Welcome to Gaia! ::

It was a load of barbarous trash.

I love the books but the movie was a huge let down. It was good as far as movies go, but they changed it so much from the book that it was practically unrecognizable.

first book was alright, but I found myself more interested in Rowen's story with the second book. I don't think I want to read the third book all that much.... I'm sorry but the cliffhanger was just too corny and i think Chris could have done better then that.

In other words; its a standered book and relitively the same as a great deal of books out there. Nothing really catches my intrest after the first book.

I agree as well. The main problems I have with Paolini's style is that it is erratic at best. Unlike Tolkien's lyrical prose, Paolini has trouble finding his own voice. This might be normal (after all he started pretty young). The problem is that you can find, not one or two, but at least 3 voices and styles in Eragon, which are probably the result of multiple and extensive editing by various individuals.

I fully agree with your allusion to Le Guin's work, most notably the Earthsea saga. Eragon's character is also quite irksome at times. I tried getting into this book about 3 times and had to give up after approx chapter 5 or so Every single time.

I was hoping the movie might at least make up for the book's deficiencies, but as it turns out, it is worse. For anyone who reads extensively works in the fantasy genre, Eragon seems basically a rehash of other works written in a more clumsy, more haphazard way.

It is really a pity because had Paolini decided to wait until he matured into a good author (for 5 or 10 more years) he could have written a much better book and be truly deserving of all the hoopla he received simply because he is a precocious writer.

I know it sounds mean and stingy to criticize Paolini ("Well can YOU do any better?") but as I said if you have read other books on a similar theme, it is difficult to truly enjoy Eragon. If this is the first major book you ever read in the genre then I suppose it's ok.

Those are pretty books. Not the best I've ever read, but definitely not the worst. I do want to read the third book, and I wish it would and get here.

I haven't read Tolkien's work, so I'm not sure that I'm entitled to defend Paolini's work. I thought that was pretty good, but that's only because I am obsessed with dragons, and because his dragon/human bond greatly reminded me of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series...partly because he read those too. Now that I think about it, he sorta copied her too. Dang it.

I've read both the books. I've read most of the other series listed in this board too. But I still can't figure out why most of the people hate them. Sure they have some similarities, but what books don't? I personally didn't like the early Eragon, but loved his later transformed form. Eragon and Arya together would be awesome, but still it'd have to wait until Galbatorix was killed wouldn't it? Even then she's at least 90 years older than him. Brom was a delightful character...while he lasted. Murtaugh was great, lovely, surprizing, then hateful and exiled in my mind. I really didn't hate any of the characters except the Twins, but they were evil and were ment for hatred.

The movie was well directed and all that jazz, unless you've read the books. They cut out anything worth watching and actually killed the begining to the next movie! And how come there were no Dwarves in a Dwarven city?! I mean really? That's bullshivic! The only thing they did right in this so called movie is Saphira and they still missed important parts on her! I'm surprized they figured out to make her saphire.

Well enough of my ranting.

I've noticed that the problem with almost everyone who has posted on here is that they don't see the book as a whole. You just read it to do something. If you don't get what I mean pick up one of Douglas Adam's books from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series. Just read it and you'll see. By the way I totally agree with you Zieza.