# Honestly - What is Eragon?



## Angel Tarragon (Oct 5, 2006)

Sure, it sounds vaguely familiar and I've seen the poster at the theater but I don't know anything beyond that. Can someone please fill me in without spoiling too much of it?


----------



## Klaus (Oct 5, 2006)

Series of books by an author that was 15 when he started it.

Fantasy land. Dragons are thought to be extinct. Dragon Riders, the peacekeepers, are no more. Boy finds last dragon. Boy sets out to become a Dragon Rider.


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 5, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Fantasy land. Dragons are thought to be extinct. Dragon Riders, the peacekeepers, are no more. Boy finds last dragon. Boy sets out to become a Dragon Rider.




Except its not as good as Klaus's summary.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 5, 2006)

I haven't read any of the books, but I must say, I was far from impressed with the trailer. It's got good production values, it seems, and I may see it just to support another fantasy release. But even in the trailer, it seemed there was no fantasy cliche left unturned. I can only imagine how rife the whole movie must be with them.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 5, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> Except its not as good as Klaus's summary.



 
For some reason, this has made me laugh uncontrollably.  As I have a rather nasty flu at the moment, I am consequently in considerable pain.  Bastard.

I was given the book as a gift when it came out in hardback.  The brief plot summary alone on the dust jacket put me off reading it, and I haven't picked it up since.  This goes against all of my book-readin' principles, but there you go.  I had enough of cliched fantasy garbage when I read the first two Shannara books back in the 80s and have no desire to revisit it.

Like Mouseferatu said, I watched the trailer thinking, ooh looks cool.  And then found myself ticking off the boxes as the trailer progressed.  Young boy of uncertain parentage?  Check.  Evil dark lord?  Check.  Grizzled mentor?  Check.  Evil monster army?  Check.  Mind-numbing predictability?  Check.

Oh well.  I'm sure my kids will like it.


----------



## Bonzi (Oct 5, 2006)

I guess I'm a lot different than many others here.  Not every book or movie has to bring something new to the table for me to enjoy it.  I found the books to be average but not because of the storyline or plot but because of the somewhat weak writing.   Based on the trailer, the movie looks like it will be pretty average as well.


----------



## Enforcer (Oct 5, 2006)

Count me in the "Eragon _sucks_" camp. I tried reading it, I really did, but gave up half-way through. In my opinion, it's absolutely terrible.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 5, 2006)

Eragon, to me, is a typical marketing sensation. It was written by a fifteen-year-old – that's the hook for buying it, even though the average fifteen-year-old writer (which isn't even the average fifteen-year-old kid) isn't a very good writer.

From what I understand, Eragon is certainly above average for a writer this age, and if I still was fifteen years old myself, I'd probably like the book. But compared to even fantasy books as a whole, it's just average. It's got a lot, if not most tired tropes of the genre, little to no female characters, a somewhat hackneyed plot, and not a good grasp of technique. Which doesn't surprise me. Also, people tell me that the sequel was a let-down even from this average level of quality.

But hey – a fifteen-year-old boy wrote it! Must buy! 

(yeah, I'm cynical)


----------



## Merlion (Oct 5, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I haven't read any of the books, but I must say, I was far from impressed with the trailer. It's got good production values, it seems, and I may see it just to support another fantasy release. But even in the trailer, it seemed there was no fantasy cliche left unturned. I can only imagine how rife the whole movie must be with them.





How exactly is that a bad thing?

Mind you, I'm just as much in search of new and inventive stuff as the next person who's been reading and watching fantasy/horror/sci fi for years, but that doesnt mean the old ideas arent still great.




> Eragon, to me, is a typical marketing sensation. It was written by a fifteen-year-old – that's the hook for buying it, even though the average fifteen-year-old writer (which isn't even the average fifteen-year-old kid) isn't a very good writer.





Personally I think we should be trying to encourage this sort of thing. The very fact that a 15 year old went ahead and spent the time and energy...and had the interest...to write a book, and then spent the time and energy to actually get it published, should be applauded.

Theres also no reason to believe that the writting quality...good or bad...has anything to do with age. A 15 year old isnt really all that much different than a 21 year old when it comes down to it.

I really wish that I had gone ahead and started pursuing writing when I was 15, instead of waiting till I was in my 20s, but I didnt because I thought I couldnt, and I regret it now.


EDIT: Its also been my understanding that the boy who wrote Eragon was homeschooled...as I was...and to me its also an example of what even a very young person can achieve when they have time to actually LIVE instead of having to spend every moment memorizing bits of information in order to past test.

It probably isnt the best-structured story ever, but I still feel people like us should be supporting such efforts, and offering constructive criticism, rather than putting them down


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 5, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> How exactly is that a bad thing?
> 
> Mind you, I'm just as much in search of new and inventive stuff as the next person who's been reading and watching fantasy/horror/sci fi for years, but that doesnt mean the old ideas arent still great.



No, but if you want originality, Eragon is not the place to look for it.  It's a legitimate complaint.



> Personally I think we should be trying to encourage this sort of thing. The very fact that a 15 year old went ahead and spent the time and energy...and had the interest...to write a book, and then spent the time and energy to actually get it published, should be applauded.



Except that he didn't spend the time and energy to actually get it published.  His parents are publishers, and they published it for him, and then used their contacts to get it sold to a larger publishing house, with the accompanying hype.  Besides, just because a kid goes to the trouble of writing something, that doesn't make it good, worthwhile or deserving of appreciation (and if it does, then I have a sequel to LotR that I wrote when I was 10 that deserves a Hugo award or two...  )



> Theres also no reason to believe that the writting quality...good or bad...has anything to do with age. A 15 year old isnt really all that much different than a 21 year old when it comes down to it.



Um, what?    



> EDIT: Its also been my understanding that the boy who wrote Eragon was homeschooled...as I was...and to me its also an example of what even a very young person can achieve when they have time to actually LIVE instead of having to spend every moment memorizing bits of information in order to past test.
> 
> It probably isnt the best-structured story ever, but I still feel people like us should be supporting such efforts, and offering constructive criticism, rather than putting them down



Bah.  Humbug.  No free lunches.  If you can't take the heat, stay out of the furnace.  You can't break an omelette without counting a few eggs.  Let sleeping dogs leap.  And other mangled figures of eight.  Speech.  I mean speech.


----------



## hafrogman (Oct 5, 2006)

There's a lot of people who have read and enjoyed the books as well.  I am one of those.  It's a fun and enjoyable read, perhaps not the most unique story ever, but presented in a fresh way.  And the age of the author didn't even enter into it for me, I wasn't aware of it until I read the dust jacket, AFTER finishing the book.  I can't say how the movie will be yet, but in opposition to everything else in this thread, I'd recommend the books.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 5, 2006)

I got to meet christopher at a convention here in Montana when he was still promoting the first (self-funded) print run of his book.  Until he told me, I honestly had no idea he was so young.  We picked up a signed copy.

Eragon is the first book in a trilogy.  The second book is 'Eldest', and the third book isn't out yet.  The first book is formulaic, yes, but it is a good "popcorn movie" type of book.  The second is a little more thought provoking, and makes me think that his future books have real promise.


----------



## sirwmholder (Oct 5, 2006)

I found the books enjoyable.  Then again I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter books... I don't know how to describe the feel of these type of books other than fresh.  The original works of classic fantasy writers paint a master piece filled with political intrigue and systems of how things work... in this latest crop you just accept their is a method to it and it works but the book doesn't beat that method over your head every other chapter.

***SPOILER ALERT***
I especially liked the Shade character... the unique way of possession and inherent power of magic.  I also like the debunking of the frail elf image... very Tolkeinsque in that regard.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 5, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Personally I think we should be trying to encourage this sort of thing. The very fact that a 15 year old went ahead and spent the time and energy...and had the interest...to write a book, and then spent the time and energy to actually get it published, should be applauded.



Of course it's good that he started writing at an early age. But a good part of writing is craftsmanship, and that has to do with practice. If you're fifteen, you can't have as much practice as someone aged 21 might have. Or aged 30. Or even 40. So if you're one of the rare kind of talents, then your book may be great. If not, then it might be average, perhaps even good. But telling me a book was written by a fifteen-year-old will not encourage me to buy it – I've seen the kind of prose and poetry these kids publish on their websites. The selling point of a book, to me, has nothing to do with the author's age.

I'm all for having the kid write, write, write as much as he can, though. 



> It probably isnt the best-structured story ever, but I still feel people like us should be supporting such efforts, and offering constructive criticism, rather than putting them down



Sure. Give me the boy's E-Mail adress, and I'll offer constructive criticism. Point me to a message board thread, and I'll simply say my piece.


----------



## nyrfherdr (Oct 5, 2006)

I do think that many of you are overlooking the fact that ERAGON as a book is in the Children's section of most bookstores.  It was not sold or marketed to adults.  It is more like Harry Potter and was written mostly for young adult readers.   It is a nice book for young people to read. 

ERAGON is a fantasy novel with most of the tropes you would expect and provides lots of fun scenes.  Competing with Tolkien was never the intention of the publisher or, I think, the author.
The fact that adults are reading it is nice, but not the real target audience.

I have read the book, enjoyed the story, and recognized the fantasy elements you would find in many fantasy novels written by much older authors, who make the same 'mistakes' that many of you describe.  My son, an 11 year old.  LOVES the book.

Like or dislike the book, but you probably are not the intended audience.
In addition, most movies are meant for a very broad audience and a simple story like ERAGON translates very well to the big screen and I hope they do a good job on it.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 5, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Theres also no reason to believe that the writting quality...good or bad...has anything to do with age. A 15 year old isnt really all that much different than a 21 year old when it comes down to it.



I've been writing professionally since I got out of college. That six years is more than "much different," it's a giant yawning gulf.



> It probably isnt the best-structured story ever, but I still feel people like us should be supporting such efforts, and offering constructive criticism, rather than putting them down



That's the role of parents and friends, not customers.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 5, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I've been writing professionally since I got out of college. That six years is more than "much different," it's a giant yawning gulf.




What have you written?  Do you have a popular fantasy series?  Do publishers base their decision off of quality of story, or what will sell well?  Perhaps your writing is of far better quality than Paolini's (or perhaps you write something other than fantasy fiction), but does that make you more marketable?


----------



## Chain Lightning (Oct 5, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> What have you written?  Do you have a popular fantasy series?  Do publishers base their decision off of quality of story, or what will sell well?  Perhaps your writing is of far better quality than Paolini's (or perhaps you write something other than fantasy fiction), but does that make you more marketable?




Well, I gotta say that the "talent" and the "publishers/producers" are two different things. I'm confident in saying that most of the machine that runs entertainment (books, tv, movies, video games) aren't as sharp at seeing what is good and what isn't. Sure, they accidently pick winners from time to time ....but you'd be surprised how many they miss.

I've been around long enough to meet several very talented artists from all crafts that were hidden in rough. Just because they don't have a best selling book out, just because they don't have a multi-million dollar movie done, or whatever ....doesn't mean they're not qualified to talk about the art or that they aren't good or even better than those they are commenting on. It just means that fate hasn't dealt them the same cup of gold that Eragon's young writer was given.

It takes more than just great talent to rise above the others and be seen/heard. Personally, I'm happy for the kid. He's got loving parents that were willing to work hard so that his book would get attention. Does it mean its good? Does it mean it deserves to be a movie? I don't know.

The only opinion I have on it is that I feel sorry for all the other long time fantasy/sci-fi writers that have properties that the movie industry passed over in favor for this newcomer. I haven't decide whether or not my feelings are wrong or right on that...heh heh.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 5, 2006)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Well, I gotta say that the "talent" and the "publishers/producers" are two different things. I'm confident in saying that most of the machine that runs entertainment (books, tv, movies, video games) aren't as sharp at seeing what is good and what isn't. Sure, they accidently pick winners from time to time ....but you'd be surprised how many they miss.




Do big sales = Winners, or does Talent = Winners?



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I've been around long enough to meet several very talented artists from all crafts that were hidden in rough. Just because they don't have a best selling book out, just because they don't have a multi-million dollar movie done, or whatever ....doesn't mean they're not qualified to talk about the art or that they aren't good or even better than those they are commenting on. It just means that fate hasn't dealt them the same cup of gold that Eragon's young writer was given.




I'm not saying someone isn't qualified to comment, where did you get that?  I'm saying that success isn't necessarily measured by talent alone.



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> It takes more than just great talent to rise above the others and be seen/heard. Personally, I'm happy for the kid. He's got loving parents that were willing to work hard so that his book would get attention. Does it mean its good? Does it mean it deserves to be a movie? I don't know.




Honestly, movies are made to make money.  So from that standpoint, if it will sell well, then it deserves to be a movie.  If your superior story won't sell as well, then it isn't "good" enough.



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> The only opinion I have on it is that I feel sorry for all the other long time fantasy/sci-fi writers that have properties that the movie industry passed over in favor for this newcomer. I haven't decide whether or not my feelings are wrong or right on that...heh heh.




It comes down to what will sell.  I think Firefly and Serenity were very creative and interesting.  But it didn't sell as well as say, Titanic (which I didn't like very much).  If your writing doesn't appeal to the widest audience (i.e. you don't pander to the masses), then it simply won't be as successful as someone who does.

So, do you pander to the masses and live like a king, or do you stick to your guns and work that part-time job to pay the bills.  Personally, if I was involved in that sort of industry, I'd pander to the masses until I could live comfortably, then I'd write my "good stuff".


----------



## Chain Lightning (Oct 6, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Do big sales = Winners, or does Talent = Winners?




In my opinion? Both. Of course, I don't know how much validity my opinion really has. But it seems to me, a lot of the really stand out movies, tv shows, and books we like had both big sales and big talent. Granted, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The movie "Armageddon" was (if I recall correctly) the biggest money success that year (and I think its safe to say that most of us agree on its low level of quality -- as far as story goes).





			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> I'm not saying someone isn't qualified to comment, where did you get that?  I'm saying that success isn't necessarily measured by talent alone.




This is one of those times where I am the guy who put his foot in his mouth. For some reason, I had read your post too quickly and perceived a tone of sarcasm when there probably was no evidence that it was written with that intent. When I read your "What have you written? Do you have a popular fantasy series?" I thought that was a challenge marked with sarcasm. For this misunderstanding, I fully apologize.







			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> Honestly, movies are made to make money.  So from that standpoint, if it will sell well, then it deserves to be a movie.  If your superior story won't sell as well, then it isn't "good" enough.




Oh, I completely agree....the main purpose is to make money with movies. But as we've seen, the innovative or just the "plain well done" movies make MORE money than the safe bet lowest common denominator property. Again, yes I'm aware of low brow pedestrian works have also made lots of money, but I think its usually the well crafted ones that hit it bigger more often.




			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> It comes down to what will sell.  I think Firefly and Serenity were very creative and interesting.  But it didn't sell as well as say, Titanic (which I didn't like very much).  If your writing doesn't appeal to the widest audience (i.e. you don't pander to the masses), then it simply won't be as successful as someone who does.




I think Firefly/Serenity was well written but not terribly ground breaking as far as creativity goes. Plus, its a movie not a novel....so that means more than just good writing has to be there. It also has too "look" good too. With the art direction and the low budget, Firefly/Serenity never gave the common audience a sense of quality. Titanic may not be our cup of tea, but it is well written and well executed. 



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> If your writing doesn't appeal to the widest audience (i.e. you don't pander to the masses), then it simplly won't be as successful as someone who does)




Here's where the grey areas start to show themselves. What's going against the masses and what's not? To me, I think if the masses is the center line in which we creatively travel along, my intent was to say that we can veer slightly to the left and right of it to achieve uniqueness without putting mass appeal into jeopardy. Only when you veer drastically like ....let's say David Lynch's films, do yo lose mass appeal.

I think its possible to maintain mass appeal and be highlly creative at the same time. This is the hard part of being an Editor, Producer, whatever.....

Having the skill to be able to see what is unique and new , but yet understandable to most people, is rare skill indeed. In my opinion, those who are both well skilled in writing as well as being a fan/consumer too are the ones that can see it the best. Lots of "suits" don't realize this and that's why I think we have lots of junk out there too.



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> So, do you pander to the masses and live like a king, or do you stick to your guns and work that part-time job to pay the bills.  Personally, if I was involved in that sort of industry, I'd pander to the masses until I could live comfortably, then I'd write my "good stuff".




That's a pretty safe tactic I must admit.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 6, 2006)

I'll respond to your points this time around, but we should probably make a new thread if you think this line of discussion will continue.



