Alternative writings

Ah, we don't get to see said rant?

From:

*wants to see it too*

From:

*posts a link to it*

From:

Ooh link. *investigates*

From:

*facepalm*

His only valid point is that shredding Eragon does give it a sort of legitimacy. (But it wouldn't be nearly as fun to read a shredding of a book that doesn't lend itself as well to shredding.)

From:

Is it horrible to say that I'm having far too much fun with this?

From:

If it is, I'm just as horrible for being so amused by it.

From:

*posts linky*

From:

jeriendhal.livejournal.com

Yays!

Really, some days I actually sorry for Paolini. Because someday he's going to be 35 and realize that 1) He's never going to write anything that sells as well as Eragon ever again. 2) He'll finally be mature enough to realize his stuff was crap from start to finish.

Goes back to reading The Sharing Knife. Now that's wordlbuilding. In a romance novel no less.

From:

I seem to recall reading that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle felt that Sherlock Holmes was his worst writing, and yet that's what's most remembered.

That has to be one of the worst things that can happen to a writer, to have something you think was your worst effort sell tremendously, while your favorite works languish.

From: (Anonymous)

Sadly...this happens a LOT. Writers are often ignored when they write something profound because the market simply works that way. Profound works of literature, truly profound that is, tend to be admired by a very narrow cast of people. Works that are more entertaining, but may still be literary, are accepted by wider audiences. Doyle wrote some wonderful works, or so I hear, but he's not remember for much beyond Holmes :(

From:

Profound usual, in more peoples minds, equals academic and boring, unless it's spiritual.

It's hard to get works that are entertaining and literary mostly, again, because people think that literary is hard and academic.

From:

the-norseman.livejournal.com

I've read "The White Company" by Arthur Conan Doyle. This is what he considers his best writing ever.

I have some bad news: It is completely unreadable! I am a very avid reader, I love Arthur Conan Doyle, but I was unable to get past the first twenty pages. There's a great story screaming to get out as Doyle bricks it in with faux-medieval language.

He was good at writing, much worse at judging writing, and worse still at judging his own writing.

By all means try to read it, you'll reach the same conclusion I did.

From:

What about Stephen King? He reckons he really likes his book Cujo, but because of his substance abuse problems at the time, he doesn't even remember writing it.

That sucks for a writer too.

From:

reverie-shadow.livejournal.com

Idiot.

I may not be so much of a big fantasy fan like I used to, I've seen quite a few pull it off and be original about it.

Is this person from online or offline? Just because I'm curious.

From:

*posts a link*

From:

reverie-shadow.livejournal.com

It's funny how he tries to point out that you just contradicted yourself even though you really didn't--just because you said "fantasy isn't any more cliché than any other genre" doesn't mean you didn't say that it's not cliché at all.

I will agree that clichés are acceptable only if you put a creative twist on them, but then again, we all have been saying that for a long while, especially when arguing about "Eragon" because people pull that "all fantasy is cliché" card all the time.

Also, Tolkien did not pioneer the fantasy genre; that is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard next to a few other things he had said. Despite popular belief, Tolkien did not create fantasy. The only thing he created was Dungeons & Dragons. End story.

From: (Anonymous)

Goodness, I'm getting linked everywhere :S.

The only reason I pull the 'fantasy is cliche' card is because it's not a valid argument against Eragon. There are plenty of other books that have received critical acclaim that fall pray to the same issue of cliched writing and it's basically too simplistic of an argument against Eragon. An argument against Eragon should be based primarily on the writing itself, not on the story, which, while obviously very cliche, still manages to grip enough people--the sales reflect this. Cliches are meant to be fiddled with, because they exist from the ground up. This is a reason that I don't think Eragon is great writing, but a good story. If it were more 'creative' in its endeavors it would probably have more importance in literature, or at least deserve more.

