Draco Malfoy
-REaction
Recently, I've encountered much animosity to certain, popular YA book series, specifically Paolini's Eragon series and Cassandra Clare's the Mortal Instruments. Much of the criticism appears to stem from the books' derivation of plots/ideas from earlier works (Star Wars is the most frequently cited one in both series' cases)
Now, I'm not doing this to start a flame-bash fest *readies the fire-fighting equipment*.
I just want to know why those series are so despised for their derivative qualities. Many other YA books I know are very derivative, and those don't get flamed. For example, Suzanne Collins's often lauded the Hunger Games screams of Battle Royale to me (75% of the plot is Battle Royale, with kids killing kids in a confined area, two kids who don't particularly want to kill finding romance and experiencing survivor's guilt, evil adults, etc.) Horowitz's Alex Rider books are just James Bond thrown back ten-twenty years. Artemis Fowl can justifiably be called Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets the Chronicles of Narnia.
Yet those books aren't nearly as bashed for their derivative qualities as Eragon and Clare's books are. If the main criticism of Eragon/Mortal Instruments is their flat/personality-less characters, I would understand (especially for the former, oh my gawd), but most people quibble about the plot derivations.
But don't we all, to some extent, derive some aspects from earlier works? I'm not talking straight word-for-word plagiarism, but, for example, taking Rei Ayanami's emotionless personality and mixing it with Luna Lovegood's serenity to create an interestingly quiet character? At which point does one say "that is too much derivation", plot-wise?
Sorry; I just got a bit confused by why people got so upset over Cassandra Clare in particular, even after discounting the whole Potter debacle
.
Now, I'm not doing this to start a flame-bash fest *readies the fire-fighting equipment*.
I just want to know why those series are so despised for their derivative qualities. Many other YA books I know are very derivative, and those don't get flamed. For example, Suzanne Collins's often lauded the Hunger Games screams of Battle Royale to me (75% of the plot is Battle Royale, with kids killing kids in a confined area, two kids who don't particularly want to kill finding romance and experiencing survivor's guilt, evil adults, etc.) Horowitz's Alex Rider books are just James Bond thrown back ten-twenty years. Artemis Fowl can justifiably be called Buffy the Vampire Slayer meets the Chronicles of Narnia.
Yet those books aren't nearly as bashed for their derivative qualities as Eragon and Clare's books are. If the main criticism of Eragon/Mortal Instruments is their flat/personality-less characters, I would understand (especially for the former, oh my gawd), but most people quibble about the plot derivations.
But don't we all, to some extent, derive some aspects from earlier works? I'm not talking straight word-for-word plagiarism, but, for example, taking Rei Ayanami's emotionless personality and mixing it with Luna Lovegood's serenity to create an interestingly quiet character? At which point does one say "that is too much derivation", plot-wise?
Sorry; I just got a bit confused by why people got so upset over Cassandra Clare in particular, even after discounting the whole Potter debacle
.