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> In my opinion? Both. Of course, I don't know how much validity my opinion really has. But it seems to me, a lot of the really stand out movies, tv shows, and books we like had both big sales and big talent. Granted, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The movie "Armageddon" was (if I recall correctly) the biggest money success that year (and I think its safe to say that most of us agree on its low level of quality -- as far as story goes).




Therein lies the rub.  Is a work "low brow pedestrian" if you like it?  Or does it only meet that criteria if you don't like it, but the "lowest common denominator" does?  Talent has very little to do with success.  Appeal has everything to do with it (IMHO, of course).



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> This is one of those times where I am the guy who put his foot in his mouth. For some reason, I had read your post too quickly and perceived a tone of sarcasm when there probably was no evidence that it was written with that intent. When I read your "What have you written? Do you have a popular fantasy series?" I thought that was a challenge marked with sarcasm. For this misunderstanding, I fully apologize.




The questions I asked were out of honest curiousity.  Dustyboots is apparently someone who is a part of that industry, and likely has knowledge about it's inner workings that I do not.  Also, I'd like to know what he/she has done, as I might enjoy it.  No problem on the misunderstanding though.  Words on a screen don't generally convey context or intent.  Readers add those in all the time.



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Oh, I completely agree....the main purpose is to make money with movies. But as we've seen, the innovative or just the "plain well done" movies make MORE money than the safe bet lowest common denominator property. Again, yes I'm aware of low brow pedestrian works have also made lots of money, but I think its usually the well crafted ones that hit it bigger more often.




But what qualifies as "low brow pedestrian"?  Maybe I thought the dick and fart jokes in movies such as Clerks and Mallrats were "ground-breaking" or "innovative".  And maybe you thought they were "low brow".  These are subjective terms, to be sure.

We have a pretty solid way of measuring the value and success of a movie or novel, and it isn't with terms like "ground-breaking" or "innovative".  It's called "sales".



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Here's where the grey areas start to show themselves. What's going against the masses and what's not? To me, I think if the masses is the center line in which we creatively travel along, my intent was to say that we can veer slightly to the left and right of it to achieve uniqueness without putting mass appeal into jeopardy. Only when you veer drastically like ....let's say David Lynch's films, do yo lose mass appeal.




Certainly, predicting what will appeal to the majority of people isn't an exact science, and neither is it even easy.



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> I think its possible to maintain mass appeal and be highlly creative at the same time. This is the hard part of being an Editor, Producer, whatever.....




Again, what you find to be highly creative, I might find to be utter rubbish.



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> Having the skill to be able to see what is unique and new , but yet understandable to most people, is rare skill indeed. In my opinion, those who are both well skilled in writing as well as being a fan/consumer too are the ones that can see it the best. Lots of "suits" don't realize this and that's why I think we have lots of junk out there too.






			
				Ecclesiastes 1 said:
			
		

> there is nothing new under the sun




As true then as it is now.

Also, to your junk comment, I'll throw another platitude at you: "One man's trash is another man's treasure."

I don't mean to say that opinion is not a valuable point, but neither do I think that just because my friends and I think an author or actor is talented, they are.

I think talent is a very difficult thing to measure in such a subjective field.



			
				Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> That's a pretty safe tactic I must admit.




All I'm saying is, if I ever decide to write a novel, you can be sure I'm doing it from the comfort of the new house that was paid for by all the trashy romance books I wrote.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Oct 7, 2006)

From the points your making, if its so hard to see what is low brow, what is high brow, what is treasure, what is not , what is the denominator, what is unique, then.....why write for the lowest common denominator at all? 

If everything is so hard to predict, then you might as well just write the best you can and cross your fingers. Since its all subjective right? Then why waste time writing something that's not true to yourself?


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2006)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Eragon, to me, is a typical marketing sensation. It was written by a fifteen-year-old – that's the hook for buying it)






Now admitedly I havent looked, but the times I've seen the book in stores etc, I havent seen anything even mentioning the author's age, other than the inside cover.

And even if it were being used for marketing purposes, it has no impact on the merit of the book.




> and if I still was fifteen years old myself, I'd probably like the book.




Well, as has been mentioned before in this thread, its being targeted at younger readers, not adults.

Which also still has little or no bearing on its merit.





> If you're fifteen, you can't have as much practice as someone aged 21 might have.





Well, actually its possible that you can. It depends on the person, not the age. If the fifteen year old has been writing since age ten, and the 21 year old has been writting since age 19, the 15 year old has more experience. 

I understand your point of course, and certainly _experience_ has a huge effect on writting and other artistic undertakings. Age, however, may or may not. Usualy not.





> telling me a book was written by a fifteen-year-old will not encourage me to buy it





Again, I havent personally experienced anything saying it should, and its certainly beside my point, which is that age has little to do with ability.




> I've seen the kind of prose and poetry these kids publish on their websites.





I know you probably dont mean it that way, but that sounds extremely condescending. This comes back to my other big point in this thread...that a person's opinion has little or no bearing on the merit of a work. In fact,to me, any artistic work has positive merit, automatically and regardless. You apparently disliked the material you've seen on "these kids" websites, but that doesnt mean the material is bad. It means you didnt like it. It also doesnt mean that everything written by people under the age of 18 will be disliked by you, or be without merit.




> Sure. Give me the boy's E-Mail adress, and I'll offer constructive criticism. Point me to a message board thread, and I'll simply say my piece





Of course. And my initial post wasnt aimed soley at you, it was aimed at the overall negative/condescending/elitist attitude that has been present in this thread. However you and most, although not all, of the people posting on here have tended to phrase their "piece" as statements of fact, rather than opinion.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2006)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> No, but if you want originality, Eragon is not the place to look for it.  It's a legitimate complaint.
> .





No, its a legitimate taste. You want something "new and different" in everything, and thats fine (although I'm not personally sure that such a thing exists...the stories have all pretty much been told at this point.) However, as at least one other person in this thread has said for themselves, some people dont neccesarily require that, and may even enjoy the "cliches"




> Except that he didn't spend the time and energy to actually get it published. His parents are publishers, and they published it for him, and then used their contacts to get it sold to a larger publishing house, with the accompanying hype





My understanding is that a relative of one of the higher-ups at Knopf found the book, presented it, and got it published.





> Besides, just because a kid goes to the trouble of writing something, that doesn't make it good, worthwhile or deserving of appreciation





Thats where we disagree entirely. First off, all of this applies just the same to an "adult" as to a "kid". Wether something is "good" is entirely a matter of individual opinion...obviously. Several people have posted here who have read this particular book...some liked it, some did not.
  As for worthwhile and deserving of appreciation, I consider all works of creativity to be worthwhile and deserving of appreciation, regardless of the age of their creator, or the opinions of individuals. 





> Um, what?





I'm not a believer in our cultures idea that "children" and "adults" are seperate species. For legal reasons we have an arbitary cut off where people start being legally responsible for their actions, but things like maturity, responsibility and ability/talent are pretty much indepedent of age. I know people in their 40s who are almost totally incapable and irresponsible, and I've known teenagers who are the oposite. Consider that a century ago, a 15 year old would have been considered an "adult".

Obviously people grow and change with experience and time, but having been both 15 and 21 in the course of my life, I can say that while time did bring changes, I was pretty much the same person at both points.

As far as the writting ability part, I'm also not a big believer in our culture's concept of "prodigies", "genius" or the idea that some people are inherently more intelligent or able than others. I feel everyone has enormous potential.





> Bah. Humbug. No free lunches. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the furnace. You can't break an omelette without counting a few eggs. Let sleeping dogs leap. And other mangled figures of eight. Speech. I mean speech






Uh, ok. I'm not sure I get all of what your saying, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with the overall theme. I feel anyone who undertakes a creative work, especially those starting out, should be encouraged, and offered useful feedback. Now I understand this is just a forum and not the writers email, and yea people are free to express their opinions, but opinions like "it sucks" and things essentially to the effect of "only a special genius 15 year old could write something worth reading" are examples of the saying about if you cant say something nice (or at least helpful) dont say anything at all.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I've been writing professionally since I got out of college. That six years is more than "much different," it's a giant yawning gulf.
> .






I think you misunderstand me. I wasnt saying anything about six more years of writting experience. I was saying essentially this: assume the 15 year old and the 21 year old are both just starting, or at least writting their first novel. The 15 year old is just as likely to do just as well as the 21 year old.

Also deeper than that, as I mentioned in my last post, I dont really believe "children" (especially teenagers) are all that much different from "adults", or that theres some sort of magic age at which you suddenly become more intelligent, enlightened or whatever. All of life is a learning and growing experience. 




> That's the role of parents and friends, not customers





I disagree, although I'm not sure about your use of the term "customer". Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, but I don't believe in "slamming" creative works. If you didn't like it, say so. But thats just your opinion, don't try to act like your not liking it =it having no merit or being "bad". Thats why I dont really understand the existing of literary/art/film "critics", who get payed to try and tell us whats well done or badly done, when all it is is their opinion.

I'm not saying you did or are doing that, but thats what I was getting at. I feel people who choose to pursue their creativity should be encouraged, or at least not discouraged.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2006)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> From the points your making, if its so hard to see what is low brow, what is high brow, what is treasure, what is not , what is the denominator, what is unique, then.....why write for the lowest common denominator at all?
> 
> If everything is so hard to predict, then you might as well just write the best you can and cross your fingers. Since its all subjective right? Then why waste time writing something that's not true to yourself?





Quality and enjoyment are subjective, but sales are not. We know that trashy romance novels tend to sell well. We know that Stephen King style horror sells well. Of course its always going to be a gamble, but one can choose to try and write within the areas that an agent or publisher tells you are more likely to sell (or more likely for them to buy) and have a good chance of succeeding as far as sales. Although of course not totall assurance. And this may well be what you want to write anyway.


Of course, I dont believe there is a "lowest common denominator", or at least not the "lowest" part. If someone enjoys trashy romance novels, thats no different than my enjoyment of Tolkien or whatever....again to me all artistic works have merit, automatically. There is no "low brow". 

But they can get at least a handle on what sells better than other things, and if what you want to write doesnt fall within an area reasonbly likely to sell well, then your taking more of a gamble


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 8, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> No, its a legitimate taste.



No, It's a legitimate complaint.  If you don't like the book, it's perfectly legitimate to complain about it.  Of course it's just a matter of taste, but that's a truism and doesn't really tell us anything new.



> You want something "new and different" in everything



No I don't.  I just don't like Eragon's hackneyed approach to things.



> However, as at least one other person in this thread has said for themselves, some people dont neccesarily require that, and may even enjoy the "cliches"



Cool.  Nice for them.  Not my cup of tea, though.



> Thats where we disagree entirely. First off, all of this applies just the same to an "adult" as to a "kid". Wether something is "good" is entirely a matter of individual opinion...obviously. Several people have posted here who have read this particular book...some liked it, some did not.
> As for worthwhile and deserving of appreciation, I consider all works of creativity to be worthwhile and deserving of appreciation, regardless of the age of their creator, or the opinions of individuals.



Great.  Not of relevance to me at all, I'm afraid.  Just vomiting words up onto paper doesn't make something worthy of appreciation as anything other than vomit.  The proof is in the pudding.  The act of creativity alone is not enough for me.  The end result has to be  something I like.  If not, yeah, too bad.



> I'm not a believer in our cultures idea that "children" and "adults" are seperate species. For legal reasons we have an arbitary cut off where people start being legally responsible for their actions, but things like maturity, responsibility and ability/talent are pretty much indepedent of age. I know people in their 40s who are almost totally incapable and irresponsible, and I've known teenagers who are the oposite. Consider that a century ago, a 15 year old would have been considered an "adult".



Sure, OK.  Not really germane to my position, though.  Which is that, generally speaking, a 21 year old and a 15 year old are not "much the same".



> Obviously people grow and change with experience and time, but having been both 15 and 21 in the course of my life, I can say that while time did bring changes, I was pretty much the same person at both points.



Really?  My commiserations.



> As far as the writting ability part, I'm also not a big believer in our culture's concept of "prodigies", "genius" or the idea that some people are inherently more intelligent or able than others. I feel everyone has enormous potential.



Nah, don't agree with you there.  Some folks have enormous potential.  Some are just mud in the gene pool.  Some are in between.  That's just the way things are.



> Uh, ok. I'm not sure I get all of what your saying, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with the overall theme. I feel anyone who undertakes a creative work, especially those starting out, should be encouraged, and offered useful feedback. Now I understand this is just a forum and not the writers email, and yea people are free to express their opinions, but opinions like "it sucks" and things essentially to the effect of "only a special genius 15 year old could write something worth reading" are examples of the saying about if you cant say something nice (or at least helpful) dont say anything at all.



 
Well, I think that I'll say anything I like, so long as it's within the CoC, thanks.  If you don't like what folks say, just ignore it.  They're just opinions (like pretty much everying else on discussion boards), and you know what they say about opinions...


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2006)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> No, It's a legitimate complaint.  If you don't like the book, it's perfectly legitimate to complain about it.  Of course it's just a matter of taste, but that's a truism and doesn't really tell us anything new.
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I just don't like Eragon's hackneyed approach to things.
> ...














Just bear in mind, everything your saying aplies to you as well. Again, just because you don't like a book, doesnt make it bad, or mud, or worthless. It means you, personally dont like it. 

Although your need to resort to sarcasm and implied insults to express your opinion isnt terribly flattering of you.

Some things however, are facts and not opinions. Such as the fact that when someone puts their thoughts and heart into something, it has merit. The fact that it has merit doesnt mean you have to like it, but it does mean that your disliking it does not change the fact that it still has merit.

It sounds like you've recieved a lot of bad treatment in your life, to feel so negatively about everyone and everything, and if thats the case then I empathize with you.

On the other hand, if you just like being insulting and overly negative about everything, it robs your opinions of most of their meaning or usefulness.


Also note that several of the things in that post are not within the CoC, at least as I see it, since I found several points in your post to be directly insulting, and a great deal of it to be mildly offensive. 

I wonder how you would feel about someone refering to the products of your mind and effort as "vomit.."


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 8, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Just bear in mind, everything your saying aplies to you as well. Again, just because you don't like a book, doesnt make it bad, or mud, or worthless. It means you, personally dont like it.



That is the sum total of what I am saying, yes.



> Although your need to resort to sarcasm and implied insults to express your opinion isnt terribly flattering of you.



I'm not interested in appearing to be likeable and I'm not being sarcastic in the slightest.  And I'm not _implying_ insults either.  Where I don't like something, I say so up front.  Anything else is coming from your own perceptions.



> Some things however, are facts and not opinions. Such as the fact that when someone puts their thoughts and heart into something, it has merit. The fact that it has merit doesnt mean you have to like it, but it does mean that your disliking it does not change the fact that it still has merit.



It's just your opinion that creativity on its own is deserving of merit, irrespective of the outcome.  I don't agree.  These are just our respective opinions.  No facts there at all.



> It sounds like you've recieved a lot of bad treatment in your life, to feel so negatively about everyone and everything, and if thats the case then I empathize with you.



I've had a particularly blessed life so far, thanks.  Save your sympathy for the devil ...



> On the other hand, if you just like being insulting and overly negative about everything, it robs your opinions of most of their meaning or usefulness.



Again, I'm just talking about Eragon here, along with my opinions on whether creativity is meritorious in its own right.  That's not "everything" and that's not insulting or overly negative either.  I just don't like the book and I think that creative works should be judged on their actual artistic merits, not simply on the fact that they are creative works.  But if you can't make that distinction, or need to ascribe malice to me in order to strengthen your own position, then go for it.  I'm sure I'll lie awake tonight worrying about it (yeah, that bit is sarcasm - oh well...)


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 8, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Also note that several of the things in that post are not within the CoC, at least as I see it, since I found several points in your post to be directly insulting, and a great deal of it to be mildly offensive.



Really?  That's too bad.  Feel free to report me if I have trampled on your sensibilities.



> I wonder how you would feel about someone refering to the products of your mind and effort as "vomit.."



I would shrug and move on.  And maybe share a laugh with the guy too.  Who gives a monkey about what people think so long as you are proud of your work?


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2006)

> I think that creative works should be judged on their actual artistic merits





But then we have a problem. Who does that judging? How is the merit judged? What counts as having merit, and what doesnt? Is it based on what is or isnt commericially successful? If thats the case, than Eragon certainly has merit, and in fact many works of literature that are often considered sub par would in fact have more merit than many that are considered "classics"

We can only each of us decide these things for ourselves. Which is, again, just our opinion. You dont think Eragon has merit. Many people do. Who is right?

The answer is, it does have merit, but something can have merit, but not be enjoyed/appreciated by/fit the taste of everyone. Works of creativity dont even need to BE judged in the first place, except within the taste of each individual person. The fact that some people dislike a thing doesnt detract from its value to those who do like it.

This also raises another question as well...if as you say creative works have or lack some sort of objective merit decided upon by...you? Me? whoever? then does that mean that someone who enjoys a work that is decided to lack merit somehow lack something themselves?




> I'm not interested in appearing to be likeable and I'm not being sarcastic in the slightest. And I'm not implying insults either. Where I don't like something, I say so up front. Anything else is coming from your own perceptions.





I was refering to your response to my statement that I dont feel I was as drastically different person at 21 than I was at 15. Your response was, as near as I could tell, an implied/indirect insult.





> It's just your opinion that creativity on its own is deserving of merit, irrespective of the outcome. I don't agree. These are just our respective opinions. No facts there at all.





If I have the opinion that the sky is purple, does that make it so?

Some things are not subjective, they are objective. 





> Again, I'm just talking about Eragon here, along with my opinions on whether creativity is meritorious in its own right. That's not "everything" and that's not insulting or overly negative either





Well, everything that I have seen in this thread that you have put forth has been some combination of negative, highly abrasive, insulting or sarcastic. You have put forth a feeling of being someone who has little or no empathy, sympathy, or overall regard for other people, their efforts, or their works.

I may be entirely wrong, but that is the impression your posts are putting forth.





> But if you can't make that distinction, or need to ascribe malice to me





One or two of your statements ascribe a little malice to themselves. Unless you make it clear that they arent ment maliciously...remember in this format we have only the actual word of what we say to go by...no intonation, no facial expressions to alter the impact of a statement. 

And a good deal more of your statements even if not ascribing full blown malice to themselves, do ascribe a certain lack of regard for others feelings, and a certain degree of (intentional?) abraisiveness.

Now from what you've said you seem to be the sort who doesnt really care about feelings and probably believes that anyone who is offended or emotionally upset by anything anyone says is somehow weak or deficient, but most people have feelings, and can have those feelings impacted negatively by other people. Thats why we should take those things into account when interacting, simply to make everyone's lives easier...thats why ettiquette, manners and consideration exist.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 8, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But then we have a problem. Who does that judging? How is the merit judged? What counts as having merit, and what doesnt? Is it based on what is or isnt commericially successful? If thats the case, than Eragon certainly has merit, and in fact many works of literature that are often considered sub par would in fact have more merit than many that are considered "classics"
> 
> We can only each of us decide these things for ourselves. Which is, again, just our opinion. You dont think Eragon has merit. Many people do. Who is right?



When it comes to creative works of art (like writing, or music, or painting) nobody is "right".  That's my point.  I can be as dismissive, critical or negative about Eragon as I like.  And someone else can praise it to the heavens.  It doesn't amount to a hill of beans either way.  That's _one_ of the reasons that discussion boards exist - for people like you and I to spout our baseless, subjective opinions into the ether.



> The answer is, it does have merit, but something can have merit, but not be enjoyed/appreciated by/fit the taste of everyone. Works of creativity dont even need to BE judged in the first place, except within the taste of each individual person. The fact that some people dislike a thing doesnt detract from its value to those who do like it.



Of course it doesn't.  Is anyone claiming otherwise?  That's all this thread is - differing opinions on Eragon and creativity.



> This also raises another question as well...if as you say creative works have or lack some sort of objective merit decided upon by...you? Me? whoever? then does that mean that someone who enjoys a work that is decided to lack merit somehow lack something themselves?



Where I have I talked about objective merit at all?  Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that I am making comment on someone who does like that thing.  That's just crazy talk.



> I was refering to your response to my statement that I dont feel I was as drastically different person at 21 than I was at 15. Your response was, as near as I could tell, an implied/indirect insult.



Look, by definition you will have been an unmatured adolescent at 15.  If you didn't go through a process of growth over the next 6 years as you became an adult, then I really do feel sorry for you.  I'm not trying to belittle or insult you here.  Those years are the crux of growth from childhood to manhood - the very definition of coming of age.  I think it's a shame that you don't seem to have felt that.
(We could be talking at cross-purposes here, so take me at my word when I say I'm not wanting to insult you with this - but at face value the idea that those 6 years went by and you were still much like your 15 year old self at the end of it is a bit disheartening from where I am sitting).



> If I have the opinion that the sky is purple, does that make it so?
> 
> Some things are not subjective, they are objective.



The colour of the sky is objective.  Artistic merit is subjective.  Seems pretty straightforward to me.



> Well, everything that I have seen in this thread that you have put forth has been some combination of negative, highly abrasive, insulting or sarcastic. You have put forth a feeling of being someone who has little or no empathy, sympathy, or overall regard for other people, their efforts, or their works.



You really are reading an awful lot into this.  I have held forth my opinion on two topics, and two topics only.  Eragon's lack of originality and the inherent value of creative work.  That's all.  I'm not dressing up my opinions in touchy-feely language, true, but that's just me.  All the other inferences that you make are yours to make and I'm fine with that.  But that's all they are.



> I may be entirely wrong, but that is the impression your posts are putting forth.



I'll take the rough with the smooth.  Some folks will take things as they come.  Some won't.  You can't please all the people all of the time.



> One or two of your statements ascribe a little malice to themselves. Unless you make it clear that they arent ment maliciously...remember in this format we have only the actual word of what we say to go by...no intonation, no facial expressions to alter the impact of a statement.



Well, there's the thing.  I'm under no obligation to qualify my posts as being anything other than what they seem to be.  If you want to take them as malicious, then go ahead.  If someone else wants to take them as something else, that's fine as well.  This is just one conversation out of many - it'll all come out in the wash, as they say.  You could argue that, by the same absence of intonation or facial expressions, it is equally erroneous of you to ascribe malice where there is nothing more than frank disagreement.  But that's another topic, and not one that moves me to great emotion either way.



> And a good deal more of your statements even if not ascribing full blown malice to themselves, do ascribe a certain lack of regard for others feelings, and a certain degree of (intentional?) abraisiveness.



Well, I don't agree with things that you've said and I'm not dancing around the subject.  I guess that kind of frank approach offends you.  So be it.



> Now from what you've said you seem to be the sort who doesnt really care about feelings and probably believes that anyone who is offended or emotionally upset by anything anyone says is somehow weak or deficient, but most people have feelings, and can have those feelings impacted negatively by other people. Thats why we should take those things into account when interacting, simply to make everyone's lives easier...thats why ettiquette, manners and consideration exist.



Well, personal comments like those you've just made aren't really my bag.  Trying to bait me with ill-conceived aspersions on my personality gets you a chuckle and a shrug, but not much more.  You might want to lighten up a bit, though.  Or, if you don't like what I am saying, just ignore me.  I'm a big lad - I'm sure I'll get over it...


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2006)

> When it comes to creative works of art (like writing, or music, or painting) nobody is "right". That's my point. I can be as dismissive, critical or negative about Eragon as I like. And someone else can praise it to the heavens. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans either way. That's one of the reasons that discussion boards exist - for people like you and I to spout our baseless, subjective opinions into the ether.





You said that creative works should be judged on their own artistic merits, which, to me, implies that they either have, or lack, some sort of objective merit that one can observe and verify. You stated this in disagreement to my saying that all creative works automatically have _merit_ but that they may or may not hold interest or enjoyment for any given person.

But now your saying that merit cannot be objectively judged, which to me is in contradiction to what you said earlier.

From what your saying now, I'm not sure I understand then why you would disagree with the idea that all artistic/creative works have _merit_ or inherent value, but that they may or may not suit the tastes of a given person.




> Look, by definition you will have been an unmatured adolescent at 15





But see, thats not actually true. Physically, most 15 year olds are fully, or almost fully mature. And mentally and emotionally...well, those forms of maturity are mostly subjective...again I've known very "mature" responsible, sensible teenagers, and people in their 40s with no sense of responsibility or hardly any ability to function.




> If you didn't go through a process of growth over the next 6 years as you became an adult,




In our culture, you legally become an "adult" at age 18. Thats because there has to be some sort of cut off, for legal purposes, where people start being responsible for themselves if they commit a crime etc.

Actually "adulthood" or real maturity may come sooner, later, or even not at all to a person. I've known mature, responsible, sensible 15 and 16 year olds, and people in their 40s totally lacking those traits. 

Childhood has been considerably extended in our culture, over the past century or so...a hundred years ago, a 15 or 16 year old was considered largely grown.

This tendency in our culture leads to things like people thinking a 15 year old couldnt possible write a deccent novel...even for other young people...unless they are some sort of special prodigy (I know you didnt say that, but its what I was talking about when I said the things I said.)




> Those years are the crux of growth from childhood to manhood - the very definition of coming of age. I think it's a shame that you don't seem to have felt that





I dont. I feel lucky....I've simply felt like *me* my entire life. Experiences have made some changes here in there in who I am, but age, the arbitary number, has not.




> I'm not trying to belittle or insult you here.





Then I misinterpreted your intent, and I'm sorry for that.




> The colour of the sky is objective. Artistic merit is subjective





Merit isnt subjective. Its objective. Taste and enjoyment are subjective, but anything someone puts work and thought into has _basic merit_ to some degree, at least in terms of artistic endevors.




> Trying to bait me with ill-conceived aspersions on my personality gets you a chuckle and a shrug, but not much more. You might want to lighten up a bit, though. Or, if you don't like what I am saying, just ignore me





To me, you seem to need a fair amount of lightening up. Wether its true or not, you project a feeling of  negativity and cynicism, and a sense of lack of regard for others. All I'm saying is you might get more out of interactions from thinking how your words may sound from the other side. I realize its very possible that you do and either dont care how they sound, or think they sound fine...and maybe they do too everyone but me. I'm just saying what I'm getting is all


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 8, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> You said that creative works should be judged on their own artistic merits, which, to me, implies that they either have, or lack, some sort of objective merit that one can observe and verify. You stated this in disagreement to my saying that all creative works automatically have _merit_ but that they may or may not hold interest or enjoyment for any given person.
> 
> But now your saying that merit cannot be objectively judged, which to me is in contradiction to what you said earlier.



No, we seem to have a difference of definition for "merit" here (I was gonna bring this up earlier but, well, I couldn't be bothered, lol).  From the outset my opinion has been that merit is judged subjectively.  That's why I disagreed with you saying that all creative works automaticall have merit.  From a subjective standpoint, they can't.



> From what your saying now, I'm not sure I understand then why you would disagree with the idea that all artistic/creative works have _merit_ or inherent value, but that they may or may not suit the tastes of a given person.



I understand what you mean.  My point is that merit is not an objective concept.  To you it is.  Fair enough.  That explains why we disagree on this.



> But see, thats not actually true. Physically, most 15 year olds are fully, or almost fully mature.



No, they aren't.  Synaptic pathways in the brain, for example, don't become fully formed until the early 20s.



> And mentally and emotionally...well, those forms of maturity are mostly subjective...again I've known very "mature" responsible, sensible teenagers, and people in their 40s with no sense of responsibility or hardly any ability to function.



While mental and emotional maturity is partly subjective, that subjectivity is determined by your peers - a sort of objectivity imposed by the masses.  As for emotionally stunted people in their 40s, I would argue that they're not representative of people in general - and not representative of you in particular.



> In our culture, you legally become an "adult" at age 18. Thats because there has to be some sort of cut off, for legal purposes, where people start being responsible for themselves if they commit a crime etc.
> 
> Actually "adulthood" or real maturity may come sooner, later, or even not at all to a person. I've known mature, responsible, sensible 15 and 16 year olds, and people in their 40s totally lacking those traits.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I get what you're saying here.  My point remains that I'd expect someone to feel a sense of growth and maturation between 15 and 20.



> I dont. I feel lucky....I've simply felt like *me* my entire life. Experiences have made some changes here in there in who I am, but age, the arbitary number, has not.



Fair enough.  The arbitrary number, though, is a convenient handle to judge the passage of those experiences.  And, for lack of any other benchmark, that what we have to go on.  But like I say, I'm not taking shots at you here.



> Then I misinterpreted your intent, and I'm sorry for that.



No need to apologise.  Rough with the smooth .



> Merit isnt subjective. Its objective. Taste and enjoyment are subjective, but anything someone puts work and thought into has _basic merit_ to some degree, at least in terms of artistic endevors.



Hmm, yeah, we're back to our basic disagreement here I think.  You and I differ here on a fundamental level.  To me, effort is not enough in the larger artisitic arena.  Results are what matter.  And the fact that appreciation of those results is subjective only makes it harder on the artist.  Which was the gist of my earlier point about "no free lunches".



> To me, you seem to need a fair amount of lightening up.



That's funny, because this whole thread is an exercise in whimsy for me.  Differing perspectives, eh?



> Wether its true or not, you project a feeling of  negativity and cynicism, and a sense of lack of regard for others. All I'm saying is you might get more out of interactions from thinking how your words may sound from the other side. I realize its very possible that you do and either dont care how they sound, or think they sound fine...and maybe they do too everyone but me. I'm just saying what I'm getting is all



Hey, no problem as far as I am concerned.  As I've said, yeah, I'm not really bothered about how I come across.  I'm sure it bothers plenty of people.  And I'm sure plenty of others couldn't care less what I have to say.  And maybe one or two agree.  It's all much of a muchness to me.  My feeling on these things is that life is too short to raise a sweat about this.  What will be will be.

Hmmm, off on a bit of a tangent here.

So, about that creative merit in Eragon...


----------



## takyris (Oct 9, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> What have you written?  Do you have a popular fantasy series?




No, of course not. I also don't have publisher parents with contacts throughout the industry to hawk my book for me as a birthday present.

I wrote novels in the 8th grade. I could have written even more if I didn't have to go to school. That didn't make them good novels, mind you, but neither does having your parents publish it for you.

The entirety of the hook for the series is "Look, he's only 15, and this isn't that bad!" He's the Charlotte Church of fantasy publishing. And yeah, I'm biased against that. I'm biased against "Hey, this is pretty good for a 15-year-old," because the great thing about writing is that it's a level playing field. You are as good as you are, regardless of whether you're young, old, rich, poor, a high-school drop-out or an Ivy League graduate. To imply that one should overlook bad writing and a bad plot because of the writer's age is insulting to the writer as well as the reader.

I've got a friend who went into a diabetic coma in the middle of writing her current novel. That was kind of a big wake-up call for her (she'd been undiagnosed until this happened -- late onset Type 1). I'm sure it affected her writing. I'm equally sure that if the book jackets were hawking her book as "Impressive, especially considering that the author is a young woman just diagnosed with diabetes!", she'd be pretty insulted.

There's an old saying that as an author, you have to write a million words of garbage before you really become a writer. I don't know how true that is, but I do know that I'm really glad that the four or five novels I wrote before age 22 will never see the light of day. 

(That said, the author, sad as he is, can walk around in a jacket made entirely of hundred dollar bills, so I'm sure he's okay.)

I'm not saying that nobody should read this book. I'm not saying that the book shouldn't have been published. I read a great deal of fiction that I can objectively qualify as bad. (I usually call it popcorn, because that lets me look at myself in the mirror.) But I don't try to put it up on a pedestal. It's bad. It's not a unique novel with clunky writing, and it's not a strong retelling of the classic tropes. It's not new, and it's not good. The appeal is pretty much to people who want more Terry Brooks, or to people who are impressed by the fact that a 15-year-old can type.


----------



## atom crash (Oct 9, 2006)

I found the first four chapters of Eragon to be highly derivative. My impression was that the author had played some computer RPGs, read the same fantasy novels I had, got out his trusty thesaurus and decided to give it a go. Basically, the same thing I did when I was his age.

I didn't find it particularly bad. Rather I found it uninspiring.

The trailer looks really flashy; I'm sure it will be a fun movie to watch. My wife and I might take my niece with us to see it.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 10, 2006)

> Hmm, yeah, we're back to our basic disagreement here I think. You and I differ here on a fundamental level. To me, effort is not enough in the larger artisitic arena. Results are what matter. And the fact that appreciation of those results is subjective only makes it harder on the artist. Which was the gist of my earlier point about "no free lunches".





When you say "results" what do you mean? Getting something out on the market (published, aired, hung in a gallery etc) and/or sales? Whats the difference or difference of importance between results and the apreciation of those results?




> No, we seem to have a difference of definition for "merit" here (I was gonna bring this up earlier but, well, I couldn't be bothered, lol). From the outset my opinion has been that merit is judged subjectively. That's why I disagreed with you saying that all creative works automaticall have merit. From a subjective standpoint, they can't.





But the merit isnt subjective. At least not in terms of how I am using "merit". I think what your talking about is "quality", or as I've said elsewhere in the thread, enjoyability or taste. Wether a work is good or bad, enjoyable or not...its "quality", is subjective. But its "merit" or basic value to do the fact that someone put time effort and thought into it, is there no matter what.





