Reading Brisingr Part Two: The Madness Returns.

[pangolin20]

theepistler wrote in antishurtugal, 2016-09-06 18:31:00

Reading Brisingr Part Two: The Madness Returns.

The meltdown continues...

Ooh, Roran just staked his non-existent honour on the downfall of the Empire and this is somehow a shocking and badass thing to do. Pfft.
strange considering nothing we have seen to date and following this gives any kind of indication that the human population of alaglag live in a society centred on concepts of honour.
Yeah. And Roran's not the least bit honourable. He's dishonest, needlessly violent, and prepared to stoop to threatening innocent women and endangering the lives of children.
if honour had been previously shown to be a big deal in society, this would have had more (any) impact.
I think Paolini just likes to say his characters are "honourable" because that makes them sound good, with no thought given to what codes of honour actually are and how they work.
HOW are your characters honourable, Chris? What particular principles do they hold to no matter what the circumstances? They certainly don't follow any of the following: 1) Saving innocent lives 2) Observing the rights of prisoners, women and children 3) Avoiding the use of cruel and unusual punishment 4) Honesty 5) Chastity 6) Refusing to resort to such tactics as poison 7) Fighting fair in any way shape or form. Did I miss anything?
remembering that not all societies have the same concept of what honour is, but yes, there doesn't seem to be any particular creed or code they hold to besides "rebels good empire evil" and "screw you I've got mine".
Naturally.
Well there is a thing about how sex before marriage is bad, but it's not explained why this is considered wrong. Where's the Jesus substitute telling them to wait until marriage? Is it also wrong to masturbate?
It's just medieval Christian attitudes toward sex stuffed in there with no explanation.
Wasn't having bastard children only really that important if you were a high noble, because of politics and big inheritances? Why would peasants like these two morons care?
because they want to be just like the rich people?
there's historical precedent, just look at how the Anglo Saxon peasants started using Norman words after William I. They had to reason to, but it was fashionable to speak Norman because all the royalty of the time were Normans.
Hah, well Nas is already treating them like rich important nobles, what with the arse kissing, special treatment and the box of completely unearned treasure meant to keep Katrina clad in "mink and silk". It's so stupid.
Roran's neither important nor remotely useful as an addition to the Varden's ranks, but he's being treated as if he were a damned Prince in exile.
yeah, and it's all completely out of nowhere.
so he led a rag-tag group of peasants on a cross-country flight from the empire soldiers they rebelled against, and then stumbled Mr Bean-like through a series of increasingly ludicrous and unlikely victories.
It would make more sense if Nasuada thought he was the reborn trickster god or something, or was bestowed with the Blessing of Unlikely Victories as a baby, or something.
all of this could have been fixed with one little off-scene between Nasuada and one of her aides (who was that one who was going to be the new Varden leader until Paolini decided the position should be inherited? Jorgmunder or something?), where the advisor is like "why the hell are you wasting all this time and riches on a farmer peasant?" and Nasuada was like "quiet! Haven't you seen how he manages to stumble into the most ridiculous victories? No matter how ill-equipped or incompetent he may be, the gods have blessed him to win the day, and I'm not going to risk the disfavour of the gods by spurning their champion" or something like that.
On the other hand, if Paolini had included a reference to the Lady of Victories (or her garden), I think I would have ripped pages out with my teeth.
XD
Since I'm reading it on my phone, I'm sadly unable to throw the book across the room.
Yay, Eragon gave Roran and Katrina magic rings which will not serve any purpose in the story! And Nas claims that handing over all those valuables was necessary because she wants to get Roran on her side... even though he already is on her side and has no money, status, or useful allies to offer. Did she do this sort of thing for Martland Redbeard, the deposed Earl who might actually have connections and whatnot? Argh. Protagonists should not be considered important by the rest of the cast just because the author says so!
...what kind of idiot tries to block a sword with his HAND? >:(
Neo from the matrix?
Except that he was shown to be "just a man" by doing so.
Not that it matters, since this character will never be seen again.
And Roran casually says he'll kill every single one of Galbatorix's mentally enslaved soldiers just to keep Katrina safe. How romantic.
I know he's meant to come off as protective and brave here, but he just sounds like a psycho.
Oh, and Saphira bullies a guy into giving her mead by shooting fire at him. I think that was supposed to be funny. What's with Saphira's boozing? Is it supposed to be a running gag or a cute character trait or something? Why would a dragon want to drink booze anyway? And Eragon is getting emo over animals dying AGAIN. I don't remember him having the same issue with personally slaughtering a bunch of other human beings. Dick.
Ugh, the dialogue between Eragon and Orc Rip-off Guy With Stupid Name is *hopelessly* disjointed. Random unasked-for infodumping, no follow-up questions or actual
reactions to anything... was Pao drunk?
Pointless giant wolf encounter is pointless! This is SO boring and SO unnecessary. This entire chapter should have been cut down to a paragraph.
Why are the dwarf kids so happy to see him? They're acting like their favourite uncle just came over.
Oh look, Roran, who never so much as touched a sword until a month ago somehow deduces that a trained soldier is a more experienced swordsman than him. REALLY?
Why is this even in the book? Roran being a badass warrior for no reason has NOTHING to do with the plot oh wait there is no plot. *headdesk*
All shall be revealed, all questions answered, in the final thrilling instalment!
At least according to PaoloototPaolootopaolini prior to the release of inheritance.
Somehow I really doubt that. Roran is becoming steadily more and more unlikeable...
How does Roran suddenly know about fancy horse riding stunts? How is he capable of vaulting out of the saddle in mid gallop? Is he an acrobat now? Why is he fantasising about "oceans of blood"? I wish everyone would stop fucking whining about killing people. It's getting really boring and repetitive. And more cheering for Eragon from the dwarves WHO DON'T LIKE DRAGON RIDERS! What the fuck is this shit? Oh look, another Tolkien rip-off. Morgothal? Really? That doesn't look familiar at all? Gah.
