Eragon vs Twilight?

[MoonShark]

For this comparison, I'm only going to think about the first book from each series.... And Eragon wins hands down. I do not like Twilight, and the later books in the Eragon series, imo, got progressively longer, slower and more boring.

[KoalaNoob]

Both are terrible, but Twilight is better simply because of all the WTF?! moments. Eragon was just terrible in a slow, long-winded, boring, should-be-sued-for-copyrights way.

[Fyonra]

I prefer Eragon, it's been one of my favorite books ever since i read it.

[Shadoe666]

Eragon is up there with Harry Potter to me, as for twilight.... I've never been one for romance stories. Hate 'em, I write them well, but I hate reading them. Eragon was more adventure and fantasy, my two favorate genres, while twilight.....

[Rosedamai]

Hopefully both will fade into obscurity because both were terrible, horrible books.

[Spottedleaf]

I voted both

[DustyBelle]

The Stephanie Meyers charaters get on my nerves. Twilight wasn't awful but it wasn't that good and I liked the next one even less.

 

Eragon at least has a good dragon to lift it above Twilight. How can you go wrong with a strong bonding dragon and young person. Bonding, it's what dragons are for. lol

 

Neither is obviously a favorite of mine.

[Jumbofluff]

Eragon, in my opinion, was slow, but brilliant. Kind of like LotR...

And then you've got to consider that the books were written by a teenager. That's pretty amazing.

 

Twilight... eurgh, I just don't like vampire/werewolf romance...

[Rosedamai]

Eragon, in my opinion, was slow, but brilliant. Kind of like LotR...

And then you've got to consider that the books were written by a teenager. That's pretty amazing.

 

Twilight... eurgh, I just don't like vampire/werewolf romance...

Pfffft. Have you even read the Lord of the Rings? Don't ever compare that kid to Tolkien.

[JavaTigress]

Pfffft. Have you even read the Lord of the Rings? Don't ever compare that kid to Tolkien.

I have read both the Inheritance Cycle and LOTOR... and I enjoy both.

I don't REALLY feel the need or inclination to choose between them.

 

Never read Twilight, to be honest.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Silverswift

[PeterPan3112]

DISCLAIMER: I haven't read Eragon anything since...Brisingr came out, I think.

 

As I recall Eragon was a hella book - and this is coming from someone who is very picky about books, especially when they're all regurgitating the same old plots over and over again just disguised under characters with different names - and I'd read it again in a heartbeat, if I had time. The characters are interesting, the story is interesting, everything is interesting, as far as I recall. On that note, I'm going to say I didn't read the entire thread, but I'm going to pick out my favourite quotes.

 

I made it through the first Eragon book and was really facinated at how blatantly it ripped of Star Wars. I couldn't get through 5 pages of Twillight before putting it away - so technically I think Eragon was less terrible to me, but guys why not read GOOD books?

 

...Eragon...a story about dragons...is ripping off Star Wars...which doesn't have a single dragon...right. Okay. I must've glossed over the part where Eragon leaps off of Sapphira with his lightsabre and uses the Force to save the day. My bad.

 

Secondly...yeah...Twilight wasn't that great. I'll talk about that in a second though, because 'why not read GOOD books?' is a very...illustrious sentence, but what is good? That on the whole is purely subjective, and the entire world is not going to share one person's opinion of 'good' (which, frankly, makes this entire thread redundant). I thought I'd look up the definition of good to see what I can get from that.

 

- to be desired or approved of.

- having the required qualities; of a high standard.

 

Granted, some absolutely awful books manage to get published - one of which I read was named 'Nannie's Bedtime Stories' and it was written entirely in capitals with no correct punctuation usage or grasp of grammar in sight. It was atrocious, but it was indeed a legitimately published book. But what is a high standard? It's subjective. There's no 'guidelines' on what makes a good book, unless you count popularity in that, which by definition, makes Twilight a good book. But if we go by the first definition, to be approved of, then as long as people approve of it, it's good. Which makes Twilight a good book.

