Paolini mocking. Because I can.
Nov. 1st, 2007 07:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kippurbirdSo, I found a transcript (Thanks to someone on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
antishurtugal ) of Paolini talking about his fourth book and I thought I'd go over it, mostly for my own amusement's sake. So, thoughts?
Hi. I’m Christopher Paolini, and we’re here in my home in Montana. My desk where I wrote most of Eragon, most of Eldest, and now most of the third book in the Inheritance series.
Hi Chris! I'm Kippur. I'm here to take a look at what you've said to point out how silly you are.
*scene cut* 8/
As many of you know, I started writing the Inheritance series when I was fifteen, and at the time I plotted out the entire trilogy before I actually began Eragon. Now, Eragon I plotted out in fairly great detail, but the rest of the series, although I had the major events in place, I -- I left a little vague, because to be honest with you, I never actually thought I was going to end up writing the rest of the series. I didn’t even know if I could write a single book at the time. As I’ve progressed to the series, I’ve expanded my outlines and the story has developed with each book and sometimes gone in a few directions I hadn’t foreseen previously, and other times has followed my original outline.
This is fairly standard. Good for you allowing your story to actually evolve. *gives candy* Admittedly I've never actually plotted out any of my novel series except rather vaguely, but I don't do very good without lines. I just let the story go where it will and then stare at it going WTF? However, that way isn't the best way for everyone and everyone has their own way of creating a story.
Now when I returned from book tour from Eldest, I started working on the third book right away, and the first thing I did was to take my old outline that I’d worked up years ago, and I expanded and updated it for the third book. And that ended up being about 14 pages long. So it was a big outline, and I remember when I looked at it, thinking, “Boy, there’s -- there’s a lot of story here, this is going to be a big book.
Outline length =/= book length. It's all a matter of how much detail you put into it. I consider the short story I wrote, the first version of "Love Lust and the Apocalypse", to be my outline for the novel. It was twenty four pages long. The actual book is about four hundred. Pretty standard book length, if a bit inanely long for a thesis. Editing was a bitch. But editing is always a bitch. You're showing your lack of understanding in the writing processes here, Chris.
*cut* *paste*
It really struck home for me a few chapters into Book 3 when Eragon…uh…Eragon and Roran have attacked Helgrind where the Ra’zac are. And…during that sequence of events, Eragon encounters...a moral quandary.
*scene cut* \o/
And in order to resolve it in a way that felt consistent with Eragon’s character, ended up adding about 100 pages to the third book.
Edit. Edit. Edit. Cut. Cut. Cut. Learn to be more precise. And just because you really love something, doesn't mean that it has to be there. As for moral quandaries and Eragon's character they really don't last that long from previous experience. About a paragraph or two at the most. As Eragon doesn't seem to have any morals. He kills without remorse, he has no empathy for other people, and his wants and desires are paramount no matter what is best.
*scene cut* *makes snowflakes out of cuts*
Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t mind big books. I like big books. I like books that are, you know, seven, eight, nine, a thousand pages long. But when it reaches a certain point, and 900 pages is about it for me, I really start thinking that a book is getting too long, it’s getting too big, it’s -- uh, it gets unwieldy or the words are too small to easily read.
Oh dear lord, he's showing signs of Robert Jordan Syndrome. uh, it gets unwieldy or the words are too small to easily read. Now this is an interesting statement. Does this mean that he stops using four syllable words and is forced to use one or two syllable words? Does he think that the print gets smaller the more pages you have? The statement makes no sense whatsoever. Any thoughts about what it could mean?
*scene cut* *tangos*
And at that point I began to realize that maybe instead of having just a third book to end the Inheritance trilogy, maybe the Inheritance trilogy should become the Inheritance cycle, and instead of three books it should be four books.
A cycle indicates that there's a circle and a repetition of events. There is nothing in your series so far that indicates a cycle. Robert Jordan's books could be called a cycle because he begins every book with the talk about a wheel turning and the events happening again. But here, in your books, these events have never happened again. *double checks Dictionary.com* However, it does say that a cycle can be "a group of poems, dramas, prose narratives, songs etc., about a central theme, figure, or the like: the Arthurian cycle." But I think you're using the word 'cycle' instead of series because it sounds... cooler. More ancient. etc.
