A train wreck is something so horrible, so atrocious, so fascinating that you stop what you were doing in order to stare.

Warning: Spoilers

It took me a month to slog through the third book of Christopher Paolini’s Inheritance cycle, Brisingr and not because I was working copious amounts of overtime or because I like sleeping. Although both are true, I was working overtime and liked sleeping just as much back when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released. It took me a little over 72 hours to finish Rowling’s book of about the same number of pages.

The sorry truth of the matter is, Brisingr is just simply a horrible book. There was nearly no plot to speak of, all the characters were flat and lifeless, and the prose was flowery and forgettable. The only redeeming factor was its train wreck value and even that didn’t last past a hundred pages. How would I qualify that opinion? Let’s review.

First thing’s first: Plot. Wait. What plot? There were less than a handful of plot points, climaxed by the “surprise twist” of Brom being Eragon’s father. This crowning revelation was essentially a long, boring, and tedious infodump. An author shouldn’t need to provide that much explanation, if the reader was sufficiently prepared beforehand to make the necessary logical connections themselves at the moment of the final unveiling. The shock value Paolini was undoubtedly going for in that supposed bombshell was utterly negated by poor reader preparation on his part which led to poor execution, making the entire twist come across as forced, contrived, and reminiscent of pounding a square peg into a round hole.

Disappointing [anti]climatic moment aside, between the four or five plot points in the 800-page monstrosity, there was filler. Endless paragraphs and pages, endless sentences and scenes of purple prose filler. The majority of chapters featuring Roran were nothing but pointless fight scenes that didn’t take Roran or reader anywhere (the rest were attempts at romance so cheesy I almost busted out crackers and wine). The majority of Eragon’s chapters were equally directionless. I couldn’t care less how many scenic spots there are in Alagaesia, but Paolini apparently felt the need to take Eragon and the reader on a tour of all of them one by one. Apparently to him, having people run around (literally) on a fictional landmass qualifies as storyline.

On a filler-related side note, why the hell would I want to read a chapter that was basically summarizing Japanese sword making techniques, Paolini? If I wanted to know about that I would go buy myself a damn book on the subject instead of reading yours. It’s the same with the action scenes. The problem is they’re just that: a string of battles thrown in for no good reason. If I wanted to be mindlessly taken from fight to fight, I would go play some brainless hack-and-slash video game rather than read your book.

In the end, the actual progress of the story was minimal and predictable. There wasn’t enough intricacy or complexity in the plot to begin with to warrant several hundred pages worth of words, and the characters do little to keep things interesting between the important parts. Plot rating: 2/10

Speaking of characters, if the characters had been more intriguing, more complex, more developed, just… MORE, I would have been a bit more forgiving about the number of pages and lack of plot to fill them.

Is it really too much to ask that Paolini’s characters have flaws? Giving Eragon a villain for a father was a feeble attempt, but an attempt nonetheless. In Brisingr even that pathetic effort has been wiped clean off the record. Now not only is Eragon perfect, but his family is perfect too. A perfect family as an extension for the perfect Gary Stu. Great.

Now, I could understand that as a self-insert, Paolini felt the need to make Eragon perfect but unfortunately the Mary Sue-itis doesn’t just apply to the once titular character. Saphira is now the perfect sidekick companion. Roran is now the perfect warrior and captain. Nasuada is the perfect rebel leader. Arya is the perfect woman/love-interest. They overcome all obstacles and odds against them with little trouble and everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya around the campfire on a weekly basis. The argument between Nasuada and Eragon in the chapter “Orders” is the closest the book comes to interpersonal conflict and even that doesn’t have any lasting effect on their relationship. So really, what’s the point in having the disagreement in the first place if it doesn’t change anything? There’s no conflict, internal or external (and if there is the semblance of it now and then, it’s fleeting and superficial). Without conflict, there’s nothing at stake to be lost or gained. With nothing being risked, there’s no tension. Without tension, the reader is left bored, distant, and apathetic.

The characters, the entire cast of them, fall flatter than ever in this third installment. They are more perfect than before, and it’s that very perfection that keeps readers from being able to empathize, or even care about their trials and tribulations, or what ultimately happens to them. When Oromis and Glaedr are killed, I was supposed to experience some sort of emotion like sadness, pity, or hell, even outrage. Something. ANYTHING. Instead there was nothing. I didn’t care about either of the all-knowing mentor characters, nor do I care enough about Eragon and Saphira to really appreciate the supposed depth of their loss that Paolini was attempting to convey. They’ll overcome that minor obstacle with as much ease (and perhaps another Deus ex) as they’ve overcome everything else, I have no doubt.

If there was one word needed to sum up all the characters in Brisingr, it would be “superficial”, and to more of an extent than in both Eragon and Eldest. I know, I didn’t think it was possible either. But rather than using this third installment to start developing the characters properly, Paolini chooses to do things like load them up with “moral quandaries”. The problem here with internal character conflict is the same as the issue with how Paolini handles external character conflict. These little moral dilemmas that confront the characters never get taken past inner thought or dialogue. Eragon and Roran may wax eloquent for pages and pages about the guilt and regret they feel over killing other humans but Paolini never lets that affect their capacity for it (two hundred in a row, anyone?). The characters’ conscience never actually impacts their actions so it renders all that moral philosophizing meaningless and shallow. The lack of proper follow-through to what could have been good starts, because of Paolini’s refusal to sully his characters, resulted in boring, uninspired, and thoroughly superficial characters. Character rating: 2/10

Alright, so the story is minimal and the characters are about as interesting as slabs of plywood sitting a lumberyard. What about the prose? The writing is, simply put, dreadful. It’s fancy, flowery, and forgettable. The narrative is loaded with unnecessary amounts of adjectives and the dialogue is essentially a compilation of fantasy-epic clichés borrowed from a hundred other authors. There wasn’t a single line in the entire 763 pages that struck me as eloquent, inspired, or original.