And I never said Tolkien created fantasy. I said he pioneered the genre. One of the definitions of 'pioneer' is "One who opens up new areas of thought, research, or development". From that definition, Tolkien definitely was a pioneer of fantasy. I argued this in a reply post on my little blog thing which has apparently caught a LOT of attention now :S. I wrote that so long ago...goodness. In any case, when people talk about fantasy currently, it's often compared to Tolkien. Even anti-Eragon sites point to this on occasion (I don't know which ones, but I have seen the argument in random Google searches). It's not that he created the genre, which would be idiotic to claim, but that he shaped the genre so profoundly that its effects cannot be ignored, which is true.

And of course, thanks for the link. This is a very interesting topic :S.

From:

reverie-shadow.livejournal.com

First of all: You wrote it four months ago. Perhaps it's just me, but four months is not "a long time ago" in my standards. A year, maybe, as a lot can happen within a year, but even then, you wrote it and it's still your opinion, so the time factor does not amount to anything in your defense.

You put your opinions online for the whole world to see and judge them (yes, whether if they were misconstrued by the world or not, that just happens to be how you worded your entry. Learn from it), and that makes you accountable for your opinions. Don't use "it was written a long time ago" as your argument.

Also, what link? You keep thanking people for "the link" when nobody's linking you anything. If you mean your entry, then that's linking to you, and I really don't see why you're so thankful for it.

And you wonder why people misunderstand you. Perhaps you should rethink what you're really trying to say before you hit that "post comment" button.

Edited Date: 2007-11-12 03:42 am (UTC)

From: (Anonymous)

I certainly can defend myself all I want and I can certainly exclaim that it was written a while ago especially if my views on certain subjects have changed. Or are we not allowed to subject change upon ourselves because of things said in the past? Yes, my opinions were put online, and I stand by the fact that I wrote those opinions, but I also stand by the notion that my thinking may have been altered before all this and after all this, in which case it is true. Much of what I thought about groups like AS has proved somewhat misguided and my thinking on many of the AS members has changed.
And, I was linked here, and on the AS livejournal. That's the links I'm thanking for. It's driving traffic my direction, it's driving discussion and debate, and it's bringing me entertainment. I have plenty to be thankful for.

From:

This is a reason that I don't think Eragon is great writing, but a good story.

The story is good because Paolini intentionally set out to write an Archetypal Hero Story, which is, of course, a good story. However is execution of it was terrible and his main character turns out looking psychotic than heroic.

From: (Anonymous)

Dare I say it's also good because Lucas, Eddings and Tolkien already wrote it? :D

From: (Anonymous)

And people before them wrote it too. Lucas, especially, took his archetypes straight from mythology. He worked with Campbell very closely to keep a solid story (in the originals that is).
Tolkien also drew heavily from mythology and from Wagner. He was a scholar who studied the stuff, after all.
And of course Eddings, well, the only thing I read of Eddings was some newer stuff, and it was really bad with poor characterization, etc. Haven't picked anything else up of his. Maybe his earlier stuff is better though :S.

From:

That was me, with 'Dare I say'... and yes, that's true about Lucas and Tolkien. The difference between them and Paolini, as I see it, is that you can look at their work and say "I can see the inspiration that this came from", while with Paolini, it's more a case of "take square peg from Lucas and force into round hole". Unless there's something Lucas copied more directly than merely using archetypes.

As for Eddings, yeah, his latest stuff isn't that great. Frankly, if you've read the Belgariad, the Malloreon, and the Elenium, I feel you've read everything of note in his work. A lot of what came after those three sets is really just a rehash of them.

From: (Anonymous)

Well, I think Lucas' creativity is what made his stories more powerful. But Lucas took directly from mythological archetypes. I think the difference is that everyone here or at AS would agree, or in theory agree, that Lucas managed to take what was already done and make it feel new and fresh--something I think his first three films actually accomplished and perhaps what his latest were missing. Again though, I think that in the case of Paolini we're focusing too much on the cliches. The people who read Paolini probably haven't even read Tolkien. How many 13 year olds have you met that read Tolkien willingly? For them, Eragon is a simple, easy read, that is understandable and flat. That's what makes it somewhat successful. The characters are easy to identify with for most people because they are familiar. It's popcorn fiction, not genre defining work. A lot of these kids aren't reading profound works. They may be reading, but they're not reading Charles Dickens for the heck of it. So, Eragon, basically, fits right into the easy fiction section. But maybe you guys wouldn't agree.

