Brisingr Spork, Part 2: The Gates of Death

[pangolin20]

theepistler wrote in antishurtugal, 2016-11-04 19:00:00

Brisingr Spork, Part 2: The Gates of Death

Well, here we go – I thought I was done with the Black Brick after doing an entire live commentary plus a long and cranky review, but like an idiot I just had to open my big mouth and suggest a full-on sporking. What was originally just an idle thought has now apparently become a reality. Oh well, it’s not as if I had anything more important to do. So I suppose I might as well pass the time by making nasty remarks about the efforts of a writer who’s more successful than I am! Yay! Well, if you can call them “efforts” – I get the distinct impression that not a lot of effort was actually put into this book.

Anyway… deep breath everybody – it’s time.

The book opens with, you guessed it – description. Eragon is checking out the eeeevil mountain of Helgrind, which is described as “a dark tower of stone”. Not only does this description not make a lot of sense – your average mountain really doesn’t look anything like a tower – but I’m immediately reminded of Stephen King’s The Dark Tower. And given Paolini’s track record I’m loath to dismiss it as a coincidence. Not that it’s necessarily a bad thing to slip in a reference like this – if it is a deliberate reference it’s amazingly subtle by Paolini’s standards – but it’s kinda tempting me to go read The Dark Tower instead.

…nah, I think I’ll just wait for the movie.

[Cue everyone telling me to go read DT right naaow. Sorry guys – I don’t read high fantasy. I don’t even know why I’m reading this one].

Anyhoo, so Paolini goes on to compare Helgrind to a dagger, which still isn’t an appropriate comparison, and we get some completely unnecessary description of the scenery. Despite the attempts at dark and threatening imagery, the descriptions are flat and evoke neither emotion nor atmosphere.

I note too that we’re supposed to be inside Eragon’s head but he isn’t shown to be feeling anything at all. He’s just kind of there. Doing nothing. We are however reminded that he has super hearing now. Super hearing which will never be either useful or relevant. Like most of his special abilities it’s just there to fill out the Sue quota.

Eragon and Roran watch the worshippers of the eeevil mountain come out in a procession to an altar boulder. All of them are crippled in some way, and the description of their appearance is, shall we say, very insensitive. Paolini writes amputees as if they were little better than grotesque monsters, and this bit quite frankly pissed me off. Can you imagine having a prosthetic leg, or being wheelchair-bound, and reading this bit? I’d be downright insulted.

No, I don’t care that they’re crippled because they did it to themselves. Brainwashed cultists tend to do really stupid things. Because they’re, you know, brainwashed.

Oh wait – I forgot that in this world being brainwashed makes you Evil. Somehow.
Screw you, Paolini.

The description then moves on from the offensive to the just plain ridiculous, with “throbbing” bells the size of “winter rutabagas”, and people crying out in an “ecstasy of passion”. Paolini seriously needs to be banned from using the words “throbbing”, “thrust”, or “shaft” ever again. It’s like watching a child playing with a dildo – ie. simultaneously amusing and horrifying.

Still no emotional reactions. Eragon’s just sitting there like the mannequin he is, robotically listing descriptions of everything he can see. We don’t know if he finds this fascinating, scary, horrible, funny, sad – there’s nothing there. There’s no “Eragon watched in shock as…” or “Eragon’s eyes widened in amazement at the sight of…”, or anything like that. He might as well not even be there.

Cue more religion bashing, as the worshipers mutilate themselves and the High Priest recites all sorts of eeeevil shit. And because the Riders are Just So Awesome and Perfect, we’re informed that people only do eeevil shit like this nowadays because the Riders are all gone.
Look, Paolini – the Dragon Riders weren’t fucking angels sent by God to cleanse the people! They were a bunch of way-too-powerful warrior mage tyrants! There is absolutely no indication that they dictated morality to the common folk, or that their presence magically made the people live noble and righteous lives. This seriously reads like the Fall of the Riders is supposed to equal the literal Fall of Man, Banishment From Eden, etcetera and so on. And there is absolutely nothing to back this up. Well hell, organised religion is supposed to be a tool for, among other things, teaching people how to be good and righteous. And as far as I know while the Riders were in charge there was no religion, organised or otherwise. What, did people worship the Riders instead? ’Cause I can definitely see that happening.

