# Ranger's Apprentice book 1, Gorlan's ruins.



## Endymion (Aug 12, 2012)

THIS REVIEW IS A MERE WARNING! I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN A PROPER REVIEW
IF IT WOULD BE WORTH IT.

Apologies: I am sorry that this review is pretty childish but there is a reason for that.
Check out the plot summarize in wikipedia if you are interested.
THE PLOT IN A NUTSHELL: 
An annoying boy gets trained by a ranger and saves everyone.
...
Morgarath, an evil war lord wants to revenge on a king with his Wargal (orc) army in a world similar to ours.
Meanwhile, a young boy called Will becomes a rangers apprentice. 
Together they train, talk about boring generic stuff, train, walk around the country trying to progress the character development and the plot, TRAIN... 
In the end, Will saves the day. That's it. 

THE REVIEW:
The first book is terrible. It is boring, the characters are generic and well, thats it!
It is as clichÃ© as Eragon, and honestly, that should be enough as a warning. Even the fans of the series admit that the first books are bad.
DO NOT READ THIS BOOK. Sure the series progress and becomes slightly better after each book but honestly, it is not worth your time. 

I recommend this book to Eragon fans. Everyone else should avoid this like... HIV.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 12, 2012)

*A Second Opinion*

Hold on a moment there. You're not being even remotely fair. In fact, I'd call this review dishonest. Eragon and Ranger's Apprentice are nothing alike. Here's a few points you glanced over or missed.


Morgarath is not the "Dark Lord" archetype. Perhaps he _thinks_ he is, but he's not. He's an ordinary rebellious Baron with an army of trained (mindslaved?) animals.
--
Wargals are NOT orcs. They're more like wolf-men.
--
Spoilers: Morgarath is actually killed in the second of the ten books. The "dark lord" plot is NOT the mainstay of the series as per convention. So I'd say the series averts cliches more than it uses them.
--
Whereas Eragon made absolutely no attempt at realistic anything, Ranger's Apprentice takes much care to represent a relatively historically accurate depiction of feudal Britain. The writer shows his work quite often, which is what separates it from most fantasy books I've read.
--
The worldbuilding is done very well. Now because Araluen and the other countries in RA are just alternate versions of medieval Europe, there's very little of the fantastical element to be found. Magic barely exists, if it exists. There aren't any fanciful creatures. But the author gives this world a very grounded, true-to-life feeling. I'd call it Game of Thrones, but simpler and without all the stuff I hate about Game of Thrones.
--
Will and Eragon are as different as night and day. Your comparison of the two is disingenuous. Eragon is an average, not special farmboy with hardly any goals of his own who all of a sudden comes into great power. Will is character who actually has aspirations and goals and (get this!) he works to achieve them. Things don't magically happen for Will. Everything he gets, he earns. Another cliche Averted.
--
Halt is the only character I'd say resembles anyone from Eragon, but that's because I'd say that Halt is Brom done right. He's mysterious, keeps to himself, he can be short and impatient, and he's got a past filled with secrets. But beneath all of that you get the sense that he really cares about his friends and the people he works with. But beyond all that, his character isn't just another mentor. He has quirks. He has depth. He's interesting, or cool at the very least.
--
Rangers acting as a medieval Secret Service is an awesome concept that you barely even mentioned, which I think is an injustice.
--
But here's your most egregious error: Will does not "save the day". Or at least, I wouldn't call killing the Kalkara "saving the day." It's merely the culmination of what he's been working toward during the rest of the book. It might be seen more as a rite of passage than a grand battle. What's more when Morgarath is killed in the second book, it's not Will who does it. Will actually ends up being captured by the Skandians because he makes mistakes from time to time. Unlike Eragon. 

That isn't to say that the books are perfect. The writing style can be a bit plain, and I don't care for a couple of the names Flanagan uses (Mountains of Rain and Night? Really?). But I don't think you gave the book a fair shake. A review must talk about the good _and _the bad. You took only the bad and exaggerated it to what is (I feel) an absurd level.


----------



## Endymion (Aug 13, 2012)

Yeah, I definitely overreacted, sorry for that. It definitely has some alright moments, but in the end, I just couldn't enjoy it one single bit. The review sucked.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 13, 2012)

Endymion said:


> Yeah, I definitely overreacted, sorry for that. It definitely has some alright moments, but in the end, I just couldn't enjoy it one single bit. The review sucked.



Its alright. I'm not attacking you. And hey, some books just aren't for you, regardless of how good they are. But I think its best to write reviews after the storm of hate has subsided a bit. It's fine to say you don't like something. Just try to do so in a fair and balanced way.


----------



## Endymion (Aug 13, 2012)

Thanks. Yeah, there were a couple of moments that simply made my blood boil. Next time I shall control my temper.


----------



## SlimShady (Aug 13, 2012)

At first I wasn't going to check this book out at all, because I have heard some people trash it.  But, thanks to your review, Mindfire, I will certainly be putting this on my to read list.


----------

