Dec 18 2007
Eragon Review
I'm a former assistant editor with advice about how to write novels, comic books and graphic novels. Most of my content applies to fiction-writing in general, but I also provide articles specifically about superhero stories.
Eragon is one of the worst novels I’ve ever read. But let’s look at the positive: how can Eragon improve your writing? It can help you identify and fix problems in character development, story structure and plotting. For example, let’s look at its characters.
1) Eragon
Eragon is the prototypical Chosen One. Unfortunately, he never really grows into something more than someone destined for great things. Why does his dragon come to him? Because he was destined to have a dragon. Why does he decide to stop Emperor Palpatine, err, Galbatorix? Because he was destined to. Why will he eventually get the girl and save the world… well, I could go on.
A strong character has traits that drive the plot. In His Majesty’s Dragon, Temeraire the dragon is a radical abolitionist and supporter of dragon rights, which leads him to (spoiler– hold your cursor here). That doesn’t feel contrived at all, because Temeraire’s morality clearly dictates that he should perform that action. This works because his character traits cause the plot. Temeraire is rebellious, so he should act rebelliously.
Eragon’s characters do not drive the plot. They act as the plot needs them to. Eragon is a wuss, until he learns that he’s really a hero. What causes that change? His great destiny, apparently. Being driven by destiny makes him passive. Let me show why that’s a problem.
Saphira (the dragon) comes to Eragon for no particular reason. Eragon doesn’t do anything to get his dragon. That wastes an opportunity to show us what he’s capable of, and why he deserves to have a dragon. His Majesty’s Dragon used the experience much more effectively. Captain Laurence’s ship captures Temeraire’s egg. Instead of the dragon being an honor and privilege, the dragon is something the characters want to avoid. The unlucky handler will have to live away from civilization and work in a dangerous, filthy profession. The crew draws straws and a 14-year-old sailor draws the dragon. When Laurence sees that the kid is struggling with the dragon, he decides to sacrifice himself by taking the dragon instead.
This shows us several things about the characters. Lawrence is a compassionate and loyal leader. He’s brave. He was not passively destined or chosen to have a dragon– he chose to take Temeraire. He has realistic concerns, like worrying about not ever being able to see a play again. In short, Laurence is both heroic and relatable. We even learn something about Temeraire: he has standards and cares who his partner is. Unlike Saphira, we can relate to him as something more than just an animal. My problem with Eragon is that there isn’t any reason Saphira comes to Eragon. Worse, I can’t think of any reason that I would advise Saphira to pick Eragon. He has no traits that suggest he would be a valuable partner.
2) Saphira
Temeraire from His Majesty’s Dragon is a fantastic example of how a side character can drive a plot and develop the main character. But Saphira is a case-study in cardboard. Saphira makes most Pokemon look three-dimensional.
Consider the following: Pokemon (successfully???) characterizes Ash’s Charizard as lazy and disrespectful, which is fairly impressive given that he doesn’t say anything intelligible. Saphira has every advantage but she is actually worse-characterized.
Strong characterization depends on readers being able to associate characters with key attributes. Han Solo is selfish but loveable. Charizard is lazy. Temeraire is idealistic and rebellious. Saphira is nothing but a flying pack animal.
Wasting Saphira in this book was particularly egregious. She’s on the front cover, and the only selling point of Eragon is that the book has a dragon in it. If all the superheroes in Superhero Nation were as boring as she is, we’d have a real problem.
3) Brom/Murtagh
These characters came right out of Central Casting. Brom is the Friendly Storyteller and Murtagh is the Mysterious (But Friendly) Stranger. Both serve essentially the same role, to provide wisdom and insight to the brash and clueless Eragon. Conveniently enough, one enters as the other dies.
4) Galbatorix
I’ll preface this by acknowledging that I’m fond of many supervillains. I write stories about them, too. So you might argue that it’s hypocritical for me to criticize Galbatorix for being one-dimensional. On the other hand, you could also argue that “wow, if even a superhero novelist thinks Eragon’s villains were superficial, they must have been truly awful.” Indeed.
