Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
takyris said:
Hey, is that right?
I'm close man! REAL close!
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Honestly - What is Eragon?
- Thread starter Angel Tarragon
- Start date
Hey, is that right?
I'm close man! REAL close!
Man, I can't get through these long-arsed posts without falling asleep or killing a puppy.
That said, I haven't read the books as I don't read a lot of fantasy to begin with, but the one thing I can say about the trailer is that is was slightly better than the first DnD trailer. And while I am probably gonna see it, I get the feeling that it will be a similar experience.
That said, I haven't read the books as I don't read a lot of fantasy to begin with, but the one thing I can say about the trailer is that is was slightly better than the first DnD trailer. And while I am probably gonna see it, I get the feeling that it will be a similar experience.
Ooh ooh, one more thing. While I haven't read the books (as I mentioned 1 minute ago), I do agree with Merlion's reasoning.
For instance. There is some artist who sits his bare ass on a a blob of paint and then sits on a canvas. Some people (the artist alone most likely) think this is on par to such classical pieces as the Mona Lisa and the Scream. Whereas I think he's an idiot and his work is total sh*t. Haha, get it. A pun.
I gotta go. Film-class is waiting and girls are plenty.
For instance. There is some artist who sits his bare ass on a a blob of paint and then sits on a canvas. Some people (the artist alone most likely) think this is on par to such classical pieces as the Mona Lisa and the Scream. Whereas I think he's an idiot and his work is total sh*t. Haha, get it. A pun.
I gotta go. Film-class is waiting and girls are plenty.
IcyCool
First Post
Chain Lightning said:
That's the thing. You don't write for the "lowest common denominator" at all. You write what's popular at the time (if you wan't to sell lots of books). Why is it that popular must equal "lowest common denominator" or "low brow"? Why is it that people attack the consumers of popular media with these terms? Why is it that you feel the need to label something you didn't like as "low brow"?
takyris said:
Is this evidence that his book is "bad"? Honest question.
takyris said:
It doesn't make them "bad" novels either.
takyris said:
I didn't read all of the long responses, so I may have missed it, but is anyone in this thread using the author's age as an arguement for the work's merit(or lack thereof) besides you?
takyris said:
I hear that. I've got a collection of short stories that I'm quite happy will never again see the light of day.
takyris said:
Why is he sad?
takyris said:
What is the criteria you use to "objectively qualify" it?
takyris said:
Because clearly, no one could like it for its own merit.
Berandor
lunatic
Just like any other craft, writing has an objective quality to it. The (correct) use of metaphors, similes, symbolism, or other stylistic flourishes. Clear writing, no redundancy and correct use of words (for example, there's a word for the "stylistic flourishes", but I don't know it). Showing, not telling. Not too many adverbs, not telling the reader how to feel.
You can look at characterization: Do the characters have clearly defined goals? Are they mere stereotypes? Plot: Is it complex? Does the author have a clear idea of what's going on, or does it seems like he's lost? Takyris mentioned setting and voice as to further qualify writing.
Similarly, movies can be objectively qualified as bad movies by their writing, by cinematography, acting, effects, etc.
However, as with any art, writing is also intangible in that certain qualities cannot be objectively quantified. Sometimes, a work of art not only works in spite of its deficiencies, but because of it (Blair Witch Project depended on the low-budget look, for example). And certainly, enjoyment is not solely dependent on the objective qualities. I enjoyed TRANSPORTER 2, but I'll be the first to tell you that overall, it's a bad movie that does some things right or at least well enough for me to overlook its flaws.
Since most people read or watch films in order to be entertained, "good" or "bad" doesn't always factor in. But "I enjoyed it" is not a statement that can be discussed; it's an opinion. I can qualify films and books, and certainly whether or not I enjoyed them is a factor, but without providing a reason behind my enjoyment or lack thereof, it won't be any more helpful than a simple polling result.
If you liked Eragon, that's great. But if you can't provide any more than that, what's the point of discussing with you?
You can look at characterization: Do the characters have clearly defined goals? Are they mere stereotypes? Plot: Is it complex? Does the author have a clear idea of what's going on, or does it seems like he's lost? Takyris mentioned setting and voice as to further qualify writing.
Similarly, movies can be objectively qualified as bad movies by their writing, by cinematography, acting, effects, etc.
