Brisingr Spork, Part 7: To Walk the Land Alone (2/4)

[pangolin20]

hidden_urchin wrote in antishurtugal, 2016-11-30 23:16:00

Brisingr Spork, Part 7: To Walk the Land Alone (2/4)


“To Walk the Land Alone” is a long chapter. Twenty-three pages, to be exact. In order to make the task more manageable, I have broken it down by Eragon’s moral choices. This is the second of four sporks.

***

Justice or Vengeance? (~2,500 words)

After satisfying his own hunger, Eragon takes some time to study Sloan. Sloan is in surprisingly good shape, considering that he was confined, tortured, and starved. The only injuries Eragon observes—beyond his eyes, of course—are that Sloan’s fingernails are “ragged, torn, and blackened with accumulated filth.” Eragon even notes that, although Sloan’s skin shows his age, his muscles were “hard and lean.”

We’ll add “the deterioration of the human body due to confinement, torture, and starvation” to the list of things that would have benefitted from research. Admittedly, it’s quite a long list.

From this careful and not at all creepy observation of a sleeping man, begins Eragon’s second dilemma: what to do with Sloan? Eragon does not believe he can just let Sloan go for two reasons: he doesn’t want Sloan reuniting with his daughter and her husband, and he “[believes] the butcher should be punished for his crimes.” Eragon goes on to remember Byrd, the man Sloan allegedly killed, and feels “the watchman’s family deserved justice, even if they never learned about it.”

Here, Paolini raises an interesting question (albeit unintentionally): is it truly justice Eragon seeks, or is it vengeance?

Eragon’s view—and possibly Paolini’s depending on how closely you think character and author are linked—is that justice can exist independent of the people wronged. In other words, if Eragon punishes Sloan then justice has been served, whether or not Sloan’s community hears of it. I would argue, on the other hand, that Eragon is trying to legitimize his need for vengeance by calling it “justice.”

What is justice? (Or, more accurately, what is the ideal of justice as opposed to its horribly imperfect reality?) At its heart, justice is a necessary action undertaken by a community to preserve or restore social bonds when individuals have broken them. In order for justice to work, instead of further damaging the fabric of the community, people must have faith in both its administration and its result. These things, of course, will reflect the specific needs and beliefs of the society. It is for this reason that justice is inseparable from the community that was wronged.

Justice must have three things to have a chance of being accepted by society as a whole: First, it must have impartiality. All community members must believe that they will be treated equally otherwise those wronged will not accept their treatment and social bonds will be further disrupted. Second, it must reflect the community’s values by following the laws of the community. If it does not reflect the community’s values then the community will reject it. Third, it must be overseen by someone the community entrusts with the task. Otherwise, any decision will be seen as illegitimate.

Vengeance, on the other hand, does not benefit social relationships, only the individual. Frequently, the action violates the law and community values; it can happen arbitrarily and on impulsively and it is undertaken by an individual, not a representative of the community. For these reasons, it often occurs in the shadows.

So, Eragon believes that he can give Byrd’s family justice by punishing Sloan, even if they never hear about it. Thus, his first thought fails to meet the core purpose of justice: to repair social bonds.

His next thoughts fail as well. Eragon thinks

"What, however, would constitute proper punishment? I refused to become an executioner…only to make myself an arbiter. What do I know about the law?"

Here Eragon fails on points two and three. He does not know the law and therefore cannot render judgment in accordance with community values and, more importantly, he has not been given authority by the community to make such judgments.

But that’s enough thinking for now. Poor Eragon’s brain is taxed to the limit. He decides to have a chat with Sloan, waking the poor man from sleep.

Sloan is disoriented, asking where he is. Eragon, always fond of hearing his own voice, responds by saying

"The elves—and also the Riders in days gone by—called this place Mirnathor. The dwarves refer to it as Werghadn, and the humans as the Gray Heath. If that does not answer your question, then perhaps it will if I say we are a number of leagues southeast of Helgrind, where you were imprisoned.”

There’s not much of interest in this paragraph, other than Eragon exercising his superiority over Sloan by showing off his knowledge instead of answering directly.

Sloan has more questions, but Eragon cuts him off with a “harsh tone” that “acted like a whip on the butcher.” Paolini is doing a solid job of characterizing their relationship in this exchange and it’s not an impartial one.

Eragon offers Sloan the remaining game and, while the butcher eats, takes time to put out the coals in his oven “so that it would not betray their presence in the unlikely event that anyone else was in the vicinity.” Apparently, The Brain has taken over from The Stomach. Good thing it waited until the food was prepared so Eragon could have a nice, seasoned, cooked meal instead of having to eat raw. The horrors!

There is also some good characterization of Sloan in this passage. Although starving, Sloan eats neatly and efficiently. He also places the bones to one side instead of tossing them away. The effect is that the reader sees Sloan as a strong and disciplined man, despite his hardship. Sloan only improves on that image by thanking Eragon, saying

“Thank you, strange sir, for your hospitality. It has been so long since I had a proper meal, I think I prize your food even above my own freedom…If I may ask, do you know of my daughter Katrina, and what has happened to her? She was imprisoned with me in Helgrind.”

Sloan’s thanks here is not merely a grunted, symbolic “thx.” It is a formal display of gratitude. More than that, his valuing of the meal sets him apart from Eragon, who viewed the meat as something he could not “properly season” and “bland” and a “meager supper.” Finally, Sloan ends with his driving goal: concern for Katrina.

Eragon doesn’t exactly empathize with Sloan, preferring to coolly observe that “his voice contained a complex mixture of emotions” including “respect, fear, submission, hope, trepidation, and determination.” Indeed, Eragon is surprised to not hear “the sneering disdain Sloan had used with him during their encounters in Carvahall.”

Yes, Eragon is not only a character seemingly incapable of change; he is completely unable to recognize that other people change with their circumstances.

