Sam
First Post
I've only got a few minutes right now, but wanted to get the discussion started. I'll post more later.
I finished reading Eragon just a few days ago and found that I really enjoyed the story. Its even more impressive when you take into consderation that Paolini only 15 or 16 years old when he began writing it. Eragon is a very good novel, without taking into consideration that it is a first novel or that it was written by a teenager.
It is tempting (and hard not to) compare things you are reading to things that have come before. In this, people will compare Paolini's book to works by earlier authors. Even to say that it is derivative. When reading Eragon, I found myself thinking "this seems like something in the Wheel of Time novels" or "that's like what happened in the Pern series." I think that these things are forgivable and do not necessarily make something derivative. After all, there are only a certain amount of basic themes that can be drawn upon. Good fantasy literature is like any other good literature in that the things that make it good are the combination of prose, plot and people. Paolini captures these three things in Eragon.
I enjoyed his style. The use of short chapters created a feeling of reading (or even watching) a series of vingettes. Unlike other authors that draw you into the world through the presentation of every bit of a character's life (particularly thinking about Jordan here), Paolini seems to be giving you the essence of the character and the formative events without causing you to sit through his breakfast decision. Almost like writing a screenplay vs a detailed journal of every day in the life of a character.
Perhaps because of this, Paolini's characters are not as complex as the may have been. Maybe this was purposeful. He could have been striving for the archetype and wanted to present it as such. If so, it worked. And if so, even more impressive regarding his age. I don't think that was the intention though. I suspect we'll see futher in the subsequent novels. If the characters develop significantly (along with the author), then it wasn't intentional.
I am looking forward to Eldest, the next novel in the story line. Even so, Eragon seemed to work well as a stand alone book. I am interested in seeing what happens to Eragon, Alagaesia, the Varden, etc., but I don't feel like Eragon as a story is not complete. Paolini is writing a trilogy of books, but (at least based on Eragon) they will each stand on their own. It is rare to find this in Fantasy. Too many authors and publishers look at the progression of LotR (which should have been one [albiet large] book) and think that is the way it has to be done. Outside of the fantasy genre, many series are written with each being component being able to stand on its own.
One question before I post (and I will post more later): How did Murtagh speak with Saphria when they were rescuing Eragon in Gilead? I don't know if this is foreshadowing on Paolini's part or if it is just a bit of incontinuity.
I finished reading Eragon just a few days ago and found that I really enjoyed the story. Its even more impressive when you take into consderation that Paolini only 15 or 16 years old when he began writing it. Eragon is a very good novel, without taking into consideration that it is a first novel or that it was written by a teenager.
It is tempting (and hard not to) compare things you are reading to things that have come before. In this, people will compare Paolini's book to works by earlier authors. Even to say that it is derivative. When reading Eragon, I found myself thinking "this seems like something in the Wheel of Time novels" or "that's like what happened in the Pern series." I think that these things are forgivable and do not necessarily make something derivative. After all, there are only a certain amount of basic themes that can be drawn upon. Good fantasy literature is like any other good literature in that the things that make it good are the combination of prose, plot and people. Paolini captures these three things in Eragon.
I enjoyed his style. The use of short chapters created a feeling of reading (or even watching) a series of vingettes. Unlike other authors that draw you into the world through the presentation of every bit of a character's life (particularly thinking about Jordan here), Paolini seems to be giving you the essence of the character and the formative events without causing you to sit through his breakfast decision. Almost like writing a screenplay vs a detailed journal of every day in the life of a character.
Perhaps because of this, Paolini's characters are not as complex as the may have been. Maybe this was purposeful. He could have been striving for the archetype and wanted to present it as such. If so, it worked. And if so, even more impressive regarding his age. I don't think that was the intention though. I suspect we'll see futher in the subsequent novels. If the characters develop significantly (along with the author), then it wasn't intentional.
I am looking forward to Eldest, the next novel in the story line. Even so, Eragon seemed to work well as a stand alone book. I am interested in seeing what happens to Eragon, Alagaesia, the Varden, etc., but I don't feel like Eragon as a story is not complete. Paolini is writing a trilogy of books, but (at least based on Eragon) they will each stand on their own. It is rare to find this in Fantasy. Too many authors and publishers look at the progression of LotR (which should have been one [albiet large] book) and think that is the way it has to be done. Outside of the fantasy genre, many series are written with each being component being able to stand on its own.
One question before I post (and I will post more later): How did Murtagh speak with Saphria when they were rescuing Eragon in Gilead? I don't know if this is foreshadowing on Paolini's part or if it is just a bit of incontinuity.
)