*scene cut* *Scene two take three*
It was a big shift in my thinking to make that decision! Uh…it was very hard for me to decide that at first. But the more I thought about it and the more I realized that yes, the story is this big, it needs this much space for me to properly tell it and to do -- to do all the characters justice and all the story threads and questions.
Well doing your characters justice is an important thing. (If you actually had characters instead of plot serving NPCs and a great big Gary Stu.) I'm not to sure why it as such a big shift in your thinking though. I mean recently I just figured out that I had to completely rewrite book one and my thought process went like this: I just invalidated the entire plot of book one. Fuck. Of course, theoretically, it doesn't have to be that big if you were more precise in your writing and you know edited things and cut things. And stopped with the flowery prose and unnecessary descriptions. You could probably shave off a good hundred pages by doing that.
*scene cut* *scene band aid*
The challenge I faced then was to find an appropriate ending point for the third book. Something that was dramatic and satisfying and wrapped up the third book in -- in -- in a good way and led into the fourth book appropriately and --and you know not just a cliffhanger. I like cliffhangers but it needed to be more than that and I realized that since I started Eldest with the death of a major character, Ajihad, that a great way to end the third book would be with the death of another major character. I’m not going to tell you who it is, you’re going to have to read the book to find out, but that’s how I’m going to end the third book. And I think it’ll provide a suitable, summation for the third book and proper introduction and lead-in to the last volume.
Finding an appropriate ending for your book? Good. Finding a dramatic and satisfying way to end your book. Also good. Randomly killing off a character because you did it in the beginning of the second book? Bad. First of all Ajihad was not a major character. Major characters have to exist longer than the last fifty odd pages of the book. Other wise he's an important minor character. And he wasn't that at all, either, except to reaffirm how wonderful Eragon was. Death should happen because it's the natural outcome of the story, of the character's life and choices. Killing off a character for drama is a sad, sad reason to kill someone and definitely not being true to your characters.
*scene cut* *scene death*
So hopefully the third book is going to be as interesting and as exciting as Eragon and Eldest and hopefully more so. I’m just really ec -- ec-- excited to get it done and get it finished and have people reading it.
*scene cut*
So I hope you enjoy the rest of the Inheritance series.
Unlikely.
antishurtugal ) of Paolini talking about his fourth book and I thought I'd go over it, mostly for my own amusement's sake. So, thoughts? Hi. I’m Christopher Paolini, and we’re here in my home in Montana. My desk where I wrote most of Eragon, most of Eldest, and now most of the third book in the Inheritance series.
Hi Chris! I'm Kippur. I'm here to take a look at what you've said to point out how silly you are.
*scene cut* 8/
As many of you know, I started writing the Inheritance series when I was fifteen, and at the time I plotted out the entire trilogy before I actually began Eragon. Now, Eragon I plotted out in fairly great detail, but the rest of the series, although I had the major events in place, I -- I left a little vague, because to be honest with you, I never actually thought I was going to end up writing the rest of the series. I didn’t even know if I could write a single book at the time. As I’ve progressed to the series, I’ve expanded my outlines and the story has developed with each book and sometimes gone in a few directions I hadn’t foreseen previously, and other times has followed my original outline.
This is fairly standard. Good for you allowing your story to actually evolve. *gives candy* Admittedly I've never actually plotted out any of my novel series except rather vaguely, but I don't do very good without lines. I just let the story go where it will and then stare at it going WTF? However, that way isn't the best way for everyone and everyone has their own way of creating a story.
Now when I returned from book tour from Eldest, I started working on the third book right away, and the first thing I did was to take my old outline that I’d worked up years ago, and I expanded and updated it for the third book. And that ended up being about 14 pages long. So it was a big outline, and I remember when I looked at it, thinking, “Boy, there’s -- there’s a lot of story here, this is going to be a big book.
