Eragon: Good book, or Cheap ripoff of WoT

[Incubate]

Am I the only one who believes that Eragon and Eldest are a cheap rip-off of WoT?

[Chosen_Graendal]

I don't see how Eragon is a rip-off of Wot. So far I haven't seen any dragons in WOT. If anything I think it would be a rip-off of Lord of the Rings. I wouldn't call Eragon the best book in the world, but simply an enjoyable read.

[Illiara]

Yes, its a rip off. The beginning of Eragon is almost exactly like the beginning of The Eye of the World. The main character is almost exactly like Rand (runs away from home, goes on an epic adventure).

[Guest Lord Captain Valda]

The Inheritence trilogy is not a direct rip-off of wot. I think that when you say that it is an insult to wot. I agree with Graendal in that if it was a rip-off of anything it would be LotR. And to Illaira, the whole "runs away from home, goes on an epic adventure" thing is pretty much how most fantasy books start if not most books in general. There arent a great many books where its about somebody who "stays at home living a peaceful quiet life". The Inheritence trilogy was brought to me by my friends as kind of a trade off for them trying wot (which they havent done yet). I read it and it was little more than bland. Minor plot turns and most of which you can see coming a mile away. That is why I say that when you say its a rip off of wot its an insult.

[Featherless Hawkwing]

Let's be very clear on something: Fantasy, and especially High Fantasy, is much more rigid than most genres of fiction, a strange contradiction of the field's defining character: a world separate from our own. It should be pretty freeform if anything is allowed, right? Not so.

 

Think The Hobbit. Think LoTR. Think WoT. Think Eragon.

 

The only great difference, plot-wise, between The Hobbit and the subsequent LoTR, is in that the former has a whimsical quality to it, an armchair-by-the-fire attitude, a pipe-on-the-porch attitude (literally). LoTR is drama from the get-go, quite obviously an epic if someone ripped out the first page and handed it to you.

 

The Wheel of Time could be called a ripoff, but it's not. Why? Well, because it's very high quality. We all love this series, but face the facts. Lord of the Rings in regular type and WoT in italics.

 

1. Strangers come to out-of-the-way village, unnoticed by the world and at the back-end of forever. This is Gandalf, who is known as a disturber of the peace, and thus an undesirable in the Shire. He can work magic. Eventually, true evil arrives in the form of the black-clad Nazgul.

 

1. Mysterious strangers, one an entertainer, two a lady and a warrior, and strange black riders (a la the Nazgul). One turns out to be a channeler, equivalent of a witch. The gleeman is a good guy, as is the warrior, and the black riders are most certainly evil.

 

2. Preparations for a birthday party.

 

2. Preparations for a festival.

 

3. Outlander's plans sweep up four lads, who vanish into the Great Unknown.

 

3. Outlander whisks away three young men, with a girl and the gleeman tagging along.

 

4. Bucklebury Ferry.

 

4. Taren Ferry.

 

5. Aragorn, a king who continues his personal war against evil whilst denying his title and his countrymen. Part of a brotherhood of elite warriors. Is Gandalf's right hand man.

 

5. Lan, a king who continues his personal war against evil whilst denying his title as the king of a dead country. A Warder, an elite society of warriors bonded to Aes Sedai, who can channel.

 

 

Ripoff? I don't think so. The scope of WoT goes far beyond anything Tolkien did (admittedly, the Silmarillion is pretty brilliant and pretty damn huge, although dryly written).

 

These are all fantasy standards. But, I don't like Eragon at all. It is poorly written. The plot twists are more like gentle curves that you are perfectly aware of, but so slow that you can't actually see the curve, like the curve of the earth. Yes, that was overlong, but, well. Eragon is also quite unentertaining, and rather than paying homage to the fantasy classics, mechanically takes 20% from here, 15% from here, 45% from here...

 

Which is bad.

 

I mean, I'm fourteen, and I can write way better than Paolini, and have been able to for a while now. Still, I sympathize with the guy: I've written 400 pages of kickass stuff, and scrapped it because it seemed it was too much like WoT. Actually, in retrospect, it was less like WoT than Eragon is like WoT and Tolkien. I guess I just don't like to show the influence of just one author in my work.

 

Right now, I'm working on a comedic high fantasy series influenced by Terry Pratchett, Douglas Adams and my mom's spiritual ideas, and so, my own. It's gonna be either a trilogy or a Tolkien-style book, real big with three mini-books inside it (in case it doesn't reach titanic proportions).

 

Now I'm rambling. Guess I'd better shut up before I embarass myself. Or have I already?

 

And, oh yeah, you really, REALLY, I mean REALLY should've had a 'Neither' option.

[Guest Egwene]

Pity there is no middle option. I read the books, enjoyed them as a light read and was marginallly bothered by some of the 'in your face' similar names to LotR but wasn't really reminded of WoT.

[Stevenator]

The scope of WoT goes far beyond anything Tolkien did

 

 

I agree with your post, except on this point. Have you read any the Unfinished Tales going into the back story of middle earth? Tolkien pored his whole life and thought into his story, making probably the most detailed work in Fantasy other than Islandia.

 

The beginning of Eragon is almost exactly like the beginning of The Eye of the World

 

 

As people have said, these book are in the sub-genre of "High-Fantasy" started all the way back with William Morris. Tolkien was the one who catapulted it to another level in the '50s (inspiring many spinoffs of his themes, Brooks, Alexander, ect). Jordan himself admits that the first hundred pages of EotW are all but a carbon copy of LotR, so Paolini is not ripping-off Jordan (you can't rip-off a rip-off).

[Guest Cadsuane]

The scope of WoT goes far beyond anything Tolkien did

 

I disagree. I think WoT may on the surface seem like it has a greater scope, but I think that is only because A. We have more different cultures to learn about. B. There are more "main" characters.

 

This makes it more complicated than LotR, but I definitely think that the scope of LotR is much greater than that of WoT. I mean, Tolkien created the ENTIRE world, from beginning to where it was left. He created LANGUAGES, HISTORIES, a whole slew of aspects to Middle Earth that Jordan has not created for WoT.

[Guest cwestervelt]

It depends how you define as being in scope. The Wheel of Time is definitely more expansive than The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. If you consider all of Middle Earth and the related source matterials (Scilmarillion, Lays of Bellariand...) that Tolkien wrote that The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings evolved from, then they are more expansive than The Wheel of Time. As Stevenator said, Tolkien poured his whole life into it. He first started working on the Scilmarillion, which is the source of most of The Lord of the Rings during World War I.

[Leafburner]

"The main character is almost exactly like Rand (runs away from home, goes on an epic adventure.)" - Illiara

 

This is proof of nothing. All heroes leave their home to embark on an adventure at some time. Most of them are Farm Boys or simple folk.

 

Bilbo

Pug

Rand

Mat

Perrin

Luke Skywalker

 

There are only so many plot devices people can use to get the hero away from home and into the world.

[havoc110]

To be sure the epic formula lends itself to a lot of similarities.

 

Add to the list of epic heroes:

 

Garion (grew up on farm)

Shea Ohmsford (substitute inn for farm)

 

So, not a ripoff, just adherence to similar devices.

 

Hero grows up in obscurity.

 

Dark forces get close to hero's childhood home.

 

Hero finds mentor figure who leads them away from home.

 

Hero joins band of heroes.

 

Hero learns of his hidden past.

 

ETC....ETC...

 

WoT is greater in scope than LotR in what I consider the "horizontal" dimension. Length and number of books, number of characters, etc.

 

In the "vertical" dimension, which I call the detail and depth, LotR really excels. The languages, heck, there is an equivalent to the New Testament in Middle Earth. Where we are left with not too much Age of Legends material. Middle Earth has the entire histories laid out. Of course, it is not all self contained in the LotR books, and with all the supplementary material, probably competes in scale (total words) to Wot.

[Illiara]

Let me clarify. There's three parts of WoT and Eragon I want to compare to each other.