Oh gods, what d’you mean I’m only a page in?

*throws book at Paolini’s head*

Anyway… moving on, we now get our very first dialogue in the book! And boy is it ridiculous.

“Gar!” said Roran in an undertone. “You failed to mention that those errant flesh-mongers, those gore-bellied, boggle-minded idiot worshipers were cannibals.”
“Not quite. They do not partake of the meat.”

How do I even begin to explain what’s wrong with this exchange? Maybe a list will suffice.

1. This is not how medieval peasants talk. At all.

2. This is not how actual human beings, period, talk. Ever.

3. “Errant flesh-mongers”? Really? Is Roran implying that the worshipers are pimps? Because I’m picturing either that or a butcher. And we all know how much these guys love their meat.

4. “Gore-bellied, boggle-minded…” What does this even mean? There are words on the page and I’m reading them but they’re not getting any actual meaning across.

5. Shut up, Eragon. You sound like a pompous ass. Anyone who goes about using the word “partake” seriously in casual conversation is hereby cordially invited to partake of the wrong end of my boot.

6. This isn’t remotely how either of these characters talked in the previous two books

7. There is no emotion in this dialogue. It’s flatter than a supermodel’s stomach (how’s that for a comparative description, eh?)

The High Priest then goes on to give an utterly nonsensical sermon, full of references to various… gods? Saints? Demons? I don’t know; he/she/it just rattles off a bunch of names we’ve never heard before, which will most likely never be mentioned again. There’s also a reference to carrying a “Bregnir” and “abstaining from the twelve of twelves” and “the touch of a many-knotted rope”, all of which comes straight out of nowhere and was so obviously made up on the spot you can practically smell it.

Oh man, and the High Priest actually makes a reference to serving the Church!

So tell me, Paolini – just how do you feel about religion again? Fuck it, I’m a huge atheist and I would never dream of depicting religious faith this way! In fact one of my characters is a huge atheist just like me, and his sneering at people’s prayers and temples is depicted as him being an intolerant, closed-minded jerk! Because, you know, I happen to be aware that not everyone thinks the same way and that my protagonists don’t have to either agree with me, or always be right about everything.

To religious members of this community: I would like to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of atheist fantasy authors everywhere. We’re not all this appallingly disrespectful.

Oh, and the bloodstains on the worshipers’ lips are described as “cranberry”. Paolini, I know you’re colourblind and all, but this is still so not an appropriate comparison.

Actually, you know what else occurs to me? Most sincere believers experience feelings of joy, community togetherness and peace during sermons and other rituals. It’s half the appeal (I went to a religious highschool, so I’ve sat through my share of Christian services). I’m really not seeing any of that sort of appeal here. Why would people even join up with this cult? Do the priests knock on people’s doors with pamphlets and ask them “are you happy in yourself? Our group has a service on tonight, and you’re welcome to attend”, and then once someone decides to show up they’re just kinda slowly eased into the whole “cutting bits off” thing?

Even real-world cults don’t work this way. This entire religion makes absolutely no sense.

Sigh… moving on…

So some of the worshipers do the Cutting Bits Off thing – and somehow one guy is able to lop off his entire hand in one go with a knife, which is not remotely possible (seriously, he doesn’t even rest his hand on the boulder thingy – he chops it off while holding it up in the air. Is this knife Valyrian Steel or something?). Eragon finally has an emotional reaction, which is to wince and look away, and entertain
condescending thoughts about how the worshipers are just so stupid. Roran mutters a curse which is somehow “lost in his beard”, so I guess Eragon’s super hearing just magically stopped working so Paolini could cleverly slip in the fact that Roran has a beard. Screw you, Roran – you’re not manly enough to have a beard.