 

Also Eragon. But really, we all hate Twilight more.

 

In conclusion: all books are good. Except Nannie's Bedtime Stories, because it's an abomination. Hypocrisy! -shot- (afterthought edit: excluding 50 Shades from that because abusive relationships are not rad and I don't think anyone's going to argue against that)

 

Considering Eragon, and how everyone seems to be picking it up again and discovering their distaste for it, I feel like I ought to try that. But first, this gem:

 

mildly literate in epic fantasy literature

 

What does that even mean? That's actually rather pretentious. The thing with fantasy literature, is that you basically don't have room to be pretentious if the lands are all of the author's own creation. Assuming they're not Stephanie Meyer-esque about their characters and everything makes relative sense, then being "mildly literate in epic fantasy literature" has nothing to do with anything. You're well versed in fantasy books? Good for you! But don't on other fantasy books because they don't live up to your apparently incredibly high expectations you gained from experience.

 

and a heavy focus in telling instead of showing.

 

Two words: Literary. Fiction.

 

Upon investigating and running across some interviews, I saw this guy was so full of himself, he actually believed to be some sort of Tolien reincarnated.

I even read somewhere (not sure if it is true), that his parents don't allow him to read bad reviews. That might have helped him inflate his ego, along with the fact that he is homeschooled and I'm unsure about his socialization (he sure shows a heavy lack of it in his books, since his protrayals of human relations are completely inaccurate).

 

Stephanie Meyer literally dreamt up Twilight, sneezed it out one day, and handed it to her publisher, but considering the author of the Inheritance Cycle is at least 20+ years old, I'm pretty sure he's good on all the aforementioned fronts.

 

The thing is...every character in the Twilight books besides Bella and Edward were actually interesting. Twilight was four books of Edward going BELLA NO I CAN'T LOVE YOU and Bella going I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT YOU DON'T LEAVE ME. You know what's good? Twilight fanfiction, where decent authors take the characters, even the ones that suck, and turn them into a decent story. People just hate it because, firstly, it's a crap series, and secondly, because it's popular. If you hate something because it's popular, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your life choices. Although on the subject of Twilight fanfiction, Fifty Shades of Grey is not a good example of this.

 

Bella Swan is single-handedly THE flattest character I've ever read. And this is why everyone hates Kristen Stewart: for accurately portraying the crappy character exactly as she was written. Bella Swan is a whiny, whiny child with abandonment issues, and Edward Cullen has problems with personal space boundaries and control issues. Both of them, and their relationship, and Stephanie Meyer, all need a reality check. If you're going to complain about authors' inability to write 'realistic human relationships', complain about Edward and Bella. Maybe also the rampant near-paedophilia that goes on in those books too, that was always sketch.

 

ON THE SUBJECT OF LORD OF THE RINGS, which I have never read because I've never taken an interest in them because fantasy isn't really my jam, despite how everyone says it's so amazing, I just can't bring myself to read it? Tolkien or not, it's just. Unappealing. So for me, Eragon is better than LOTR, because I actually read it. There you go. Have an opinion. I'm hip & down with the kids.

 

tl;dr just stop.

Edited September 9, 2014 by PeterPan3112

[Rosedamai]

This is actually a subject I am passionate about, both because I hate Paolini as a person and as a writer. So here we go.

 

...Eragon...a story about dragons...is ripping off Star Wars...which doesn't have a single dragon...right. Okay. I must've glossed over the part where Eragon leaps off of Sapphira with his lightsabre and uses the Force to save the day. My bad.

 

Stories don't have to have the same them to be considered ripoffs. For example, if I write a story about a little kid lost in space with a red spacesuit carrying a bunch of tools for her grandma, getting distracted by a space alien that eats her grandmother and eats her too, and later saved by another astronaut with a laser gun, that's basically little red riding hood-only set in space.

 

And while the Hero's Journey is a very overused trope-the crucial difference lies in that how much differences and your own characteristics you can put in it.

