Ahno the Trickster - Deleted Scene #2 Spork

[pangolin20]

torylltales wrote in antishurtugal, 2017-01-26 01:14:00

Ahno the Trickster - Deleted Scene #2 Spork

This 'scene' was cut from Chapter 27, "Over Hill and Mountain".

Ahno the Trickster.

Get to tha choppah!

Sadly not that Ahnold, but given discussion on the previous deleted chapter spork, the famous Arnie quote "It's naht a toomah!" comes to mind.

In this deleted section, Garzhvog the Token Noble Savage tells Eragon the myth of Ahno the Trickster.

Eragon watched the glowing rim of the crescent moon appear above the eastern horizon, the moon as large as a mountain, so close to the ground. “Tell me another story,” he said.

Aside from the fact that the moon is only ever that large in anime and drawings, the detail about its apparent size adds nothing. The sentence would flow much better without it. Also, the moon always rises in a roughly easterly direction. This is exactly as useful as "He watched the sunset in the west". Yes, that is where the sun sets. It is not necessary to detail it.

Eragon watched the glowing rim of the crescent moon appear above the horizon. “Tell me another story?"

See, much better. And more efficient.

His heavy eyes pensive, Garzhvog worked his makeshift toothpick around one of his fangs and then said, “Long ago, when the world was not so old, in the season of snow, Ahno the Trickster was sore hungry, even more hungry than we were just now.

This is the first and only time in the series that anybody uses the word "sore" as an intensifier in place of "very". In a properly developed world it could be an interesting linguistic quirk; in Paolini's world, it just doesn't fit.

So, he took his bow and his arrows, and he set out to kill a deer. For three days and three nights, he tracked a herd through the forest of the Spine,

Gee, this sounds familiar. What was Eragon doing in the very first chapter of Eragon, again...?

but the deer were quick and clever, and Ahno could not catch them. He grew so weak, he thought, ‘Surely now I will die.’

I was going to make a point about how bad the storytelling is, but we have to keep in mind it's being narrated by a character, from memory, and is not in the rhyming or metered form of an oral tradition. Garzhvog is really just summarising the story for Eragon, so it makes sense that the story would lack emotion and description. The dialogue is still atrocious though, and that cannot be excused so easily.

Having lost the strength to continue,

I thought this had been established in the previous sentence.

he stopped where he was and watched as the deer ate the bark on the trees and the grass under the snow. And he thought, ‘If I were a deer, I could eat what they eat, and then I would not be so hungry.’

Ahno's powers of observation are truly astounding.

The thought pleased him, so he changed his skin for that of a deer, and he joined the herd, and he ate what they ate.

I actually like this bit, because it's a common theme of mythical stories like this, and shapeshifting, especially in old English and Welsh stories (e.g. Gwion/Taliesin, Merlin, the Greek and Norse gods, and a host of shapeshifters in mythology and folktales around the world), was often referred to in really nonchalant terms. The way Paolini just threw this in without putting a splotlight on it, while uncharacteristic for Paolini, is well in keeping with the kind of stories he's trying to emulate.

On the other hand, it also completely disregards the entirety of Paolini's magic system, worldbuilding, and his world's internal history. Suddenly urgals, with no knowledge of the AL, can use magic to shapeshift pretty much with barely a thought, when they have basically no energy within them. It could be argued that this is 'creative licence' taken by an unreliable narrator-character who has no idea how magic works, but in a world with real magic and real people who can use it, mythological magic seems kind of out of place.

At first he thought, ‘Once my strength returns, I will change back into my own form, and I will shoot the buck who leads this herd and hang his horns over my hearth.’ But then he would find another patch of grass to eat, and soon he began to act like a deer, and he forgot about his clothes and his weapons, and he followed the herd as it migrated through the mountains toward its spring fields.

Okay...

When fall came, his blood burned with the madness of rut,

Paolini, please don't. Just, no.

and he fought the other bucks, and he mated with the finest does, and they bore him many children. And for three years, he led his own herd through the Spine, and he lived as an animal and not as an Urgralgra.