 

Part 1: In WoT, A Myrddral shows up Emond's Field. Brings Trollocs to destroy Emond's Field. Moiraine shows up and brings Rand, Mat, Perrin, and Egwene on a noble adventure.

 

In Eragon, Eragon finds a dragon's egg, and the Ra'zac show up. Brom, the storyteller, comes and rescues Eragon and drags him off on an adventure.

 

Part 2:

 

In WoT, when everybody gets split up in Shadar Logoth, they all decide to try to find each other. When it becomes apparant that they won't everybody decides to go to Caemlyn, their original destination, and meets up. They meet a person that has a continuing role in the series (Basel Gill, the innkeeper). Rand also meets Elayne, who has a role in the rest of the series.

 

In Eragon, Eragon and Brom are trying to find the trade records. THey go to Teirm and find what they need. They meet a person (Jeod) that has a continuing role in the series. Eragon meets Angela, who has a continuing role in the series.

 

Part 3:

 

The big battle at the end of The Eye of the World north of Fal Dara is against Trollocs. Rand is off battling the Forsaken Aginor, then teleports to the battle and wins it for the Shienarans. They then hail him as a hero.

 

The big battle at the end of Eragon is in the mountain Tronjheim, against Urgals. Eragon is off battling the Kull, and goes and fight Durza and his army. Eragon kills Durza and wins the battle for the Varden. They then hail him as a hero.

 

Based on these three parts, which take up a very large part of Eragon, I conluded my decision.

[havoc110]

But here's the rub:

 

Part 1:

 

Luke Meets Ben.

Stormtroopers kill Luke's uncle and aunt.

 

Gandalf comes to Shire.

Nazgul come to the Shire. Gandalf prods Frodo off, and Sam with him.

 

 

Part 2:

 

Luke and Ben go to Mos Eisley, meet Han and Chewie.

 

Hobbits go to Bree, meet Aragorn.

 

 

Part 3:

 

There's a big battle. "Great shot kid, that was one in a million!"

 

There's a big battle. Frodo/Sam/Gollum dunk the Ring.

 

 

The point being is that Eragon is no more or less a rip-off than WoT is. There is almost a formula-like nature to epic stories that makes them, well... epic stories.

 

Some links for thought:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_fantasy

 

http://www.dannybirt.com/news.html

[Leafburner]

Nice one Havoc! You've hit the nail on the head.

 

It's a formula. All of the greatest myths and legends of all cultures are made up of very similar plot devices.

[Guest Cadsuane]

I agree with Leaf and Havoc, and whoever else said similar things.

 

What is important to me, is not that each different series follow a different formula (since we've seen they are all pretty much the same), but that the CHARACTERS and SETTING are new and interesting enough to make up for it.

 

I have not read Eragon, so I can't comment specifically on that, but the things about other books/movies mentioned that make them great are the places and people. They are done well, they all have their own twist. Characters and settings in Eragon may not, which is why you see it mostly as a rip off. I felt the same reading Brook's Shannara triplet. I think that series is a lower-quality version of LoTR, and not worth reading. But I have not felt that way about WoT, LotR, Star Wars, the Belgariad/Malloreon, etc. They manage to be interesting in their own right.

[Guest cwestervelt]

I haven't read Eragon either.

 

I can barely remember the Sword/Elf Stones/Wish Song of Shannara Trilogy. When I first read them, I thought them to be fairly good. What is strange is that I have never been able to get myself to re-read them. It makes me wonder if, at some sub-conscious level, I really didn't care for them.

 

I really liked the Belgariad, but I found the Mallorean to be a little to redundant. The Elenium and Tamuli series had the same problem. His most recent stuff has really been disappointing though.

[Guest Cadsuane]

Ugh, it's true, I bought the first book of the Elder Gods, and it was AWFUL!! I was embarrassed for Eddings. :roll:

[Guest cwestervelt]

I'm embarrassed to say that I actually bought the second one as well. I was hoping I was wrong about how bad the first book in the series was. After all, can you really have such an anti-climatic finish that you put the book down wondering just want was the point in the first 95% of the book?

 

Unfortunately, I really wasted my money on that one because I wasn't even able to finish it. Once he began recounting the back story of one of the characters, a back story to which the first book had already given all of the pertinent details, I just couldn't take it anymore.

[Featherless Hawkwing]

Yes. The Elder Gods is crap.

[Loreia]

Hey!

Ok, I read both Eragon and Eldest a few times. Yes, they are both light when put up against something like WoT or Lord of the Rings. But hey, considering that the kid is only what...17? Not bad. Someone needs to invent a whole new fantasy format, and start writing! Because these are getting old!

Whoever it was who said the Silmarillion was dry, read the tales again, and see if you find it so dry. I thought the same thing until I really read the good tales. Beren and Luthien and the Tale of Turin are the best! Just a suggestion!

 

Loreia~ Water Nymph

[Daetirion]

dont start on Eddings recent stuff - seriously i probably wouldnt read anymore if i was given them for free

 

Eragon/Eldest do have a multitude of similarites to WoT , but only so much as its similar to all fantasy. THeres only one section i seriously have problems with, and thats the Urgal/Trolloc and Shade/Myddraal comparisons

 

other than that im not specificly bothered

 

and i think the "dry" aspect of the Sil tends to be the writing style - whilst i enjoy the fact they "read" like "history" some find it more inaccessable and the style is unique in fiction

[havoc110]

I would like to add, and others have already said similar stuff, that a story has to have enough to differentiate it from previous stories.

 

I only started Eragon, so I cannot comment on it as a whole, but I can't crucify it based on a few similarities.

 

I can't believe that the stories would have gotten so much hype if they were a clear rip-off.

[Featherless Hawkwing]

The Silmarillion is brilliant, don't get me wrong ('twas I said it was "dry") but, it was, as Daetirion said, the writing style that is uninspiring (hence, "although dryly written"), since it's kind of grandiose, and it reads like regular mythology. What would have been more satisfying, albeit an insurmountably difficult thing to achieve, would be more detailed novels--even short ones--about some of the more gripping tales documented in the Silmarillion. However, that format would not be able to form the connections, the interweaving of threads from stories hundreds of pages apart into one... still, I cannot say it was fun to read. It was more mesmerizing, more enjoyable via awe of what Tolkien had fabricated, rather than a gripping read. Which is not what it was ever supposed to be, and it cannot be criticised for not doing something it never professed to attempt. But I still stand by my comment, though, that it is dryly written. The stories are not dry, but the way they are presented most certainly is.

 

It is true that Eragon bears similarities to all works of high fantasy because they themselves are constrained by the genre's inherent rigidity, and a case could be made for its dangerous similarity to most major series and novels of the type. Paolini never hesitated to cite his influences, and Jordan was not one of them.

 

I can't believe that the stories would have gotten so much hype if they were a clear rip-off.

Eragon is pop-culture. WoT has a cult following. The world at large has, until very recently, been unaware of Robert Jordan's brilliance. These are not massively commercial books, but I think the buildup to KoD indicates a shift in the balance. I don't think that's a good thing, myself. Sure, revenue for Jordan, well-deserved success for a remarkable fantasy series, but how many true fans will there be, as we are? How many fans will love this series obsessively, but how many for the right reasons? How many will resist society and popular culture, and see flaws in the thing he/she loves, rather than be swept on by the river of false praise and the brittle fanaticism that has crippled the aesthetic value of Harry Potter, Narnia, and most tragically, Tolkien's work?

[Guest Lord Captain Valda]

THeres only one section i seriously have problems with' date=' and thats the Urgal/Trolloc and Shade/Myddraal comparisons

[/quote']

 

All I have to say is:

Shade-->Myddraal-->Dementor-->Naz'gul

Paolini-->Jordan-->Rowling-->Tolkein

 

CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE?

[Chosen_Graendal]

I see the Shade to be more of a vampire than the rest, but essentially they are all a type of 'demon' or 'reaper' archetype.