 

Sources: over here

 

Our story is set in a world dominated by a vast, evil Empire. Now this Empire wasn't always evil - it was once ruled wisely by an order of mystical warriors. However, one of their order turned to the Dark Side, and since then, he has ruled with an iron fist.

 

This germinated with the rage inside him from seeing someone close to him killed by a barbaric tribe, was fed by the order refusing his demands, inspiring a deep resentment towards them, and flowered when he was taught dark secrets by an evil figure that gave him power greater than any other member of the order.

 

The story opens with a beautiful-yet-kickass princess, heir to a faction allied with the Rebellion, who is fleeing Imperial forces with something that will be of great help to the Rebel cause. This something is so important, in fact, that it could spell the Empire's defeat. She is captured (by one of the Emperor's chief lieutenants, no less) but not before she can send away the object she was carrying to an old ally who is currently in hiding in a remote region. It is out of the hands of the Empire, for now, and the princess can only hope that by chance (or perhaps fate) the object will reach safe hands.

 

We then meet our protagonist, a poor farm boy who lives with his uncle's family (having been left in their care as a baby), in a far corner of the Empire. On the cusp of adolescence and adulthood, he dreams of leaving the farming life and seeking a great destiny in the world.

 

He comes across the thing sent by the beautiful-yet-kickass princess, is able to unlock it, and visits the local crazy old man (who may be more than he appears) to find out more. As it turns out, this crazy old man is in fact a wise old man - he is one of the few surviving members of the ancient order of mystical warriors! He tells the protagonist the tale of the order and how they were wiped out. He also informs the protagonist that his father was a reknowned member of the order, and that he and his father trained together. He moved to the area around the time of the protagonist's birth so that he could watch over the boy's development.

 

The forces of the Empire are still hot on the trail of the object, and while the protagonist is away from home, they burn down his uncle's farm, murdering his uncle. This causes the protagonist to return to the wise old man, vowing to seek justice, and adventure; a move that will eventually lead him into direct conflict with the Empire itself. Together they set off on their quest, first travelling to a nearby settlement to gain transportation.

 

The wise old man gives the protagonist a weapon which originally belonged to his father, and begins to tutor him in the mystical arts, in which the protagonist shows a remarkable proficiency. He may, in fact, be the one destined to bring back the ancient order and bring peace and harmony once more.

 

Along the way, they meet a gruff yet lovable rogue, who turns out to be fiercely loyal, despite his proclaimed selfishness. (This character is one of the most popular in the series, wheras the protagonist is often seen as rather irritating.)

 

The protagonist begins "seeing-from-afar" the beautiful-yet-kickass princess, who has been kept prisoner and is being tortured for information on the whereabouts of the Rebellion's HQ. Obsessed by her beauty, the protagonist vows to rescue her.

 

Travelling to a location where he hopes he will be able to contact the Rebellion, the protagonist is captured, although he finds out that the beautiful princess is imprisoned in the same fortress. He and his friends manage to escape with the princess, encountering a major agent of evil along the way. They escort her back to the Rebel hideout, along with the thing that could help the Rebellion win their struggle against the Empire.

 

Along the way, the wise old man is killed in battle protecting the protagonist.

 

They manage to evade the enemy and arrive at the Rebellion's HQ; however, the enemy has been able to track them and now knows the location of the rebel base. The protagonist pledges his support for the Rebel cause, and they immediately begin preparing for an epic battle between good and evil as the Empire musters forces to crush the Rebellion.

 

The protagonist fights valiantly in the battle, but the Rebels seem to be losing the day. That is until the protagonist, aided by one of his friends who arrives at precisely the right moment to cause a distraction, heroically destroys a noun of great power, causing a really big, impressive piece of craftwork to spectacularly explode. This wipes out the Empire's command structure, allowing the remaining Imperial forces to be easily routed and destroyed.

 

Now to continue-

Two words: Literary. Fiction.