"an" urgralgra? According to Paolini's language guides, "urgralgra" is the collective plural endonym for urgals as a species (literally "those with horns"). This is like saying "an English" or "an Americans". A native speaker would not mix up the pluralisation of their own name for themselves. As a linguist, and given that there is literally no other proper plural word given in Paolini's "urgal language", my instinct would be to say that the reduplication of 'gra' could be a plural marker, so the singular for "an urgal" would be 'urgral' or even 'urgra', but given that Paolini has done less work developing the urgal language than he did on deciding what to have for lunch yesterday, there's really no way to tell. But I do know that collective plural nouns should not be used a singular nouns. This is basic stuff. I read a book, not a books. I palm my face, not my faces. I am an Australian, not an Australians.

The exception would be if the urgal language does not have a plural form, or does not inflect for plurality. But Paolini isn't clever enough to construct something like that. He, after all, thinks 'it is' is a word/phrase unto itself, and not merely the 3rd-person singular present-tense indicative form of the verb 'to be'.

“Ahno’s father, Svarvok, had been busy that whole while forging the iron rungs so he could climb Yngla Mountain and steal back the magic spear the dragon Ënurfala had taken from him.

Handy hint for anyone thinking of developing oral history myths for their worldbuilding or whatever: For the readers' sakes, don't throw in a reference to a more interesting story in the middle of the one you're telling, and then never expand on it or mention it again. This is just bad storytelling. Fair enough if your audience are intimately familiar with the mythology, but (a) your readers won't be, and (b) we're here to hear about Ahno, not about his father. Stick to the point.

Having finished that task,

In a story that was surely far more exciting than the daily life of a horny stag.

Svarvok wondered where his son was and sent his eagles to look for him.

Now the urgals have falconry? But literally no other culture in the land has it? How do eagles even survive in a world populated by dragons?

When the eagles found Ahno, they told him his father wished to see him,

Is "eagles" an urgal euphemism for "dragons"? Or could eagles in Alagaesia actually talk at one point? I know this could be seen as nitpicking, but in a world with elves and telepathic dragons and dwarves and ra'zac and werecats and actual demonstrable magic, fantastic elements like talking eagles have to be taken seriously, because why wouldn't there be talking eagles in this magical world?

but Ahno did not remember the speech of Urgralgra. Then Svarvok went to his son in the Spine, and he said, ‘What have you done, Ahno? Why do you wear the skin of a deer and live the life of an animal?’ And some of his memories returned to Ahno, and he said, ‘Father, I enjoy being a deer. I think I will stay like this.’

He couldn't remember the urgal language, but when his father spoke to him, suddenly he could remember again? Enough to speak fluently in full, sentences, and make his point clearly and unambiguously?

Svarvok

I'm sorry, I keep reading Sarevok, the name of one of the main antagonists in the Baldur's Gate games.

grew angry with Ahno then, and he called a pack of wolves from the forest, and he told them to chase his son as far as they could.

Now he can talk to wolves as well as eagles. Also, way to be a supportive parent. Although I have to wonder, after 3 years living as a deer, Ahno never once came across a predator species, went hungry, or discovered that living as a herd animal is a dangerous, exhausting and hungry life? Either Paolini's glasses are so rose-tinted as to be opaque, or he didn't spend as much time in his youth wandering the forest and observing nature as he has implied.

This they did, and Ahno yelped and cried as the wolves nipped at his legs and his tail and scratched his flanks with their claws. At last, tired of running, Ahno changed back into his true form, and he beat the wolves with a thick branch until they fled from him. Sore and bleeding, Ahno returned to his father, and Svarvok asked him, ‘What have you learned from this, Ahno?’ And Ahno laughed and answered, ‘That it is better to be a wolf than a deer!’ And he changed into a wolf and ran howling after the wolves he had beaten, and he joined their pack. And how Svarvok dealt with his son then is another story entirely.”

...


[Caption: Picture with three panels:
The first panel shows a figure with their finger raised, about to eagerly say something
The second panel shows the figure with their finger lowered, and reconsidering saying something.
The third panel shows the figure walking away.
]

Eragon chuckled and said, “A good story.”

“A good story,” agreed Garzhvog.

No. No it wasn't.

Usually mythical stories like this have some kind of lesson, moral, or a significant point to be made, informed by the culture's priorities and preoccupations. Greek myths usually make a point about human hubris and arrogance. Old English and Welsh stories make points about hospitality, being kind to little folk and strange women carrying firewood, and the costs of upholding personal honour. In general, folk tales and fables serve the purpose of affirming cultural norms and attitudes, teaching children to avoid dangerous situations (or dealing with the consequences of one's actions), an explanation for how the world came to be, and/or some lesson about work ethics or such that will aid the group's survival. Often a mix of several things at once, depending on the listener's interpretation. That's the major reason for mythologies in the first place, to guide people away from bad decisions and toward good or useful decisions, to help shape their attitudes and expectations, and to offer a explanation for natural phenomena when none other exists or is known. (with the side-benefit of getting curious children to stop with the questions for five freakin' minutes!)

