Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
71 of 82 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Mythic, but perhaps too much so., May 25, 2004
Everyone here seems to be extremely divided in their views of this book, and I'm afraid I fall in the dislike camp.
Okay, let's start with the plot. I must admit it is quite enjoyable, if you are in such unlikely circumstances that you are both inclined to like fantasy, and have not read most of the modern classics in said genre; or, perhaps, you have to have read enough awfully-written stories to know cliches when you see them. Basically, Eragon embarks upon a quest for revenge against shadow forces he doesn't know much about, but which will undoubtedly have something to do with his 'mysterious past.'
While most people mention fantasy books as inspiration, I find Eragon's plot more reminiscent of Star Wars than of anything else. There's the dead order of peace-keepers with amazing powers, the main character's mysterious past (Who's his father? He doesn't know!), the magical power, the old man with long-dead secrets of the past, which of course he teaches to this headstrong youth without really bothering about whether he's _good_ or not, and most tellingly, the destruction of the boy's farm and death of his uncle, which in both Star Wars and Eragon sets the main character off on a quest of revenge. Just thank heaven there's no C3P0...
In terms of concepts, there are very few original ideas, either. Paolini draws from Tolkien's works, not just Lord of the Rings but background materials as well, and, I am told, Anne McCaffrey's (sorry if I misspelled that) Pern books. Personally, I can't stand McCaffrey's writing, which is why I can't speak for myself on that one. Anyway, all of the races are almost exactly the same, down to the origins of the elves across the sea (Tolkien came up with that one, folks!); while Urgals and the Ra'zac are original, as far as I know, they are shadily described. Indeed, the Urgals always remind me of the Knights who say Ni, a la Monty Python, which rather kills their potential as villans.
Paolini attempts to make his world original and fresh by adding in what he seems to think is his own idea, judging by the care he takes in explaining it: an ancient language, a true language, with magical power. Unfortunately, his implementation of this idea has two flaws: 1) lacking a proper knowledge of the mechanics of language, he has created a set of _words_ with absolutely no grammar involved, so that to get across a complex idea you have to smoosh words together and hope that it works; and 2) the words seem to have been created by randomly pounding on the keyboard, and adding vowels where he thought them necessary. They're not unpronouncible, as this has created a tongue with a phonology similar to Russian, or perhaps closer to Czech; but I doubt that was intentional, as my high school is one in, I think, a little over fifty in the United States that actually teaches Russian. 'Brisingr' is a word that simply could not exist in any Romance or Germanic language, and, as I said, I doubt that Chris Paolini put much thought into making his language original (even Tolkien, a philologist, only used harsh Slavic sounds in his black speech, the tongue of evil) when all the rest of his work has little or no thought in that area. Originality, I mean.
One more thing. Eragon is grammatically correct throughout, a fact for which I am thankful, but shows distinct signs of having been written by a ten-year-old - and yes, I know the author was fifteen at the time of publishing. So what? I'm sixteen, and I can still vary my sentence structure. Learning to do so was an integral part of my 7th grade English education! All of Eragon's sentences are short, less than a line long, and generally begin with either an article (a or the) or the subject of said sentence; occasionally you'll find another adjective there instead, if you're lucky. I have not noticed a single subordinate clause in the entire book, and have been appalled at the blatant lack of semicolons. Semicolons! What is the world coming to, if people can say a story without semicolons is worth reading?
Still, Eragon did wonders as light, mindless reading material - besides, of course, the choppy writing style inherent in a book with uniform sentence structure and a dearth of semicolons - and so, rather than a one, I give it two stars out of five.
P.S. - I haven't seen anyone else comment on this particular name theft, so I thought I'd mention it. You know the Bid'duam? Turn it around and what do you get: Muad'dib. Frank Herbert alone could sue the kid for plaigarism; I'd hate to see what the Tolkien estate would do if they got word.
|
|
|
33 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
When does this roleplaying game end?, September 3, 2005
Being a reader of both Tolkien and Rowling, I had the misfortune of receiving this book twice from well-intentioned friends, who thought I would enjoy it since it seemed to fit the same genre. And in a sense, they were right: after all, Paolini liberally steals from a host of fantasy novels to fashion this painful-to-read slapdash construction.
Knowing nothing of the history of the book, I dived into my first copy and hit the bottom within the first chapter. Dumbstruck, I put the book down, wondering why anyone would have agreed to publish this dreck, which seemed to be the transcription of a rather boring gaming session with a lackluster dungeonmaster.
Since my friends had recommended Eragon so highly, I figured that maybe I was out-of-tune, so I sallied into the following chapter, only to discover that it didn't improve. Then on a whim, I jumped ahead hoping to catch some spark from the end of the story to make me want to read all the exposition in-between.
However, rather than hitting the end of the story, I stumbled into the glossary section. "Derivative" is too kind a word to describe Paolini's languages; instead, the word that best befits his made-up tongues (and for that matter, the rest of his writing) is "plagiarized". When Tolkien constructed his artificial languages for the Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion, etc., he constructed full languages with rules of syntax, phonology, assonance, and so forth. Paolini knows nothing of these - and so his crude imitation is a desecration of the original: ugly, misshapen, and offensive.
In the end, I could bear no more. I placed both copies for sale on Amazon, sending one to a child in Alaska and the other to a reader in Portland. As for the child in Alaska, I suspect this will have been a welcome gift. To the reader in Portland, I am sorry.
In retrospect, Eragon is nothing more than the work of a zealously overpromoted teenager and not a budding literary genius. The strength of this gimmick and the average American's poor familiarity with real literature are what continue to sustain this book.
|
|
|
51 of 58 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Read the real thing instead., October 12, 2003
By A Customer
This book is distressing in the amount of attention it is getting, when from the very first page it is apparent that the author "borrowed" massive amounts of detail, motifs, characters, names,languages, etc. from other fantasy writers, especially Tolkien. There was not an original phrase to be found. I was willing to give the book a try and was sorely disappointed. The publishers should be ashamed of themselves as they clearly chose this book as a marketing gimmick because of the author's age and have indeed made a fortune because of this.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|