Two words: Purple. Prose.

 

Stephanie Meyer literally dreamt up Twilight, sneezed it out one day, and handed it to her publisher, but considering the author of the Inheritance Cycle is at least 20+ years old, I'm pretty sure he's good on all the aforementioned fronts.

 

Frankenstein was literally dreamt up by a teenager, who wrote it as a short story expanded into a novel, so...I don't know what's your point there. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was also dreamt up. Same with Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

 

And no, he isn't "good on the aforementioned fronts" because according to sources here which by the way is HIS OWN OFFICIAL SITE,

the family decided to self-publish the book

, which means that no matter how much they've spent proofreading it it's not going to be the same as say, J.K Rowling who went to several, if not more than ten, big publishing places, and proofread it extensively. It was then picked up by Knopf, and took about a year to proofread...which isn't much, if you take into account of the size of his book.

 

Also, according to your definitions, a good book is

- to be desired or approved of.

- having the required qualities; of a high standard.

Both of which where LotR wins against Eragon by multiple points.

 

And I'm not saying Twilight is good. I'm saying both are horrible.

Edited September 9, 2014 by ylangylang

[Gingehfish]

I read Eragon several years ago, and I remember enjoying it, though not as much as I enjoyed other high fantasy books. I tried to read Twilight once - also several years ago - and I couldn't get through two pages. So in Twilight vs. Eragon... Eragon is better.

[octopi]

I read 30-something pages of Twilight and gave up and I've never touched Eragon, but I've heard plenty about both and they both seem pretty problematic.

 

The last point on this thing basically summarizes how I feel about the whole "bonding" gimmick too. Two fully sapient beings agreeing to form a permanent psychic bond with each other where they DIE if the other does too? Wow, it's almost as if...these dragons...have no life outside of their riders.....which is not creepy or extreme wish fulfillment at all......

 

And then there are the points that no one ever addresses about Twilight, i.e. that it tells girls their lives are pointless unless they have boyfriends, romanticizes and even encourages suicide/stalking, stereotypes Native American people, and a ton of other stuff. People have different tastes and you're free to like whatever you want, it's just that when you like something that happens to be problematic you gotta recognize that instead of blindly defending it.

[Pestilence420]

This is actually a subject I am passionate about, both because I hate Paolini as a person and as a writer. So here we go.

 

 

 

What did he do to make you not like him as a person? Sounds like your just hating to hate

 

But to keep on topic I don't like both books couldn't get into Eragon and never really liked Twilight

 

 

[Rosedamai]

What did he do to make you not like him as a person? Sounds like your just hating to hate

 

But to keep on topic I don't like both books couldn't get into Eragon and never really liked Twilight

He comes off as pretty arrogant in his interviews. I don't hate him just to hate, hating people isn't something people do for fun.

[JavaTigress]

This is actually a subject I am passionate about, both because I hate Paolini as a person and as a writer. So here we go.

 

 

 

Stories don't have to have the same them to be considered ripoffs. For example, if I write a story about a little kid lost in space with a red spacesuit carrying a bunch of tools for her grandma, getting distracted by a space alien that eats her grandmother and eats her too, and later saved by another astronaut with a laser gun, that's basically little red riding hood-only set in space.

 

And while the Hero's Journey is a very overused trope-the crucial difference lies in that how much differences and your own characteristics you can put in it.

 

Sources: over here

 

 

 

Now to continue-

 

Two words: Purple. Prose.

 

 

 

Frankenstein was literally dreamt up by a teenager, who wrote it as a short story expanded into a novel, so...I don't know what's your point there. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was also dreamt up. Same with Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

 

And no, he isn't "good on the aforementioned fronts" because according to sources here which by the way is HIS OWN OFFICIAL SITE, , which means that no matter how much they've spent proofreading it it's not going to be the same as say, J.K Rowling who went to several, if not more than ten, big publishing places, and proofread it extensively. It was then picked up by Knopf, and took about a year to proofread...which isn't much, if you take into account of the size of his book.

