Eragon - but seriously - why the success?

[zornhau]

Joking aside, why is this book so successful?

Yes it's shot full of issues with world building, plot, cliche etc etc. But people I know who read for pleasure love it.

[Dreir]

If I knew why, those people you know would probably be reading my book now.. :D

- Dreir -

[ElsaM]

I honestly don't know but would love to find out what other people think. While it has no appeal for me, it's a very successful book, so obviously there are lots of people who do find it appealing and enjoyable. I'll be interested to see any explanations.

[Rosebutterfly]

I am a fantasy fan, read it since childhood and i am now on the wrong side of 45. I have to say that this is a novel that has NEVER appeald to me. I have tried to read it on several ocasions and have given up. Yet other people I know who do not read as much fantasy as I do LOVE it. I guess its all a matter of taste, i have some and they don't.

[MattW]

Everyone needs an entry level novel. This is one of them. It has themes and plot elements that younger readers may not have seen.

Many readers accidentally read something that wakens their thirst for Fantasy, and move on to greater and more complex stories. Others are content with putting their toes in the water, and Eragon fills that niche for the casual genre reader as well.

I can't understand how those who are deeply read in the genre would find it too appealing and not repetitive. Maybe it's a break from the current trend of dark and realistic fantasy and hearkening back to simpler stories.

For me - I never picked it up. I don't think I could even learn something as an author by analyzing Eragon's success. I have other ways to waste my time not writing.

[IdiotsRUs]

The Paolini's are VERY good at marketing.

Didn't he spend a year or so just going round High Schools flogging it? ( Much as JK Rowling did with Harry Potter - she did readings at every school who'd have her) Some people are not going to see the cliches because they haven't read much fantasy, and those are the people who loved it and recced it to their friends and relations

I already have two school talks ( and four signings at various other places) lined up for when my print is released ;)

[Dommo]

It's all about the marketing. Paolini' really whored it up about his age, and his publishers were all over that shit. In reality eragon is probably more derivative than most fanfiction I've read.

[SPMiller]

Isn't it obvious? Meyer's work is so great because she wrote about sparkly abusive vampire boyfriends.

[SPMiller]

Oh, wait, that's over now.

Take McCaffrey, Lucas, and Tolkien. In a large pot, mix together their worst (yet most popular?) elements. Add chicken stock. Spice liberally with extensive advertisement and connections in the industry. Heat covered over low for years. Mmm, crowd-pleasing cliche soup!

('Course, being a writer, I object to that.)

[ELMontague]

Actually, I think Potter opened the door, Eragon walked in followed by Twilight. They are easy books for a population that wasn't reading as much. None of them are brilliant, none of them were horrid, just OK. So, for the lots and lots of folks that hadn't picked up a book in twenty years, or ever, they were accessible stories.

[Sarpedon]

I think most readers are teenagers. I recall the first weekend the latest book was released, and I went to the fencing club, and the floor of the prep area was, as usual, strewn with the bags and other effects of the youth class, I saw five, count them, five big thick copies of Brisingr. And thats just the ones who opted to bring their copies along with them to fencing class.

Teenagers are well known to have no taste, and to simply go with the crowd. I know, I was a tasteless teenager once. And don't think that I'm knocking them; for them its not so much about quality, but more about a shared cultural experience, a collective identity. I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with some kind of involuntary social programming, designed to help youths bond and form a cultural identity that will sustain them through adulthood. If only they would do that with a good book.

[DeleyanLee]

What I find interesting about Paolini (and Meyer, and Rowling) is that I've never seen a teenager reading the books. It's always middle-aged or older women--most of whom either don't have children or whose children are adults.

When I've asked them about why they're reading and enjoying the series, their answer was simple yet very revealing: "I'm not really into this magical stuff, but this is easy to follow, easy to read and it's kinda fun." "Takes me back to my childhood pretending games/teen daydreams."

These aren't writers, they're readers. They want something that will fill their time on the commute, waiting for appointments, whatever that's a fast read, not hard to comprehend and slightly different from the norm. It doesn't have much, if anything, to do with their ability to distinguish between "good" and "bad" writing--most of them I've talked to really don't care about all the things we writers angst about. (When I've asked, even the highly educated professionals have said that's the LEAST important thing about anything they read for fun.) All they want is a good story, easy to read, that can make them not think about the office, the economy, their kids, the laundry/housework, etc.

Having read the books myself, I can totally see where Paolini (and the others) hit these marks with a vengeance and make it really big. I may or may not like them personally, but they give readers what readers want and they have success. It's just really galling for me, and I think most writers, to see where the line for that level of success really lies since it so contradicts everything we're want to believe.

[Willowmound]

I object to this putting J.K. Rowling in the same bag as that sparkly lady and the child. I mean, really.

[DeleyanLee]

I object to this putting J.K. Rowling in the same bag as that sparkly lady and the child. I mean, really.

She's only there because of the high success of her books and the fact that she's regularly panned by (IMO jealous) writers--just like the other two. Nothing personal.