Why are Eragon and Orik arguing?! None of this makes any sense! And how is Galbatorix trying to take over Alaglag?? He hasn't attacked the elves, or the dwarves, or Surda either! He's not doing ANYTHING. Why is Eragon and everyone else babbling on about how the county is doomed unless they kill the guy? This book is one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life. I swear it's actively killing my brain cells...
Why does absolutely everything, no matter how irrelevant, need a fancy fake-language name? Oh, and now Eragon suddenly knows about the workings of the inner ear, plus the word "mechanism" has just appeared in a medieval fantasy world. WHAT?
The dwarf ninjas scene was one of the dumbest and most boring fight-scenes I've ever read.
How is Roran able to hit people from horseback with his stupid blacksmith's hammer??? >:(
Is it wrong that I'm far more entertained by your ongoing reactions to the book than I ever was by the book?
No. I'm a very entertaining person.
and this is a very unentertaining book.
Yeah. I've started skimming by this point. It's so incredibly boring and lifeless. I don't give a shit about any of the characters, or the world, or the non-existent plot.
It's as much fun to read as the minutes from my workplace's regular board meetings.
I've read academic papers which were less stiff and pretentious.
Ugh, Saphira's narration is so stupid. And, perhaps more importantly, boring.
Why is this chapter from Saphira's POV? Nothing that happens in it has anything to do with her! Why is she calling Nasuada's tent a "chrysalis"?? Why in the hell does Roran suddenly want a military command? Since when was THAT an ambition of his? THIS MAKES NO SENSE! And he gets pissed off when two measly missions aren't enough to qualify a complete nobody with no military background to become a captain? IDIOT.
And that's another pointless chapter over and done with. Wait, I just read "Kiss me sweet" - make that two. Katrina's dialogue is absolutely preposterous. And the entire "you're just a regular guy who still manages to be super duper awesome for no reason" claim had me rolling my eyes. Oh, look - more hypocrisy about killing. I'm completely sick of wading through these endless pointless discussions about the Morality of War, and how Roran and Eragon *so do too* feel bad about killing people. No they don't, they're a pair of bloodthirsty violent hypocrites with insufferably huge egos, and this holier than thou bs isn't helping
Stop kissing Eragon's arse, Orik. He hasn't done a damn thing to show he actually gives a shit about the dwarves. Also, shut up period. You're boring me to tears and you don't sound like a fantasy character. You sound like a particularly boring CEO.
And purple veil dwarf guy is a traitor to his own race for trying to kill Eragon? *snort* That's rich. Gods the Mary Suism is beyond belief. Everything always has to be about
Eragon, Eragon, Eragon. When the other characters aren't kissing his rear, the narrative does it instead! AUGH! Why does the entire universe revolve around this little putz?
Lol, calling Eragon a puppet of the elves is a "dire insult"?? Bahahah! You ARE a puppet of the elves, you complete moron.
"Why does the entire universe revolve around this little putz?" Because that little putz is a direct avatar of the authorgod who constructed (for a given meaning of the term) the universe?
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why self insert protagonists are a bad idea.
And now Roran is eating dirt. o.0
Oh, look, Roran thinks brutalising innocent civilians is a bad thing. Yeah, about that...
yep.
Are you still in Bris?
Or have you moved on to Inheritance?
AND a literal "kill the dog" moment to show how eeevil the soldiers are? Come ON.
Bris. I'm on the "Insubordination" chapter and bored as hell. I really hate these Roran chapters. He's boring and an ass and I don't like him.
ooh, has Roran been shown to be stronger and more manly than Jesus yet?
Not yet. Right now he's showing off how awesome he is at battle tactics for no reason.
Not looking forward to the whipping scene. I just know it's going to be cringe-inducing.
just as much as the pile-of-bodies scene.
Ugh. Knowing about that in advance is one reason why I'm so disgusted by the "you're only killing because you have to and you're Morally Upright because you don't *enjoy* doing it! If you did enjoy killing that would make you bad!" Yeah, about that...
yeah, it's like all of that angst never happened
and every time they start to angst, they conveniently forget about it soon after.
a generous reader might attribute it in hindsight to the manipulation of the eldunari, but that would be stretching it. By a lot.
...that was one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. He's literally standing on a heap of corpses??? Grinning and laughing?? And taunting his victims? And then he cracks wise about the number of enslaved soldiers he killed? No feelings of panic, disgust or self loathing? And he's injured like 500 times and doesn't even notice, let alone drop dead?
Are you SERIOUS??
And it still somehow managed to be completely boring to read.
Oh, ick, Nas just asked Saphira to "remain inside me". That's just disgusting. I note too that Saphira, the Last Female Dragon who's really super important has done precisely dick all in this book.
Paolini, "injured" and "hurt" mean almost exactly the same thing. Why the flip did Saphira ask if her precious rider is "hurt or injured"? Idiot.
Lol, looking at Orik "dazzles [Eragon's] eyes". SO much innuendo.
Saphira keeps "licking her chops". It's so distracting and silly. I think I've figured out why she's so utterly useless and spends all her time napping: it's because she's a cat. Dragon my arse.
Roran wrestles an Urgal into submission in a totally unnecessary scene, and it's so tepidly written he might as well have been buying groceries. And then everyone kisses his arse for being so awesome. AGAIN. This isn't a story at all - it's a series of haphazard, random scenes dedicated to making all the protagonists look super cool and receiving lots of praise from the NPCs. There's no tension, no overarching threat, no actual plot - just a bunch of completely boring characters getting their boots licked every five pages for stupid reasons. I hate this book.
Saphira being a cat is a common criticism of the series, Paolini has said many times that he modelled her behaviour etc. from cats.
I heard, and boy does it show.