 

Also, according to your definitions, a good book is

 

Both of which where LotR wins against Eragon by multiple points.

 

And I'm not saying Twilight is good. I'm saying both are horrible.

I have read your post Ylangylang, and I have a few comments.

 

First of all, putting aside your dislike for Christopher Paolini as a human being... which, while certainly a valid reason to refuse to purchase any of his work, has ZERO to do with the quality of said work... because it seems to me that you have a hard time separating him from his work, I would like to address a few of your criticisms of the books themselves.

 

First... using the same trope is not necessarily evidence, in itself, of 'rip off'.

As you say, stories about heroes on quests are VERY common.

 

If you are going to say that Paolini ripped off Lucas, though, you ignore the fact that that basic plot is probably far older than either. Homer told tales of epic journeys by heroes (admittedly NOT necessarily with the evil empire aspect included). Yet you don't accuse Lucas of having 'ripped off' his ideas. Furthermore, while, yes a few of the basic plot points may be similar, the characters and setting are very different. I'd be more likely to take the charge of 'rip-off' seriously, for example, if (Tagged for a spoiler:) Eragon had, indeed, been the son of Morzan the king's right hand man, as he is at one point led to believe... which would coincide with Lucas's idea that Luke Skywalker was the son of Darth Vader, right hand of the Emperor. Also, Arya, the princess in question, Is NOT Eragon's sister... the two are of entirely different races, in fact. Those are just a couple of differences I notice off of hand. I would say that there are some key differences that keep it from being an absolute copy, despite the plot similarities. I have heard Star Wars referred to as 'Space Fantasy' as opposed to 'Science Fiction'... and I wonder if that idea is apt in that it tends to take its cues more from the tropes of epic fantasy than those of your usual science fiction. Your example of a 'Little Red Riding Hood' rip off is very simplistic at best, ignoring the fact that the universes of both Inheritance and Star Wars are extremely large and well developed; leaving LOADS of little differences in setting and so forth. Also... consider that some tropes may be used so much because, for some reason, they resonate with people. That may be the case with 'Hero's Journey'.

 

As to your charge of 'purple prose', I am not QUITE certain what you mean there.

If what you are referring to is overly flowery prose, I have a few thoughts on that as well. First, I don't think that Inheritance was any more flowery than anything Tolkien wrote, and you don't seem to mind his writing. Tolkien could be very, VERY detailed and descriptive when the whim struck him to be. The elves in Inheritance, admittedly, can be pretty flowery in their speech... but you expect that of them because they are ELVES. Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing Tolkien with that, I happen to have read and enjoyed his work as well. Just that there seems to be a double standard there, if that is where you were going. Second... just because something has flowery wording doesn't detract from the quality of the story per se... it might still be worth reading. I view that as a style issue, nothing more. Granted people have their preferences on style issues and what some like, others invariably will not.

 

I , for example, tried to read Last of the Mohicans once and found the guy's style unbearably boring.

I didn't even finish reading the book.

Unfortunate, because the plot had promise and I have read other works of 'literary fiction' as PeterPan called them.

It was just Cooper, I couldn't get into his style at all. Just as an example.

 

I can't speak for the proofreading BUT the publishers took what time they thought necessary for proofing.

If he and his family proofread it carefully before presenting it, it may be that not much more work was really needed.

 

As for the other persons charge that the dragon rider's bond with their dragon was nothing more than 'creepy and extreme' wish fulfillment, I have to ask. Wish fulfillment on the part of whom? Eragon? Doubtful as his bond with Sapphira brought him a whole lot of trouble and heartache and responsibility as well as his friendship with her. On the part of the author? Perhaps, I don't know him well enough... but that doesn't make it less valid of a plot device. Also, what you forget is that before the king, there had been wild dragons who answered to no one... only SOME of the dragons were bonded in that way, just like only SOME humans and elves were. Remember, too, that it was extreme circumstances that created that bond in the first place... (Tagged for a Spoiler:) a massive war between the elves and dragons that threatened to wipe out both. Under the circumstances, that link seemed necessary to create peace between the two. Frankly, I'd be surprised if the author's only motivation for writing that was "I wish I were a dragon rider" any more than Lucas's only motivation in his creation of Star Wars was "I wish I were a Jedi master". Even if it was, I am not sure that has any bearing on the quality or lack thereof of the idea.