In any case, Eragon’s thoughts further illustrate the relationship between him and Sloan. And it only gets worse.

When Eragon reveals to Sloan that Katrina is with Roran and the Ra’zac are dead, Sloan guesses just who it is who rescued him. Eragon confirms this in a very Eragon-like way.

A sense of doom and destiny descended upon Eragon. He felt as if he were the instrument of those two merciless overlords, and he replied in accordance, slowing his speech so each word struck like a hammer blow and carried all the weight of his dignity, station, and anger. “I am Eragon and far more. I am Argetlam and Shadeslayer and Firesword. My dragon is Saphira, she who is also known as Bjartskular and Flametongue. We were taught by Brom, who was a Rider before us, and by the dwarves and by the elves. We have fought the Urgals and a Shade and Murtagh, who is Morzan’s son. We serve the Varden and the peoples of Alagaesia. And I have brought you here, Sloan Aldensson, to pass judgment upon you for murdering Byrd and for betraying Carvahall to the Empire.”

Shut up, Eragon.

This speech is, in many ways, an extension of the one he gave when Sloan asked where they were. It is solely about demonstrating his superiority over Sloan. Sloan is just a village butcher, who probably never left Carvahall. Eragon has traveled across the land and performed mythic feats. Yet, although Eragon has done these things, he still doesn’t demonstrate a fraction of Sloan’s dignity or bearing.

More interesting, however, is that Eragon has decided to pass judgment on Sloan. A mere two-and-a-half pages prior, Eragon is questioning his knowledge of law and (barely) touching on the question of whether or not he’s qualified. Now, with no warning, he says he the whole purpose of bringing Sloan out here was to try and judge him? There’s no progression between the two. Indeed, the progression of their relationship suggests that this is an impulsive decision, triggered by Eragon’s desire to dominate Sloan.

I’m not, of course, saying that Paolini should give the reader a Virginia Woolf-like insight into a character’s stream of consciousness. I think such a thing might actually be a violation of the Geneva Convention. However, the reader does need to see a transition from A to B in order to see the character as consistent—or at least making a reasonable choice. Eragon, however, continues to make choices in a vacuum. At best it makes him inconsistent. At worst it makes him look sociopathic.

It gets worse. Much worse.

Sloan disbelieves Eragon and says

“You lie! You cannot be—“

“Lie?” roared Eragon. “I do not lie!” Thrusting out with his mind, he engulfed Sloan’s consciousness in his own and forced the butcher to accept memories that confirmed the truth of his statements. He also wanted Sloan to feel the power that was now his and to realize that he was no longer entirely human. And while Eragon was reluctant to admit it, he enjoyed having control over a man who had often made trouble for him and also tormented him with gibes, insulting both him and his family. He withdrew half a minute later.

What. The. [Insert Explicative of Choice].

With this action, can there be any doubt about whether or not it’s revenge Eragon wants?

An entire essay could be written about this paragraph alone. The Ra’zac were only able to hurt Sloan’s body. They could starve him and peck out his eyes, but Sloan’s thoughts were still his own. Those were safe. Eragon has gone so much further by invading the one thing we have that is ours and ours alone: our minds.

And does Eragon question this decision? Is he horrified by this act of violation, not committed for any real reason, but just because his ego is bruised? No. Eragon enjoys it.

Now, not only has Paolini failed badly to show any heroism in Eragon—a hero would not violate another person, especially a defenseless one—but Paolini has also missed an opportunity to tie this dilemma to the preceding one. How? Well, what to do with Sloan both from a legal standpoint and a personal one is just as much a moral dilemma as whether or not to hunt. Legally, Eragon has to decide whether or not he is qualified to pass judgment on Sloan. (I think his behavior makes it clear that he is not.) Personally, Eragon has to decide how to treat Sloan as an individual who is dependent upon him.

This is where the previous dilemma (how to treat the animals) could influence the following one (how to treat Sloan). For example, if Eragon had fought telepathically with the animals or been otherwise influenced by his connection with them during the hunt, it could have informed his choice to treat Sloan this way. Perhaps he would desperately want to force himself on Sloan, but realize that it would be horribly wrong. Or perhaps he might enjoy the power he had over the animals and it might encourage him to treat Sloan this way. In any case, the treatment of the animals and the treatment of the person can be linked. (Linking the two might also give the reader additional insight into what the author thinks about how treatment of animals and treatment of people reflect each other.)

But, no. These decisions remain isolated from each other.

Eragon tried to break Sloan by forcing himself on the butcher that way. He even expected that Sloan would “collapse and grovel.” But Eragon only hardened Sloan’s resolve.

“Blast you,” he said. “I don’t have to explain myself to you, Eragon Son of None. Understand this, though: I did what I did for Katrina’s sake and nothing else…Do what you want with me…I don’t care, so long as she’s safe…Well, go on! What’s it to be? A beating? A branding? They already had my eyes, so one of my hands? Or will you leave me to starve or to be recaptured by the Empire?”

He then sits and waits “with military precision.”

He did not beg. He did not ask for mercy. He did not deny his acts or attempt to placate Eragon. He but sat and waited, armored by his perfect stoic fortitude.

That is one heck of a character, right there. He has been starved, tortured, and blinded. A being far more powerful than he has carried him out into the wilderness and invaded the most private part of himself—his mind—and Sloan is still on his feet, caring only for the wellbeing of his daughter. His actions are, dare I say it?, heroic.

And this strength finally makes an impression on Eragon. He thinks, “My verdict will shape the rest of his life.”

Does Eragon linger on this thought? Does he decide that he’s not qualified to make a decision because he doesn’t know about the law? Does he think back to the violation he just committed and decide that he’s the wrong one to make a decision about Sloan’s life?

