Talk:Christopher Paolini/Archive 1

Shameless Plagiarist?

In the Biography section we see the following claim: "Paolini has been realized as a shameless plagiarist. He has copied word-for-word passages from books written by authors such as J. R. R. Tolkien (passages from The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Silmarillion) and Philip Pullman (passages from the His Dark Materials trilogy)." This is an extremely pointed and serious accusation that, as far as I can tell, has no verifiable basis in fact. If there is no verification - with concrete examples of "word-for-word passages" copied from the examples cited, then this text should be removed, and frankly, the user that added this should be banned. I think Paolini's work is rotten - but plagiarism is illegal. This goes way out of bounds without verification.--Piperatthegates2 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but Paolini used the description "The Ancient Elves speak wisdom" which is a direct lifting from Tolkien.-Guest

Allright three things:

• OH NOES! HE COPIED ONE TENTH OF A SENTENCE FROM ANOTHER BOOK! Wait a second... I'm writing a book. Uh oh, I used the word "the" in it at least a hundred times so far! Tolkien used the word "the"! IM PLAGURISING TOLKIEN'S WORK! OH NO! OH NO! OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE IS GOING TO HATE ME FOR THIS BLATANT PLAGURISM! Listen guys, Paolini's book was very original considering the fact that, guess what, EVERYTHINGS BEEN DONE BEFORE! For his book all he did was try to incorporate aspects of different stories into one good story and change the setting, the plot a little, the characters, etc. What pisses me off is that every time a new work comes out thats popular, people always clame its a plagurism of past works. With Paolini, he has to put up with crap where people are saying stuff like "Its the exact same plot from Star Wars! A kid being rased by his uncle, his uncle being killed, and then him receiving a special power?! OMG BLATANT PLAGURISM!" So ya, he took three plot points from star wars... big woop. I can gurantee you every novel to come out in the last 10 years has taken at least 2 of its plot points from an existing story. If you have a problem with that, then lets see you try and make something 100% original instead of being a dick all the time.

• That section was obvious vandalism. The users should be banned, and I'm gonna level with you, I'm not sure I can bring myself to say "may God have mercy on their souls".

• Hey guest, if you don't have the balls to make comments on your regular acount then don't speak crap about others.

Sincerely, DurotarLord 13:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A Note to Haters and Lovers Alike

Disclaimer:I'm a critic myself. This is at the top so it gets across. Don't delete this. This page is for rational discussion. If you hate Inheritance, tell why. Yes, we all know the book is a rip-off of Star Wars and Tolkien, but if you want to get it across, you need to say what is wrong with Paolini's writing using well formed sentences, and thinking of the (albeit few) good things about this book. Don't forget spelling, either. However, Lovers, you need to spell correctly and rationalize your liking of the books. Also, don't forget to at least read www.Anti-Shurtugal.com, just to see the point the smart critics are trying to make. Signed, a drifter with no name. (80.247.146.169 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

Ah ah ah. I too dislike Paolini, Eragon, etc etc etc. However, this discussion board is meant for discussion on how to make the article more accurate and encyclopedic, NOT how much you like/hate the subject. That discussion belongs on Surtugal/Anti-Shurtugal, not here.

Here, I'll post why I don't like it. Bad characterization, Arya is a Mary Sue and her piercing green eyes and grace and everything is mentioned allt he time. She is supposedly wise but she and her escorts are wearing white and gold and have white horses while they're veterans of secretly transporting the most important thing against the Empire. You'd think they'd, I don't know, be muddy and camoflauged and dressed as travellers, not elves? The showing not telling? How evil is ugly? How Eragon tells two representatives of the Empire after an entire tavern is in a heated debate that "I could say clouds are green, that isn't proof" and then everyone becomes all quiet and praises his ingenuity that a four year old could think up. How Ajihad somehow is able to discern Murtagh is the son of Morzan because of Morzan's voice, which he says he last heard twenty three years ago...showing not telling...taking scenes from Tad Williams, Eddings...taking the concept from Dragonriders of Pern...taking races and names from Tolkien...how Ajihad, described as someone with 'skin like gleaming ebony' somehow 'darkens with rage'...the ridiculousness of having a dawn-red sapphire, and even though sapphires do come in pink, why is it not just a ruby? For that great old alliteration? Why is it called the Star Sapphire? I thought it was flower shaped? Why is it that in the first few versions (later changed after a few prints by Knopf) Zar'roc is five feet tall, and Eragon is described as 'flicking' the sword as an attack? Why can Zar'roc fit into Brom's pack without being obvious? Why does Paolini use every cliche in the book? Why must Eragon become an elf, having every wound ever healed? So what was the point of having the scar on his back in the first place? Why did Eldest spend fifty pages in a dwarf city no one remembers, for a conflict no one cares about? Why do we care about how Arya's bandages somehow gleam and throws a highlight into her hair? Why do we get such vivid images of Oromis impossibly eating fruit (such as 'rotating a strawberry...blahblahblah...illuminated the tiny hairs that bearded it'...a bearded strawberry? And Oromis somehow picking a blackberry apart without making a mess and each corpuscle 'vanishes between his port-red lips'.) Why does Oromis watch with almond eyes as birds 'pirouette overhead' (wtf?)? Why is Roran suddenly able to kill many trained soldiers with a hammer? Why is Eragon so perfect at everything? Why does it seem that Paolini is completely unable to write a fight scene that makes sense? Why do the Varden march from their major defenses in the end of book two, through clouds of poisonous gas and geysers, to confront a superior army? Why does Paolini think Murtagh being a rider was a good twist no one understood? Why did Ajihad have enough breath to speak about four paragraphs of a dying speech to Eragon and Arya, but somehow Eragon and Arya can't heal him? What the hell is with description after description of irrelevant things?