I need to read Eddings' early works. Did he always collaborate with Leigh? Or is that mostly just his early work?

From:

Oh no, I agree. It's definitely easy fiction. I just don't consider that a mark in its favor. *shrug*

As I understand it, he pretty much always collaborated with her, he just never formally acknowledged it back then.

From:

berseker.livejournal.com

I usually avoid this kind of thing, because I get too worked up. You seem to be so calm and rational. Congratulations.

Anyway, I donpt think the guy actually knows what cliche is...

From:

Well, I can see what he's saying. All writing uses themes and plots used countless times before. A truely original work would be nearly incomprehisible and not enjoyable at all. You actually need some clichés to hold your reader's attentions.

The problem with, e.g., Eragon, is that the clichés are not used naturally. The Eragon-Arya "romance" is there because the Hero Needs A True Love, but it's just stuck in there, as a required element so to speak.

From: (Anonymous)

Thank you, I'm glad you agree!

On the subject of the Eragon-Arya thing. I sincerely hope that Eragon and Arya don't end up together in the next..2...books...god I hate that it's 2 books more to go. I was fine with one to be honest, but I hate waiting and he writes too slow. But, in all honesty, I just hope that they don't end up together because, well, I guess it would be too opportunistic for that to happen. But as of right now, in theory, that plot line is still open and could change. Eldest does show Eragon having interest in other women, but I guess the Arya bit overshadows that.

I would be very interested in reading a work that could actually be 100% original in fantasy or SF. I mean, if it were possible, which I think it isn't, it would be monumental if such a thing were approached and it actually worked. I mean, none of your character archetypes could be usual, none of your plot lines could be usual, the twists and turns would have to be so unexpected that you'd almost be lost in how it came to end up that way. The story itself would have to be so bizarre and strange that it would almost have to be inhuman. If it could happen, I would love to see it. I probably would fail though because it would be so abstract and obscure that most people wouldn't get it...then again, it might succeed critically because the literary academia might latch onto it...
Who knows.

From:

Well, maybe if we ever run into aliens, their works - while probably just as filled with clichés - would be, for us so radically original. And our most clichéd works would seem radically original to them, too! :-)

At any rate, I think when people talk about something having clichés, what they mean is clumsily-done clichés. When a cliché is integrated well, it's not considered a cliché.

From: (Anonymous)

Ah, well the day when we meet aliens will be a day that all science fiction writers will rise up, point at the literary academia, and say "stick that in your pipe and smoke it". It would be an interesting day for sure...I'll probably be dead when that happens though :(

Ah, now I can agree with you there. I only recognize cliches because I've sort of grown used to seeing them, but perhaps most people don't recognize the cliches in particularly good works because that's not what they look at. I still recognize the good works, despite cliches. I just recognize the cliches as they exist. Perhaps that has a lot to do with why we are having this argument in the first place then, or part of it. Or at least the argument in general about whether fantasy is cliche. Perhaps a lot of people argue against it because they simply don't see the cliches because of how a work is executed, which I would think is a mark of a fantastic writer. But in works that perhaps are not of the same literary quality might be seen by those same people 'as' cliche. So, in the case of Eragon, which is tremendously cliche, and I admit this, it's not so much the effect the book has had on some portion of the reading population, it's that the book is riddled with poorly executed cliches. My argument for Eragon's success is that the book is simplistic on purpose. Perhaps Paolini thinks he's being complex, but I've come to dislike him personally, but in reality his works are simple, easy to understand, and appealing to the masses of people that don't want to have to think when they read. I would agree with this assertion, because it's true. Eragon as a book of entertainment value, not of anything of literary merit. In 20 years, it'll probably be forgotten by the majority of people, whereas works that have truly wowed us (LOTR for example, and many others too, particularly in science fiction) will be remembered for quite some time because of their influence. Eragon won't have any influence on fantasy as a genre; Harry Potter might, though it is too early to tell I think. HP runs into a lot of the same issues that other major works run into: its popularity overrides its true influence. Popularity doesn't equal influence, though it certainly contributes.