Of course not. Eragon and true introspection are mutually exclusive. It’s strange, but every time Eragon gets close to looking honestly at himself, he backs away.

This time, he backs away by thinking about Sloan. Everything he knows about Sloan. Eragon takes all of the things he knows about Sloan and “turns them over in his mind, pondering their significance.” Eventually, he sees some sort of great pattern that represents Sloan’s self.

Throwing the last line of his web, Eragon felt as if he finally comprehended the reasons for Sloan’s behavior. Because of that, he empathized with Sloan.

More than that, he felt he understood Sloan, that he had isolated the core elements of Sloan’s personality, those things one could not remove without irrevocably changing the man.

Seeing a tortured and broken man? No empathy or understanding.

Forcing oneself into his consciousness? No empathy or understanding.

Pondering all of the little facts of his life? Empathy and understanding.

Now, let’s be fair. Maybe Eragon suddenly had a revelation that allowed him to empathize with Sloan, but we don’t get to read it. Maybe he’s a changed person and will feel remorse for how he treated the butcher earlier in the chapter.

In any case, Eragon learns Sloan’s true name. Eragon finds this somewhat unsettling as he had never learned someone’s true name and “always expected that if he did, it would be as a gift from someone he cared about a great deal.” As opposed to one stolen from a person he treated with less care than the animals he killed. As a result of learning Sloan’s true name, Eragon vows “to devote more time to introspection and to uncovering his true name.”

Enjoy looking in that mirror, Eragon.

And, with that, Eragon comes up with a plan.

***

Part Three of this spork will be posted on Sunday, 4 December, (PST).

63 comments

[1]

the_bishop8
December 1 2016, 17:01:10
“A person’s mind is his last sanctuary. You must never violate it unless circumstances force you to. The Riders have very strict rules regarding this. If they were broken without due cause, the punishment was severe." - Brom

How can an author have a character quote the above in one book, and have this happen in another book? It's fucking unbelievable.

[1A]

paulp1993
December 1 2016, 19:25:12
I think Kippur also mercilessly savaged Paolini for what he allowed Ergy to do to Sloan at a certain point. It's essentially a "kick the puppy"-moment and I'm amazed nobody took it out of the book at some point or another. Were the editors just that greedy that they said "Ayurp these damn bricks will sell whatever, let's just approve the drivel and take a six-day weekend"?

What am I saying? There's no other explanation.

[1B]

Anonymous
December 1 2016, 21:28:52
The answer to that:
Eragon: "I AM the Riders!"

At least that's how I would write it but, ah, well.

[1C]

hidden_urchin
December 2 2016, 01:52:42
Good catch!

I think that's more proof that Eragon has no real grounding in his own past and experiences. We get a blank character in every scene.

[1C1]

torylltales
December 2 2016, 18:01:51
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is one of the biggest problems I have with Eragon as a character, literally nothing that happens to him actually has a lasting effect on him. Every chapter he's back to a clean slate, maybe slightly more "ruthless", maybe with a shallow "oh no eating meat is bad but boo hoo b/c meat is delish and I'm hungry" moral "dilemma", or maybe with a brief sentence of "aww murder is bad, am I bad for murdering?" followed by him happily playing with a dead person's tooth.

At the end of the series that only real change in Eragon from the beginning of the series is a whole bunch of unearned, undeserved power-ups and special prizes.

[1D]

predak123
December 2 2016, 03:13:57
How can an author have a character quote the above in one book, and have this happen in another book? It's fucking unbelievable.

Because Paolini is the master of self-contradiction. I've been rereading the blue book, and it's full of characters saying one thing on one page and then something completely contradictory on the next. Some examples off the top of my head: The healer Gertrude states that Garrow's condition hasn't changed in five days, but then she says she thinks he'll be fine because he's "hardy and strong"; Brom states that Riders weren't allowed to use magic until they'd gone through rigorous mental and physical discipline for years (so they don't accidentally kill themselves) and then goes on to say that they get a Rider to unleash his magic by giving him a pointless task that frustrates him into using magic; Brom says that he didn't heal his wound for "no reason" and then says it's because he didn't have the magical energy for it.

[1D1]

theepistler
December 2 2016, 10:00:59
The Cycle really does read like it was written by someone with no attention span and no short-term memory, doesn't it? It's like he never pays attention to what he's actually writing and just puts down whatever seems like a good idea at the time.

It also makes me wonder about what went on during editing. It makes (depressing) sense that the latter Bricks weren't edited very stringently because they were guaranteed bestsellers, but with the first one? The guy's first novel and no-one bothered to point out basic continuity errors which would take all of two minutes to fix? We do know that there was some substantive editing, ie. material was cut from the original manuscript/self published edition, but I'm beginning to suspect they didn't even bother with a basic copyedit. I mean, my copyeditors point this sort of thing out to me all the time. That's their job. And if someone did do that with Paolini, that would imply that he ignored them. But I really do think it's a case of there being no copyeditor to tell him in the first place.

Pardon me while I take Knopf right off my list of publishers to send query letters to.

[1D1A]

Anonymous
December 2 2016, 13:04:13
Either that or CP just doesn't give a shit. He seems to view the IC as more of a brand than a story. He does seem very money oriented. I could even say he seems materialistic (but not to the extreme like some do). I'm not saying he's shallow or anything but he constantly references media and material items. He doesn't strike me as deep, sentimental or spiritual. This is a guy who didn't pursue art because there was no money in it or college because he struck it rich with Eragon. I vote for him ignoring his editors. He comes off as very rigid, narrow and stubborn. His whole family comes off as controlling to the extreme and seem like the 'My way or the Highway!' types. I bet neither party gave a shit as long as the money kept rolling in. His new book if it ever gets published will be confirmation. Maybe he'll go the way of Meyer.
In other news, it looks like CP has interviewed Tamora Pierce. Pardon me for a LOL and a CRINGE. Witness him talk of his love for the craft and lets us know how deeply he struggles as an author. How he learns and grows. His is truly a hard life. Also, apparently Tamora Pierce is responsible for twilight and it's ilk. Because she paved the groundwork. WTF IS THIS ISH?! STFU CP! But LOL @ the image of him reading twilight. Remember when twilight was Eragon's rival? If only Edward and Eragon had killed each other.
Why ignore Knopf? Think of all the Eragon-level monies you could have! For all we know, CP may have been booted. Let me dream! He doesn't exactly have a marketing gimmick anymore. He's in his mid-30s now and looks it. Sometimes I wonder what happened to him. He used to be such a babyface and look so fresh. Now he looks like he's aging fast. He looks worn too. The only gimmick he can use is 'From the bestselling author of Eragon' and I'm not sure that'll work. It didn't work for Meyer and she has 10x his success/money.

[1D1A1]

Anonymous
December 2 2016, 17:55:17
Tamora Pierce. The same Tamora Pierce who started writing fantasy novels because she found that she couldn't relate to the generic male main characters in fantasy?
Aw man I only read one book by her so far but I already adore her!
Sure, Pao "struggled". Yeah, he can tell himself that ..... wow

[1D1A1A]

theepistler
December 2 2016, 20:34:30
I still can't believe any respectable author would want anything to do with PaoPao. Do they not know he's a plagiarist? If he offered to interview me (harhar, that could so totally happen) I'd be like "oh hell no. Er, I mean, I'm washing my hair tonight, sorry"

[1D1A1A1]

Anonymous
December 2 2016, 21:11:57
No one even watches his interviews so I don't see why they participate. I see no benefits. Unless this is CP's attempt at colleague social interaction or a big ego stroke. If he allowed comments, I'm sure they'd be full of LULZ.
The most LOL worthy moment is when CP remarks on conventions. I never knew they were exciting and people wanted to be there! People care about things?


[1D1A1A1A]

theepistler
December 2 2016, 21:30:54
'Cons exist because people with mutual interests like to get together in one place? That's so surprising!' ~No-one Ever (except for Paolini, apparently).

No one even watches his interviews so I don't see why they participate.

So weird. Maybe they just like him as a person or something and are doing it as a favour? I got nothin'.

[1D1A1A1A1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 05:50:43
What favor? It's not like these interviews make him any more relevant. Dear gawd, his intro music gets on my nerves. All they do is illustrate what a boring and awkward conversationalist he is. It also proves my theory that he's full of BS when he goes on about how educated and well-read he is (especially the classics). That kind of thing shows. I'm going to have to go with ego stroke. I often get a superior vibe from him in his videos. I wonder how long until he interviews Martin or Sanderson. He loves to humblebrag/low-key namedrop about his fantasy connections. I always LOL@ Sanderson's reactions when talking to CP. It's even more hilarious when you see how oblivious CP is to it. I just found this funny, remembering his last group interview with Pierce. Ah, the cringe and second hand embarrassment.

[1D1A1A1A1A]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 07:40:43
Maybe they don't care enough to hate him. I can't believe he'd really be on anyone's radar. It's hard to loathe someone who's irrelevant to you. Admit it, Paolini is relevant to all of you guys, by virtue of how much you hate him. Pierce and Sanderson? Not so much. Authors have to put up with tons of crappy people, right? Paolini's just one more.

[1D1A1A1A1A1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 09:43:31
We keep him relevant. If this community was dead, CP would be a total NO1CURR. I'm sure CP reads here. He looks himself up and spends alot of time online. I wouldn't be surprised if anons like you are from Camp Paopao. Why do you think he writes so slow? It's surely not from honing his craft or personal responsibilities. Most YA authors are married/have families and still churn out work regularly. I don't think anyone here ACTUALLY hates CP. At most we LOL, poke fun and shake our heads/roll our eyes. Sometimes we get fed up with his BS and his mooching family.
I'm curious, what crappy people or people period does CP have to put up with in his professional life? It seems like most either kissed his ass or handled him with kid gloves. I agree that he's not on anyone's radar. He knows it too.

[1D1A1A1A1A1A]

theepistler
December 3 2016, 10:08:17 Edited: December 3 2016, 10:08:31
Wait, why would big names like Pierce and Sanderson "have" to put up with Paolini? They can easily ignore the guy and say no to being interviewed by him - no skin off their noses.

By "favour" I mean as in "a personal favour". As in "this guy is no longer relevant and I haven't even read his books, but meh, I kinda like him as a person and don't have the heart to say no".

I don't hate Paolini. I hate that his garbage was successful and took attention away from so many good books the industry could have promoted instead. I hate that his publisher has so little respect for the reading public that they were prepared to hype the crap out of a lot of horribly written, plagiarised fanfiction. I hate that his family exploited the guy for money. I hate that his father attacked and threatened people for being honest about the quality of what his "prodigy" cash cow had written. I hate that this crap got a movie adaptation. I hate that the industry works in such a way that something like this could happen in the first place.

CP himself, as far as I am concerned, is just a sad sack with delusions of talent thanks to a lifetime of being coddled and spoilt by his horrible parents.

[1D1A1A1A1A1A1]

the_bishop8
December 3 2016, 11:15:18
Not sure if you guys know this, but Sanderson commented on Paolini's AMA, and one thing he said implied an ongoing conversation between them.

Brandon Sanderson: Hey, Christopher. Glad you stopped by! I'll have you know I recently said yes to being a guest of a Montana science fiction convention specifically because you keep encouraging me to visit.

[1D1A1A1A1A1A1A]

theepistler
December 3 2016, 16:00:29
I guess they're friends, then. (And Sanderson's stock just went down further in my eyes)

[1D1A1A1A1A1A2]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 12:57:07
To the guy who thinks I'm from Camp Paolini, whom I'll note is an anon him/herself, kindly buzz off. You don't know me.