The worshipers chain a couple of slaves to the boulder (what, no volunteers?), and shamble off, leaving Eragon and Roran to make judgemental remarks about how they’re “monstrous”. The moment they’re out of sight, Eragon leaps to his feet and declares that “we must go and rescue those poor slaves right away!”. Roran gets up too, saying “it might compromise our mission, but we can’t just leave them to die!”, and then they both climb down from their vantage point to heroically rescue-

Oh, wait. No they don’t. They don’t so much as consider it. Instead Roran asks if Eragon can do a mind-scan to find Katrina. Eragon does, in a boring slab of emotionless description which lists all the animals and whatnot he can sense. There is no exploration of what touching another organism’s mind actually feels like. All we get is some robotic stuff about Eragon sensing animals either sleeping or setting out for a night of hunting.

And for some reason, using your Psychic Mind Probe now means opening yourself up to detection. I don’t remember that being a thing in the last book.

We then get a description of Roran which is supposed to be dramatic and emotional but just comes across as really silly:

Eragon searched long and hard. When he returned to himself, Roran was watching him with the expression of a starving wolf. His gray eyes burned with a mixture of anger, hope, and despair that was so great, it seemed as if his emotions might burst forth and incinerate everything in sight in a blaze of unimaginable intensity, melting the very rocks themselves.
This Eragon understood.

Okay, seriously. This is just… ridiculously overblown, trying too hard, and flat-out goofy. For the last time, everybody – less is more. I mean, really. Roran’s emotions are just SO intense that they might make him burst into rock-melting flames? Really? That’s just an incredibly bizarre mental image. And once again, SHOW it. Don’t just tell us Roran is angry, hopeful, despairing, etc.! Show him acting that way.
Seriously. How hard is it to just write this:

Roran grabbed Eragon by the shoulder. ‘Is she there?’ he blurted. ‘Please – say she’s there! Say you found her!’
Eragon pulled away. ‘Calm down! Yes, she’s there.’
Roran moaned softly. ‘Oh thank [insert non-existent deity because Real Heroes don’t worship anything other than their own awesomeness]’

And Eragon understood? Hahah, it is to laugh. Eragon doesn’t give a shit about anyone else’s feelings. Telling us he does doesn’t change the fact that he’s never once been shown actually, I don’t know, giving someone a comforting hug when they’re upset, giving people time alone when they need it, or anything like that. He’s so utterly disinterested in other people except where they can serve his needs he practically comes across as autistic. [I'm on the spectrum so I'm allowed to say that. I have issues with not being particulary interested in other people's lives myself, but I was born with a mis-wired brain. Eragon has no such excuse. And now I'm wondering what a fantasy novel with an Aspie hero might be like.]

What we get instead is some boring exposition from the narrator about how Katrina was kidnapped and Sloan betrayed everybody to the Ra’zac. The narrator also lies to us about how Roran and Eragon are both driven by passion and that Roran’s being just so passionate somehow gives him the magical ability to succeed at everything.

People driven by passion fail all the damn time, Paolini. Mind you, some passion on your part might have made this book a bit less bloody lifeless to read.

The exposition continues as emotionlessly as before, and the narrator explains to us that Eragon and Roran are, like, super close, that Eragon has disowned Murtagh (the callous little asshole), that Eragon has “extended his definition [of family]” to include Katrina because she’s betrothed to Roran. How bloody clinical and cold is that? And also – what, would he not be interested in rescuing her if she wasn’t betrothed to Roran? They only grew up in the same village!

Okay, I need to quote this bit:

This concept seemed even more important because Eragon and Roran were the last heirs of their line. Eragon had renounced all affiliation with his birth brother, Murtagh, and the only relatives he and Roran had left were each other, and now Katrina.