Outline length =/= book length. It's all a matter of how much detail you put into it. I consider the short story I wrote, the first version of "Love Lust and the Apocalypse", to be my outline for the novel. It was twenty four pages long. The actual book is about four hundred. Pretty standard book length, if a bit inanely long for a thesis. Editing was a bitch. But editing is always a bitch. You're showing your lack of understanding in the writing processes here, Chris.
*cut* *paste*
It really struck home for me a few chapters into Book 3 when Eragon…uh…Eragon and Roran have attacked Helgrind where the Ra’zac are. And…during that sequence of events, Eragon encounters...a moral quandary.
*scene cut* \o/
And in order to resolve it in a way that felt consistent with Eragon’s character, ended up adding about 100 pages to the third book.
Edit. Edit. Edit. Cut. Cut. Cut. Learn to be more precise. And just because you really love something, doesn't mean that it has to be there. As for moral quandaries and Eragon's character they really don't last that long from previous experience. About a paragraph or two at the most. As Eragon doesn't seem to have any morals. He kills without remorse, he has no empathy for other people, and his wants and desires are paramount no matter what is best.
*scene cut* *makes snowflakes out of cuts*
Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t mind big books. I like big books. I like books that are, you know, seven, eight, nine, a thousand pages long. But when it reaches a certain point, and 900 pages is about it for me, I really start thinking that a book is getting too long, it’s getting too big, it’s -- uh, it gets unwieldy or the words are too small to easily read.
Oh dear lord, he's showing signs of Robert Jordan Syndrome. uh, it gets unwieldy or the words are too small to easily read. Now this is an interesting statement. Does this mean that he stops using four syllable words and is forced to use one or two syllable words? Does he think that the print gets smaller the more pages you have? The statement makes no sense whatsoever. Any thoughts about what it could mean?
*scene cut* *tangos*
And at that point I began to realize that maybe instead of having just a third book to end the Inheritance trilogy, maybe the Inheritance trilogy should become the Inheritance cycle, and instead of three books it should be four books.
A cycle indicates that there's a circle and a repetition of events. There is nothing in your series so far that indicates a cycle. Robert Jordan's books could be called a cycle because he begins every book with the talk about a wheel turning and the events happening again. But here, in your books, these events have never happened again. *double checks Dictionary.com* However, it does say that a cycle can be "a group of poems, dramas, prose narratives, songs etc., about a central theme, figure, or the like: the Arthurian cycle." But I think you're using the word 'cycle' instead of series because it sounds... cooler. More ancient. etc.
*scene cut* *Scene two take three*
It was a big shift in my thinking to make that decision! Uh…it was very hard for me to decide that at first. But the more I thought about it and the more I realized that yes, the story is this big, it needs this much space for me to properly tell it and to do -- to do all the characters justice and all the story threads and questions.
Well doing your characters justice is an important thing. (If you actually had characters instead of plot serving NPCs and a great big Gary Stu.) I'm not to sure why it as such a big shift in your thinking though. I mean recently I just figured out that I had to completely rewrite book one and my thought process went like this: I just invalidated the entire plot of book one. Fuck. Of course, theoretically, it doesn't have to be that big if you were more precise in your writing and you know edited things and cut things. And stopped with the flowery prose and unnecessary descriptions. You could probably shave off a good hundred pages by doing that.
*scene cut* *scene band aid*
The challenge I faced then was to find an appropriate ending point for the third book. Something that was dramatic and satisfying and wrapped up the third book in -- in -- in a good way and led into the fourth book appropriately and --and you know not just a cliffhanger. I like cliffhangers but it needed to be more than that and I realized that since I started Eldest with the death of a major character, Ajihad, that a great way to end the third book would be with the death of another major character. I’m not going to tell you who it is, you’re going to have to read the book to find out, but that’s how I’m going to end the third book. And I think it’ll provide a suitable, summation for the third book and proper introduction and lead-in to the last volume.
Finding an appropriate ending for your book? Good. Finding a dramatic and satisfying way to end your book. Also good. Randomly killing off a character because you did it in the beginning of the second book? Bad. First of all Ajihad was not a major character. Major characters have to exist longer than the last fifty odd pages of the book. Other wise he's an important minor character. And he wasn't that at all, either, except to reaffirm how wonderful Eragon was. Death should happen because it's the natural outcome of the story, of the character's life and choices. Killing off a character for drama is a sad, sad reason to kill someone and definitely not being true to your characters.