Galbatorix is the villain and he doesn’t have any motivation other than being EVIL. He’s like Green Goblin, but without the nifty armor. As far as cartoonish villains go, Galb is a particularly bad one. And not bad like Darth Vader was bad, but bad-like-Gigli bad.
There are two main ways to make a villain interesting.
- Ideological power—when the audience vaguely sympathizes with the villain’s objective (separate from his means). This worked particularly well in The Rock, for example.
- Badassery—a combination of swagger, flavor and/or whupass.
Galb had neither of these, but the best villains usually have both. For example, Darth Vader and Doctor Octopus are obviously badass, but Darth Vader is also ideologically powerful because his villainy stemmed from a noble desire to create order. Doctor Octopus (in the movie) wanted to vindicate what his wife died for. And he had 6 arms.
Cliché fantasy races
The author of Eragon stole his elves and dwarves so blatantly from Lord of the Rings that Tolkien should have been credited as a co-author. Many fantasy novels draw on Tolkien’s conventions, but usually they try to make up for that by adding their own spin to the source material. For example, if you were writing a book set at a magical university like Hogwarts, you could make it feel fresh by using a new perspective. Instead of focusing on a precocious young wizard, maybe you’d look at the teachers or the administrators or campus security or the admissions office instead. Eragon doesn’t do anything like that. It ends up feeling like LOTR fanfiction. With Pokemon.
I could say more, but you couldn’t pay me enough to go back to Eragon. This book and its sequel* are best enjoyed as an expensive alternative to firewood.
*It has two sequels, but I’ve only been unfortunate enough to read the first.
Oh. My. God.
THANK YOU!!!
I hated this novel, but could never quite put into words ‘why’. Any time I criticized it at all (for being derivative of both Tolkein and Lucas, who himself borrowed from at least half-a-dozen fairytales), I was firmly verbally slapped down by people who felt otherwise. They almost all concluded any argument about its worth by stating, “And the author was only 16 when he wrote it!”
Yes. I can tell.
Thank you for cogently explaining the problems with this ‘classic’.
His age isn’t a real excuse. I’ve come across a few teenage writers that have professional style and an independent voice. Moreover, if his age was a huge obstacle, why not spend an extra year or two to write an Eragon book that didn’t suck?
I think the best reasons to rush a book are that you either need the money now, or you need to publish the book prematurely to bolster an application for college or graduate school. But he didn’t want to apply to college immediately, so it seems a bit questionable to me that he didn’t wait.
I personally thought Eragon had potential…until Paolini squandered it. The book was mediocre and the movie was worse. Even CG couldn’t redeem it.
Eragon didn’t let me down as much as Soon I Will Be Invincible. Nothing about Eragon suggested it would be good. The premise has been heavily used (“an unlikely teen becomes a dragon-rider”) and the plot and characterization were utterly hackish from page 1.
Soon I Will Be Invincible, on the other hand, had a fantastic title/cover-page, a neat premise (a superhero story told mostly from the villain’s perspective!) and some good early chapters. SIWBI only genuinely sucked by the end.
In contrast, I’d say the worst part of Eragon was when the elf-chick was introduced (in chapter 2, I think). I am absolutely mystified why anyone would enjoy Eragon– dragon-riding books have been done so much better by (among others) Anne McCaffrey and Naomi Novik.
Actually, before Eragon, I’d never seen dragon rider stories. (Or at least if I had, I didn’t recognize them). When these books are clearly better than Eragon, why did Eragon become a movie and not these others?
That’s a good question about why one book becomes a movie and not another. Damned if I know. For what it’s worth, though, His Majesty’s Dragon was optioned by Peter Jackson (the guy that directed LOTR). His Majesty’s Dragon is another very contemporary dragon-riding book, but much better than Eragon.
Eragon’s generic-fantasy setting is more familiar to movie-goers than His Majesty’s Dragon, which is set in the Napoleonic era. Movies are more of a mass-market medium than novels: a book that sells 100,000 copies is a bestseller, but a major release that sold even a million tickets at $8 each would be an absolute disaster. One estimate put Eragon’s budget at $140 million, so you need to sell tens of millions of tickets and DVDs just to recoup that investment and the advertising budget. Also keep in mind that studios typically only get half of the cost of a movie ticket.
Putting together a large audience for Eragon would probably be pretty easy… “LOTR with dragons” is a much easier sell than a story with antiquated English. Additionally– although I’m not qualified to say this with any degree of certainty– I’d speculate that Eragon’s fans are slightly younger and more likely to watch a summer action movie.
If Eragon is so badly written, then why do people like it so much? Or, for that matter, why do I like it so much? I willingly and emphatically concede that Eragon is deplorable and badly written, but whenever I read it, it never fails to engross me. Or is this perhaps due more to my own imagination than to Paolini’s writing?
Also, I now more clearly see the “chosen one” pattern you were getting at. Especially in Eldest, good things keep happening to Eragon for no good reason. (His scar is healed, he turns into an elf or at least blessed with their abilities, etc.) After this I came to the conclusion that his cousin Roran (who is much more dynamic) would have made a more satisfying main protagonist. His actions drive the plot better than Eragon’s and my only complaint about him is only that he seems to mature a bit too quickly. In fact, I often find myself wishing that he, rather than Eragon, was gifted with a dragon (perhaps he will be later, I haven’t read the third one. But there will be another rider and I’m banking on either Roran or Arya). But rather than using this more useful protagonist, Paolini confines him to a lesser story that appears mundane when compared to Eragon’s. Your comments?
I think it’s because Eragon avoids the single most destructive problem for fiction writers: confused writing. Eragon’s readers always understand what is going on, which is a major accomplishment in fantasy. With a fresher plot and better characterization, Eragon could easily have been a really good novel.
I’m carefully trying to avoid saying that Eragon’s problem was that it wasn’t “complex” enough. Generally, I find that works that are described as “complex” range from confusing (A Game of Thrones) to seizure-inducing (Syriana). Complexity is not (by itself) a virtue of good writing. Anyone can complicate a work by adding layers of deceit, backstabbing, aliases and byzantine conspiracies, but those elements are more likely to make the story convoluted than interesting.
The problem was that Eragon’s plot was absolutely rote. “Boy gets dragon. Boy becomes fantasy superhero. Fights against Empire. Gets girl.” Nor did it execute this mundane plot particularly well. The girl was so forgettable that I thought the romantic angle fared poorly against most comic-books and George Lucas movies. The dragon was such an intolerable waste of space that I can’t really think of it as a character so much as a flying pack-animal. This book could have been His Majesty’s Dragon in a fantasy setting. Instead it was a LOTR ripoff.
And Roran?
Erm. I haven’t actually read the sequel, and Jacob got real surly the last time I asked him to review it. I think what he said was “wasn’t once enough?” Give me a few months, heh.
Ha ha! Surly, eh Agent Orange?
Surly is definitely one of my favorite words.
I never read the book, but thanks for the heads up! I wasn’t overly fond of the film.
The movie was lame, then again I’m not big on fantasy films. The book was really popular in middle school like how Twilight is now, so I guess people got duped thinking “they made an Eragon movie, YAY!!” and then ending up idiotically satisfied or suicidally depressed when they saw it. I’m also not big on dragons or mythical races either, I’m an aliens man. Mythology is cool, but if I used it I’d add that genuine R.B. alien twist.
Surly is a funny looking word, whenever I see it I think of the word ‘sinewy’ and then I picture a bodybuilder haha.
Cadet Davis, come back!!!
I was pretty disappointed by the Sci-Fi network’s TV adaptation of The Dresden Files. It had some charm but the pilot suffered from gratuitous flash-backing.
I actually liked the movie so much that I bought the book, just to discover that even though I have nothing against clichés in movies they are dreadfully lame in books. I read the other “just because” and got even more disappointed. My biggest problem was (is) that Eragon never really did anything, things just happened around him.