[knight_tour]

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it specifically, but I can comment on the 'cliche' issue with fantasy. I see many people roll their eyes as soon as they see any new book with another elf, dwarf, dragon, etc. in it. To me they are underestimating the large number of fantasy fans who actually enjoy the cliches that grew out of our old fairy tales. I am one of them and I don't apologize for it. I have no interest in seeing a fantasy book about some new kind of made-up monster; I want more trolls and dragons and wizards. It's what I love, and I don't believe I am the only one. I do wish more such books would be well written, though.

[Dreir]

These aren't writers, they're readers. They want something that will fill their time on the commute, waiting for appointments, whatever that's a fast read, not hard to comprehend and slightly different from the norm. It doesn't have much, if anything, to do with their ability to distinguish between "good" and "bad" writing--most of them I've talked to really don't care about all the things we writers angst about. (When I've asked, even the highly educated professionals have said that's the LEAST important thing about anything they read for fun.) All they want is a good story, easy to read, that can make them not think about the office, the economy, their kids, the laundry/housework, etc.

I find that very disheartening, but probably very close to the mark... :(

I mean I can understand it, but it makes me go, 'Am I trying too hard??' and 'Should I just forget about all these dos and don'ts??'

Even if the answer is yes or it depends, I still understand it. I'm just saying is all.. :p

- Dreir -

[Dreir]

Btw, I don't even have a problem with cliches. And I haven't read the book. But I did pick it up in a bookshop once (after I saw the movie), read several random pages, and went, 'What the... Is this really the book that everyone seems to be talking about?'

- Dreir -

[MumblingSage]

I read it becasue I was intrigued by another teenage writer. I didn't mind the first (though it read like, well, a teenage writer). So I read Eldest. I hated it. Then I joined Anti-Shurtugal, and I had to read Brisingr because being an anti-fan involves reading the books just as much as being a fan.

So yeah, that's my appeal.

[badducky]

I don't think it matters, because I don't care to read it. What does matter to me is that the success of Eragon makes dozens of other niche books possible, and that makes me happy.

You go, Paolini! Make the publisher's a fortune so they can buy good books for the rest of us!

[dclary]

Joking aside, why is this book so successful?

Yes it's shot full of issues with world building, plot, cliche etc etc. But people I know who read for pleasure love it.


Doesn't your 3rd sentence answer the question?

[TTCleveland]

Sometimes author persistence is everything.

However, I don't think anyone should ever lump J.K. Rowling with Meyer and Paolini. Jo Rowling is a great writer, and certainly deserves respect for her works.

-Travis

[shokadh]

Joking aside, why is this book so successful?

Yes it's shot full of issues with world building, plot, cliche etc etc. But people I know who read for pleasure love it.

The kid who wrote it was very young (15? I think?) and he self-published. He also traveled around the country with his family to public schools and libraries, I hear, in order to self-promote. I think the fact that he was so young and so determined provided a role-model for children and adults were impressed with his ambition for a guy so young. That's my take on it, anyway. (Just my opinion, btw)

[dclary]

Sometimes author persistence is everything.

However, I don't think anyone should ever lump J.K. Rowling with Meyer and Paolini. Jo Rowling is a great writer, and certainly deserves respect for her works.

-Travis

Really?

Rowling is no better a writer than either of them, IMO. All three write entertaining stories that work for their core audience.

[Willowmound]

So did Hemingway...

[Liosse de Velishaf]

I didn't mind Eragon when I read it, and I read Eldest, too. And now I take great joy in reading the sporkings. I plan to get around to Brisingr eventually, as well. Somewhat for reasons similar to MS. I think the books really didn't deserve to get published, but I can easily understand why they were.

I spend half the time it takes me to read the latest SM Sterling book laughing about how atrocious some of the elements are, too, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading it. I would never put Eragon on even my top thousand favorite books list, but it is in fact possible to enjoy reading something that isn't (even close to) perfect. I always laugh when I hear people make the comment about how they won't read "trash" because they'll never even finish the "good stuff".

[Dommo]

The only gripe I have liosse is that something of that quality should be free. I've read fanfiction that was far better. :P

[ELMontague]

In a moment of excess honesty, I will admit to not only buying all seven Harry Potters, all four in the Twilight series, and the three about Eragon published so far, but all also to reading and enjoying them. I wasn't learning anything from any of them, although if super-stardom can rub off I'd take some. They were brainless fun and that's OK.

I wish every writer big paydays.

[lovesaphira]

I didn't like Brisingr, i thought it was really boring. I loved Eragon and Eldest was good too, but Brisingr was a big let-down for me. it might have something to do with the fact that it's a part 1 and Paolini only thought of making his trilogy a cycle after he realized it would be too long but the book just didn't keep my interest as much as the others did.

[badducky]

Been a little misinformation in this thread about Paolini, and a lot of snide remarks. That bothers me. I see it a lot about Twilight, too, and it also bothers me.

#1: Paolini did not self-publish. His parents owned and ran a respectable, established indie press. That's where he was first published. It's not the same thing, at all, as self-publishing. The marketing experience, and reputation among schools and libraries actually really matters quite a lot, and is not the sort of thing self-publishing gets you. His parents, interested in running a successful business, would not have invested in their fifteen-year-old son's hobby if they didn't see something real, and his subsequent success proves them right.

