# Paolini's Inheritance Cycle



## Aravelle

We've all heard of it. A surprising portion of us have read it.
What did CP do right? What did he do wrong, and how can we learn from him?

I have a personal bias towards it because Eragon changed my life. It got me into epic fantasy and to delve further into the genre; it inspired me to try to be a teen author. On fansites and forums I made new friends, several of them I still have with me today. Heck, I met my first boyfriend through Eragon! 
Although I can't read the books now without feeling like I have something stuck on the roof of my mouth, I smile when I think of the memories and love I've felt for it in the past.


----------



## Steerpike

Sorry, Aravelle, I didn't get more than a handful of Chapters into it; the writing was just too bad. I presume that what he did correctly was tell a story that resonated with a lot of readers, especially young readers. That is more important than the quality of writing.


----------



## Aravelle

Understandable Steerpike, I was only 13 when I read it, and it certainly plucked my heartstrings. I don't blame older readers for disliking it or not being able to read it, because not even I can anymore.


----------



## ThinkerX

I seem to remember running into major phausibility issues with book one:

something about going from 'ordinary boy in the woods' to magican, swordmaster, and literate, while traveling.

But its been a while.


----------



## Konstanz

When I was younger, I liked it. (Also, on a side-note, I read the Dutch translation then, so perhaps the translator mitigated some of the bad writing). I loved reading book 1-3 and I liked the story. 

But before book 4 came out, my taste in Fantasy became more mature and I started to like Dark Fantasy more. When book 4 was finally released, I didn't buy it right away. I did buy it a couple of months back, and I read it. Although I really disliked the story (especially that moralistic way to defeat Galbatorix), part of me (the part still in tune with the younger me) enjoyed it enough to keep reading. I guess I just wanted closure. I wanted to know how he would defeat Galbatorix. But if I hadn't started reading it when I was younger, I would've thrown all books in the bin. Rubbish.


----------



## Mindfire

What did he do right? He used familiar archetypes and a universal (if a but tired) plot to create a story people would instantly connect with (because they'd seen it so many times before) and then had his parents market the heck out of it.

What did he do wrong? Everything else.

Understand, I actually liked the first one when I read it. (i was 13 too!) 
The writing was bad enough to make me do double takes, but underneath the bad writing writing was an idea I liked: Star Wars. I read the other books mostly just to see where exactly he was going. I haven't read the last one yet though. I haven't had time. Plus the bad writing seems to rub off on me whenever I read those books. A shame though. "Star Wars in generic fantasyland" is actually an interesting idea. The Eragon books just aren't self-aware enough to make it work. In fact, I'll say it now: the Eragon books would be 10X better had they been written as parody. 

Something that mildly irks me is the soapboxing. Paolini takes some time out of his _gripping_ narrative to slow down the already glacial pacing to slip in "subtle" messages about how atheist vegetarians are the ubermensch.


----------



## Aravelle

Mindfire said:


> What did he do right? He used familiar archetypes and a universal (if a but tired) plot to create a story people would instantly connect with (because they'd seen it so many times before) and then had his parents market the heck out of it.
> 
> What did he do wrong? Everything else.



^All of this, this is all good. 
I also agree with the idea of Star Wars in fantasyland.. although I couldn't bear to see Eragon as a parody. It would be better but it wouldn't hold the same fondness for me.

I'm unsure how I feel about the soapboxing. I found it interesting how the elves' views paralleled real people's views. I also liked Eragon's theological dysphoria. It made it feel more personal.


----------



## Callan37

Personally, I'm amazed at what CP accomplished at such a young age.

However...the novels really don't sit as well with me now as they did a few years ago. For me, the dialogue was a huge issue, but that's a problem in lots of fantasy. The dragons and his take on them were very cool, as were the languages that he created (mostly) from scratch.


----------



## Mindfire

Callan37 said:


> Personally, I'm amazed at what CP accomplished at such a young age.
> 
> However...the novels really don't sit as well with me now as they did a few years ago. For me, the dialogue was a huge issue, but that's a problem in lots of fantasy. The dragons and his take on them were very cool, as were the languages that he created (mostly) from scratch.



But he didn't really create a language. He created a bunch of words and then strung them together into "sentences". I have seen it pointed out elsewhere that he breaks the only rules of grammar his language is stated to have, leading to inconsistencies, and some of those words are just a pain to pronounce. Let's get one thing straight. Paolini is NO TOLKIEN. By ANY stretch of the imagination. So let's not praise him for "making a language". Otherwise, my list of elvish words from high school qualifies me as a linguist.


----------



## LisaChitty

At first i thought the eragon books were great. I read the first one shortly after it came out and was eager to get the rest, but like others, I found by book 4, I had gone off them. I found the story too long and drawn out and the elvish language just annoying. However, it was quite an accomplishment for someone of his age.


----------



## thedarknessrising

I have said countless times that Christopher Paolini is my favorite author. He is what inspired me to pick up my pen again and write. 

After the release of _Inheritance, I sent him a letter. He wrote back a few months later.


I love his writing. I could read his books over and over again. I know people dislike his style of writing, but it isn't bad in my opinion._


----------



## Mindfire

thedarknessrising said:


> I have said countless times that Christopher Paolini is my favorite author. He is what inspired me to pick up my pen again and write.
> 
> After the release of _Inheritance, I sent him a letter. He wrote back a few months later.
> 
> 
> I love his writing. I could read his books over and over again. I know people dislike his style of writing, but it isn't bad in my opinion._


_

Well, if the Eragon books touched you that much, um... good for you? If they inspired you to write again, then some good has come of them at least._


----------



## Steerpike

I didn't think they were well done, but I have no animosity toward him or the books. Eragon and its sequels had my son reading quite a bit. Similarly, Twilight turned my daughter into a voracious reader (though Meyer is actually a decent writer so that's a distinction. >shazam< ).

Really, though, it's hard to argue with a work that excites millions of people and has them reading. I may not like the book. So what?


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I didn't think they were well done, but I have no animosity toward him or the books. Eragon and its sequels had my son reading quite a bit. Similarly, Twilight turned my daughter into a voracious reader (though Meyer is actually a decent writer so that's a distinction. >shazam< ).
> 
> Really, though, it's hard to argue with a work that excites millions of people and has them reading. I may not like the book. So what?



inb4 yet another Twilight argument.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> inb4 yet another Twilight argument.



No "leet" or text speak please


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> No "leet" or text speak please



Very well. 

*Prediction: *
Steerpike's assertion regarding the quality of Stephanie Meyer's writing is likely to provoke yet another argument about Twilight.

*Response: *
Confront the issue directly so as to lower the probability of the argument occurring.


----------



## Steerpike

Heh. Fair enough.

I'm just saying she's decent. Not stellar by any stretch of the imagination. Miles better than Paolini.


----------



## shangrila

It's not exactly hard to be better than Paolini though. Just keep away from a thesaurus and give your character a flaw, any flaw, and you're set.


----------



## Endymion

Eragon is on my top ten worst book ever list.


----------



## Kaellpae

I've never read them, but I enjoy the young adult fantasy books. But if the writing is really that bad I'll have to check it out at the library first.


----------



## myrddin173

Eragon, I read it back in fifth grade, which must have been a year or so after it was first released, and I really enjoyed it.  As the new books came out I bought them within a week of there release, though by the end it was more out of curiosity than any love of the books.  All in all, I think the series is a great introduction to the Fantasy genre but it doesn't stand up to any of the greats.  I'll be interested in reading whatever he writes next to see whether the Inheritance cycle is the best he can do.

(As for the Paolini vs. Meyer debate, I would go with Paolini.  At least he gives his main character an actual personality.)


----------



## Mindfire

myrddin173 said:


> Eragon, I read it back in fifth grade, which must have been a year or so after it was first released, and I really enjoyed it.  As the new books came out I bought them within a week of there release, though by the end it was more out of curiosity than any love of the books.  All in all, I think the series is a great introduction to the Fantasy genre but it doesn't stand up to any of the greats.  I'll be interested in reading whatever he writes next to see whether the Inheritance cycle is the best he can do.
> 
> (As for the Paolini vs. Meyer debate, I would go with Paolini.  At least he gives his main character an actual personality.)



You're a moderator too now? How many mods can a forum like this need? Has there been an influx of trolls or spambots that I was just too clueless to notice?


----------



## Kaellpae

Don't worry Mindfire. I'll never cross over to the other side.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Mindfire said:


> You're a moderator too now? How many mods can a forum like this need?



A couple more as long as I'm around.


----------



## Steerpike

myrddin173 said:


> As for the Paolini vs. Meyer debate, I would go with Paolini.  At least he gives his main character an actual personality.