*scene cut* *scene death*
So hopefully the third book is going to be as interesting and as exciting as Eragon and Eldest and hopefully more so. I’m just really ec -- ec-- excited to get it done and get it finished and have people reading it.
*scene cut*
So I hope you enjoy the rest of the Inheritance series.
Unlikely.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 03:32 am (UTC)Oh Pao-Pao...what are we going to do with you? *shakes head in amusement, wanders off*
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 03:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 04:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 04:11 am (UTC)I make it no secret that I seriously cried like a baby when I killed off one of my favorite characters in one of my books. I cried the first time, and I cried again during the re-write. Because I sympathized with that character so much.
But when I tried to think of ways to save him, to imagine what it'd be like if he hadn't died, I can't, because in my mind there was no longer a future for that character, and that his sacrifice was a necessary one. Not to propel the story forward (although it did help give the protagonist motivation). Not for shock value or elimination. But because I let the character decide and his decision was to make that sacrifice.
Then I think about how most other character deaths go, and the very nature of them. Do we, as creators, have justifiable reasons for whenever we kill off our characters, or is it that even we sometimes do it "just because"?
Eh, maybe I'm putting too much thought into it. However, seeing Paolini talk that lightly about his character's death makes me realize how much I truly do love mine.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 05:08 am (UTC)I think it depends entirely on the sort of person you are and how you feel about your characters. From what you said in your comment, you seem like the type of person who genuinely cares about your characters; you recognize that there are some things you can't help them avoid, despite the fact that you're supposedly 'in charge.' A good writer brings the characters they write about to life, and once they're alive, they aren't really under your control anymore, I think. You become the person who explains what happens to them. What happens to them isn't really your choice, but a result of their choices.
Paolini, on the other hand, gives the impression of caring a great deal about the idea of his characters, but not the characters themselves. Which is why he makes arbitrary decisions about who lives and dies. He thinks an author's job is to play god, not to play witness. Does that make sense? ^^;
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 06:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 06:42 pm (UTC)That's an interesting way of putting it, I never thought about it like that, but I think you're right.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 07:33 pm (UTC)I still can't get into the concept of playing "god" with my characters. If anything some of my characters tend to act as "god" over me, because they're usually the ones that are in charge.
Paolini just hasn't written long enough to fully understand his characters, I don't think. Like you said, he cares about the idea, but not the characters. What gets me about his ramble here is that he talks about his character's death like it means nothing to him. Whenever I think about killing off one of mine, I get rather anxious.
Then again, I've been writing ever since my first grade teacher told us all to write little stories about anything we wanted, and it turned out I enjoyed it so much that I kept at it even afterwards. I finished my first novel at fourteen after several prior attempts. Yeah, I know: "YIPPEE!"
I'm also able to get so into my characters now that sometimes I even tend to think like them (i.e. one of my characters has a slight southern accent, which will tend to slip into my own speech if I write him for a long period of time). So maybe that kind of says something.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-05 04:17 pm (UTC)Heck, I've had moments where I've been worried that my writing isn't realistic because I have no plans to kill anyone, but I can't bring myself to actually make that decision.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 06:41 pm (UTC)Do we, as creators, have justifiable reasons for whenever we kill off our characters, or is it that even we sometimes do it "just because"?
I think it depends on what sort of creator we are and how much we allow our characters to dictate their own actions. If we allow them to make their own decisions then it's a justifiable reason, if we control every action, then it's Just Because.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 06:14 am (UTC)Don't you just love how he starts off with his age, yet again?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 07:35 am (UTC)It doesn't take a 15-year-old to take his fanfic worlds and cross them over.
AND HE WAS BLOODY NINETEEN WHEN HE FINISHED!!!! For goodness' SAKES! Judging from his dedications in Eragon (when he was still being honest), it took a LOT of editing from his parents, AND from Michelle Frey, and he actually thanked a fan for, basically, copyediting the story.
...And Eragon and Eldest were POST-editing.