Okay, what? Why is being the “heirs to their line” even important? They’re not nobility (despite what their mode of speech would have you believe), and neither of them have any money or property to pass on. This is written as if the two of them are exiled royalty or something.
Also, Paolini, please stop pretending that Eragon and Roran have a close personal relationship. I’ve read this book and they barely even speak to each other. Nor do we see them having fun together, or otherwise enjoying each others’ company. They act like acquaintances at best. The whole “family ties” business has never worked in this series. Garrow and Brom were both crappy fathers, and Eragon spent the first interminable third of the first book sulking like a child because he somehow couldn’t get his head around the idea of his cousin-like-a-brother getting married. Hardly the behaviour of someone who actually loves and empathises with his foster sibling.

And meanwhile Murtagh, who actually was shown as having a sort-of-friendship with Eragon is swiftly jettisoned. Real nice, Ergy. You’re just the most caring guy ever.

Anyway, so yes Katrina is there, along with Sloan, who goes unnamed for some reason, an omission which is just plain confusing. Roran finally makes a token display of emotion and declares that they’ll have to wait until morning to attack the Ra’zac because they’re stronger at night… for some reason, I’m not sure why. How does Roran even know this?

They finally give some thought to the slaves, as Roran declares that if they’re not eaten overnight they’ll free them in the morning at their convenience. Eragon hopes that they’ll be okay, and the subject is promptly dropped. Literally no emotion. The slaves are treated like set dressing. You could replace them with a couple of legs of lamb and nothing would change.

Why is no-one treated like an actual human being in these books? The NPCs are just there to convenience or inconvenience the PCs depending on what the Plot-O-Matic demands, and the PCs are just author puppets with no real inner lives of their own. Reading this book is like watching Paolini playing with his action figures.

Eragon and Roran set out back to their camp. Cue more uninteresting and unnecessary description, and Eragon watches the stars without a care in the world because he’s a frigging sociopath. And this completely boring and uneventful chapter comes to a merciful end.

And I'm out! Bishop 8 - you're up next!

28 comments

[1]

torylltales
November 4 2016, 21:47:03 Edited: November 4 2016, 21:50:01
if it is a deliberate reference it’s amazingly subtle by Paolini’s standards too subtle. I don't think it's a deliberate reference.

too subtle. I don't think it's a deliberate reference.

Why would people even join up with this cult? Do the priests knock on people’s doors with pamphlets and ask them “are you happy in yourself? Our group has a service on tonight, and you’re welcome to attend”, and then once someone decides to show up they’re just kinda slowly eased into the whole “cutting bits off” thing?



[Caption: Comic from Oglaf

Panel 1: Two people in red clothing with a large cap, and with red crosses around their eyes are proselytising to an old man. The person on the left holds a stick with a skull that has nails driven through its eyesockets.

Left Person: Have you noticed life is cruel and insensible?
Right Person: That's because the creator is angry and insane

Panel 4: They now speak to two others who are fighting each other with large daggers.

Left Person: Nothing you do will make Sithrak angry
Right Person: Sithrak was angry already!

Panel 5: Zoom in on the left person, who now points at the skull.

Left Person: So why not convert to Sithrak—the god who hates you unconditionally

Panel 6: Zoom out to the scene in the first panel, as the right person points at the skull

Right Person: This is supposed to be on fire but today's too windy

Panel 7: The old man slams the door loudly

Panel 8: The people yell at the closed door.

Left Person: Sithrak's gonna fuck you up when you die!
Right Person: No worse than us, mind
]

This concept seemed even more important because Eragon and Roran were the last heirs of their line. Eragon had renounced all affiliation with his birth
brother, Murtagh, and the only relatives he and Roran had left were each other, and now Katrina.

Okay, what? Why is being the “heirs to their line” even important? They’re not noblity (despite what their mode of speech would have you believe), and neither of them have any money or property to pass on. This is written as if the two of them are exiled royalty or something.

Or like the concept of heirs and family lines is ever at any point made to seem like a part of society (let alone an important part that even peasant farmboys worry about). Not even the actual nobility in the story (Orrin, arguably Nasuada, a few of the minor NPC villains and Varden commanders) talk about heirs and family lines. I get that the major theme of the series is supposed to be about inheritance, but literally nobody in the series is ever concerned about their heirs carrying on the family name, or anything like that.