Some parts were dull, others were lifeless, and a LOT of it was rambling on and on about things that I couldn’t care less about, like dwarves and happy-glowy-floaty-orby-spirits. Even worse, Paolini’s verbal diarrhea hampered fight scenes by slowing down the action so much that I found myself falling asleep even at what were supposed to be fast-paced and exciting (or something like that) parts of the novel. In fact, the prose was constantly putting me to sleep no matter what type of scene it was. Thus the four weeks it took me to finally finish this lumbering beast of a book.

If Paolini had spent half the amount of time he used flipping through a thesaurus for adjectives to think through his characters and lay out plot lines, he might have actually had himself a good book. Long-winded writing style is fine if you’ve got the story and characters to back it. Instead, it’s plain that he chose quantity of words over the quality of everything else. The end result? A book nearly eight hundred pages long that doesn’t go anywhere. Prose rating: 3/10 (This would get a “2” as well, but I thought that an extra point should be awarded for sheer effort involved in digging up so many big, complicated words.)

Speaking critically, Brisingr is a failure of a fantasy novel. The plot was too few, too far between; the characters attained insta-godhood rather than grow, and the prose hindered more than helped. It was a cesspool of one irrelevant and pointless scene after another, drowning in its own length a third of the way through. At best it’s filler, at worst it’s plain crappy.

But even though it’s a horrible book in many, many ways, it was an AMAZINGLY horrible book. And I did manage to read all of it. Sometimes, I couldn’t STOP reading, it was so atrocious. Thus, Brisingr was a train wreck in all of its fiery glory. I laughed, I sighed, I raged, I facepalmed and headdesked and kept right on reading. In the end, Brisingr still had horrendous but morbidly attractive entertainment value and practical uses (ie: how NOT to write a novel, part three) that outlasts what is essentially a read-and-forget or don’t-read-at-all novel.

Final Rating: Trainwreck/10

Tagged as:

Comment

  1. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 16:50 said:

    Ouch, CP’s pride. I thought it was poorly written, but overall bearable.

    I haven’t read the Dragon Riders of Pern books though, and according to a lot of people, they are the super-saiyan versions of these.

  2. DrAlligator on 18 October 2008, 16:52 said:

    The picture at the top was enough for me.

    I love you.

  3. Virgil on 18 October 2008, 17:11 said:

    Well written, good analysis. I have to note ‘trainwreck’ is not a number and technically is not divisible by ten. Unless you had ten cars in the train wreck… but whatever.

  4. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 17:12 said:

    morbid fascination is exactly what it is.

    i’m kind of interested to read it, just to see how bad it is.

    is this some sort of new marketing technique or something? ‘so bad, it’s good!’

  5. Virgil on 18 October 2008, 17:17 said:

    I wonder if Random House still tries to pull the old ‘He wrote it when he was fifteen!’ ‘He doesn’t age’ ‘Look at him!’ ‘He still looks like that nerd you hated in high school!’

  6. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 17:20 said:

    That would either make Random House a pack of liars or Christopher Paolini the immortal, ageless incarnation of Geekiness.

    I don’t honestly know which is more likely.

  7. Legion on 18 October 2008, 17:22 said:

    @Rheago: THEY’RE OVER NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE THOUSAND!!! ;] Sadly, I very much doubt this has caused a decrease in CP’s pride meter. If things like this had managed to kick him down a few notches, Brisingr might have actually been a good book.

    @DrAlligator: Glad you enjoyed. _

    @Elanor & SWQ: Seriously, it’s like the more terrible it is, the more you want to keep looking.

    @Virgil: Lol, I know and it was intentional. The unquantifiable-ness “trainwreck” is just so much more amusing than simple Arabic numerals.

  8. SubStandardDeviation on 18 October 2008, 17:29 said:

    I have not read this monstrosity, but judging by all the morbid fascination I’ve heard from its reviewers, I shall have to soon.

    Thus, Brisingr was a train wreck in all of its fiery glory.

    The puns, they buuurn!

    Love the pictures at the beginning, and your points are made well. If a story fails at plot, character, and prose…well, what’s left? If I wanted characters who I cared about enough to not want them to die, I’d go play a brainless hack-and-slash, too.

    I thought that an extra point should be awarded for sheer effort involved in digging up so many big, complicated words.

    I don’t think so. There are plenty of better, unpublished authors who put effort into not only writing the thing, but writing well.

    Final Rating: Trainwreck/10
    Should have a big “NOT AN AVERAGE” disclaimer like they do on so many video game ratings.

  9. Eragon'sShrink19 on 18 October 2008, 17:30 said:

    “Eragon and Roran may wax eloquent for pages and pages about the guilt and regret they feel over killing other humans but Paolini never lets that affect their capacity for it (two hundred in a row, anyone?). The characters’ conscience never actually impacts their actions so it renders all that moral philosophizing meaningless and shallow.”

    That was perfect.

  10. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 17:42 said:

    I got really hopeful at that part that maybe this book was about Eragon’s hesitancy to kill, and maybe throw in some questioning of the atheism Oromis spoonfed him.

    Then he watched Arya dance across several soldier’s faces, and could only think of how hot she was while doing it.

  11. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 17:53 said:

    yes, i really think that fantasy doesn’t put enough emphasis on how killing affects a person.

    i mean, even in the lord of the rings, aragorn and co. kill the ‘bad’ humans without any real moral implications.

    faramir is one of the exceptions- i love how he wonders whether an enemy really did want to go to war, or whether he would have rather stayed home and lived in peace. that’s just one of the reasons why he’s one of my favorite characters.

    (it also forms a lovely comparison to eowyn, who basically longs to kill, right? and then they end up together…yeah, they’re my favorite lotr couple)

  12. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 17:58 said:

    I think ASoIaF does it pretty well. Eddard only kills when necessary and stresses that killing pretty much is a last resort to his children.

  13. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 18:01 said:

    oh, i haven’t read a song of ice and fire…

    i haven’t had much time to read recently, but i want to try the series, since many people on this site say it’s good.

  14. Legion on 18 October 2008, 18:03 said:

    Yea, George RR Martin is amazing with developing characters in a way that neither Paolini (scoffs) nor Tolkein (father of fantasy or not) can really compare to.

  15. Virgil on 18 October 2008, 18:05 said:

    I’m reading AGOT right now, and the character’s are the life of the story. You hate certain characters from other’s point of view, then when you get to their’s, you hate the other characters.

  16. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 18:05 said:

    I read that on Deus Ex Machina forums that a lot of people think that instead of characterization, Tolkien stressed world develpment.

    I wish I was that cool.

  17. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 18:06 said:

    @Virgil

    Except Sansa.

    Everyone hates Sansa.

  18. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 18:09 said:

    yeah, tolkien did stress world development.

    (i did a report on him last year)

    apparently what he was really interested in was the spread of languages (what many consider his true passion) in a fictional world, or something along those lines. that’s why he paid such close attention while creating elvish and other such languages. plus, he was a linguist, so he knew what he was doing.

    so, a song of ice and fire is definitely on my list of books to check out now! (i’m reading ‘our mutual friend’ by dickens right now and it’s taking an agonizingly long time to finish)

  19. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 18:12 said:

    I hate Dickens.

    HATE!

    I had to read Great Expectations last year and almost cried from bordem. I tried to read Oliver Twist and put it down after about..hm…three and a half paragraphs.

    Don’t even get me started on A Tale of Two Cities.

  20. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 18:14 said:

    i couldn’t get through great expectations either. our mutual friend is pretty hard for me as well…it’s just not my kind of book.

    i don’t think i understood even half of what i read.

  21. Virgil on 18 October 2008, 18:16 said:

    Yep, everyone hates Sansa, but she’s a good foil for Arya.

  22. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 18:17 said:

    wow, christopher paolini stole a name from another author? i thought at least he was clever enough to think of his own names, since he apparently uses a thesaurus so much. (there are some pretty cool words in there, you know)

    my opinion of him just sank even lower.

  23. SubStandardDeviation on 18 October 2008, 18:19 said:

    Eddard only kills when necessary and stresses that killing pretty much is a last resort to his children.

    Except when he killed Lady FOR GREAT JUSTICE.

    ~ Is a SanSan fan ~

    ~ Leaves before massive flaming argument begins ~

  24. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 18:20 said:

    And guess what! Arya in ASoIaF is also a rebelious princess who just wants to fight and be a knight/horsewoman-warrior! And she is somewhat estranged to her mother! And her close male friend dies in the start of the first book!

    Sound vaguely familiar?

  25. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 18:22 said:

    jeez!

    one gets a little tired of all the little plagiarisms that keep on popping up in the inheritance books.

    i wish the authors/creators involved would sue him.

  26. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 18:36 said:

    He killed Lady so Cersei wouldn’t kill Arya.

    Arya > Annoying Girl’s Dog

  27. CWB on 18 October 2008, 19:30 said:

    Be careful with the GRRM idolizing. ASoIaF is good, but not great. Keep in mind that the entire plot of the first book (and the series) hinges on Eddard Stark’s stupidity. He’s an honorable man, yes, but read AGoT again and tell me that the last 250 pages don’t prove he’s a complete moron (and this is the man Baratheon chose as his Hand?).

    Jon Snow borders on Gary Stu-ism of the first order and, should he end up as the illegitimate son of Lyanna and Rhaegar and marry Dany and save Westeros etc., then he’s a Gary Stu on a level comparable to Eragon (a LOT of the comparisons between Eragon and Jon Snow are already there… they’re both perfect and wonderful and admired and accomplished at young ages… I could go on and on).

    Finally, Robert Jordan’s WoT moved along wonderfully until approximately the fifth book, at which point the train came off the tracks and Jordan strung the story along into 37 books of filler. Does that sound about the same as what happened in AFFC?

    Not that I want to criticize too much. I have greatly enjoyed the ASoIaF series and GRRM is light years ahead of our darling CP. But until the series is finished we should probably hold our collective GRRM worship in abeyance.

    After all, if we’re going to criticize Inheritance and Twilight we shouldn’t automatically excuse other writers from criticism just because they’re better than CP and Stephanie Meyer. Being “better” than those two doesn’t unquestionably make someone a great writer.

  28. Rhaego on 18 October 2008, 19:54 said:

    I like Jon despite his Stu-ism because he has some flaws. Like his mother’s unknown identity and his resentment towards Catelyn and Eddard.

    He is kind of a Stu though.

  29. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 19:58 said:

    CWB- although i haven’t read aSoIaF, i agree with your last point that just because someone’s better than paolini or meyer doesn’t automatically make them a great writer.

    although, many of the ‘heroes’ in literature (especially fantasy) tend to be mary sues/gary stus.

    take luke skywalker for example. you could switch eragon and him into each other’s stories, and what would be different?

    and even though i love lotr, aragorn for example does seem too ‘perfect’, especially in the return of the king…tolkien didn’t exactly have the best characterization.

  30. Legion on 18 October 2008, 20:02 said:

    Ahh, but Eddard’s stupidity and the way that it has far-reaching implications that affects the entire story is exactly why GRRM towers above Paolini and why his books can actually be considered good. I don’t often read novels where the main protagonist has such a massive (if not tragic) flaw and it’s refreshing to see the consequences that come of it played out so thoroughly by the author.

    But you’re right, while character development can be considered GRRM’s strong suit, ASoIaF does have it’s weak points as well. But maybe that’s another article for another time. =]

  31. Carbon Copy on 18 October 2008, 20:22 said:

    Aragorn: that guy who is the personification of original sin?

    A character who believes he is so fundamentally flawed at a genetic level that he turns his back on his people and his responsibilities. A character who fails to live up to the expectations people have until such time as he faces the ghosts of his past (literally, in the Paths of the Dead). A character who begins the book as nothing but a shadow of his full potential, fading away and losing himself in the wilderness. A character who fails to protect Frodo on multiple occasions.

    I could go on, but it’s late.

    Tell me again how Aragorn is a Gary-Stu and how Tolkien didn’t have good characterisation…

  32. CWB on 18 October 2008, 20:55 said:

    Again, to me, it’s just not yet worth it to idolize GRRM at this point. The first three books were wonderful, the fourth not so much. Let’s see where he goes and how it winds up before heaping praise on him.

    Remember, Jordan was anointed as the “American Tolkien” until about Book Five of Wheel of Time… but then he ran the story all the way to Book 13 without advancing the story at all (and I know this sounds absolutely TERRIBLE to say, but who knows how many books Jordan would have written if his health hadn’t failed him).

    Don’t be surprised if GRRM does the same — the parallels are frighteningly similar. GRRM just gave us a whole freakin book about Samwell Tarly, Brienne of Tarth and the Greyjoys… who out there gives a flyin crap about ANY of these characters?

    Finally, when someone criticizes ASoIaF and points out how big of a Gary Stu Jon Snow is, then perhaps you can sympathize with the, um, less sophisticated readers who love Eragon (even though they know he’s a Gary Stu).

  33. CWB on 18 October 2008, 21:00 said:

    @ SWQ – I also think you need to reexamine your Eragon / Luke Skywalker comparison.

    Luke operates on the fringes of the Rebellion and isn’t idolized or worshipped by anyone (not even his close friends like Leia and Han think he’s amazing or the KEY to the rebellion). Obi-Wan is the only character in the entire trilogy who thinks Luke is the key to anything. Yoda doubts Luke almost completely and Luke isn’t central to the rebels’ plans to destroy the death star or the Empire.

    IN FACT, the Death Star is destroyed by Lando Calrissian who is only able to get close to it because Han and Leia deactivate the shield on Endor.

    DOUBLE IN FACT: Luke doesn’t even kill the Emperor… he gets his ass kicked by the Emperor and Vader saves him. You think CP’s going to finish Inheritance in a similar fashion? You think Eragon’s going to turn out to be almost completely irrelevant in the final book? I sincerely doubt it — although it would be incredibly refreshing if, after three books of buildup, it turns out Eragon’s NOT the savior CP has made him out to be.

  34. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 21:01 said:

    wow…i never saw it that way.

    i know that he has insecurities and stuff, but especially in return of the king, there’s not so much emphasis on his struggles. he’s seemed to have somehow accepted it in the time frame between fotr and rotk.

    how does he feel about becoming king? is he afraid he’s not good enough? how does he feel about arwen sacrificing her immortality for him?

    that’s addressed in the movies to some extent, but we never really know aragorn’s feelings, to get inside his head. mostly we see him as frodo sees him- as a noble man and a loyal friend.

    of course, there’s not much time spent on individual characters in lotr because there are so many of them.

    i love lord of the rings- it’s my favorite book ever. but i should have been clearer: in referring that tolkien didn’t necessarily have the best characterization, i didn’t mean aragorn specifically: i meant more about people like sauron and the orcs, who are completely evil, and the elves, who are completely good.

    nothing is completely good or evil, and even if a book’s fantasy, that should show in the characters.

    also, he doesn’t really take that much into account of how war affects people. of course, a character like aragorn is a seasoned fighter and has probably gotten used to it. but how would someone like pippin feel about it?

    but you made really good points about aragorn’s character, and he’s definitely not a gary-stu by that standard. i guess it’s just that his character is more remote and unknowable.

  35. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 21:05 said:

    CWB:

    yeah, i guess i did make the luke/eragon comparison a little too quickly. looking at your evidence, it seems that they are not as similar as i thought they were.

    however, eragon and luke encounter many of the same situations throughout their adventures (death of foster-parent, tutelage under old hermit, inheritance of father’s weapon, shock revelation about father, etc. etc.). yes, that’s all cp’s fault- he couldn’t think of anything original to write about. but in that light, for me it was a natural assumption to make.

  36. CWB on 18 October 2008, 21:06 said:

    Not to pile on, but the MAIN key to recognizing that Luke Skywalker is not a Gary Stu is that after the first movie, the rebels and Han and Leia don’t walk around calling him something like Luke DeathStarSlayer.

    After the first movie, Luke’s role as the destroyer of the first death star isn’t even mentioned.

  37. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 21:11 said:

    oh yes, that’s true! (sorry, my knowledge of the original saga is very rusty…)

    i guess one of the great things about a site like this is that you can see when you were wrong…and i’m not afraid to admit that i was mistaken this time.

    that doesn’t necessarily mean i like luke a lot. he just seemed a little bleh to me. i found anakin more interesting, despite hayden christiansen’s laughable performance. or maybe that’s just because i love darth vader (vote vader 2008!)

  38. CWB on 18 October 2008, 21:17 said:

    I know you’re young SWQ and I absolutely HATED it when people told me I didn’t know what I was talking about when I was your age… so forgive me for saying this: You haven’t yet learned the difference between a great heroic character and a Gary Stu.

    Luke and Aragorn aren’t Gary Stus because you want to BE them. Heck, we’d all like to be them, but that makes them great heroic characters, not automatic Gary Stu’s.

    There are subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences between well written heroes and Gary Stus. When you can recognize the difference you’ll be well on your way to becoming a good writer yourself.

  39. CWB on 18 October 2008, 21:21 said:

    And CP is a 25-year-old, NYT bestselling author who doesn’t know the difference between a well written hero and a Gary Stu. So don’t take too much offense from my comment. You’re obviously not limited in your career path if you never come to understand the difference.

  40. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 21:25 said:

    is it that obvious? :P

    yeah, i guess i still have to learn to see these things in literature…still haven’t gotten quite to the level of seeing the not-as-obvious differences between, for example a gary stu and a well written hero.

    hoepfully, it will happen eventually…

    in fact, that’s why i’m on this site (way too much). the writing articles are good, and it’s also a good learning experience, to talk books with other people, and to revise your views when you find that you need to.

    i’m trying to incorporate what i’m absorbing here into my nanowrimo piece…maybe i will post it come december if i can.

    we’ll see though…thanks for your advice though!

    oh, and no offense taken, of course.