54 comments

[1]

paulp1993
September 6 2016, 18:39:24
"Lol, calling Eragon a puppet of the elves is a "dire insult"?? Bahahah! You ARE a puppet of the elves, you complete moron."

I'd have found the book miles more enjoyable if there came a revelation at the end that Eragon has just been used by the elves and dwarves to bring down a peaceful and strong human Empire as part of a political game.

[1A]

theepistler
September 6 2016, 18:43:05
Instead it turns out he's been used by a bunch of dead dragons to do the exact same thing. But he's totally cool with it. Urgh. Not looking forward to reading that scene at all.

[1A1]

paulp1993
September 6 2016, 18:52:28
If there's one thing more awkward than being manipulated by living elves, it's being manipulated by dead lizards. But seeing how Eragon has the smarts of a plastic sponge, it's unsurprising.

[1A1A]

theepistler
September 6 2016, 18:56:54
*snicker*

At least the elves are shown to be untrustworthy and hypocritical. The dragons are supposed to be all noble 'n' shit. I actually kinda appreciate that Saphira openly admits to liking killing and refuses to make excuses for it. She's easily one of the most honest characters in the entire series. "I like killing, so what?" is WAY less aggravating to read than "I like killing but whine about how bad I feel for doing it every other chapter"

[1A1A1]

paulp1993
September 6 2016, 19:00:08
Eragon is a bit interesting in that, at the risk of slipping into reducto ad Hitlerum, he seems to share some traits with the Führer. Notably in that he weeps at the death of an innocent animal but has no qualms killing countless human beings with little to no emotional response.

I doubt that is the angle Paolini was going for, but then again, I doubt he intended to make Sloan the most sympathetic character of the books either...

[1A1A1A]

theepistler
September 6 2016, 19:42:54
Ugh, you're right. Hitler, for all his evils, was a vegetarian and an animal lover who ran some of the first anti smoking campaigns in history on the grounds that smoking is bad for people. I think his regime also banned vivisection and enacted other anti animal cruelty laws.

Strangely enough, Eragon doesn't really come across as an animal lover. We don't see him petting animals or thinking about how cute they are, or talking to them the way most animal lovers do (Hitler ADORED his German Shepherd). And he isn't steadfast in his vegetarianism. Plus he drinks in the middle of the day like it's no big deal (wasn't Hitler a teetotaler?).

And he commits genocide. Twice. And burns a baby alive. And doesn't give two shits about helpless poor people being killed via starvation and the destruction of their homes (I have quite the rant about this later on in the commentary). And believes in racial superiority.

Urgh...

[1A1A1A1]

torylltales
September 6 2016, 21:56:21
*tries to resist making the observation that Hitler probably had good evidence that smoking is bad for people. Notably bad for 40 million Jews etc.*

[1A1A1A1A]

theepistler
September 6 2016, 22:07:01
Oh you did NOT just go there!

[1A1A1A1A1]

paulp1993
September 7 2016, 00:18:13
I did Nazi that one coming. :P

[2]

torylltales
September 6 2016, 21:51:06 Edited: September 6 2016, 21:54:10
      At least according to PaoloototPaolootopaolini prior to the release of inheritance.



For the record, this was caused by the Facebook Phone Ghost, which does some strange and unpredictable things to text typed into Facebook from my mobile phone. Usually when I'm trying to backspace through the autofill/autocomplete thing.

Said Phone Ghost is also the reason there were large blocks of text in this one where I didn't respond, or responded late.

[2A]

theepistler
September 6 2016, 22:09:55
Huh, I thought you were just making a silly joke in the vein of me using "Alaglag" and "Carvalonghall", honestly.

[2A1]

torylltales
September 6 2016, 22:12:57
nope, gremlins. It's why I try not to use Facebook on my phone too much.