Eragon and Roran aren't even of the same family line, anyway, technically. Eragon's mother and father were different people than Roran's mother and father, therefore they are from separate but related lines. If this society is anything like medieval English society (which it is, because that's the Generic Fantasy Default that we fall back on when Paolini hasn't said otherwise), then Roran would inherit from their grandfather's line, if it came to that, because he's the eldest son of the eldest son. The younger daughter's son is waay down the line of inheritance. So in a patrilineal society they are from separate lines.

[1A]

theepistler
November 4 2016, 22:22:40
Not to mention that at this point Eragon thinks he's the son of Morzan so therefore his precious bloodline is all evil 'n' shit. Because that's how it works in Paolini Land.

[1A1]

torylltales
November 4 2016, 22:26:59
Exactly! so this line is not only out of the blue and unsupported by any previously established story or worldbuilding elements, but also completely inappropriate for the character! It makes no sense whatsoever.

[2]

predak123
November 5 2016, 01:38:35
"What, did people worship the Riders instead? ’Cause I can definitely see that happening."

I've been thinking a lot about doing a rewrite of Eragon, and I think that's one of the things I would include. Dragon temples where people go to have blessings given or healing magic seem really reasonable and logical to me. It would keep the Riders visible and influential in peoples' day-to-day lives. And if you've got a few good sized Eldunari at each temple/shrine, a single Rider could perform a lot of healings.

In fact, having the Eldunari placed strategically through Ala-whatsit means that your chief Dragon Lord could mentally keep an eye on the entire empire all the time by daisy-chaining telepathic communication. And a Rider and Dragon could recuperate at a temple by drawing from the Eldunari's power; they would have pit-stops whenever they had to travel.

Hmmm. . .*scribbles down ideas*

[2A]

Anonymous
November 5 2016, 04:46:17
having the Eldunari placed strategically through Ala-whatsit means that your chief Dragon Lord could mentally keep an eye on the entire empire all the time by daisy-chaining telepathic communication

Like the Palantir

-TTT

[2A1]

predak123
November 5 2016, 05:15:54
A bit, sure. But I think you could make it work without it being a lift.

I think Eldunari would be more limited, and you've also got a personality and biases in the dragon-gems. The Palantir are more like security cameras; an Eldunari net would be more like a telephone switchboard.

And part of Galby's rise to power could have been by strategically knocking out parts of the contact net, and destroying the dragon temples. And then part of Eragon's quest could involve visiting the wreckage from some of the old temples. You could do some cool things with that.

[2A1A]

Anonymous
November 5 2016, 09:54:52
Yes, the key would be personality. It's strange how we get so little from Paolini about what it feels like to touch a mind. It would have been a very personal experience.

The same thing may be applicable about taking energy from other living things. Remember blood bending? Using the energy that another organism was manipulating inside their body should feel strange and different.

But the only time we get any feeling is when Nasuada's magician touches an elf's mind.

Looking forward to reading it!
-TTT

[2A1B]

zorbulon
November 5 2016, 11:09:58
Temples with dragon hairballs, now there's an idea.

And who's to say the temples would not have performed sacrifices, if just mundane people unwittingly donating some of their lifeforce as magic energy by chanting obscure mantras? And wrecked temples sound like great treasure hunt sites for plot coupons. If you want to stick to the established tropes of alagalaland they could be fully charged mana gems. Or just fill out your bingo card to uncover the history! Not only would the top tier Riders be douchebags, they could also be mana-vampires.

Yup, I'm just feeling silly this late in the night.

