Talk:Christopher Paolini/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Red-green colorblind --> Sees mostly blue? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terrible 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: notable or non-notable sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inheiritance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Book 3? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anti-idol and cultist parents

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ...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)
thread_title:  OK....But what about how much he sucks? 

message: This is very interesting site... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.106.214.240 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep up the outstanding work and thank you 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the trilogy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  i found something amiss 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lots of POV and unsourced speculation here