Basically....WHY DID EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK HAPPEN? - Krim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.15.93.110 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Duh, it happened because the flying spaghetti monster (aka Paolini) told it to... Shadoom1 05:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone, if you hate the book that much, then quit whining like a bunch of little girls about how bad it was and go jerk off or something to gay porn. I don't really care what you do, but piss off. I think Halo is one of the most overly hyped games of all time. People are all talking about how its "THE GREATEST GAME EVER!" even though it doesn't have the sales of other games, nor the quality of many. The only thing its got goin for it that most games don't is the ability for someone who doesnt know crap about a game to pick it up, and in fifteen minutes know how to play because its got such simple gameplay. The result is that complete newbs are all saying its awsome and playing it at a friends house or buying their own system just for it because they think its the greatest game ever only because they know nothing about games. But guess what, I'm not going over to the "Halo" discussion to mock the game because despite my personal feelings towards it, its still immesnly popular, and probably the best FPS on the XBox, just not the best FPS ever or even on consoles. DurotarLord 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Red-green colorblind --> Sees mostly blue?

I think the following statement is complete bullshit and should be removed -- or get a good quotation: "Paolini is red-green colorblind. He sees mostly in blue." I am red-green colorblind myself. This means that I cannot distinguish between red and green in insufficient lighting. But it does not mean that I can see "mostly blue"... 212.68.81.254 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I added that earlier and I'll edit it until I find a citation. Ignorance on my part, I'm sorry.--Spyderchan 03:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently outselling...

I like to be removed from the phrase "Eragon is currently outselling all Harry Potter books." It's dangerous to say "currently" because sales data can change in a moment. In any case, according to Amazon's sales charts, no Harry Potter books are outselling Eragon (probably because of the recent release of Book 6). TheCoffee 18:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if the name of the town is Paradise Valley, I have been to the town, and I believe it is only land of Paradise. Someone should check on that.SoI can spend my money everywhere.

It's Paradise Valley. Says it on the book jacket. -Bosco

I edited the page. If anyone wished to delete my comments or edit it do so.~Poppleganger

I editied this page also, but I did not edit the Terrible but if you see any mistakes above please correct them. I am only 12 years old and would like to say I for one really enjoy Chritopher Paolini's books and can understand why they may be outsellling Harry Potter books. It may be because custmers are now preferring to watch the Harry Potter movies than read the book, and since their are no Eragon movies they have no chance but to read the book. Have you ever thought of that? -Shela May 9,2006 11:30 am

The Eragon movie came out on Friday.

Paolini never outsold Harry Potter, only temporarily had more sales than it. Harry Potter has sold hundreds of millions more copies than Eragon. About two hundred of the books were bought every second when Half-Blood Prince first came out. - Krim

It is actually against wikipedia policy to have relative time references. All mentions of time are supposed to be as specific as possible, and using the word "currently" is always discouraged. So yes, it should be changed. I would find the policy page that has the proscription, but I'm far to lazy for that or to even change the sentence myself--and being lazy is not against wikipedia policy. Brentt 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Prescreening of Eragon

I added a section on the "Book versus Movie" to the Eragon(film) page (it needs some editing). Thought I should spread the word around as many wikipedia articles as possible. If you think my comment is out of place, delete the post in 2007. The Eragon films was awsome! Granted, Arya was wimpified, and some entire cities had to left out, but what they decided to leave in was great. They kept the part about Eragon being a hunter. Eragon only looks like a pretty boy in the pictures, they did a good job on him. Also, Saphira was adorable as a drakelet. She was very much a hunter, and the voice they picked for her was easy to get used to. And most importantly they kept her sarcasm! Granted, they sped up her growth by a bit but that was nescesary in order to make the movie only two hours long. And what worthwhile hours they were!

The action was great. The flight sequences were so awsome I simply cannot describe it with words. There wasn't a lot of Arya and Ajihad fighting, but that was nescesary in order to keep the rating between PG and PG-13 (thank goodness). Come to thing of it, there wasn't a lot of blood and gore. The fights were quite 'clean' if such a word could apply to a battle. It wasn't at all like the last battles in Lord of the Rings. So remember folks, go watch the movie because if it makes enough money at the box office, they will make a sequel! Sorry if I bore you with my enthusiasm.

As for the downsides, they aren't downsides if you know in advance the movie will deviate from the book. Goodbye Angelina, you got your 15 seconds of acting as well as your dress which had whatlooked like 15 pounds of gold. Wheres Solembum? Why do Murtagh and Galbatwix have American accents, while everybody else sounds more like the British (my Mom caught that last one, I didn't notice). And got rid of the dwarves. Don't worry, they will probably introduce a dwarf city and introduce the werecat in the sequel. So if they don't make a sequel its your fault for not having a good time at the movie. It was still fabulous, you just have to watch it as if you had't read the books. Paolini did too good of a job - both as an extra as a dead soldier (which one was he?) - and as a writer - for capturing all of his ideas on film to be possible.

I am 15 years old, live in Santa Monica, and can be reached by your posts below my post here in the Eragon Film discussion page. In case you are wondering, the only thing I was bribed with to tell you this is getting to see the prescreening. If you have any questions or comments, post away. Since I haven't figured out how to register into Wikipedia, I will put an "-Joshua" after all my comments.

PSS I am going to bring lots of cookies for the Hapkido instructor who got the prescreenings for us.

I just removed your comments. While it's certainly nice that you enjoyed the film, this is not a website for you to write your own essay/review about the film; we only include reviews that are written by reliable critical sources, not users. I would suggest taking your ideas to a more appropriate website where user reviews are encouraged- two places to start would be www.imdb.com or www.rottentomatoes.com.

also, on a side note, please don't write in all-caps. It's considered to be shouting and rude. Cheers! --DarthBinky 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. But why shouldn't I write about Eragon? Wikipedia is there to be edited by everyone! Its not a secret club or hight status society. Also, you failed to remove my comments. Thanks. And although I have posted comments in support of Paolini, I have only removed one comment - and that one comment was one sentence long and didn't have a rescource in addition to being a heavy generalization.

Because this discussion page is NOT for discussion about how much you liked or disliked the move. It's about how to make the article more encyclopedic.

Terrible

Irrespective of plagiarism and sales figures, the books really are terrible. I can understand pulling ideas from different areas, but the secret of a good author is to conceal your sources. Paolini almost didn't bother. It is to my everlasting regret that I wasted time on the first book.

Thank god for opinion pages.

I did notice some ideas pulled from other books, but no big plaigarism. what are you thinking of? - Abhorsen123 02:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Some say mockery is the highest form of flatery but honestly I believe that Paolini has done an excellent job paying homage to the great fantasy writers (most recognizably Tolkien) while still keeping his story highly original, you have to understand that Tolkien covered literally every part of fantasy that there is to be covered and for someone to even expect that some of his style wouldn't show through in the writings of someone who is a fan of his work maybe shouldn't read the book anyway. Learn to appreciate good fantasy in both its originality and its continuity. MissSapphire-January 26 2006

• Wikipedia isn't the place for debating whether Paolini is a good or a bad writer; this section has contributed nothing constructive to the article or the discussion page. Here's my proposal that it be deleted. --Antrophica 04:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I second the deleted motion. I have not read the books, but this is not the place to argue about their quality. There are websites and other places to discuss merits and deficits.
    • I third the deleted motion, but not under the pretext of equality and nonflamming policies. I believe Eragon to be a great book, though Eldest won't seem very complete until the third book comes out. If you don't like fantasy, don't read fantasy. It hurts when people criticize authors. Try RingWorld. That book was very interesting. If anyone else wants to delete the above comment, do so because I think 4 to 5 supporters should be enough, or at least close.
      • I fourth the deleted. I personally think the books are so terribly derivative that they have no merit at all, plus I am insulted that a fellow homeschooled kid got his book published by his own parents, coupled with a book tour! That type of instant validation give him no incentive to get better. NO AUTHOR starts his career with a book tour before anyone has even heard of the books. He should have sent his book to a proper publisher BEFORE it was famous, and then he would have had the exact same reception that every lousy fantasy book gets. Then he could pursue his true calling as an MMORPG writer! However, that has nothing to do with whether this article is encyclopedic, so please, delete.

Christopher Paolini is a huge tool, and his writing is not derrivative, it is uncreatively immitative. Seriously, if I wanted to re-read Tolkien and Jordan, I'd do so.

Yes the "books" are crap, but wikipedia is not a place for discussing things that do not relate to the article, if you are looking for somewhere to talk about the crapness of the books go to http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/ Shadoom1 07:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The guy is a ripoff artist and the only reason that he became successful is because his parents ran a small publishing company. They were good at marketing and tapped into the Harry Potter sensation by targeting fans of that series. What a shame because these books fucking suck. I hope he reads this because I want my money back for the ten bucks I wasted on the first book. This entire series is a sham and will be forgotten in ten years. Vaginsh 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What is so bad about his books? How are they crap? I know you have an opinion, but can you back it up with credible argument? I for one enjoyed both Eragon, and Eldest. They may have similarities to Tolkein's work, but it does have a unique story. I look foward to the next book. user:youngscholar028651 15:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pffft. Tolkien covered every single area of fantasy, so every fantasy book will be slightly derivitive of Tolkien. Tolkien is not the issue here. Eragon is a retelling of Star Wars in a fantasy setting. Every single event is the same. That's the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.160.33 (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

As above, all the arguments against Inheritance are at anti-shurtugal.com, and there's overwhelming evidence against the originality (among other things) of the books there as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.253.231 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I actually found a quote of plagiarism, credited to the A-S forums. The part where the guy Eragon's traveling with knifes the bridge owner's purse is plagiarism. Let me go find it. (80.247.146.169 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

Repeated Blankings

Please stop blanking this page. Talk pages are places for discussion. It's not in the spirit of Wikipedia to just delete discussions you don't agree with. Feel free to express you opinions and suggestions on this page but don't deny others the right to express those opinions themselves. As for the main page, you shouldn't be making edits against consensus. I bet you feel the plagiarism section shouldn't be there. I'm inclined to agree with you but this is something we need to discuss here and reach a consensus. Also, your reverts are removing other things which have verifiable references and improve the quality of the article.

Just to mention: the discussion page is not to discuss the book, it's to discuss edits and other information that MAKE THE PAGE MORE ENCYCLOPEDIC. Opinions on the book are not suitable here.

Let's have a discussion - not a revert war. Please talk to us. Thanks! Cmouse 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As someone who thinks the plagiarism section shouldn't be there, at least not in anything like its present form, let me echo Cmouse's comments. It's obvious by now that there are a number of differing opinions about this topic, so let's work them out.

I think that without any notable sources ( e.g. famous critics, magazines, newspapers) accusing Paolini of plagiarism, the claim isn't significant enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia. Various google and news searches have shown no such accusations; it all comes from random people's Amazon reviews and blogs and the like. (I also find the grounds for the plagiarism claim a bit weak, but that's not relevant to notability.) Claims that Paolini is derivative of other authors, on the other hand, seem reasonably frequent, and probably warrant a brief discussion in the article.

Regardless of whether the plagiarism claims are notable, they're not really defamation or libel, and blanking the talk page serves no purpose whatsoever. Let's discuss, please. Brendan 22:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Paolini is a huge tool, and his writing is not derrivative, it is uncreatively immitative. Seriously, if I wanted to re-read Tolkien and Jordan, I'd do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.2.123 (talk • contribs) 26 February 2006

Wow! You never said that before!

notable or non-notable sources

There is an organized Eragon hatelisting (eragon.pfenix.net/), a very notable negative review of Eragon by swankiVY (http://members.aol.com/swankivy/eragon.html), opposition on the Eragon IMDB movie board (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449010/board/threads), as well as the recently launched Anti-Shurtugal (http://www.geocities.com/anti_shurtugal). Also, Entertainment Weekly named Eldest as the worst book of 2005. If that isn't "notable sources ( e.g. famous critics, magazines, newspapers)" I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.227.210 (talk • contribs) 17 March 2006

