Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeAug 7th 2009 edited
     

    Pretty much all of us think the Cycle books are bad, but of all of them which one do you think is the best? In my opinion I think Eragon is the best of the three so far.

  1.  

    Oh, you mean the Inheritance Cycle. Judging by the title of the thread, I thought we were discussing all cycle books in general. It would have been an interesting discussion. Maybe I should start it in another place.

    Well, I’ve only read the first two. I do like Eragon better.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeAug 7th 2009
     

    Eragon definitely. I get the feeling he wrote it before the purple really started flowing. Sure, the plot is similar to Star Wars and others all of us could name, but honestly, it had the best storyline of all of the books in the cycle so far. And with less filling in-between, it was quite a lot more entertaining, too.

  2.  

    I’ll have to third the “Eragon is the best” opinion.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMoldorm
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     

    I liked Durza. Therefore, Eragon.

    •  
      CommentAuthorApep
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     

    Considering Eragon was the only one I finished, I’m going with that.

    • CommentAuthorMorvius
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     
    Eragon. Eldest bored me and I had low standards for books in the past.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     

    So I gather that not many people here have read Brisingr? At times it was interesting (I may be the only person on the planet who thought the dwarf politics were neat), but never when Eragon or Saphira was involved. Even Nasuada had stupidity issues.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     

    My answer is also Eragon. You could tell with that one that he really wanted to tell a story, and he wasn’t as aware of the audience as he was in Eldest and Brisingr. He wrote Eragon from the heart, and it showed. That’s what initially attracted me to the book before Eldest came along. And Brisingr in many ways was the nail in the coffin, or the proverbial camel-breaking straw.

    •  
      CommentAuthorVirgil
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     

    (I may be the only person on the planet who thought the dwarf politics were neat)

    Yeah, probably.

    I agree with TakuGfiian.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     

    Well, I remember thinking they were neat at the time. If I read them now I might wonder what the hell I was thinking. But they seemed original and controversial and all the dwarves were fairly interesting. Even if they did drone on for long periods of time. Maybe I should go look at that again.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMoldorm
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     

    I read Brisingr!
    The dwarf politics dragged on and on, made more annoying by how predictable it all was, and the Shade at the end was very anticlimactic and disappointing.

    •  
      CommentAuthorJabrosky
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     

    I must confess, when I first read Eragon, I actually liked the prose. Back then I wasn’t aware what the rest of society considered good prose as opposed to bad prose.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     

    Oh goodness, I forgot about that Shade. How awful. They created him just so Eragon and Arya could swoop in two seconds later to save the day. Ugh. Ugh.

  3.  

    Eragon was probably the best of the series as a book, but Brisingr had the most improvements. Disregarding the terrible “plot”, stilted “dialogue”, and all-consuming filler, it had a lot more character development and the purple prose was somewhat reduced.

    • CommentAuthorMorvius
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2009
     
    I think it's because the first book wasn't that bad when it came to purple prose. I recall not liking Eldest because of the extremely long-winded style of writing. So you don't need to know society's "standards" of quality prose really. I read Brisingr but...yes there is more character development but the purple prose seems worse. Or rather, the thesaurus was abused more than ever before.
  4.  

    Eragon atomic leg drops the hell out of both sequels IMO. If Paolini had stopped there, or continued in that vein, I probably wouldn’t hold his success against him the way I do. Eragon reads like a dorky teenager wrote it, but a dorky teenager so full of pure and earnest enthusiasm that it’s not to like even if you realize it sucks.

    It’s like your little brother made you a terrible drawing out of macaroni and fingerpaint. Hell if you know what it is, but you know the kid put his heart in to it, so you hang it on the fridge. Granted, given it’s Eragon we are talking about, it might be more feasible to hang the fridge on it, but the point remains the same.