I don't think you can count that against Meyer in terms of ability, because it was an intentional choice. You can agree or disagree with it stylistically, but it wasn't through lack of ability to provide a personality. Paolini, on the other hand...well, I'm not sure I've read a traditionally-published novel with worse writing. An old Douglas Niles D&D novel might be in the ballpark, but...damn.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Steerpike said:


> I don't think you can count that against Meyer in terms of ability, because it was an intentional choice. You can agree or disagree with it stylistically, but it wasn't through lack of ability to provide a personality. Paolini, on the other hand...well, I'm not sure I've read a traditionally-published novel with worse writing. An old Douglas Niles D&D novel might be in the ballpark, but...damn.




I haven't read any of this series, but I assume the writing gets better in the later books...?


----------



## Steerpike

Sheriff Woody said:


> I haven't read any of this series, but I assume the writing gets better in the later books...?



Paolini? I don't know - I never made it more than a quarter through the first book. And I'm not one to put down a book without finishing it, as a rule.


----------



## Mindfire

Sheriff Woody said:


> I haven't read any of this series, but I assume the writing gets better in the later books...?





Steerpike said:


> Paolini? I don't know - I never made it more than a quarter through the first book. And I'm not one to put down a book without finishing it, as a rule.



He does get better as the books go on. But that's not saying much. As for Eragon having a personality? Not really. He's more bland and uninteresting than pre-Empire Strikes Back Luke Skywalker. *The Lego Videogame Version.*


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I finished the first three Eragon books, and I enjoyed them. I couldn't get more than two chapters into the fourth book, partly because by that time I had started seriously writing, and the prose was just _so bad_...

I was able to look past the characterization problems in the first three books partly because I appreciated the level of detail Paolini had introduced, but after reading _A Song of Ice and Fire_ (which I read between books 3 and 4 of Inheritance), it just couldn't stand up any more.


----------



## thedarknessrising

Inheritance was the best book in the series. I've attempted to read Game of Thrones, but I just don't understand a single thing. I can see why you would stop reading Inheritance because of the style, but you really shouldn't compare it to A Song of Ice and Fire. For a debut series from a very young writer, Inheritance really hits you. It's sad, funny, intense, and overall AMAZING! I've read it twice now, and I always find something new. The book still surprises me.

I think you should give it another chance.


----------



## Mindfire

What a unique opinion.


----------



## Chilari

Shouldn't a book be judged on the quality of the writing and the interestingness of the characters and plot, not on the age of the writer? You could as easily say that the story I wrote about a magical black cat when I was 7 was good for a 7 year old and thus worthy of being given a second chance. But if you didn't know a 7 year old wrote it, you'd soon guess, and wouldn't publish it.

When I read Eragon at the age of 14 I enjoyed it. I had read fantasy before then - some by Diana Wynne Jones, a couple of Pratchetts, a few others beside - but my writing up to that point was limited to the magic cat story and a few school assignments. When the film came out I quite enjoyed that, and decided to reread Eragon not long after. I didn't get far. So much of the plot and the characters just seemed like they'd been included solely because they sounded cool. They didn't serve an interesting and dramatic story, they served an author's vision of what "cool" is.

I will be giving the book another chance, though. I've got a reading list as long as my commute to work I'm planning on reading in the next few months, and both Eragon and Twilight are on it, along with numerous other books by well known fantasy authors from Gaiman to Goodkind. But now I'm reading with a very analytical mind, asking questions like what makes this popular? Why do others dislike it? What are the author's strengths and weaknesses? How well do they handle character development for the main cast? What about minor characters? How well do they dispense information? How good is the worldbuilding?

And so on. Eragon isn't far up the list, though, so some time after Christmas I'll voice my updated opinion on the book. So we'll see.


----------



## Reaver

Kaellpae said:


> Don't worry Mindfire. I'll never cross over to the other side.



That's because you're from Clarkston, Lewiston's evil twin.


----------



## Gandalf

Loved the Inheritance cycle. I can overlook the writing style, because he began writing it aged 15, but also because I liked the storyline. His take on the dragons, and the elves, and, to a lesser extent, the dwarves (my favourite fantasy race) are different to most other things I've read. The books are unique, if not utterly stellar.


----------



## thedarknessrising

Gandalf said:


> Loved the Inheritance cycle. I can overlook the writing style, because he began writing it aged 15, but also because I liked the storyline. His take on the dragons, and the elves, and, to a lesser extent, the dwarves (my favourite fantasy race) are different to most other things I've read. The books are unique, if not utterly stellar.


:bounce::bounce:


----------



## ScipioSmith

I only started reading these after the movie came out, liked them for what they were: simple, unpretensious, old school fantasy (though I didn't realise that last at the time as I hadn't read any new school fantasy yet). Eragon and Eldest weren't masterpieces, but they kept my interest while I was reading them.

In the latter two books, I think Paolini tried to mature the series a bit like Robert Jordan matured the Wheel of Time after The Dragon Reborn, except that it didn't quite work. There were some good individual moments, but Brisingr had no driving plot and came across as a series of vignettes. I liked some aspects of Inheritance, like the fact that Murtagh didn't die, but I felt that shying away from the ending and resolutions telegraphed in books 1 & 2 was a big mistake, not least because the resolutions he substituted them for were weaker.


----------



## Mindfire

I disagree about the books not being pretentious. Though they are simple. The classic archetypes are all represented and played straight, but I think that's a weakness, not a strength. Mostly because he does nothing with it. I never feel like he's putting his own spin on anything, just sticking to the star wars playbook. Book 1 especially has this issue. Of the three books I've read, I can only remember 2 moments that felt like the author's own: Nasuada's Knife Trial and the Urgals' redemption.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I don't know, I thought that there were a lot of interesting details in dwarf and elf culture. Paolini definitely put more thought into the world than he did into his writing style or story structure.  I did definitely enjoy reading the first three, back when.

The gap between three and four, however, soured me on his extremely poor writing style, and I couldn't get more than two chapters through it.


----------



## JamesTFHS

I really enjoyed eragon when i first read it at 14. It inspired me to attempt to write my first book. I enjoyed eldest and brisingr for the most part and like aspects of inheritance but as ive read other works i have come to hate major points in the series. All writers draw from other works paolini is no exception but the problem is his he doesn't try to disguise anything which makes it seem like he is just blantanly stealing from other works like Lord of the Rings, Earthsea, Song of Ice and Fire, Memory Sorrow and Thorn, The wheel of time. This really bothers me but i always say you can learn alot from these books as a writer. Not in the sense of what to do but what not to do. Paolini was young and did accomplish something to be admired, he was published. The fact he was published is great for him but i just hope he doesn't view his books as a master piece but understands it is the first stepping stone to his career as a writer.


----------



## NovaPowered

The Inheritance cycle. What can I say, I loved the first three books. Whenever I read them, I couldn't put them down. Right now, I'm on the last book and find that I can't read it at all. Many say he has a terrible writing style and now I'm starting to see what they mean. The only reason I find behind continuing to read them is that I like his take on dragons and elves. Oh, and Eragon himself is an awful main character.


----------



## kayd_mon

I haven't read them, though I have students that have. Anything that gets them interested in reading is good, even if it's the excessively poor writing found in Twilight books (which I have read portions) and supposedly Paolini (whom I have not read), who in this thread has been called worse than Meyer.


----------



## Steerpike

Meyer isn't that bad. Mediocre, at best. Paoloni's writing was just awful, as I recall from my initial attempted reading.


----------



## kayd_mon

Meyer obviously struck a chord with her story and her depiction of what so many people desire. Her writing by itself, based on my limited reading, was comically poor in my opinion. Some of her story elements are admittedly quite good, however.


----------



## Steerpike

kayd_mon said:


> Meyer obviously struck a chord with her story and her depiction of what so many people desire. Her writing by itself, based on my limited reading, was comically poor, in my opinion. Some of her story elements are admittedly quite good, however.



I read the first Twilight book. It didn't appeal to me, but the writing wasn't terrible, on the whole, though you might find a turn of phrase here or that that is pretty bad. Her book The Host was actually fairly well done, I thought. Both she and Paolini seems to have struck a chord with a certain readership, but in the case of Eragon, I just couldn't get more than a few chapters into it. At least with Twilight, which I read for the sake of my daughter, I was able to finish the book. I've seen a lot worse on the shelves (for example Eragon; a certain D&D novel by Douglas Niles I can't remember the name of but which was truly atrocious). I guess it all ends up being rather subjective at some point, however.