And I've seen great authors, like Margaret Atwood, have to put up with the most pretentious twits at interviews. Then again she's an author with actual books to promote. Epistler, you're a published author, right? Didn't you ever have to deal with some obnoxious asshole at an event?
Paolini is such a non-entity that real authors probably don't suffer much from his presence. He seems to alternate between fawning and patronising when he talks to writers. But he doesn't matter.

And see, I think it's untrue to say you not hate him. Not that's I meant to say you're wrong to. I am in no way shape or form attempting to defend him or discredit you. I just think that you guys really hate him. Thats just my own opinion formed by what I've read so let it justify be that. One guys opinion. I don't see myself changing my mind or convincing you guys that's you've all secretly been wrong about how you feel.

[1D1A1A1A1A1A2A]

hidden_urchin
December 3 2016, 13:25:50
Perhaps you would care to provide examples. If not, please don't be hurt if people think you're full of it.

Please keep in mind that a lack of agreement is not hatred. Criticism is not hatred.

[1D1A1A1A1A1A2A1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 13:37:47
Don't patronise me.

[1D1A1A1A1A1A2A1A]

hidden_urchin
December 3 2016, 13:44:06
Don't dish it out if you can't take it, Anon. There's a whole, wide internet out there. I'm sure other communities will be more to your liking.

[1D1A1A1A1A1A2A1A1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 13:55:56
So far all that happened is that people have taken the fact that I dared to offer my opinion as a sign that I'm clearly a sockpuppet or a troll. I suggested that Paolini is so insignificant that big-name authors wouldn't be likely to have any problem talking to him in a fake-friendly way for a few minutes. I think they have enough professionalism to put up with a hack who hasn't been important for a decade. I was replying to speculation about why such authors would let him interview them.

And I'm sorry if I think there's a deeper motive at play. I don't get how these books even had fifteen years worth of critique in them, so I was looking for an explanation that made sense to me. And I think it's possible to hate, or like something, and criticise it at the same time. You're right. The act of criticism doesn't imply hatred. I think I went out of my way to say that.

[1D1A1A1A1A1A2A1A1A]

theepistler
December 3 2016, 16:16:01
Epistler, you're a published author, right? Didn't you ever have to deal with some obnoxious asshole at an event?

More than once, unfortunately. I've been forced to sit with smug douchebags in front of an audience while politely pretending I didn't hate their guts. I had to make nice with Paolini himself once (it wasn't hard - in person I found him really likeable. Which is one reason why, no, I don't hate him. You can have a low opinion of someone without outright hating them). But this is a case of these people choosing to spend time with the guy when they're not obliged to, which is what makes it odd.

And you are right: the Cycle does not have fifteen years worth of criticism. It's entirely too shallow and devoid of any substance for that. I believe the reason we're still at it (other than that the social aspect is nice) is that the Cycle makes a really good lens through which we can talk about and analyse writing and storytelling. Paolini's mistakes are texbook examples of what not to do, so in between mocking it for fun we use it as a learning tool. Doing so has really helped me develop as a writer, and it's done the same for plenty of others.

[1D1A1A1A1A1B]

minionnumber2
December 3 2016, 18:57:34
I personally think the Cycle is more popular than anyone here would like to admit. If he were completely out of the public consciousness he wouldn't still be getting interviews or mentioned every once in a while by casual readers. It doesn't exactly have a fandom, but it'll still get brought up when people talk about things they're nostalgic for (in the same realm as Dragonlance or Animorphs or [insert any 90s cartoon here]).

Though you do have a good point. He's not actively hurting other authors, so why assume they have any reason to dislike him?

[1D1A1A1A1A1B1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 21:42:53
All right, everyone. Thank you for your interesting responses. I know it almost spiralled into an argument there. I'm very glad that it didn't. Now I actually understand what was confusing me before. I appreciate that you all took the time to respond.

I see now that you can separate your opinion of the books from your opinion of Paolini (which I found odd because I'm not sure I could). It's been nice having this discussion. Let me just assure you, I'm an anon but I have no connection at all to Paolini. I didn't come to attack you. I used the word "hate" incorrectly, and then tried to defend it for as long as felt reasonable.

[1D1A1A1A1A1C]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 20:15:44
Anon 3, frequent user. I agree. I dont mind Paolini. Its his books i enjoy critiquing.

[1D1B]

jaloren
December 3 2016, 11:13:40
The Cycle really does read like it was written by someone with no attention span and no short-term memory, doesn't it? It's like he never pays attention to what he's actually writing and just puts down whatever seems like a good idea at the time.

Definitely. I also get the sense that CP has a preconceived notion of how a reader must respond to each scene and character--In the blue brick when Sloan is telling people about the stone from the spine, it's as though we're supposed to hate him because we're automatically on Eragon's side. Sloan's actions and motivations are reasonable and consistent, but unapologetic to the person we're supposed to have accepted as the hero and thus are not valid. CP asks for too much suspended disbelief for his darlings, expecting amazement and a lack of questioning. Perhaps anticipating this from the reader is an unconscious effect of redoing everything that's been done before. Eragonian ethics are about expecting more and giving nothing.

[1D2]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 04:21:47
The only real counterargument I have for that is that the Riders only did the "Piss-them-off-until-the-magic" thing was because they accidently discovered it for themselves. Everyone else wasn't taught until, as you say, they were disciplined enough.

Also, Brom not healing his wound because he didn't have the magical energy for it is the same as not "no reason." It's just specifics. (Then again, I may be misinterpreting that sentence - I don't really recall any point of the sort where this happened, and don't have the books on me to fact-check. I do recall the magic thing with enough clarity to give some thought on that, however.)


As for Gertrude, from what you've said, she might just be keeping some optimism. Not changed is just that, so she could be holding out for some hope that he does get better (he didn't, but that's besides the point. Again, no way for me to fact-check).

[1D2A]

predak123
December 8 2016, 07:45:51
I think you're being overgenerous. I likewise don't have the book in front of me, but I will attempt to counter. Huzzah!

Brom said it was basically a matter of course to have piss-them-off activities. Which could explain why Galbatorix snapped and started killing off the Riders.

On the magic healing: Eragon asked him why he didn't use magic to heal himself, and Brom replies with "No reason," and then backtracks to say it was because he didn't have the magical energy. Brom seems to be the worst when it comes to self-contradiction. Another instance is when he says you can't deceive anyone in the AL, talking to a bird to prove it, and then goes on to say that elves have mastered the art of not telling full-truths in the AL.

I think Paolini was going for Gertrude being optimistic, but it's handled so badly that she comes off as either stupid or psychotic. She says things like "it's all for the best" in the same breath as "his condition hasn't changed," and she doesn't really question as to where his burns came from or why they won't heal.

[1D2A1]

Anonymous
December 11 2016, 23:53:00
I, likewise, vaguely remember the Brom not healing himself line. And from what I can remember the explanation was more in line of "tis just a scratch. There's no need." Which could be some words of wisdom about not abusing magic and letting it become a crutch that you need to survive (it probably isn't or if it was Paolini forgot about it since everyone always defaults to magic all the time). It also serves as some subtly foreshadowing to the fact that Brom's been putting every spare bit of energy he has into his ring for the past 100 years so (depending on how magical healing works vs natural healing) it might be more profitable to just let a minor injury heal on its own since the energy it would take to heal it is better off in the bank so to speak.

[2]

theepistler
December 1 2016, 20:17:04
*applause* Your sheer dedication here is mind-blowing! I would've just ranted for pages and pages about how big of an asshole Eragon is (again).

Honestly, the series really doesn't seem to recognise any difference between justice and revenge. Killing Galbatorix is supposed to be about justice, but everyone involved in his downfall has an ulterior motive. Eragon was mentored by Brom and the Elves, both of whom bear personal grudges against theguy, so they're hardly impartial. I don't even know what the fuck Nasuada's motive is supposed to be. Since when did Galbatorix do anything to her? Or Surda, for that matter?

Eragon breaking into Sloan's mind was a huge WTF for me. You know what's really horrible and scars a person for life? Rape. Rape is the most intimate form of violation of a person's body and free will that exists in the real world, and anyone who does it is rightly regarded as a complete monster.

Breaking into someone's mind and invading their very self has got to be ten times worse. And yet Eragon does it to an old blind man just because he can. And then tortures him by use of his True Name, which I'm pretty sure if something else you're not supposed to fuck around with on moral grounds.

What in the hell was going through Paolini's mind when he wrote this??? What was even the point of any of it? *headwall*

[2A]

Anonymous
December 2 2016, 02:54:17
Because he clearly:
- Never thought of sloan of anything more than a menor villain. And thought it could be “redeemed"
- He has no freaking clue han death is not the worst thing that could happen to you (as kippurbird already said)
- he obviously thought very little On the implications of his writing

The whole ordeal reads líke if a kid was trying to punish someone who bullied him while thinking of Excuses to say to his teacher and not get punished

[2B]

Anonymous
December 2 2016, 13:13:43
I heard people say the IC reads like an anime. CP is apparently a fan of anime/manga/KDramas. Rape/force/stalking is a popular fetish in those mediums. You also see it in a lot of YA. CP seems kind of creepy himself. Is it true Eragon tried to force himself on/make Arya stay with him in Inheritance? I haven't read it but heard he had some creepy/rapey behavior. I wouldn't be surprised though, given his creepy behavior towards Arya in Eragon/Eldest.

[2B1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 20:18:23
Rape/ stalking are rare aspects of hentai and ecchi anime, not anime as a whole. Just clearing some misconceptions.

[3]

kidwithrabbit
December 1 2016, 21:46:32
And this just goes to show that Eragon is in no way better than Galby. Well, except at being a villain, maybe. Galby was too busy forcing people to wear embarrassing masks to ever do anything on screen.

[4]

syntinen_laulu
December 2 2016, 06:57:21
Something truly weird is going on here. I mean, we know that Eragon is a self-aggrandising vindictive psychopath, so his behaviour isn't that much of a surprise. But how could Paolini fail to recognise that everything Sloan says and does here shows him as genuinely noble and heroic? Whassgoinonere?

[4A]

Anonymous
December 2 2016, 07:15:25
That's exactly what I was thinking! If I only had this chapter without knowing what this book is about, I'd think that this was a POV chapter of the villain of the story. How the hell do you get to this point? And how the hell did no one point this out to Paolini?

[4B]

theepistler
December 2 2016, 10:20:58 Edited: December 2 2016, 10:22:16
I know! This entire Sloan thing is just... bizarre. Bear in mind too that Paolini apparently considered it so important that he was willing to derail his entire plot for just so he could put it in there. But why? What the hecking heck (yeah, I've been hanging out with snake enthusiasts) is so important about Sloan? He's not a major character. He's no more important than, say, Horst. Why would you side-track the entire first third of a novel for the sake of a minor character who will not play any further role in the story?

And, too, if Sloan is meant to be a bad person, where's the bad and hateful characterisation? Why isn't he sniveling and pleading and trying to bargain for his life like a huge coward? Hell, you could even have had him use his sorry state to get Eragon off his guard, and then try to stab him in the back. But no - this guy who is supposed to be a huge selfish jerk is instead acting with selfless courage and clearly places Katrina's life above his own. (Something we never see any of the heroes do despite their protests to the contrary).