> No, they aren't.Synaptic pathways in the brain, for example, don't become fully formed until the early 20s.





The vast majority of 15 year olds are capable of reproduction, which has historically been the main yardstick of physical maturity. And I bet in ten or twenty more years they will discover that those "synatpic pathways" dont actually fully develop until the 30s, then 40s and on and on. Growth and development is a lifelong, and highly individual process.  But any sort of on/off child/adult line that gets drawn is usualy arbitary and cultural, and it certainly doesnt amount to a valid/invalid line as many here seem to think.




> While mental and emotional maturity is partly subjective, that subjectivity is determined by your peers - a sort of objectivity imposed by the masses. As for emotionally stunted people in their 40s, I would argue that they're not representative of people in general





There are huge numbers of people well into what out culture calls adult hood who clearly are not fit for the title...the make poor decisions that are harmful to themselves and others, and/or show a lack of ability to even take care of themselves sensibly.  Now yes, most "adults" are able to take care of themselves fully, so no the ones who cant arent neccesarily representative of the majority, but there are a whole lot of them.

And the reverse is true as well. The teen-agers who fit the absurd sterotypes our culture has about them arent neccesarily representative of the majority either. And then theres the fact that most of those who fit said sterotypes do so because our culture encourages them too.





> My feeling on these things is that life is too short to raise a sweat about this. What will be will be.





I'm not talking about "raising a sweat". But if your going to discuss something, you may as well do so with your full abilities.

And peoples feelings and reactions...and the effect that one has on others, is always something worth taking into consideration.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 10, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> No, of course not. I also don't have publisher parents with contacts throughout the industry to hawk my book for me as a birthday present.
> 
> I wrote novels in the 8th grade. I could have written even more if I didn't have to go to school. That didn't make them good novels, mind you, but neither does having your parents publish it for you.
> 
> ...





I'm not sure I understand this. I agree entirely that age shouldnt have anything to do with it...it is as you say a level playing field.

But I'm not sure then why you seem to think who published the book has much to do with anything. Especially since his parents published the initial small release, but it was then discovered and accepted by Knopf.





> To imply that one should overlook bad writing and a bad plot because of the writer's age is insulting to the writer as well as the reader.I read a great deal of fiction that I can objectively qualify as bad





Ok heres where I have a problem. What you mean is, writting you don't like. As I've been saying, there really isnt such a thing as "bad" writting (or any other art). You cannot objectively qualify it as bad, because its quality, unlike its merit, is subjective. You didn't like or enjoy it. That doesnt mean its bad.Obviously, many people did enjoy it. So who then is right?

The answer is, both are right...for you it was "bad" for them it was "good" neither of which has anything to do with its merit, as a work that someone put time, effort and thought into.




> I'm not saying that nobody should read this book. I'm not saying that the book shouldn't have been published.





You aknowledge that just because you didnt enjoy it doesnt mean it shouldnt have been published or others shouldnt read it, which is good. So how is it that your not liking it makes it "bad writting"?




> That said, the author, sad as he is, can walk around in a jacket made entirely of hundred dollar bills, so I'm sure he's okay




Um...you don't like the person's work, so he's "sad?"




> The appeal is pretty much to people who want more Terry Brooks, or to people who are impressed by the fact that a 15-year-old can type.





Whats wrong with liking Terry Brooks exactly?

And you do realize that this SOUNDS LIKE (note I said SOUNDS LIKE, not that you definitely are, but merely that it sounds like) your saying people who like Terry Brooks or Eragon are at least artisitically, if not mentally, deficient.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 10, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> When you say "results" what do you mean? Getting something out on the market (published, aired, hung in a gallery etc) and/or sales? Whats the difference or difference of importance between results and the apreciation of those results?



The results are the degree and type of personal appreciation that the work evokes in me.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  You really need to understand this about my position.  The value and merit of art is subjective in my opinion.  That's all there is to it.



> But the merit isnt subjective. At least not in terms of how I am using "merit". I think what your talking about is "quality", or as I've said elsewhere in the thread, enjoyability or taste. Wether a work is good or bad, enjoyable or not...its "quality", is subjective. But its "merit" or basic value to do the fact that someone put time effort and thought into it, is there no matter what.



I'm not going to bandy semantics with you.  I don't agree with you that art has any kind of objective value that derives from it being a piece of creative work.  Whether you choose to call that merit, quality or whatever, I see it as wholly subjective.
(The only objective elements are technical: Is this harmony in key?  Is this brush stroke unintentionally blurred?  Is this sentence ungrammatical?  The rest is in the eye of the beholder).
We can go round and round on this if you like, but it won't get you anywhere as far as I am concerned.



> The vast majority of 15 year olds are capable of reproduction, which has historically been the main yardstick of physical maturity. And I bet in ten or twenty more years they will discover that those "synatpic pathways" dont actually fully develop until the 30s, then 40s and on and on. Growth and development is a lifelong, and highly individual process.  But any sort of on/off child/adult line that gets drawn is usualy arbitary and cultural, and it certainly doesnt amount to a valid/invalid line as many here seem to think.
> 
> There are huge numbers of people well into what out culture calls adult hood who clearly are not fit for the title...the make poor decisions that are harmful to themselves and others, and/or show a lack of ability to even take care of themselves sensibly.  Now yes, most "adults" are able to take care of themselves fully, so no the ones who cant arent neccesarily representative of the majority, but there are a whole lot of them.
> 
> And the reverse is true as well. The teen-agers who fit the absurd sterotypes our culture has about them arent neccesarily representative of the majority either. And then theres the fact that most of those who fit said sterotypes do so because our culture encourages them too.



None of this addresses my point in the slightest.  It's all very well put but is at a complete tangent to what I am saying (and I have to ask if you are intentionally evading the issue) - namely, that I would expect someone to experience a sense of growth between the ages of 15 and 21, indeed moreso at that age than at some later age.  You can attempt to inflate the issue beyond that point if you want, but you're on your own in that regard.



> I'm not talking about "raising a sweat". But if your going to discuss something, you may as well do so with your full abilities.



My point here is that life is to short to worry about how I come across to people.  That doesn't prevent me from discussing something with my full abilities - the two are not necessarily connected.  Not everyone is worried about their perceived image, you know.



> And peoples feelings and reactions...and the effect that one has on others, is always something worth taking into consideration.



Not always, no.  I'll be the judge of that - and right here, right now, it doesn't matter one little bit.

As for Eragon, I would expect that Paolini's writing would improve over time.  In ten years time he might well look back on Eragon (or Eldest, or Elfpants or whatever part three is called) and recognise his work for the derivative, immature drivel that it is.  And then go on to produce work of originality and merit.  And I'd applaud him for doing so.  Because as an observer of his creative efforts, it is my right to do so.  Just as I am happy to speak my mind frankly and freely on the internet and be critiqued, ignored or appreciated, so should Paolini be prepared to publish his work and take whatever comes his way.  Such is life.  It is naieve to expect anything less.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 10, 2006)

> The results are the degree and type of personal appreciation that the work evokes in me. Nothing more. Nothing less. You really need to understand this about my position. The value and merit of art is subjective in my opinion. That's all there is to it.





Ok, first, this still supports one of my other points, that I maybe havent gotten across quite as well, which is this: A person cannot make an objective, absolute statement about a creative work's merit/quality. They can only express their opinion. Thats why I have a problem with people saying that a book or a movie or a painting or whatever is "bad" or "badly written/drawn whatever". Because that is only that person's opinion, and not a fact, and yet many people state it as a fact, and speak as though all artistic works are either objectively "good" or "bad."




> I don't agree with you that art has any kind of objective value that derives from it being a piece of creative work




Then what exactly does its merit derive from? A person spends time, effort, energy, puts thought and emotion and care into something...so, if that doesnt give it some degree of inherent value, how then does it aqquire value to give some sense of recompense for the the effort put into it?

Now you said this:







> The rest is in the eye of the beholder




and this: 







> The results are the degree and type of personal appreciation that the work evokes in me




There is one problem however, well two in a way. One, the work itself exists independently of "the beholder" and two, it is beheld by many and each have their own opinion of it...so which one is correct? Which one matches the reality of the work as it exists apart from being observed? 


Either a thing has merit, or it doesnt. And that merit cannot be determined by peoples opinions, because they will all be different and many will contradict. Therefore, works must either have or lack merit _in and of themselves, seperate from any perception of them_ . But how then do we decide which ones do and which ones dont?
  We dont decide. We realize that they all have _merit or value_ but that there quality is subjective and a matter of opinion.





> None of this addresses my point in the slightest





Yes, it does. 




> and I have to ask if you are intentionally evading the issue





No, I'm just explaining my stance as it is for me, as part of larger issues.




> namely, that I would expect someone to experience a sense of growth between the ages of 15 and 21





To which I have agreed repeatedly...




> indeed moreso at that age than at some later age





This part I disagree with, and it is the crux of the point for me. Our culture ascribes a greater importance to the patch of learning/growing/mature from about age 14 or 15 to somewhere in the early twenties, but I disagre with that ascription. I also disagree with the idea that any...or at least most...of the changes in a person based on age are as massive as our culture makes out.




> You can attempt to inflate the issue beyond that point if you want, but you're on your own in that regard.





I'm not inflating, its just all a single issue in my mind.




> My point here is that life is to short to worry about how I come across to people





Ever? or only on internet messageboards? Because I know that you know there are many, many ocassions where how we come across to people is extremely important to our lives. Job interviews spring to mind.




> That doesn't prevent me from discussing something with my full abilities - the two are not necessarily connected




I wasnt saying they are...with that part I was refering to how, to me at least you seemed to be saying that I am/was/do get to worked up in/about this conversation. I was talking about how I'm not "raising a sweat" about it, I merely go into most things very wholeheartdly.

The only thing I've said you might want to "raise a sweat" about, is in regards to your professed lack of concern about how others percieve you, and more importantly about how you affect them by what you say and how you say it.





> Not always, no. I'll be the judge of that - and right here, right now, it doesn't matter one little bit





People's feelings pretty much always matter. I was brought up to always have regard for the feelings of others, and to conciously (not neccesarily obssesively) be mindful of how my words and actions may affect others, be it emotionally or in some other way.




> and recognise his work for the derivative, immature drivel that it is. And then go on to produce work of originality and merit





Now this is odd. You've repeatdly said that you feel a work's merit is purely subjective, and yet you are speaking of this particuarly works merits in a totally objective, and absolute manner.


----------



## takyris (Oct 10, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand this. I agree entirely that age shouldnt have anything to do with it...it is as you say a level playing field.




Except that age has been the big selling point, even on this thread. As soon as anyone attacks the book's quality, the "but he's just 15!" response pops up.



> But I'm not sure then why you seem to think who published the book has much to do with anything. Especially since his parents published the initial small release, but it was then discovered and accepted by Knopf.




Really? Then you don't know much about the publishing industry. Getting an in with the publishers isn't exactly a level playing field. I mean, good for the kid, for using all his advantages, but let's not turn him into a big underdog.



> Ok heres where I have a problem. What you mean is, writting you don't like. As I've been saying, there really isnt such a thing as "bad" writting (or any other art). You cannot objectively qualify it as bad, because its quality, unlike its merit, is subjective. You didn't like or enjoy it. That doesnt mean its bad.Obviously, many people did enjoy it. So who then is right?




You are wrong. Saying that there is no such thing as bad writing is a gross oversimplification. If you really believe that, then any real conversation is pointless, because you're going to work the "Different people like different things" mentality, and by that logic, we can't really say that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, because even though the vast majority of the world can agree on a set of standard principles, somebody's going to insist that it gave him visions of Nirvana, so we need to say that individual tastes vary.

No.

Have you been to a writing workshop? No workshop is perfect, but you pretty quickly come up with some general aspects that you can use to judge writing. Voice, Plot, Characterization, and Setting are the easy big four, although there are others.

I am sorry if this bothers you, but yes, it is possible to say that a work is bad. Some people can enjoy bad writing -- for example, people without the critical ability to distinguish good writing form bad, people who haven't been exposed to good writing and have no other standard by which to judge, and people whose love for a particular element (say, dragons) is sufficient to override concerns about bad writing.



> The answer is, both are right...for you it was "bad" for them it was "good" neither of which has anything to do with its merit, as a work that someone put time, effort and thought into.




No. It was bad. Sorry.



> You aknowledge that just because you didnt enjoy it doesnt mean it shouldnt have been published or others shouldnt read it, which is good. So how is it that your not liking it makes it "bad writting"?




See above. Bad writing can still be popular, but popularity doesn't suddenly make it good writing. Also, the degree to which popularity is driven by market forces and the publishing industry is pretty well known to those who work in that industry.



> Um...you don't like the person's work, so he's "sad?"




Levity. If you read really really carefully, the fact that I implied that he has a shirt made of hundred dollar bills is not mean to be taken literally. It's my roundabout way of saying that while I wouldn't want my parents to have used their publishing connections to get my mediocre teenage book published, I'd probably get over that not-want if it meant that I had a whole bunch of money. Ten years from now, the kid will probably feel about like that. Assuming his writing improves, he'll be a bit embarrassed at Eragon, but glad at where it got him -- and what it got him.



> Whats wrong with liking Terry Brooks exactly?
> 
> And you do realize that this SOUNDS LIKE (note I said SOUNDS LIKE, not that you definitely are, but merely that it sounds like) your saying people who like Terry Brooks or Eragon are at least artisitically, if not mentally, deficient.




Oh no, I'm definitely saying it. 

Well, not "mentally deficient", but "lacking in critical reading or appreciation skill for the fantasy genre". Doesn't make them bad people. I enjoy music my wife hates, because she's got a lot more musical training than I have. I am an infant compared to her in music appreciation.

If you got a lot out of Eragon, good for you. But yeah, it's a bad book. Either you're enjoying it because the author was 15, or you really like books about dragons (or orphan lads, or some other iconic fantasy element), or you haven't read a lot of fantasy, or you don't have the critical ability to distinguish good writing from bad.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 10, 2006)

Really, at the moment, my belief that all artistic works possess intrinsic value is secondary to what I mentioned above, and which is true wether they have intrinisic value or not: that nobody can state that an artistic work is objectively "bad"; they can only state that it is bad in their opinion, bad for them. 

Really, a person can only truly comment on how a work affected (or failed to affect) them; not on any objective qualities it may or may not have.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 10, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Ok, first, this still supports one of my other points, that I maybe havent gotten across quite as well, which is this: A person cannot make an objective, absolute statement about a creative work's merit/quality. They can only express their opinion. Thats why I have a problem with people saying that a book or a movie or a painting or whatever is "bad" or "badly written/drawn whatever". Because that is only that person's opinion, and not a fact, and yet many people state it as a fact, and speak as though all artistic works are either objectively "good" or "bad."



"Many people" can say whatever they like.  Doesn't change my position that art's merit is subjective.  You say it yourself right there: "_A person cannot make an objective, absolute statement about a creative work's merit/quality. They can only express their opinion._"  At least we are agreeing on that now.



> Then what exactly does its merit derive from? A person spends time, effort, energy, puts thought and emotion and care into something...so, if that doesnt give it some degree of inherent value, how then does it aqquire value to give some sense of recompense for the the effort put into it?



Its merit derives from the subjective appreciation that others have for it.  The more people who agree on that subjective merit, the more valuable it becomes.



> There is one problem however, well two in a way. One, the work itself exists independently of "the beholder" and two, it is beheld by many and each have their own opinion of it...so which one is correct? Which one matches the reality of the work as it exists apart from being observed?



_None_ of them!   
It is _subjective_!!
Do you not understand what "subjective" means or something?
Trying to convince me to think something different on this subject is a vain effort, I'm afraid.



> Either a thing has merit, or it doesnt. And that merit cannot be determined by peoples opinions, because they will all be different and many will contradict. Therefore, works must either have or lack merit _in and of themselves, seperate from any perception of them_ . But how then do we decide which ones do and which ones dont?
> We dont decide. We realize that they all have _merit or value_ but that there quality is subjective and a matter of opinion.



This is just getting silly.  You insist on an objective value to art.  I reject any objective value to art.  I don't agree with you.  Deal with it.



> To which I have agreed repeatedly...



Fine, great.  That's my point.  The rest of it is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned.



> Ever? or only on internet messageboards? Because I know that you know there are many, many ocassions where how we come across to people is extremely important to our lives. Job interviews spring to mind.



Yeah, ever.  Shock.  Horror.  My philosophy is to do what I believe to be right and take the consequences of my actions.  It has served me very well so far.  If it ain't broke...