  41. CWB on 18 October 2008, 21:32 said:

    Your age wasn’t obvious to me SWQ. You posted your age in a comment on another article. That’s the only way I knew. The clarity of your posts as well as your writing ability and critical analysis are all of a quality much higher than what I’d expect from a person of your age.

  42. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 21:37 said:

    oh yes…i did, didn’t i? sheepishly grins

    but thank you, your compliments really do mean a lot.

  43. Robby on 18 October 2008, 22:22 said:

    I know! I wish I would be Roran also, he is by far the most bass ass character in this book. Eragon should have never got the dragon lol, Saphira made a bad choice ;) But yeah if Roran did get the dragon he would whip some Galbatroix ass lol

  44. Virgil on 18 October 2008, 22:23 said:

    In fact, if Luke’s personality and the way people act around him was switched for Eragon’s, intelligent people could read it without freezing an ice pick, marinading it in applesauce, dipping in crushed red pepper and garlic, shoving it into their eyeballs, going from a sauna to a 32°F pool in seconds.

    It’s so funny to see someone do that, by the way.

  45. SlyShy on 18 October 2008, 22:25 said:

    CWB, you have good points about Luke. Although, later in the extended universe books, Luke does become exactly that kind of hero. But that’s just because some of the authors have seemingly little respect for canon. Although that is understandable after I-III.

  46. Robby on 18 October 2008, 22:28 said:

    and may I ask who is Luke??

  47. SlyShy on 18 October 2008, 22:30 said:

    Luke Skywalker of Star Wars fame.

  48. Robby on 18 October 2008, 22:31 said:

    Oh,

    K so whats this I hear about Chris stealing the story line or plot or something from star wars? how did he do that?

    and what other stuff did he steal from other books?

  49. SlyShy on 18 October 2008, 22:34 said:

    Basic Star Wars/Inheritance Plot Recap

  50. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 22:37 said:

    i’m probably going to be stoned for this, but i didn’t find the prequels to be that bad. not that good, either (except for revenge of the sith), but still…

    admittedly, i saw them before i saw the originals, but they’re not completely awful. well, the romance segment in episode II was (am i the only person who laughs whenever i see that part?)and hayden christiansen was not the best casting choice for anakin. not to mention that i wanted to strangle someone whenever jar jar binks appeared on screen…

    but the revenge of the sith especially was a pretty good movie. i found anakin’s demise to be tragic, and although hayden made me laugh a lot, i thought that obi-wan and padme acted well.

    plus, darth maul had the best face paint ever!

  51. CWB on 18 October 2008, 22:42 said:

    @Robby: A LOT of people think Luke’s the big hero of Star Wars. In fact, if you generally ask people who blew up the Death Star and killed the Emperor, most will say Luke. Just like, until the movies were made, if you asked people who destroyed the Ring, most would say Frodo.

    Paolini made the same mistake as regards Luke, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t lifted entire plot lines and characters from Star Wars. It simply means he made the mistake of THINKING Luke was the big hero. So CP will end the Inheritance series with Eragon destroying the Death Star and killing the Emperor er, Galbatorix.

  52. Robby on 18 October 2008, 22:48 said:

    Yeah I know, but its going to be so disappointing. Because he has been such a wimp this whole time, and Gal is so strong he took out ALL the riders. So it just wont make sense that Eragon will be able to do it. It will probably be by luck.

    That is the only way Eragon (time after time prevails) Just like with the Shade, With Murtagh both times, The Dwarf’s. I just seems like he can’t handle the smallest things on his own.

    The whole Cycle so far has been a disappointment :(

  53. Virgil on 18 October 2008, 22:48 said:

    Yeah, that King Galbatorix / Empire really bugs me. Too late now!

  54. CWB on 18 October 2008, 22:54 said:

    The Star Wars prequels suffered from the classic “show don’t tell” problem. Instead of taking the viewer on a journey into Anakin’s psyche and showing the shift from good to evil, we’re given awful, info-dumping exposition along the lines of, “I AM FRUSTRATED! I AM ANGRY! I BLAME OBI-WAN!”

    For a character (Vader) that was universally admired as one of the greatest villains in history, Lucas’ ham-handed management of Anakin’s back story was painful for many to endure.

  55. Virgil on 18 October 2008, 23:00 said:

    I liked Vader during the “Force Unleashed” in between III and IV. He was a mean S.O.B., and the Emperor was okay.

    The only thing I liked about the prequel trilogies was Darth Maul, the Podrace, and Order 66. That’s about it.

  56. Snow White Queen on 18 October 2008, 23:35 said:

    i really liked the fight between anakin and obi-wan at the end of revenge of the sith.

    of course, that was all special effects, but it was still pretty amazing! after that, new hope looks a little sad.

    i liked padme’s character as well, despite finding it a little creepy that she and anakin end up married despite their apparent age difference in phantom menace. also, WHY she would fall for anakin as he appears in episodes II and III is a mystery to me.

    maybe she was scared he’d repeat his awful declaration of love to her if she didn’t say yes. XD

  57. GC on 19 October 2008, 08:34 said:

    Your review kinda reminded me of this… http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=matrix2

  58. GC on 19 October 2008, 08:58 said:

    Okay, read through, awesome review (XD). But you might want to attach a spoiler warning somewhere up there…

  59. Snow White Queen on 19 October 2008, 12:33 said:

    gaah can’t copy and paste it!

    i have a problem doing that with this site…don’t know why.

  60. Legion on 19 October 2008, 12:41 said:

    @GC: LMAO. You’re absolutely right. Inheritance does parallel the Matrix movies in that the first one was the best one. And yes, Matrix movies 2 & 3 were [CGI] trainwrecks too. XD

  61. Addie on 20 October 2008, 22:31 said:

    This is a little off topic, but I feel bound to point out that not all of Tolkein’s elves are good. Galadriel herself was something of a rebel in her youth. Then there’s Eol, Maeglin, Feanor, the sons of Feanor (with their wretched oath); Thingol acts rather ungraciously toward Beren at first … etc. (Have you lot read The Silmarillion?)

  62. SlyShy on 20 October 2008, 22:36 said:

    In fact, the downfall of the elves is characterized by their hubris and extreme ignorance in the face of Morgoth’s power, yes.

  63. Addie on 20 October 2008, 23:06 said:

    Yes, exactly, SlyShy.
    And Snow White Queen, also – this is a reference to something you said way above, but I just read it and can’t resist commenting – I don’t think Eowyn longs to kill. She never seems at all bloodthirsty; it even says in the book, SHE even admits, that she went into battle not in search of glory or anything like that, but in search of death. She is so depressed she’s suicidal. Bottom line, I think she just wants to be let out of her cage and to be able to do something constructive while there’s still hope, and when there isn’t, she wants to die. I feel awfully sorry for her. (She and Faramir are two of my favorite characters.)

  64. Snow White Queen on 20 October 2008, 23:20 said:

    yes i have read the silmarillion…about a year ago i think. i want to reread it though, because i’ve forgotten a lot of it.

    i should have expressed myself better about eowyn. she and faramir are two of my favorites too. what i’m saying is that she feels that the only way to express herself is to do what she isn’t allowed to do, which is fight, which naturally leads to killing. and it’s kind of the opposite with faramir- he doesn’t want to fight but is forced to because of the circumstances and because of expectations people have for him, especially after boromir dies.

    (yeah, you said it better…)

    i never meant to say that she was bloodthirsty in any way…probably not the best comment to make at all. i just meant that she and faramir make such a great couple and i messed it up completely (as usual).

    and for the elves, in the silmarillion, the elves are much more shaded characters (because they’re the principal actors in the play, as it were).

    in lord of the rings, however, the only side shown is the good side. maybe that’s because we don’t really get that much into detail with many of them, as we did in the silmarillion.

    but yes, you’re right, they’re not all good…i shouldn’t have forgotten about the silmarillion. (i was thinking just in terms of lotr at that point.)

  65. Popeye on 21 October 2008, 07:13 said:

    Gosh darn it, I forgot Eragon was a Gary Stu. Here I just bet twenty bucks that in the final battle Galbatorix would go all FORCE DRAGONBREATH on Eragon’s ass and then he’d lay there while Murtagh picked Galbatorix up and threw him over the castle. Though I guess he could probably just slow himself down with magic…there goes my twenty bucks.

  66. Morvius on 21 October 2008, 08:34 said:

    Or maybe when Murtagh interferes, he is killed by Galbatorix. Transformed by his grief and rage, Eragon will unlock his latent powers within and become a god and crush Galbatorix.

    But now Eragon has to take his place in heaven thus he leaves Alagaesia forever. He will also bring Arya and she will become a goddess. However, Eragon was sleeping when the first prayer came in and he decided to obliterate the whole of Alagaesia.

    Thus ends the epic story of how a farm boy became a Dragonrider and evolved into divinity.

  67. Virgil on 21 October 2008, 08:42 said:

    Yeah. It’s impossible to end this story without a DEM. And if not, breaking some major rules.

  68. Hedwig Widrig on 21 October 2008, 09:39 said:

    Quick, has that plot twist been written somewhere before? Because if Paolini has read it, that’s almost certainly what will happen. Although he may get some help from a scummy old friend of Murtagh’s, Cando Lalrissian, when he goes to finish off the empire.

  69. Virgil on 21 October 2008, 15:13 said:

    I’m sure Murtagh will either change his name, or die helping Eragon. Except it will be stretched out over two hundred pages. sigh

  70. Snow White Queen on 21 October 2008, 19:19 said:

    there’s really no way he can do this well anymore, is there? he’s totally written himself into a corner.

    for one thing, if murtagh changed his name, that defeats the whole point of your ‘true name’. if he dies helping eragon (i’m betting on this option), it will just be another cliche death for one of the few characters i actually like.

    ideally, i’d like to see him end up with nasuada…but i don’t think that could happen in a convincing way.

  71. Addie on 21 October 2008, 23:44 said:

    Well, after Galbatorix is killed (which he is probably going to be), Nasuada and Murtagh will both be free to spend the rest of their lives as they please. And I do think that they will probably end up together. The idea has certainly been suggested: in Eragon, when Eragon visits Murtagh in his captivity with the Varden, Murtagh praises Nasuada enthusiastically, comparing her to a princess. Eragon is a little worried over this, then chides himself for “jumping to conclusions.” And in Eldest, after the battle on the Burning Plains, Nasuada expresses pity for Murtagh in his predicament, saying, “I enjoyed his company in Tronjheim and believed he was our ally, despite his upbringing. I find it hard to think of him as our enemy.” It appears that she might have a soft spot for him.

    Hey, has anyone considered that Elva might be the next Rider?

  72. Snow White Queen on 22 October 2008, 00:31 said:

    elva?

    not really…i mean, she’s got enough stuff on her plate as it is. and if she goes, nasuada won’t have a bodyguard anymore (unless cp is planning an assasination attempt or something). well she’d have another one, of course, but not as good as elva.

    somehow, i don’t think so although it is possible.

    and yeah, that’s why i suggested why murtagh and nasuada might end up together, because he seemed to like her a lot in eragon…

  73. SlyShy on 22 October 2008, 00:43 said:

    A lot of people seem to have noticed that chemistry. No idea where that’ll lead though.

  74. Snow White Queen on 22 October 2008, 00:56 said:

    yes, i might actually be interested in what happens in the fourth book if only for that reason. we all know eragon’s going to win anyways.

  75. Virgil on 22 October 2008, 08:42 said:

    Personally, I don’t like Elva’s existence much. Firstly it falls in the list of Gary Stu things about Eragon, and second she protects the Nasuada. With her there, it doesn’t feel like real danger.

