What Would Paolini Do? (WWPD) – 10 Paolinisms

It may be deceptive upon first glance, but critics of the Inheritance series know exactly what a “Paolinism” is. In the span of three books, starting in Eragon, continuing in Eldest and reaching new heights (or lows, arguably) in Brisingr, Paolini has attempted to shove down the throats of his readers an obscene amount of inconsistent, illogical, and ridiculous things.

Oh, I admit that in the realm of fantasy anything is possible. But just because readers open up a fantasy book giving an author the benefit of the doubt that doesn’t mean the term “fantasy” and the genre can be abused to the point that Paolini abuses it. If an author doesn’t explain to a degree WHY this or that breaks the rules of physics, logic, and common experience they will lose the trust of their readers. Belief will be suspended and then you get walls of text like this systematically ripping your work apart with so much pleasure it borders on cruelty.

The “fantastical” events Paolini has attempted to casually pass off to readers as possible and plausible, with little or no justification, had me screaming obscenities of my own and bashing my head against the surface of my desk more times than I can count. Only on Paolini’s little planet, in his own little galaxy located in a far off distant corner of the universe, does much of what happens in the Inheritance Cycle books make any sense at all. Yet he continues to shovel more of it faster and faster into the readers as the Cycle progresses.

Thus the term “Paolinism”. Properly defined, a Paolinism is “something that is ordinarily unacceptable (even in a fantasy story) that becomes true, logical, irrefutable, and believable in the Inheritance series without any justification other than Because Paolini Said So”. Remember this, kids and aspiring authors: Where truth, logic, and proper justification of fantastic elements fail in a novel, the following Paolinisms are applicable. Let’s review.

IN THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS, WHAT WOULD PAOLINI DO?

Problem: “I’m writing an archetypal hero story and I need my teenage, farm boy protagonist[s] to become super powerful super quick so he/they can start defeating evil and being awesome ASAP! WWPD?”

Solution: Paolinism #1 states, “Swords are weapons that can be mastered within a few weeks.”

Proof: In a few weeks of diligently practicing swordplay for an hour or two every night Eragon can best a considerably older and more experienced Brom. Even Oromis, an elf several hundred years old and one of the highest ranked amongst the Dragon Riders of old says that he has naught to teach and that all is left is for Eragon to maintain his current level of skill. How is this feat of arms possible? Because Paolini Said So.

Furthermore, Paolinism #1.a, collateral to Paolinism #1 states, “Hammers, like swords, are weapons that can be mastered within a few weeks but unlike swords, without the need for training.”

Proof: Roran, also a farmboy with no previous fighting experience whatsoever, picks up a hammer and wields it so effectively that he is able to take down every trained, professional Imperial soldier he encounters. Unlike Eragon, there is no evidence that Roran himself trained (even semi-formally) in the use of bludgeoning weapons. He’s just that naturally skilled Because Paolini Said So.

And still furthermore, Paolinism #1.b, collateral to Paolinism #1 states, “All weapons are the same. As soon as one is mastered, any other weapon is instantly mastered as well.”

Proof: Eragon, in the first few chapters of Brisingr, shows that he is just as masterfully skilled with a staff as he is with a sword. He acquired the staff only a few days after losing Zar’roc and has never before been shown to wield a staff prior to the assault on Helgrind. Therefore, sword mastery is the equivalent of mastery of any other weapon. Roran, in his 193 killing spree (beat that Master Chief!) can wield a spear just as effectively as a hammer, if not more so. Therefore, if someone can wield a hammer, they can wield a spear too. Because Paolini Said So, it is so in the speshul world of Alagaësia.

Paolinism #2 states, “The acquisition of a warhorse means that the owner attains instant skill in mounted fighting.”

Proof: Roran, who again has his origins in farming, is given Snowfire, and because Snowfire is such a finely bred warhorse, Roran has no need to train for years and years and years (like real knights) in the art of fighting in armor on horseback. Yes, this makes complete sense to me, Because Paolini Said So.