 

My thoughts for whatever they are worth.

 

No one is saying you have to LIKE Paolini or his work, but putting them on the same level as Twilight is unfair.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Silverswift

[ValidEmotions]

I personally love the Inheritance Cycle. I barely made it through the first book of Twilight and only because I wanted to give it a chance. However, by the end of it, I basically said "f it, I'm done," and that was that. My mom and sister dragged me to the first film and I was terribly turned away from it in all but the graphics.

 

I have criticisms though. Firstly, Vampires do not sparkle in the sunlight. End of story.

Second, werewolves are forced to change on the full moon. This is the lore that everyone knows. Whether or not they can change voluntarily during other phases of the moon is up for debate between different lore.

 

Third, Meyer claims to be serious about her Mormon religion. However, Mormon religion speaks against vampires and werewolves so why in the world is she writing a love triangle involving them? Not to mention, when you get right down to it, the plot suggests necrophilia and bestiality; both of which will get you locked up in a psycho ward.

 

I agree with Silverswift about the barest suggestion of pedophilia on the account that Edward is a good couple hundred years old.

 

The way I see the Twilight series, is as Meyer's attempt to invoke what a "perfect" relationship is like and how it is "meant" to progress. Boy meets girl, they date, they stay committed through thick and thin for years before getting married then finally lose their virginity to each other and make babies. I mean, come on. Yes, that's the ideal for a relationship in heavily religious aspects but, it got so bad where a fad was created where girls were constantly going on about finding "their Edward Cullen" in a special boy or how their mothers wanted their daughters to date "an Edward Cullen."

 

That's not how the world works and it hasn't worked that way for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Purely ridiculous in my opinion.

Additionally, let's be honest. Most of the people who went and saw the films was because they wanted to see Jacob Black without a shirt on. My own aunt, 30+ years at the release of the first film, was part of the hooting crowd of women whenever the shirt came off.

 

Now, to be fair from the Eragon side, the movie was just horrible. Absolutely no way for the second book to be made into a film and still work with how the first one ended.

 

tl;dr: I. Love. The. Inheritance Cycle. Hated Twilight because of its awful shortcomings and dislike Meyer.

I don't know Paolini and I honestly don't care. The only authors I know any faint bits about are J.K. Rowling and Sarah Dessin.

[octopi]

Silverswift: Can you clarify on your points? Because as it stands, what I'm getting from your rant is just "everyone is entitled to their own opinion but you're not allowed to hate Eragon because I like it".

 

Also I recognize that there might be plot reasons for bonding or whatever, but the truth is, he could also have easily written a less creepy form of bonding by changing the plot up a bit. Writing doesn't always go to plan, but the characters and the world aren't real and they can't insist on certain plot points happening. I've seen tons of people try to justify the amount of provocatively dressed women in fiction by saying that they chose their outfits themselves - but who made them make those decisions? Do writers have no free will?

Edited September 10, 2014 by Fractional Pi Day

[JavaTigress]

Silverswift: Can you clarify on your points? Because as it stands, what I'm getting from your rant is just "everyone is entitled to their own opinion but you're not allowed to hate Eragon because I like it".

 

Also I recognize that there might be plot reasons for bonding or whatever, but the truth is, he could also have easily written a less creepy form of bonding by changing the plot up a bit. Writing doesn't always go to plan, but the characters and the world aren't real and they can't insist on certain plot points happening. I've seen tons of people try to justify the amount of provocatively dressed women in fiction by saying that they chose their outfits themselves - but who made them make those decisions? Do writers have no free will?