> I wasnt saying they are...with that part I was refering to how, to me at least you seemed to be saying that I am/was/do get to worked up in/about this conversation. I was talking about how I'm not "raising a sweat" about it, I merely go into most things very wholeheartdly.



You've misunderstood me here.  I was saying that I don't get worked up about how I come across.  I wasn't commenting on your behaviour.  Do whatever you want.  Rough with the smooth.



> The only thing I've said you might want to "raise a sweat" about, is in regards to your professed lack of concern about how others percieve you, and more importantly about how you affect them by what you say and how you say it.



Not an issue for me, thanks.  People can deal with their own feelings.  I am not my brother's keeper.



> People's feelings pretty much always matter. I was brought up to always have regard for the feelings of others, and to conciously (not neccesarily obssesively) be mindful of how my words and actions may affect others, be it emotionally or in some other way.



Not to me they don't, not always.  Sometimes they do.  Sometimes they don't.  Life is a process of exercising judgement, in this no less than in anything else.  Blanket definitions are of no use to me.



> Now this is odd. You've repeatdly said that you feel a work's merit is purely subjective, and yet you are speaking of this particuarly works merits in a totally objective, and absolute manner.



Sigh.  Merit=subjective.  For the last time.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 10, 2006)

> You are wrong. Saying that there is no such thing as bad writing is a gross oversimplification. If you really believe that, then any real conversation is pointless, because you're going to work the "Different people like different things" mentality, and by that logic, we can't really say that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, because even though the vast majority of the world can agree on a set of standard principles, somebody's going to insist that it gave him visions of Nirvana, so we need to say that individual tastes vary.





Hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is an objective thing. Its going to hurt you...thats a fact.

Likewise, a dull knife isnt going to cut anything, and a square wheel wont roll. These things are objective, not subjective.

Art tends to be subjective, as does entertainment and enjoyment. So, while a dull knife wont cut anything in your hands anymore than it will in mine, a book (or movie or painting) that you found dull and uninteresting, or that offended or irriateted you, I might find captivating or amusing.

Which of us is right? The dull knife is what it is; but thats harder to say about art.





> Really? Then you don't know much about the publishing industry. Getting an in with the publishers isn't exactly a level playing field. I mean, good for the kid, for using all his advantages, but let's not turn him into a big underdog.





What I meant was, what does how the book got published have to do with its quality or validity?




> some general aspects that you can use to judge writing. Voice, Plot, Characterization, and Setting are the easy big four, although there are others





Yes, those are the arenas you would judge it in. But what criteria do you judge it by? Who decides whats a good plot and what isnt? Who decides which Voice is better for which situation?


Also, what about writters who are excellent in one or more of these areas, but not so good in others? Lovecraft, for instance, isnt wonderfully gifted in the area of dialogue, and yet his skills with setting and mood are amazing.

And what about works that intentionally lack one or more of these elements, or that break various accepted "rules" of writting for artistic effect, or to send a message or create a mood?



> I am sorry if this bothers you, but yes, it is possible to say that a work is bad





Its possible to say it. And its possible to feel it for yourself. But neither of those things make it objectively true for anyone other than you. 

You didnt like the book, you felt that it was bad. Other people enjoyed it, and feel that it was good.

Who is right? and on what grounds?




> Some people can enjoy bad writing




If they are enjoying it, it isnt bad. At least not for them. It may not follow the rules that in your opinion a written work should follow, but that has nothing to do with its value to anyone but you, or someone who happens to share the same opinion.




> for example, people without the critical ability to distinguish good writing form bad





And this criticical ability (of a subjective thing) consists of what exactly? According to who?




> See above. Bad writing can still be popular, but popularity doesn't suddenly make it good writing. Also, the degree to which popularity is driven by market forces and the publishing industry is pretty well known to those who work in that industry.





Your misunderstanding me...I never said anything about popularity. You say that (in your opinion, which is what it is) Eragon is a bad book. Yet, you also say you dont feel that people shouldnt read it, or that it should not have been published.

So I guess my question is, why? If its bad, people shouldnt read it right? If its bad it shouldnt have been published.




> Levity.





I apologize for misinterpreting.




> Well, not "mentally deficient", but "lacking in critical reading or appreciation skill for the fantasy genre".





How do you feel about the fact that there are more than a few people who consider any fantasy writting to be "bad" writting, and automatically without merit? Who believe that all fantasy is basically "mediocre teenage writting" as you put it?





> I enjoy music my wife hates, because she's got a lot more musical training than I have




So that makes it bad music right? Despite the fact that you enjoy it, because someone with accepted training dislikes it, its "bad"?




> Either you're enjoying it because the author was 15, or you really like books about dragons (or orphan lads, or some other iconic fantasy element), or you haven't read a lot of fantasy, or you don't have the critical ability to distinguish good writing from bad.





Actually I havent read it...I'm speaking philosophically about any and all works of art here, Eragon is just the one that brought the issue up. However I do thoroughly enjoy the works of Terry Brooks which you also apparently consider "bad" writting, and so I say this: Perhaps I enjoy them because to me, they are good and enjoyable, because his style appeals to and interests me, and because I find many of the concepts and ideas he presents to be interesting.


But my big question to you is, who exactly is it that decides what is "good" or "bad" writting, and what exactly gives them the right to make that decision for all of us?


----------



## takyris (Oct 10, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Hitting yourself on the head with a hammer is an objective thing. Its going to hurt you...thats a fact.




Actually, not true. There are several aboriginal traditions in which this would be a holy experience that would produce enlightenment or a dream state. Pain is much more subjective than western science would have us believe.

So by your logic, we can only talk about how hitting yourself in the head with a hammer hurts YOU particularly. It would be WRONG to apply a general standard of agreed-upon measurable factors to come up with a result.



> What I meant was, what does how the book got published have to do with its quality or validity?




Nothing. My comment was in reply to someone saying (to Whizbang or Chain Lightning, as I recall), "Oh yeah? Well, what major books have YOU published?" in response to their less-than-stellar feelings for Eragon.



> Yes, those are the arenas you would judge it in. But what criteria do you judge it by? Who decides whats a good plot and what isnt? Who decides which Voice is better for which situation?




People who understand how an apostrophe works. People who spell "writing" correctly. People who have taken literature courses in college, or writing courses in college, or cinema courses in college, or SOME kind of artistic appreciation course that helps you get past "Oh, some people like some stuff, and other people don't, so who's to say what's good?"



> Also, what about writters who are excellent in one or more of these areas, but not so good in others? Lovecraft, for instance, isnt wonderfully gifted in the area of dialogue, and yet his skills with setting and mood are amazing.




Yep. It's not a perfect system. That's why I try to be specific when I review a book -- one book is going to appeal to people who love setting and don't care about dialogue, while another book is going to appeal to people who love characterization and can overlook a shaky plot.

If the negatives outweigh the positives, it's a bad book. That doesn't mean it can't be read and enjoyed. I've said multiple times that people can enjoy bad books. There are books I'd note as bad that I enjoy a great deal myself, because they do a bad job overall but a great job on some of my particular loves. They're niche books.



> And what about works that intentionally lack one or more of these elements, or that break various accepted "rules" of writting for artistic effect, or to send a message or create a mood?




If you've done any formal study of literature, these kinds of questions are addressed. There's a difference between breaking a rule you know well and tromping all over a rule you've never noticed.



> If they are enjoying it, it isnt bad. At least not for them.




If they can't differentiate their own enjoyment from an arguable, debatable, but ultimately existent standard of quality, then that's their problem. 



> And this criticical ability (of a subjective thing) consists of what exactly? According to who?




Okay. What I'm getting here is that we're talking from two fairly distinct points.

I majored in English and got my Masters in English as well. I've been participating in fiction writing workshops for about ten years. I've been working as a copyeditor, a marketing writer, and most recently a dialogue writer professionally since graduating.

So yes, actually, I *can* tell you whether or not writing is good. It's my job. It's what I'm paid to do. It's also what I do for fun in my free time.

If you want to play "Everyone's opinion is valid, and therefore we can't say whether any writing is actually good or bad," you're welcome to do so. But the proper phrase to use is, "I enjoyed it."

I can't tell you whether or not you enjoyed a book. But I can, and will, tell you whether a book was good or bad. If you want to argue with me on the subject, and I'm by no means infallible and make no claims to be such, feel free to start talking about plot and characterization and setting and voice. But "You can't prove that this is bad writing" goes by the wayside in Freshman English.



> So I guess my question is, why? If its bad, people shouldnt read it right? If its bad it shouldnt have been published.




I have very specifically stated the opposite several times. People should publish whatever other people will pay money for. It's a free market.



> How do you feel about the fact that there are more than a few people who consider any fantasy writting to be "bad" writting, and automatically without merit? Who believe that all fantasy is basically "mediocre teenage writting" as you put it?




I didn't put it like that, because I don't spell "writing" that way.

If you want to use the argument of genre to say that there's no objective standard of judgment, you're welcome to try. When I went to college, there were courses on Science Fiction, and there were people teaching Tolkien as great works, so it doesn't hold with me.

It is, in fact, possible to say that a given work is a poorly written example of its genre.


----------



## ssampier (Oct 10, 2006)

I won't comment about the books. I haven't read the books, nor will I.

I do have to comment about the age thing. It's irrevelant, good or bad. Saying the author is 15 is like telling me the author is 35, 50, 76, or 43, it's not really revelant to me. Whatever the number is, I have no desire to either read or not a book based upon an arbitary figure.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 10, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> People who understand how an apostrophe works. People who spell "writing" correctly. People who have taken literature courses in college, or writing courses in college, or cinema courses in college, or SOME kind of artistic appreciation course that helps you get past "Oh, some people like some stuff, and other people don't, so who's to say what's good?"




You're effectively saying that folks without credentials cannot speak on the subject.  Please keep in mind that these are not professional or academic forums - everyone has equal right to speak around here.  

You may get paid for your criticism, but please note that the readership here is not paying you for it - at work there's an implicit agreement that you are an authority, but here you lack that leverage, and so you'll have to convince people, rather than claim authority as a right.

Why not try to be a bit more constructive, and work with people to pull the discussion to style and topics you prefer?  You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and telling folks "I'm sorry, but you don't know enough to approch the topic" is very vinegar.  



> If they can't differentiate their own enjoyment from an arguable, debatable, but ultimately existent standard of quality, then that's their problem.




And if you cannot include reader enjoyment as a criteria within your own standards, are you any less limited than they?  

When literary standards are not linked to reader experience, you get things like _Finnegan's Wake_ being lauded as a "great work", though nobody can manage to wade though it, or understand the thing without reading a second book to tell them what they've read.  



> I can't tell you whether or not you enjoyed a book. But I can, and will, tell you whether a book was good or bad.




If "good or bad" is defined as matching a particular selection of technical qualities, sure.  No argument there. However, if your technical qualities all say the work is bad, but loads of people like it, it is perhaps time to examine that list of technical qualities, and see if it is missing something.  As noted above, the list of technical qualities ceases to be particularly useful if it becomes too disjoint from reader experience.



> If you want to argue with me on the subject, and I'm by no means infallible and make no claims to be such, feel free to start talking about plot and characterization and setting and voice.




Just a moment ago, you effectively claimed authority to tell us if it was good or bad.  Now you tell us that you are not infallible.  It follows, of course, that your claim to authority in the matter needs to be questioned.  In essence, you can't have it both ways -  you cannot tell people they are wrong in the same breath as you tell them you may not be right.  Well, really you can, but it's a terribly weak position. 

If I might suggest, you'll probably find the discussion far more productive if you bill yourself as having an opinion - one based upon academic study and professional work, but an opinion nontheless.  Allow people to decide for themselves how valuable that opinion is.  Honey, rather than vinegar...


----------



## Merlion (Oct 10, 2006)

Umbran, you basically just said most if not quite all of what I had been considering saying, until I decided to withdraw from the discussion due to how upset certain aspects were making me. 


I believe I am going to bow out of this thread at this time anyway however for various reasons.

*Mark Hope*, I have found our little conversation to be most stimulating. I may start another thread about the overall topic of merit at some later point and perhaps we can continue then.


----------



## takyris (Oct 10, 2006)

Hey Umbran,



> You're effectively saying that folks without credentials cannot speak on the subject. Please keep in mind that these are not professional or academic forums - everyone has equal right to speak around here.




I didn't intend to say any such thing.

When I said that the book was bad, he didn't disagree with me by making an argument for the book being good. He said (paraphrasing) that good and bad are too subjective to use in any kind of objective way. When I disagreed, he asked who I was to disagree. I don't make a habit of flashing my credentials, but he did specifically ask what right I had to make the statements.

I've got no problem at all arguing politely about whether a book is good or bad based on actual evidence. I have all the problems in the world having every conversation turn into "Well, I guess different kinds of dentistry work for different people, and who are we to say which is better?"

That is definitely a touchy point for me, and I apologize, Merilon, for overvinegarizing as a result.

As a note, if we're using reader enjoyment as an example, though, the notes in this thread ranged from "ho-hum" to "couldn't finish", and Merilon himself was arguing from a position of not having read the book. I'm not sure that that lends itself to constructive discussion.

And finally, as I said in another thread -- if you enjoyed it while I didn't, you win. You got enjoyment out of a book, regardless of its faults, which is always a good thing.


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 10, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> *Mark Hope*, I have found our little conversation to be most stimulating. I may start another thread about the overall topic of merit at some later point and perhaps we can continue then.



Yeah, it's been fun sharing ideas with you too.  Catch up with you somewhere downstream


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 10, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> There's an old saying that as an author, you have to write a million words of garbage before you really become a writer.




Hey, is that right?

I'm close man! _REAL _close!


----------



## Joker (Oct 10, 2006)

Man, I can't get through these long-arsed posts without falling asleep or killing a puppy.

That said, I haven't read the books as I don't read a lot of fantasy to begin with, but the one thing I can say about the trailer is that is was slightly better than the first DnD trailer.  And while I am probably gonna see it, I get the feeling that it will be a similar experience.


----------



## Joker (Oct 10, 2006)

Ooh ooh, one more thing.  While I haven't read the books (as I mentioned 1 minute ago), I do agree with Merlion's reasoning.

For instance.  There is some artist who sits his bare ass on a a blob of paint and then sits on a canvas.  Some people (the artist alone most likely) think this is on par to such classical pieces as the Mona Lisa and the Scream.  Whereas I think he's an idiot and his work is total sh*t.  Haha, get it.  A pun.

I gotta go.  Film-class is waiting and girls are plenty.


----------



## Asmo (Oct 10, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> That is definitely a touchy point for me, and I apologize, Merilon, for overvinegarizing as a result.




I´m sure this is the first time this very special word is used on En World 

I can´t even Google it! What does it mean?

Asmo


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 10, 2006)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> From the points your making, if its so hard to see what is low brow, what is high brow, what is treasure, what is not , what is the denominator, what is unique, then.....why write for the lowest common denominator at all?




That's the thing.  You don't write for the "lowest common denominator" at all.  You write what's popular at the time (if you wan't to sell lots of books).  Why is it that popular must equal "lowest common denominator" or "low brow"?  Why is it that people attack the consumers of popular media with these terms?  Why is it that you feel the need to label something you didn't like as "low brow"?



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> No, of course not. I also don't have publisher parents with contacts throughout the industry to hawk my book for me as a birthday present.




Is this evidence that his book is "bad"?  Honest question.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> I wrote novels in the 8th grade. I could have written even more if I didn't have to go to school. That didn't make them good novels, mind you, but neither does having your parents publish it for you.




It doesn't make them "bad" novels either.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> To imply that one should overlook bad writing and a bad plot because of the writer's age is insulting to the writer as well as the reader.




I didn't read all of the long responses, so I may have missed it, but is anyone in this thread using the author's age as an arguement for the work's merit(or lack thereof) besides you?



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> There's an old saying that as an author, you have to write a million words of garbage before you really become a writer. I don't know how true that is, but I do know that I'm really glad that the four or five novels I wrote before age 22 will never see the light of day.




I hear that.  I've got a collection of short stories that I'm quite happy will never again see the light of day.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> (That said, the author, sad as he is, can walk around in a jacket made entirely of hundred dollar bills, so I'm sure he's okay.)




Why is he sad?



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> I read a great deal of fiction that I can objectively qualify as bad. (I usually call it popcorn, because that lets me look at myself in the mirror.)




What is the criteria you use to "objectively qualify" it?



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> It's not new, and it's not good. The appeal is pretty much to people who want more Terry Brooks, or to people who are impressed by the fact that a 15-year-old can type.