----------



## Mindfire

I wouldn't say eragon struck a chord per ce. It sold well, but it's pretty low profile, especially compared to twilight. I'd say eragon just combined LOTR and Star Wars and the residual awesomeness of them propped it up. It's only real claim to fame is that it became infamous.


----------



## myrddin173

Well, it seems that there is another Eragon book in our future...


----------



## NovaPowered

myrddin173 said:


> Well, it seems that there is another Eragon book in our future...



As long as it doesn't inlcude Eragon himself then it might be good...


----------



## kayd_mon

Steerpike said:


> I read the first Twilight book. It didn't appeal to me, but the writing wasn't terrible, on the whole, though you might find a turn of phrase here or that that is pretty bad. Her book The Host was actually fairly well done, I thought. Both she and Paolini seems to have struck a chord with a certain readership, but in the case of Eragon, I just couldn't get more than a few chapters into it. At least with Twilight, which I read for the sake of my daughter, I was able to finish the book. I've seen a lot worse on the shelves (for example Eragon; a certain D&D novel by Douglas Niles I can't remember the name of but which was truly atrocious). I guess it all ends up being rather subjective at some point, however.



I suppose it is subjective. Still, since they both encourage more young readers, I think they serve their purpose well.


----------



## Steerpike

kayd_mon said:


> I suppose it is subjective. Still, since they both encourage more young readers, I think they serve their purpose well.



Yes, I agree!


----------



## thedarknessrising

A new Eragon book? I just shed tears of joy.


----------



## joe

Dah. 
I did read 1st book in one day. I was totally into it. However, it was years ago. I read another book very quickly, than waited for the third. It wasn't so hyper ultra maxi then. In the meantime I had read some real fantasy novels, so when I had finished the 3rd book I knew i wouldn't read the next ones. Anybody to spoil from the point where Roran is hammering Ra Zacks on a hill? Cause I won't read it, surely. Too much great writers awaits on dusty shelves.


----------



## Shockley

First off, I have to address the ragging on Paolini for ripping off Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Granted, granted, what Paolini presented is Star Wars in fantasyland. And Star Wars (A New Hope) is little more than The Hidden Fortress wrapped in Flash Gordon. LotR is a basic rip off of the Nibelungenlied (and you can go to the Fantasy section of any good bookstore and by the Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun, a Norse version of the Nibelungenlied, translated by one John Ronald Rauel Tolkien). William Morris, one of Tolkien's favorite writers, had a wizard named Gandolf and a horse named Silverfax. 

 Everyone steals and everyone has influences. We have to criticize Paolini on other things.

 Paolini can't write and he sucks at characterization. But he's more successful than I am, so hell, good on him. I hope he continues to be successful and put out work.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

I haven't read any of the books but I did watch the movie. 

Honestly, I found it to be kind of a guilty pleasure. It felt very much like one of those generic 80s fantasy movies - CGI dragons aside, it could have been made in the same era as Dragonslayer and Beastmaster and Willow. 

It was clichÃ©, sure, but somehow it felt like they knew they were working with clichÃ©s and decided to run with it: "Screw it, let's make the swords gaudy as all hell and cast freaking Jeremy Irons as the mentor."


----------



## Zireael

I read the first 3 books around the age of 16 in Polish translation, which wasn't too bad, just your average book. So I can't comment on writing style. I agree that some details of other cultures were quite refreshing. While Inheritance didn't immediately strike me as 'SW in fantasyland', I didn't like the plot holes and overly complicated family story in Brisingr. Eragon was good, Eldest was nearly as good, but Brisingr was worse and I didn't read book 4. I also didn't like the Ra'zac and the orc lookalikes, whatever their name was.

As for the film, I liked the fact that the cast wasn't all-white.


----------



## aliciamarie

I read the first two and was recently considering attempting the other two. Maybe I will.


----------



## Philster401

Why do you guys think Christopher Paolini books are like star wars movies if it because you think Eragon's father is Morzan it isn't its Brom. Also the Inheritance cycle is one of my favorite series along with The Secrets of the Immortal Nicolas Flamel, and Harry Potter among others. Although I'm am  a teenager.


----------



## Tom

Urgh. I read all four books a few years ago, and to be honest, I didn't like them. 

The prose was purple, the characterization was flat, the elves were self-righteous, Arya was a jerk, Sapphira was a walking (and flying) _deus ex machina_, and Eragon was a blank slate who occasionally exhibited sociopathic tendencies. Actually, the only times I was genuinely interested in him as a character was when he was acting like a sociopath. It's not every day you read about a sociopathic hero. 

The only characters I enjoyed were Nasuada and Murtagh--Nasuada because she was badass without ever once picking up a sword (and proved that diplomacy can be badass as well), and Murtagh because he was the only character in the books who was sympathetic and morally grey at the same time (though Eragon did spend a fair amount of time demonizing him for no good reason).

By the way, Galbatorix was made out to be a madman, but to me he came across as the most reasonable person in the series. I was very sad to see him die. Plus it appeared that the most "evil" thing he was doing was levying taxes on the populace to maintain the infrastructure (to make travel easier), the army (to protect the kingdom), and a stable economy (to make sure people can, y'know, eat).

I think Paolini had some very good and original ideas, but those ideas are few and far between. Most of the content of his books is filler. If he had excluded filler and made an effort to avoid all the stereotypes and cliches he happily employed, I would enjoy his books, even though the concept has been done before. As it is, there are a few gems buried in a load of writing that's somewhere south of mediocre. 

Plus, the linguist in me hates the fact that to make his "languages", he ripped phrases and words from Welsh, Old Norse, Old English, and Japanese and strung them together with no regards to structure or syntax.

You may now lower your rant shields.


----------



## Philster401

First Galbatorix was insane he killed all the Dragon riders.
Second elves are always self-righteous but they do have a greater understanding of the world around them.
Third why do tou say Arya is a jerk.
Fourth Dragons are great and powerful creatures i loved how described th chapters that were from saphira's point of view.
And finally i guess i have to agree a little about how quickly he learned to do tasks but people can do amazing things when they are fighting for their lives but I absolutely can not agree the their characterization  was at all flat I think I literally  cried at the i think. 
One thing i did hate was how quickly things were solved before the book ended and how Arya and Eragon's relationship was never solved   among a few other things.

Then i shall pick up my sword and drive it through your own defenses.


----------



## Tom

Philster401 said:


> First Galbatorix was insane he killed all the Dragon riders.
> Second elves are always self-righteous but they do have a greater understanding of the world around them.
> Third why do tou say Arya is a jerk.
> Fourth Dragons are great and powerful creatures i loved how described th chapters that were from saphira's point of view.
> And finally i guess i have to agree a little about how quickly he learned to do tasks but people can do amazing things when they are fighting for their lives but I absolutely can not agree the their characterization  was at all flat I think I literally  cried at the i think.
> One thing i did hate was how quickly things were solved before the book ended and how Arya and Eragon's relationship was never solved   among a few other things.
> 
> Then i shall pick up my sword and drive it through your own defenses.



Galbatorix was insane from _grief_ over his dragon's death when he killed the dragon riders. Insanity from grief isn't very common in the real world, but it's almost always some form of temporary. It's never proved that he _stayed_ insane. My theory has always been that he snapped out of it, saw the mess he'd made, and vowed to protect and guide the land he'd damaged. (Which would be way more interesting to read about than generic evil.)

The elves are extremely narrow-minded. They killed off a party of human loggers who were harvesting trees from the edges of Du Weldenvarden without even asking them why they were there, then proceeded to attack a human town without warning and destroy it (and don't even tell me it's because they knew the humans were evil. That's no excuse to go on a genocidal rampage). They have no tolerance for beliefs other than their own. The scene where Arya provokes the dwarf priest and smugly leads him on to make him look like a fanatical old fool? That nearly made me throw the book against a wall. Plus, they teach Eragon Elvish beliefs, expecting him to give up his human beliefs and traditions because they're "narrow-minded" and "old". No excuse for depriving someone of part of their culture. I'd like to see Paolini's elves try to understand and empathize with the humans for once, not preach down to them from their thrones in the trees.

For an example of "why Arya is a jerk", see the paragraph above. 

I honestly enjoyed the dragons. Sapphira's chapters were much better than the others, and I really liked her characterization. However, she was treated like a plot device instead of a character most of the time. That really bugged me. I wanted to get to know her, not see her be "awesome" and save everyone's ass every ten pages. (Although both would be nice.)

I don't boast to have characters with amazing depth, but I can see flat characterization for what it is. Strangely, it affects mostly Eragon and Arya. Besides his sociopathic tendencies and occasional interesting moment, Eragon is characterized like a generic hero. He's morally upright. Insightful. Reluctant at first, but then enjoys and accepts his new role. The "generic hero" is just an archetype, not a living character. Archetypes need to be expanded upon to produce a complex, memorable, fully fleshed out character. If Eragon had had more character quirks--be it a phobia, an intense interest in a certain subject, a favorite memory, a tendency to get defensive in a conversation, you name it--he would seem more real to me.

I'm glad you found it frustrating that he learned all those things in such a short time period. People can't just pick up a sword and go from absolutely no experience to mastering even the most basic of moves. First, you've got to rip all your muscles apart doing drills over and over to hammer the movements into your muscle memory before you even _think_ about sparring. Then, when you get to a level where you're ready for sparring, you spend ninety percent of the time being beaten flat-out and ten percent of the time thinking you'll get a score but then having it work against you. When you finally get better, it's only from grueling drills, being beaten in every bout, and tearing down your whole physique to build stronger, more responsive muscles. (And it usually takes about three years to get to that last point.)

And then there's the issue of a fifteen-year-old learning to read in the space of roughly a month. Urgh...language does not work that way. There's a reason kids learn to read at six or seven. Young kids can soak up languages like sponges. By the mid to late teen years, you start to lose your capacity for learning new languages (which is why I will never speak Spanish or Irish Gaelic at all fluently). That includes written language. Written language is foreign because you need to take the sounds you know form words and associate them with markings on a page, just like when learning a new language you take words and concepts in your own language and associate them with a whole other set of sounds. Once you've got it you've got it, but if you don't learn to read by your teen years you most likely won't ever be able to read at a very sophisticated level.

And mostly--in regards to what you said earlier about fighting on instinct--when people are fighting for their lives, instinct kicks in and they resort to biting and clawing. You can only instinctively perform a movement you've done before to some extent. For example, on the first week I started fencing several years ago, in my first bout I would not be have been able to execute a feint-_ballaestra_-lunge attack that I had never learned just because instinct kicked in. 

Actually, when my instinct kicked in I grabbed my opponent's blade while he was attacking and tried to pull it out of his hands. I got chewed out for that one. Base instinct doesn't work to make you execute an attack using precise technique associated with a certain fighting style such as swordfighting. Base instinct works to get your ass out of a fight alive, even if you have to resort to dishonorable tactics and fighting like an animal.

Because this post is already too long, I won't say anything about Eragon and Arya's relationship or the issues solved at the end of the book. Just that both could have been handled better.

Then I shall pick up my foil, parry your blade, disengage, and go for the attack!


----------



## Steerpike

I just couldn't get more than a couple chapters into the first book due to the quality of writing. Nothing to do with the story itself.


----------



## Tom

I picked apart all four books, wrote down Paolini's mistakes in a list, and now check my stories against that list to make sure I'm not making the same mistakes.


----------



## Philster401

Ok well either way Galbatorix sent soldiers to  attack undefended villages made soldiers feel no making them crazed war machines, took control of peoples mind forcefully which was wasn't honorable grant he did do some good but he also used children as blackmail in last book. 
In regards to Eragon's learning rate he seemed quite intelligent he did probably fight with Roran with poles or something when they were younger , he had good teachers, it did take a while for him to learn writing but all he had to learn was how to read really and not even necessarily quickly also saphira had a great memory so she probably helped him remember, and  brom or Oromis  probably gave him some memories that helped him with those problems.
Eragon also was always  curious about dragon's and the riders also he was interested magic even before he met saphira. His favourite memory i can't remember but im sure he had one.
He was also started to part elven from the moment saphira's egg hatched my theory is that the first thing that started changing was his mind.


----------



## Philster401

Also i'm not one when i read normally to pay attention to grammar mistakes my brain rushes over them  which has been a problem of mine with writing forever.


----------



## Tom

I'm a grammar freak. When I read, the hyperfocus aspect of ADD kicks in and I notice _everything_. Every detail, every mistake. Yay.

Paolini's books really frustrated me because I couldn't get past the shoddy writing. There were elements I liked, characters I cared about, ideas that interested and intrigued me, but the writing was so distracting.

The things Galbatorix did were no worse than some of the things the Varden did. Remember what I said about the elves annihilating a whole human town? Yeah, that's on par with what Galbatorix did. Also, the Varden are the ones who blackmailed Elva--who, despite looking like a six-year-old and having an adult mind, is an _infant_--into going into the front lines of a battle! And if I'm not mistaken, the Varden considered making their soldiers unfeeling as well. 

Let me say it again: You. Cannot. Learn. To. Read. In. One. Month. Flat. Especially if you're in your mid- to late teens. Decreased capability for absorbing new languages applies to written language. And fighting with poles is nothing like fighting with swords. Believe me. When my foil broke, I tried to use a bamboo garden stake to practice. Using that thing threw off my technique for two weeks.

Eragon was interested in dragons, riders, and magic because it was part of the plot. "Oh, look! He's interested in this stuff! So it comes as no surprise that this information becomes relevant to the plot!"

Sorry I'm ragging on your favorite series, but I am pretty annoyed that it ever got published. With some major, major revising, strict editing, and honest critique, it could be good. However, it's not.


----------



## Philster401

I just read something online about how he got published on his first try or at least that he wasn't refused by any publisher.


----------



## ascanius

umm....  I'm kinda surprised that so many people liked eragon.  Me I can't stand those books, they were like reading my rip off of star wars I wrote in the 2nd grade but he went further and took from a lot of other authors.  One thing I can say that helps is having inside contacts with the publishing world and great marketing.  I get that he was 13 but honestly so what, his writing was on parr for that age, nothing exceptional so I don't get why he ever became such a big deal.  I wonder how many 13 year old out there have written stories even better but we never hear of them, why?  It's amazing what good marketing can do if you ask me.  I'm sorry but those books left a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## Butterfly

Philster401 said:


> I just read something online about how he got published on his first try or at least that he wasn't refused by any publisher.



From what I've read online... The first edition was self published, and through his parents' company. Heavily marketed to drive sales, and taken on by a publisher when it proved its saleability. Regardless of the standard of the writing, it sold, and that is what attracted a publisher.


----------



## Tom

They also used Paolini's age as a marketing device--you know, setting him up as some sort of "child prodigy". Really his writing was decidedly average for an early to mid-teen. I've compared it to my own from when I was that age, and the mediocre style is depressingly similar. He just happened to write four huge books; I barely finished any stories during that period.


----------



## Steerpike

I tried to read _Eragon_​. Didn't get very far.


----------



## Butterfly

Same here.

But they did something right, so maybe it would benefit us to look at what exactly that was.



> They also used Paolini's age as a marketing device--you know, setting him up as some sort of "child prodigy". Really his writing was decidedly average for an early to mid-teen. I've compared it to my own from when I was that age, and the mediocre style is depressingly similar. He just happened to write four huge books; I barely finished any stories during that period.



His age was the _unique selling point._ That's what they sold, not the writing. It made a fuss, and drew people in to see what all the fuss was about. Some liked it, some didn't, but the book was still bought. I have to think a bit harder what my _unique selling_ point is. (Won't be my age).

But maybe here is the answer. Finish something, have the faith to put it out there, give it a bit of marketing, and see what happens.


----------



## Philster401

Two things 1) I didn't know when I read it the first time that he was 15 when he published Eragon. 2) I didn't realize his books had any similarities to star wars until I joined this forum.  One thing I have noticed when reading this thread is that people keep mentioning that they liked it when they were 15 and his target age was teenagers and most teenagers don't care or know basically anything about grammar. Especially now in days I am normally the kid that answers any question asked in a classroom (granted I am not perfect) and half the time (me included) can't  tell if the grammar they use is correct and most don't care.


----------



## Tom

I was the lone teen who was a total freak about grammar. I _redlined_ my copy of Eragon! (In red pencil, though, not pen, because I didn't want to deface a book.) 

My family was never into Star Wars when I was younger, so I didn't catch those similarities when I first read Eragon. When I watched all the Star Wars episodes for the first time a few years ago, I had a sudden epiphany as I recognized plot points, characters, and themes from the Inheritance Cycle. My God, could it have been any more blatant?!


----------



## Scalvi

His were some of my sophomoric forays into epic fantasy. I read the first two in the break for the third book I started to edge away from it. When I went to read the fourth, I just found it to be a bad book.

I think the biggest thing I took from it was to avoid pretentiousness. So much of what I assumed were attempts to make the tale come across as 'grand' didn't feel like a weight world history. It felt entirely artificial and more annoying like someone persisting in a hoax after all of the tricks have been revealed.