Anyway, I'm rambling. But, it seems that in a lot of ways we're actually agreeing, which is somewhat of a surprise since I thought when I saw that Anti-shurtugal was feeding me traffic that I was about to be flamed to death. Surprisingly it's rather the opposite.

From:

Well, I think it really boils down to a debate over definition. I certainly recognize that even the greatest literature has themes that have been done before, clichés if you will. "There's nothing new under the Sun" as the author of Ecclesiastes said (probably quoted from someone else ;-)).

I wouldn't, however, call something a cliché unless it's poorly done. I would use terms like motiffs and themes for what you I guess you would call "well-executed clichés". But, ultimately that just boils down to a difference in definition, which is a rather silly thing to argue about.

Personally, I occassionally enjoy reading clichéd stuff, too, just as I sometimes watch brainless action films. 300, for example, may be riddled with historical inaccuracies (heck, the list of historical accuracies would be pretty darn short!) and has a rather flimsy story, but it's still fun to watch!

From: (Anonymous)

Well, I can see where our definitions diverge then. Perhaps it would be better to address well executed cliches as motiffs and bad executed cliches as simply cliches. That might put some clarity on the issue I guess. And perhaps that is where we come into a different of opinion. When I see the term cliche it doesn't strike me the same as it might you, or other people from AS. But when you see cliche you automatically are thinking cliches that are poorly executed. So, I guess when I say that all fantasy is cliched, many might think I mean that is a bad way, when really I don't. I love fantasy (well, some of it, there is a lot of horrible garbage out there) and love how often it can put new spins on old ideas. Shadowfall by James Clemens, at least in my opinion, put some awesome spins on what I commonly know about multi-god religious systems. If it had been like any other book I wouldn't have enjoyed it so much, obviously.

I rather enjoyed 300 myself, but perhaps that is more to do with it being basically mindless violence and the occasional "YES" moments (such as when Leonidas' wife stabs that guy in the belly and exposes his connection to Xerxes!) than it being a superbly written film. I think it's a little ironic that we treat it as something filled with historical inaccuracies though. Yes, it is very wrong (all the alien/monster type characters simply didn't exist), but at the same time, we know so little about that event anyway. Statistics about how many people were on both sides are all over the place. Some say it was 300 Spartans and a Greek army defending the rear pass...some say the it was 300 Spartans and a modest army of a few thousand heading the front. Some say the Spartans killed a few thousand, some say they killed tens of thousands, and some say they didn't kill that many at all. Some say Xerxes had five million soldiers (well, slave soldiers), others say it was a few hundred thousand...it's so interesting how diverse the histories of this event are and it makes me wonder how much we really know about this event...I mean, I don't think monstrous people existed, but certainly some of the events presented in the movie might have been true, for all we know at least. It's worth thinking about :P

From:

Well, even things that we do know are highly inaccurate in the film. Leonidas sneers at the Athenian "boy-lovers", yet the Spartans in reality had at least as favorable a view of homosexuality as the Athenians. Leonidas was portrayed as the King, when in actuality, he was one of two kings. The Ephors were 5 officials elected annually, the movie portrayed them as a hereditary group, the Spartans were heavily armored, the movie had them running around in big red capes and leather underwear, their spears were very long, the movie showed their spears as rather short, Spartans fought in well-disciplined lines, side-by-side, not fighting individually as the movie portrays (they would've been massacred if they had! Their strength was in forming a solid wall of shields), and so forth.

But, it was a fun film. :-)

From: (Anonymous)

True, a lot of things were inaccurate. I didn't even think on that level . Perhaps beefy men running around in nothing but speedos and red capes distracted me :P. Not for obvious reasons, maybe out of envy for their manly forms, of which I lack :(.

They did show some of the spartan tactics, but I guess they diverged to give some awesome fight scenes--the individual fights.

It was a fun film for sure.

From: (Anonymous)

What's funny is that Leonidas even SAYS that the strength of the Spartans is forming walls of shields, from ankle to neck, which is why he rejected the deformed guy, Ephialtes, cuz he can't raise his shield.

From:

Whups, that was me.

From: