# Generic



## M. LeRenard (Mar 13, 2008)

This board has been pretty inactive lately, so I'd like to start a friendly debate.
I've voiced my opinion several times about this, so I'm sure a lot of you know; I hate the book _Eragon_.  Every time someone asks me, 'what's the worst book you've ever read,' I give that title.  Despite my strong opinion, however, the book was still a nationwide bestseller, was printed in several different languages, and was made into a movie.  Several people who frequent this forum also stated their like for the book.
To me, this is a problem.  And _Eragon_ isn't the only example of this problem.  Popular fiction in general suffers from the same disease: the Generic.  The same crap, rehashed a million different times in a million different guises.  Whether it's Harlequin romance novels, Battletech science fiction, or anything published by Wizards of the Coast that's not a handbook, the most popular paperbacks are always the ones that resemble each other the most.
Since this is what I'm most familiar with, take fantasy books for an example.  When it comes right down to it, what's _Eragon_ about?  A boy with a simple life who finds a magical object which forces him to go on a journey and become a legend.  Now take _The Wheel of Time_; Rand is a guy with a fairly simple life, until the day he is chosen by two mysterious foreigners to go on a journey, after which he becomes a legend.  _The Belgariad_?  Garion is a boy with a fairly simple life, until he goes on a journey with his grandfather and ends up becoming a legend.  _The Sword of Truth_?  Richard is a forest ranger with a fairly simple life, until he meets a strange and beautiful woman; this meeting forces him to make a journey, during which he becomes a legend.  Something tells me I don't need to go on.
So what do all of these books have in common, besides being re-tellings of _The Lord of the Rings_?  They were all best-sellers.
So what am I getting at, here, you might be asking.  Well, it's this: publishing companies used to be fairly reclusive entities.  They would have well-educated editors who would pick through a couple dozen works every week to find good material, and they would publish that material.  They knew that their responsibility was to their society; it was their job to choose what kinds of literature the public was able to buy and read.  In a sense, they were helping to form the culture.
But that's not how things go anymore.  Ever since everyone decided that he could write a book himself, publishing companies couldn't support this kind of careful selection anymore.  When you have to deal with thousands of manuscripts a day, you simply can't sit back and carefully go through them.  The goal changed places; no longer was it about the responsibility of giving the people literature to read.  It was about keeping the company alive and flourishing.
So the technique changed to compensate.  Rather than sifting through a ton of books for really good ones, they came up with a clever technique: take something that's done well before, and do it again.  J.R.R. Tolkien's books did well?  Find every author who writes a book like that and publish them.
This worked great for the companies, of course, but they forgot something important.  They still had an impact on society.  With the coming of a large new generation (Baby-Boomers' offspring), the new audience for books didn't remember what the old audience liked.  They were raised on the copies of the books they liked best, and, when they finished those, they were fed other copies of that book, and then others, and then others.  It barely mattered anymore if the books were good or not; the publishing companies taught them well: if you liked this book, you'll LOVE this one!
So what happened to literature at this point?  It was thrown on the backburner, left to the 'intellectuals' and their taste for the dry and boring to read.  People didn't want to be 'intellectual' anymore; that meant they would have to broaden their horizons, read books of different themes and different levels of difficulty.  To say this a different way, people decided that they liked being stupid.
This tendency expanded to other forms of media as well: music (what do Brittany Spears, Jessica Simpson, and Jennifer Lopez have in common?  EVERYTHING), films (when was the last time something non-Hollywood-produced came to your local small-town theater?), television (just how many sitcoms ARE there?).  And people continue to eat them up.
In conclusion, then, what I'm saying is I have a good reason for not liking books like _Eragon_.  They're making society stupid.  And this, I feel, is a problem.  So all of you who enjoy this kind of literature, consider my words here.  And if you still don't understand, go read _1984_.

Alright, then.  Hopefully that got certain peoples' blood boiling.  Go ahead and tear my arguments apart; get a little life back into the writer's forum.  And into your _stupid, tiny, meager, idiotic brain cells_.  :wink:

(PS: To avoid disaster due to bad communication of vocal inflections through written words, that last sentence was sarcastic.)


----------



## twilightiger (Mar 13, 2008)

Oh god its true! Query letters for some publishers actually require demographic information for submission acceptance. Ie. What other books resemble the one you've written. What is your target audience. My answers. No one has ever written anything like I have. Otherwise they would have written it, not me. Target audience? Anyone who can actually read! The world is a market. Sell my book, let's both make money. 

Its a brave new world out there. I'll send my manuscripts to DAW thanks. As long as they still publish books of unparalleled literary aspirations we should get along fine.  

I agree with your statements about Eragon, the basic archetypal storyline of King *Freakin* Arthur has been hashed and re-hashed more times than I can count. It's so ingrained into the public consciousness it can't help but be popular. But the very idea of Eragon being on a best-sellers list makes my skin crawl. That book is an insult to writing. Not just because the style is bad, but because so much of it is just plain wrong! Theastic arguments that violate previously made statements. The errors in diction. Pick any page and it will be littered with mistakes editors twenty years ago would have balked at. I shudder to think that a generation of readers is growing up thinking Eragon resembles in any way shape or form what good writing should be. I personally, hold Eragon well above The Eye of Argon in terms of what not to do while writing a novel. The Eye of Argon can be read aloud while sucking back helium. Eragon can't. 

That said the only thing Eragon actually does well is market itself. Anyone who says they like it. Check out the amount of time he actually spent advertising the thing compared to actually writing it. (If my family owned a publishing company, I might be a best seller as well.)


----------



## Anubis16 (Mar 13, 2008)

I the plainest terms, I completely agree with you.  
However, seeing as I have never read Eragon I can only say so much.  But I do agree that there is a trend in many mediums of art to become commercialized.  As a result the "art" is watered down to the point where it is no longer art, and the meaning and purpose of the art gets lost in the sea of demographics and marketing.  

That is one of the reasons I have never been able to get into many fantasies.  They all feel exactly the same to me.  Often they try to throw in some twist to the clichÃ© plot line by adding some new feature to the setting, but when it comes down to it it's still the same crap that's been done hundreds of times.  I think writers also can lose track of the entire point of writing.  (this is a bit off topic, but I swear I'll get back on in a moment)  You're not JUST trying to tell
a story; the story itself should just be a means to an ends.  So often I have read a fantasy story that is nothing more than a story.  Even if it does divulge from the clichÃ© story line, when I am done reading the book I don't feel like there was any message the artist was trying to convey.  I my personal opinion, you could have the greatest most interesting story known to man, but if there is no message behind it, there's no point for me to read it.  

Back to the discussion.....

Since my knowledge in music far outweighs my knowledge in literature, let me give you an example.  (just bear with me)  I believe that most music made in the past twenty years has fallen into the same hole as fantasy writing.  The record companies actually control what goes into the music just so they can churn out as much money as possible.  There are bands that are literally formed by record companies putting together musicians who they think will make the most money.  They were even able to commercialize the punk rock movement!  PUNK ROCK!  The whole point of punk is to go against the establishment, not be controlled by it.  
Anyways, there is one band out there that I feel has stayed above the fray.  They're called The Mars Volta (I'm really not trying to promote my taste in music, just hear me out).  All of the music is composed by this brilliant, bordering insane, man named Omar Rodriguez-Lopez.  Even though they work through a major record, he has refused to let them influence his work.  No demographics.  He doesn't even let them mix his music; he edits all of his music by himself.  The result:  very little popularity.  However, I consider his music to be some of the most interesting music of our day that challenges everything I knew about music.  
When I show it to people who have never hear them before, their first reaction is usually WTF.  The problem is that it goes against everything they have been taught about what music should sound like.  However, I insist that they give it some time and let the music sink in.  The result?  Literally everyone who I have given the music to has come back to me in a few weeks in a fit of excitement telling me that the had an epiphany that the mars volt is amazing.  They have trouble listening to the music that they used to love because they realized how perverted the mainstream music was.  Most people have to unlearn everything they knew about music to fully appreciate an untainted band like The Mars Volta.  