What is the moral of Paolini's story? Prey animals are vulnerable to their natural predators. And by extension, that hunting is better than being hunted. How can we apply this in daily life as urgals? What lesson do we take away from this that we can use to aid our and our tribe's survival? "Don't be hunted"?

~~~

Now that we're done with this story, I'd like to beg your indulgence and tell one that I developed for my conworld. A short little fable from my tribe's oral history.

Once there lived a skilled wood carver. His work was prized throughout the land, and he was respected for his skills. He had six sons, to whom he taught his skills. Five of the brothers learned quickly, practiced hard, and grew up to become famed and respected carvers themselves. But the youngest preferred to work with clay. He learned to make pots from the rich clay around the river banks, and he practiced until he could make pots that the people of his village admired. Despite his skill at pottery his father didn't approve. "You are my son," he said, "you should be carving wood like your brothers." Determined to win his father's pride and respect, he tried to carve wood, but it just wasn't the same. Wood was different, his chisels slipped and the bowls and cups he made were ugly and damaged. One day, the youngest son had an idea. He took a large heap of clay, formed it into the shape of a log, and let it dry and harden in the sun. Then he took his chisels and carefully carved the clay into a pot. He carved for many days and nights, working slowly and carefully. At the end, he had made a marvelous pot, strong and sturdy and decorated with all kinds of intricate designs. Everyone who saw the pot was delighted and amazed; they said it was the most beautiful pot they had ever seen. But still, his father was disappointed. He looked at the pot, and said "You fool; you wasted many days carving this pot when you could have molded it in one day".

The morals of the story are that you shouldn't change what you are doing just to please someone else; that you shouldn't do something the hard way when you know an easier method; that (in the context of a stone-age village) going off and doing your own thing is not always helpful or good; and that you shouldn't worry about the praise of one person when you have the praise of many.

~~~

Now, I don't want to blow my own horn here, but let's look at some of the differences between Paolini's fable and mine. Mine was directly related to something the assumed listener (a member of the village/society) and even the real-world reader would be at least somewhat familiar with and able to relate to; Paolini's involved shapeshifting and choosing to live as another animal, something that no human has any experience with except in dreams and wild imagination. Mine had not just one but several different interpretations of a "moral" that could be used to teach important lessons to aid the listener's and their village's survival; Paolini's had "don't be a prey species". Mine stayed on point, and while granted I wasn't trying to write it just now in the form of dialogue between characters, it was more compact and didn't stray from the story with references to different things that don't affect the story and that we'll never know about; Paolini's was long-winded, full of unnecessary detail and asides.

I don't mean to suggest that I am a brilliant writer, or that my way is the only way or the best way to develop a myth-within-a-conworld, but I'm just comparing myself, with 20+ years of practice at worldbuilding, and Paolini, with at the time Brisingr was released, 3 published novels, an international fanbase, and 7 years of writing and continued development of his story.

I like to think that this justifies spending more time developing your world's cultures and myths and social identity, over going "whee dragons and swords and fireballs omgs!" and self-publishing the first thing you produce. If you want to write an epic story, it has to have a well-developed setting. Introducing folktales like this is a great way of developing your cultures, but you have to think about them for more than half a moment, about things like the cultural context of the story, what ideals and expectations it reflects in society, what lessons it imparts, and whether it fits within established worldbuilding.

At least this story was, for Paolini, blessedly brief. Paolini is trying to emulate a spoken narration, which to him probably means the prose style of an Enid Blyton fairy story, rather than the oral tradition style of the Kalevala, the Norse Sagas, or Beowulf in the original Anglo-Saxon. So at least it wasn't too difficult to read. The prose flowed better than some parts of Brisingr, and wasn't too bogged down by useless descriptions or side-points that don't contribute to the story.

But it's a very good thing that this scene was cut, because it adds nothing to the overall story, aside from a small bit of humanisation (maybe not the best term for a non-human person?) of our Token Noble Savage, and would have bogged Brisingr down even more than it already is.