I agree completely. Eragon is the perfect example of a Chosen One. Why does the dragon come to him? Why does he get the mentor? Why is he the Rider? Why does he have magic? He apparently received all of these things by virtue of his birth/destiny. He does not earn anything he has.
What IS special about Eragon? A Chosen One should be chosen for a reason.
“Look, there’s a very skilled boxer, about to win his third trophy! But what’s this? A whiny farmboy who can barely use a pitchfork? I’ll take him!”
How does this keep happening?
Why do the worst pieces of work keep floating to the top of the pile??
Seriously. It makes me wonder if trying to make a wonderful work is worth it. I should just write a piece of crap and it will be guaranteed to be a best seller…
I always thought there was a reason that I didn’t like Eragon….
NOW I get it!
Stupid boy Mary Sue/Chosen One!
I freaking hate both, but two at the same time is just unbearable.
- Wings the PISSED OFF
…Alright. I’ll admit, there are a lot of similarities between Eragon and other forms of media. But give the guy a break, he was FIFTEEN!!!! He wasn’t even a legal adult when he wrote one of the biggest selling novels this country has seen in ten years! I’d say that, though the story can be…bland at best, he deserves a little credit. Besides, you can’t say that it logically sucks, as statements like that are an opinion.
Oh, and J. Mellow? If you think you can do better, I’d like to see you try.
Actually, publishers can say a manuscript sucks. Unless you can get a publisher that agrees with you, you are probably screwed. Self-publishing is an option, but it takes at least hundreds of dollars and usually leads to disaster.
Chris Paolini does deserve some credit, but Eragon could have been better if he had made a few minor changes. I’m among the youngest people here, and I’ll never be J.K. Rowling, but with this post (among others) I’m a much better writer than I was before finding SN.
I’m betting on J. =/
“J. Mellow? If you think you can do better, I’d like to see you try.”
1. Mallow. My name is Mallow. There are only six letters. This isn’t rocket science.
2. Speaking of rocket science, I’ll use that as an analogy. Eragon is sort of like the Challenger of novels. You don’t need to be a novelist to see that something is terribly wrong with it. Similarly, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that something has gone wrong if the shuttle explodes.
3. I have better things to do with my time than rewrite a bad book. For example, I have a biochemical degree and a vision… more on that later. Read the comic book if you’re interested.
Did you seriously just compare Eragon to the Challenger disaster? Sigh.
Thanks so much for this article. I also needed a solid reason to despise these books.
I usually focus on the plot of stories vs the quality of the writing, but I still give some props to the author for having the guts to publish a book when he was so young.
I can understand why some people really liked the series. There is something about suckish writing and overused plot lines that draw so many people. I think stories like these are comfort food. You know what is going to happen and you know the characters. (As writers, you probably beef up the characters in your head.) You don’t have to worry about your favorite character dying because you know whether they will or not.
I understand people liking books like that– I have a few that I still read. But to take a bad book and make it into a movie was just plain wrong. I saw it. It was terrible. Really, it was a series of battle sequences. And the lightning?! Eragon and baby Safira are playing in a field when she flies up really high and gets zapped and comes down huge. And Eragon is still in the same clothes.
If he was in a different outfit, I would totally be fine with using the lightning as a time transition, but no.
Unfortunately, the plot (as common and predictable as it was) was completely erased in the movie.
Note to self: show this to my Eragon-obsessed acquaintance. I mean, everyone keeps acting like “no one has ever done something like this before”! But they have! This may be the most well-known Dragon Rider book series, but I sincerely doubt it’s the best.
As for writing the book when he was 15, I wrote a book when I was 10. A novel, and I completed it. Big whoop. (Okay, it was more like a 40 page summary. Deal. I started when I was freaking 7.) And wow! right freaking now I’m writing a book, and I am 13. Yeah. Heck, almost every freaking one of us on this website is – surprise! – writing a book at a young age. Just because he was published first doesn’t mean we aren’t as good – or, in my opinion, better.