Maybe I should just bite the bullet and download Messenger, because it only happens when I'm using "request desktop site" mode.

[2A1A]

theepistler
September 6 2016, 22:14:51
Yeah, you should get Messenger. It's nice and simple to use.

[3]

hergrim
September 7 2016, 03:24:03
A couple of comments re: bastard children and mechanisms.

The church did indeed discourage people from having children out of wedlock, but in a lot of areas they basically said that if a couple had been living as man and wife for a certain period of time (in some places it was ten years, in others two years, etc), then they were counted as being married. Other regions had rituals that allowed for children to be legitimised on the marriage of their parents (IIRC they were under their mother's skirt during the ceremony so that they could be symbolically reborn or something). At any rate, we have sufficient records from one English parish to say that as many as 1/3 of all women were pregnant when they married. I think there was also a case where a priest had had a mistress for twenty odd years and she caught him cheating on her and the village as a whole came down hard on him.

Non-Christian views on children being born out of wedlock varied. The general gist of it, though, is that it was acceptable for a woman to be the mistress of a higher status man, and that there were probably quite a lot of informal "marriages", although without any of the protections that a common law marriage would provide. Some societies were extremely sexually free and casual sex was performed for both fun and profit with no real social stigma, while in others things could be as restrictive as the Abrahamic religions. Illegitimate children, assuming they weren't born of slaves, were usually considered legitimate at the discretion of their father or made legitimate via their father going through the proper legal proceedings.

Regarding the word mechanism: it's totally medieval, and descended from Ancient Greek. While I haven't had a chance to read it yet, this book apparently details some of the quite elaborate and complex machines of the Middle Ages.

[3A]

theepistler
September 7 2016, 18:51:24
Yep, common law marriage. I've heard of it. Medieval peasants weren't that fussed about the sanctity of marriage, going on what I've read.

OK, granted, "mechanism" is a legit word to use. It looked out of place to me anyway, perhaps because this book is trying to emulate Tolkien and I can't really imagine him using it. Maybe I was just nitpicking.

The book also has blacksmiths using "sledgehammers", Rhunon included. Turns out sledgehammer is a pretty old word, but it still evoked the wrong mental image because in my mind (and I would think pretty much everyone else's) a sledgehammer is a damn great thing used for crude work like hammering in railroad spikes. I can't really picture anyone using a sledgehammer to make Japanese swords.

[3A1]

hergrim
September 7 2016, 19:48:32
Medieval peasants were, in general, fairly concerned about marrying, but then there are issues of dowry (or paying a fee to the lord who owned you), which a lot of people either couldn't afford or couldn't afford right then. Naturally, though, people being people, those who couldn't afford to get married often had sex outside of marriage, which lead to pregnancy and then to a marriage in order to prevent them and their child from going to hell. Some areas, though, were more accepting and tolerant than others, though, especially Scandinavia.

(Medieval sexuality is really confusing and hard to actually understand, given how alien it is to us and a lack of non-clerical sources)

Sledgehammers were absolutely used to make all types of swords. You use big ones for consolidating blooms/welding the billet and drawing the consolidating billet out into a bar, then a smaller one to rough out the shape and finally a smaller, more normal hammer to do the finer shape.

[3A1A]

theepistler
September 7 2016, 20:01:59
Yeah, I know. But only because I googled it. Viewing it through uninformed eyes, I just found it weird and out of place. You shouldn't have to google something you read in a work of fiction for it to make sense to you. Was it really that hard to just say "hammer" and leave it at that? Who CARES what kind of hammer she's using? Paolini has this weird habit of being very specific about unimportant things, which is unnecessary and often results in plot holes and worldbuilding inconsistencies.

Bear in mind, too, that the Cycle is marketed to 14 year old kids. I sincerely doubt kids that age would think of sledgehammers as anything other than big old long-handled things used to break rocks on a chain gang. It ruins the immersion, quite honestly.

[3A1A1]

Anonymous
September 8 2016, 03:37:39
Paolini has this weird habit of being very specific about unimportant things, which is unnecessary and often results in plot holes and worldbuilding inconsistencies.

Sadly, I must admit that Paolini isn't as bad as Jay Kristoff in describing things. This guy's writing is so purple that your eyes will bleed from rolling so hard. A whole book with nothing but metaphors and similes to hide the fact that there's no plot... fuck me, not this again! I thought the black brick was once and done. Example from Nevernight: "Tric gave another half-hearted stab, but the beast had forgotten its quarry entirely, great eyes rolling as it flipped over and over, dragging its bulk back below the sand, howling like a dog who's just returned home from a hard turn's work to find another hound in his kennel, smoking his cigarillos and in bed with his wife."

And another: The girl felt the words in her chest. In the deepest, darkest place, where the hope children breathe and adults mourn withered and fell away, floating like ashes on the wind. *barf*

Thankfully, CP didn't decide to imitate this "Instagram motivational/wanna-be poet" style... yet. Or, holy cow, would we be in for an eyesore of epic proportions. On the plus side, it would make for great sporking material.