41 comments

[1]

Anonymous
January 26 2017, 03:36:26
Ahno the Trickster was sore hungry

Eh, I thought it was "so hungry", which only gives that sentence a comedic note. But then the whole book uses logic of a glitched game.

-TT

[2]

Moris Kurth
January 26 2017, 06:50:20 Edited: January 26 2017, 06:50:48
*Squee* Folklore!

I think that "Don't be prey." fits into the Urgals' "Orcish" mindset. Remember: their rite of passage is to go into the wilderness and kill something without restriction. The legend itself however, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Is Svarvok supposed to be a god or demigod? Is Ahno actually turning into a deer, or did he just camouflage himself? Goddamnit Paolini, those are questions we need to get answered!

Now, here are some points how I think one could close these holes in the story:

1. Ahno is a god/demigod if he actually turned into a deer, or he camouflages himself to blend into the herd (not unlikely that he could keep up if he was a Kull) with earthly means, like skins, 'leftovers' and plants.

2. Svarvok is a god or a demigod. This could explain why he can order eagles and wolves around, even though the AL wasn't a thing yet. It could also explain why he has business with a dragon to get some legendary weapon back.

3. The morale of "Don't be prey" would have been much more apparent if Svarvok somehow seperated Ahno from the herd (Pretty easy in mythology) and kill the herd with the wolves. And as Ahno returns, Svarvok would stand there, among the dead deer, and end the story with the conclusion that AHno realized that he was unable to protect them as prey.

Opinions?

[2A]

torylltales
January 26 2017, 10:08:17
I think that "Don't be prey." fits into the Urgals' "Orcish" mindset.

But as a life lesson, how can it be applied? You're either born a prey species, or you are not. There's no way to avoid circumstances of birth, so if you're born a deer you're SOL. As a lesson, as a moral, it's worthless.

[2A1]

Moris Kurth
January 26 2017, 10:19:36
In the Urgals' mind predators are probably 'strong' and prey is 'weak'.
In their logic, if you're strong you're a predator, but if you behave 'weakly' ,or surround yourself with 'weak' people, you are prey to the strong.
That's why they help the Varden, since they actually fight (and win) against a greater foe, which proves them to be predators.

Or in less simpler terms they're probably Social Darwinists with a 'Strong eat Weak' attitude.

[2A1A]

torylltales
January 26 2017, 10:35:05
Good point.

[2B]

Anonymous
January 26 2017, 10:13:10
Yeah I agree. Some of the details could be better, but the moral "Be a wolf, not a deer: meekness is to be abhorred" fits what we know of urgal culture

[2B1]

torylltales
January 26 2017, 10:32:43
I do like your restructured moral (point 3) much better, as it's a lesson that listeners can actually take practical advice from and apply in their lives. The point of a lesson is for people to learn from it and apply it. If it's something based on luck or circumstance (similar, come to that, to the saying "may your sword stay sharp) then there's not really any practical application the listener can take from it.

I also think that if urgal culture was so obsessed with strength and predatoriness and traditional masculinity, it's not terribly likely that they'd have a character called 'the trickster' except as a counterpoint to the usual narrative. Consider a similar (but not as extreme) culture from the real world: norse vikings (the raiders/pirates, not the villagers, settlers, or the norse people as a whole). Their culture largely revolved around strength of arms, conquest, and hoping to die a glorious death in battle. The norse vikings were preoccupied with strength and physical dominance, but look at one of their better known gods: a "trickster" figure who used magic (a woman's art), shapeshifted into a woman (and into various animals), and used deception and guile rather than strength and physical prowess. Loki was the counterpoint to the dominant masculine culture, and that's what makes him work as a trickster figure.

if Ahno's story just fell into line with the same urgal message of brute strength and physicality as all the other urgal legendary figures presumably do, then how is he a 'trickster' figure? The trickster only works if his ricks work. So for the urgal culture I would like a moral more along the lines of "strength is best, but cleverness can work too". I mean, the ordinary urgals cannot possibly hope to compete physically with the kull urgals, so they need a relatable character who can, not by overpowering the kull, but by tricking them.

[2B1A]

hergrim
January 27 2017, 13:11:26
Odin, the king of the Norse gods was also a trickster and may or may not have lived as a woman for some time and given birth to a number of children, depending on how much you believe Loki.