So yeah.
- Wings
Wings–you’re pretty cool. I wish I knew more 13 year olds like you. ^_^ The world would be a better place. (I know, that was random. But hey, you got a compliment.
Sabrina–I kind of thought that it wasn’t a time transition but Saphira was actually transformed; because they didn’t want to waste time showing all the growing up and bonding. So instead of that, she just flew up into a lightning storm and it made her full-sized. But hey, maybe it was a time transition thing, I dunno.
Anyhow, Wings, you’re right. It’s just like with the Twilight thing–a lot of people think other authors with the same type of plot or whatever ripped Meyer off and so they freak out, when in fact the other authors were published before she was. Eragon, as you said, may be very popular and everything and Paolini may have written it at a young age and etc., but it’s not like there isn’t anyone else who has done the same and quite possibly better.
Hey–my post is coherent! Yay!
Hey, thanks, Luna!
My above comment on Eragon could be also applied to Twilight. Just substitute “Vampire-Human Romance” for Dragon Rider.
If you also hate Twilight, you’d like a friend of mine. She enjoys naming dissection subjects after Edward and then cutting them up in front of Twilight-obsessed fans.
One Possible Cure for Twilight-Fanism: Have them watch the end of Harry Potter 4, where Robert Pattinson dies. Then, rewind and repeat. And repeat again. And again. Oh yes. *laughs like a maniac*
But we shall rise, take over the literary world, and give Superhero Nation the glory it so rightly deserves. And get everyone Agent Orange t-shirts. The end.
- Wings
*claps* what a great story, Wings!
And now I must bid all my superheronation friends adieu, for I have a final I must get to. :/
“I mean, everyone keeps acting like “no one has ever done something like this before”!”
LOLWHAT? How can anyone possibly say that? This is the exact conversation I had with a friend of mine:
Friend: I’ve read the first two, but I haven’t read the last one.
Me: Have you seen ‘Return of the Jedi’?
Friend: Yes
Me: Then you’ve pretty much read the third book.
I could do an entire essay pointing out similarities between Eragon and Star Wars.
Hey, good luck. Most of my tests I just end up (no pun intended) winging it. And yet, I have three out of four A’s. And one C. But algebra is not necessary to the literary world (at the very least, I hope it is not).
- Wings
@Tom – Oh, it happens.
ME: *Looking through teen books.*
*sees Twilight*
*growls*
*looks near Twilight*
*sees MASSIVE STACK OF VAMPIRE-HUMAN ROMANCES*
ME: Holy crap, how freaking many of these books exist?
*pokes them*
*books collapse on top of me*
ME: *buried* Help meee….
-END STORY-
All right, I exaggerated about being buried alive. But they COULD have buried me alive, there were so many.
- Wings
No, I don’t think that algebra matters too much to writing a manuscript.
However, most writers do not write full-time, particularly right out of college. And a lot of the career-paths in writing and publishing careers are affected by considerations of “who understands our business the most clearly?” Numbers tie into that, even in a nonmathematical field.
For example, it’s correct but not very impressive to say “most novel manuscripts get rejected.” When you gather and use statistics, it makes your ideas much stronger and easier to grasp. 99% of unsolicited manuscripts to small publishers get rejected. At larger publishers, I’d say it’s noticeably more than 99.75%. In comparison, Harvard University rejects only ~85% of its applicants.
I discovered how Eragon was published:
Although his series has since moved to another company, the book was originally published by – get this – a company belonging to his parents . Nepotism anyone?
- Wings
Yeah… it’s very hard to get self-published at a young age without parents that can provide major financial support. When I was in high-school, I met a college student whose parents had underwritten a print-run of 1000 copies so that the student could go out and sell them. I bought a copy to be polite and never read past the first chapter. (Even then, I was mortified that someone could spend thousands of hours on a manuscript and still miss the typos on page one).