----------



## Jabrosky

I remember the time when the first _Eragon_ book was ubiquitous in bookstores, but it wasn't until the movie came out that I learned he wrote it at age 15. But the moment I walked out of the movie, without ever reading the book or heard about its detractors, I thought its plot sounded suspiciously like the very first _Star Wars_ movie. Even Eragon's actor resembled Luke Skywalker to my eyes. So basically it was Star Wars with a vaguely Tolkien-inspired, pseudo-medieval window dressing.

I did like the Nasuada character, or at least looking at her, but she didn't appear often enough to redeem the movie.


----------



## Mythopoet

Honestly, I didn't think Eragon was that much worse that the typical first book for an epic fantasy author. It wasn't worse than say, The Eye of the World or The Magic of Recluce or Lord Foul's Bane or many others. I read through it easily and while I didn't enjoy it to the point that I wanted to continue the story with book 2 (the same way I felt about The Eye of the World and The Magic of Recluce and Lord Foul's Band, among others) it also didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth (like The Eye of the World  and The Magic of Recluce and, say, Witch World, among others). I didn't really have any complaints. It was just an average epic fantasy novel. 

I think a lot of people heard about it being written by a teenager and being a Tolkien ripoff and went into it expecting it to be horrible and so they found what they expected. Either that or they went in thinking, "Oh, so this book got published when he was a teenager? It had better be good then." Thus unconsciously applying standards to Eragon they wouldn't apply to any other author's first book which it was all but guaranteed to fail. 

Man, people are hard on Paolini. But didn't we all wish we could publish our crappy fantasy stories when we were teenagers? Did we all think we were writing the best thing since sliced bread? At least the guy openly acknowledges all of his influences. And the story of the publication is actually kind of inspiring.


----------



## Jabrosky

Mythopoet said:


> Honestly, I didn't think Eragon was that much worse that the typical first book for an epic fantasy author. It wasn't worse than say, The Eye of the World or The Magic of Recluce or Lord Foul's Bane or many others. I read through it easily and while I didn't enjoy it to the point that I wanted to continue the story with book 2 (the same way I felt about The Eye of the World and The Magic of Recluce and Lord Foul's Band, among others) it also didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth (like The Eye of the World  and The Magic of Recluce and, say, Witch World, among others). I didn't really have any complaints. It was just an average epic fantasy novel.
> 
> I think a lot of people heard about it being written by a teenager and being a Tolkien ripoff and went into it expecting it to be horrible and so they found what they expected. Either that or they went in thinking, "Oh, so this book got published when he was a teenager? It had better be good then." Thus unconsciously applying standards to Eragon they wouldn't apply to any other author's first book which it was all but guaranteed to fail.
> 
> Man, people are hard on Paolini. But didn't we all wish we could publish our crappy fantasy stories when we were teenagers? Did we all think we were writing the best thing since sliced bread? At least the guy openly acknowledges all of his influences. And the story of the publication is actually kind of inspiring.


I will give him credit for having a whole novel finished and getting it published. That shows an incredible self-discipline many older writers, myself included, would covet. And I don't really mind the superficial Tolkien influences, as that's par for the course for the genre. It was really the _Star Wars_ plot parallels that raised my red flag, but I suppose those would be harmless if he had passed it off as a simple medieval reboot.


----------



## Mythopoet

Jabrosky said:


> I will give him credit for having a whole novel finished and getting it published. That shows an incredible self-discipline many older writers, myself included, would covet. And I don't really mind the superficial Tolkien influences, as that's par for the course for the genre. It was really the _Star Wars_ plot parallels that raised my red flag, but I suppose those would be harmless if he had passed it off as a simple medieval reboot.



I don't really think it parallels Star Wars. I just think that they both take a lot from The Hero's Journey. I mean, Star Wars is just The Hero's Journey in Space. It's not as if it's original. Anything that uses the Hero's Journey is going to have similarities to Star Wars, no matter what the author had in mind when writing it. And the book is less like Star Wars than the movie was anyway.


----------



## Steerpike

I think Paolini made the Robert Jordan and Stephen Donaldson novels cited look like Dostoevsky. But Eye of the World wasn't Jordan's first fantasy novel.


----------



## Mythopoet

Steerpike said:


> I think Paolini made the Robert Jordan and Stephen Donaldson novels cited look like Dostoevsky. But Eye of the World wasn't Jordan's first fantasy novel.



Really? I was constantly astounded by how awful Eye of the World was. I mean... some of the worst characters I have ever had to displeasure to encounter. I can accept that Lord Foul's Bane has some creativity behind it, but oh. my. god. was that book a slog to get through. It was sheer agony. Eragon wasn't great. But it was a lot easier and more enjoyable to read than either of those two.


----------



## StannisTheMannis

Like many others on here, the Inheritance Cycle was great when I was a young-mid teen - by the time Inheritance came out, I was in college and finished it out of a sense of duty. I remember how many I adored _Eragon_ - I was too young to critically compare it to Star Wars or devise the archetype of the Hero's Journey (which both of them are). I didn't mind that it looks like CP "copied" Star Wars - the story is still entertaining. 

However, Eldest was a trial. It was like the Half-Blood Prince for CP. The dwarves were ridiculously obstinate. The elves were, let's be honest, pricks. Eragon was at his emotional worst. The only thing that redeemed Eldest was the introduction of Roran's storyline, and the battle at the end. *sigh* Roran... *swoons* 

I know that Brisingr barely advanced the plot, but I enjoyed it. It got into the nitty-gritty of battle and the war. It was the long haul. It was exciting! But, I would rather have had Brisingr be three hundred pages longer and CP cut out Inheritance entirely. When I finally got to Inheritance as a college student, I was bored. And to be honest, Eragon and Roran aren't that likable. I didn't read Inheritance from a point-of-view where I felt like I had to admire Eragon and Roran. I was honestly critical of them. I didn't like their methods or their attitudes. I thought they were selfish and not very good leaders. 

I read Inheritance in a manner similar to chapters of ASOIAF featuring characters I don't like. I'm not reading to support you, I'm reading to see where it goes. And the folly of the Inheritance Cycle is that it ends exactly how you expect it to. No surprises. That's where the curtain rises on George Martin. 

TL;DR: The Inheritance Cycle was more enjoyable as a kid, it had its ups and downs, Eragon and Roran suck.


----------



## Steerpike

Mythopoet said:


> Really? I was constantly astounded by how awful Eye of the World was. I mean... some of the worst characters I have ever had to displeasure to encounter. I can accept that Lord Foul's Bane has some creativity behind it, but oh. my. god. was that book a slog to get through. It was sheer agony. Eragon wasn't great. But it was a lot easier and more enjoyable to read than either of those two.



I'm not saying Eye of the World was great, just that it was so far beyond Eragon as to be in a different league.

I liked Lord Foul's Bane well enough.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

I thought they were okay when I was younger. They were forgettable for me. But a few years ago I read the last book and got so frustrated with it as it progressed that when he made a blatant reference to a Doctor Who planet. Going so far as to mention half a planet's name (Raxacoriphalipitorius(sp?)) and then stopping saying Eragon wouldn't know or care about it, I just about tossed the book at that point. His other references were far more subtle and I'm fine with that, but this one was heavy handed and was the straw that broke this reader's back. So frustrating.


----------



## Tom

Okay, I had to drag out my copy of Inheritance just to see that. Needless to say, ham-fisted reference is ham-fisted. Usually I really enjoy pop culture references in books, but this one makes me inexplicably angry. 

Why do I still own those stupid bricks o' tripe, anyway? I should sell them and buy some better-quality books with the money.


----------



## Steerpike

I pulled up the Eragon sample on Amazon just to see if I was remembering wrong. Nope. The writing is terrible. People complain about the writing in Twilight, which is mediocre/competent but not beyond that,  but Paolini makes Meyer look like a master.


----------



## X Equestris

My biggest issue was the purple prose.  There was so much fancy language, it was easy to forget what was actually happening.


----------



## Steerpike

I like a lot of descriptiveness and fancy writing, from time to time, if it is done well. It's not easy to pull off. Some authors are excellent with it, but those who aren't shouldn't attempt it until they learn how to do it properly


----------



## Mindfire

I still haven't gotten around to reading Inheritance...


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Unless you have a burning fire and desire to finish it: read the Wikipedia page on it.


----------



## Tom

Mindfire said:


> I still haven't gotten around to reading Inheritance...



Believe me, it's not worth it. I only read it because I wanted to see what happened to Murtagh. That's literally the only thing I cared about. I put up with Eragon only because he was the narrator; other than that, he didn't matter to me at all, because I felt no real connection with him.