[2B1A1]

torylltales
January 27 2017, 13:23:52
Well, I do know he took the name Vegtam (Wegtam?) and wandered among humans for a time as a one-eyed old man with a broad hat.

[2B1A1A]

hergrim
January 27 2017, 13:28:04
I just looked it up in the Lokasenna, and I got it wrong. It was Loki who spent 8 years as a woman and had the children. Odin just dressed up as a woman and performed women's magic. Not quite as unmanly, but still not exactly masculine.

[3]

zelaznamaska
January 26 2017, 09:07:40
Actually, that story isn't that bad. I wouldn't mind if it was included in the book instead of long descriptions of logs creaking under Roran's weight and of people sitting by the fire.

But it's true that it doesn't fit well with the established facts about the world. Svarvok's introduction, hinting at a larger story, is quite clumsy. Also, the story ends quite abruptly and hints at a sequel we never get. I don't think that "how Svarvok dealt with his son then is another story entirely". It is an integral part of this story. It's like ending the Snow White tale after the witch's first attempt to kill her with a poisoned comb.

All in all, I tend to be quite indulgent towards stories that are supposed to be folk tales, because folk tales are often illogical and irrational to modern sensibilities. My favourite example is the medieval French Roman du Renart. The main character is a fox. In one paragraph he behaves like an animal, running on all fours and stealing hens, and in the next, he's riding a horse or defending his castle against a siege.

Given Ahno's nickname "Trickster", and the fact that he's father is hinted to be a hero of some other mythological tale, I guess they are both supposed to be demigods/culture heroes. However, Paolini probably didn't put any more thought into them than those throwaway references to stolen spears. It's similar to the Halls of Angvar reference; he decided to do some world building in the third book of the series, but it ended up sloppy and contradictory to the stuff he had written before. I can certainly see why this story was cut from the book, but I think that it would be better to polish it, maybe make it more relevant to the overall plot, and keep it in. There are dozens of scenes, or even whole chapters (or whole subplots, like Roran's) more deserving of being cut.

[3A]

torylltales
January 26 2017, 10:12:54
All in all, I tend to be quite indulgent towards stories that are supposed to be folk tales, because folk tales are often illogical and irrational to modern sensibilities.

This is true, but remember that it's told in a context of an actual magical world with animals (dragons, werecats etc.) and people (elves, shades, ra'zac when they metamorphose) that actually do talk and shapeshift, so the line between what is folklorish fantasy and what is real biography is impossible to tell. In a real-world folk tale, the fantastic/magical elements are immediately obvious because magic isn't real in our world, and foxes don't ride horses.

[3B]

predak123
January 27 2017, 04:29:52
Actually, that story isn't that bad. I wouldn't mind if it was included in the book instead of long descriptions of logs creaking under Roran's weight and of people sitting by the fire.

Me too, honestly. I've been reading the next Brisingr chapter (I will get it sporked this weekend, y'all) and compared to this little folk-story, the folk tale is much, much better and far more interesting. Paolini could have used it as a character-building scene, where Eragon perhaps sees the similarities in his and the Urgals' values and realizes "hey, maybe they don't suck after all".

[4]

theepistler
January 26 2017, 12:06:34
So... how exactly is this Anho guy a "trickster"? I thought the whole point of trickster characters was that they used trickery and cunning to get their way (and sometimes just to mess with people for fun)? Anho doesn't trick anybody in this story; he just makes a really dumb decision which leads to him screwing a bunch of deer. A trickster character would have used, y'know, trickery to catch the deer.

And apparently the moral of the story is that it's better to be a predator than the prey? Wow. Very deep. Generally stories like these in which the main character makes a foolish decision end with the character learning some sort of lesson, but Anho doesn't learn anything. Mind you that does fit with the rest of the series, where nobody ever does suffer actual consequences for their actions, let alone learn important lessons and change as people.

Stupid story. Glad it was cut. I wish the Urgals had also been cut from the series - that or kept as dumb cannon fodder for the Good Guys. Who cares about their boring Klingon ripoff culture? It adds nothing to the story and neither do they.

[4A]

torylltales
January 26 2017, 17:08:06
We haven't been given any evidence that Ahno is any kind of trickster. Given that the story is called Ahno The Trickster, and not Ahno The Shapeshifter, one would expect a particular trick or joke or deception of his to be the main feature.

