I'm not a huge fan. I still like his books. I'm wondering what he'll start next and if it'll flow more. I didn't think his first book flowed well. I haven't read the other three though.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I haven't read him---what I've heard about him, and how he got published, pushes one of my buttons---the one about it's not how good your work is, but who you know.
Posted by JohnColgrove (Member # 9236) on :
I agree. when I heard he got published at fifteen (?) I thought what the hell. His first book, in my opinion, wasn't any good. It was choppy fluffy and the characters were a little stereotypical. I'm not the only one that didn't like it either, I searched for Eragon reviews and the results were mixed and the bad side. But I give him credit for trying and from what I read of reviews from his other books he's improving.
Posted by Crystal Stevens (Member # 8006) on :
It got me how Eragon followed the same plot and the same kind of characters as the original Star Wars movie/novel. They are almost identical.
Also, I wasn't going to read past the first book, but my cousin is a huge fan. She said the second book was tons better. It was all I could do to keep from falling asleep and yawning. I thought it was boring and was very disappointed in the ending. If someone can't accept themselves for what (not who) they are, I truly feel sorry for them. Any time I read a story that changes a major character into something else rankles me. If the author wanted this to happen, then Eragon should've been an elf to begin with. Something like that just goes too much against the grain for my liking.
I thought Paolini was 18 when Eragon was published. Didn't he write it at 15?
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Well, a general overview of the Tolkienesque genre of commercial publishing leads me to this conclusion---nobody did it as well as Tolkien, and, given the commercial restraints, I don't think anybody will do it as well as Tolkien. I might like this book or that writer or those trilogies, but it's definitely lesser.
Posted by Tiergan (Member # 7852) on :
oh yeah, it has been a while since we had a Paolini bashing thread.
Montag if you use the search menu you will see he has been discussed a lot here, most not favorable.
I for one havent read any of his, but did buy them for my nephews as they grew up, which turned around and got my wife to read them all.
Posted by MAP (Member # 8631) on :
I'm not a big fan of Paolini although I have read all of his books.
I think Paolini could be a good writer, but his early success has ruined him IMO. He didn't take the time to learn the craft of writing, and it shows. Now that he has sold a million books, I'm not sure he ever will.
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited July 30, 2011).]
Posted by redux (Member # 9277) on :
I was googling Paolini to read a bit more about how he got published and one of the first things that popped up was a Facebook page titled "If Meyer and Paolini can get published, so can I." It gave me a good chuckle.
Anyway, for those who don't know, this is what I found out: Paolini wrote Eragon at 15, took a year to revise it, another year to ready it for publication, and his parents helped him self-publish. He then began touring schools and libraries, supposedly decked out in medieval costume. Eventually, Carl Hiaasen's step-son read it. Hiaasen then read it and recommended it to his publisher Knopf Books (imprint of Random House).
So, perhaps the moral of that story is that if we want to get published, we need to run around peddling a self-published novel while dressed in a Halloween costume
Posted by Wordcaster (Member # 9183) on :
Is it bad that I licked my lips and sat forward in my chair when I saw 8 replies?
I've never read Paolini, nor do I know his rise to stardom, but I almost want to just to find out what gets people all frazzled.
Posted by EVOC (Member # 9381) on :
I liked Eragon.
I agree he is not an all star writer, and I don't think I have read past the second book. But over all, I liked the books. I just have not read the other because I have been reading some of the masters to help in my own works.
Perhaps now that I write more (and have studied the craft) when I read the series again I will see why some complain.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
One of the things I also read were that Paolini's parents were in the publishing business themselves. So they might have been able to get a book further along the chain than the slushpile that most of us wind up in.
Posted by Crystal Stevens (Member # 8006) on :
Yes, that's what I heard too, Robert; That Paolini's parents owned a publishing company and bankrolled his book tour. I also heard that they were the ones that strongly suggested that he do so. And didn't his parents publish the first book?
Posted by redux (Member # 9277) on :
His parents own (or owned) Paolini International LLC and had previously published 3 books before publishing Eragon. They also made the book available through Lightning Source, a print-on-demand company.
I haven't read Eragon. I couldn't get past the first few pages since I found the prose to be rather tedious. I am not sure how closely it follows the book, but I did see the movie. I thought it was ok - nothing I hadn't seen before. I was quite surprised by the star power that signed up for it: John Malkovich and Jeremy Irons.