----------



## Mindfire

I kinda feel obligated to. I've gone in three books deep. Might as well finish it. See where the rabbit hole goes. But I'm in no rush. There's lots of good books demanding my attention right now. And considering the last time I read an Eragon book was in high school and my own writing skills have improved by a fair margin since then, I'm anticipating that the series will have only gotten worse with age and perspective. Back then I thought the books were merely mediocre and mostly looked down on them because of how much they stole from other, better stories. But sometime since my teen years I've picked up this habit of _thinking_ during my entertainment. I'll probably be much more sensitive to the poor writing now.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mindfire said:


> I kinda feel obligated to. I've gone in three books deep. Might as well finish it. See where the rabbit hole goes. But I'm in no rush. There's lots of good books demanding my attention right now. And considering the last time I read an Eragon book was in high school and my own writing skills have improved by a fair margin since then, I'm anticipating that the series will have only gotten worse with age and perspective. Back then I thought the books were merely mediocre and mostly looked down on them because of how much they stole from other, better stories. But sometime since my teen years I've picked up this habit of _thinking_ during my entertainment. I'll probably be much more sensitive to the poor writing now.


----------



## Mindfire

But on a more serious note, it would be interesting to use the Inheritance books- and other fantasy novels- as a case study of sorts. Discuss what exactly went wrong, what might have been redeemable, opinions on the characters, plot, world, etc. That way it would be educational on top of all the riffing and jibing fun.


----------



## Tom

Anti-Shur'tugal sometimes does this, along with their more snarky commentary on the series.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mind, I expect you to post when you're reading inheritance and provide a running commentary on what you learned. If you let me know I might read it again with you.


----------



## Philster401

I would too maybe we could do a kind of small book club on inheritance.


----------



## Tom

Hey, that might be fun. It would be an excuse for me to reread the books and laugh/rage again at everything that bugged me about them.


----------



## Mythopoet

Mindfire said:


> But on a more serious note, it would be interesting to use the Inheritance books- and other fantasy novels- as a case study of sorts. Discuss what exactly went wrong, what might have been redeemable, opinions on the characters, plot, world, etc. That way it would be educational on top of all the riffing and jibing fun.



I think you really have to look for what they do right as well. Because there's no doubt at all that those books spoke to thousands of readers and that Paolini still has a legion of fans. He's definitely doing something right. It may not be your cup of tea, but there are a lot of readers who love it. 

I think critiquing books from a perspective of "what didn't work for me" is not necessarily very conductive to improving your craft.


----------



## Mindfire

Mythopoet said:


> I think you really have to look for what they do right as well. Because there's no doubt at all that those books spoke to thousands of readers and that Paolini still has a legion of fans.


He does? I have never, ever encountered anyone who unironically loves his books. Not even when they were at their peak. His popularity seemed very fleeting and entirely the result of the hype surrounding his young age. I've never seen anyone, online or in person, who's an actual fan of his work.



Mythopoet said:


> He's definitely doing something right. It may not be your cup of tea, but there are a lot of readers who love it.


Seriously, where are these people? And I don't deny that he had some good original ideas in there. But not all of them were well served.



Mythopoet said:


> I think critiquing books from a perspective of "what didn't work for me" is not necessarily very conductive to improving your craft.


I disagree. Knowing what not to do is just as helpful as knowing what you should do, in my opinion. So long as you go beyond pointing out what doesn't make any sense- which can be entertaining- and talk about what would have worked better and what could have been salvaged, I think it could be very useful. 

So yeah, I think I might do this. Making it a group thing would be awesome. But it's been so long since I read the other three books I may need a refresher.


----------



## Mythopoet

Mindfire said:


> He does? I have never, ever encountered anyone who unironically loves his books. Not even when they were at their peak. His popularity seemed very fleeting and entirely the result of the hype surrounding his young age. I've never seen anyone, online or in person, who's an actual fan of his work.
> 
> 
> Seriously, where are these people? And I don't deny that he had some good original ideas in there. But not all of them were well served.
> 
> 
> I disagree. Knowing what not to do is just as helpful as knowing what you should do, in my opinion. So long as you go beyond pointing out what doesn't make any sense- which can be entertaining- and talk about what would have worked better and what could have been salvaged, I think it could be very useful.
> 
> So yeah, I think I might do this. Making it a group thing would be awesome. But it's been so long since I read the other three books I may need a refresher.



Just because you don't know any or haven't seen any doesn't mean they don't exist. 

I should have put emphasis on the "what didn't work _for me_".


----------



## Philster401

I am a fan, the Inheritance cycle is one of my favorite books, I have read at least 2 or three times. And have listened to his books 3 or 4 times. But as I have said I'm still in my teenage years. I would like to read it again and see the problems you mentioned.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mythopoet said:


> I think you really have to look for what they do right as well. Because there's no doubt at all that those books spoke to thousands of readers and that Paolini still has a legion of fans. He's definitely doing something right. It may not be your cup of tea, but there are a lot of readers who love it.
> 
> I think critiquing books from a perspective of "what didn't work for me" is not necessarily very conductive to improving your craft.



Going over what went wrong is important. It's like watching game film, you go over what the other guy did wrong and right. You hone in and learn. But to make the critique valuable you need to do both.


----------



## Tom

Philster401 said:


> I am a fan, the Inheritance cycle is one of my favorite books, I have read at least 2 or three times. And have listened to his books 3 or 4 times. But as I have said I'm still in my teenage years. I would like to read it again and see the problems you mentioned.



Excellent, excellent. Let us all guide Master Phillip on his journey to the Dark Side.

But seriously, I think it's great that you love those books, but are willing to admit they have mistakes in them. When I first read them, I sort of mindlessly loved them. I knew they weren't perfect, but I tried to ignore that and swept the mistakes I noticed under my mental rug, so to speak. I didn't have the degree of self-awareness then to be able to like something while acknowledging its imperfections. That naivety led me to feel betrayed when I discovered just how bad the books were, and paved my way to becoming a raging anti-fan. Oh well, you gotta learn somehow...


----------



## druidofwinter

I will jump in here and say that I love Eragon. It is my favorite book in the series even if it is technically the weakest. I am another of those people that was inspired to start writing because of Paolini. The series may not have the greatest writing or the most original story, but as an introduction to fantasy it is excellent. 
As a reader I did not notice (or did care to dwell on) the writing's level of quality. Unless a book makes me wince or struggle to understand what the author is attempting to convey I do not discount the writing as bad. I never had any trouble reading Eragon (or any of the subsequent books).
The series, as I have said, is not perfect. Compared to the giants of our genre it may even appear poor. But I would never say it was bad. It succeeded in delighting and inspiring millions of readers the world over, and if a book can do that than I consider it a complete success. 
I would call it good.


----------



## Philster401

I agree completely


----------



## Mythopoet

druidofwinter said:


> Unless a book makes me wince or struggle to understand what the author is attempting to convey I do not discount the writing as bad.



This is absolutely key. For the majority of readers, unless there is something objectively bad about the prose (such failing to make the story clear) then they don't care. Writers who go around talking about "bad writing" in popular books are failing to understand readers and what readers' priorities are. It doesn't matter whether you as a writer enjoyed the book or not, there really is nothing objectively bad about Eragon. It's all a matter of taste. And the fact that you don't like a particular book is not a good reason claim that it is bad, which indirectly is insulting many, many readers' (your own potential readers, if you write fantasy) taste.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mythopoet said:


> And the fact that you don't like a particular book is not a good reason claim that it is bad, which indirectly is insulting many, many readers' (your own potential readers, if you write fantasy) taste.



I never understood this sentiment. How can one be insulted if someone else thought a book was bad. I have read from several people here that they dislike Sanderson's novels, but that doesn't insult me. I may think less of them as a person and wish that they go jump in a chasmfiend's mouth, but I'm not insulted. (That last sentence was tongue in cheek btw). Seriously though, how can someone be insulted about a difference of opinion. And why should writers have to tip-toe around their own opinions so that they don't offend their "audience." It's just weird. 

In any event, I don't think his books are bad. Offensively mediocre certainly. And that ham-fisted reference pulled me out of the story so much I didn't want to finish the last fifty or so pages of the whole series, but it's not _bad_ just bland as milquetoast to me.


----------



## Mindfire

Mythopoet said:


> This is absolutely key. For the majority of readers, unless there is something objectively bad about the prose (such failing to make the story clear) then they don't care. Writers who go around talking about "bad writing" in popular books are failing to understand readers and what readers' priorities are. It doesn't matter whether you as a writer enjoyed the book or not, there really is nothing objectively bad about Eragon.