Now, I know I've been ranting about some band that no ones ever heard of, but there is a point to all of this.  The fact is that as soon as you start setting limits on art just to please the audience, you pervert the art.  If people didn't care about making their works mainstream, then yes, they would probably have a smaller audience.  But the audience that they would be far more dedicated because the are would be, well, better.  

I hope I didn't divulge too far from the point you were trying to make.  It just set off a lot of sparks inside of me, and I needed to get this off my chest.


----------



## TakeWalker (Mar 13, 2008)

Truthfully, I'm more insulted that Eragon got published because the author's parents owned a publishing company.

When it comes right down to it, you've got two choices: you can either write what you consider 'literary' and hope that someone honestly likes it, lest your work be relegated to an intellectual elite; or write what the masses clamor for and hope that your execution of one of those ten done-and-done-again stories can be considered 'original'.

Me, I want to be noticed. If I get an idea for the next Great American Novel, I'll make sure to tell my publisher.


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 14, 2008)

Eh, this is one of those old arguments that bores me to tears, frankly.  There's always been crap and good stuff published; there's always going to be crap and good stuff published.  Publishing has always been a business and always will be.  Sure, I think it is more marketing-focused these days than maybe it has been, and the publishers have consolidated more than in the past, but otherwise this is the type of thing that strikes me as "kids today are all horrible, but back in MY day..."  

People have always complained about society being dumbed down and media pandering to the lowest common denominator.  And yet gold still shows up amid all the dross.

Besides, there's more out there than just the few big publishers.

Next topic, please.


----------



## psinoob (Mar 14, 2008)

I can't say I disagree with you but what your discussing is old news that affects almost all forms of media from music to T.V to movies to video games. People want to be force fed the same generic crap because it makes them feel as if they know something without having to learn something goes against the grain. Everything has to be easily defined for people enjoy it. We are seeing a culture that prefers things to be dumbed down, whenever a movie like cranked or shoot em up can make money and whenever a book like Eragon can get more recognition than some of the better works out there. In a few more years we will probably still see movies about a boy with a simple life who finds a magical object which forces him to go on a journey and become a legend.


----------



## Xipoid (Mar 14, 2008)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> Eh, this is one of those old arguments that bores me to tears, frankly.  There's always been crap and good stuff published; there's always going to be crap and good stuff published.  Publishing has always been a business and always will be.  Sure, I think it is more marketing-focused these days than maybe it has been, and the publishers have consolidated more than in the past, but otherwise this is the type of thing that strikes me as "kids today are all horrible, but back in MY day..."
> 
> People have always complained about society being dumbed down and media pandering to the lowest common denominator.  And yet gold still shows up amid all the dross.
> 
> ...



_With a stoke of the sword and a swish of the tip!_
I mean you no offense, but you seem a bit jaded.


As for the topic, all I can say is that the public wants what the public wants. Be it regurgitated rhetoric or new, thoughtful, and insightful.


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 14, 2008)

I just don't see the publishing business changing drastically anytime soon, so as a writer, you can either accept the publishers as they are and seek to work within that system (and learn to work it to your advantage), or seek alternatives like smaller houses, e-books, and/or self-publishing.

And -- although I hated Eragon too -- I also feel like the whole "anything popular got that way because it's dumbed down and people are stupid" argument has an element of intellectual elitism to it, and lately I find myself playing devil's advocate to that sort of thing.  Yeah, some things are popular due to mass appeal, which means they have to be many things to many people, which can dilute some aspects of the art in question, but... the whole subject just gets into a lot of huge generalizations about publishers, editors, and audience.  

I think too many people focus on the 90% of everything that's second-rate instead of the 10% that isn't, and they start to think that this ratio is somehow different today than it was years ago, when I don't really think it is, at least not drastically different.  Again, I really believe that there has always been both good stuff published and trash published, and that will continue no matter what.  I've read excellent fiction recently in many genres, including titles found via sources like Oprah's Book Club and the bestseller lists, which some might think would be havens for "popular" (generic) work.  

In short, there's still plenty of good stuff out there; maybe you just have to look a little harder to find it if the big publishers don't seem to be serving your needs.  And like all discussions of art, this also gets into matters of subjective taste and how much "originality" is truly possible in any fiction, let alone any particular genre.  I just don't see the point in taking a lot of time and effort to rail about all of it, except just to make oneself feel better and/or to seem more discerning.

And I admit that some of my reaction may simply be due to forum fatigue.   *shrug*  I think I need to get off these places for a while and stay more focused on my writing.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 14, 2008)

*sniff sniff*
I thought we were friends, PT.  

No.. but seriously, I see your point.  It's just that I'm one of those people who feels that it's no good to leave something like this lie, because I want it to change.  Obviously posting a thread about it in a furry writers forum won't help much, but there are always people who haven't heard this who, in my opinion, might benefit from it.
As for intellectual elitism, that's not the point.  I stopped considering myself a genius a long time ago, when I realized that I was actually a lot slower than a lot of other people.  But what I do do that billions of other people don't, and what has brought me a lot of happiness and success in life, is that I work hard.  I'm not trying to say that I'm so much better than you because I read thought-provoking books.  It's just that I've always felt that it's the trying that counts.  If you're an idiot, fine, so long as it's not by choice.  The problem is that, most of the time, it's by choice.  And if that comes across as intellectual elitism, well, maybe then it'll get people mad enough to prove me wrong, and I will have won.
The fact that this kind of dumbing down of society has been going on forever doesn't make it acceptable.  Me?  I'll try to find that 10% of companies that still have quality standards and see if they won't take my stuff.  But that doesn't mean I can't complain about the state of things every now and then.  And besides; I'm 21.  I've never even seen the good ol' days.  I just read about them in books, and it makes me feel cheated.
So there you go.  I'm just angry that it's so damn hard to find really good books.  I haven't read excellent fantasy for almost a decade, now.  It's starting to grate on my nerves a little bit.


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 14, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:
			
		

> It's just that I'm one of those people who feels that it's no good to leave something like this lie, because I want it to change.



I can understand that, but as I think you already know, the publishing industry is not going to change (at least, not the way you want it to change) from the top down.  I think technology is going to change it, as we move to more e-books and POD, and I think smaller publishers are going to continue to play a greater and greater role in bringing out the fresh new stuff because -- paradoxically, considering their budgets -- they can afford to take more risks, and in fact they have to do so, to differentiate themselves from the supposed pablum of the big houses.  Like any small business, they have to fill a niche or be swallowed up.

I think it's important to remember that there are also different types of readers.  Some people read strictly for relaxation and entertainment, and these people do not want to be challenged by their reading material.  To me this isn't a good or bad thing as much as it's just a thing that _is_, and since it's wrapped up in human nature, it's not going away.  I don't think these people are necessarily unintelligent; they're just not looking for the same things in their books as other people are.  Other readers prize originality above all, and it doesn't matter how well something may be executed if they feel like they've seen it before.  I like to think that I'm somewhere roughly in the middle -- mostly I do like books that pose interesting scenarios and make me think, but hey, sometimes you just want what I call "beach reading," because reading is a recreational activity as much as an intellectual one.  Sometimes you just want to hear an entertaining story.



> And besides; I'm 21.  I've never even seen the good ol' days.  I just read about them in books, and it makes me feel cheated.



I'll just quote Billy Joel then (who has been aptly described as the iceberg lettuce of pop music): "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."  >^_^<



> I haven't read excellent fantasy for almost a decade, now.  It's starting to grate on my nerves a little bit.



Well, I don't know your taste in fantasy, but have you read _The Name of the Wind_ by Patrick Rothfuss (I think I have his name right)?  Something like 800 pages and I couldn't put it down.  Gorgeous writing, but at the same time very accessible and visual.  There's also _The Stolen Child_ by... Keith Donohue?  I think the last name is right, not sure about the first -- which struck me as being in the gray area between "fantasy" and "literary" fiction.  And although even mentioning the name "Stephen King" can start a whole new set of argu-- er, discussions -- I was impressed with _Duma Key_, perhaps more for its real-world aspects than even for its supernatural elements.