[4A1]

syntinen_laulu
January 27 2017, 22:32:26 Edited: January 28 2017, 01:42:51
Though actually it's not at all rare in folklore for characters in stories to have sobriquets that don't relate at all to anything we learn about them in the story, or to come across stories whose traditional titles don't reflect the content.

Edited to add: Also, if this is the story of the youth of someone who later became famous as a trickster, he would naturally be introduced as Ahno the Trickster in any story about him, whether it involved trickery or not.

[4B]

Anonymous
January 26 2017, 17:33:09
Unless you hace never seen a Klingon before, un which case, the can be interesting

Yeah, One of the few ways to enjoy this series is having next to no literature experience

[4C]

minionnumber2
January 26 2017, 18:06:17
Psssh, we can't just leave a throw away species undeveloped and culture-less. Paolini is the next Tolkien, his brilliant worldbuilding can't be ignored in favor of anything interesting happening at all.

Besides, what do you think the Urgals are, Empire soldiers?

[5]

Anonymous
January 26 2017, 13:46:02
Oh. I thought the moral was something like 'Be careful how you try to convince someone of something, it may have the opposite effect' or 'If you live a long time pretending to be something else, you will forget who you are' or something like that.

-TTT

[5A]

Anonymous
January 26 2017, 15:12:21
If Anho and his father were demigods, it makes even more sense, because Anho is foolishly giving up his demigod powers/status to become an animal (and the audience realizes this)

-TTT

[5A1]

Anonymous
January 26 2017, 18:37:41
Well, i think that is too clever forma Chris. I think the moral of the story is “is better kill tan be killed" por “better be a murderer han a victim"

[6]

theepistler
January 26 2017, 20:12:13
Eragon chuckled and said, “A good story.”

“A good story,” agreed Garzhvog.

Look, for the last time - do not under any circumstances have your characters praise your own storytelling prowess. Paolini wrote this story, ergo Eragon and Garzhvog (how the fuck do you even pronounce that?) are sitting there proclaiming how awesome he is at writing stories. When even your own characters have to kiss your ass in order to boost your ego, seek help.

[6A]

torylltales
Janauary 26 2017, 21:07:32
I can sort of let that one slide, because Eragon wasn't directly praising Paolini, but Garzhvog. And given Gar has probably been raised with these folktales, he's probably a bit sentimental about them. So I don't really think it's the same as having his characters praising him for a cheap ego boost.

[6A1]

theepistler
January 26 2017, 21:21:56
Eh, I can't really read it that way. I mean, think about it. When someone tells you a story, how likely are you to respond with "that's a good story!"? In real life, when someone tells a story the response is likely to be either questions or comments about the actual content of the story, or "you know, that reminds me of the time..." followed by a counter-story. Storytelling in real life very rarely ends with everyone sitting around saying "that story was awesome!" while nodding in satisfaction.

[6A1A]

Anonymous
January 26 2017, 22:41:23
What if we split the difference? It seems to me that the real problem with Ergy's response is the main problem with his characterisation in general: he doesn't respond on a personal level. How he responds to this story would tell us something about him. If, for example, Eragon praised Ahno's decision, that would tell us something about how he sees the world.

But since Paolini really doesn't want us to know anything about who Eragon really is, blandly complimenting the story is a great way to avoid digging deeper.

[6A1B]

kris_norge
January 27 2017, 04:45:40 Edited: January 27 2017, 04:47:26
I'm not sure I agree with that principle because then it can be extended to other things. Surely, in your own work, you have characters praise other characters for tricks or qualities that, ultimately, you wrote?

For instance, my MC is an uncommonly large, strong, and powerful warrior, a brilliant leader and commander, and a tactical genius. Raised to martial life from his infancy and being of a royal bloodline, he very quickly becomes a commander of legions.
Sometimes he is bound to give a speech. The soldiers praise him for his speech skill (not so much for his eloquence as for his ability to make his words stick - kind of in the style of American General Patton in WWII) even though the writer of the speech is me.
Other times, he is with his officers moving figurines around on a map and discussing battle strategy. He will eventually come up with a battle plan based on the environment, his own forces, his enemy's, and their leaders' mindsets. His officers will praise his tactical brilliance even though the one who came úp with the plan is me (and gods know I study VERY hard to do so)

Do you see my point ?
So I am not all that opposed to Eragon complimenting Garhzvog's story (When the act of complimenting is removed from the context that is)

[6A1B1]

theepistler
January 27 2017, 11:07:06
Nah. It's not the same thing.