However, as with any art, writing is also intangible in that certain qualities cannot be objectively quantified. Sometimes, a work of art not only works in spite of its deficiencies, but because of it (Blair Witch Project depended on the low-budget look, for example). And certainly, enjoyment is not solely dependent on the objective qualities. I enjoyed TRANSPORTER 2, but I'll be the first to tell you that overall, it's a bad movie that does some things right or at least well enough for me to overlook its flaws.
Since most people read or watch films in order to be entertained, "good" or "bad" doesn't always factor in. But "I enjoyed it" is not a statement that can be discussed; it's an opinion. I can qualify films and books, and certainly whether or not I enjoyed them is a factor, but without providing a reason behind my enjoyment or lack thereof, it won't be any more helpful than a simple polling result.
If you liked Eragon, that's great. But if you can't provide any more than that, what's the point of discussing with you?
Storm Raven
First Post
Baumi said:Just a short question: Since the Movie is part one of a triologie () ... is the first book selfcontained or does it end in a cliffhanger?
It sort of just ends. Without much resolution and without much of a cliffhanger. The ending, in my opinion, is one of the many (many, many) weaknesses of the book.
Merlion
First Post
I know I said I wasnt going to post anymore, but Berandor has started to begin to actually aproach what I am trying to get at.
Ok...thats all well and good. But my questions then are: Who decides what the "correct" use of those things is? What makes them correct? And does deviating from that make a work "bad" or simply mean that its breaking that particular set of rules or guidlines, automatically?
I specifically disagree with this one, as both a reader and a writer. Some times you *have* to tell, and some times telling is better than showing. In other cases, that saying is true.
But what if your story is primarily about a setting and its mood and feel, and the characters goals dont really enter much into it, they are just there to explore said setting?
What if they are sterotypes intentionally, because you are exploring or exploiting those sterotypes for some reason?
Again, what about stories primarily about theme, mood and setting, that may not really even have a plot to speak of, or not much of one, because they exist mostly just to evoke certain feelings? I see a lot of Lovecraft as being like that, but it suceeds very well at what its intended for.
Even these qualities you speak of arent really objective...or leastways, there relevance to the merit or quality of a work is not.
I understand that there are certain sets of rules that have been put down by groups of "experts" to define how a story should or shouldnt be written, and the same for other artforms. However, I do not believe that deviating from those rules automatically makes a work "bad". It simply means it didnt follow those particular rules.
Now I dont neccesarily think all works are equal in terms of quality. Chances are, Eragon isnt as a good a book as A Wizard of Earthsea, The Fellowship of the Ring or Dune. And chances are its author would be the first to agree with that. But that doesnt make it bad...it makes it not as good.
Likewise the question can be applies to all these things you mention, characterization, plot, use of metaphors, setting, voice etc. Who decides what is the "right" or "wrong" way to use these things, or what constitutes a "good" or "bad" plot? What gives those people the right to decide that? Why exactly is the "bad" "bad"? What if these "experts" with equal credintials disagree on something?
To me, that means not that its bad, but that it simply isnt as good as some.
As far as I am concerned all the qualities you mentioned at top are in this catagory as well, or at least wether or not they actually matter is.
Well as near as I can tell, you and takyris and probably others as well say "good" and "bad" but apparently actually mean "following this set of rules" or "deviating from this set of rules."
To me, wether a work follows a certain set of rules or not does not automatically mean anything. As far as I am concerned, any work that someone puts effort and thought into has value or worth automatically. Its quality may vary, and some people will enoy it, and some will not. To me saying something is "bad" means it is without value or merit, but I disagree with the notion that a creative work that effort and thought was put into can be without value or merit. You may not enjoy it...its quality may be lesser than that of other works, and it may or may not follow accepted rules, but none of those things make it "bad" as in valueless.
Which is why one of my whole points is people shouldnt simply say about a work "Its bad", or "it sucks". One, because they are stating as a fact something that is merely their opinion, and two because they arent even providing any reasons. Myself, personally, if I am going to give my opinion (which is all someone can give, no one has the ability or right to decide something is "bad" or worthless across the board), I say something akin to, I didnt care for it, and then mention some of the things I feel could have been better.
Lastly, and again I havent read Eragon specfically, although I plan to eventually, and I have been arguing an overall stance on creative works in general, I notice the main criticism leveled against Eragon by those who have read it, is to call it derivative.