Of course, I'll argue to anyone who'll listen that the best fantasy and science fiction being published today is being published for the YA market (even though that segment has at least its full share of dross).  Then again, my tastes are eclectic, so your standards of excellence may differ substantially from mine.  >^_^<


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 14, 2008)

> I think technology is going to change it, as we move to more e-books and POD, and I think smaller publishers are going to continue to play a greater and greater role in bringing out the fresh new stuff because -- paradoxically, considering their budgets -- they can afford to take more risks, and in fact they have to do so, to differentiate themselves from the supposed pablum of the big houses.


Ah, but there's the question.  Will it change it, and will it change it for the better?  I know there are some people who claim that the Internet is ruining the arts (though I don't completely agree, but let's go with this for arguments' sake); basically, since there are no editors or even rules online, you can put any amount of idiotic crap you want there.  Then the good stuff gets drowned out by the crap.  Which, frankly, doesn't change anything except that the crap that overshadows it becomes unedited crap rather than edited crap.  So we'd still have a problem.


> because reading is a recreational activity as much as an intellectual one.


Maybe this is where you and I differ to the greatest extent, because I've never found it fun to read pointless adventure stories or what have you.  But, then again, I don't know if I can make a case for this, because I've also never found it fun to go to parties, to have a drink with friends, to go on rides at the carnival, or anything most other people like to do.  I often wonder if I've ever actually had fun.  Heh heh... maybe that's my problem.

As for the rest, I'll write down the names of those books you mentioned and try to find them somewhere.  Here's to hoping I enjoy them.


----------



## Anubis16 (Mar 14, 2008)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> And -- although I hated Eragon too -- I also feel like the whole "anything popular got that way because it's dumbed down and people are stupid" argument has an element of intellectual elitism to it, and lately I find myself playing devil's advocate to that sort of thing.  Yeah, some things are popular due to mass appeal, which means they have to be many things to many people, which can dilute some aspects of the art in question, but... the whole subject just gets into a lot of huge generalizations about publishers, editors, and audience.
> 
> I think too many people focus on the 90% of everything that's second-rate instead of the 10% that isn't, and they start to think that this ratio is somehow different today than it was years ago, when I don't really think it is, at least not drastically different.  Again, I really believe that there has always been both good stuff published and trash published, and that will continue no matter what.  I've read excellent fiction recently in many genres, including titles found via sources like Oprah's Book Club and the bestseller lists, which some might think would be havens for "popular" (generic) work.



I don't think the issue here is that there aren't good books coming out.  A agree that there are probably the same percentage of new books that are good than in the past.  The problem in my opinion is that there is more of a focus on the 90% than on the 10%, and that the mediocre is the mainstream.    

Call is what you will, but I don't think its totally fair to call it elitism.  If anything its cynicism.  After all I AM reading these crappy books, watching these crappy movies, and listening to this crappy music.  I'm a sheep.  Yeah, thats right.  I just called myself a sheep.  BAAAA BAAAAA BAAAAAAAA.   Perhaps my head is very far up my ass, but that doesn't change the fact that I think in the past 10 years there has been far to much focus on the mediocre so that it's become the mainstream.  

I don't know enough about the publishing process the bash the big publishers, and frankly I don't really care who's to "blame" for this.  Because you're right, there probably isn't anything that can be done to stop this.  Yeah, ultimately we're just a bunch of random people discussing stuff that won't have an impact on anything, but I'll be damned if I can't rant about it anyways.  Besides, isn't that what the internet was made for (besides porn)?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 14, 2008)

In any case, so far this hasn't been much of a debate.  I've gotten a whole bunch of "you're totally right!"s, and a couple more "this is a boring worthless old argument"s.
How about we _laissons la parole_ to the people who enjoyed _Eragon_, and have them tell us why they're not stupid for liking it (and yes, I know a few people who I consider pretty bright who still liked the book).  Because if it's not society being spoon-fed idiot material for so long, I'd like to know why the hell that book sold so damn well.  Since I'm not going to solve all the world's problems, and since (as debates tend to go) the subject is more complicated than I made it seem at the beginning, I'd at least like to get a clearer idea for myself of where we went or did not go wrong.

Just to make a note here: sometimes when I play argument with people, I deliberately make myself think like a radical to support one side (which often times gets out of hand, but that's the fun of it).  This doesn't necessarily reflect my true beliefs (which, in the end, don't really exist, because I have the annoying habit of believing everything everybody else says when I first read it).  So try not to get angry with me.  I'm just trying to liven up this forum, like I said at the beginning, because it's been weeks since anything interesting's happened here.  Kay-o?  That was the point of this thread.  Discussing a serious topic doesn't always have to be a serious process.


----------



## TakeWalker (Mar 14, 2008)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> I just don't see the publishing business changing drastically anytime soon, so as a writer, you can either accept the publishers as they are and seek to work within that system (and learn to work it to your advantage), or seek alternatives like smaller houses, e-books, and/or self-publishing.
> 
> And -- although I hated Eragon too -- I also feel like the whole "anything popular got that way because it's dumbed down and people are stupid" argument has an element of intellectual elitism to it, and lately I find myself playing devil's advocate to that sort of thing.  Yeah, some things are popular due to mass appeal, which means they have to be many things to many people, which can dilute some aspects of the art in question, but... the whole subject just gets into a lot of huge generalizations about publishers, editors, and audience.
> 
> ...



You're already married, right?  Because I am seriously loving you right now.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 15, 2008)

Alright, fine.  I get the point: it's a question of culture and not intelligence, and I'm just trying to make myself look smarter by bringing it up.
So now that we've got that clearly established, could someone explain, at least, why _Eragon_ in particular was so popular?  Because even looking at it from a cultural standpoint, I don't get it.  It was so amateur, it hurt.  Was it just good marketing (in which case, do people really trust the publisher's opinion over their own?), or was there really something in it that made people like it so much?  Or is it more complicated than that?


----------



## TakeWalker (Mar 15, 2008)

Amateurish art can be appreciated by amateurs, unfortunately. If seeing the movie was any indicator (no, I'm never reading that damn book), it's the kind of thing that tweeny emo kids would absolutely lick up. The protagonist is a whiny shit, but in the end, he gets to fulfill a cool prophecy and *gets a dragon*, and that kind of wish fulfillment resonates with the fourteen year old who thinks his parents are ogres and that school is prison and no one understands him woe and cutting and poetry.

If there's more to it than that (I think advertising might play into it as well), I haven't the means to suggest what it might be.


----------



## Keaalu (Mar 15, 2008)

TakeWalker said:
			
		

> Amateurish art can be appreciated by amateurs, unfortunately. If seeing the movie was any indicator (no, I'm never reading that damn book), it's the kind of thing that tweeny emo kids would absolutely lick up. The protagonist is a whiny shit, but in the end, he gets to fulfill a cool prophecy and *gets a dragon*, and that kind of wish fulfillment resonates with the fourteen year old who thinks his parents are ogres and that school is prison and no one understands him woe and cutting and poetry.



This. *points up*

Plus, I've seen a number of teenage-novelists on various sites who are firmly convinced their first novel will sell like hotcakes based off "the Eragon business model" - one even said he was estimating he'd sell about 80,000 copies and rake in over $5million in the *first couple of months* for it. 

Hope springs ever eternal, I guess?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 15, 2008)

Yes yes... but not every American is a 14 year old angsty anti-society kid.  A large number of the demographic who read the book were adults.  Little kids I can understand; they have no idea what quality really means yet (although it's a shame that so many kids now think that _Eragon_ is quality).  But adults?  They should know better.  I mean... the book freaking outsold _Harry Potter_.


