Artemis Fowl?

I quite enjoy the series. My brother bought me the first one at one of those school book faires, but at the time I thought it was a more typical fantasy. I didn't read it for over two years, and only then did I find out the technological aspect. Being a science-fiction fan, that was a good thing.

What I do is whenever I get the newest one, I read all of them from the beginning. So I've read Artemis Fowl five times, The Arctic Incident four times, The Eternity Code three times, The Opal Deception twice, and The Lost Colony once. The Time Paradox has been out for over a year, but I've yet to check it out.

While I enjoy the series, it's not that well-written. Eoin Colfer knows how to create an interesting story and believable characters and the world they're in, but he doesn't know how to tell it in a masterful way. Perhaps his ability has gone up for The Time Paradox. We'll see.
 
Oh me gods! I have read that series over and over! I started to read it when i was in fourth grade and still do!
 
Redstar said:
I quite enjoy the series. My brother bought me the first one at one of those school book faires, but at the time I thought it was a more typical fantasy. I didn't read it for over two years, and only then did I find out the technological aspect. Being a science-fiction fan, that was a good thing.

What I do is whenever I get the newest one, I read all of them from the beginning. So I've read Artemis Fowl five times, The Arctic Incident four times, The Eternity Code three times, The Opal Deception twice, and The Lost Colony once. The Time Paradox has been out for over a year, but I've yet to check it out.

While I enjoy the series, it's not that well-written. Eoin Colfer knows how to create an interesting story and believable characters and the world they're in, but he doesn't know how to tell it in a masterful way. Perhaps his ability has gone up for The Time Paradox. We'll see.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Perhaps something that would change your perspective on colfer's writing style is listening to the Artemis Fowls on audio tape. When someone's reading to you, writing styles make so much more sence. I never found Colfer's books badly written in the first place though :/
 
Fridge said:
I disagree.

Perhaps something that would change your perspective on colfer's writing style is listening to the Artemis Fowls on audio tape. When someone's reading to you, writing styles make so much more sence. I never found Colfer's books badly written in the first place though :/
Click to expand...
I'm not so-much criticizing his writing style as his ability to write. As a couple of examples, Butler is called Artemis' "manservant" nearly every time a word of that meaning is necessary. Colfer apparently couldn't open up a thesaurus and use a synonym.

The phrase "unceremoniously", in various forms, is used in nearly every book. It appears, to Colfer at least, that everything warrants a ceremony. It's just poor choice of word to use so often.

Finally, the one thing that gets me, is that in every book where Root is introduced, the narrator feels the need to say people call him "Beetroot". Not once does anyone do so, or even think it. Colfer simply told rather than showing, the worst mistake any writer could make.

There's many more, but I don't feel the need to tear apart a series I actually like.
 
I used to read the Artemis Fowl books around 5th or 6th grade and had to write a book report. I didn't really understand the book back then. I'm planning to start reading it again.
 
Redstar said:
I'm not so-much criticizing his writing style as his ability to write. As a couple of examples, Butler is called Artemis' "manservant" nearly every time a word of that meaning is necessary. Colfer apparently couldn't open up a thesaurus and use a synonym.
Click to expand...
And does referring to a thesaurus while writing make an author a good writer?

Would I refer to my mother with a different word every time I'm speaking to someone about her? Would you? :S
 
Noobnerd said:
And does referring to a thesaurus while writing make an author a good writer?
Click to expand...
Yes, it would. A writer is fine to use certain words and phrases to define their style, but it's not something that should be done 20+ times in a single book. If you notice it, it's bad writing.
 
Hm,Butler IS a manservent.He has no name.So what else can you really call him?I mean fine.1 little mistake.Its not really a big error.Thats pretty much is what he is.
 
palkia dialga clash said:
Hm,Butler IS a manservent.He has no name.So what else can you really call him?I mean fine.1 little mistake.Its not really a big error.Thats pretty much is what he is.
Click to expand...
I'm aware he's a manservant. But there are synonyms to that word, of which the narrator (IE: Colfer) could have used to mix it up a bit. It's like if you called your main character a "fiery redhead" each and every time you wanted to say something about them. After a certain point you start to wonder if the writer has a limited vocabulary or perception of personalities.
 
Redstar said:
I'm aware he's a manservant. But there are synonyms to that word, of which the narrator (IE: Colfer) could have used to mix it up a bit. It's like if you called your main character a "fiery redhead" each and every time you wanted to say something about them. After a certain point you start to wonder if the writer has a limited vocabulary or perception of personalities.
Click to expand...

The point of just calling him manservant was to drill in our heads that the butler has no name. In one of the books, I forget which one (I read the series a long time ago), Artemis found out the butler's real name and told him it. This shows the significance of that gesture. His duty is to protect Artemis, nothing else.The focal points of the plots are centered around Artemis, not the butler.
 
Third one; and he didn't find out, Butler was dying.

Except from that point on Butler's role in general was diminished, I suspect it was because he was too much of a "I win" card (or whatever you want to call it) whenever he appeared.
 
Limitless said:
The point of just calling him manservant was to drill in our heads that the butler has no name. In one of the books, I forget which one (I read the series a long time ago), Artemis found out the butler's real name and told him it. This shows the significance of that gesture. His duty is to protect Artemis, nothing else.The focal points of the plots are centered around Artemis, not the butler.
Click to expand...
As Lt. Houndoom said, it was the third one. However, Artemis did find out his true name.

I never stated that the books focused around Butler. I simply said that using the descriptor "manservant" every time was bad writing. Let me ask you, would it be acceptable and enjoyable to read a work where every time a character was brought up the writer said "blonde-haired blue-eyed goddess"? Variety is needed, otherwise the reader loses interest and the writer has a poor vocabulary.

Your point that using "manservant" so as to show the reader he has no name is moot. Why? Because Colfer continues to use it after that point, in the same book and later in the series. The name "Domovoi" is probably used two or three times in total. Simply put, there's synonyms for "manservant".
 
'manservant' doesn't involve quite that many adjectives, so it's not really the same thing. It's really not that bad; you're just being pedantic, which is weird because it's usually my job to nitpick.
 
I'm an English major with editing as my education/career path. I know a few things about writing and reading, and Colfer really isn't that good. At least literary critics and the reviews of his work agree with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top