[3A1A1A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 08:42:44
Oh good grief! *hurls*
What is this, the second coming of the Eye of Argon? Please tell me this gibberish isn't commercially published, or I may have to commit ritual suicide rather than be a part of the industry any further. Paolini getting $5million for publishing fanfiction was bad enough.

[3A1A1A1]

Anonymous
September 8 2016, 10:14:30
Commercially published by Thomas Dunne Books. However, it gets worse once you see his debut book called Stormdancer, which was hailed as a Japanese steampunk fantasy, but was nothing more than culture appropriation with Wikipedia level of research. Few reviews on Good Reads, bu students of Japanese, and actual Japanese, rip him apart for his poor excuse for research. You know, just when you thought things couldn't get any worse...

-RR

[3A1A1A1A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 10:52:55
....

...

No, it's too much. I can't take it any more.

Goodbye.


[Caption: Silhouette image of someone blowing their brains out with a gun.]

[3A1A1A1B]

Anonymous
September 8 2016, 12:50:57
So, uh--should I stop writing my manuscript about youkai then? A better question would be how to avoid culture appropriation and mucking up research

[3A1A1A1B1]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 16:59:28
RR is clearly referring to a case of the dreaded Weeabo. You know, someone who just writes about "Japanese" culture because it's liek so cool u gize, without bothering to actually form an understanding of actual Japanese culture or do any proper research. Which is considered disrespectful.

[3A1A1A1B1A]

Anonymous
September 11 2016, 08:36:06
Correct. Much of the backlash comes from the book itself, but the nail on the coffin was that the author admitted his research was about as far as Wikipedia and anime. So, yes, it's weeabo garbage dressed as literature. But, that doesn't mean that as a non-Asian you shouldn't write a Asian centered story. You need to do your research, and immerse yourself in the culture. Your characters need to eat, breathe, and think as Easterners. Nothing says poor art as having a Asian character think in Western ways. That was one of the things an Asian reviewer commented in that the main character of one of his books had her mouthing off to her her father...in public! Double insult! That might fly in modern America, but not in Feudal Japan, even a fantasized version. In fact, this author did such an awful job that I encourage you to try your manuscript. We've already seen the bottom of the bucket, so there's no where left to go but up. Good luck in your research, anon!

-RR

[3A1A1A1B1A1]

theepistler
September 11 2016, 11:04:13
Oh, good grief. That's just plain sad.

I've written an Asiatic style culture myself, and Asian characters. And yes, I did my research. It's really important to remember that people from cultures not your own will have a mindset and world-view which may be very different from your own. Maybe you, a Westerner, think it's a good thing to be open with your emotions, but someone from a culture which values emotional restraint and quietness isn't going to agree with that. And then there's the notion of cultural clash as well - I've written Westerners interacting with Asians and thinking such things as "she's just so hard to read!" and "why won't he make eyecontact? It's making me uncomfortable". Meanwhile the Asian characters occasionally give subtle cues which indicate that they think a Westerner is being inappropriate, but never actually come out and say so because they consider that rude. Naturally this leads to further misunderstandings and, occasionally, mutual contempt.

[3A1A2]

hergrim
September 8 2016, 16:35:37
I could see switching from a "sledgehammer" to a "hammer" after doing the initial consolidation, but I do think that the initial use of a sledgehammer is both absolutely justified and works well dramatically, at least when a competent author is writing. Even saying that the blacksmith changed from a large two handed sledgehammer to a heavy one handed sledgehammer would suffice.

Then again, I enjoy the armour porn of the Traitor Son Cycle and Robert Jordan's obsession with explaining how everything works, so we probably have two entirely different views on the matter.

[3A1A2A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 17:01:36
Granted, absolutely. But the problem is that unless you know about this sort of thing and read the book from the perspective of a layperson, you're going to wind up picturing the highly skilled bladesmith making Japanese swords with one of these:


[Caption: Man swinging a sledgehammer into a wall]

[3A1A2A1]

hergrim
September 8 2016, 17:30:09
That's pretty much what you'd use during the consolidation process. Remember, they're welding together and then shaping what is initially upwards of seven kilos of steel.

[3A1A2A1A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 17:34:07
Huh. Must be just me.

[3A1A2A1A1]

hergrim
September 8 2016, 18:41:23
I think you have a valid point. I don't remember the scene well, but I'm guessing Paolini didn't describe descending hammer size or just how much metal was lost in the process.

To add to that, Inheritance doesn't have the pedigree or the history of explaining things in detail that, say, Miles Cameron or Robert Jordan have.

So, while your criticism about the use of the word "sledgehammer" isn't entirely valid for the genre as the whole, it does apply to this specific example. If I came off otherwise, it's just because I'm a pedant with a near OCD need for correcting technical mistakes.

[3A1A2A1A1A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 19:18:43
You're correct - it doesn't say how big the "sledgehammer" is (and apparently there's more than one size, or has been during the course of history). He just throws in the word and leaves it at that. It would have been much more interesting to read if he'd given the approximate size of the hammer instead.

Come to that, I have no freaking clue what size Roran's super awesome hammer is. It's just referred to as a "hammer", which is pretty damn nonspecific. All I know is that it's not a proper warhammer, and was taken from a blacksmith's forge, which doesn't tell me much.