Because clearly, no one could like it for its own merit.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 11, 2006)

Just like any other craft, writing has an objective quality to it. The (correct) use of metaphors, similes, symbolism, or other stylistic flourishes. Clear writing, no redundancy and correct use of words (for example, there's a word for the "stylistic flourishes", but I don't know it). Showing, not telling. Not too many adverbs, not telling the reader how to feel. 

You can look at characterization: Do the characters have clearly defined goals? Are they mere stereotypes? Plot: Is it complex? Does the author have a clear idea of what's going on, or does it seems like he's lost? Takyris mentioned setting and voice as to further qualify writing.

Similarly, movies can be objectively qualified as bad movies by their writing, by cinematography, acting, effects, etc.

However, as with any art, writing is also intangible in that certain qualities cannot be objectively quantified. Sometimes, a work of art not only works in spite of its deficiencies, but because of it (Blair Witch Project depended on the low-budget look, for example). And certainly, enjoyment is not solely dependent on the objective qualities. I enjoyed TRANSPORTER 2, but I'll be the first to tell you that overall, it's a bad movie that does some things right or at least well enough for me to overlook its flaws.

Since most people read or watch films in order to be entertained, "good" or "bad" doesn't always factor in. But "I enjoyed it" is not a statement that can be discussed; it's an opinion. I can qualify films and books, and certainly whether or not I enjoyed them is a factor, but without providing a reason behind my enjoyment or lack thereof, it won't be any more helpful than a simple polling result.

If you liked Eragon, that's great. But if you can't provide any more than that, what's the point of discussing with you?


----------



## Baumi (Oct 11, 2006)

Just a short question: Since the Movie is part one of a triologie (  ) ... is the first book selfcontained or does it end in a cliffhanger?


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 11, 2006)

Baumi said:
			
		

> Just a short question: Since the Movie is part one of a triologie (  ) ... is the first book selfcontained or does it end in a cliffhanger?




It sort of just ends. Without much resolution and without much of a cliffhanger. The ending, in my opinion, is one of the many (many, _many) weaknesses of the book._


----------



## Merlion (Oct 11, 2006)

I know I said I wasnt going to post anymore, but Berandor has started to begin to actually aproach what I am trying to get at. 




> The (correct) use of metaphors, similes, symbolism, or other stylistic flourishes





Ok...thats all well and good. But my questions then are: Who decides what the "correct" use of those things is? What makes them correct? And does deviating from that make a work "bad" or simply mean that its breaking that particular set of rules or guidlines, automatically?




> Showing, not telling





I specifically disagree with this one, as both a reader and a writer. Some times you *have* to tell, and some times telling is better than showing. In other cases, that saying is true. 





> You can look at characterization: Do the characters have clearly defined goals? Are they mere stereotypes?





But what if your story is primarily about a setting and its mood and feel, and the characters goals dont really enter much into it, they are just there to explore said setting?

What if they are sterotypes intentionally, because you are exploring or exploiting those sterotypes for some reason?




> Plot: Is it complex? Does the author have a clear idea of what's going on, or does it seems like he's lost?





Again, what about stories primarily about theme, mood and setting, that may not really even have a plot to speak of, or not much of one, because they exist mostly just to evoke certain feelings? I see a lot of Lovecraft as being like that, but it suceeds very well at what its intended for. 



Even these qualities you speak of arent really objective...or leastways, there _relevance _ to the merit or quality of a work is not. 

I understand that there are certain sets of rules that have been put down by groups of "experts" to define how a story should or shouldnt be written, and the same for other artforms. However, I do not believe that deviating from those rules automatically makes a work "bad". It simply means it didnt follow those particular rules.


Now I dont neccesarily think all works are equal in terms of quality. Chances are, Eragon isnt as a good a book as A Wizard of Earthsea, The Fellowship of the Ring or Dune. And chances are its author would be the first to agree with that. But that doesnt make it bad...it makes it not as good. 

Likewise the question can be applies to all these things you mention, characterization, plot, use of metaphors, setting, voice etc. Who decides what is the "right" or "wrong" way to use these things, or what constitutes a "good" or "bad" plot? What gives those people the right to decide that? Why exactly is the "bad" "bad"? What if these "experts" with equal credintials disagree on something?




> I enjoyed TRANSPORTER 2, but I'll be the first to tell you that overall, it's a bad movie that does some things right or at least well enough for me to overlook its flaws





To me, that means not that its bad, but that it simply isnt as good as some.



> However, as with any art, writing is also intangible in that certain qualities cannot be objectively quantified





As far as I am concerned all the qualities you mentioned at top are in this catagory as well, or at least wether or not they actually matter is. 




> Since most people read or watch films in order to be entertained, "good" or "bad" doesn't always factor in





Well as near as I can tell, you and takyris and probably others as well say "good" and "bad" but apparently actually mean "following this set of rules" or "deviating from this set of rules."

To me, wether a work follows a certain set of rules or not does not automatically mean anything. As far as I am concerned, any work that someone puts effort and thought into has _value or worth_ automatically. Its quality may vary, and some people will enoy it, and some will not. To me saying something is "bad" means it is without value or merit, but I disagree with the notion that a creative work that effort and thought was put into can be without value or merit. You may not enjoy it...its quality may be lesser than that of other works, and it may or may not follow accepted rules, but none of those things make it "bad" as in valueless. 




> I can qualify films and books, and certainly whether or not I enjoyed them is a factor, but without providing a reason behind my enjoyment or lack thereof, it won't be any more helpful than a simple polling result.





Which is why one of my whole points is people shouldnt simply say about a work "Its bad", or "it sucks". One, because they are stating as a fact something that is merely their opinion, and two because they arent even providing any reasons. Myself, personally, if I am going to give my opinion (which is all someone can give, no one has the ability or right to decide something is "bad" or worthless across the board), I say something akin to, I didnt care for it, and then mention some of the things I feel could have been better.





Lastly, and again I havent read Eragon specfically, although I plan to eventually, and I have been arguing an overall stance on creative works in general, I notice the main criticism leveled against Eragon by those who have read it, is to call it derivative.
  I dont consider this an especially valid criticism (although it is a valid *opinion* and reason to personally dislike or not enjoy someting) because most fiction is derivative to varying degrees (I think this may be especially true of fantasy). In fact many well loved/respected works are quite derivative of other things, especially if you go back far enough. 
  There are only so many plots. The young boy who discovers a special hertiage/ability etc and goes on an adventure with archtypal companions is very old, and has been used a great deal. Primarily because people enjoy those kinds of stories. Using a basic archtypal story framework is nothing to be ashamed of, or for people to deride an author for.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 11, 2006)

Baumi said:
			
		

> Just a short question: Since the Movie is part one of a triologie (  ) ... is the first book selfcontained or does it end in a cliffhanger?




No cliffhanger, but it does leave some major threads loose and flapping in the wind.  Most of those are still loose at the end of the second book.  Naturally, they should be wrapped up in the third (as they are the major threads running through the trilogy).


----------



## Berandor (Oct 11, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Ok...thats all well and good. But my questions then are: Who decides what the "correct" use of those things is? What makes them correct? And does deviating from that make a work "bad" or simply mean that its breaking that particular set of rules or guidlines, automatically?



By "correct" I mean not to use a mixed metaphor, or to use one that doesn't actually mean what you're trying to say. Just like using big words doesn't automatically make you sound smart if you don't know what they mean.

As for the rest (I don't like to quote single sentences and address them): Obviously, every rule has its exceptions, and breaking a rule can be done to great effect. There's a difference, however, between breaking a rule on purpose and not even knowing there's a rule.

Secondly, the reason why there are many different elements that all come together to constitute quality is because sometimes certain elements aren't important in the context of a story. So if you purposely make your characters into cardboard stereotypes, then I'd hope there are other qualities that either mask this decision or even work because of it. You have to look at the whole. For example (I think it's been said before), Lovecraft's use of dialogue was inept, but his stories nevertheless work. On the other hand, a lot of the fantasy fiction I read is badly written, plotted, designed, but a few I enjoyed despite it all, and with others I enjoyed them because of it. Romance novels are in an overwhelming majority really awful and derivative – but they sell extremely well, because their audience doesn't demand Mme Bovary. That's not bad, or evil, or anything – but the books are badly written nonetheless. It's just not important.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 11, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> To imply that one should overlook bad writing and a bad plot because of the writer's age is insulting to the writer as well as the reader.





In a nutshell.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 11, 2006)

> Obviously, every rule has its exceptions, and breaking a rule can be done to great effect. There's a difference, however, between breaking a rule on purpose and not even knowing there's a rule.




Several things. First off, I'm not sure I totally accept that there are objective "rules" of "good" and "bad" in writting or any other creative area. 


However I understand what you mean and I agree to a point, however what you describe does not neccesarily make a writer a bad writer, or a book a bad book, it often simply means they are imperefect, or still have things to learn and room to grow (both of which are true of everyone). 

Nextly, I tend to think that most people that even have the inclination to write tend to be aware of the things you speak of or at least most of them. When I started writing I had no formal training at all in it, hadnt even been formally taught grammar, but I knew how things are supposed to sound. Usualy, mistakes in the areas you mention are simply part of a learning proccess. They dont neccesarily label a writer or a work as "bad" and they certainly dont rob it of all value.




> Secondly, the reason why there are many different elements that all come together to constitute quality is because sometimes certain elements aren't important in the context of a story





The thing is, which qualities are needed, and even often the qualities themselves, are subjective matters of individual taste.




> On the other hand, a lot of the fantasy fiction I read is badly written, plotted, designed, but a few I enjoyed despite it all, and with others I enjoyed them because of it





This brings up an issue we havent really spoken about yet, the issue of purpose, and the relationship of a work's quality to wether or not it fullfills its intended purpose.

The two main purposes behind most creative works, especially I think as far as writing, music and visual arts like painting go, is one the fact that the artist enjoys the act itself (and often has things floating in his head that he wants to get out) and two, to give enjoyment and pleasure to those who read/see/hear/whatever the work. There are often secondary purposes...a writer may want to explore a genre or character type he's never used before, or may want to make a statement..and of course some works have making a certain statement as their main purpose.
  However, usualy the main goal is enjoyment.

The two primary goals of actually publishing/recording/selling/whatevering such a work are usualy one, to get it out to more people to do whatever its intended to do, and two, to make money in the proccess. 

In the case of Eragon, based on what I have read about it and its author, its purpose was primarily enjoyment; enjoyment of the author in creating it, and enjoyment of the audience in reading it. And then of course it was published to facilitate that, and to make money in the proccess.

It has succeeded very well at both those goals. Many have enjoyed it, and it has made a great deal of money. It attained its intended purpose, which I think its a major contributor to the quality or value of a work.



I think the reason that you and some others are able to seperate "quality" from enjoyment is because when you say quality, you mean level of adherence to a set of guidlines, not inherent value, or attainment of purpose.





> Romance novels are in an overwhelming majority really awful and derivative – but they sell extremely well, because their audience doesn't demand Mme Bovary. That's not bad, or evil, or anything – but the books are badly written nonetheless. It's just not important.





Your right. It isnt important, because to those who enjoy them, they are not bad or badly written. They just dont meet your personal standards of enjoyment, which are no better or worse or more or less important or accurate than anyone elses.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 11, 2006)

> When I said that the book was bad, he didn't disagree with me by making an argument for the book being good. He said (paraphrasing) that good and bad are too subjective to use in any kind of objective way. When I disagreed, he asked who I was to disagree





For the record, this is not entirely accurate wether through mistake or purpose. I asked who *anyone* is to try and create objective criteria for a subjective area, and how such a thing could even exist as a final authority. 




> "Well, I guess different kinds of dentistry work for different people, and who are we to say which is better?"





This is not a very good comparison. Medical practices are pretty much objective, especially in terms of execution. If your performing a triple bypass and instead remove the person's kidneys, or perform a heart transplant and sew up the patient without putting the new heart in, then your a bad surgeon and your operation was a failure. Likewise if an architect builds a building that collapses in a day, or a cobbler makes shoes that are shaped like hooves, they are a bad cobbler or architect. Your items or creations or actions failed to serve their purpose. these things are totally objective.

But any form of art, is primarily subjective. Everyone has their own opinions of whats good or not. And usualy their primary purpose is to entertain, and give enjoyment, therefore if anyone enjoys them they have served their purpose.


----------



## CrimsonWineGlass (Oct 12, 2006)

I guess you can count me among the few who did enjoy the book.  No, its not original by any means but I think thats a major problem with the fantasy media any more.  Eragon was the first book I read in nearly 5 months that had a dragon fight and I tend to go through 2-3 fantasy novels a week.  Everybody has to be totally original now.

If you want something that is totally new, stop reading, stop watching tv, hell, stop playing D&D.  But if you are looking for the original spin on the classic concepts, stay a bit away from Eragon.  In my opinion though, it was a simple book with a simple plot that ended up as an enjoyable read.  The character development and plot is highly cliché but its not a bad read.  Despite this, I doubt I will watch the movie.


----------



## Baumi (Oct 12, 2006)

Thanks for the answers!

But my hat of (the new wave of) trioligies without endings in between know no limit


----------



## glass (Oct 12, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Likewise if an architect builds a building that collapses in a day, or a cobbler makes shoes that are shaped like hooves, they are a bad cobbler or architect.



[nitpick]Making the building stand up is primarily the responsibility of the structural engineer, not the architect.[/nitpick]

Sorry, but I work in an architect's office. Please return to debating the badness (or not) of literature.


glass.


----------



## Priest_Sidran (Oct 12, 2006)

Coming from some one who has read the book, I say that his first book coming at the age of fifteen is of itself an accomplishment. That said I will wait to read anything else of his until he has experience as a person. Because writing is 100% the product of experience. 
I am myself a struggling writer, with more of my poetry getting published than my stories so I can personally recognize his accomplishments being that he's nearly half my age.


The Movie on the other hand is questionable, though some of the actors which are in it make me think well of it. (Jeremy Irons).


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 12, 2006)

Priest_Sidran said:
			
		

> The Movie on the other hand is questionable, though some of the actors which are in it make me think well of it. (Jeremy Irons).




He was in the first D&D movie too.


----------



## Priest_Sidran (Oct 13, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> He was in the first D&D movie too.




I think that my favorite movie of his is Casanova (While not my favorite of Heaths)


----------



## takyris (Oct 13, 2006)

First off, Icy Cool: As you said you didn't read all the posts in this thread, you may not be aware that I answered many of the questions you asked. Feel free to ask follow-up questions after reading.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> For the record, this is not entirely accurate wether through mistake or purpose. I asked who *anyone* is to try and create objective criteria for a subjective area, and how such a thing could even exist as a final authority.




You and I were the ones conversing. I took "anyone" to include me, which is why I believed I should explain why I had the ability to make such a statement.



> This is not a very good comparison. Medical practices are pretty much objective, especially in terms of execution.




As is writing. This is where you and I disagree. Many people buy and wear poorly made shoes, just like many people buy and read poorly written books. Many surgeries result in infections and complications after the fact because of sloppy work by the surgeon, but in the mind of the patient, it's still a success.

The other key thing to note here, as I've seen several notes about romance novels and "Aha, but don't some people think all fantasy is bad?", is that you have to judge each novel within the context of its intended genre. When I read a mystery novel, I don't complain if it's the same plot I've seen countless other times. When I read a romance novel, I don't complain that the conversations go on longer than they would in a fantasy novel. (And yes, I do read both of those genres as well, although neither as much as fantasy.)

By fantasy-novel standards, Eragon is bad. Now, people have made the good point that it's being sold as YA-lit, which demands different standards, and it's entirely possible that by those standards, it's merely mediocre. Heck, it's possible that Eragon is a very good book -- from the context of "Books to be read by children with no previous exposure to fantasy literature." That's a discussion worth having, I think. Trying to figure out what audience would be right for a given book is useful.

I think what really aggravates me about the "there's no real standard" argument is that it largely invalidates conversation. We might as well just have a poll for each book ("Did you like it?") instead of a conversation thread, since any discussion of character, plot structure, setting, and voice is just subjective according to your theory.

A question for you, Merilon -- and I mean this seriously. I'm not trying to shoo you away, and I want that clear:

You've said that the only meaningful standard of judgment is the reader's personal opinion.
You've said that you yourself haven't read the book.

Why are you posting in this thread?


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 13, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> I think what really aggravates me about the "there's no real standard" argument is that it largely invalidates conversation. We might as well just have a poll for each book ("Did you like it?") instead of a conversation thread, since any discussion of character, plot structure, setting, and voice is just subjective according to your theory.



What about conversation in order to share ideas, rather than to establish the supremacy of your point over that over the other fellow's?  That seems to me to be far more productive and worthwhile than simply proving someone wrong.