[2A1B1]

Anonymous
November 15 2016, 05:52:38
Kinda sad when a video game like Skyrim acknowledges the idea that in world where dragons exists, religion would naturally follow, both for good and evil. The Imperial worship Akatosh, who himself is represented as a dragon; Skyrim has dragon priests who were mighty wizards/liches with draconian powers. TES doesn't go in-depth in the religious practices, but gives enough for the player to realize that just like in the real world, things out of the ordinary or not understood by per-scientific minds, would interpret such things as godly. Even if we gave the dragon riders the benefit of the doubt and they were as just as they say they were, they'll more than likely stir a cult following, which in turn, would create a religion, etc. The lack of religion in CP's books only adds to the cardboard taste. As a writer, you don't have to believe in god, personally, but you must understand that in world-building, religion is an integral part of daily life in any century, past, present and future.

-RR

[2A1B1A]

theepistler
November 16 2016, 01:15:07
I've been an atheist all my life. But that does NOT mean my characters are not allowed to be religious, or have their faith treated seriously. I have a very anti-religious character and his close-minded attitude toward religion is portrayed as him being a prejudiced jerk. I have another character who is very religious, and I consider her deeply held faith to be a personal strength. I have had many of my characters pray and/or visit temples to seek guidance, and I have no problem with that. I am not my characters. I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean they have to be atheistic too. I don't hate religion on principle - it's just not for me.

Paolini's spitting on religion is just another example of his "only my personal viewpoint matters" attitude. Gods forbid he ever treat religious faith as anything other than utterly stereotypical, if not outright evil. Even as a fellow atheist I feel quite comfortable calling him an intolerant asshole.

[2A1B1A1]

Anonymous
November 17 2016, 12:36:29
He seems to have internalised a lot of weak arguments against religion at an early age. Though honestly making a work of fiction with no purpose but to (sometimes literally) attack a real-world religion is kind of a terrible idea. It's what turned His Dark Materials from an awesome book with magic and bears into a boring, preachy, pseudometaphysical slog of a series.

Though there are plenty of reasons not to be religious. And skilled authors can portray the good and the bad of religion very well. GRR Martín and C.S Lewis come to mind.

[2A1B1A1A]

theepistler
November 17 2016, 20:50:41
I actually liked His Dark Materials all the way through, buuut... it definitely did lose my interest when it got preachy rather than just telling the awesome story which had originally caught my interest. Has no-one told Phillip Pullman what "subtext" is? If you have a message in your story, just leave it implied. We don't need it shoved in our faces. Readers appreciate it when you treat them with respect.

Writing a religious screed, a la Left Behind and calling it a novel is a really bad idea and is almost invariably going to produce a crappy book which makes your religion look bad (and you looking like, well, a bad author). Writing an anti-religious screed posing as a novel is no better. If I want religion shoved in my face, I'll read a religious text. If I want anti-religion shoved in my face I'll read The God Delusion. But when I pick up a novel, I don't want anything shoved in my face. I just want to read a good story. As we all do.

Newsflash to all authors who don't already know this: Your readers do not give a fuck about your pet causes and personal opinions. You are there to entertain them. You are NOT there to tell them what to think. A good writer is an invisible writer. An atheist author who knows what he's doing should be able to write religion and religious characters in an even-handed manner. Likewise, a religious author who knows what he's doing should be able to write atheists as human beings rather than deluded, arrogant, or evil. Clive Barker has written some beautiful heterosexual romances, and heterosexual sex as well, and reading them you would never suspect that he's openly gay. He probably finds the idea of straight sex rather off-putting, but he doesn't write it that way, because he's a professional who knows how to separate his personal feelings from the text he's writing. (I would kill to see his novel Galilee become a movie. Or Coldheart Canyon).

I'm a white woman who is asexual and doesn't believe in god. But I've written from the viewpoint of characters who are male, Asian, Latino, Middle Eastern, gay, deeply religious, sociopathic, hypersexual, drug addicted - the list goes on. I LOVE putting myself in someone else's shoes. I love imagining what it would be like to be a drug-addled terrorist, or an Egyptian amputee, or a devout priestess. It's such a great way to step outside my own narrow world. Shit, half the reason most authors write is that we're discontented with our own lives and want to escape into a new world and become someone else. But I get the distinct impression that Paolini is altogether too smug and self-satisfied to be interested in trying it himself.