[3A1A2A1A1A1]

hergrim
September 8 2016, 20:02:41
It took me a while, and I didn't find the picture I was after, but here's a medieval smith with his hammerman. As you can see, the hammerman has what could only be described as a sledgehammer. The blacksmith uses his smaller hammer to set the pace and force of the blows for the hammerman, and moves the billet forwards, backwards and sideways as needed so that the hammerman only has to hit at the middle of the anvil.

There's another woodcut somewhere of multiple hammermen striking a billet with sledgehammers, but I can't find it right now.

Regarding Roran's hammer, it's probably not a smith's hammer. IIRC, it had a spike on the rear side, which serves no purpose in a smith's workshop. I'm pretty sure even super obscure and specialised smiths wouldn't need a hammer like that.

The closest I can think of is a hammer with a weird shaped chisel on one end, which might be two or three pounds total weight.

[3A1A2A1A1A1A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 20:06:02
The More You Know!

Actually, it IS a blacksmith's hammer. Roran literally ran into Horst's forge and grabbed a "medium-sized hammer" off the wall. Don't ask me why it has a "flat blade" on it later on, or whatever it was. He at one point claims that he's a potter and the hammer is for "cracking glaze". Uh, what?

[3A1A2A1A1A1A1]

hergrim
September 8 2016, 20:11:47
Probably a hammer with a chisel. It might be as much as five pounds, given that it's described as a "medium sized hammer".

He at one point claims that he's a potter and the hammer is for "cracking glaze". Uh, what?

Roran's genius seems to extend from complex military operations into "creating clever and believable cover stories"

[3A1A2A1A1A1A1A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 20:23:23
I still don't really get why he even needs a cover story. Why would city guards be questioning random people on the street when they're not actively hunting for an escaped criminal? Roran is very obviously just a peasant - he should be beneath the notice of law enforcement officers unless he fits the description of a wanted murderer or something. This isn't some sort of 1984 style police state we're talking about (well okay, maybe Paolini was kinda trying to get that across, but if so it didn't work).

I mean, really. Today I went to the supermarket and there were a couple of cops walking around. Incredible as it sounds, they didn't rush over and ask me what I was doing there and why I was carrying a phone. (I beat a hasty retreat in case there was a crime afoot, but it turned out they were just buying chocolate biscuits, hahah).


Googled "medium sized blacksmith hammer" and came up with this. I can't really see anyone killing armoured soldiers with this thing.

[3A1A2A1A1A1A1A1]

hergrim
September 8 2016, 20:36:05
Sometimes people in power get bored or decide to make use of their power to harass other people. Alternatively, the guards were suspicious and/or curious because their accents were so different from anything they'd heard before. I'm pretty sure that scene wasn't written that way and that Paolini just wanted to show how evil and oppressive the Empire was, but there are some good reasons for them to be questioning random strangers.

It depends on what armour. The head is narrow and heavy enough to dent breastplates or break bones through armour, even if the handle isn't as long as you'd need for a hammer that heavy to be effective. The rear of the hammer, though, would be virtually useless.

[3A1A2A1A1A1A1A1A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 20:44:41
I'm pretty sure Paolini just wanted a "narrowly escapes arrest" scene to make it more "dramatic" and "suspenseful" without bothering to explain why the guards are bothering Roran in the first place. They just randomly do it.

There's a reason why actual warhammers and maces were whacking great things with long handles and a lot of weight. Slow to swing, but if you had enough muscle you could stove in a guy's breastplate no problem. Somehow Roran is able to do pretty much exactly that with this piddling little thing. It's so stupid.

[3A1A2A1A1A1A1A1A1]

hergrim
September 8 2016, 21:21:45
Warhammers were actually really light. As in, a one handed one might be two pounds or less and a two handed one isn't likely to exceed six or seven, and might be as little as four or five.

Their advantages come from leverage and a small surface area, not sheer weight.

[3A1A2A1A1A1A1A1A1A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 21:23:14
What, really? Shows how much I know...

*shuffles off*

[3A1A2A1A1A1A1A1A1A1]

hergrim
September 9 2016, 03:21:29
Yeah. Even the biggest warhammers were pretty light.

(Pic of the two hander that the Met doesn't have up for some reason)

The problem is, because they're "hammers", people automatically assume them to be massive. The Victorian view on warfare probably didn't, and so even fairly good authors have tended towards this mistake, often as a stylistic choice to show how strong their character is, and so, because the author writes well or writes what people think things should be like, the myth is perpetuated.

[3A1A2A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A]

theepistler
September 9 2016, 08:25:47
This is what happens when you draw on other people's fiction instead of reality. I'm just glad I've never actually written about anyone using a warhammer in any of my books, so I haven't displayed that particular piece of ignorance under my own name! Closest I came was giving one of my characters a spiked club. It's not particularly large, made of wood, and he uses it to smash a guy's face in. :p

[4]

Anonymous
September 7 2016, 05:58:55
Why does absolutely everything, no matter how irrelevant, need a fancy fake-language name? Oh, and now Eragon suddenly knows about the workings of the inner ear, plus the word "mechanism" has just appeared in a medieval fantasy world. WHAT?