I agree that technical elements of writing can be objectively judged.  I disagree that artistic and creative merit is objective.  You admit as much in this paragraph of your own post:
"_By fantasy-novel standards, Eragon is bad. Now, people have made the good point that it's being sold as YA-lit, which demands different standards, and it's entirely possible that by those standards, it's merely mediocre. Heck, it's possible that Eragon is a very good book -- from the context of "Books to be read by children with no previous exposure to fantasy literature." That's a discussion worth having, I think. Trying to figure out what audience would be right for a given book is useful._"

That is subjectivity in a nutshell, namely that there are differing standards of judgement depending on who the reader is.  The book remains the same, no matter how you classify it.  It is the nature of the reader that allows for a subjective judgement of its artisitic and creative merits.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 13, 2006)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> It is the nature of the reader that allows for a subjective judgement of its artisitic and creative merits.





However, not all works of art are of equal artisitic value, as often measured by collective opinion and whatever other correlated values the group/society places upon them (as when a painting is auctioned or a first edition book is resold or an exhibit is flocked to in great numbers).  To ignore general group opinion of the artisitic value of something is to shut oneself off from honing ones own artistic sensibilities.  Perhaps not in this case, but sooner or later it is wise to simply admit that some things are simply crap.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 13, 2006)

> You and I were the ones conversing. I took "anyone" to include me, which is why I believed I should explain why I had the ability to make such a statement.




Like I said, there was a bit of misunderstanding.


However, all of Umbran's points still stand.




> This is where you and I disagree. Many people buy and wear poorly made shoes, just like many people buy and read poorly written books





But shoes can be judged objectively by physical standards that everyone can agree on. Shoes that fall apart in a day are badly made, because they dont serve their purpose. However, the primary purpose of most artistic works is to be enjoyed, and everybody has different ideas of whats enjoyable. And even within your acadmeic criteria, not all of the expert critics agree. Thats why its subjective.

That leads me to a question. Two actually. you've established that in your opinion, wether a written work is good or bad depends on standards of plot, characterization, voice etc as set down by the academic elite. Ok so heres what I question about that
1) I asked this one before, but you didnt address it, and I guess its actually several related questions itself. What exactly gives them the right to make those decisions? How are they decided on? How do they decide well this type of plot is bad and that type is good, this voice should always be used for this and never that etc. How can it be anything other than their opinions?

2) what if the elite experts disagree on something? Either on the "good" or "bad" of a specific work, or on the principals themselves? If two equally well trained "experts" both read a book, and one declares it "good" and the other that its "bad", which one is right? Doesnt the fact that this can happen mean that the criteria your so fond of are indeed subjective opinion and not objective law?




> The other key thing to note here, as I've seen several notes about romance novels and "Aha, but don't some people think all fantasy is bad?", is that you have to judge each novel within the context of its intended genre. When I read a mystery novel, I don't complain if it's the same plot I've seen countless other times. When I read a romance novel, I don't complain that the conversations go on longer than they would in a fantasy novel. (And yes, I do read both of those genres as well, although neither as much as fantasy.)





You misunderstood again, although admitedly I didnt go into a lot of detail.

What I meant was, there are some of those among your gods of literature who believe that ALL fantasy fiction, the very style and subject matter of fantasy fiction, automatically go against the criteria you mentioned and are all automatically "bad writing", based on their interpretation of those criteria.




> I think what really aggravates me about the "there's no real standard" argument is that it largely invalidates conversation. We might as well just have a poll for each book ("Did you like it?") instead of a conversation thread





First, as Mark Hope says, conversation doesnt soley imply making a judgement about the works quality. I would think someone of your credentials would realize that. One can still simply discuss the work itself apart from rating it, and even though enjoyment and quality are subjective, many find it interesting to find out other peoples opinions and the reasons behind them anyway.




> since any discussion of character, plot structure, setting, and voice is just subjective according to your theory




It is, to a point, but that doesnt invalidate discussion of it. Anymore than your theory of absolute right and wrong of writting does. In your view you can look at a work and immediately determine its legitmacy with no discussion needed (except not really, because even using your criteria, you've even said it can vary, because some works may fail "the test" in some areas, but shine in others).

Also, as I've mentioned, I do feel that some works are *better written* than others. And that all authors can grow and improve and have flaws, and having those pointed out can help that proccess.




> You've said that the only meaningful standard of judgment is the reader's personal opinion




Again you misunderstand. This is my belief. Anything, especially a creative work, that a person puts time, energy, thought and feeling into has worth and value and is not "bad", or "crap" in any objective sense, regardless of anyone's opinion. 

Enjoyment of the work, is entirely a matter of read/viewer opinion.

Technical quality, in a creative work is a diffacult thing. There are certain standards or practices or whatever that are generally accepted as good to follow, however they can be broken or even unintentionaly glossed over to still result in a good work. This area has some partially objective aspects, but depending on the works finall purpose will probably still be subjective. 




> You've said that you yourself haven't read the book.Why are you posting in this thread?





This is another thing I'm surprised someone of your self proffessed expertise and intelligence needs to ask, especially since I've stated it more than once.

It also makes me think you tend to see and think of things in a very narrow focused way, which is probably why you apparently did well in school.

I have been speaking almost the entire time about general principles, brought on by some peoples posting about Eragon. People assuming it must be terrible because a 15 year old wrote it, and people stating that it sucks or its awful, simply because they didnt enjoy it, sparked me to comment on the broader issues. The fact that age and writing ability dont neccesarily have anything to do with each other, and the fact that its almost impossible for a creative work to be objectively "bad". 

Discussions have a way of growing you know.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 13, 2006)

> The book remains the same, no matter how you classify it. It is the nature of the reader that allows for a subjective judgement of its artisitic and creative merits.





And this is where you and I may disagree...or may just be thinking differently.


I would say that the judging of its artitstic and creative *quality* (which is generally going to be the same as enjoyment) are subjective. But its *merit* or more specifically *value* is automatic and non-subjective.


Semantics maybe, but the devil is in the details they say. Which brings me to..




> Perhaps not in this case, but sooner or later it is wise to simply admit that some things are simply crap.





This is basically what I am on about. NOTHING that someone puts thought and feeling into is EVER "simply crap."

It may well not have the same level of technical skill as others. And many may well not enjoy it. But that doesnt make it "crap" (in other words, worthless.)




> However, not all works of art are of equal artisitic value





Their *quality* may not be equal, but their *value* is


----------



## Merlion (Oct 13, 2006)

mistake


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 13, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> This is basically what I am on about. NOTHING that someone puts thought and feeling into is EVER "simply crap."




Are you kidding? Please tell me you are kidding. There are piles of things out there that people put thought and feeling into that are simply crap. To quote Theodore Sturgeon, "90% of everything is crap".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law


----------



## takyris (Oct 13, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> But shoes can be judged objectively by physical standards that everyone can agree on.




No, really, they can't. Some people are going to like some shoes, and some people will like other shoes. There are questions of comfort, of weight positioning, of the width in various locations, and so forth. If we go with your "there is no bad" theory, even a pair of shoes that falls apart after one use can be judged as wonderful because someone wore them for one night and liked them.

If you're going to play the "it's subjective" game, then *everything* is subjective.

But I believe that either I've been unclear or you've misunderstood me. In a lot of your quote, you're going on about my academic elitism and all that good stuff, which is wonderful, since I've been out of school for about eight years and can tell you that working at a video-game company writing dialogue isn't exactly academic elitism. You're also putting words in my mouth to the effect of "There is an absolute standard that nobody disagrees with, and all the academic elites agree on this." I never said this.

I will agree with you 150% that the line is blurry, that there's a lot of gray area. These standards are there to minimize the gray area, to come up with a basic set of principles that two people can use to talk intelligently about a given work.

I will disagree with you 150% that Eragon is in the blurry part.



> That leads me to a question. Two actually. you've established that in your opinion, wether a written work is good or bad depends on standards of plot, characterization, voice etc as set down by the academic elite.




No.

As set down by those in the know in the genre in question.

If Eragon was trying to be the next Ulysses, then yes, the academic elite would be the people to ask about it. But it's trying to be fantasy, so the academic elite don't come into it.

Standards of plot, characterization, voice, and setting (among others) are set down by professionals in every field out there. Any fiction writing workshop is going to talk about that stuff, whether you're writing a mystery or a romance or an SF epic or a big fat fantasy novel. They'll have different standards, but they will all HAVE standards.



> Ok so heres what I question about that
> 1) I asked this one before, but you didnt address it, and I guess its actually several related questions itself. What exactly gives them the right to make those decisions? How are they decided on? How do they decide well this type of plot is bad and that type is good, this voice should always be used for this and never that etc. How can it be anything other than their opinions?




1) Years, often decades of experience and critical study.

That's really just about it. They read a whole bunch of the genre in question, and they study it. They look at books that work and books that don't work, and they figure out what the differences are. They argue relentlessly over whether something was bad because it was a poorly done version of a good idea, or because it was a bad idea to begin with.

If what you're really asking is, "How is the idea of critical reading at all valid?", you're on your own. You don't have to accept any of this, just as I don't have to accept the assertion that there's no such thing as a bad book.

The reason that critical theory and the ideas of character and plot and setting and voice are are good things is that they give writers tools to use to become better at what they're doing, and that they give readers common ground on which to discuss a work. Instead of just "I liked it," "I didn't," "Okay, see you next week!", people can actually discuss the reasons why they did or did not like a given book, and what did or did not work for them.



> 2) what if the elite experts disagree on something? Either on the "good" or "bad" of a specific work, or on the principals themselves? If two equally well trained "experts" both read a book, and one declares it "good" and the other that its "bad", which one is right? Doesnt the fact that this can happen mean that the criteria your so fond of are indeed subjective opinion and not objective law?




No. It means that there's gray area. You're the one who wants it to be all or nothing. I in no way want it to be all or nothing. That said, in the vast majority of book reviews, critics who are able to differentiate between what they like and how they judge a book's different aspects are able to come to a relative agreement.

And again, that's not perfect. Sometimes a critic cannot get out of his own mindset, whether that means praising a bad book because it happened to hit his happy notes or slamming a good book because it triggered one of his pet peeves. That's why you get a wide range of opinions, so that if 98 people gave ERAGON a 3, 4, or 5, 1 person gave it a 1, and 1 person gave it a 10, you know that either the 2 wacky people really saw something nobody else did, or it pressed their personal buttons in a profound way (either good or bad). You also know that the vast majority of the reviewers gave it something in the mediocre-to-middling range.

I get that you'd like me to say "Aha! It's all absolutely thus!" so that you can poke holes in it, but it's really not all absolutely thus. Very few objective standards are that exact, precisely because an objective standard has to have the leeway to stand up to a wide range of opinions and still be valid.

My friend loves setting and grim writing. I love dialogue and happy writing. Our lists of favorite books do not overlap in any meaningful way. That said, I can still read a book and tell whether it's something that she might like, regardless of whether it's something I like. I can tell whether it's good in such a way that both of us will like it, good but weak in areas that matter to me, or bad but really strong in areas that she's going to love enough to get over the bad stuff.

And my friend and I can do that because we can separate our opinions from objective standards.



> What I meant was, there are some of those among your gods of literature who believe that ALL fantasy fiction, the very style and subject matter of fantasy fiction, automatically go against the criteria you mentioned and are all automatically "bad writing", based on their interpretation of those criteria.




So?

If your point is, "Some academic people are snobs," I will try hard not to have a heart attack from surprise.

There are also some fantasy readers who turn up their noses at the fine literature section of the bookstore because that stuff is just for old stodgy academic elites.

Snobbery is everywhere. I don't see how that relates to this. If nobody in your world is allowed to say "This is a bad book" without it being snobbery, then there are a lot of snobs in your world.



> First, as Mark Hope says, conversation doesnt soley imply making a judgement about the works quality. I would think someone of your credentials would realize that. One can still simply discuss the work itself apart from rating it, and even though enjoyment and quality are subjective, many find it interesting to find out other peoples opinions and the reasons behind them anyway.




Yeeeees. 

But you haven't read the book.

I'm not talking about people in general. I'm talking about YOU. YOU say that the only valid criteria is "did I enjoy it?" If so, then by your own standards of judgment, you have nothing to contribute to this conversation at the moment until you actually read the book.



> Also, as I've mentioned, I do feel that some works are *better written* than others. And that all authors can grow and improve and have flaws, and having those pointed out can help that proccess.




But what constitutes a flaw? Unless, of course, there actually is some standard of judgment out there somewhere.



> Again you misunderstand. This is my belief. Anything, especially a creative work, that a person puts time, energy, thought and feeling into has worth and value and is not "bad", or "crap" in any objective sense, regardless of anyone's opinion.
> 
> Enjoyment of the work, is entirely a matter of read/viewer opinion.




Did you read above, multiple times, where I wrote that many people enjoy books that are bad? I mean, I could slap "by the standards of judgment for that genre" on the end of "bad" if it would make it more palatable for you.

Enjoyment *is* a matter of personal opinion.

But I do *not* subscribe to your notion that books are solely instruments of enjoyment. They are also demonstrations of craft, among other things, and a demonstration of craft *can* be judged by standards. Most of the standards grew out of a basic understanding of "here's what makes a book enjoyable for the most people", so there's a lot of overlap, but the two are distinct.



> This is another thing I'm surprised someone of your self proffessed expertise and intelligence needs to ask, especially since I've stated it more than once.




Let's try it one more time. I'll see if my self-professed expertise helps.



> It also makes me think you tend to see and think of things in a very narrow focused way, which is probably why you apparently did well in school.




I'll say what I said near the top of this post. There's a difference between saying "there is no gray area" and "this particular work is not in the gray part". I'm saying the latter. It's a poorly written book. I get that you want me to be saying the former, because the former is pretty easy to disprove, but that's not what I'm saying. Yeah, there's gray area, and there are places where people can honestly disagree.

But take "Eragon" into any reputable fantasy-novel workshop with your own name on the top, and people are going to tear it to shreds for having bad characters and a derivative plot.



> I have been speaking almost the entire time about general principles, brought on by some peoples posting about Eragon. People assuming it must be terrible because a 15 year old wrote it, and people stating that it sucks or its awful, simply because they didnt enjoy it, sparked me to comment on the broader issues.




I didn't say that it was bad because a 15-year-old wrote it.

I didn't say that it was bad because I didn't enjoy it.

I said it was bad. I also said that one major reason it was published was *because* the author was 15 -- it's a stunt-casting book, the fantasy-lit equivalent of Charlotte Church.

I don't believe that age and writing ability have a 1:1 ratio, but I do believe that people generally get better at a craft the longer they practice it. By that logic, the kid's books will likely get better as he keeps writing, which coincidentally is also as he gets older. That doesn't mean that it would have been impossible for him to write a good book at his age. It didn't happen -- ERAGON is not a good book -- but the cause wasn't his age.



> Discussions have a way of growing you know.




I do indeed. Do you understand how it might appear that you might be talking about ERAGON when you talk about these generalities in a thread about, well, ERAGON? If someone is talking about the Nazis and I step in and say, "Everyone deserves a second chance, and we shouldn't judge people," folks are going to assume that I'm talking about the Nazis, even if I'm just talking in generalities.

By all means, talk generalities. Let the bad book rest.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 13, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> First off, Icy Cool: As you said you didn't read all the posts in this thread, you may not be aware that I answered many of the questions you asked. Feel free to ask follow-up questions after reading.




I finally had a moment to wade through the thread again.  My eyes desperately wanted to glaze over the "merit" discussion between Mark Hope and Merlion, but I slogged through it.  I see that you answered two of my questions, so instead of any "follow-up" questions, I'll just restate the two you didn't answer.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> No, of course not. I also don't have publisher parents with contacts throughout the industry to hawk my book for me as a birthday present.




Is this evidence that his book is "bad"? Honest question.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> To imply that one should overlook bad writing and a bad plot because of the writer's age is insulting to the writer as well as the reader.




I see that both you and Berandor are judging the novel partially based on the authors age.  Where in this thread has anyone implied that Paolini should get a free pass because of his age?  (For what it's worth, I think judging the author's work based on his age is a great disservice to the author).



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> Nothing. My comment was in reply to someone saying (to Whizbang or Chain Lightning, as I recall), "Oh yeah? Well, what major books have YOU published?" in response to their less-than-stellar feelings for Eragon.