> Plus, I've seen a number of teenage-novelists on various sites who are firmly convinced their first novel will sell like hotcakes based off "the Eragon business model" - one even said he was estimating he'd sell about 80,000 copies and rake in over $5million in the *first couple of months* for it.


And the saddest part is, they just might be right.  Ever since _Eragon_ came out, publishing companies all over the world have been reaching out for young authors.  _Sword Bird_ is an example; written by a 14 year old, I think.  From what I've read, she didn't even really want it published, but it's in print now because her father phoned up a company and said, 'guess what?  My 14 year old wrote a book!'  And if reading the first couple of pages is any indication, it's about _Eragon_ caliber.
It even made me consider speeding up the process of my own book a little bit so I could have the age thing to back me up.  But in the end, I decided that I only want writing to be an occasional supplement to my income, and so it was more important to try to make a quality piece then to use the market to my advantage.  But I'm sure lots of young authors now are going to be wasting a lot of good paper writing out query letters for crummy teenage works.  But that's a whole other story.


----------



## quill (Mar 15, 2008)

I hated Eragon. I own the book, but only because it was a gift. So many ideas taken from other stories... all it did for me was make me mad. I refuse to see the movie.


----------



## TakeWalker (Mar 16, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:
			
		

> Yes yes... but not every American is a 14 year old angsty anti-society kid.  A large number of the demographic who read the book were adults.  Little kids I can understand; they have no idea what quality really means yet (although it's a shame that so many kids now think that _Eragon_ is quality).  But adults?  They should know better.  I mean... the book freaking outsold _Harry Potter_.



That last fact is rather frightening.

But adults can be stupid. They can be immature and in need of the same wish fulfillment. I dunno, man, it's a hard question, the answer to which is certainly filled with untold riches.


----------



## lobosabio (Mar 16, 2008)

I tend to be extremely weary of the "Good Old Days" argument.  You see, time tends to make us forget things and in this case it makes us forget all the crap that's come out.  For instance, in twenty years time, do you think anybody with remember Soulja Boy?  Probably not.  The same holds true for books.  If you start looking, you'll find loads of shit novels from any time period.  

As for how "fad books" (e.g. Eragon, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc, etc) get popular, I have no idea.  Off the top of my head, there's a sort of stereotype that Twilight fans are simply crazed fangirls that can't tell the difference between writing and random markings on the wall.  But I don't believe that.  For god's sake, my creative writing teacher liked that novel so these sorts of things must appeal to more than just people who's idea of literature is foreign film subtitles.  Perhaps it's just another one of those unquantifiable things about writing.  Perhaps not...


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 17, 2008)

I read _Swordbird_; if you handicap for the author's age, it was not that great; if you judge it purely on its own, it was awful.  Ultimately, to those who haven't read it, imagine a Redwall fanfic with bird characters, and that's pretty much it.  The only good thing about it was the illustrations and a character who appeared for all of two pages.  And when I dared to say this (in more polite terms) in a two-star review on Amazon.com, and then posted a thread topic in an LJ community about young writers and whether publishers are just looking for a gimmick, I got the attention of some... (searching for polite words here, since this is a public forum) person who was very, very biased in favor of the author (a relative, possibly?) hounding me by email accusing me of being jealous and mean to kids, and then sending me a "quiz" to prove that I had really read the book.  >9_9<  Since then, I note with some amusement that there have been more two-star reviews after mine, and I think at least one one-star.  I wonder if they got the same welcome wagon I did.  

As far as the young author thing goes, I kind of feel sorry for them, not so much because I think they'll be embarrassed by having juvenilia on display in years to come -- even though I know from personal experience that you don't always want to be constantly associated with something you did at thirteen, especially when PR and novelty may have played a part -- but because I think it puts too much pressure on authors whose style and voice are still developing.  (There are plenty of _adult_ first-time authors who freeze at the prospect of a second book, after all.)  I wonder if some young authors run the risk of becoming slaves to a series they came up with when they were teens, even after they might want to abandon it and do something else.  

And I also wonder if there's a tendency there to rest on one's laurels, so that they actually mature as writers more slowly than those who are just working away in the dark.  (For example, Amelia Atwater-Rhodes, who was known for publishing the vampire book _In the Forests of the Night_ as a teen something like ten years ago, has continued publishing and has improved, I think, with the new avian/serpiente shapeshifter series she's done, but in some ways  --particularly dialogue -- her adult characters still sound like teens, and some aspects of character still come off as more shallow than you'd expect from someone with several books under her belt.)

As far as _Eragon_ goes, I don't get it either, but I think that wish-fulfillment aspect of it has a lot to do with it, and the age of the author has a lot to do with it.  The age aspect provided a good story to go along with the fiction, which got it loads of attention and buzz, which made people check it out.

Thinking about it more, I think I might have liked Eragon somewhat better if, say, I'd never read any of Anne McCaffrey's Pern books, or _The Lord of the Rings_, because the main thing I remember about reading _Eragon_ (and frankly I don't remember a great deal about it; I generally read a few books a week and things start to blur together -- I can usually remember whether I thought a particular book was good or not, but not the finer details of plot, style, etc) is that it sounded like a rehash of those two things, and I couldn't get beyond that to feel any real connection to the characters.  I admit, originality is not _always_ high on my list of priorities, but in this case, I think the characters just felt like extras walking in from those other properties.

So -- that being said -- I wonder if part of the success is just that, because of the advertising he got due to the novelty factor of his age and "success story", he reached readers who probably hadn't read a whole lot of fantasy (adults and kids -- admittedly, I think kids are more discerning readers than most adults give them credit for -- at least, most adults who don't write for kids -- but in this case, it's a question of how much experience they have with the genre) and so they didn't have any defenses up because of it feeling like a retread.  Everything's new to someone discovering it for the first time.

The odd thing is, of course, that there have been other books that essentially take familiar elements and combine them... but I suppose the combination is a little more artful and deliberate?  It's been pointed out that Rowling took the standard British "school story" and added fantasy, thus being able to exploit the strengths of both genres, and Naomi Novik's wonderful Temeraire novels are, at their core, a mash-up of historical fiction and fantasy.  I guess the difference is that those combinations use one aspect to play off of another (a fantasy element and a non-fantasy element), whereas Paolini was basically making fantasy stew...?


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 17, 2008)

TakeWalker said:
			
		

> You're already married, right?  Because I am seriously loving you right now.



Yes.  But I'm willing to graciously accept courtly love, especially if it comes with gifts.  *demure smile and curtsy*


----------



## TakeWalker (Mar 17, 2008)

I have liek ten bucks, I could buy you some chocolate. D:

Also, I forgot the Pern angle. The Eragon movie did feel like a crappy, self-insertion, wish-fulfillment Pern fanfic written by a fifteen-year-old, which, hey...

And when I rag on the guy's age, it's coming from the perspective of someone who is, indeed, horribly embarrassed by everything he wrote ten years ago. I was full of myself; I don't think I've met a high schooler who wasn't, you just don't notice it at that age. Everything I wrote back then was completely _stupid_. I may have had one or two good ideas, but these were adrift in a sea of self-insertion characters, lesbians for lesbians' sake, and "OMG BIGG SORDZZZ".

And in ten years, I'm sure I'll think that everything I'm writing now is stupid, too.

Am I saying that 15-year-olds can't be good writers? No. But you're more likely to find self-absorbed authors with shallow characters.


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 17, 2008)

TakeWalker said:
			
		

> And in ten years, I'm sure I'll think that everything I'm writing now is stupid, too.



Quite possibly, since that implies improvement, but on the other hand, remember that you can't think about that sort of thing while you're writing now, lest you drive yourself completely bonkers. 

I mean, some of my earliest poems (okay, most of my earliest poems) suck if you're just looking at them by themselves, and judging them that way.  But you can see little glimmers there of where I was going, and I think they're valuable for that.  I'm not ashamed of the fact that many of them appeared in print, either (though yeah, it helps that we're talking about small publications and not a book on a library shelf somewhere).  They're reflections of who I was and what I was doing then, and while that's more of a sentimental value than a literary one, there's still worth there.  It's important to have goals and look ahead and strive forward, but it's also important to honor where you've been -- for the good stuff and the dreck, because it's all part of the journey.