Posted by Tiergan (Member # 7852) on :
My thoughts are pretty simple. I havent read his books, have read like a chapter in the first. He had a tendency for info dumps, but somewhere along the way he must have told a story that someone wanted to read as he sold tons.
As far as his parents and rise to fame, I dont hold it a against him. If my parents were in the business or I was golfing pals with Donald Maass you bet your sweet, well tail, I would be asking them for help and guidance.
I tell my brother this every time he complains that someone got farther in life than him because of what he perceives as luck, or breaks: You cant change what he/she did or is, but you can change who you are and what you do.
Posted by Montag (Member # 9421) on :
Paolini isn't Tolkien, but nobody is. And there are plenty of books that are similar to others. They way it is done is the interesting part. He created an interesting world and filled it with good characters IMO. But that may be because I focus more on the dragons than the people sometimes.
Posted by EVOC (Member # 9381) on :
quote:but I did see the movie.
The movie was nothing like the book. I hated the movie.
Posted by Tiergan (Member # 7852) on :
The movie was alright, but then again, I like the B-rated scientifically engineered monster movies on Sci-fi Channel.
It only goes to show, that different books=different readers.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I used to like the cheesy Mexican horror / wrestling movies of the 1960s and 1970s...but they look like Shakespeare compared to some of the Sci-Fi Channel offerings.
---come to think of it, they're the "SyFy" Channel now. Don't you hate it when offspring disown their parents?
*****
Speaking of offspring and parents...ultimately, it's the thought that I entered the field thinking my work would be accepted on how good it was---and for many years, I know now, it wasn't good---only to learn later that all the doors were closed and this acceptance would come from being the "son of" somebody, or "knowing" a publisher or editor, or "attending Clarion," or something or other means that they "have an in" and I don't.
It's a thought...but stories like Paolini's make me think it's more than just a thought.
(Come to think of it, the heroine of my last story was last-named "Paoli." Coincidence? Oh, yeah...I just wanted an Italiante-sounding name.)
Posted by Reziac (Member # 9345) on :
The "SyFy" thing was for trademark purposes. It could be trademarked and legally protected as a brand name. "Sci-Fi", as a generic term, cannot be trademarked.
As to the nominal topic, I'd never heard of him at all!
Posted by redux (Member # 9277) on :
In Paolini's defense, it's not like his parents were NYC editors/publishers who favored their son over more talented writers and abused their influence and position to promote nepotism. The only books their company ever published were their own - two anti-cult books and one book about Montessori style of teaching. Also, from all accounts, falling into the hands of Hiaasen's stepson was simply serendipitous.
What I find more irritating are ghost-written celebrity books. But at the same time I understand that publishing is a business, and it's easier to peddle Snooki's book than it is to take a chance on some unknown author.
Posted by Crystal Stevens (Member # 8006) on :
Forgive my faulty memory, but I can't remember Eragon's love interest's name. The point is I hated the movie because she was an elf in the books and human in the movie. I don't mind some changes from book to movie, but I found this too extreme.
Outside of that, though, I liked the movie... but only if I didn't think too much about the book. And, in my opinion, the book was better.
Posted by JohnColgrove (Member # 9236) on :
The way I see ghost writing is, if you can't write it yourself than don't bother at all. I hate the concept of ghost writing with a purple passion.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
What bugs me are the ghostwritten memoirs of teen idols or the cast of "American Idol," and so on. I always thought you had to have lived a life before you could even pretend to write about it.
*****
The commentary I read about Paolini and his parents said they both worked for major publisher before this self-publishing gambit...so it's likely their "in" helped...and they have an "in," and can get in, whereas, after spending years working on my craft, I'm still banging on the door and being ignored.
Paolini's hardly the only example. There's a raft of books by assorted relatives of Stephen King...there's Max "Zombies" Brooks, son of Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft...there's Justin Leiber, son of Fritz Leiber...did having famous relatives help or hurt them in their careers?
Posted by EVOC (Member # 9381) on :
This is the problem when art becomes business. It becomes more about who you know and your ability to network then your ability to write.
I used to own my own business. It blew my mind how people would continue to use a inferior service simply because a friend recommended them. Which is why I networked the heck out of the Chamber of Commerce.
Of course the Chamber of Commerce does little to help me in getting published.
Of course knowing publishing works this way doesn't make it any less frustrating.
P.S. if I do get an "inside contact" I am not above exploiting it. Then maybe. Everyone will say the same of me that we're saying of Paolini