My best guess is that the parents took a hit of somewhere between $5000-7500 printing copies of a book that was too bad to sell.
I think that’s the wrong word, Wings…I think the word “sadistic” would fit better.
They should get his parents and the people that chose to print Twilight, put them in a very small room filled with typewriters then if you had 996 more of them, and you waited long enough, you’d get a bad episode of ABC Family’s version of 10 Things I Hate About You.
See, it’s funny because there’s that saying about the thousand monkeys and typewriters writing Shakespeare if you gave them long enough, and 10 Things I Hate About You is a version of Taming Of The Shrew…
You get the picture.
I wouldn’t say that Saphira has no personality- I personally always thought that she had one, but like the stock elf being in tune with nature, arrogant and generally better than humans, Saphira was just a cliche. She was the proud, noble dragon, and very little beyond that.
First of all, Eragon did not have everything good happening to him by fate. Granted that he did come across Saphira’s egg without really doing anything, however, obtaining elf like powers did not happen for no reason. He had rescued the elf Arya, killed a shade and saved the dwarves, granted he did had help, and had to traverse most of Alagaesia to get the the most remote place in that world. One can hardly say fate just granted him that gift through destiny. Also, where the hell in the series did it say anything about him getting the girl? In fact, there was a painful rejection from Arya to Eragon although that happened later. If you only watched the movie, which I have to admit was absolutely horrible, at least read the book before judging it. A lot of movies were nothing compared to the books.
Secondly, how does Saphira only resemble a flying pack animal? She’s protective, fierce, caring, logical, and willing to do what it takes no matter how she feels about the whole subject. Even though her role in the first book was small, her roles later on increases dramtically. It’s not surprising the characters did not recieve much development in the first book since it is one of four, but that does not mean there are no development at all. You just have to read a bit farther.
Thirdly, Brom and Murtagh are completely different people and play different roles. Brom indeed is the storyteller and the mentor. Murtagh on the other hand is his companion. He has nothing much of value to teach Eragon nor has any advice to give. In fact, Murtagh is almost an alternate version of Eragon if he was raised in Galbatorix’s castle instead of being abandoned in a small village.
Fourth, Galbatorix does have a motivation other than being evil. He wants to shape Alagaesia back to what it was before it was destroyed, only this time, with riders that are completely under his control. Yes, the book rarely mentions him besides from the snippets of what his crimes were and how he neglects his kingdom, but that does not mean he has no motivation at all. In fact, if one were to review all his actions, they would most likely conclude he is more demented than evil. Also, a lot of audiences vaguely agree with Galbatorix’s ideas. You just need to know where to look. As for badass, I can’t say much until all the books are published. But from what was writtern so far, he has enough power to completely obliterate a mountain with a wave of his hands. Isn’t that pretty badass itself?
As for ideas coming from LOTR, I have to agree. But not so much as a LOTR ripoff as a Star Wars one?
Wouldn’t rebuilding Enrique Iglesias Land in his image, completely under his control be…taking over the world? So, in effect, his motivation is to be evil, so he can successfully…be evil on a bigger scale?
Pikachu, from Pokemon can completely destroy the universe if he sneezes at precisely the right angle on a Wednesday, he can have this ability if the individuals responsible for writing him give him that ability. Random abilities doesn’t make a better character without all of his other traits supporting it and making it worth something, Doctor Octopus isn’t notable because he has six arms, he’s notable because he’s Doctor Octopus and he has six arms. Coulrophobiatrix could have tried to take over the world to prevent the systematic breeding of clowns by the elves and he’d have made a better villain then Random Assortment Of Noises.
Well taking over the world isn’t necessarily evil. It has other intentions as well. The evil part comes with how you plan to achieve that as well as what your plans are for the world you want to control. It can be the total opposite of evil and prove to be good for mankind.
Giving random abilities to characters obviously doesn’t make them better. However, if the character has certain abilities that others have to, and some are a lot more poweful than his, then how that character uses them and motives are could really make him an interesting and fun to read character. Those are much more thoroughly emphasized during later books.