That's why, even though I agree that it's hard for teens to really get out of their own heads, just because of brain chemistry and worldview and life experience and all that, I always kind of cringe when I hear someone (usually a Great Published Author) espousing the belief that you have to write _x_ number of years or _x_ number of words before you can (or should) be published (as though publication were the earned culmination of a career instead of an ongoing aspect of it).  We all have strengths and weaknesses, we're all where we are right now, and as long as our reach is always exceeding our grasp, that's what matters, not whether we've proven ourselves in regards to someone else's timeline or criteria.  

There's a quote somewhere in my notebooks to the effect of "every time you sit down to the blank page, every time you start a new project, look upon it as a chance to explore where you and your writing are now."  Looking at it that way, who knows -- in years to come maybe I'll check out Paolini's latest work and be impressed.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 17, 2008)

> And when I dared to say this (in more polite terms) in a two-star review on Amazon.com, and then posted a thread topic in an LJ community about young writers and whether publishers are just looking for a gimmick, I got the attention of some... (searching for polite words here, since this is a public forum) person who was very, very biased in favor of the author (a relative, possibly?) hounding me by email accusing me of being jealous and mean to kids, and then sending me a "quiz" to prove that I had really read the book.


This kind of thing happens a lot with _Eragon_ as well (it's actually the reason the website anti-shurtugal.com was started; the folks who wanted to critique the book were being flame-warred into submission every time they mentioned something bad about it).  That sounds to me like either young fans who are proud of their generation's _Lord of the Rings_ or _Redwall_ or what have you, or, as you said, relatives trying to make that many more dollars off of their 'child prodigy's' work.  I know in Paolini's case, the media, too had a lot to do with his success, because you can find numerous interviews with him online, with the newscaster introducing him as 'the next Tolkien' or a 'child prodigy' or what have you (which, frankly, is ridiculous, because he didn't actually write the book at age 15.  He started then, and finished it at 19.  At 19, I was writing at his level too).  Or it could be that people for some reason lower their standards when reading a book written by a young person.  The way I see it, if people are going to be calling someone a child prodigy, the book better well back it up.


> And I also wonder if there's a tendency there to rest on one's laurels, so that they actually mature as writers more slowly than those who are just working away in the dark.


I haven't read it (and I don't think I ever will), but I've heard numerous people (even fans) say that _Eldest_ was worse than _Eragon_.  And it also won the 'Worst Book of the Year' award from Entertainment Weekly in 2004, or something.  So there might be something to that.


> I guess the difference is that those combinations use one aspect to play off of another (a fantasy element and a non-fantasy element), whereas Paolini was basically making fantasy stew...?


That, and he didn't exactly add anything interesting or new to the genre.  It was interesting and new for him, I'm sure, and for a lot of the much younger readers who are his audience, but I don't remember anything in the books that struck me as original, or even a twist on an old concept.  Actually, there's a great article on Anti-Shurtugal explaining just how closely the first book resembles Star Wars.  If you call Saphira R2-D2 and Eragon Luke, it all kind of clicks together.  It's amazing.


> Am I saying that 15-year-olds can't be good writers? No. But you're more likely to find self-absorbed authors with shallow characters.


What PT said in regards to this, although I do think that it's better to wait before you start sending your stuff out for publishing, if only because you should have better things to do in high school than deal with the publishing world and the media.

So then what about the greed factor?  Are most of these kids who are 'inspired' to write because of Paolini's success just doing it for the money, and is that, in the end, a reasonable goal for writing?


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 17, 2008)

I don't think it's greed, or not greed for money, anyway.  I think most kids and teens aren't thinking of being rich from writing as much as famous or respected (what the adults in their lives might be thinking is a different matter -- "hey, if that kid's book made all that money, then MY kid's book...").  Let's face it, though, there are plenty of _adults_ who don't want to be writers as much as authors -- they want their name on that cover but don't want to do the work to learn the craft.  I can sympathize.  

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that teens are getting inspired to write with the idea of having it published -- I think most of us write with at least the hope of publication someday.  For good or ill, time and effort will winnow out those teens who don't really want to write for its own sake, just as they do for writers of every other demographic.  There are loads of easier ways to get famous and make money, after all.  

As far as money being a goal... *wince*  It's kind of unrealistic to me, any way you slice it.  For every Rowling or King or other household name who actually makes a living from creative writing (as opposed to making their main income from teaching, leading workshops, or writing nonfiction), there are thousands who will always need some kind of day job to pay the bills.  Even if you can put out solid stuff like clockwork, you still have to sell it, until you start getting multi-book contracts and the like.  There's money in writing nonfiction for magazines, freelancing and so on, but not in fiction -- at least, no more reliably than hitting the lottery jackpot.

Someone once said that if you make money from your writing, look at it as if you've found a $20 while walking the dog.  It's great, but if you walk the dog next time and don't find a $20, it doesn't mean you're a bad dog-walker, and you should continue those walks regardless, because it's good for you and the dog.

(Yeah, I read wayyy too many books and articles on writing.)  >^_^<


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Mar 17, 2008)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> As far as money being a goal... *wince*  It's kind of unrealistic to me, any way you slice it.  For every Rowling or King or other household name who actually makes a living from creative writing (as opposed to making their main income from teaching, leading workshops, or writing nonfiction), there are thousands who will always need some kind of day job to pay the bills.  Even if you can put out solid stuff like clockwork, you still have to sell it, until you start getting multi-book contracts and the like.  There's money in writing nonfiction for magazines, freelancing and so on, but not in fiction -- at least, no more reliably than hitting the lottery jackpot.



I am ashamed to say this was one of my main motivations to start writing. But a few months ago, I finally gave myself a reality check. I still write, but because I enjoy it, not because I want to strike gold and become a bestseller. I just wish all the aspiring "writers" at my school would realise you can't just re-hash fantasy or describe a lot of gore in great detail and expect to become the next Rowling or King. :?



			
				Poetigress said:
			
		

> Someone once said that if you make money from your writing, look at it as if you've found a $20 while walking the dog.  It's great, but if you walk the dog next time and don't find a $20, it doesn't mean you're a bad dog-walker, and you should continue those walks regardless, because it's good for you and the dog.



Wow, words of wisdom. Do you know who said them?


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 17, 2008)

Unfortunately, no.  I think it was in a book on writing somewhere, and not in a magazine article, but I've read so many that I honestly can't remember.  Could maybe have been _Bird by Bird_... but maybe not.  Sorry.  :/


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Mar 17, 2008)

It's ok :3 In the end, the person saying the words isn't quite as important as the meaning of the words, right?


----------



## Kindar (Mar 18, 2008)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> Thinking about it more, I think I might have liked Eragon somewhat better if, say, I'd never read any of Anne McCaffrey's Pern books, or _The Lord of the Rings_, because the main thing I remember about reading _Eragon_ (and frankly I don't remember a great deal about it; I generally read a few books a week and things start to blur together -- I can usually remember whether I thought a particular book was good or not, but not the finer details of plot, style, etc) is that it sounded like a rehash of those two things, and I couldn't get beyond that to feel any real connection to the characters.



Not having read the Pern books, nor did I read Eragon, I on;y saw the movie, and it felt like a fantasy version of Star Wars.



			
				TakeWalker said:
			
		

> And when I rag on the guy's age, it's coming from the perspective of someone who is, indeed, horribly embarrassed by everything he wrote ten years ago. I was full of myself; I don't think I've met a high schooler who wasn't, you just don't notice it at that age. Everything I wrote back then was completely _stupid_. I may have had one or two good ideas, but these were adrift in a sea of self-insertion characters, lesbians for lesbians' sake, and "OMG BIGG SORDZZZ".



