I’m saddened that the movie seems to be dreck. At least, I THINK I am…I have never read the book, nor its sequel. Paolini is a “local boy” for me, even, and still I have not ever opened the book.
Should I?
Is it too derivitive of LOTR, or books like Lord Valentine’s Castle , or any of the other sword & sorcery fantasies, to bother with? (This has been my uneducated opinion so far.) Or is it worth a once-through at least?
And altho I am not necessarily a fan of trilogies in this genre, the recent thread asking for advice on which fantasy trilogies to read got me to thinking: which sci/fi or fantasy novels are a “MUST-READ” for someone who has an interest in the genre but isn’t maybe so well-read as she’d like to be? (You know, I’ve read LOTR multiple times, Dune plus a couple sequels, the Foundation trilogy, Stranger in a Strange LandLV’s Castle (as mentioned, but none of the follow-up novels), pretty much all of Bradbury’s writings, etc. But what else am I missing?)
A fantasy must-read list might include (other than LOTR) Narnia, Earthsea, Peter Beagle’s wonderful The Last Unicorn. It could include Gormenghast, variations on King Arthur, such as The Once and Future King, it might even include Harry Potter. It could be wide ranging and include fantastical animal stories such as Watership Down, humorous fantasy such as Charlie and the Chocalate Factory. It could drift into magical realism.
But a fantasy must-read list would NOT (imho) include such derivative dreck as Eragon…or anything by Terry Brooks.
Well he’s back has an excellent list for starting with. The one book I’d add to it off the top of my head, for slightly different reasons, is Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. This isn’t a novel that has stood the test of time, as have all his selections. However, in my opinion it’s the best fantasy novel to have been published in many years; and as a modern novel, it’s one that you must read if you want to be on top of the state of the genre.
A similar recommendation, albeit from the other end of the gritometer: Perdido Street Station. Some people object to its “everything and the kitchen sink” approach to fantasy, but I found it to be very interesting and original.
If we’re listing fantasy recommendations, then we have to get a shout-out to Gaiman. Sandman, while a comic, should probably be included in any fantasy “canon”.
As for novels, check out Stardust for a fairy tale, Neverwhere for a modern fairy tale, American Gods for a masterful look at mythology in modern life, and Anansi Boys for a comic romp in the overall darker place that American Gods lives in, and Coraline for a dark Alice in Wonderland type tale.
Maybe I don’t understand the definition of “derivative”.
I enjoy fantasy novels that use familiar characters, plots, and settings. I love farm boys on quests, bastard sons of royalty, dragons, desolate and lush landscapes both, and port cities. But I don’t want to feel like I’ve read that particular book before. I don’t want predictability.
Everything is derived from something else. There’s nothing new under the sun. Is derivative always bad?
Pick up American Gods or Good Omens. Sit down with a volume of the Discworld series. Check out H.P. Lovecraft’s stories, Heinlein’s work, take a look at A Song for Arbonne or Tigana by Guy Gavriel Kay.
But for God’s sake, I beg you, bury Eragon right at the bottom of the trashbin.
Preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview…
Depends on your definition of ‘derivative’. Tolkien’s work, for example, is derivative of old Norse myth, but he’s one of the most highly-regarded (if not the most highly-regarded) fantasy authors in the world.
‘Derivative’ is mostly used, though, to mean ‘predictabilty’, and Tolkien made his work new and unpredictable–reminiscent of the myths he derived his inspiration from, but not copied directly from. Paolini doesn’t bother–he just rips off better authors wholesale.
To Auntie Pam - Yes of course all literature, and especially literature of particular genres, derives or copies to a degree from what came before.
But - when I critique a book and call it “derivitive” in a mean way (as I do with Paolini or Brooks) it’s because virtually all I see is the copying, with nothing original leftover that is worth my time. I mean it is TOO derivitive. Being such a copycat author strikes me as incredibly crass on the part of the author; that the author thinks the public is stupid enough to buy recycled words and is trying to make an easy buck. That these authors are right, and richer than I, is another matter.
Wow, I dislike 90% of the books recommended. Maybe I will pick up Eragon
I can’t imagine it’ll make any “must read” list, ever, but I still think Harry Potter is schlock.