[3]

the_bishop8
November 5 2016, 03:11:53
Sloan goes unnamed because it's supposed to be a "surprise" that he's in Helgrind. Which is because Paolini thinks his fans are dumb and don't remember the last book.

I'll have the next one posted next week probably. I finished it a while ago, I just want to do some editing and give this one time to stew.

[3A]

theepistler
November 6 2016, 20:22:59
Yet another manufactured attempt at creating suspense. Withholding information to create suspense is supposed to make the reader curious and/or tense. If it just makes them confused, it's not working.

[3A1]

the_bishop8
November 8 2016, 06:57:45
Also, their excuse for not attacking the Ra'zac, because they're stronger at night? They are going to be fighting them in dark caves, so that excuse doesn't make any goddamn sense.

[3A1A]

theepistler
November 8 2016, 07:40:50
Oh man, I didn't even think of that. *facepalm* Does Paolini think ahead AT ALL?

[4]

minionnumber2
November 6 2016, 20:16:12
(I can't judge Paolini's choice in the religion because fanatical murder cults are kind of a guilty pleasure of mine. I don't know why, they're just fun to watch in fiction.)

See, this is yet another fantasy trope that Paolini picked up and borrowed without thought or reason. These kinds of scenes were pretty common in older serials. They were an easy way to motivate the hero in less than two pages so that you could get the story done in less than 20 pages. They also came from a sub-genre where fantasy was a little more... colonial in terms of attitude with all the phobic implications attached. They worked in their contexts because the stories were meant to be small shocking pieces about ~weird~ and ~tantalizing~ tales and while some worlds had some continuity, most of the time things kind of existed as they were needed and only as long as they needed to be there for the hero to kick it's butt and move on.

This start might have worked... if the novel was more of a dumb action book instead of a "world heavy" political narrative and if it actually updated it's imagery instead of going for the most boring HP Lovecraft cult imaginable. We see them setting up for adventure in the beginning then promptly go back to thinking over everything instead of jumping right into the action. It gives you a chance to stop the excitement at the weird sights and start to question the viability of the world around it. The second the story starts slowing down and getting more existential, the more real it gets and the less you can rely on interesting imagery.

[4A]

theepistler
November 6 2016, 20:43:27
This start might have worked... if the novel was more of a dumb action book instead of a "world heavy" political narrative

I agree. Over-the-top eeeevil cults work in pulpy adventure stories like Indiana Jones, but by this point Inheritance is clearly trying to be Deep and Morally Grey, so over-the-top eeevil characters/organisations clash really badly, tone-wise. Paolini tends to vacillate between moral ambiguity and clear-cut "good vs evil", and it just makes the morals of his story extremely muddled and leaves his protagonists looking like a bunch of hypocrites. You can't really have deep and meaningful discussions about the morality of killing and Evil cults in the same setting.

Side note: I recall that in Eragon it was mentioned that the Empire banned Domina Ab Wyrda, the dopey little history book (I read the extract from it which was included in the Deluxe Edition of Eldest, and it was awful) and burned the author for "blasphemy". Except there is absolutely no mention of a state religion in the series. Why would Galbatorix, a presumed atheist, even care? There's no Pope equivalent he needs to curry favour with, and he clearly doesn't care about what the Helgrind priests think since he was happy to recruit the Ra'zac as his minions and the High Priest flat-out says the order of worshippers hates him. That aside, I can't even really see why Galby would ban the book for being propaganda against him. He's ridiculously powerful andallegedly rules with an iron fist - why the hell would he care what people think about him?

Also, why would a history book have a nonsensical title like The Dominance of Fate in the first place? Why couldn't it just be called A History of Alaglag?

[4A1]

minionnumber2
November 9 2016, 08:51:35
Who knows, maybe the book had an embarrassing story about his hazing when he joined the Dragon Riders. But what would involve making Galby an actual character and not just a collection of all evil traits Paolini could think of. (Hitler burned books, therefore Galby must burn books.)