No, no... no such thing. No one is required to like something just because I do.

I just... disagreed with their reasons for hating it.

 

Also... disliking a thing and choosing not to read it and actively bashing it on a public forum are two different things.

 

I get defensive about stuff I like, I'll admit. I was just trying to explain why I disagreed with their points, was all.

I meant no disrespect.

 

Which particular points would you like me to expand on?

 

And yes, writers do have their own free will.

All I was getting at is that I saw something different than what you do with regards to 'bonding'.

 

If you want to get right down to it... one of the pairing dieing didn't always kill the remaining partner, which is important to remember. Dragons and riders DID have lives other than each other. They were close, of course, as they had to be... but what comes to mind is that Eragon and Saphira were told that the measure of a dragon and rider wasn't necessarily how well they worked together, but how well they were able to work apart. I'd be able to see the charge if the death of one did ALWAYS and without exception, lead to the death of the other, but it didn't... and IF it did always result in death, the whole story would have been very, VERY different. (Tagged for Spoilers:)There'd be no Galbatorix, for starters. He would have died when his dragon was killed by Urgals. That would have meant no Empire or ect. Brom is another example. He was able to get past his grief enough to live to be a real nuisance to the Empire that had killed his dragon. I'd be willing to bet Galbatorix WISHED Brom had died when his dragon had . Just a few thoughts.

 

Again, for whatever they are worth.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Silverswift

[Gingehfish]

Third, Meyer claims to be serious about her Mormon religion. However, Mormon religion speaks against vampires and werewolves so why in the world is she writing a love triangle involving them?

The Mormon religion does *not* speak against vampires and werewolves. Source: I *am* Mormon and never once have I heard this. Mormons, like most people, don't believe vampires and werewolves exist, and thus don't have a problem with them. We certainly don't have a ban on fiction about them.

Twilight contains several other themes that are not compliant with the Mormon religion, but this is *fiction*, not real life. In my opinion, at least, you can enjoy or write a book (quality aside), that includes characters that are not compliant with your own religion. What it comes down to is this: What makes a good story? Not everything a person writes needs to comply to their religion.

Feel free to disagree with me, however. I'm not going to get into an argument or a discussion about this; frankly, I have better things to do with my time...

Regardless: just because Stephanie Meyer and I share a religion doesn't mean I need to like her writing. Her book, in my humble opinion, was terrible.

[LeviathinGeneral]

eragon can't wait for book 5.

[CaesarZeppeli]

Since when is there a book 5?! Inheritance was the last. I read he was NOT writing another one. I tracked the books.

 

Edit: OMG I CAN'T WAIT!

Edited December 3, 2014 by ElementalMistressLuna

[DragonNighthowler]

disliking a thing and choosing not to read it and actively bashing it on a public forum are two different things.

 

So if we dislike something and have valid reasons to dislike it, we're not allowed to voice our opinions? We can only praise it, or choose to "not read" and be silent, less we offend likers?

 

Never understood why people took it in such a personal way. I love Burguer King hamburguers, and you'll never hear me say it's master cuissine just because I like it. I know it's garbage food, because that's what it is.

 

When we critizice a book, we're NOT questioning the reader's tastes. We're only focusing on the BOOK. The book does not belong to you, the book is not a representation of yourself, it is not a member of your family, nor your own creation. There is no logical reason to get deffensive over something that doesn't belong to you in any personal way, aside from you having (I guess) payed for it, which only makes you the owner of the copy, NOT the content.

[Red2111]

okay i'm a huge reader.