Mary Stewart’s Merlin books, Charles de Lint’s non-Newford books, The Deed of Paksenarrion… Lovecraft really isn’t in the same genre, IMHO, but damn good reading anyway.
Yes, I guess I mean “derivitive” in the ugly sense of “ripping off better authors wholesale”, as Kythereia says. Sadly enough, it has come to mean just that, IMHO, in fiction.
I have a lovely copy of “The Annotated Alice in Wonderland”, it’s a favorite book. I will take the advice on N. Gaiman, I see his stuff all the time but didn’t know enough to pick any of it up. I’m a huge fan of Arthurian literature and have read all that has been recommended here, including others (all Mary Stewart’s works, Arthur Rex by Berger, Marian Zimmer Bradley, several versions of The Green Knight, including Tolkien’s, etc). I’ve read and re-read the H.Potter books as well.
But I’ve never read Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, glad to see it so highly recommended. Never read American Gods or any of the Discworld books. I’m excited to find them all, now!
Sounds like I am not overlooking a piece of world-class, history-making fantasy fiction by giving Eragon a miss.
I adore DeLint and like Stewart, don’t like most of the rest mentioned and while I admire Harry Potter for getting a whole generation to turn off the video games and open a book, I don’t think they’re all that well written, so maybe our tastes are more similar than some of the other posters in this thread.
I enjoyed Eregon. Derivative? Absolutely. Completely predictable and unoriginal? No. It was like slipping into a comfy overstuffed chair with a mug of hot chocolate and a cat on my lap. Warm and fuzzy and familiar, but not without it’s own little quirks and surprises.
But what do I know? I like Mercedes Lackey and Jennifer Roberson, too.
OH, but I’ve suddenly fallen in love with Neil Gaiman. Not his *Sandman *stuff, but his “lost little girl” stuff: *Mirrormask *and *Coraline *and I can’t wait to pick up The Wolves in the Walls.
I guess I’ll once again add a cautious note in favor of the books. If you don’t mind seeing clear threads of others’ work, if you’re a big fantasy fan - I think you’ll likely enjoy it. YMMV.
Even if ‘Eragon’ didn’t produce much that was truly original, (a debatable point,) he’s done a fairly creditable job of synthesizing his major influences, and that gives things a bit of unpredictability - you’re not quite sure which souce he’s going to draw from next or how they’re going to interact.
Yay-someone else here who enjoys her Merlin Trilogy. I like HP, though-even if the writing is pedesterian at times. Haven’t read the others, except for the Pern series, which were good.
Eragon is just slow going-we are on page 279 and we have yet to get to real action. I may excuse Tolkien for this type of thing, but not Paolini. I don’t care what the characters had for dinner-get on with the story!
Usually. Every work is derivative of something, of course, but when a work is singled out, it means that the author is just telling the same old story that everyone already knows. It is definitely predictable, and predictable in such a way that you’re reminded of other, better works.
Say, has anyone read the new book, Here, there be dragons? It’s a great example of something that is really derivative. It could be a lot better; it has some nice points, and it’s fun enough, but overall…meh. Not an original idea in the bunch. A huge problem is that his main characters are eventually revealed as Tolkien, Lewis, and Charles Williams–which just shows up the author’s third-rate writing and lack of genius.
I’m biased against very young writers, or maybe it’s a bias against young writers who attempt more than they can handle. Getting A’s in English Lit and Composition and having some imagination doesn’t mean you can construct a novel that will hold together.
I’m reading a fantasy novel (just got it today) which has a character doing something which I think is really stupid, in the prologue, no less. Now if this book was by George R. R. Martin or Guy Gavriel Kay, I’d probably keep reading and trust that there was a good reason for this stupid action, and the reason will be revealed in due course.
But because the book is by a 21-year-old who started writing it in high school, I don’t trust that I’m in good hands, and I’m this close to dumping the book.
Anyone else biased against young writers? Or old writers? Writers who never went to college? Or any category of writers?
Read Jonathan Stroud’s lovely, well-written trilogy beginning with *The Amulet of Samarkand * instead. Eragon, placed against an outside wall, will help insulate your house. That’s the best I can say for it, and I will read almost anything.