[4A1A]

theepistler
November 9 2016, 08:57:09
Yes, gods forbid the villain the story is supposed to revolve around actually be treated like a human being. Even Hitler was a human being with more than one trait to his name other than being a heartless monster. Why shouldn't a villain be allowed to have a sense of humour, or actual loved ones, or a favourite food?

Well okay, none of the other characters in the Cycle have any of those traits either, but even so.

[4A1A1]

Anonymous
November 9 2016, 10:54:01
hitler was mostly an unhinged nutjob.

[4A1A1A]

theepistler
November 9 2016, 16:44:11 Edited: November 9 2016, 16:44:34
But there was still more to him than that. Much as we like to put people in boxes, everyone is a person. Shit, even godsdamned Jeffery Dahmer had dimensions to him other than "deranged cannibalistic serial killer". It's a lesson a lot of authors need to learn. You need to empathise with ALL your characters, not just the "good" ones. You can hate a character while still understanding what makes them tick.

[4A1A1A1]

Anonymous
November 10 2016, 10:41:15
Even VOLDEMORT had more personality (more appropriate comparison?)
-TTT

[4A1A1A1A]

theepistler
November 10 2016, 11:11:30
This is true.

[5]

hergrim
November 6 2016, 20:51:35
I've been thinking: the problem with Eragon being a sociopath is that he's a boring one. Well written sociopaths are a ton of fun to read, but Eragon is just so lifeless. If you compare him to, say, Bad Tom or Willful Murder from the Traitor Son Cycle, he's so damn bland. Either would have left the slaves where they were, but only to lure their prey into striking distance, and then they'd act, entire city be damned. There's just something delightful in Tom's football hooligan attitude towards combat or Willful's morose expectation of everything going wrong.

Eragon simply lacks any traits that make him an enjoyable character to read.

[5A]

theepistler
November 6 2016, 21:19:50
I have often said that "it's more important for a character to be interesting than likable". I can forgive all sorts of vile deeds if the character is still
interesting and fun to read about.

Look at Shakespeare's Henry the Third. He's an amoral bastard who orders the murder of two innocent kids. But we love him anyway because he's just so delightfully interesting and funny. You don't have to approve of his actions to like him.

Fans often say that Eragon is supposed to be "flawed", but this simply does not work, and not just because he never faces consequences for his misdeeds. He simply is not a compelling character to read about in any way shape or form. What exactly is supposed to be endearing about him? He doesn't have a sense of humour or any personal quirks. I don't even know what his personality is supposed to be. Four huge books and he still manages to remain a complete nonentity. I have NO problem with flawed characters. But boring characters? No. I don't care how morally upright a character is - if he/she is boring to read about, I'm out.

[5B]

zorbulon
November 7 2016, 11:36:57
Eragon simply lacks any traits whatsoever. He is completely arbitrary, without memory or any sort of integrity or consistency. Fix a baby's lip and murder some random mook crying for mercy since who cares about mooks anyway? All in a day's work.

[5B1]

theepistler
November 7 2016, 17:29:07
The only consistent character trait I can assign to him is that he's a spoilt brat. I almost said he has the trait of impatience, but that tends to come and go and irregular intervals. Hell, in Eldest he tells Saphira "...for I have the patience of a dragon from you" (the pretentiousness... it buuurns!), and then in Brisingr we get a "comical" scene where he whinges about being forced to listen to Frederick explain how to take care of his new falchion.

Eragon just does whatever the author feels like having him do at any given time, rather than sticking to any sort of consistently developed personality.


Original repost:


epistler posting in as_sporkive, Jan. 17th, 2019, 06:07 PM

MOOD: hungry

Original comments:

[1]

ssbob90
24 April 2019 22:22
Not to push things. But it's been three months since you post part 1. When are the three of you goining to do the rest?

[1A]

theepistler
24 April 2019 22:50
To be brutally honest I was hoping to get Toryll and Anya to handle it for me since it amounts to tedious busywork, but looks like I'll have to do it myself, sigh.