#2: His writing doesn't suck just because you don't like it. Subjective measures like quality of writing are actually more about you than Paolini. You can say, truthfully, that it does not work for you. You cannot say, truthfully, that he's not a good writer. Actually, he's managed to tap into the psyche of quite a lot of people, and that's not an easy thing to do. It's just that you're not his audience. Which leads me to #3.

#3: We are not his audience. He is really geared towards a more casual fan of fantasy. For most of us, we won't see it as anything but a strange teen flight of fancy dressed up in dragons and swords. That's okay. It's not for us. It's for the ones that aren't quite ready for Jeffrey Ford, Brandon Sanderson, Jim Butcher, Ted Chiang, and etc. Which leads me to #4

#4 Eragon is the gateway drug to a large number of young fantasy fans, and it is really not correct to assume that the readers of this book are clueless. What they are is getting started in fantasy. Most will stop with one book. Many will travel onward down the hobbit hole, and make their way into the audience of us and many authors we love.

In summation: don't be a hater. Paolini earned his success. Do not assume he just got lucky. He worked very hard, and entertained a lot of people in the process. It does not diminish your current or eventual successes that one kid hit it big writing about dragons.

(You could almost repeat this post's message with Stephanie Meyer's books... I feel like I write or say this rant quite a lot, actually.)

[Phoebe H]

What I find interesting about Paolini (and Meyer, and Rowling) is that I've never seen a teenager reading the books. It's always middle-aged or older women--most of whom either don't have children or whose children are adults.

Oh, I've seen plenty of teen-agers and preteens reading the Eragon books. But then, that's the age my kids are, so I'm around a lot of them.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

And then Sanderson and Butcher and co. are the second gateway. It's certainly a good theory. But the vast majority of people I know who read Inheritance and Twilight did not move on to "real" (lol) fantasy after that. In fact, I can't even think of one. The gateway theory is not exactly the most well-supported idea out there. It's like saying weed leads to crack or something. I don't buy it. Yes, maybe a few will move past it, but not all that many. But I do think that getting people, especially teens, reading anything in the genres is good. So on that count, I applaud Paolini. I completely agree with your first point as well. Too many people forget that part of it.

I can't agree so much with the second point. His writing is pretty bad in areas. Not all of them of course, and one hopes he will improve much between this series and a possible later one. I'm sure he's already gotten a bit better.

In closing, I'll echo your summation. Unoriginal chump that I am.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

Oh, I've seen plenty of teen-agers and preteens reading the Eragon books. But then, that's the age my kids are, so I'm around a lot of them.


Hey, I know some eighteen year-old boys who love Twilight. And some adults. And I saw two eight-year-old girls at borders reading the whole series in the coffeeshop. Let's not claim that the books don't reach a diverse audience. That's not fair. As much as I like to rag on Twilight and Eragon, let's give credit where credit is due.

[MattW]

#3: We are not his audience. He is really geared towards a more casual fan of fantasy.

#4 Eragon is the gateway drug to a large number of young fantasy fans....What they are is getting started in fantasy. Most will stop with one book. Many will travel onward down the hobbit hole, and make their way into the audience of us and many authors we love.

In summation: don't be a hater.
I agree with all your points above, but I still reserve my right to be a hater. It's all I know.

[Marie]

And then Sanderson and Butcher and co. are the second gateway. It's certainly a good theory. But the vast majority of people I know who read Inheritance and Twilight did not move on to "real" (lol) fantasy after that. In fact, I can't even think of one. The gateway theory is not exactly the most well-supported idea out there. It's like saying weed leads to crack or something. I don't buy it. Yes, maybe a few will move past it, but not all that many. But I do think that getting people, especially teens, reading anything in the genres is good. So on that count, I applaud Paolini. I completely agree with your first point as well. Too many people forget that part of it.

I read the Inheritence Trilogy, all seven Harry Potters, and the Twilight Saga (and enjoyed the first two) and also read serious fantasy.

[Cranky]

I've never read Eragon, but that's because I'm not really into dragons, which is what I gather the series is about.

I have, however, read and owned every single Harry Potter book and movie, and I am working hard at hooking my children (evil momma that I am) on the series as well. Read two paragraphs of Twilight in Target a couple of weeks ago to see what the hoopla was about, and got bored immediately.

Long story short...Eragon works for some people, and doesn't for others. But it works for more than it doesn't. Same with Dan Brown. I think Dan Brown's writing is far from fabulous, but you know, I read The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons...dude knows how to keep you turning the pages. *shrug*

And as others have pointed out, these writer's success has helped other writers get published. Good for them, I say.

[Death Wizard]

Regardless of whether we like the Potter series, I think that most people admire Rowling's work. That doesn't seem to be true of Paolini, Brown, or Meyer.

Why? Probably because Rowling is just a whole lot better.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

I read the Inheritence Trilogy, all seven Harry Potters, and the Twilight Saga (and enjoyed the first two) and also read serious fantasy.


Were you reading "serious" fantasy before Eragon and Twilight? If not, props to Paolini and Meyers. And I mean that sincerely. Otherwise, irrelevant.