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present to you Exhibit A - a quote from a 2014 Barnes and Noble interview:

It was surprisingly difficult to move past the prose style I’d established in the Inheritance Cycle. I’d grown so accustomed to saying things in just this way, at first my brain didn’t want to do anything else. As an example: throughout the series, I tried to avoid words or phrases derived from modern sources, such as “backpedal” or “end of the line.” Now, to be able to employ the full range of English that I normally do was tremendously rewarding. It granted me access to whole modes of expression that, previously, I’d walled off in my mind.

As you can see, the accused can't even be consistent in his own defense. I rest my case! :P


P.S. As far as naming things, it's the sign of bad fantasy when even the most generic things are given names that are absolute gibberish to the reader. A rule of thumb should go as an author once told me: are your characters eating bread? yes? then call it bread. If the bread is nothing special and can be found in your grocery store, cal it what it is. Spare the reader and save the fancy fake language words for naming things that are novelties in your book, and can't be found in reality, literature, mythology, and so on. Call a dragon—a dragon; call bread—bread; a spoon—a spoon, etc. Any time I see fantasy start describing the most common details, I know the author is "padding" the story, hoping that'll hide the fact that the plot, or lack thereof, could be minimized down to ten pages of less.

-RR

[4A]

theepistler
September 7 2016, 19:09:16
He apparently used the word "backpedal" anyway. *facepalm*

And you're right - neologisms should only be used if there isn't already an existing word for something. Otherwise, what's the point? I use virtually no neologisms in my own books, and when I do I go with something simple and usually derived from an existing word, so it makes sense to the reader.

I mean, really - who CARES that Oromis lives in the Crags of Tel'nair or whatever? What does that add to the story? The place has no historical significance that we ever learn about, and nor does the name have any particular meaning. It's just there.

[5]

maegwin_of_hern
September 7 2016, 15:09:02
I don't actually mind dragons to be modelled after cats per se - How to Train Your Dragon did the same thing and it worked quite well there. I guess the problem is a) Saphira is just a reeeaaaally unlikeable character (unlike Toothless, who's just adorable), and b) the script of HTTYD is well-written.

[6]

Anonymous
September 7 2016, 23:53:13
Why do you keep telling “this is boring, that action scene is boring, blablabla is boring..." without explaining why?

Is it because of the badly swallowing prose?
Because the characters are so unlikeable that you don caer what happens, and it wouldnt be that abad if that happened to Harri Potter?
Is because the scene feels out of place and it is pointless?

And speaking of which, can you please say what makes those scenes pointless? ( even if bits something of the línea of “thos dotes not avance the plot/characters and is worldbuilding slammed at tour faces”

¿Can you please show and dont tell? Or at least EXPLAIN yourself?

Epistler, you are One of my favourite members of this site, and i would prpbably agree with you un lotes of things. But this is rally irritating.

[6A]

Anonymous
September 8 2016, 03:54:24
Sorry forma my terrible english. I'm still struggling with the spanish programmed corrector

[6B]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 08:18:53
This isn't an analysis. Note that this is a live commentary. It's literally just my knee-jerk reactions as I was reading. In the actual review (which I've now finished writing) I go into detail.

But since you ask, I found 90% of the chapters and scenes in this book pointless because they didn't advance the plot (this book has virtually no plot whatsoever), didn't develop the characters (potential character development is constantly introduced, then dropped like a brick), and didn't provide any world-building that was actually relevant or interesting, or particularly original.

I found the book boring to read because it's very blandly written, I wasn't invested in any of the characters (in fact I pretty much couldn't stand any of them), and the story went precisely nowhere. I hope that answers your question.

[6B1]

Anonymous
September 8 2016, 14:59:05
It dotes, thanks. I look forward to read your analysis.

[7]

syntinen_laulu
September 8 2016, 19:49:07
It would make more sense if Nasuada thought he was the reborn trickster god or something, or was bestowed with the Blessing of Unlikely Victories as a baby, or something.

Or fell into the cauldron of magic potion when he was little?

[8]

syntinen_laulu
September 8 2016, 19:57:09
Paolini, "injured" and "hurt" mean almost exactly the same thing. Why the flip did Saphira ask if her precious rider is "hurt or injured"? Idiot.

I don't mean to defend Paolini, but actually they don't. When any of us kids fell off a horse, or took a purler when skiing, and didn't get up immediately, my mother used to call out almost precisely that: 'Hurt or injured?' It meant: 'Are you just winded and bruised, or do you actually need first aid?' If we replied'Injured', she's come and see if tourniquets or splints were in order.; if 'Hurt', we were just left to collect ourselves and get up in our own good time.
A tough cookie, my mum!


[8A]

theepistler
September 8 2016, 20:02:28
When I fell down some stairs and got a nosebleed, shock and severe bruising, my mother's instant reaction was "OH NO DID YOU BREAK YOUR TEETH I PAID A FORTUNE TO HAVE THOSE STRAIGHTENED!". Seriously.

