News:

"Forbidden Fruit [L-H]"
Congratulations Mellific & Swashbuckler for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Abridged Version of Twilight

Started by Blank, March 22, 2009, 02:52:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Inkidu

Quote from: Vandren on April 06, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
Honestly, couldn't stand the books, but forced myself through at least the first one because of a member of my diss committee who decided (after he saw them at an airport and never read them) that they should be included in my diss.  I nixed that one pretty quickly, as did my director . . . this happened about a month before the defense.

My reasons are pretty much what's been stated already . . . which is why I'm amused by the article and by my local paper's review of the movie (everything the local reviewer stated as flaws in the movie were 100% faithful to the book).

Actually, Eragon's not too bad.  It's not great, but not bad.  The first book, at least, definitely reads like it was written by a high school-er who recently read Tolkien.  But, the writing's no worse than Tolkien's and lacks the bad attempts at poetry.   ;)  Eoin Colfer and Jonathan Stroud are much better, in my personal and professional opinions.
Honestly Eragon has more to do with King Arthur than it does with Tolkien.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Vandren

<hijack>

Quote from: Inkidu on April 06, 2009, 03:18:52 PMHonestly Eragon has more to do with King Arthur than it does with Tolkien.

I wasn't talking about plot.  I was talking about style and writing quality (thus the language used). 

Fortunately, Paolini's writing style is much better than that of most of the Arthurian writers, save perhaps Thomas Malory, Beroul, and Chretien de Troyes.  He certainly beats out the anonymous monk who wrote "The Quest of the Holy Grail" and might edge out Spenser's "Faerie Queene" (at least he's more condensed and clearer than Spenser).

Although, Tolkien has more to do, plotwise, with King Arthur than even Eragon does, seeing as the Arthurian stories were one of Tolkien's influences (along with nearly every other medieval romance and epic).

But that's a topic for another thread.

</hijack>
"Life is growth.  If we stop growing, technically and spiritually, we are as good as dead." -Morihei Ueshiba, O-Sensei

Inkidu

#27
Quote from: Vandren on April 06, 2009, 03:26:38 PM
<hijack>

I wasn't talking about plot.  I was talking about style and writing quality (thus the language used). 

Fortunately, Paolini's writing style is much better than that of most of the Arthurian writers, save perhaps Thomas Malory, Beroul, and Chretien de Troyes.  He certainly beats out the anonymous monk who wrote "The Quest of the Holy Grail" and might edge out Spenser's "Faerie Queene" (at least he's more condensed and clearer than Spenser).

Although, Tolkien has more to do, plotwise, with King Arthur than even Eragon does, seeing as the Arthurian stories were one of Tolkien's influences (along with nearly every other medieval romance and epic).

But that's a topic for another thread.

</hijack>
What are you talking about Tolkien influencing the Arthurian Legend? No, the hero's tale is way older than Tolkien. You cannot give credit to the man for every convention in fantasy ever. /hijack.

Edit: Sorry read that wrong. Never mind. Still for a start in a career Chris ain't doing too shabby.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Zero

How do you know a book is bad? When the actor who portrays Edward is badmouthing the book even before the release of the movie.
*New Update.* A&A Updated 7/30/18

Inkidu

If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.