[Cranky]

Regardless of whether we like the Potter series, I think that most people admire Rowling's work. That doesn't seem to be true of Paolini, Brown, or Meyer.

Why? Probably because Rowling is just a whole lot better.

Objectively? That's hard to quantify, DW. Though I do of course agree with you. :D

[emandem]

I have to smile every time I stumble on a thread about Paolini, Meyer, etc... As was stated earlier, what writers like to read is going to be different from what "regular" people like to read.

Think about it. If you approach a group of ten everyday walk-of-life people on the street, how many of them are really avid readers (or writers)? Next to none, in my experience. The books that are the "best" (or rather the books that SELL the best) are the ones that satisfy the MAJORITY of people --and the majority of people are not avid readers. They want their meat and potatoes--simple reading, a plot that provides some escapism if possible--they don't necessarily want the nouvelle cuisine, with perfect prose and complex characters. They don't care about faithfulness to genre-- they're prob not even sure what genre is anyway. They likely won't even read another book for a couple years either. Half the time, I don't think they care if it's perfect English either....as long as the plot is satisfying.

[SPMiller]

As AMCrenshaw pointed out recently on these forums, it's hard to draw a line between quality and popularity. Even if we could, why would we want to?

Sure, it's my personal opinion that the writing is garbage, but that hasn't stopped books from being popular before.

That said, I stand by my earlier post in the thread, which explains succinctly (and humorously!) why Eragon worked. Cliches aren't necessarily bad. Throw them together in the right way, and it doesn't matter how bad your prose is. People will eat it up and beg for more.

Oh, and the connections in the industry can't hurt...

[Keyan]

I was a reader long before I was a writer, and was pretty much omnivorous. I read for the sheer wonder of getting into another mind.

I never gave a damn about writing style, except where it made a difference to the story. Joyce, yeah. Hemingway maybe. Shakespeare, yes, because it's old enough that you have to *learn* how to read it. Modern authors using too many adverbs? Who cares?

As a writer, I can say the plot is derivative or the prose purplish. I can note that using adverbs is a lazy way to convey a feeling, and that too many adjectives weigh a sentence down.

As a reader, I don't care. If the preternaturally quick reddish-brown fox leapt lightly over the sluggish sleeping brindled hound, what I want to know is why? Is the fox a kitsune? Is it going to transform? And however lazy, I still find the sentence works better for me-the-reader than does "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."

I read Eragon and Eldest, and will read Brisingr. Or try it, anyway. I read the Potter lot. I even read Twilight. And though I couldn't quite see what made it work, something did: It was easier to read the book than to put it down.

Most of what we call "good writing" is a matter of convention. Styles change. There's nothing *inherently* good or bad about a particular way of writing. If it communicates with the reader, it's getting the job done.

[ELMontague]

Most of what we call "good writing" is a matter of convention. Styles change. There's nothing *inherently* good or bad about a particular way of writing. If it communicates with the reader, it's getting the job done.

Well said.

[DeleyanLee]

Regardless of whether we like the Potter series, I think that most people admire Rowling's work. That doesn't seem to be true of Paolini, Brown, or Meyer.

Why? Probably because Rowling is just a whole lot better.

The joys of subjectivity. I think Brown's a far better writer than any of the others listed here and I've read all of them. *shrug* What I find interesting is if any one of them subjected their work to the vast majority of crit groups, every one of them would be torn to shreds because of some Turkey Lexicon "rule", which would be sad since all of their works are so enjoyable without being writerly perfect.

[It's-Magic!]

I read the first few chapters of Eragon, willingly. It ended up, even as near as the first few pages, being a chore rather than pleasure, but then again, my friend who is a bookworm loves Eragon. It depends on what appeals and how quickly the story moves on (Imao).

[Death Wizard]

Objectively? That's hard to quantify, DW. Though I do of course agree with you. :D

Stephen King says so, and I never argue with Steve! :)

[Death Wizard]

The joys of subjectivity. I think Brown's a far better writer than any of the others listed here and I've read all of them. *shrug* What I find interesting is if any one of them subjected their work to the vast majority of crit groups, every one of them would be torn to shreds because of some Turkey Lexicon "rule", which would be sad since all of their works are so enjoyable without being writerly perfect.

You make some good points.

[Nivarion]

I think its like food. (here i go again.) I can serve you a dish, and make it look like total Store High In Transit. Or my inner chef wakes up and I can serve you a dish from the same foodstuffs that looks like it came out of a five star restaurant. It still tastes the same, Sometimes the brain decives itself and it tastes better, but the second one is more appealing. And yet, how many people eat at the five star over KFC?

Or another comparison. When I was a little kid, my aunt used to get me this "Fruity Stripes" gum. I loved the stuff. Well a few weeks ago I found some of it in a store and bought a pack. Hated it, the texture was all crumbly, and the flavor was too sugary and left too quickly. My little brothers loved it though.

meh, rambles.

[Dommo]

What I dislike about Paolini, is that he offers nothing new to the whole fantasy genre. He basically rips off just about every big existing fantasy novel, but brings nothing of his own to the whole deal. That's why I dislike him.