And if Eragon is meant to be a good person, where's the compassion? Where's the empathy? Why in the hell is a "hero" instead showing a lot of unbelievably arrogant posturing and utterly needless brutality? Toward a guy he's known his entire life who has clearly already been tortured?

It just boggles my mind how anyone could be this completely tone-deaf about writing heroes and villains. I mean, Paolini actually puts effort (and a lot of it) into actively sabotaging his protagonists and making them come off as completely horrible people. If Eragon were just passive and careless about helping others, we could maybe chalk that up to lazy writing. But this goes way, way beyond that. Paolini keeps throwing in scenes which aren't needed for the plot, in which his "heroes" do cruel, vindictive things to other people. I really, really do not understand what the hell is going on here. If I thought Paolini were a hell of a lot more subtle and clever than he's so far come across, I'd suspect he was just screwing with us at this point.

[4B1]

Anonymous
December 2 2016, 16:04:41


If Sloan was based on an actual person whom Paolini knew (and hated) like many other characters in his books, it makes sense that hederailed his story to take revenge on that character. May be that is why he didn't see how disproportional Eragon's response(justice!) is.

Though I feel bad for saying something like this without any evidence.
-TTT

[4B1A]

hidden_urchin
December 2 2016, 16:14:09
It's like how JKR treated some of her characters in the Harry Potter series...usually the ones that crossed Hermione. The disproportion of the response to the offense just makes you want to ask "WTH, author?"

[4B1A]

theepistler
December 2 2016, 18:58:09
Huh? I don't remember anything like that. I do remember Rita Skeeter being stuck in a jar, but the woman had committed some pretty serious crimes, and after she was let go she pretty much went straight back to being a huge jerk.

What happened to Umbridge was pretty damned disturbing, though. Not going to lie about that. But Snape, who we know for a fact was based on a guy Rowling hated, was heroically redeemed and shit. Not really a fair comparison if you ask me.

[4B1A1]

pipedreamno20
December 3 2016, 00:42:55
There was that time Draco got turned into a ferret by fake!mad-eye moody for calling her a mudblood...

And the time she got hit with a spell that grew her two front teeth longer and snape was an ass about it. Then afterwards hermione gets the sick bay witch to keep shortening them just that little bit longer so they weren't so apparent any more?

It's been a while since I've read them so not sure either of those examples are disproportionate at all, or even very accurate.

[4B1A1A]

theepistler
December 3 2016, 00:58:42
Funny, really, given that "Mad-Eye" is actually a Death Eater in disguise at that point. Guess he just did it to maintain his credibility as one of the good guys. Well and the Death Eaters are pretty pissed off at the Malfoys for wussing out and pretending to rejoin the good side.

And yes, Hermione does get hit with a spell which makes her front teeth grow longer, and then takes the opportunity to have them shrunk back to a more attractive size. I see nothing wrong with that - who wouldn't do that in her place? It's a rather nice example of the bullies having one of their cruel pranks backfire on them.

In this series most of the petty bullies learn their lesson and change their ways. Even arch asshole Malfoy realises he can't handle the reality of acting out his racist beliefs and repents.

[4B1A2]

hidden_urchin
December 3 2016, 00:54:56
There was also Marietta Edgecombe, who was disfigured (possibly permanently) by Hermione's jinx after she revealed the existence of Dumbledore's Army.

[4B1A2A]

theepistler
December 3 2016, 00:59:48
Um, she got a few pimples. Which we already know can be easily cured with Bubotuber pus.

[4B1A2A1]

hidden_urchin
December 3 2016, 01:16:24
Except the book described a much more disfiguring condition than a few pimples and that Madam Pomfrey was unable to treat it. Additionally, Half-Blood Prince had a line mentioning that Marietta was still unable to conceal the damage, even with heavy makeup. Finally, in an interview, Rowling stated that she would likely have healed without some scarring.

It's really easy to criticize unskilled authors and unlikable characters, but we also need to critically examine the behavior of characters and choices of authors we admire.

[4B1A2A1A]

theepistler
December 3 2016, 01:27:42
Okay, wow. Clearly my memories of that series aren't as accurate as I thought they were. A teenage girl being permanently disfigured thanks to a single poor decision is pretty damn fucked up. Honestly, the whole series is way darker and more fucked up than most fans realise. But most of it is subtext, so not everyone picked upon it.

[4B1A2A1A1]

torylltales
December 3 2016, 08:28:18
I can't remember if the movie was true to this part, but in the book the pimples also spelled out the word "traitor" or something equally bad, across her forehead.

So there's that, as well.

[4B1A2A1A1A]

theepistler
December 3 2016, 09:55:01
Marietta wasn't in the movies - they cut her out and had Cho Chang be the traitor instead (except it's revealed Cho was slipped some Truth Potion, so she didn't do it on purpose).

In the book it was the word "SNEAK", right across her nose, if memory serves. Damn, Hermione is one stone-cold beeyatch.

[4B1A2A1A1A1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 13:03:14
They did fade in time. Not permanent disfigurement. And if Hermione weren't as stone-cold as she is then Voldemort most definitely would have won. Plus are we forgetting that Umbridge was completely evil and took delight in torturing children?

[4B1A2A1A1A1A]

hidden_urchin
December 3 2016, 13:19:36
From a July 30, 2007 interview with Rowling cross-posted on Time.

"Louie: Did Marietta’s pimply formation ever fade?"

"J.K. Rowling: Eventually, but it left a few scars. I loathe a traitor!"

I think a critical trait for authors is to have compassion for all their characters and recognize that, although they may not agree with a character's choices, that character has specific reasons for acting how they do. If they want heroes to remain heroic, they have to temper their heroes' actions to the circumstances and character of their opponents. Rowling was reasonably skilled at this, but--as her treatment of Marietta shows--she did have issues at certain points.