The hatelisting, the swankiVY review, and the geocities sites are absolutely not notable. In what ways do they qualify as "famous critics, magazines, newspapers"? On the other hand, the Entertainment Weekly pan, along with other reviews from published sources, are indeed notable. And if you quote them in the article and source accurately, your inclusion of those notable sources' complaints against the book will be likely protected by the Wikipedia community as a whole (though possibly people will ask they be moved to the page for the book). Provide a citation for the EW review! Lord know I'd love to see both sides of this fruitless argument backed up by actual notable encyclopedic sources -- otherwise the talk page is just a place for Eragon lovers and haters to argue. Deborah-jl _Talk 20:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the rest of the links can't be considered. They are organized groups of criticism, which is what this is about, isn't it? Previous discussion noted no real proof of opposition, and those links stand as proof that there is a substantial group of people who oppose Eragon. They may not be famous critics, but they are functioning as an organized body to spread their message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.227.210 (talk • contribs) 17 March 2006

Being a "famous critic" isn't necessary, but being notable is. Notable doesn't just mean "exists on the Internet and known about by more than one person", otherwise there's the danger that Wikipedia become a platform for original research, as everyone with a pet theory sets up a website and declares it notable enough to be discussed on Wikipedia. You should become familiar with Wikipedia notability discussions, including What counts as an reputable publication?, the search engine test, the notability guidelines for websites, and others. The non-EW links are not heavily linked or discussed on the Internet according to search engines. They're not in reputable publications. They're not discussed in reputable publications. They also don't add anything to the article that isn't added by citation of the notable sources -- if Kirkus and EW give reasoned explanations for disliking Paolini's work, there's no need to add an unknown-even-on-the-Internet hatelisting which is merely a list of people who say they hate the book. Deborah-jl _Talk 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe swankiVY's essay meets the search engine test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.106.143 (talk • contribs) 1 April 2006

Could you give some evidence? I get Google showing zero pages linking to it, and also can't find anyone mentioning it in passing with a more general search. If you have results that differ, please post them. Deborah-jl _Talk 16:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. When searching for "negative Eragon reviews," this site (http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/dragons/9.html#Eragon) is the second or third link, which includes a quote from Ivy's Eragon review. When searching for "swankiVY Eragon," about sixty-two links come up, including a link to NaNoWrimo, where somebody linked the essay. I believe that Ivy's site itself cites a forum where a rather heated discussion on her essy took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.106.143 (talk • contribs) 3 April 2006

First of all, sixty-two links does not constitute "notable" for most Wikipedians. Secondly, if you follow those hits, you'll see that the vast majority of them are either swankivy his/herself, clones of swankivy's pages, or adspamming linkfarmers -- they are not links to swankivy's review posted on others' sites. So what we have is one link to Amazon which excerpts swankivy's review as posted on amazon, and one nanowrimo forum in which a user link's to swankivy's review. Again, none of this is notable but Wikipedia's standards. Moreover, there's no need for the link -- there are plenty of other reviews which are also negative which are notable by either publication in a reputable journal or by passing a search engine test. Why so much effort for this one review which won't pass any wikipedia notability guidelines? Deborah-jl _Talk 16:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

Ok. Various people are reverting between two sets of numbers. Can both of the groups please provide references as to which set of numbers is correct. Also, what's wrong with the quote? Cmouse 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the quote because there is no source, and, until there is a source for the numbers, I have removed those, too. --M@thwiz2020 01:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I really have no side in this, I just want to make sure I understand what is going on. I realize now that one of the quote links was broken; thank you for removing it. The other, however, refers to [1] which is alive and well and a valid reference. Why did you remove it? Cmouse 06:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Paolini made a potentially controversial statement about his prose in his essay on Random House's web site that was subsequently removed. I took a screenshot of the preexisting statement and documented what had occurred; I believe I wrote it with a NPOV. It isn't original research, as it's verifiable. Any idea why the screenshot was deleted from Wikipedia? --Antrophica 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Slow down... I'll go through these one-by-one. In this edit, I removed the link because there was no point - it didn't link to the quote. I also removed the quote because the only source (the screenshot) was deleted and it was therefor unverifiable. The screenshot was deleted because it was a screenshot of a copyrighted webpage. You would need Random House's explicit permission in order to upload that picture. I then deleted the info about the midieval costume because there was no source - the "ref" template tag linked to nothing.