I've read fanfiction that's far better than his books, and those exist in someoneelse's universe, and they still manage to take the existing material and make it fresh and interesting. Like I read a good Lord of the Rings fanfic, that was pretty cool. It didn't really involve any of the main characters, but told the stories of some of the peripheral events that happened, and the actions of characters involved there. It had little to do with the main story arch, but it fleshed out the context of the main existing canon that it made me like the lord of the rings books more.

Eragon fails to do that. It just feels like a straight rip off, of stuff that already exists, and it doesn't do anything to really stir my imagination.

[pookel]

Btw, I don't even have a problem with cliches. And I haven't read the book. But I did pick it up in a bookshop once (after I saw the movie), read several random pages, and went, 'What the... Is this really the book that everyone seems to be talking about?'
I think you could probably do that with a lot of successful books, and there's a reason it's not an accurate way to gauge their popularity. You can't look at random pages in the middle of the book and experience them in the same way that someone who has been hooked on the story from the beginning does. When I am immersed in a story, I can skim right past flaws that would be clearly visible if I stopped, pulled myself out of the story, and looked at it with an editor's eye. Once the reader has fallen in love, it takes a lot more than cliched or simplistic writing to lose them.

[Dreir]

Pookel, I agree with you. However, I wasn't trying to gauge the book's popularity. I was trying to find out if it was worth it for me to read it, personally. I was intrigued by why 'everyone' seemed to think highly of it so I decided to investigate.

Like Keyan, I'm pretty much omnivorous and have a rather high tolerance level when it comes to 'bad books' (two of my favourite writers are barely known in fantasy circles and break lots of 'rules' in their writings), so even though I've seen the movie and knew the story was cliched, I was actually trying to give it a chance.

Granted, looking at random pages are not gonna tell me how I could get immersed in the story, but it could easily tell me the quality of the writing, and whether it'd be worth investing my money and time on. I've done this on a lot of books before and, even though some of the stories didn't turn out to be exactly brilliant, at least I didn't have to cringe reading them. But with Eragon, every random page made me cringe. I couldn't believe some of the prose and dialogue that I was reading. From where I was looking, I couldn't imagine how I could loose myself in it.

On the other hand, when I first read full-length fantasy in my early teens, I thought Eddings was the greatest writer in the universe. I've learned a lot since then, of course, but I can easily imagine teenaged fantasy virgins going saucer-eyed at Eragon, or older, generally more mainstream readers going, "what's this silly story about magic and dragons, then?" before proceeding to read and enjoy it for a bit of escapism.

Oh well, maybe I'm not as omnivorous as I thought. Or maybe my writer's eye has slowly started to exert more influence on me than my more forgiving reader's eye. In any case, and as I've said, I was evaluating the book purely on a personal basis, and it didn't interest me one bit.

- Dreir -

[StephenJSweeney]

#1: Paolini did not self-publish.

Wrong. Eragon is a self published book.

"My family and I chose to self-publish ERAGON because we wanted to retain financial and creative control over the book" -- Christopher Paolini
[http://www.teenreads.com/authors/au-paolini-christopher.asp] (http://www.teenreads.com/authors/au-paolini-christopher.asp%5D)
[http://www.eternalnight.co.uk/chronicle/c29/paolinichristopher.html] (http://www.eternalnight.co.uk/chronicle/c29/paolinichristopher.html%5D)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eragon] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eragon%5D)

[ELMontague]

Self-publishing when you own the printing press is different than self-publishing when you hire out someone else's.

[Lccorp2]

It's still the same. You're skipping the hoops of the selection process, the run-down through agents, editors, and finally seeing your book in print. Whether it's your own press or someone else's doesn't make a jot of difference.

[dawinsor]

Eragon may have been "self published" in some sense, but the current publisher is Knopf.

[Gynn]

Really?

Rowling is no better a writer than either of them, IMO. All three write entertaining stories that work for their core audience.

For some reason, though, Rowling's world intrigued me...at least the first three books did. It's so colorful and neat! Yes, reading her is like eating a Happy Meal, but that's not so bad sometimes.

The other two didn't hook me at all, however. Reading Paolini was like reading a want ad: The orc has black hair, weighs nearly three hundred pounds, has two snarling red eyes, four scars...

[ELMontague]

Like I said, I read them all. And all of them worked. I'll have more room to criticize when/if I'm published.

[Gynn]

#2: His writing doesn't suck just because you don't like it. Subjective measures like quality of writing are actually more about you than Paolini. You can say, truthfully, that it does not work for you. You cannot say, truthfully, that he's not a good writer. Actually, he's managed to tap into the psyche of quite a lot of people, and that's not an easy thing to do. It's just that you're not his audience.


I have to disagree with this one. We should all strive to be as complete a writer as we can be. If we think subjectively and settle for less just because it works for a certain group of people, then we may as well accept that everyone is a good writer. I don't think that popularity is a good measure for quality. Look at movies, for example.

We can say that all music is equal because everyone has different tastes, but isn't Rush just a better band than the Backstreet Boys?

Anyway, you guys see what I'm getting at.

[scarletpeaches]

Like I said, I read them all. And all of them worked. I'll have more room to criticize when/if I'm published.

Why?

What difference does publication make?

I don't buy this idea that you're only allowed to crit books when you're published.