    With Eldest/Brisingr, it’s like your little brother made you an even worse drawing but tried to make it highbrow and incorporate artsy elements to it, and then gives it to you and expects you to view it as something really impressive and mature. Yeah, the original drawing was probably just as balls, but adding such absurd levels of pretension in the followups just smothered the only redeeming quality the first one had.

    • CommentAuthorDamselfly
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2009
     
    Eragon was decent for what it was and is definitely the best of the series. After that, though, you can really see where success went to Paolini's head. All that purple prose strokes his ego...it's like he "realized" that there are no laws to writing...I maintain that you should follow a few guidelines. Like continuity. Yeah...he contradicts himself in his interviews so much. Don't even get me started on the contradictions within the text.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhappycrab91
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2009 edited
     
    Everyone seems to say that while Eragon is pretty bad by literacy standards, it was enjoyable enough. Well I didn't like it at all. I couldn't finish it because I was so bored with the desert part, but I did get to the Dwarf city. The events just didn't seem that imaginative and it was stretched out way too long. And I found some things really lame like the fortune teller bluntly telling Eragon everything important that's going to happen in the rest of the story thus ruining a lot of surprises, the were-cat I thought was a stupid idea, and Garrow giving Eragon that big list of generic advice.

    So I didn't bother reading the next two books, but I have read all of the sporkings on http://eragon-sporkings.wikispaces.com/ to get a pretty detailed gist of what happens in them. Though the person doing them takes ages to release more chapter sporkings :(

    But yeah Eragon probably would be the best out of them like everyone says.
  5.  

    If I had to choose, probably Eldest. The Eragon/Arya interaction always made me laugh. ;)

  6.  

    I liked Eragon more than I liked Eldest (I rarely like sequels better), but I thought Elva was the only original character in the series, and so I like Eldest. I remember reading Eldest and thinking that he wrote it like a school book report, trying to get in as many big words as possible and never letting them repeat. I later found out this was called “thesaurus rape”. But I thought that even when I liked Inheritance, so… Eragon is better.

    • CommentAuthorUn-Dante'd
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2009
     

    Eragon was probably the better of the three. Paolini seemed more in his element in writing of the mind of a teenager instead of a warrior. The second was probably the worst in the ways of character consistency: constantly whining about his back, and then going on to say that he wouldn’t have wanted to be changed, and thus, healed. The third was in the middle-ground: Eragon is now a big, scary Rider in his full-blown glory, and a sociopath to boot. I mean, come on, he goes from “He could’ve been any one of these men” to killing mercilessly.
    For awesome fantasy, read Tad Williams’ Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn three-book (hardcover edition, four-book for paperback) series. The characters don’t remain completely unchanged, and unlike Paolini, Williams provides explainations as to why.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMoldorm
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2009
     

    I’d like to take the oppurtunity to reiterate that Memory, Sorrow and Thorn is awesome.
    And probably makes more sense if you’re not reading the third one first (because of the awesome cover art) at 9, and skip most of the book to get to the Miriamele bits.

    • CommentAuthorUn-Dante'd
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2009
     

    I read it when I was in grade seven, and thought “What a fuckin’ gay, long-assed and drawn-out book.” Until about a month ago, they were just sitting there on my shelves. I was like “Ah, what the hell. It worked for The Lord of the Rings, it can work for Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn.“ So I read The Dragonbone Chair and was like “Wow. My junior self seems quite conceited and foul-mouthed, and completely wrong about the series.”
    I would have to say that while the series follows a pretty… generic plot (Old, wise king of a peaceful nation dies, his eldest and corrupted son takes the throne, and the king’s younger son rebels, whilst the Eldest consorts with powers both greater and darker than that of humanity… etcetera, etcetera) Williams spins a fantastic tale. I love how he shows the character’s inner conflicts, and the little information that makes them all the more real. For example: when Simon fights in the Battle of the Lake of Glass, it shows how he has to blind himself to killing the Erkyngard as men and see them as beasts trying to kill him, his friends, his comrades, and destroy the world.