Interestingly enough, except for the few things I wrotewhen I was 10 or 11, I was never full of myself. the stories I wrote when I was 15 I knew were pretty much copied from bunch of stuff, and I spent the years after that looking for people to tell me that my stuff wasn't good. 

I'm just now reaching the point where I think my work has some potential, that some of it "might" be worthy of being published.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 19, 2008)

Aw gee... double post.  Read the next one.  I haven't done this in a while.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 19, 2008)

> Someone once said that if you make money from your writing, look at it as if you've found a $20 while walking the dog. It's great, but if you walk the dog next time and don't find a $20, it doesn't mean you're a bad dog-walker, and you should continue those walks regardless, because it's good for you and the dog.


That pretty much perfectly sums up my writing goals.  And my art goals.  Use it as the occasional supplement to a normal income, and the rest of the time just keep practicing.  That's such a _writerly_ way to put it, though.

So then one more thing to talk about, because I'm running out of ideas for this thread.  What does everyone think about people like Mr. Paolini giving writing advice?  For example, in this interview, and in a number of others.  Is writing subjective enough that someone with such poor talent as Paolini can give advice on it without corrupting young minds, or should that be something left to the 'experts'?  Is there any merit to advice like, 'characters are just devices to move the plot forward', for example?
Kind of an ironic question, I know; I give people writing advice all the time.  Granted, it's advice I borrow from books written by experienced writers and editors, but there you have it.  Maybe an alternate form of the question could be, should we young writers stop giving out our bullshit advice to others?


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 19, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:
			
		

> Is there any merit to advice like, 'characters are just devices to move the plot forward', for example?



*blinks*  Er... there is if you reverse it to "plot is a device to move the characters forward."  >^_^<  But I guess if what you want is strictly plot-driven fiction, that view would help get you there.



> Kind of an ironic question, I know; I give people writing advice all the time.  Granted, it's advice I borrow from books written by experienced writers and editors, but there you have it.  Maybe an alternate form of the question could be, should we young writers stop giving out our bullshit advice to others?



Eh, everybody gives advice, it makes us feel important and happy and loved and respected.  We're part of a tribe; it's natural to want to share what we've found and hear from others, especially when the actual work can be so maddeningly solitary (and so difficult to talk about in terms that, you know, don't make us sound either psychic or completely nuts).  At the same time, though, I think we have to keep in mind that we're all (and I'm using "we" in the global sense, all writers of all levels, not just "we" on this forum) giving advice based on our own personal worldviews and experiences, and as they say on the 'net, your mileage may vary.  

If somebody's serious about learning their craft, they should be seeking out everything about it that they can get their hands on anyway, and the more they learn and explore, the bigger range of techniques they'll encounter, including advice that contradicts what they learned earlier.  And then the fun begins -- asking yourself, what works for me?  What works for this story?  And everyone can give advice, but no one else can definitively answer those particular questions.  So I don't know how much even the worst author imaginable could really influence (corrupt?)  someone who isn't just taking advice from one source.

Personally, if I had to give only one piece of advice to any writer, of any level of skill or experience, it would be this: *Listen to everyone's advice, and always be willing to experiment and try out whatever they're advising, but find what works for you and gets you closer to where you want to go -- and as long as it's working, stick with it no matter what advice contradicts it, or where that advice comes from. * Don't feel like you have to do something a certain way just because some famous author said it was the best way.  It's the best way for _them_, and try it because it could work for you, too, but if it doesn't work for you, it's not _your _best way, so pitch it.  Every writer is an individual, and every story is different.

Admittedly, that's all referring to advice in terms of the craft of writing itself.  Advice about things like publishing, sending your work out, promotion, is a little more objective, since it's not quite as dependent on personal experiences.  (And the best advice I can give from that field is "follow the guidelines.")


----------



## TakeWalker (Mar 19, 2008)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> Someone once said that if you make money from your writing, look at it as if you've found a $20 while walking the dog.  It's great, but if you walk the dog next time and don't find a $20, it doesn't mean you're a bad dog-walker, and you should continue those walks regardless, because it's good for you and the dog.



WAIT WHO SAID THIS

I'm putting it in my signature and I will read it every day until I _memorize_ it and _believe_ it. Because DAMN.


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 19, 2008)

Dang, now I _really_ wish I could remember.  >^_^<  It could have been from _The Forest for the Trees_, and it could have been from _Escaping Into the Open_, but both of those have gone to the used-book store, so I can't check.  Maybe I'll try plugging a phrase into Google and see if it's quoted someplace else.


----------



## Anubis16 (Mar 19, 2008)

Poetigress said:
			
		

> I mean, some of my earliest poems (okay, most of my earliest poems) suck if you're just looking at them by themselves, and judging them that way.  But you can see little glimmers there of where I was going, and I think they're valuable for that.  I'm not ashamed of the fact that many of them appeared in print, either (though yeah, it helps that we're talking about small publications and not a book on a library shelf somewhere).  They're reflections of who I was and what I was doing then, and while that's more of a sentimental value than a literary one, there's still worth there.  It's important to have goals and look ahead and strive forward, but it's also important to honor where you've been -- for the good stuff and the dreck, because it's all part of the journey.



Being a 16 year old "writer" myself, I can definitely say that I don't do it because I think I'm a good writer.  In fact, I think I'm a rather awful writer.  Even if my writing is usually self indulgent and the characters are rehashes of myself, that's frankly all I'm really looking for in this stage of my life.  

I suppose people write for different reasons.  Some do it for a living, some do it to see their name on the best sellers list, and some just do it because they love doing it.  The reason I write is because I want a record of the way I thought as a teenager.  I've always thought that writing is a window into the way a person's mind works, and I think there is great value in having some kind of record of the thoughts of a teenager.  Not everyone at my age thinks like Holden Caufield after all.  
I won't pretend to know very much about the world, but there is still merit in understanding the thoughts of a self-indulgent human being who thinks everyone's out to get him.


----------



## Alchera (Mar 24, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:
			
		

> This board has been pretty inactive lately, so I'd like to start a friendly debate.
> I've voiced my opinion several times about this, so I'm sure a lot of you know; I hate the book _Eragon_.  Every time someone asks me, 'what's the worst book you've ever read,' I give that title.  Despite my strong opinion, however, the book was still a nationwide bestseller, was printed in several different languages, and was made into a movie.  Several people who frequent this forum also stated their like for the book.
> To me, this is a problem.  And _Eragon_ isn't the only example of this problem.  Popular fiction in general suffers from the same disease: the Generic.  The same crap, rehashed a million different times in a million different guises.  Whether it's Harlequin romance novels, Battletech science fiction, or anything published by Wizards of the Coast that's not a handbook, the most popular paperbacks are always the ones that resemble each other the most.
> Since this is what I'm most familiar with, take fantasy books for an example.  When it comes right down to it, what's _Eragon_ about?  A boy with a simple life who finds a magical object which forces him to go on a journey and become a legend.  Now take _The Wheel of Time_; Rand is a guy with a fairly simple life, until the day he is chosen by two mysterious foreigners to go on a journey, after which he becomes a legend.  _The Belgariad_?  Garion is a boy with a fairly simple life, until he goes on a journey with his grandfather and ends up becoming a legend.  _The Sword of Truth_?  Richard is a forest ranger with a fairly simple life, until he meets a strange and beautiful woman; this meeting forces him to make a journey, during which he becomes a legend.  Something tells me I don't need to go on.
> ...




I know well what you mean. The Paolini boy got in due to chance and connections. Had he submitted that manuscript to an agency or an editor with significant experience, I highly doubt he would have been published. I see so many errors storywise, and mechanical-wise, that I consider Eragon, and Eldest, to be a Bible on what _not_ to do in novel writing.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 24, 2008)

> I see so many errors storywise, and mechanical-wise, that I consider Eragon, and Eldest, to be a Bible on what not to do in novel writing.


Therein lies the value of the book, then, I suppose.  So long as people use it that way.