I'm a reader first and foremost. If I don't like a book, damn right I'm gonna say, published or not. You don't need to be a writer (published or otherwise) to earn the right to an opinion.

Having someone else buy your work doesn't make your opinion on Paolini's any more valid.

[badducky]

I'll say this one more time, because for some godawful reason the myth will not die.

It's actually promulgated by Paolini, to some extent, because he uses the term "self-published" when promoting his books and talking about them. And, he's wrong.

Eragon was not self-published. If your parents are the head acquisition editors (and everything else) of a respected, regionally-established indie press, and they use their press network and distribution and social network to get your book out there, it's really not self-publishing.

Let's review. Did Christopher Paolini pay to publish his book? Nope. Paolini didn't self-publish. He was fourteen. He paid nothing.

His parents footed the bill. His parents were experienced publishers and promoters of small press books. His parents were very unlikely to do that if their son's book was as awful as has been suggested. And, the subsequent success of the book proves them right.

This notion that Paolini self-published will not die. Food for thought: If the head editor of Soft Skull decided to foot the bill for a title through Lightning Source, and promoted it as heavily as any title in Soft Skull's catalog, through the network of reviewers, librarians, and schools he developed with Soft Skull, would you say that's on equal footing as "self-publishing" as the term has come to mean? Our example author didn't self-publish. He was just a one man imprint under an established publisher.

I wish this myth would die. I wish Mr Paolini would use the correct term for what he was. He, himself, did not foot the bill. He was a one man imprint under an established publihser.

He's giving fodder to the self-published scammers, and self-published self-delusionalists, quoted and used to justify what is, all-too-often, a mistake.

Plenty of small and micro presses use POD technology because it's cheap, easy, and linked to Ingrams. That's not self-publishing. It's a business tactic oft-used by micro and indie presses as a method of printing and distribution.

Edit to Add: Also, the company that published Eragon originally was an LLC created by his parents, who had published other books before Eragon. I forgot to mention this above. But, again, that's not quote-unquote "Self-Publishing".

Edit to add: And.. Here's Jim Hines' take, who is less extreme than me, but still acknowledges one key difference between Paolini in the interest of being fair and balanced. (I think you know what I think about this, already, as I have argued that this company was a micro/indie press, and, respectable in its region.)


2. Christopher Paolini self-published ERAGON. Paolini's family ran a small commercial press. ERAGON was not the first book published by Paolini International. Paolini International was founded in 1997, and you could make a strong argument that they are a commercial publisher, albeit a small one. On the other hand, since they were publishing the work of their son, you could also call this self-publishing. In either case, Paolini's success** relied heavily on the fact that his family had five years of experience running a publisher, and were willing to devote themselves full-time to promoting his book. Unless your family has the same experience and devotion to your book, I wouldn't count on achieving this level of success.


Source:http://jimhines.livejournal.com/313073.html

[ELMontague]

ScarletPeaches,

Allow me to rephrase, as a reader I can say all I want, and said all that was necessary by giving all three authors my money. As an author, I'll have more legs to stand on giving criticism to another author.

For this thread in general, what I really want to know is how to tap into an international phenomena. All three authors have written books that will go down in history as great sellers even if they don't go down in history as great works of art. And by extension, if there are 20 million copies of your work, the likelihood some of it will survive is greatly improved.

[scarletpeaches]

I don't think anyone CAN tap into a phenomena, predict one, or arrange for their own work to become one.

After all, if there was a magic formula, you can bet I wouldn't still be poor and unpublished! :D

[Thomas_Anderson]

Um, the book wasn't published when Paolini was 14. He started writing it at that age, it wasn't actually published until years later.

EDIT:As for the Inheritance Cycle's quality. Something about a series where the main character becomes a vegetarian because he felt bad about killing two rabbits, and then mercilessly slaughters mooks strikes me as mindnumbingly stupid.

[ELMontague]

It doesn't hurt to ask the questions and think about them seriously.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

His parents footed the bill. His parents were experienced publishers and promoters of small press books. His parents were very unlikely to do that if their son's book was as awful as has been suggested. And, the subsequent success of the book proves them right.

No, no, no... You mean "unmarketable", not "awful". I think all three of Paolini's books were "awful"--or at the best, mediocre--in terms of just about every area of writing and story-telling. That didn't stop me from buying them.

You can say I'm arguing semantics--or nitpicking--if you want, but that's just my opinion. I think Paolini and his parents deserve all the credit in the world for making Inheritance a success. They did well enough to get me to buy the books after all. They put in a hell of a lot of hard work, and footed the bill themselves. Good for them. That doesn't mean I think Paolini's a great writer. (I didn't buy the book because I thought it was good, and I didn't buy it because I just wanted to rag on it. My reasons were somewhat complex.) But I think he desveres kudos for being a successful one.

[StephenJSweeney]

Let's review. Did Christopher Paolini pay to publish his book? Nope. Paolini didn't self-publish. He was fourteen. He paid nothing.

So, it only counts as self publishing if you pay?

[Willowmound]

an international phenomena

a phenomena

Guys, guys please! Phenomena is the plural of phenomenon. Come on. We have to kill this thing. Help me.