Finally, although Umbridge's behavior was sadistic and wrong it does not absolve Hermione of her choice to set Umbridge up to be (quite likely) raped by centaurs. It's the same justice v. revenge moral choice Eragon faced. Hermione failed it just as badly.

That said, I think Hermione's lack of empathy towards people who cross her is a valid and realistic character choice. I can believe a real teen girl, particularly one who is of above average intelligence and questionably socialized with her peer group, might not be particularly empathetic towards others. I can see how easily she might be caught up in ingroup/outgroup thinking and see the ends as justifying the means. Fully developed adults have fallen short of their ideals. Why not a child or teen who is still developing?

[4B1A2A1A1A1A1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 13:44:28
So was she supposed to let Umbridge torture Harry to death? Or maybe just kill Umbridge so the centaurs wouldn't have to? What way was there for her to stop this crazy fanatic with superior skills and power, while keeping her principles?

Perhaps Inigo Montoya should just have said "eh, what can you do?" And never tried to get revenge on Count Rugen, too. Because choosing to seek revenge is always reprehensible and earns the tsk tsk of passerby. No one ever has sensible reasons to want it.

[4B1A2A1A1A1A1A]

hidden_urchin
December 3 2016, 13:53:05
As I said, Rowling's choice with Hermione is a valid one and makes far more sense than Paolini's choices with Eragon. However, the author must handle such choices carefully. First, the character needs to suffer consequences from that choice. Second, the author must accept that readers may not see the character as admirable for making such a choice.

[4B1A2A1A1A1A1A1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 14:00:52
I agree with your second point. I don't with the first. What consequences would balance the scales here? the way I see it Umbridge sows the seeds of her own destruction, and Hermione acts as the agent of destruction. Why does she need to be punished for punishing the guilty? Why do we need to pretend that Umbridge's viewpoint is reasonable and understandable? Why would Rowling need to have sympathy for her?

[4B1A2A1A1A1A1A1A]

hidden_urchin
December 3 2016, 14:14:22
I think I answered your questions with respect to Hermione's choice in the spork. :-) As for the author's relationship with the characters, I said "empathy," not "sympathy." Empathy is merely an understanding of the character's point-of-view. It's how you create three dimensional characters. If you don't have empathy for them and can't see how they would do what they do then you're going to create a cardboard cutout of a character, or you're going to handle the character in a way that breaks suspension of disbelief.

[4B1A2A1A1A1A1A1A1]

Anonymous
December 3 2016, 14:18:58
You haven't answered me in regard to consequences. What would your Hermione suffer, to be allowed to defeat a minor bad guy?

[4B1A2A1A1A1A1A1A1A]

hidden_urchin
December 3 2016, 15:03:04
Consequences depend on the writer's goal for the story. If an author wanted to change the entire course of the plot, allowing the judicial system to step in would be a way to do that. There's a reason vigilante justice rarely ends well. Or, the author could create relationship consequences. Perhaps the other characters would refuse to trust the protagonist, or even refuse to associate with him/her. If an author doesn't want the character to face substantial consequences at all, but still wants to make it clear that the s/he does not approve, the author can merely have another character call out the behavior and move on.

Consequences aren't always about "balancing the scales." Not all consequences are equal to the offense: some are greater and some are lesser. Fiction should always consider consequences, however, as stories are built on causal relationships.

[4B1A2A1A1A1A1A1A1A1]

hidden_urchin
December 3 2016, 15:20:14
I forgot to be more specific with my answer. Sorry about that.

My choice as an author would be to pivot the story at the centaur encounter. Instead of having the centaurs conveniently decide the trio were "innocents," I would let the centaurs decide that the trio were not too young to be held accountable for their actions, putting them in the same peril as Umbridge. At that point, either all of them would have to work together to get out of the mess or Dumbledore would have to step in. In any case, Hermione would learn that a.) book learning doesn't always translate to practical application, particularly where sapient beings are involved, and b.) manipulating others into doing your dirty work can backfire in a big way.

[4C]

Anonymous
December 2 2016, 13:18:48
CP doesn't seem very self-aware and appears to be quite dense. He's definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I bet those things are hard when your family keeps you locked inside a bubble.

[4D]

doomotter
December 3 2016, 09:48:49
perhaps paolini rhought Sloan was being petulant.

[5]

torylltales
December 2 2016, 16:13:16
"After satisfying his own hunger, Eragon takes some time to study Sloan."

Unintentional metaphor for Eragon's moral and ethical priorities .

Some fans have pointed to Sloan's relatively good condition to suggest that he may have been working freely with the ra'zac all along, and was only imprisoned as recently as Katrina's capture.

I seem to remember one person (fan or anti, I don't remember) theorising that the ra'zac took Sloan's eyes specifically because he kept asking to see his daughter.
If that's true, then Eragon's actions with Sloan are basically the same as the evil inhuman monsters he was so determined to exterminate.

[5A]

Anonymous
December 4 2016, 03:55:26
You know, that theory MIGHT explain the behavior of Katrina. Maybe the Ra'zac only took his father away from her because he offered to tell the information that he knew if they spared her. Maybe they started torturing him only after he run out of information to tell, and were going for Katrina after finishing him off (Thus why she is almost intact)
Maybe they made her belive that Sloan was dead, and that is why she barely reacts after hearing the news; she alrady belived that his dead was a fact, and Eragon just confirmed it.

Yeah, those theories don´t excuse Eragon´s behaviour at all, and if that is what happen, he also prevented a heartwarming reunion with a heroic parental figure (Much more heroic than him) with a daughter that belived he was dead.
Way to go CP, even someone that is tryng to fix your plot holes can´t make Eragon seem anything but a selfish jerk.



Original repost:


epistler posting in as_sporkive, Sep. 18th, 2019, 08:39 PM