In this edit, I reworded the Hiassen story to make it clearer and added a source (yes, I knew it was true because Paolini told this story at a booksigning I attended but it still needs a source - one man's word isn't enought). I removed the part about the book having a "strong appeal" because it was original research - if you can cite it, add it back, but if you can't, it stays out of the article. I then commented the numbers so they didn't appear for two reasons. (1) They just trying to promote the book, which goes against NPOV. (2) There was an "edit war" going on between two sets of numbers. Until one of the sets is verified with a source, neither can stay. --M@thwiz2020 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I added back in the quote you removed with a correct reference. I don't know how ref tags work either. I may find out when I have more time and fix it. I do, however, disagree that the numbers violate NPOV. There was a problem with a revert war over the numbers. I think this was actually a revert war over the quote and the numbers got caught up in the mess. I think if we can find out which set is correct we should put it back. Cmouse 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mathwiz2020, I can't find anything in WP:COPY about copyrights applying to web sites. If that's indeed the case, I don't imagine Random House will be granting permission any time soon since they were the ones who removed it in the first place. Anyhow, I might add, if it helps at all, that this is a screenshot of a Google-archived version of the site, not of the site itself. We might find a way to reinclude the quote, as, controversy aside, it has significance (the author commenting on what he thinks of his own prose). How about hosting the screenshot somewhere else? --Antrophica 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I figured out the problem now. CSD criterion I5 applies to fair use images not used by any article. You linked to the image using an external link ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paolini_quote.PNG]) so nothing appeared under the image's what links here. You have to use a link like this: [[Image:Paolini quote.PNG]]. I undeleted the page and will try to re-upload the image. --M@thwiz2020 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

After realizing that Amazon still has the quote on its page, I redeleted the image and just referenced Amazon for the quote. I also omitted the part about Random House removing it as it is unnecessary. --M@thwiz2020 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's unnecessary as of now because Random House's reasons for removing it can only be speculated. You did the right thing. --Antrophica 04:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be about info, not opinions! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.187.166.230 (talk • contribs) .

Noteworthy opinions are information. --Antrophica 14:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A useless one.

Critics? WTF?

Please check the Critics reviews in bn.com and amazon.com. Some pathetic haters are NOT critics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.187.166.230 (talk • contribs) .

Actual critics have criticized his work. People are not "pathetic haters" simply because they dislike Paolini's work. Try and comment unbiasedly, please. --Antrophica 14:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Major critics have been positive. People, who dislike CP are not pathetic haters, people, who live to bash him are, however. Pityful, pathetic haters.

The professional reviews which take some issue with Paolini's works have been sourced. Could someone please cite sources for the positive reviews and the authors who praise him? Obviously a controversial topic, so both sides should cite sources. Deborah-jl _Talk 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

With pleasure. Here at this page http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=an6YODxCtD&isbn=0307280721&itm=2 you can find reviews of Eldest which might not be glowing, but are definetly positive. And here http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=an6YODxCtD&isbn=0375826696&itm=3 you can find reviews of Eragon, which are really praising him. McCafrey's opinion is on the back of the cver of Eragon, while Brooks'one could be find in the "Ask Terry" section of his oficial site www.terrybrooks.net

-Keeping in mind, here, that as far as we know there ARE no people who live to bash him. -Bosco

Well, pick out specific reviews (not just a link to the Barnes and Noble page -- I've used several of the reviws linked from the URL you give as evidence of negative criticism, so they certainly aren't all good) and quote them in the article, cited. Deborah-jl _Talk 20:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a heading saying "reactions to the inheritance trilogy" and then redirecting to the "critical reaction" part of the Eragon article? There seem to be comparisons of the trilogy to LOTR and SW.Spyderchan 03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Inheiritance

I think there should be 4 Inheiritance books because in the third Eragon gets married and gets a new blue sword and then he finishes his training and him and Roran should save Katrina. Then Roran and Katrina also get married. Then Roran gets the yellow dragon egg and names him Katrinak. Then Eragon trains Roran and one day Roran's yellow enchanted sword slid and sliced his stomach open Eragon heals it as much as he could but it leaves a scar like Eragon had from Durza then they gather the dragons that give Roran "The gift of the dragons" Then Roran transformed into an elf. Roran and Eragon both had children then Saphira and Katrinak mated then there were 10 dragon eggs that were given to their children and those eggs had hatched then Eragon and Roran train them

.....um.

.......I'm trying to think up a better response than "um" but I can't think of one. Nominate this section to be removed or at least cached someplace else. --Kuronekoyama 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try kid. No offense but I think I'll stick to Chris's version. -just:) (6-20-06 11:40am)

This was actually the funniest thing I have ever heard or read on wikipedia. 129.173.251.71 22:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

how wy did eragon get married to arya??? im past the part wen he transforms and roran is in surda!!!!

delete

• Yes! Let's transform a discussion about how to make an article encyclopedic into a sad little fanfic!