----------



## kitreshawn (Mar 30, 2008)

I think that there is a lot of missing the point here so I think it is important a distinction be made:

There is GOOD writing and there is POPULAR writing, and the two are not necessarily the same.

Honestly I think the big difference is the test of time.  Stop and think for a moment about if people are going to remember the Wheel of Time series or Sword of Truth series in 50 years.  Most likely not.  That is the problem with popular writing (even if you think it is good), it is written for a particular audience that exists at a particular time.

Secondly, people need to not be surprised at publishing companies.  They are companies and exist to make money.  Contrary to what you might think publishers never cared about only giving out what they thought was "good" material for people to read in order to expand the horizons of man or some BS like that.  Their job is to find a book everyone else thinks is good and publish it so they can sell it to turn a profit.

Consequently what happens when a book like Wizards First Rule comes out and is a big hit?  Publishers go out and find more books like it!  The content of the book does not matter to them beyond the question of "will it sell in today's market?"  Consequently they are loathe to take a risk on something unknown when they know that the formula of humble boy + sudden quest + special ability works so well to sell a book.

And as an aside I think I should also point out that there are themes that pop up in most stories but there is a reason for that.  As much as people might like to deny it there are things that we like to read about in stories and these themes have been around forever.  Read the The Chronicles of Prydain sometime and you will see what I mean.  Same formula of some simple boy who becomes a legend (and also gets a beautiful wife).  Walks through his life from a boy who believes adventuring is glorious to a mature man who is much wiser about the ways of the world.  Very cliche.  Oh, and did I forget mention it was based off of the legends that had been around for god knows how long?

The problem is not cliche, the cliches are there for a reason.  Because they work and because it is what people want to read about.  Rather what separates something good from something merely popular is that it gives the cliche a new twist or touch that gives it a new freshness, something that is new to set it apart from all the other sameness.  Of course, as soon as this works it too will get grabbed up by the publishing companies as the new money making thing and get beaten until it too is cliche.

*shrugs* Nothing wrong with that either.  Just the way things are.  You cannot do anything about it other than realize that is how the world is and keep it in mind.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Mar 30, 2008)

> There is GOOD writing and there is POPULAR writing, and the two are not necessarily the same.


The problem is that a lot of the time people equate the two.  If so many people like it, it must be really good, right?  Obviously that's not always true, but that's the impression.
I dunno'.  I've been violently convinced at this point that popular culture isn't, in fact, going to ruin humanity and intelligence.  It just means I'm going to have to sift through a lot of crap to find the good stuff, is all.  Because, as Zedd from _Wizards First Rule_ said, "Nothing is ever easy."


----------



## Poetigress (Mar 30, 2008)

I've already said this in many more words, but -- good writing and popular writing are not always the same, but neither are they mutually exclusive.


----------



## twilightiger (Mar 31, 2008)

To answer, or at least to shed some light on how Poalini made Eragon so popular, one must understand the nature of marketing. 
In fact, his success doesn't seem at all to have anything to do with his abilities as an author. But more with how he generated interest in his work. 
He dressed up as a knight, went to a whole bunch of schools, and talked to kids his own age about his story. There you go. He did the legwork.
All those interviews, his family producing the book for him, the conventions he attended helped him gain recognition. Not as an AUTHOR but as a PERSON. People like what they can relate to yes, its key. But Poalini in effect didn't sell people on his book. He sold people on his STORY. I've seen it happen with art. 
For example, a local artist drew a picture of a group of black triangles made up of dots for a competition. Freaking dots! Not pointilism, dots. The 'story' behind the piece. Was that it was an expression of the dark feminine from a lesbian perspective. The judges absolutely loved the story and the newspapers ran wild with interviews of the artist.
No matter how popular people claimed it to be, it was still a triangle made up of dots. And Eragon was still a farmer with a whole lot of ontological problems.

I know it seems like a paradox. (It is, trust me it is) How can something so inherently flawed be considered good? Well, Warhol made a soupcan into art. Poalini wrote a popular book. Similarities between the two? They sold people on the idea that art isn't subjective to the artist, but can be interpreted entirely by the audience. The Fan's of Eragon have decided that its a good book. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So in closing remember this. Good marketing is about feeding you garbage and then making you think it tastes like candy. The truly greats can make you swallow it, and then convince you, that you alone of all people, failed to truly appreciate the taste.


----------



## lobosabio (Apr 1, 2008)

Marketing probably does play a part but at the same time it isn't the only thing that sells a story.  I mean, enough people have to like the story to get it popular in the first place.  You can market all you want but if the story sucks people are going to say it.  I really don't think people are buying the book just because they like the guy.


----------



## Anbessa (Sep 1, 2008)

the notion of Billy Joel being dubbed as 'Iceberg Lettuce of Pop Music' made my train of thought stop at the intersection for a moment. does this mean his records are like salad?

anyway, it seems like a lot of a mix of marketing, popularity and people wanting to be entertained in an 'Easy Listening' way of consummation. 
germany's publishing market is currently cluttered with 'brand-new, innovative' crime/horror/thriller novels which descriptive texts that mostly read like something Stephen King or others have already written in the 80's. I don't (and can't) read them all, so I can only guess that there is the same problem as with Eragon: publishers try to repeat a success. can't blame them, really; a book nobody wants to read can break a company's neck, so they rather look for 'new improved' recipes.
marketing doesn't always work, as anybody can see with all-new stuff that fails to appeal to the designated buyer group. in my experience the music heavily advertized on TV is there for a reason, it's because it wouldn't sell itself like so many other songs, originally published on the 'net, did. so they try the heavy approach...
but still, the really good marketings can sell you virtually everything and make you like it.

I myself am guilty of reading, and enjoying, books which repeat the same old story all over. in times I want to be entertained in a lightweight way, especially while at work, when I need to distract myself intellectually from work with a halfway decent book while chewing away my lunch. if I need something with more niveau, there are still authors around which make you dive headfirst into their stories, caught up in a sense of disbelief. the other books? if they fail to stay in memory after a few months they are likely to line the dustbin, thank you very much.
since books are expensive (a typical 600 page PB costs a whopping 12-16 â‚¬. come to think of it, before the Euro, many books that size where sold for 12-18 Deutschmark, which is almost half of the current euro... O tempora, O mores.) I tend to be picky with what I buy. also, shelf space is tight, and shall be reserved for the books that I would re-read many times over. I mean, is there anybody out there not enjoying the perilous exploits of a certain Chanur clan in deep space? or Mercedes Lackey's wondrous stories?

the same as with books seems to go on in movie industry. no, I am not referring to Hollyweird this time; everybody knows they love to create sequels That Shouldn't Be. no, german serial movie makers are desperately trying to copy the success US movies seem to have on german market... alas, it doesn't really work. it feels 'wrong', and their writing is rather subpar, centered around special effects, or car accidents, or whatever some producer deems relevant to the audience's tastes. some fantasy movie was content to repeat _every_ key scene three times from various, slightly different angles. *every bleeding key scene.* it was so annoying I don't even remember what everything was all about, it was so ridiculous... I have no idea where they had the notion such things were cool. I almost expected them to go matrix on fighting scenes, too, but the few swordplays there were I have seen done with more style and verve on your average medieval festivity.
but still people seem to enjoy that stuff. I guess they want mindless entertainment from time to time. stomping the niveau into submission underneath the carpet... whatever.

@Take-Walker: don't bother with the book. the Eragon movie was worse than the book, in terms of not making sense and being even more clichÃ©d that the book; however that was possible is beyond me, but it's there allright.

and if you hated the book, the movie will make you run amok. trust me.