...And you lost me. There is plenty objectively bad about Eragon, starting with outright stealing plot elements, names, and concepts from other stories without reinterpreting them or adding much original material (at least in the beginning). And the writing actually does make me cringe with its pretentious vocabulary, one-note characters, boring protagonist, bland villain, purple prose, and half-baked attempt at Ye Olde Englishe. The writing is so bad that after reading Brisingr my own writing skills took a hit and I had to write for a couple weeks just to get back into form. Of course I was in high school and my writing style was more malleable than it is now. But still, it's going a bit far to say that books like Eragon and Twilight, its female equivalent, aren't bad just because people like them. People liked Jupiter Ascending (though not enough to make it decent money). People liked Transformers 2 (including me, before I actually started thinking about it). Some people even like Batman and Robin. All of those films are capital-A Awful. Same goes for books like Eragon. Everyone has something terrible that they like. Doesn't make it any less terrible. 

I mean, what is this?



> The songs of the dead are the lamentations of the living.
> For gray-eyed Destiny now weaves apace, the first resounding note of war echoes across the land.
> Movement flickered through it, like the swish of a bird across a clouded moon.



_Seriously?!_


----------



## Mythopoet

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I never understood this sentiment. How can one be insulted if someone else thought a book was bad. I have read from several people here that they dislike Sanderson's novels, but that doesn't insult me. I may think less of them as a person and wish that they go jump in a chasmfiend's mouth, but I'm not insulted. (That last sentence was tongue in cheek btw). Seriously though, how can someone be insulted about a difference of opinion. And why should writers have to tip-toe around their own opinions so that they don't offend their "audience." It's just weird.
> 
> In any event, I don't think his books are bad. Offensively mediocre certainly. And that ham-fisted reference pulled me out of the story so much I didn't want to finish the last fifty or so pages of the whole series, but it's not _bad_ just bland as milquetoast to me.



It's because people DON'T say "_I_ thought this book was bad" or "_I_ didn't like this book". They just say "this book _is_ bad" or "this book _is_ terrible". They make an absolute statement about the nature of the book itself rather than a statement about themselves. There is a difference, whether the speaker means it or not. And when you make a statement about the book itself, people who did like the book feel that you are basically saying they have bad taste. I would strongly caution writers about making such statements, and be careful about what words you use when talking about books that a great many people like. You won't make many friends and you'll earn fewer readers if you insult other people's favorite books. 

But writers should also be careful about how they look at books they didn't personally enjoy. Obviously you should be mindful of the things that didn't work for you. But you should be even more mindful of the fact that your assessment is subjective and many reader like the things you don't like and thus the things you don't like are _not_ "bad". I really think it's far more healthy for writers to look for what _works_, both for them and others, rather than focus on the negative.


----------



## Mythopoet

Mindfire said:


> ...And you lost me. There is plenty objectively bad about Eragon, starting with outright stealing plot elements, names, and concepts from other stories without reinterpreting them or adding much original material (at least in the beginning). And the writing actually does make me cringe with its pretentious vocabulary, one-note characters, boring protagonist, bland villain, purple prose, and half-baked attempt at Ye Olde Englishe. The writing is so bad that after reading Brisingr my own writing skills took a hit and I had to write for a couple weeks just to get back into form. Of course I was in high school and my writing style was more malleable than it is now. But still, it's going a bit far to say that books like Eragon and Twilight, its female equivalent, aren't bad just because people like them. People liked Jupiter Ascending (though not enough to make it decent money). People liked Transformers 2 (including me, before I actually started thinking about it). Some people even like Batman and Robin. All of those films are capital-A Awful. Same goes for books like Eragon. Everyone has something terrible that they like. Doesn't make it any less terrible.
> 
> I mean, WTF is this bull?
> 
> 
> 
> _Seriously?!_



I'm not really sure what you find so terrible about the phrases you quoted. What, specifically, is bad about them? Please be precise. 

Also, once again, your opinion is 100% subjective. You really need to keep that in mind as a writer. Respect the readers and their tastes.


----------



## Mindfire

Mythopoet said:


> I'm not really sure what you find so terrible about the phrases you quoted. What, specifically, is bad about them? Please be precise.
> 
> Also, once again, your opinion is 100% subjective. You really need to keep that in mind as a writer. Respect the readers and their tastes.



Okay. I'm going to try to address this without flipping out again. I'll defer to Brian's opinion in this respect: Eragon is not bad in the way that, say, the Eye of Argon is bad. It's closer to what Brian said: offensively mediocre. It does make me cringe and roll my eyes, but it's not an utter travesty. And I've previously said there's some neat ideas in there. But I'm going to keep calling it bad for simplicity's sake. Now then, what's all this rubbish about subjectivity? I'm not following this logical leap from "everyone has different tastes and opinions" to "there's no such thing as bad". People can- and do- like bad things. That doesn't make them any less bad, as I demonstrated with my litany of examples. As for that quotation, where do I begin? The fact that reading it makes me want to punch something, facepalm, and set the book on fire all at once is already enough to condemn it. But if you want to go line by line:



> The songs of the dead are the lamentations of the living.


What does this mean? Really. Does it mean anything? I look at this and I derive zero helpful information. I am boggled by the sheer nonsense of it. The songs of the dead are the lamentations of the living? So... the dead are mourning for the living? The living are lamenting dead singers? The dead people wrote songs for those who survived them to sing at their funerals? What? WHAT?! INFORM ME, DANGIT!



> For gray-eyed Destiny now weaves apace, the first resounding note of war echoes across the land.


Okay, this is a little easier to decipher, but it also fails to connect to the previous sentence in any way, shape, or form. What does destiny and the start of war have to do with the aforementioned dead people and mourning? The sentence structure implies a connection. What is it? And time to put a dollar in the pretentious vocabulary jar. "Grey-eyed Destiny now weaves apace"? Are you kidding me with that? This feels like a line from a bad translation of a Greek tragedy yanked out of its context and shoved in here to make the writer sound cool and well-read. This is quite possibly the purple-iest purple prose I have ever seen. Charles Dickens would facepalm at this.



> "Movement flickered through it, like the swish of a bird across a clouded moon."


Movement flickered through _what_? This isn't just a matter of style, this is basic grammar. Pronouns need antecedents, otherwise they don't mean anything. And since there's nothing in this entire passage that could be something that movement flickers through, this pronoun doesn't have one. And without knowing what (or whose) movement is flickering through what, the simile about the bird and clouded moon is meaningless.


----------



## Tom

Mindfire said:


> I mean, what is this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The songs of the dead are the lamentations of the living.
> For gray-eyed Destiny now weaves apace, the first resounding note of war echoes across the land.
> Movement flickered through it, like the swish of a bird across a clouded moon.
> 
> 
> 
> _Seriously?!_
Click to expand...


Oof. I'd forgotten just how purple the prose is. I've never been able to figure out those first two sentences. Especially the first one. Just...really? It's supposed to be profound, but I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. "The dead have found relief while the living must suffer on"? That's probably the general gist of it, but you could say it so much more clearly--like I just did. 

And the second one--just plain purple. Wow. Even if I didn't hate the over-used cliche of Destiny in fantasy, I would still consider this an excess. Why is it relevant to know that Destiny has gray eyes? Why is that "apace" in there? Just use "swiftly", like the rest of us; it's clearer. And there should be a semi-colon dividing the two halves of that sentence. The second half sounds alright, though if the note "echoes", it shouldn't also be "resounding". Resounding is kinda what echoes do, so that's redundant.

And that last sentence...not even touching it. Waaaaaay too overwrought. Can't you just say "Movement flickered through it" and leave it at that? Or if you want to modify it, how about saying "like a bird across the sky". It keeps the general feel of the original, but eliminates the purple prose. 

Whew. I forgot how tiring/frustrating it is to wade through those books.


----------



## Mindfire

My thoughts exactly. Now, I pulled this from TV Tropes to use as an example, so there's a possibility that these lines come from different places in the book. Maybe. But even given that benefit of the doubt, the sentences are just painful to read.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Every time I hit the worst purple parts I skipped them by summarizing thusly, "METAPHOR." I think that helped me.


----------



## Mindfire

Tom Nimenai said:


> And the second one--just plain purple. Wow. Even if I didn't hate the over-used cliche of Destiny in fantasy, I would still consider this an excess. Why is it relevant to know that Destiny has gray eyes?



My guess? A hamfisted reference to the Graeae, aka "Grey Sisters" or "the Fates", of Greek myth.


----------



## Mindfire

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Every time I hit the worst purple parts I skipped them by summarizing thusly, "METAPHOR." I think that helped me.



That's actually very helpful. I'll probably make that a running gag if/when I get around to reading and reviewing Inheritance.