 

list of modern fantasy series i've read: Harry Potter, Narnia, Hobbit, Eragon (second book put me to sleep), Twilight Series (shudders), His Dark Materials, Fellowship (LotR, and only half, i couldn't even make it to Elronds house), Steelheart, Mistborn (didn't like this series tbh t couldn't vibe with the main characters), Stormlight Archive (1/2 through Radience, its good but gah it's long!) Wheel of Time, ASoF&I, Dark Tower Series (up to Wolves), Elantris, Percy Jackson Series (and 50% of the Olympians Saga), Warrior Cats Series (about 50% of the franchise), Elantris, Warbreaker, Dresden Files (first 3 books), HP Lovecraft (well this is technically scy-fy), Vampire Chronicles (up to Lestat) & Artemis Fowl series

 

 

so i have an eclectic background of styles and knowledge to base my opinion off of. i'm also an avid D&D player

 

that being said, i voted Both. because imo, as literature, both series are rubbish. their only redeeming qualities are that they got kids back into reading. but from a literary stand point i'd put them easily as the top of the list of "crappiest books ever written" as tied for first.

 

 

Twitard lacks any originality or depth what so ever. and having glitter covered fair vampires that are "vegan" is an abomination that should be burned in effigy. its blasphemy to even remotely consider this series fantasy. theres trying to put your own spin on well known and over used lore ... and then theres taking a class-a dump on a piece of paper and trying to make a quick buck. Meyer does the latter imo.

 

the characters are duplicates of each other in personality, and none (event he main characters) are fleshed out or have a sense of realism or relatability beyond the "teenage OMG MY FIRST BOYFRIEND WE IS TOGETHER 4EVER" infatuation era of any adolescent life. the morals and lessons it teaches females puts back the womens movement for independence and strength by at least 50 years; and there literally are no redeeming qualities or worth while role models in this series. any of her so called plot points are not founded in realism.

 

at best, the series is worth a few laughs for the angst in it ... but even then its used so thickly and smacking you in the face with it that the little enjoyment you might derive from such content wains after the first book.

 

people who even thought to compare this series to Harry Potter are beyond deluded (thought Potter isn't without its own faults mind you). comparing these two is like comparing a Viper to a Fiat.

 

 

 

Eragon. i'm not going to lie, i enjoyed the first book; it had its boring parts, and you can tell where the author borrowed heavily off of other series. but over all the main characters were likable, the story had an okay plot and it progressed nicely not to mention seemed to have room for growth.

 

BUT; 2 chapters it no the 2nd book, the series falls so flat of the expectations and shows a clear lack of development by the author on both a writing aspect and character growth aspect that i was beyond bored to tears.

 

add into the fact that i hate when an author *cough*Stephen King*cough* states "there will only be x-amount of books" then continues to write more because the series is a cash cow for them.

 

whats even worse for this series is that, the author wrote the first book when he was a teenager and given what i've glimpsed of subsequent books and read from other who did read the entire series; his quick ascent to fame has caused him to become stunted in any sort of growth as a writer and has built an ego the size of the moon.

 

if a writer is arrogant about his work, and his work is sub par and his plot and characters are nothing more than dopplegangers of more established authors characters and twists on well established plot lines *cough*Terry Goodkind*cough* ... i tend to not want to read

 

 

edit - if you thoroughly enjoy either of these series then remember this is my opinion (which i've made after actually reading at least on book of each series and comparing it to the works of more established authors)

 

i highly encourage anyone who enjoyed the above two series to check out the books in my list in white.

 

Eragon fans are sure to find more all of the series i listed up there in white enjoyable and pleasurable to read with an enriching atmosphere in the fantasy genre to immerse themselves with in and escape to.

 

for the twilight fans i cannot recommend the historical romance author (turned thriller/romance author) Iris Johansen enough. as well as any of Brandon Sandersons (specifically Mistborn, Warbreaker, Elantris). both of these authors write strong female centered books that show women being empowered and overcoming obstacles rather than being subservient (which twilight shows). Johansen in particular specializes in putting her central characters in abstract or often abusive situations to show them overcoming these challenges and growing into independent and strong females that are great for literary role models for women. (my personal favorites are "Golden Barbarian" and "Killing Game")

 

Sanderson writes very strong female characters as well, and for a male author has a great grasp on writing for the female perspective imo.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Red2111