I was in an RPG forum thread where His Majesty’s Dragon was updated to WWII, and it was pretty fun. My character was a tom-boy American woman riding a small scout dragon. Small as in Regina (the dragon) could a) carry only one person, and b) could follow her rider -into the riders’ quarters-. Unfortunately, the thread tanked due to lack of posts (the typical fate of threads in that forum).
Hey all you great critics,
Theres still one book left, so dont make assumptions yet. And that one book still has room to explain Eragon’s reason for all that “random” stuff that happened to him.
And if you may remember, the Harry Potter series didn’t reveal Harry Potter’s reason for “special” stuff happening until later down the road, you guys are trashing Eragon after one book. Read em all, look at the direction the authors trying to take it, and get a real fucking imagination
I know i’m bringing a storm of shit upon me but I have to say I rather enjoyed the Eragon books. Sure it was a bit of a Tolkien ripoff but (shrugs) I enjoyed Tolkiens books. So sue me.
I did however think the movie was the worst I had ever seen, except for possibly Clash of the Titans.
“There’s still one book left, so dont make assumptions yet. And that one book still has room to explain Eragon’s reason for all that “random” stuff that happened to him.” If readers find the first work atrocious and/or nonsensical, it’s unlikely that they’ll come back for the sequel, let alone two sequels. In contrast, I think Harry Potter and The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe set up series with novels that can be enjoyed and understood on their own.
Now, it may be the case that writing more novels will bring out so-far-unseen skills from Christopher Paolini and maybe he will write Eragon books that are actually good at some point. But, if that happened, it would only make the first two look worse, not better. (“If you had this kind of talent, why the hell did you inflict those two on us?”)
If you’re ever in a position to write anything, I would HIGHLY recommend against justifying anything to your editor with “it’ll make sense in the sequel!”
…
“I know i’m bringing a storm of shit upon me but I have to say I rather enjoyed the Eragon books. Sure it was a bit of a Tolkien ripoff but (shrugs) I enjoyed Tolkiens books. So sue me.”
No worries. I’ve liked a lot of crazy things over the years. For example, it took me a few years to realize just how atrocious Batman & Robin was, but I liked it when it came out. (I was in middle school at that point). I also found the early 1990s cartoons about Spiderman, X-Men and the TMNT better than Batman: The Animated Series, even though it’s clear in retrospect that BTAS is dramatic dynamite and a cartoon masterpiece. (Two Emmys is, ahem, quite impressive for an animated action series–the only other action series to win a Primetime Emmy for an Outstanding Animated Program was Samurai Jack).
Hey, I was trashing Eragon after two books and several excerpts from the third!
I’m in full agreement with B. Mac on this one, Ben. There were some details of Harry Potter taht were explained by later books (Chamber of Secrets was considered weak my a good chunk of the fandom, then the sixth book came out and justified everything about it. Fans then rejoiced.), but overall the series would make sense to a reader no matter what book they started on*.
And NicKenny? I used to like (Alright, “like” is a strong word, but I thought it was okay) Twilight. You are not alone. XD
- Wings
* I don’t recommend starting just anywhere, though. I feel it detracts from the experience.
I loved reading this review. The only thing you forgot to bash was how powerful the “elves” were (actually I have to disagree with you on the Elves being the LOTR rip-off. LOTR elves were more human and likeable/relatable whereas Paolini makes them practically all powerful. A Mary-Sue species). As for the dwarves, they must have been bad since my mind seems to have blocked out any mention of dwarves. Yet I know they were there.
I love the people whose defense for this book is one of these: He was only fifteen when he wrote it (it reads like something I’d write at age twelve after a Star Wars marathon), he must’ve done something right the books are so popular (fail. So is Twilight, no accounting for taste.), or my personal favorite: you try and do better (as if the critic needs to be an accomplished writer to criticize another’s work, just being well read or having a functional brain isn’t enough.)
By the way I like this site. The comments are as worthwhile to read as the articles.