[scarletpeaches]

Bum. I'm so ashamed.

I'll punish myself by...eating chocolate.

:(

[Dreir]

You can say I'm arguing semantics--or nitpicking--if you want, but that's just my opinion.

No, I don't think you're nitpicking at all. There's a whole world of difference between 'awful' and 'unmarketable'. When you're trying to sell something, there are a million things you can talk about to get people to buy it without ever touching on quality.

- Dreir -

[dclary]

For some reason, though, Rowling's world intrigued me...at least the first three books did. It's so colorful and neat! Yes, reading her is like eating a Happy Meal, but that's not so bad sometimes.

The other two didn't hook me at all, however. Reading Paolini was like reading a want ad: The orc has black hair, weighs nearly three hundred pounds, has two snarling red eyes, four scars...

Don't you mean "Urgal?"

[dclary]

Um, the book wasn't published when Paolini was 14. He started writing it at that age, it wasn't actually published until years later.

EDIT:As for the Inheritance Cycle's quality. Something about a series where the main character becomes a vegetarian because he felt bad about killing two rabbits, and then mercilessly slaughters mooks strikes me as mindnumbingly stupid.

Yeah, but he wasn't eating mooks. Come on!

[Leila]

Eragon is the gateway drug to a large number of young fantasy fans, and it is really not correct to assume that the readers of this book are clueless. What they are is getting started in fantasy. Most will stop with one book. Many will travel onward down the hobbit hole, and make their way into the audience of us and many authors we love.

I think this view has some merit. People can go on from it to read better things, and I'm all for that. However, if Eragon is where a lot of people start reading fantasy and then stop, it can also be the book which defines fantasy for them as 'that unrealistic genre with all the elves and unpronounceable names and stereotypical characters' etc. A lot of people I know don't like fantasy and don't understand why I do, and won't read any no matter how many good fantasy books I recommend. And I don't think books like Eragon help.

His writing doesn't suck just because you don't like it. Subjective measures like quality of writing are actually more about you than Paolini. You can say, truthfully, that it does not work for you. You cannot say, truthfully, that he's not a good writer.

Most of what we call "good writing" is a matter of convention. Styles change. There's nothing *inherently* good or bad about a particular way of writing. If it communicates with the reader, it's getting the job done.

Ok. I agree that to a certain extent, prose is subjective stuff. Not everything has to be everybody's cup of tea, and some people are fussier about their cups of tea than others. (Right. I'll leave the tea analogy alone now, I promise.) However, I think Paolini's writing sucks because it sucks. You have sentences like "Sorry," Brom apologised. I cannot even begin to understand why a sentence with such a glaring tautology could be in any final published version of a book. And then there are all the stiff sentences which are buried in their descriptiveness and wooden dialogue and characters who feel like cutouts taken straight from some list of fantasy archetype.

Whatever conventions you buy into, I just don't think that there is ANY school of prose writing in which Paolini's writing works. Whether you're looking at clean unobtrusive prose that does the job and stays out of the way of the story, or epic Tolkienesque bardlike stuff, or anything else, Paolini can't write good sentences. And yeah, writers can get popular without being able to write good sentences and a lot of readers don't care. But the world isn't fair. I don't think that things necessarily have some hidden redeeming quality just because a lot of people like them. I mean, that would mean Paris Hilton has some hidden redeeming quality.

I think Paolini's books have been marketed brilliantly, I think they have very pretty covers and I think that people like the story behind them of an unknown teenager making it big. From my own experiences at work, a lot of the time bookshop staff don't bother reading all of the books they choose to recommend because there simply isn't time. And Paolini is popular and well packaged, and booksellers and bookbuyers do judge things by their covers. It's as simple as that.

[StephenJSweeney]

However, I think Paolini's writing sucks because it sucks. You have sentences like "Sorry," Brom apologised. I cannot even begin to understand why a sentence with such a glaring tautology could be in any final published version of a book.

"A flickering sea-blue shimmer ran from the base of Saphira’s head to the crest of her shoulders as the tips of the sharp, diamond-shaped scales along the sides of her neck rose a fraction of an inch from the underlying skin."
-- Brisingr (Inheritance Cycle, Book 3)

The above could also have been written: "Saphira shrugged."

I mean, that would mean Paris Hilton has some hidden redeeming quality.

She does: she stands to remind you every day that you're not her.

And Paolini is popular and well packaged, and booksellers and bookbuyers do judge things by their covers. It's as simple as that.

I had never heard of Eragon until the film came out. At that point I heard that it was based on a book written by a teenager. That was the marketing. Nothing else. And right now that kind of thing is popular. People like the fairy tale of going from a supermarket shelf stacker to an international pop star because they showed up to a Saturday night karaoke contest.

Sort of ironic that they then lambaste people who read scifi and fantasy for not living in the real world, when they are unable to see the strings manipulating their idols. And their wallets.

[K. Taylor]

I haven't been reading the Eragon books, but my boyfriend has. He struggled through the first one because it was a gift from his best friend, and said it was obvious the kid writer grew up as he wrote the book. He's read the first two, and we've gotten a kick and a giggle over how much is directly lifted from Star Wars....just with changed names/terms and in an ancient land. My boyfriend is basically reading along to see where they will actually differ from the original Star Wars trilogy.