  76. Snow White Queen on 22 October 2008, 09:55 said:

    true, true. she doesn’t seem to have much of a personality beyond compulsively helping people. we never see how helpless, angry, or whatever she feels about it. and she never shows it to eragon either, as far as i know.

    if some stupid rider made me compulsively help people at the cost of my own peace of mind, i think i’d be pretty mad at him.

    but no, eragon is the uber gary stu, so no one is allowed to be mad at him unless they’re evil.

  77. Hedwig Widrig on 22 October 2008, 11:05 said:

    To be fair, Paolini does try to express Elva’s emotions on several occasions, and they are pretty much resentment and hate. However, that doesn’t stop her from helping the Varden — it’s another case of actions being inconsistent with words. Elva probably has the power to mess with Eragon’s mind in incredibly bad ways, and from her words she should certainly have the will to do so, but that would push the plot in directions the author doesn’t want. She could be a really great and interesting flaw in Eragon’s Gary Sue-ness if Paolini would allow it.

  78. Snow White Queen on 22 October 2008, 19:03 said:

    oh, i didn’t remember that. my eldest knowledge is very rusty. (i read the book and then tried my hardest to forget it. it seems that i have been pretty sucessful).

    it would be really unexpected if elva was just not causing trouble for eragon because he was so important to the varden’s plans and such, and so waited until after he gets rid of galbatorix, and then kills him in revenge because he forgot to lift the spell on her.

  79. Addie on 22 October 2008, 20:31 said:

    How does Elva contribute to Eragon’s Gary Stu-ness? Hasn’t it been impressed on both the characters and readers that casting her curse was a very shameful thing to do? “I never imagined that he would do anything as dreadful as this. It’s a blight on my honor as much as his,” says Nasuada when she finds out. Likewise, Oromis says,“You bear full responsibility for this girl’s doom, and because of the wrong you did her, it is incumbent upon you to help her if ever the opportunity should arise.”

    Now, as for Elva’s actions and emotions. Firstly, she initially chooses to help the Varden for a very specific reason: she wants to get the war over with. “Use me as you would an assasin,” she tells Nasuada,”- in hiding, in the dark, and without mercy. You wonder why; I see you do. Because unless this war ends, and sooner rather than later, it will drive me insane. I find it hard enough to deal with the agonies of everyday life without also having to confront the atrocities of battle.” Second, she is decidedly not happy about Eragon’s curse. The first time he meets her in Surda, he asks her to forgive him. Her response:

    “The girl’s eyes softened, and she leaned forward and kissed Eragon upon the brow. ‘I forgive you,’ she whispered. ‘How can I not? You and Saphira created who I am, and I know you meant no harm. I forgive you, but I shall let this knowledge torture your conscience: You have condemned me to be aware of all the suffering around me. Even now your spell drives me to rush to the aid of a man not three tents away who has just cut his hand, to help the young flag carrier who broke his left index finger in the spokes of a wagon wheel, and to help countless others who have been or are about to be hurt. It costs me dearly to resist those urges, and even more if I consciously cause someone discomfort, as I do by saying this… I cannot even sleep at night for the strength of my compulsion. That is your legacy, O Rider.’ By the end, her voice had regained its bitter, mocking edge.”

    It looks to me like she’s not entirely happy.

    Must needs be fair. ;)

  80. Hedwig Widrig on 22 October 2008, 20:47 said:

    I think it’s still Gary Stu-ness because, for all of that, it doesn’t have any serious impact on Eragon’s actions…he just promises he’ll fix it and then forgets about it. Then he actually does fix it, more or less, and apparently he’s now absolved.

  81. Hedwig Widrig on 22 October 2008, 20:48 said:

    And thanks for looking up those quotes, I don’t have access to a copy for the time being.

  82. Legion on 22 October 2008, 20:52 said:

    Elva makes Eragon more of a Gary Stu because Paolini never follows through with his initial punch. Sure CP has had many characters say on repeated occasions that what Ergaon did was Bad. But does Eragon suffer any significant consequences due to his mistake with her? No. Does the rebellion/Varden suffer from his “heinous error”? No. (Actually, they benefit from it.) Is Eragon emotionally impacted in any meaningful, lasting, or practical way? No.

    Ultimately, the only purpose Elva serves is to be a tool for Paolini to further demonstrate Eragon’s perfection and infallibility to readers. Thus Gary Stu.

  83. Virgil on 22 October 2008, 20:56 said:

    Yes. Now that she is happy with her power (more or less), it’s not even a bad thing anymore, and Eragon is praised even more.

  84. Addie on 22 October 2008, 21:18 said:

    Well, now, “perfect and infallible ability” – I think that’s a bit much. The very fact that he’s made a mistake shows that he certainly isn’t infallible. Eragon is only a very mild case of Gary Stu, definitely not at the infallible level.

    Now about the emotional consequences. I have noticed something about characters’ emotions and beliefs in this series: they are often expressed through talking, rather than doing. The characters hold long-winded philosophical and moral discussions wherein they examine their values, feelings, and beliefs. The reason for this, I think, is that Paolini has not yet completely learnt to show rather than tell. (Of course, I could be wrong about that; maybe Paolini does know he’s telling, but prefers it that way.) But anyway, the emotions are definitely attributed, as shown by the quotes above, even if – perhaps – they could have been illustrated more poignantly. The author did cover Eragon’s guilt over Elva (and I can go get you some quotes on that if you’d like), but it mainly addressed through a brief talks with Arya and Saphira, after which – you’re right – he does go on to other things. So the guilt is addressed, but it’s doesn’t tug at the reader’s heartstrings. Not at mine, anyway.

    I do have to say, however, that I thought Elva’s emotions on her first meeting with Eragon in Surda were actually rather well done. I felt sorry for her.