----------



## Cryoforion (Sep 6, 2008)

> In any case, so far this hasn't been much of a debate. I've gotten a whole bunch of "you're totally right!"s, and a couple more "this is a boring worthless old argument"s.
> How about we _laissons la parole_ to the people who enjoyed _Eragon_, and have them tell us why they're not stupid for liking it (and yes, I know a few people who I consider pretty bright who still liked the book). Because if it's not society being spoon-fed idiot material for so long, I'd like to know why the hell that book sold so damn well. Since I'm not going to solve all the world's problems, and since (as debates tend to go) the subject is more complicated than I made it seem at the beginning, I'd at least like to get a clearer idea for myself of where we went or did not go wrong.



Ooh ooh! Pick me!

Well...sort of. I'm not going to defend Eragon specifically. Read the prologue, sensed the writing was meh, and didn't continue.

But. On the topic of the same old story being told over and over again...that has less to do with our culture and more to do with our species. And I don't think it's really a bad thing.

Anthropologists/literary historians/mythologists look over all the world and over all of history, and all the enduring myths that all the various cultures remember, and realize that they're _all the same_. Almost without fail. The story goes something like this:

*Dude lives in an ordinary place. But he's not entirely ordinary--there's something special about him (not counting is enormous sex appeal).

He gets a Call to go on a Quest to get a Prize for his community.

Option A: He answers the Call and goes in search of the Prize.

Option B: He ignores the Call, but his life turns miserable, so he changes his mind.

He enters the Woods.

He faces many Obstacles, but, through various heroic feats, he overcomes them.

He confronts Evil and experiences a Death-and-Rebirth.

Reborn, he wins the Prize and brings a boon to his community.*

You can see that it mirrors the typical Aristotelian plot-structure, but it's a little more specific. This _same story_ gets told again and again, everywhere, regardless of era, only with different names and places. Yes, the variations are significant (try comparing Eragon to James Bond  ), but the core of the story is always the same.

There's something built into us as human beings that makes us _love_ this story even though we've heard it a million times before. The Odyssey. Samson. Moby Dick. Mission Impossible. And my personal favorite, Balto.

So, why was Eragon successful? Partially because of good ol' luck. Partially because of marketing and the publishing industry. But also because it was _mythic_.

Which is not to say it wasn't crap. Mythic /= Quality. But, Mythic = Resonant.

Hence, we get the same particle-board-cut-outs rolling off the publishing company's conveyor belts. Nearly all of them have those mythic elements that make them (if not thought-provoking, if not artfully constructed, if not fleshed out and developed and fermented to perfection) resonant with a good chunk of the paying populace, and thus profitable.

I am a staunch advocate of the mono-myth. You can make whatever philosophical and anthropological conclusions about it you wish, but I think the core of it is that something in us likes to see a self-sacrificing hero rise from normalcy, grab the bizarre by the horns, _win_, and bring back the Prize to share with his family. (That, and it's a handy plot guide; it may not be a formulaic guarantee of success, but when I find unique, original ways to incorporate mythic elements into my stories, I find it makes a difference.)


----------



## KypDurron23 (Sep 6, 2008)

Ack, you guys make me feel bad for even reading the book in the first place.

I am one of those idiots who read it and thought...
"OMFG! SWORDZ! and DRAGONZ!" 

And then I got older....
"Haven't I read this somewhere before?"
I went to my shelf and pulled out the Iliad (that's how you spell it right?) and said, "Oh." :x


----------



## Anbessa (Sep 7, 2008)

don't feel bad. as Cryo pointed out, almost every story has the same topic, and all center around conflict, and the solving of said conflict.
except those rare horror novels without a halfway happy ending...

of course, there are exceptions, especially the scripts to seemingly endless soap opera series... -3-


----------



## ironwolf85 (Feb 5, 2009)

I admit I am occasionally inspired by other books, and art, but I never intentionally copy them. for example I just checked Poetigeress's writing for the first time, and I already had an idea developing along the same lines with my wolf Lupis. yet she had some things that resembled my work, though I never knew she existed before this forum. (and it turns out you are awsome)


----------



## Yorokonde2 (Feb 5, 2009)

twilightiger said:


> So in closing remember this. Good marketing is about feeding you garbage and then making you think it tastes like candy. The truly greats can make you swallow it, and then convince you, that you alone of all people, failed to truly appreciate the taste.



Ah! After my own heart there. I know far too much about business to blame companies for doing this. 

It would be nice if someone could found a publishing company more concerned with quality over likability, but the way society is headed I don't see it happening. Now without something to the equivalent of the modern Renaissance. 

Oh, of course there will always be a select few (and you know who you are) who try to find the odd and unusual quality works out there. But personally, I've contented myself with reading the quality of the work itself more then the underlying ideas. Because, after all, there are only 7 ways to tell any given story. Once you realize that, there isn't a whole lot of originality left anywhere.

But I'm getting off from what I wanted to say. I can suggest a few titles, if people are looking for something different then the norm.

_Pyromancer_ by Don Callander
   - While not an extremely unusual basis for a story, the telling of it makes this book awesome all on it's own. Well worth the time to hunt down.

_Forward the Mage_ by Eric Flint and Richard Roach
   - Where do I begin on this one? Written from the perspective of fleas inhabiting the main characters and following two separate but connecting adventures at once. Wholly original book in my opinion. 

_Villains by Necessity_ by Eve Forward
   - Good luck finding a copy of this, by the way. I paid 60 dollars for my hard cover copy and about half that for a soft cover to read. This book is unique in my mind as being on of the _only_ books where the bad guys of the world have to go off and save everything. The characters really make it for me in this one.

There is one other I much enjoy reading, but I shall not list it because it doesn't really fit into my argument. In any case, I just think everyone's digging too hard for something really original when original ways of telling a similar story can be just as entertaining. (See _The Redemption of Althalus_ by David and Leigh Eddings. Had to sneak it in. Love the book too much).


----------



## psion (Feb 10, 2009)

I can agree with the OP in a sense.  When I first read Harry Potter (yes, I read HP, love you too) I was... a bit surprised at first to find similar troupes in "Platform 14" and other, younger books.  But that's the problem with mass media... it's a giant sea of sameness.
As someone else who hopes to be published, I also face that problem.  I want to write something unique, that will be remembered, but on the other hand I can't entirely argue with Harry Potter's numbers or the ton of cash Rowling now has.


----------



## Poetigress (Feb 10, 2009)

psion said:


> But that's the problem with mass media... it's a giant sea of sameness.
> As someone else who hopes to be published, I also face that problem.  I want to write something unique, that will be remembered,



Don't confuse writing something unique with writing something original, though.  Depending on what measurements you want to use, it's either difficult, very difficult, or impossible to come up with a truly "original" concept that no one else has ever written.

What you want to do is write something unique, as in something that only you, with your style and experiences and insights and personality, could write.  Ideally, you'll be able to combine tired elements in a new way, give it your own personal spin, and, by doing that, fool people into thinking you're doing something "original."  That's what Rowling did.  In the end, I think that's pretty much what everyone does.  Everything echoes something else, because it's all part of the same human conversation.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Feb 10, 2009)

I've also recently come to the conclusion that even all famous literature copies each other, in that they all at some point become a retelling of the Passion of the Christ.  I'm reading Crime and Punishment right now, and just got slapped in the face with Jesus metaphors for Raskolnikov... same thing happened in Les MisÃ©rables with Jean Valjean, and I know from talking with English majors that you could find something very similar in a lot of other famous works (Bartleby, anyone?).
So you know what?  Unless it's for yourself, fuck originality.  You want to be a literary star, just throw in a couple references to something really old, couch it in a little symbolism, and you'll be the next Faulkner.  Not even uptight former-hippie literary geniuses want originality.

PS: Why is this topic stickied, anyway?  I've long since dramatically changed my mind.


----------



## Bladespark (Jul 24, 2009)

Because somebody appears to really love and adore stickies, given how MANY of them there are in this section, some of which are incredibly weird and random.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 25, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> And if you still don't understand, go read _1984_.


 
Or Brave New World. Or Fahrenheit 451...
Or on Society's tendency to completely avoid reality, The Stranger.


Or if you are lazy, and these books don't make sense, the film Idiocracy.


----------

