Jump to content
  • entries
    697
  • comments
    2,107
  • views
    448,790

Retroactively, I don't like Eragon


Jean Valjean

678 views

:kaukau: When I first read that book series, I loved it. In hindsight, I realize just how derivative the whole thing was. Do I regret reading it? No, since it passed the time and kept me entertained, which is a positive for any book, but it still doesn't make them good books. That's like saying that junk food is good food because it tastes good. I'd go through a comprehensive list of everything that was wrong about those books, but in order to truly get into detail, I'd have to re-read them, which I don't plan on doing any time soon, so I'm just going to explain what I remember.

 

1. Starting with something positive, I actually did like Paolini's concept of how magic works. He had solid concept for how it works and he consistently demonstrated its limitations. That's one for you, Paolini.

2. But getting to the negatives, let's start with the most obvious: the first two books are basically a fanfiction mixing together Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. In some ways, that's not a bad thing, since those are great sources of inspiration, but it definitely prevents this from being its own story, and it definitely makes it feel like a fanfiction. And for all the time and effort and passion that he put into this series, it should have felt like more than just fanfiction.

3. Eragon is a Mary Sue.

4. The relationship between Eragon and Arya isn't...well, I just don't like Arya. It's not just Eragon that seems infatuated with her, but the author as well. This is closely related to Eragon being a Mary Sue.

5. Angela is a bit of a Mary Sue, too. Basically, the author wrote his sister into the story and decided that all of the rules didn't apply to her, and thought that it was a really unique idea to make her quirky. Yeah, very original.

6. The battle strategies are unrealistic.

7. You know, come to think of it, Rohan, who orchestrated a bunch of those battles, was a bit of a Mary Sue, too. Not to the same extent as Eragon, but still.

8. Some of the archaic English is used incorrectly.

9. Paolini is not a linguist. Some of his explanations of the Ancient Language show that he doesn't have a strong grasp of non-English grammar, and the Ancient Language itself is very...fan-fictiony, basically. At times it looks like it's based on Swedish, which is pretty cool, but then he blatantly makes it sound like the Elvish languages from Tolkien, which has an altogether different sound. He especially enjoys diacritics which serve no discernible purpose other than to make it look more Tolkienesque.

10. Galbatorix is clearly based off of Christopher Lee...wait, that's a criticism? No, that's actually a plus. That's another one for you, Paolini. You made us wait forever to see Galbatorix, but when we finally met him, it was worth it. He was cool; he had a philosophy that made sense; he had a real presence; he was worthy of the descriptions that made him sound like Christopher Lee. Way to go.

11. That brings me to the ending...yeah, that ending was poorly conceived. It had a good hundred pages of tying up loose ends which it should have been fit into the rising action of the last book. While it's okay to have some declining action, Inheritance had a little too much declining action, and a lot of those details deserved to play into the plot leading up to the climax. Shoving them at the end showed that Paolini had no idea how to write his story. It was very anti-climactic.

 

Anyway, that's all. Oh wait, I forgot one.

 

12. That pretentious purple prose. Holy cow! Only the most insecure of writers write like that.

 

24601

  • Upvote 1

3 Comments


Recommended Comments

I enjoyed it for the simple work of fiction it was, and though I wouldn't call it a masterpiece by any means, I do think it's impressive that Paolini was able to start producing such a quality of work at, if I recall correctly, only 15?

 

Also, I think we have to give the book a little credit, purely for not being the movie.

 

-
:burnmad:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

:kaukau: Goodness, that movie was bad.  I watched it once right before watching Twilight for the first time, and it actually made Twilight look good.

 

Yes, it is impressive that he was able to write it starting in his teens.  But, you know, it definitely shows, and I'm not the type of person who says that a piece of art is good just because a kid did it.  I will always think, "Well, it's good for a kid."  THe books did overall get better as they went along, and Paolini's maturity began to show, but the characters still came from some sort of wish-fulfillment of his, and I didn't find them quite timeless.

 

If he wrote a new book, and he hinted that he might, I would read it without hesitating.  It would be some nice junk food to keep me entertained for a while, which Ii would enjoy for what it was without regrets, although I'd see it for what it is and not think of it as particularly good fiction.  And who knows, maybe it will be something that would leave a more profound impact on me, now with these extra years of experience behind him.  We'll see.

 

24601

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I remember proactively not being impressed by it. I think I only read the first book. It was good for a teenage writer, I'll say that much. (Not the best... I was reading teenage novels on BZP at about the same time and some of them were excellent.) In particular, I seem to remember a few logic inconsistencies that popped up in the story. I would hope his writing improved as he got more experienced...

 

:music:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...