Ok, you post the first chapter (I'm joking and support the delete) 203.54.241.43 08:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

'Influence' my ass

Someone chance 'influence' to 'blatant rip-off', please.

== OK, great...but what about how much he sucks? = hihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihhihihihihihihi hihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihhihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihi hihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihih This whole article is like "Oh wow! Eragon is so great! Christopher Paolini is a genius! He was homeschooled all his life and he's so smart! Yeah! We all love Christopher Paolini!" But it fails to mention that the book sucked sweaty dragon scrotum. I'm not asking for someone to turn the article into a rant about how much the book sucked (which it did. Don't lie to me.), but could someone at least put in something like "oh yeah, and some people think that the book was horrible and that it was a rip-off of damn near every other major fantasy franchise since LOTR.". This article sounds like it was written by Paolini's perverted stalker or something.

• It probably was. I was homeschooled, and my parents didn't publish my book for me and send me on a big book tour to promote it. How is someone supposed to better himself if every single thing he does is endlessly promoted?

Could you two please register, or at least sign your comments (use --~~~~ so others know your IP address and the date you posted this? If you can cite criticism about the author then be bold, but remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Represent both sides.--Spyderchan 20:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have the balls to sign your comments, than don't make them. And also, the book was great (although the second one SUCKED). And thirdly, it was because they went on a promotion tour that it was successful. Its called "working hard". He worked hard on writing the book, then he worked hard on promoting it. The result was that he made a very successful franchise. Don't get me wrong, the second book and the movie sucked, but don't be angry at him just because he was successful. DurotarLord 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ripping quotes and ideas directly from other famous series (Star Wars, Pern, Lortd of the Rings), throwing it together with multiple plotholes and blatant errors that can only come from lack of research and editing then having your mommy publish that mess for you is called hard work? Man, I've been living my life wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.122.175 (talk • contribs)

No, i actually thought writing 1300 pages worth of book and then going on tour to discuss the book with thousands of people is.DurotarLord 19:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Someone please change the picture, it look's like it belongs in a stalker's scrapbook album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.178.60 (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Book 3?

The opening paragraph says:

"an as-yet-unreleased Glaedr, Book 3 of the Inheritance trilogy"

Apparently untrue, as common sense and a Google search provide.

The next books title has nott been revaeled so any guess is as good as any other. dont chang the title until the real title is given, okay??? Smith Jones 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that on the fan-sites, there's rumor circulating (with general consensus) that the next book will be a) green, and b) entitled Empire, as fits with the 6 letter, beings-with-E pattern he seems to establish. But as of yet, there seems to be no verification of this, and the best possible guess for the source of this rumor is a few words at book-signings, or something. Which we can't verify either. I hesitate to add: "with the rumored title Empire" to this article. justice 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-idol and cultist parents

I cannot help but think that this article goes way too easy on him. Should his status as an "anti-idol" for aspiring writers not be mentioned? The various bashing sites and the many essays by up-and-coming writers (or wannabes, if you prefer to look at it that way) who absolutely detest him? It certainly is important in relation to CP.

His parents are also former cultists, and he lives isolated with his family, miles from everyone else. (http://www.rickross.com/reference/cut/cut33.html)(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958451,00.html) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2003/12/22/bopao22.xml&sSheet=/arts/2003/12/23/ixartright.html)

130.225.54.12 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK....But what about how much he sucks?

This whole article is like "Oh wow! Eragon is so great! Christopher Paolini is a genius! He was homeschooled all his life and he's so smart! Yeah! We all love Christopher Paolini!" But it fails to mention that the book sucked sweaty dragon scrotum. I'm not asking for someone to turn the article into a rant about how much the book sucked (which it did. Don't lie to me.), but could someone at least put in something like "oh yeah, and some people think that the book was horrible and that it was a rip-off of damn near every other major fantasy franchise since LOTR.". This article sounds like it was written by Paolini's perverted stalker or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.245.145.104 (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

WIKIPEDIA IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER THE MAJORTITTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VIEW. THE BOOK GOT MOSTLY POSITIVE REVIEWS AND ONLY A FRINGE MINORITY DID NOT LIKE THEM STOP TRYING TO VIOLATE NPOVSmith Jones 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

...what the hell is wrong with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.16.108 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

OK, explain this: "WIKIPEDIA IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER THE MAJORTITTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!"? No, that's not true, as far as I knew, Wikipedia upholds a "neutral point of view" opinion on all articles. Is the majority always neutral? Of course not. Just because Bush won two elections doesn't mean his article has to be like "OMG Bush is the best!" (my own opinions about him aside). The majority isn't always neutral. Second What's this about a "FRINGE MINORITY!!!!!" (exclamation marks added to make you look less intelegent)? It may have gotten mostly positive reviews (show me), but we all know book critics are giant vagains who can read and know nothing about literature. Besides that, this "FRINGE MINORITY!!!!!!!" stuff doesn't apply, it's not like everyone dwelling on the surface of the Earth read this book. If they did, I'm sure the majority would hate it, but that's not really relevant since it hasn't happened...yet. So in conclusion, I hate you, and I would hate you less if you read some better fiction written by a mammal (Paolini is like some sort of...retarded baby emu, right?).