Problem: “I want someone who isn’t speshul or cheating with magic to be amazing at fighting too! WWPD?”

Solution: Paolinism #3 states, “Any ordinary human can kill 200 trained soldiers in a row.”

Proof: Roran, an ordinary human who cannot wield magic, instead gets OVER 9,000 in Charisma, Military Tactics, Strength, Stamina, Endurance, and Toughness. Each. With them he unites a Varden company under his banner, then proceeds to improvise a strategy during a battle that allows him to single-handedly kill 193 men in a row. Roran has amazing charisma, is born rivaling the strategic genius of Sun Tzu, and there is no such thing as overly unrealistic when demonstrating the battle prowess of a protagonist, Because Paolini Said So.

Problem: “I want to show that my main protagonist’s liege lord and leader of the entire good-guy opposition party deserves her post and titles. WWPD?”

Solution: Paolinism #5 states, “Self-mutilation is the surest way of convincing your critics that you’re right for the job.”

Proof: Nasuada prevents the apparently delicate coalition that makes up the Varden from falling apart by cutting up her arms. She wins unanimous admiration, eternal loyalty, and forevermore the support of all factions of the Varden. Come to think of it, Paolini has always asserted that Nasuada maintained her leadership over the Varden because she was a cunning, clever, and charismatic woman who diligently thinks through every decision before she makes it. Then she goes and does something like ditching her not-so-Secret Service unit, causing them to look incompetent in front of everyone. But inconsistencies like that are made null and void by the previously rendered act of self-mutilation, Because Paolini Said So.

Paolinism #6 states, “The ideal leader is one who believes a disparate group of rebels are held together because all individuals acknowledge that their first and foremost priority is adherence to the law.”

Proof: Nasuada has Roran publicly flogged after he disobeys orders from a commanding officer, even though Roran’s actions gave them victory and saved Varden lives. On the surface it seems logical. Nasuada keeps respect, loyalty, and leadership of the Varden because she holds the law above the whims of all individuals, herself included.

There’s a myriad of problems with the way this situation unfolds but to point out the most relevant, Paolini forgets that while it’s nice to be idealistic, the individuals in the rebel coalitions aren’t in for it because they care about keeping things nice and equal according to the rules. They’re cooperating with each other because they hold the common goal of destroying the Empire. They are keeping Nasuada as their leader because they believe she can get the job done. So what is this crap about making adherence to military law more important than Empire ass-kicking? Rather than being outraged when a man gets punished for actually getting results, the Varden watch and are even more impressed with Nasuada. Apparently, that’s the way the Varden (and human nature, too) works, not because it makes any sense whatsoever, but Because Paolini Said So.

Problem: “HELP! My magic system is dependent on knowledge of a foreign language and my protagonist who needs to be a master spell caster doesn’t know it! WWPD?”

Solution: Paolinism #7 states, “Complete mastery in a foreign language can be attained within a matter of weeks and months.”

Proof: Eragon goes from knowing nothing about the ancient language in Eragon to fluent enough to be able to communicate effectively with it upon setting foot in Du Weldenvarden to complete poetic mastery after before the end of Eldest. Let’s not even talk about how Murtagh manages even greater mastery over the ancient language in a shorter amount of time. Academics estimates that even through the most intense programs, a minimum of a year and half of complete immersion in a foreign country with at least 3-6 months of study at home will be needed before FLUENCY in speaking and reading/writing can be achieved. Poetic mastery is not often achieved with even a lifetime of work by NATIVE speakers. But what do linguistic experts and personal experience of anyone who has tried to learn a foreign language know compared to the irrefutable “a few months, Because Paolini Said So”?

Problem: “My main protagonist is a Gary Stu! I realize this is Bad but I like his perfection and godliness so much I don’t want to make him a mere human being! WWPD?”

Solution: Paolinism #8 states, “The addition of inconsequential slip-ups and shallow moral quandaries will suffice in confusing readers enough that they can be tricked into believing that your Gary Stu has character flaws.”