...Someone should REALLY try to get their hands on the self-published copy and look at it. I'm seriously interested in seeing what it's like. I mean, they cut a NaNoWriMo-sized chunk out of it! What could POSSIBLY have been there?!
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 07:20 am (UTC)So I hope you enjoy the rest of the Inheritance series.
Unlikely.
Aaaaaah, but Lady/Lord Kippur! We SHALL enjoy it!
Through your sporkings! XD -
*flees from enraged Kippur*
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 06:46 pm (UTC)Through your sporkings! XD -
You know, it's amazing how many people have been saying that. It's like no one cares about my mental well being. XD
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 07:14 pm (UTC)...Well, we could fix that. PAOLINI DRINKING GAME!!!!!
Take one sip for every time Eragon's a hypocrite!
Take one sip for whenever Murtagh appears and he sounds like Eragon's battered wife! Take another sip for whenever Eragon sounds like an abusive, Alzheimer's-afficted husband!
M: Eragon, please, I was FORCED!
E: YOU BETRAYED US!
M: I didn't want to, Eragon, he MADE me!
E: YOU BETRATED US!
M: I was FORCED -
E: SHUT UP, BITCH! YOU BETRAYED US!
M: ...Please, the only way for us to get out of this is for me to die -
E: DIE! *swings at him*
M: ...Now I'm going to have to tell Galbatorix that I couldn't capture you, and he'll punish me -
E: YOU'RE JUST LIKE YOUR FATHER!
M: *takes off with Zar'roc*
E: You took my SWORD! You stupid little brat! Take this! And this! And this!
Saphira: You're swinging at air.
E: SHUT IT, YOU STUPID BITCH!
...OK, and take another drink whenever Saphira acts like Eragon's battered wife. Actually, take a drink whenever ANY character acts like Eragon's battered wife, another drink whenever Eragon acts like an abusive husband, and take two drinks whenever Eragon sounds like a weepy uke.
Take three drinks whenever something new is introduced that is an obvious ripoff from somebody else's series. Take a drink whenever there's a plot point ripped off from George Lucas. Down the bottle if Hairless Elf Groins are mentioned.
Take three drinks if Eragon gains power through a Deus Ex Machina. Take two drinks whenever people treat Eragon like he's the Second Coming Of Christ. (And no, "He IS the Second Coming of the Riders" is NOT a valid excuse, fanbrats.)
...Oh dear. This is a recipe for you to die of alcohol poisoning during one chapter of Books 3-4, isn't it? Eep.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-06 06:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 01:15 pm (UTC)You DO NOT kill characters off purely for the drama. I have to kill one myself in a fanfiction I'm writing, and I'm doing it because I need to reinforce the fact that this is a battle and people die in it, and my protagonist needs to realize that so she can stay alive. This character has been involved since the very beginning of the story. She was introduced with the protagonist (Heck, she's RELATED to the protagonist), for goodness sakes. She's been playing the 'Mysterious Older Sister Possibly Involved With The Bad Guys' role, but has helped the protagonist immensely by covering for her. THAT counts as killing a major character. Not some hack leader who barely got an introduction before he was bumped off.
(/end angry rant)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 06:47 pm (UTC)Ajihad didn't even appear in book two until after he had been mortally injured. How is that a major character?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 01:20 pm (UTC)His droning bores me.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 08:41 pm (UTC)I do not like to discuss my own work (since so many authors are so damn self-aggrandizing) but that being said - I once created an outline of 21 pages that turned into a 200 page novel.
What dear little Chris does not seem to understand is that PACING determines the length of a story, not the goddamn outline. I think Chris is like most young writers and believes that stories can only be told in a slow, blow-by-blow heavily internal and metaphor-laden style. He does not seem to realize that stories can be told at the swift style of Edgar Allen Poe or the whipcrack pace of H. P. Lovecraft or the heavily abridged version of Clark Ashton Smith or the swift style of Mark Twain etc. He paces everything just like Robert Jordan - SLOW and making sure to relate each, excruciating detail no matter how small.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-02 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-05 04:21 pm (UTC)Funny in a "Apply desk directly to forehead" kinda way.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-06 06:19 pm (UTC)