I dont consider this an especially valid criticism (although it is a valid *opinion* and reason to personally dislike or not enjoy someting) because most fiction is derivative to varying degrees (I think this may be especially true of fantasy). In fact many well loved/respected works are quite derivative of other things, especially if you go back far enough.
There are only so many plots. The young boy who discovers a special hertiage/ability etc and goes on an adventure with archtypal companions is very old, and has been used a great deal. Primarily because people enjoy those kinds of stories. Using a basic archtypal story framework is nothing to be ashamed of, or for people to deride an author for.
Ok...thats all well and good. But my questions then are: Who decides what the "correct" use of those things is? What makes them correct? And does deviating from that make a work "bad" or simply mean that its breaking that particular set of rules or guidlines, automatically?
I specifically disagree with this one, as both a reader and a writer. Some times you *have* to tell, and some times telling is better than showing. In other cases, that saying is true.
But what if your story is primarily about a setting and its mood and feel, and the characters goals dont really enter much into it, they are just there to explore said setting?
What if they are sterotypes intentionally, because you are exploring or exploiting those sterotypes for some reason?
Again, what about stories primarily about theme, mood and setting, that may not really even have a plot to speak of, or not much of one, because they exist mostly just to evoke certain feelings? I see a lot of Lovecraft as being like that, but it suceeds very well at what its intended for.
Even these qualities you speak of arent really objective...or leastways, there relevance to the merit or quality of a work is not.
I understand that there are certain sets of rules that have been put down by groups of "experts" to define how a story should or shouldnt be written, and the same for other artforms. However, I do not believe that deviating from those rules automatically makes a work "bad". It simply means it didnt follow those particular rules.
Now I dont neccesarily think all works are equal in terms of quality. Chances are, Eragon isnt as a good a book as A Wizard of Earthsea, The Fellowship of the Ring or Dune. And chances are its author would be the first to agree with that. But that doesnt make it bad...it makes it not as good.
Likewise the question can be applies to all these things you mention, characterization, plot, use of metaphors, setting, voice etc. Who decides what is the "right" or "wrong" way to use these things, or what constitutes a "good" or "bad" plot? What gives those people the right to decide that? Why exactly is the "bad" "bad"? What if these "experts" with equal credintials disagree on something?
To me, that means not that its bad, but that it simply isnt as good as some.
As far as I am concerned all the qualities you mentioned at top are in this catagory as well, or at least wether or not they actually matter is.
Well as near as I can tell, you and takyris and probably others as well say "good" and "bad" but apparently actually mean "following this set of rules" or "deviating from this set of rules."
To me, wether a work follows a certain set of rules or not does not automatically mean anything. As far as I am concerned, any work that someone puts effort and thought into has value or worth automatically. Its quality may vary, and some people will enoy it, and some will not. To me saying something is "bad" means it is without value or merit, but I disagree with the notion that a creative work that effort and thought was put into can be without value or merit. You may not enjoy it...its quality may be lesser than that of other works, and it may or may not follow accepted rules, but none of those things make it "bad" as in valueless.
Which is why one of my whole points is people shouldnt simply say about a work "Its bad", or "it sucks". One, because they are stating as a fact something that is merely their opinion, and two because they arent even providing any reasons. Myself, personally, if I am going to give my opinion (which is all someone can give, no one has the ability or right to decide something is "bad" or worthless across the board), I say something akin to, I didnt care for it, and then mention some of the things I feel could have been better.
Lastly, and again I havent read Eragon specfically, although I plan to eventually, and I have been arguing an overall stance on creative works in general, I notice the main criticism leveled against Eragon by those who have read it, is to call it derivative.
I dont consider this an especially valid criticism (although it is a valid *opinion* and reason to personally dislike or not enjoy someting) because most fiction is derivative to varying degrees (I think this may be especially true of fantasy). In fact many well loved/respected works are quite derivative of other things, especially if you go back far enough.
There are only so many plots. The young boy who discovers a special hertiage/ability etc and goes on an adventure with archtypal companions is very old, and has been used a great deal. Primarily because people enjoy those kinds of stories. Using a basic archtypal story framework is nothing to be ashamed of, or for people to deride an author for.
IcyCool
First Post
Baumi said:Just a short question: Since the Movie is part one of a triologie (
No cliffhanger, but it does leave some major threads loose and flapping in the wind. Most of those are still loose at the end of the second book. Naturally, they should be wrapped up in the third (as they are the major threads running through the trilogy).
Similar Threads