That resembles what I said, but it's not what I said.  I asked a legitimate question, which you appear to have interpreted incorrectly because of its location in the thread (i.e. it came after Whizbang Dustyboots criticised the book).  Whenever I see someone online who claims to be a writer, and see them criticise another work, I ask for examples of their work (which reminds me, do you have any published work?).  I then read those examples (if they are given) to determine how valid I think their opinions are.  Sometimes, I stumble across some fantastic work.  I'm doing the exact same thing now, after the posting of the old essay that Michael Moorcock wrote about Tolkein's work.  I'm not particularly enjoying the first three Elric books (less than Eragon, actually), but I figured I'd read them so that I might be more informed if the subject of his books come up again.


----------



## takyris (Oct 13, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I finally had a moment to wade through the thread again.  My eyes desperately wanted to glaze over the "merit" discussion between Mark Hope and Merlion, but I slogged through it.  I see that you answered two of my questions, so instead of any "follow-up" questions, I'll just restate the two you didn't answer.




Cool deal.



> Is this evidence that his book is "bad"? Honest question.




Nope. The author's age isn't evidence of it being bad. Using your parents' connections to get the book published isn't evidence of it being bad.

It being bad is evidence of it being bad, though. And after the fact, once I have a bad book, I look for reasons that the bad book got published. The hype over his age and his parents' connections are logical reasons for a bad book to get published, but they are in no way the cause of the badness. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.



> I see that both you and Berandor are judging the novel partially based on the authors age.  Where in this thread has anyone implied that Paolini should get a free pass because of his age?  (For what it's worth, I think judging the author's work based on his age is a great disservice to the author).






			
				Merilon said:
			
		

> "Personally I think we should be trying to encourage this sort of thing. The very fact that a 15 year old went ahead and spent the time and energy...and had the interest...to write a book, and then spent the time and energy to actually get it published, should be applauded."






> That resembles what I said, but it's not what I said.  I asked a legitimate question, which you appear to have interpreted incorrectly because of its location in the thread (i.e. it came after Whizbang Dustyboots criticised the book).  Whenever I see someone online who claims to be a writer, and see them criticise another work, I ask for examples of their work (which reminds me, do you have any published work?).  I then read those examples (if they are given) to determine how valid I think their opinions are.




So to be clear, if you're unpublished, your opinions are free and clear, but if you've had something published, you have to determine whether the opinion is valid or not? 

There seems to be a bit of two-stepping here, and I appear to have interpreted what you said entirely correctly. You want to see a list of publications because you suspect that any criticism coming from someone who claims to be a writer is sour grapes.

My publications:
* "Dragons and Other Extinctions" in Realms of Fantasy, February 1999
* "Glass Beads" in Science Fiction Age, May 2000
* "I am Looking for a Book..." in Shelf-Life: The DreamHaven Bookstore Anthology
* "Why the Elders Bare Their Throats" in Strange Horizons, February 2003
* "No Questions Asked" in Vestal Review, April 2003
* "When She Grows a Soul" in Leading Edge, Winter 2003
* "Injure the Corners" in Amazing Stories, October 2004
* "Release the Knot" in Amazing Stories, December 2004
* "A Duel of Fathers and Sons" in Clash of Steel: The Reluctant Hero, March 2005

"Elders" and "Questions" are both findable online if you go to Strange Horizons or Vestal Review, respectively. I'm proudest of "Injure", "Release", and "Looking for a Book...", but they're a pain to find in print.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 13, 2006)

There is a bit of a cliffhanger in the series (I don't recall specifically if it was book 1 or 2) ... but that cliffhanger can be spoiled by watching _The Empire Strikes Back_.

The series should be subtitled: *Eragon: Where Good Fantasy Cliches Go To Die*.


----------



## IcyCool (Oct 13, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> So to be clear, if you're unpublished, your opinions are free and clear, but if you've had something published, you have to determine whether the opinion is valid or not?




Not at all.  If you appear to be unpublished Joe Schmoe, your opinion, to me, is less valid than someone who is a published writer.  You are still welcome to your opinions.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> There seems to be a bit of two-stepping here, and I appear to have interpreted what you said entirely correctly. You want to see a list of publications because you suspect that any criticism coming from someone who claims to be a writer is sour grapes.




Or, you know, not.  If you claim to be a published writer, and you are provably so, then you have a very informed opinion of the subject, and I do not.  As such, I could learn more from your opinion than I could from some random individual.  You are, in a sense, identifying yourself as an "expert".  I want to see a list of publications so that I can read them, and perhaps learn something.  If I have to pay for the material, and the author has been an ass to me, I'll just skip it (as at that point, I've formed all the opinion of them that I care to).

If you need to believe that I said what I did out of some sort of malice so you can feel better about yourself and your opinion, go nuts.  It's no real sweat off my back.  Arguing on the internet and all that.



			
				takyris said:
			
		

> My publications:
> * "Dragons and Other Extinctions" in Realms of Fantasy, February 1999
> * "Glass Beads" in Science Fiction Age, May 2000
> * "I am Looking for a Book..." in Shelf-Life: The DreamHaven Bookstore Anthology
> ...




Thanks, I'll check these out.  You also mentioned you do dialogue for a video game company.  What games have you done?


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 13, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> NOTHING that someone puts thought and feeling into is EVER "simply crap."







			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Their *quality* may not be equal, but their *value* is





Speaking in absolutes or making all-or-nothing statements when discussing opinions seldom, if ever, allow you to be correct.  Forcing an arguments about semantics by making such statements disallows you to credibly dismiss such tacks.


----------



## takyris (Oct 14, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Or, you know, not.




Cool deal. I apologize for misreading you. I blame the sleep debt. 

(1800 miles since Tuesday)



> Thanks, I'll check these out.  You also mentioned you do dialogue for a video game company.  What games have you done?




Nothing that's come out yet. I'm with BioWare, and I'm in the fun but frustrating position of working on a game that hasn't been publically announced yet. I did some work for Dragon Age, but they did some massive plot shiftng after I left, and it looks like everything I did is getting cut. (But not for quality-of-writing reasons -- they're looking at putting the plot I wrote, along with some other stuff that got cut for the same reason*, into an expansion pack later.)

* Briefly and without breaking any non-disclosure stuff: an area of the world that was going to be explored in depth is no longer getting explored in depth. I had a plot that was in that area (among others) and was pretty much built off that specific culture, so it couldn't be moved to a different area either tonally (the way people talk) or visually (the place had a lot of area-specific art). Art doesn't have the bandwidth to tackle that area, so it's cut for now, but if there's room in an expansion pack, it'll likely get in.

(And yes, getting cut from the credits *sucks rocks*. But hey, I'll have writing credits in the expansion pack in a few years after doing no further work...)


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 14, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> (1800 miles since Tuesday)
> 
> (. . .)
> 
> I'm with BioWare





Part of that convention schedule/speaking tour you mentioned in the Off-Topic forum?  I trust that went well for you?


----------



## Mark Hope (Oct 14, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> However, not all works of art are of equal artisitic value, as often measured by collective opinion and whatever other correlated values the group/society places upon them (as when a painting is auctioned or a first edition book is resold or an exhibit is flocked to in great numbers).  To ignore general group opinion of the artisitic value of something is to shut oneself off from honing ones own artistic sensibilities.  Perhaps not in this case, but sooner or later it is wise to simply admit that some things are simply crap.



Yeah, I'd agree with you here.  I say as much in an earlier post about collective subjective opinions determining the value of art, for example.  As far as Eragon is concerned, I personally think it's laughably poor.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> And this is where you and I may disagree...or may just be thinking differently.
> 
> I would say that the judging of its artitstic and creative *quality* (which is generally going to be the same as enjoyment) are subjective. But its *merit* or more specifically *value* is automatic and non-subjective.



 



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> My eyes desperately wanted to glaze over the "merit" discussion between Mark Hope and Merlion, but I slogged through it.



Brave man.  Have an experience point


----------



## Merlion (Oct 14, 2006)

> Yeah, I'd agree with you here. I say as much in an earlier post about collective subjective opinions determining the value of art, for example. As far as Eragon is concerned, I personally think it's laughably poor.







> Perhaps not in this case, but sooner or later it is wise to simply admit that some things are simply crap.






See this is my thing. I simply dont understand how people can DEGRADE something that another person has put thought, feeling, time and effort into. Not just dislike it, not critique it, not just state their opinion about it but DEGRADE and BELITTLE it.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 14, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> See this is my thing. I simply dont understand how people can DEGRADE something that another person has put thought, feeling, time and effort into. Not just dislike it, not critique it, not just state their opinion about it but DEGRADE and BELITTLE it.





That seems to be because you equate degrading the product with degrading the producer.  Sometimes the two go hand in hand but it is a separate issue.  Losing a game doesn't make all of the losing players losers.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 14, 2006)

> That seems to be because you equate degrading the product with degrading the producer





Your half right. The other half is because I consider it...improper....to degrade the product either, because wether you like it or not, and wether or not it meets the "expert standards" for being a masterpiece or whatever, it still has VALUE simply because of the effort and thought put into it, and because of the enjoyment it gives to those who do enjoy it.

And...




> Sometimes the two go hand in hand but it is a separate issue





I tend to see them as always going hand in hand. You might not intend to degrade the producer when you degrade the product, but you still are.  Or at least, your degrading and devalueing their time, their effort, and their thoughts.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 14, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Your half right. The other half is because I consider it...improper....to degrade the product either, because wether you like it or not, and wether or not it meets the "expert standards" for being a masterpiece or whatever, it still has VALUE simply because of the effort and thought put into it, and because of the enjoyment it gives to those who do enjoy it.





Holding up an object as sacrosanct merely because of its existence cheapens the creative process.  By your system all things must be valueless because the only way all things can be of equal value is if they hold no value at all since, collectively, some things are seen as having no value.




			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> And...
> 
> I tend to see them as always going hand in hand. You might not intend to degrade the producer when you degrade the product, but you still are.  Or at least, your degrading and devalueing their time, their effort, and their thoughts.




That's a misconception on your part for which you need to take personal responsibility.


----------



## Asmo (Oct 14, 2006)

aha! Maybe it´s over-vinegar-izing, perhaps!?  No wonder I couldn´t Google it..

Asmo


----------



## Merlion (Oct 14, 2006)

> Holding up an object as sacrosanct merely because of its existence cheapens the creative process





First off, I never said anything about sacrosanct. Any work a person puts time thought and effort into has a certain degree of inherent value, just by virtue of that thought and effort. And by virtue of the enjoyment it gives to those who enjoy it.
  Doesnt make it sacred. It just makes it incorect to state that a work is worthless valueless crap (in anything other than your persona opinion).


And this stance does not cheapen anything. Now the stance you and takyris and others have taken selectively cheapens the creative proccess by labeling some people's creative proccess as wrong bad and worthless because they dont meet certain criteria that certain people have layed down, or because they don't fit the opinion of the majority or whatever. 





> By your system all things must be valueless because the only way all things can be of equal value is if they hold no value at all since, collectively, some things are seen as having no value.





Uhh....ok. I just said that my system consists of everything *having* a basic value due to effort and thought put into it. I dont really care what is collectively seen...whats collectively seen doesnt alter reality. And some things may have more value than others due to having a wider impact etc...my point is just that saying that anything is worthless drivel, if effort and thought have been put into it and/or if anyone has ever enjoyed it, is incorrect.





> That's a misconception on your part for which you need to take personal responsibility.





How is it a misconception? a creative work...especially a written work...is the producers thought and effort made manifest. Saying that its worthless crap is saying that that thought and effort was worthless crap.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 14, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> First off, I never said anything about sacrosanct. Any work a person puts time thought and effort into has a certain degree of inherent value, just by virtue of that thought and effort. And by virtue of the enjoyment it gives to those who enjoy it.





A work does not necessarily require thought and effort nor does it automatically bring enjoyment to anyone.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> I just said that my system consists of everything *having* a basic value due to effort and thought put into it.




That, as noted above, is a false assumption.



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> How is it a misconception? a creative work...especially a written work...is the producers thought and effort made manifest. Saying that its worthless crap is saying that that thought and effort was worthless crap.




The one does not follow the other.  Saying that your post is flawed does not mean I find you flawed.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 14, 2006)

> A work does not necessarily require thought and effort





I dont see how you can think or say this. Last time I looked writing a book required a good deal of both. And even if it were possible to write a book without thought and effort...and I dont see how it could be...without being there when its written, how can you know for sure?



Of course your going to say by the "quality" of it, but quality is subjective. Effort is not. thats my point. You can know with more or less unshakeble certainty that a published book had thought and effort put into it, and therefore has basic value for that reason. Anything beyond that is entirely a matter of opinion.




> nor does it automatically bring enjoyment to anyone.





If its released to an audience of any size, there will be people who will enjoy it. Now yea if it never sees the light of day, or is only ever read or seen by 4 or 5 people, maybe none of them will enjoy it, but a work that gets published/shown in theatres etc etc is going to be enjoyed by substantial numbers of people. 




> That, as noted above, is a false assumption





As also noted above, it isnt. Its one you apparently find distasteful, or that some experience(s) of yours has thrown into doubt, but that doesnt change its truth.




> The one does not follow the other. Saying that your post is flawed does not mean I find you flawed





Yea it does. Because my post is my thoughts, and my thoughts are me. Same with creative works, nine times out of ten.


And as an aside, beside the fact that I disagree with DEGRADING both a work itself, and the fact that it also degrades its creator by extension, theres the additonal fact that usualy such a stance also includes degrading anyone who likes/enjoys the work or feels its worthwhile, or at least degrading their "taste" and/or maturity and/or intelligence. This varies, and I havent seen it as much with you, but several others have essentially said not only are certain works indisputably worthless because they dont fit certain criteria, but anyone who likes them anyway is guilty of some mental or obersvational deficiency.






On a side note, I'm actually reading Eragon as we speak...about 40 pages in. So far I'm enjoying it thoroughly, and I find the command of language and structuring to be very good. There are obvious parallels and influences from Star Wars, but it doesnt appear to be the same story thus far, anymore than Star Wars is the same story as King Arthur...its just using the same structure. Thats the only thing I've found so far that could be seen as objectively negative...its a bit derivative...but I dont neccesarily even count that as a negative since the vast majority of fiction is at least somewhat derivative. There are only so many plots, and most characters are archtypal in nature.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 14, 2006)

I do not believe further discussion of this on my part is likely to yield worthwhile results.  Best of luck to you, Merlion, and we'll simply have to agree to disagree.


----------



## takyris (Oct 14, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Part of that convention schedule/speaking tour you mentioned in the Off-Topic forum?  I trust that went well for you?




Actually, just an incredibly poorly timed vacation. 

Last Tuesday, the wife and dude and I drove from Edmonton to Albuquerque, and this Tuesday, we drove back. Got back Thursday around midnight with a cold (compliments of the wife's folks), and then drugged myself silly so that I could sound coherent while appearing on the TV show that taped on Friday. The convention is today and tomorrow. I give a talk from 10:30 to noon, and then run a game from noon to 4:00.

Sort of a ridiculous weekend, frankly, but it's full of fun stuff.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 14, 2006)

takyris said:
			
		

> Actually, just an incredibly poorly timed vacation.
> 
> Last Tuesday, the wife and dude and I drove from Edmonton to Albuquerque, and this Tuesday, we drove back. Got back Thursday around midnight with a cold (compliments of the wife's folks), and then drugged myself silly so that I could sound coherent while appearing on the TV show that taped on Friday. The convention is today and tomorrow. I give a talk from 10:30 to noon, and then run a game from noon to 4:00.
> 
> Sort of a ridiculous weekend, frankly, but it's full of fun stuff.





Well, it sounds like it will all work out and I am glad for it.  Be well.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 14, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I do not believe further discussion of this on my part is likely to yield worthwhile results.  Best of luck to you, Merlion, and we'll simply have to agree to disagree.





I dont really agree to disagree. And I'm not sure exactly what "worthwhile results" you mean....I think thats part of the problem, you guys are all a little to worried about the destination, when its the journey that matters, but whatever. The choice to continue or not is yours, but you havent presented any compelling evidence for your stance that something can be "simply crap" in any way other than your (perfectly valid) personal opinion.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 14, 2006)

However, now that I'm well into the book (past 100 pages now), I'm curious to know what people think is so awful about it, since so far the only "complaint" I could see would be that the plot is borrowing heavily from Star Wars (again, not I thing I see as a negative, most stories borrow heavily from other stories). 
  The *quality* of the plot is fine, originality aside, and even in that area its hardly a carbon copy of Star Wars, there are many new or highly altered elements involved. Command of language is very good, structuring is good, I dont really see anything "bad" even were I to accept the notion that theres any such thing as bad outside of opinion..


----------



## Berandor (Oct 15, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I do not believe further discussion of this on my part is likely to yield worthwhile results.  Best of luck to you, Merlion, and we'll simply have to agree to disagree.



 me, sometime after post #61.


----------