[6A1B1A]

kris_norge
January 27 2017, 11:46:02
Well I'm curious then. What's your perspective on the matter?

[6A1B1A1]

theepistler
January 27 2017, 13:44:30
Well for one thing, Gar Narzlebop didn't make the story up himself, so Ergy isn't praising him for being a good storyteller - both of them are specifically praising the story itself. Which Paolini wrote. For another, this is literally their only reaction. There's no discussion of what the story means, no comparing notes - nada. So basically Pao made up a drippy little fable, then had his characters say it's awesome, the end. Far as I'm concerned he's just patting himself on the back for being awesome (again).

[6A1B1A1A]

Anonymous
January 27 2017, 16:39:15
I disagree. Yes some people would comment on the fable, compare it with others and ask questions. Others would say "good story". There's no one way people would react. This way makes it feel like a long day, they're sitting around the fire and neither is in the mood nor cares for analysis and comparison. Eragon likes the story and he tells him.

Like Kris Norge says, characters complimenting other characters shouldn't be taken as the author praising themselves. Unless intended otherwise, authors should be as invisible as possible and in this case, it is. IMO Paolini did a good job with the wording to make it feel like an old tale. As it's Garzhvog telling it, rather than Eragon, he has more leeway towards denying the compliment is patting himself on the back.

If it was Eragon telling, it might be different.

- Anon 2

[6A1B1A1A1]

theepistler
January 27 2017, 16:44:53
I guess I'm unwilling to cut Pao any slack here, because he does this sort of thing all the time. His characters constantly praise each other for doing the least little thing, and it's particularly noticeable in this book. And since Ergy is his self-insert, it makes it particularly narcissistic.

[6A1B1A1A1A]

Anonymous
January 27 2017, 17:06:30
Unfortunately true. The endless praise, the "oh no-one has ever done this as well as you!" is really annoying. I guess then he's lost a lot of leeway. If that hadn't happened, my point would be a lot stronger.

Although remember the story came from Garzhvog who isn't his self insert - unless things changed ;)

[6A1B1A1B]

kris_norge
January 29 2017, 01:20:02
Ok I see your point and I can agree. The issue is not so much the praising of the story as the fact that it is their ONLY reaction and it is not expanded upon with justifications about what exactly about it is good. But this is an unfortunate constant in the series : The characters suffer from an (unfortunate?) lack of curiosity about pretty much everything pertinent because that would require proper worldbuilding.

[6A1B1A1B1]

theepistler
January 29 2017, 10:14:02
Ordinarily I wouldn't have noticed or cared, but in this context it really jumped out at me. And you're right; every character in this series is passive and incurious about the world around them. It makes them come across as a bunch of complacent dullards.

[6A1C]

torylltales
January 27 2017, 11:37:50 Edited: January 27 2017, 11:55:12
In real life, when someone tells a story the response is likely to be either questions or comments about the actual content of the story, or "you know, that reminds me of the time..." followed by a counter-story.

It seems to me that the real problem with Ergy's response is the main problem with his characterisation in general: he doesn't respond on a personal level. How he responds to this story would tell us something about him.

I actually had a big long rant about Paolini's humans' lack of any sort of culture or stories of their own, and how any decent writer would have Eragon being able to relate the story to his own experiences or memories of folktales from his childhood, or being reminded of some event or another from his childhood. Or even just a comment like "You know, I was hunting deer in the Spine when I found Saphira's egg". There would have been an actual conversation drawing from each character's experiences and culture, and they (and we) would have learned more about both of them.

But that was going to be as long again as my rant about the structure and purpose of folktales, moral lessons, and so on, so I had to cut it.


Anyway, the fact that Eragon has nothing to say about the story other than "it was good", and cannot relate it to anything else he's ever heard or done, is just extremely poor character-building and world-building. It's like Paolini's humans are mindless savages with no culture or history or folktales or anything. And Eragon just sprang fully-formed out of the mists, at the physical age of 14, hunting deer in the Spine. He's never had a childhood, he didn't grow up, he never learned any traditions or stories or anything like that from his village. As a worldbuilder I find that rather infuriating. The viewpoint character and their culture should be the most developed of the cast and world, not the least.

[6A1C1]

Anonymous
January 27 2017, 12:46:33
Thanks for quoting me! That's never happened before!