If we're going to argue semantics I said they mean almost exactly the same thing. I didn't say they were synonyms. It's redundant either way. Saphira should have just said "is he hurt?" and left it at that. It's just an example of overwritten dialogue, IMO.

[9]

predak123
September 10 2016, 05:20:25
In regards to honor, I would argue that it's very possible to have a character that is dishonest, violent, violent toward women and children, and still be considered honorable. I think you're defining honor from a moral point of view, but historical honor and morality are very different animals. If morality is the X axis, honor is the Y. Some actions are both honorable and morally good, some actions are both dishonorable and morally bad, but there are also actions that are morally bad but still considered honorable.

Honor, at least in the Western world (I don't know much about Eastern concepts of honor, unfortunately) is a form of social currency. If you are honorable, it means you are held in high regard, people respect you and your opinion, and people are more willing to be associated with and help you. Honor is obtained through courage (for men), chastity (for women), and courtesy (for both genders). Honor is inseparable from social relationships; you gain honor from your honor group, however that particular group defines it.

Morality, on the other hand, is based on ideas of absolute truth and that right and wrong are separate from opinion. A man in an honor culture proves his innocence by beating up his accusers (his prowess and honor being greater than theirs); a man in a moral culture must provide evidence.

A good example of an honor culture would be the badgers in the Redwall series. Unlike the mice and squirrels, who think in moral terms and abhor violence of any sort, badgers are much more concerned with where their loyalties lie. For Constance in "Redwall," it makes perfect sense for her to create a ruse to get information from the evil rats and then brutally kill one of them by slinging him headfirst into a tree. Her main priority is to defend the abbey; right and wrong never came into the equation. It would be completely out of character and distressing if an otter or mouse character performed the same action because that would go against their sense of morality, but for badgers, wanton violence is part of their code; it's the means of defending their people.

I actually think that the Inheritance series would have been a lot better if Paolini had incorporated actual honor culture into it. There are a lot of things that you can get away with using honor that you can't using morality in your story; wars are much easier to justify to the reader ("he hit me so I'm going to hit back" (honor; you don't want to look like a wimp) is a much simpler argument than "they're evil and therefore deserve to die, even though we're very against killing, and we really don't like it, but we HAVE to, you see" (morality). Fierce warrior characters are easier to write. Antagonists that actually have some virtues are easier to write (there's no honor gained by defeating an unworthy adversary; honor culture allows for a lot of respecting your enemy).There's a lot of situations in epic fiction that are easier and make more sense when you're starting with courage in battle as a value.

cont'd. . .

[9A]

predak123
September 10 2016, 05:20:43
Back to my point that I was trying to make, I think you can have a dishonest, violent character that is also honorable. See Odysseus, for example. Odysseus frequently uses guile on his foes to defeat them, and he is quite violent, but he's also a heroic and honorable character; he's very loyal to his men and very brave. He's not dishonest to his men, of course (honesty is important within your honor group, but not to anyone outside of it), but one of his main traits is his cunning.

Likewise, Shakespeare's Henry V (if you haven't seen the version with Tom Hiddleston, you're missing out, omg). After taking a city, Henry basically tells the mayor "hey, unless you give up full control and ownership of this place to me I'm going to bash your elderly's brains out against the walls, rape your women, and murder everyone in the city." The mayor, wisely, gives up ownership immediately. It's kind of a shocking scene for modern audiences, but it makes sense in context of honor; Henry can't be humble and pulling punches at that point. He either hits them with a threat heavy enough they take him seriously, or they end up going the more bloody route. He has to prove that he has that strength and power and that he's willing to use it. So writing a likeable hero that violently threatens people can be done correctly. It helps if you happen to be the Bard.

Roran could have been written as an honorable character, fairly easily, bloodlust and all. But the Inheritance Cycle is written from a moralistic standpoint, and because of that he comes across as being a monstrous loony monster.

[9A1]

theepistler
September 10 2016, 08:46:09
Well said! And you're right - in some parts of the world it's considered "honourable" to kill women for having sex out of wedlock, which is hardly a morally good thing to do. *grimace*

From what little characterisation Roran has I would have expected him to be the kind of guy who follows fairly traditional Western codes of honour (or, rather traditional Western fantasy novel codes of honour). You know - protect the weak, don't hit women, show mercy to your enemies, be truthful, etc. None of which he observes. He's supposed to be "honourable", but we don't have any idea what his code of honour actually is, or what his society considers to be honourable behaviour. Nor do we know what his moral code is.

What we do know is that he thinks mass slaughter, violence towards women and endangering the lives of children are okay things to do. There's nothing he won't stoop to in order to win, which to my mind implies a dishonest, dishonourable and cowardly character, not a shining pillar of nobility and virtue and whatnot.

There's no consistent morality in this series, and no consistent portrayal of honour or other virtues. Everyone is a massively selfish, arrogant bastard, and Roran is in my opinion the worst offender in that respect. At least Eragon has ridiculous amounts of privilege and special powers to justify his selfcentered, smug attitude. Roran doesn't even have that weak excuse.

Screw you, Roran. You're the worst character in this series.


Original repost:


pangolin20 posting in as_sporkive, February 6th, 2026 07:59 AM