Proof: This has already been brought up on numerous occasions on ImpishIdea but I might as well formally address it. The psychological impact of becoming a mass murderer was never addressed in the first or second books and when it finally is in the third, it’s not so much addressed as it is glossed over with fantasy clichés like “We have to kill because the Imperials are evil.” Wow, what an amazingly elegant solution to a complicated moral quandary, no?

As for mistakes, yes Eragon makes them. But unlike the kind of mistakes human beings make, Eragon’s mess-ups never have any sort of negative, irreversible, or disastrous consequences for others, his cause, and least of all himself. All of Eragon’s so-called “flaws” add no depth whatsoever to his character because they’re contrived, artificial, and included for the sole purpose of demonstrating after he fixed them that there is no godlier being in all of imaginary or real existence than Eragon. But Because Paolini Said So, pointless mistakes and a brief and fleeting semblance of a guilty conscience make Eragon not-a-Gary Stu.

Problem: “I want my antagonist to be a super evil overlord with power overwhelming. He also needs to be smart, cunning, and good at conquering and oppressing people. BUT I don’t want to have to actually have him make any in-person appearances in the first three books. How can I convince my readers of his multitalented evil genius in spite of that? WWPD?”

Solution: Paolinisms #9 and #10 state, respectively, “A bad guy is bad if I have enough of the good guys go around saying he’s bad” and “All plot snags that arise due to lack of forethought can be overcome using magic as a loophole.”

Proof: Galbatorix. He’s evil. He’s powerful. He singlehandedly led a movement that destroyed the most powerful good guy organization in Alagaesia, the Dragon Riders. He carved himself an Empire and ruled as a feared and hated tyrannical dictator for the better part of a century. All this was accomplished long before the start of the novels, so we readers are told through the mouthpieces of the good guy characters. Then constantly throughout the first two novels, we are told that Galbatorix is evil and must be overthrown because he killed dragons and elves, he burned libraries, he oppresses commoners, he forcefully conscripts peasants into the army, he makes a point of wallowing in wealth while everyone else suffers in abject poverty, and he lords over Alagaesia with an iron fist. Then we find out in Brisingr that he is doing all of the above while simultaneously locked in his tower, never bothering to make an appearance anywhere in person because he’s wholly distracted by pet projects like breaking the souls of dead dragons to his will. Great. This makes total sense, Because Paolini Said So.

Which brings me to Paolinism #10. Exactly how Galbatorix manages to keep control over his Empire is obviously something that wasn’t entirely thought through beforehand. Oops! But Paolini asserts anyway in the first and second books that Galbatorix manages to keep control by forcing the population (I assume this means peasants and foot soldiers) to swear allegiance to him in the ancient language.

Wow, what a nice loophole! Rather than having to really sit down and spend time thinking through the intricacies of how an unpopular monarch manages to keep his hold on a very, very populous empire, Paolini sidesteps this problem with his magical catch-all. Fine, fine, I’ll give him that. It’s fantasy story after all.

Just two rather massive problems.

1) Commoners are clearly not made to take an oath of allegiance to Galbatorix. Eragon and Roran (along with the entire town of Carvahall) rebels and flees to Surda. Then there’s Jeod and everyone else who were and are secretly working for the Varden from within the Empire too.

You would think that if it were as easy as teaching people a few phrases (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, ring a bell anyone?) to guarantee lifelong loyalty, after a hundred years as king Galbatorix would have implemented a system to make all his subjects swear binding oaths to him.

2) Soldiers aren’t made to swear oaths either, apparently. The Urgals were able to defect to the Varden. Even if the Urgals are a special case, by the end of Brisingr it’s clear that even human soldiers aren’t forced to swear fealty to him.

Take the soldiers of Feinster. They hate Galbatorix too and aren’t loyal to him, but they love their feudal lords, four of them, right down to this Lorana person. At this point, I naturally assumed puppet ruler. Good! Very good. It’s a classic tactic used by ruthless dictators that has historically shown encouraging results in keeping a native population freshly conquered under control. Except… puppet governments only work if they are actually loyal to the real ruler.