Will he read the series again once he's finished? I doubt it. It's not Dragonlance or Ravenloft or written by Timothy Zahn. (his preferred texts)

[Dreir]

However, if Eragon is where a lot of people start reading fantasy and then stop, it can also be the book which defines fantasy for them as 'that unrealistic genre with all the elves and unpronounceable names and stereotypical characters' etc.

Uhmm.. If it's their first time reading fantasy, how would they know the characters were stereotypical? :D Anyway, I agree that, if Eragon is the first impression of fantasy that these one-book dabblers get, that can't be good.

However, I think Paolini's writing sucks because it sucks.

Yup. No matter how much you try to butter it up and say how it might not be everyone's cup of tea, the above fact remains.

I mean, that would mean Paris Hilton has some hidden redeeming quality.

Totally didn't expect this.. made me guffaw and realise that some truths are, indeed, universal.

- Dreir -

[SPMiller]

Nearly everyone past their teenage years realizes Paolini's writing is bad. The point is, people read it anyway. This thread is proof.

The question is: why do people read it even when they know it's bad?

Any discussion of the prosaic quality of the novels is beside the point. Seriously.

[Dreir]

We're just responding to the posts that say the writing is, in fact, not bad.. :D

One thing that's come out, for sure, is that the books are read by both the people who don't know that the writing is bad (the teenagers, or most of them at least) and the people who do know (the rest, hopefully). So, on the one hand, you can argue that the books are simply being read because they've been marketed so successfully and because the majority of the readers are not yet discerning of their reading material. On the other hand, when you're trying to explain the non-teenagers' fondness for it, especially those who're already readers of fantasy (and thus already know all the stereotypes), you're pretty much stumped. We'll just have to ask them personally, I guess.

- Dreir -

[IdiotsRUs]

The question is: why do people read it even when they know it's bad?


Rubbernecking for giggles?

Beats me why anyone would read a book they don't enjoy. Of course, we don't know how many people bought it the strength of the 'OMG IT'S AWESOME!!! AND HE'S A TEENAGER!!!!' marketing, read three pages and burnt it.

[Cybernaught]

I really don't get the appeal of Eragon. A fellow Lit major who is pretty snobbish toward genre and always complains about how bad Twilight is used Eragon as a basis for good fantasy during a critique the other day.

I was like, "Are you kidding?"

[Leila]

A lot of people are less fussy about good writing. My boyfriend has read all Dan Brown's books (the shame!) while I struggled to finish The Da Vinci Code. And then there are people read for mindless fun with full awareness that they're not reading good literature, and there's nothing really wrong with that. (I have been guilty of that myself, although not with anything by Paolini because his writing is so bad that it can't even be mindless fun for me.) But in that case, it's like eating McDonalds. You know it's not good for you.

I do think there is something to be said for reading a book which you are aware isn't good. It can give you good self esteem and help you learn what not to do. Stephen King even recommends it in On Writing. That doesn't explain people buying Paolini though. If you knew it was bad but felt curious, wouldn't you get it out at the library or something?

I think Paolini sells well because the covers look pretty, because people don't realise that there is better fantasy more worthy of their time and money, and because, let's face it, a lot of people have no taste.

[scarletpeaches]

How do you pronounce it anyway? I hear Americans say "Erra gone," but I keep wanting to call it "Eh-raggin'."

[Liosse de Velishaf]

How do you pronounce it anyway? I hear Americans say "Erra gone," but I keep wanting to call it "Eh-raggin'."

"Era-gon" is how I pronounce it... like hexagon.

[ELMontague]

Erra gone - at least that's how they said it in the movie.

[Gynn]

Nearly everyone past their teenage years realizes Paolini's writing is bad. The point is, people read it anyway. This thread is proof.

The question is: why do people read it even when they know it's bad?

Any discussion of the prosaic quality of the novels is beside the point. Seriously.

There is good to come of Eragon/Twilight. Anything that gets teens into reading is fine by me. Hopefully, they'll move from there to greener pastures.

[scarletpeaches]

I do. Not. Buy. this "if it gets kids reading" thing. Not one bit. I despise the idea, in fact.

If you get kids reading with shit, they don't grow up with a taste for literature. They grow up with a taste for shit.

[ELMontague]

Anything that gets people buying books is good. More people in the bookstore, more people to pick up an author they haven't tried before. I love the fact that when I walk into my local Borders or B&N they are full and there's a queue at the register.

[brainstorm77]

There is good to come of Eragon/Twilight. Anything that gets teens into reading is fine by me. Hopefully, they'll move from there to greener pastures.

Agreed :)

[Smiling Ted]

Anything that gets people buying books is good. More people in the bookstore, more people to pick up an author they haven't tried before. I love the fact that when I walk into my local Borders or B&N they are full and there's a queue at the register.

I dunno. I wish I were a little more sanguine about that.
Has anyone ever done a study about Potter and Eragon as gateway drugs?

[ChaosTitan]

Like Twilight, conversations about Eragon seem to consistently run in never-ending circles without anything new being said.

Night-night.