It's especially infuriating that Paolini tries to have it both ways. He doesn't bother to put in any effort defining what his humans believe, but then he constantly refers to "gods" and "spirits" and hints at some superstitions, like being afraid of elves suddenly in Inheritance.

Creepily enough, the most rationally organised system of worship in the series is that of the Helgrinders. They worship the Razac, who eat flesh, so eating flesh is a holy ritual to them. Gross but logical.

While we're talking about things that don't make sense, why did Eragon need a bunch of elves to lecture him on the history of the valley he grew up in? People who live near where an important monarch used to are bound to remember him, especially if the place is named after him, right? What are your thoughts?

[7]

syntinen_laulu
January 27 2017, 22:29:40 Edited: January 27 2017, 22:41:44
Usually mythical stories like this have some kind of lesson, moral, or a significant point to be made, informed by the culture's priorities and preoccupations.

I couldn't disagree more. Sure, there is a large category of traditional tale that does; but as many if not more that contain no identifiable life-lesson. I've also read many that look as though they were going to end up with a moral and then just don't; ones that leave whole plot strands hanging; ones that contain references to characters and events in other stories, not relevant to this one but just stuck in it like glacial erratics. In fact it's a fair rule of thumb that if a story consists,like yours, only of the plot and characters necessary to convey a moral, without any random or apparently meaningless elements, it probably isn't a genuinely old story.

Take, say, the Fourth Branch of the Mabinogi. When Arianrhod steps over the hazel rod to prove her virginity and a baby boy promptly plops from between her legs, we can all get that that proves she's no virgin; that's easy. But why does another 'small something' fall out? Why does her brother grab the lump and keep it locked in a box till one day it turns out to have become a fully-formed second baby? Why is there then such a big difficulty about getting the second boy given a name, when the first had been baptised with no fuss at all? Why has nobody any interest in the first boy although he appears to be some kind of merman, which you'd think would be quite interesting? And what possible moral can be drawn from it all, other than that raping your uncle's foot-holder is probably going to cause a whole lot more trouble than it was worth?

For once I'm in the odd position of actually having to defend Paolini: this disjointed narrative with no clear moral, coherent motivation or payoff, including a random reference to another story that we never hear about, is actually tolerably convincing as a traditional myth. (Though he certainly lifted the 'don't shape-shift too long or you won't want to change back' idea from Ursula Le Guin.) And, fair play to him, it's one of the very few occasions in which his writing abandons his own 21st-century moral attitudes (e.g. the urgal boy shagging does, the father setting a pack of wolves on him).

[7A]

zelaznamaska
January 28 2017, 22:36:21
Yeah, I was thinking about the type of fairy tale exemplified in Grimms' "Six Servants". It was one of my favourites when I was a child and I still like it, even though it could be argued that it's a very poorly conceived story, as the supposed protagonist - the prince trying to get the princess - doesn't really do anything, leaving everything to his servants with special abilities. It's also never explained why these servants want to serve him. He just meets them one by one, says "I could use someone like you", and they reply "ok, no prob".

In some fairy tales, the protagonist doesn't even prevail thanks to their morals, but simply because he/she is the protagonist. So the moral of those stories is basically "be the protagonist and all will be well". In a novel or other modern literary genres, that would be obnoxious, but I don't mind it in fairy tales or folk tales.

[8]

Anonymous
February 3 2017, 03:09:46
Seems more than possible to me that Urgralgra is both the plural and singular of the noun.

[8A]

torylltales
February 3 2017, 08:23:54
It is possible, but the translation was unambiguously plural. Paolini's use of his own languages is inconsistent enough that anything could be possible, really.

[9]

star_dragon5
March 11 2017, 11:02:11
Chris, honey, that was not a trickster tale. It wasn't even a tale. It had a beginning, sure, but no real middle or end.

A proper trickster, on discovering he couldn't catch up to the deer, would've sat down and thought, "OK, these deer are too fast for me. How can I get one in a way that doesn't involve chasing them around?" Or something like that. Tricksters don't quit, and they don't settle for second best.

And one more thing--this is boring. If a trickster tale is boring, it's not a trickster tale.

*is far too obsessed with tricksters*

(By the way, all this talk of tricksters and deer makes me think of a certain scene from The Adventures of Robin Hood. Stop reminding me of better stuff, Chris.)

Original repost:


epistler posting in as_sporkive, Dec. 15th, 2019, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by torylltales