I LIKE TRAINS! TRAINS GO FAST! TRAINS GO CHOO! CHOO! THE CONCLUSION IS THAT, I LIKE TRAINS!

P.S. NOW I DON'T LIKE TRAINS :(

P.S.S NOW I DO LIKE TRAINS!

- But you guys forget...Wikipedia is run by TEH LIBERALS! That's why we need our savior Conversapedia. Everyone who likes Paolini are TEH LIBERALS! and they promote WITCHCRAFT and [poorly-described and portrayed] EMOTTTTIONS! - Krim

Keep up the outstanding work and thank you

This is very interesting site... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.106.214.240 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

A suggestion....

Please add Paolini's full address. I would like to find it somewhere!

removing other media

I'm removing the section about the Eragon movie because he didn't write, edit, or review it. It just makes sense that it shouldn't be there.

the trilogy

hey my only question is WHEN IS THE THIRD BOOK COMING OUT and what is its name that is it thats all i want im going mad waiting for the third book just curious have a good evening goodnight and god bless

Bill MAss —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.208.194 (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

i found something amiss

i dont know if any one else has noticed but in the book Eldest by Christophe paolini the chapters, (The Dagshelgr Invocation, The Pinewood City, and Queen izlanzadi) are missing from the book instead the chapters (The beginning Of Wisdom,Broken Egg And Scattered Nest, And The Gift of The Dragons) are in the missing chapters spot. for any one who has the book the chapter the begining of wisdom starts on page 431 but in my copy 431 comes after 206 and 239 comes after 462 , it my just be a printing mistake but i really am upset about not being able to read those chapters of the book i feel like i missed something , stuff like this should not happen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.101.203.72 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Lots of POV and unsourced speculation here

The article states: Although sales of Paolini's books have exceeded 8 million copies, critics claim that this is only due to his well-marketed youth. They claim much of his writing to be mediocre, as well as nearly plagiarizing the works of Tolkien, George Lucas, along with others. Also, some former fans of the series have stated that it was the subject matter within the series, particularly Eldest, to be the reason they lost interest. Examples are Paolini's blatant and "out of place" inclusion of atheist, feminist, and vegan ideology.

This is completely unsourced and POV text. I don't know anything about Paolini, but when I came to this article to learn something about him, I expected a factual encyclopedic overview, not speculation and undocumented gossip. Hopefully, someone who knows something about him, and doesn't have an axe to grind, will copyedit this piece. 71.175.28.150 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Even if it can be sourced, it is still too biased to be in the introduction paragraph. I've removed it for now. If someone can find a source, they can put it back in, but put it further down in the article. --pIrish ^{talk, contribs} 02:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I've noted that neither Eragon's nor Paolini's page have spoken of the obvious controversy surrounding his trilogy, namely plagiarism and nepotism. While I realize these are not sourced, they should be addressed in the context of the article. Comments?

Ntay 21:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy sections are supposed to be short and, ideally, the controversy should be placed throughout the article instead of lumped together. Basically, you aren't supposed to notice it, but it should still be there. If you were looking for something long and detailed that goes on and on about how Paolini's works are derivative...you won't find it here.

Eragon talks about it, well the plagiarism part. I don't really see how nepotism plays a part. If it has to do with his parents publishing his book, that doesn't really matter since a real publishing company picked it up later. All Paolini needed was his foot in the door and that's what his parents did for him (this is not uncommon either). Knopf has no relation to Paolini and Knopf is what really put the books in the spotlight so this really doesn't hold any bearing now.

Either way, controversy about the books belong on the books' articles, not on the author's article. Only controversy strictly regarding the author himself belongs here. And it must be cited with reliable sources. If you can come up with some well sourced controversy, be bold and put it in yourself. --pIrish ^Arr! 21:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the quick response. I'll take a look into it.

Ntay 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just be sure to use reliable sources if you choose to add something and you should be fine. --pIrish ^Arr! 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)