearing on my lack of camparisons, who knows...
Even so, the film was so aweful in so many different ways, I just couldn't wait to leave the cinema!
I have never disagreed with anyone on these boards ever I always find most of you right on. But Luke Fleeman you are a jerk. It makes me mad that you would tell people not to buy a book or support someone because "you think he copied other pieces of work"(well if he did he would be in trouble for it that why they make Anti-plagiarism laws!) I admit that there are a lot of similarities and I think he used some of the books you listed above as building blocks but he was original with his idea! I have read over 55 fantasy books within this last two years (not a lot I know but I’m kind of busy) and I LOVED LOVED LOVED the two books. Bottom line is I respect him because he could write at age 17( something i couldnt do), I respect him because he wrote a good book. I think you should respect him for these things. I don’t know how old you are but one day if you ever write a fantasy book, which I highly doubt you will do, I will respect what you have said because you may have one ounce of an idea as to how hard it is to write a book!
Whew… sorry I just feel that some jerks should keep their mouths shut I don’t care that you don’t like it but man why put someone who worked hard on something down for it?
I'm with you on this, the books rocked
but the only thing I don't like is that they f#^&@* up the movie so much no one wants to read the book.
Call me crazy, but I was turned off by the commercials that showed a dragon with what looked like big, feathery, bird wings. WTF?
Exactly!!!! You share my point exactly, that is not how a dragon should look. In my opinion the dragon, through the description in the books, should have looked like the black dragon just with cobalt blue scales. Once I saw the movie trailer I said the same thing. WTF?