“For example: A writer sets out to write science fiction but isn’t familiar with the genre, hasn’t read what’s been written. This is a fairly common situation, because science fiction is known to sell well but, as a subliterary genre, is not supposed to be worth study—what’s to learn?
It doesn’t occur to the novice that a genre is a genre because it has a field and focus of its own; its appropriate and particular tools, rules, and techniques for handling the material; its traditions; and its experienced, appreciative readers—that it is, in fact, a literature. Ignoring all this, our novice is just about to reinvent the wheel, the space ship, the space alien, and the mad scientist, with cries of innocent wonder. The cries will not be echoed by the readers.
Readers familiar with that genre have met the space ship, the alien, and the mad scientist before. They know more about them than the writer does. In the same way, critics who set out to talk about a fantasy novel without having read any fantasy since they were eight, and in ignorance of the history and extensive theory of fantasy literature, will make fools of themselves because they don’t know how to read the book. They have no contextual information to tell them what its tradition is, where it’s coming from, what it’s trying to do, what it does.
This was liberally proved when the first Harry Potter book came out and a lot of literary reviewers ran around shrieking about the incredible originality of the book. This originality was an artifact of the reviewers’ blank ignorance of its genres (children’s fantasy and the British boarding-school story), plus the fact that they hadn’t read a fantasy since they were eight. It was pitiful. It was like watching some TV gourmet chef eat a piece of buttered toast and squeal, ‘But this is delicious! Unheard of! Where has it been all my life?’”
On a similar note to what Ursula K LeGuin said, I'll never stop being irate that Eragon was so lucrative and popular when it was extremely derivative trash that did to literature action scenes what Rob Liefield did to comic book anatomy. :guts-rage:
They were terrible books, but I've never had any reason to dislike Chris Paolini personally. It's okay for people to like terrible books, even if they're heavily influenced by marketing. I think even Paolini has expressed embarrassment about Eragon in recent years.
It's admittedly been... uh... probably like 15 or 20 years since I read them, but I don't remember Eragon being as perniciously mean spirited and shitty as Harry Potter. It had a lot of problems, but those were mostly problems of a young, very inexperienced writer rather than anything actively or passively malicious.
yeah he was like 15 when he wrote the first one lmao
That was the novelty. Then again how many other 15 year olds get that privilege?
deleted by creator
IIRC that was kind of a marketting thing. He was like 15 when he started but he did the bulk of the writing when he was older (albeit still a teen, I'm pretty sure)
This is LeGuin's point though. Not that Harry Potter is un-PC or 'perniciously mean spirited and shitty' (funny thing to say about a book for children sorry), but that they are basic and derrivative, and in that Eragon was a far worse offender
I mean she did also call it that in another quote, linked upthread
And I don't think that's a weird claim? HP does this thing where, when a character's bad, it becomes ok just say absolutely viscious things about them, usually about their weight or about how "mannish" they are
Oh true yeah Crab and Goyle and all that. Pretty rotten treatment. Eragon is sooo bad though is my thing
Eragon is derivative crap, but it's not actively offensive. Like, Rita Skeeter alone as a veiled stereotype is so much worse than anything in Eragon
Who was Skeeter supposed to be a stereotype of besides British tabloid reporters? Haven't read them since I was a baby, barely remember her
She was frequently described as mannish, with large hands. And she lies about an aspect of her identity so she can spy on children.
Given what we now know about Rowling, take a guess
Oh wow yeah that got ironed out for sure in the movies
Oh yeah the movies ironed out a LOT of this stuff. Like, the entire "Hermione discovers that there are house elves enslaved at Hogwarts and gets made fun of for trying to free them" subplot was basically removed from the movies entirely, and also the fact that werewolves are explicitly an AIDS allegory and most werewolves target children. It's disgusting garbage all the way down. Hollywood did SO much to launder Rowling's reptuation
....i like eragon. i remember trying to levitate rocks and shit with those spells lol. also arya+eragon OTP.
No shame in it. Back before social media destroyed my attention span, I read anything I could get my hands on and enjoyed all of it. Oh how I loved Ready Player One in middle school! I still use it for my username, the horror!
yeah, i found RP1 enjoyable, though to be honest, i've tried to reread it a couple times and it comes off as worse each time
honestly though respect for the grift, if I could become a millionaire just by copypasting literally every single story beat of Star Wars with a fantasy paint-job, I wouldn't fuckin hesitate
Whos that and what did he do?
Just look up some of his character art