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> I mean, what is this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The songs of the dead are the lamentations of the living.
> For gray-eyed Destiny now weaves apace, the first resounding note of war echoes across the land.
> Movement flickered through it, like the swish of a bird across a clouded moon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Seriously?!_
Click to expand...


It looks to me like someone had an English teacher who was a little too generous.


----------



## Tom

Mindfire said:


> My guess? A hamfisted reference to the Graeae, aka "Grey Sisters" or "the Fates", of Greek myth.



Hamfisted reference is hamfisted. And I think he totally missed the point of the Grey Sisters. They weren't literally gray; they were called that to symbolically represent their neutrality. They were Fate, impassive, favoring neither good nor evil. All were subject to their rule no matter what path they took in life. 

...And I bet that went right over Paolini's head.


----------



## Mythopoet

Mindfire said:


> My thoughts exactly. Now, I pulled this from TV Tropes to use as an example, so there's a possibility that these lines come from different places in the book. Maybe. But even given that benefit of the doubt, the sentences are just painful to read.



Wait, you pulled individual lines without context from tv tropes so you have no idea where they even are in the book and that's your proof of bad writing? I just can't even process the bad logic in this. I can't believe you think this means anything at all except that you are determined to dismiss the writing for bad reasons.


----------



## Philster401

Id say those lines are moat likely from angela she seemed to like making lines that madw no sense to anyone but her and that's part what I liked about her is there were times that it was near impossible to understand what she meant.


----------



## Devor

Mythopoet said:


> Wait, you pulled individual lines without context from tv tropes so you have no idea where they even are in the book and that's your proof of bad writing? I just can't even process the bad logic in this. I can't believe you think this means anything at all except that you are determined to dismiss the writing for bad reasons.



While you have a point for that one experiment, I tried to read some of the book; it's pretty bad. My wife wanted me to read them, because she had when she was younger, and I couldn't.  Believe me, I've got to find a book pretty bad for me to turn her down.


----------



## Ireth

The "songs of the dead" bit is the opening line of _Eldest_; it's Eragon's direct thought as he observes the aftermath of battle and the mourning of those who are taking their dead loved ones to be buried. (I actually googled the quote and found a pdf copy of the book to look in.) No idea about the other stuff though.


----------



## Tom

Mythopoet said:


> Wait, you pulled individual lines without context from tv tropes so you have no idea where they even are in the book and that's your proof of bad writing? I just can't even process the bad logic in this. I can't believe you think this means anything at all except that you are determined to dismiss the writing for bad reasons.



I've read those quotes in context. They're just as bad. Especially the first one. Eragon thinks that line while playing with a dead soldier's molar. _A dead soldier's molar._ 

Mythopoet, what I don't understand is why you're getting all defensive. We're all discussing why we think a book is badly written. This is a matter of opinion, not of logic. All of us have reasons for considering this writing bad--whether because of the purple prose, the poorly structured sentences, paragraphs, and narrative arc, the rampant cliches, or other reasons. Can this please just be a fun discussion where we analyze and critique the writing? I don't really feel up for an argument.


----------



## Mythopoet

I'm not getting defensive. I don't particularly like Eragon. I don't care whether or not any likes it or doesn't. But I object to shoddy logic and bad reason. I argue against those things not because I'm being defensive, but because I'd really like to see more people in the world who use their minds well.


----------



## Mythopoet

Ireth said:


> The "songs of the dead" bit is the opening line of _Eldest_; it's Eragon's direct thought as he observes the aftermath of battle and the mourning of those who are taking their dead loved ones to be buried. (I actually googled the quote and found a pdf copy of the book to look in.) No idea about the other stuff though.



Quite honestly, I think that line is good. I am puzzled that it would cause confusion for a thinking human being at all.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

I don't particularly like the songs of the dead line. Perhaps I'm utilitarian in my thinking but it really doesn't do much of anything. It's just an author showing off to me. Now, if that line did something more than just be there I wouldn't object so much. Not that it's a bad line per se, I just don't like it much.

Oh another thing that displeased me was especially prevalent in the first couple of books was how ham-fisted he was when discussing religion or any set of beliefs like vegetarianism. There was no nuance at all it felt like he was being an edgy teenager, which I suppose he was but that doesn't give him an excuse. A published book, whether by an adult or teenager needs to be as good as a published book. Seriously those chapters screamed, "ATHEISM IS BETTER THAN THEISM BECAUSE REASONS!" 

Then of course there were the vegetarianism discussions in book 2. Blah, blah, blah killing life blah, blah, blah. All life is sacred blah, blah, blah. You are bad if you eat meat you heathen. Blah, blah, blah. Made me want to eat a steak out of spite, which I did. So, I can thank him for that I suppose. But this is the seed of my annoyance.

The over-wrought and ham-fisted nature of everything. If I wanted an opinion piece I would read a law journal, or comment sections on YouTube. If I wanted ham-fisted references I would watch YouTube parodies or the Simpsons. I wanted neither, I got both throughout the series. It frustrated me.

Although, I didn't notice all of this until I was a much more mature reader and writer. I also didn't realize how much Eragon affected my writing in my first book.


----------



## Mindfire

Mythopoet said:


> Wait, you pulled individual lines without context from tv tropes so you have no idea where they even are in the book and that's your proof of bad writing? I just can't even process the bad logic in this. I can't believe you think this means anything at all except that you are determined to dismiss the writing for bad reasons.



I didn't pull individual lines and string them together. I pulled the paragraph as a whole from TV Tropes. Whether *they* quoted correctly or in context is a different issue altogether and doesn't really reflect on my analysis. Further in my defense, the first line is literally the opening line of Eldest. So it's just as nonsensical in context. I don't have a copy of Eldest on hand, but I'd say that holds for the other lines as well. Someone who has a copy of the book back me up on this.

EDIT: I was ninja'd. Thanks to all the posters who supported my opinion.


----------



## Ireth

Found the "gray-eyed Destiny" bit -- it's in the synopsis of _Eragon_ that's at the front of _Eldest_. Still looking for the bird/clouded moon line.

EDIT: Found it. It's much later on in the book, when Eragon is apparently trying to scry on someone through a teardrop in his hand. Doesn't make it any less purple, though.


----------



## druidofwinter

What I think is being lost here is the effect the book has upon the average reader. The writer without the reader is nothing. Millions of people loved the books simply because they told an entertaining story. The average reader is not as well educated in the writer's craft as I am sure the members of this site are, and so do not see as many of those technical problems that we do. 
All books have faults, so more than others. But if the reader does not see them or does not care about them than they are moot. 
No one is saying Paolini is Tolkien's son. But if his book pleased a reader and made them want more than it did its job. No one could ask for more.
I agree with Tom that this should not be a debat. Let us discuss not dissect Paolini's work.
Sorry for typos and such, writing on a mobile isn't easy.


----------



## Devor

druidofwinter said:


> What I think is being lost here is the effect the book has upon the average reader. The writer without the reader is nothing. Millions of people loved the books simply because they told an entertaining story.



I think Paolini sold millions of copies because Paolini's life story was compelling, not the novels.


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> I think Paolini sold millions of copies because Paolini's life story was compelling, not the novels.


There are so many factors that go into determining the sales of a book aside from the quality of the book itself. So regardless, I don't think millions sold = high quality.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Which I don't think Druid is saying mindfire. Druid is saying that the book did its job of entertaining and that should be enough. I disagree. It shouldn't be enough. Rather, the enough should be honed, refined, and the best we could publish at the time. Paolini might be that with Eragon but judging by the story of how his parents got the book published through their own company furst and later another company that isn't the case. A good editor would have forced paolini to change things around, rework the prose, and fix those damn ham-dusted moments. His parents couldn't be that cruel because they're parents. 

I also disagree with the dissection discussion false dichotomy. To discuss one needs to dissect. This same dissection is what we need to do to out own works. We must be cruel in order to be kind. This dudsection dhould have been done pre-publication. It wasn't. So here we are.


----------



## StannisTheMannis

Devor said:


> I think Paolini sold millions of copies because Paolini's life story was compelling, not the novels.



It was publicized as more compelling than it was. If his parents weren't publishers/agents/whatever, he wouldn't be famous. 

On a side-note, does anyone remember that thirty-page duel Roran had with some Empire dude in Inheritance? I remember being frustrated that a single fight took that long, and amazed at how long it continued.


----------



## druidofwinter

I would like to clear up the misconception that Paolini's parents were in the publishing industry. The first edition of Eragon was self-published, which anyone these days can do. 
It got its kickstart when author Carl Hiaasen read it and recomended it to Random House, who, in turn, published it.


----------