Look at Lady Lorana. Sure, she can’t take any action to defy Galbatorix but she has the option to not take action and defy him anyway. Last time I checked, that was basically the same thing. And it clearly proves that Lady Lorana isn’t really loyal to Galbatorix anyway. Four generations of puppets who Galbatorix never truly had under his control in charge of a major city. You would think that if Galbatorix was so awesome at discovering true names and too lazy to directly rule his people himself, he would at least install puppets who were under his complete control.

Well, so much for taking advantage of the magic loophole so far. But wait, there’s more. I haven’t gotten to the part about how Galbatorix manages to keep control of his important servants yet. Again, magic. Magic of the true names sort. By uncovering a person’s true name, Galbatorix can dominate them wholly and utterly and make them do whatever he wants. There are only two such people worth noting in the span of the series, Durza and Murtagh/Thorn.

Wait, Galbatorix control Durza? Never happened. Sure, Durza worked for Galbatorix but when Eragon was taken captive by Durza in the first book it was hinted that Durza had ambitions of his own. Ambitions that didn’t include staying a faithful servant of the king. Apparently, true names magic didn’t work for Shades. Or maybe Galbatorix just forgot to break into Durza’s mind and extract an oath or something. Right.

Then there’s Murtagh and Thorn, the only ones who have been shown to really be controlled by Galbatorix in this way. Or are they? Every time Murtagh encounters Eragon, he’s defying Galbatorix. The first time, at the end of Eldest he lets Eragon go by purposely ‘misinterpreting’ his orders. The second time they meet in Brisingr, Eragon and Murtagh have a long conversation about how Murtagh can change his true name to defy Galbatorix before they fight. When Murtagh fights Oromis, Murtagh is pissed first and foremost because Oromis didn’t help Murtagh defy Galbatorix. Not exactly the epitome of ‘loyal servant’ you’ve got there, Galby.

With so many failures as a monarch going on, which is dangerously indicative of the fact that Galbatorix clearly is just that inept (despite what Paolini constantly has good guys saying), how the hell does he hold onto his power and stay king for so long? No one knows. He just does. Because Paolini Said So.

TL;DR ENDNOTE

So there it is. Of course I’ve exaggerated to keep the reading light and humorous, but in essence all those “Problems” are storytelling issues that any author can be and most likely will be confronted with. The way in which Paolini decided to solve those problems, with “Paolinisms”, is unbelievably retarded. I only list ten of the most immediate examples that come to mind here, but the amount of unjustified ridiculousness riddling the Inheritance books that occur for no other reason than “Because Paolini Said So” is just amazing. If I wanted to get nit-picky or had Lord Snow’s patience to go through the books and list every single “Because Paolini Said So” moment, this article might become lengthier than the novels themselves.

For aspiring authors reading this and looking at the Inheritance series as a learning tool, remember that despite the fact that you’re writing fantasy, don’t abuse the genre’s nature and take for granted the reader’s willingness to suspend their disbelief for you. You don’t have to explain everything that’s reality-defying but neither can you patch gaping holes that an element or event your story creates in reader sensibility with “because the author says so”. Take care to avoid creating Paolinisms of your own.

For younger readers and Inheritance fans, this article is for you especially. I hope that I’ve demonstrated that the books aren’t the work of a prodigal genius, but one that just knows how to take advantage of his target market group: Young Adults. Paolini took shortcuts, slapped “for teens” on it, then hoped that his selected audience wouldn’t be bright enough to notice all the flaws, inconsistencies, and gaps in logic. Paolini and his publishers know that the majority of those who read and will subsequently enjoy Inheritance aren’t the ones who will be stopping to consider if what the author is saying actually makes sense or not then write an article about it. But don’t believe everything that happens in a story and accept it as credible just because The Author Said So. Make Paolini work for your respect and admiration, and his place among the greats of fantasy fiction he so often compares himself to.

Comment