  85. Legion on 22 October 2008, 21:32 said:

    I disagree that I was exaggerating. Eragon is perfect and infallible because his mistakes never have a negative impact on… well, anything. If your characters make mistakes that always play out to their advantage and favor, then is it really a mistake? No, it isn’t. Mistakes are things that have unpleasant consequences. Just because the author has all the characters call it mistake doesn’t mean that it really is one. In Eragon’s case, the “Elva mistake” turned out to be just a long-winded way of demonstrating that even his piss is honey.

    When Paolini shows me that Eragon can make a mistake that actually hurts himself or others in a deep, meaningful, lasting way, then I’ll concede that he’s not a god and infallible after all.

  86. Snow White Queen on 22 October 2008, 21:32 said:

    what bugs me about the elva situation is that eragon is never really held accountable for his actions. like legion said, it ends up being beneficial for the varden, so why should he be chastised?

    he feels guilty about it for a while, then kind of forgets about it. if most people made a major screwup like that, it would stick in their mind, undermine their confidence, and at the very least teach them some sort of lesson.

    eragon barely even thinks about his incompetence with elva when he uses magic in battle and such. he just sort of glosses over it, thinking ‘well, i’m a dragon rider, it won’t happen again’.

  87. Virgil on 22 October 2008, 21:33 said:

    The fact that whatever Eragon does bad really doesn’t matter, and that all the good people love him anyway, that makes me not care too much about him. If he died, meh, but if Murtagh dies a cool and reasonable death, I might be moved. Maybe.

  88. Addie on 22 October 2008, 21:55 said:

    Legion: But wasn’t Elva herself hurt in “a deep, meaningful, lasting way”? I mean, what a horrible way to begin one’s life; she’s suffered terribly, and she’ll never be the same again. Ultimately, the Varden DO benefit, you’re right about that, but that doesn’t make it any less of a terrible thing to do – forcing a child into a life like that.

  89. Snow White Queen on 22 October 2008, 22:09 said:

    yes, that’s very true, addie, but eragon doesn’t suffer consequences for his actions.

  90. Hedwig Widrig on 22 October 2008, 22:16 said:

    Precisely. Such a monumental mistake should affect more people than just Elva. In reality, though, Eragon moves on, Oromis never mentions it again so far as I recall, Angela keeps saying she’s angry but hasn’t done anything yet, and Nasuada actually uses it to her advantage. Better yet, Nasuada tries to persuade Eragon out of fixing it, even though 1) she is herself freaked out by poor little Elva, 2) she was horrified that Eragon could have done such a thing, and 3) she herself, being Eragon’s liege-lady, supposedly feels some personal responsibility.

  91. Addie on 22 October 2008, 22:21 said:

    Nobody punishes Eragon, I think, because it was a mistake. A dire one, yes, and one that completely destroys Elva’s peaceful early life – but he didn’t MEAN to say the word wrong. It was a serious misstep, but at least he wasn’t being malicious.

    That said, though, I do think he should have been rebuked a little more firmly for being so rash. He shouldn’t have been doing anything of the sort till he was much more fluent in the ancient language.

  92. Legion on 22 October 2008, 22:30 said:

    No, Elva wasn’t hurt in any meaningful, deep, or lasting way at all. She might whine and complain non-stop about how horrible her situation was on the surface but what does she do at the end? She lets Eragon off the hook in Brisingr and actually LIKES what he did to her and what she can do with her new shiny powers.

    There’s no need to overthink why Eragon wasn’t punished. It’s simple. He isn’t because it’s not a mistake. No one was affected adversely by it so what’s there to punish? “Eragon you prevented me from being assassinated on numerous occasions, you horrible, horrible person!” See how it comes full circle all by itself?

    Addie, I apologize if I’m wrong but what you’ve said so far makes me think you’re getting confused by what the author is telling you and what is really being said. No one should just go by what the author is spooning them through narrative or dialogue, instead everyone should read between the lines and figure out what’s really going on underneath the words for themselves.

  93. Addie on 22 October 2008, 22:54 said:

    Well, Elva does decide to retain her knowledge power, but not her compulsion. And she is only all right with the former because she can ignore it if she chooses: she has the power of choice back. And she literally did have to endure pain, didn’t she?

    About the reading between the lines … well, point taken: who knows, I might be missing something. It’s true that I’m only looking at the characters and what they do, not at the author’s intent, because personally, I cannot fathom Paolini’s intent. With other authors it’s often easy, but not him. Quite frankly, though, I’m not sure there is anything between the lines. He’s never struck me as a very subtle author. It’s all so literal with him (and sometimes random); I don’t think he’s yet at the level of multilayers.

    But hey, if YOU see something there, do tell!

  94. Snow White Queen on 22 October 2008, 23:44 said:

    addie,

    i’m not saying that eragon should be punished really, in the ‘you bad boy, you did a spell wrong so now you get a time out’ sort of way.

    yes it was a mistake, and he didn’t mean to do it. that’s all well and good, except it doesn’t really seem to have that much of a moral effect on eragon.

    yes, he feels guilty. but he never begins to doubt himself and his magical abilities afterwards. he never really thinks about the mistake he made to elva unless it’s what the plot requires. like i said, there are no long-lasting consequences of his actions.

    in short, it’s a very serious mistake that would have a much bigger effect on eragon and others if it was actually written out well.

    in inheritance universe, he just feels bad for a little while, then skips merrily away.

  95. Virgil on 22 October 2008, 23:45 said:

    Very merrily, I might add.

  96. Legion on 22 October 2008, 23:51 said:

    Lol, not read between the lines to discern multiple layers of meaning like sexual innuendo in Shakespeare’s plays. You’re absolutely right—god knows Paolini is neither clever or gifted enough to put subtlety into his writing. I meant don’t just accept what CP has his characters telling readers what to think of the situation. Question it. Basically doing what we’ve been doing here all along. You cite that CP has his characters saying that Elva is Eragon’s mistake so it must be true. But I’m saying that the way CP has the Elva incident play out doesn’t indicate Elva was much of a mistake at all, rather she’s just there to make Eragon look shinier.

    But to your original point. The crux of the matter is, when all was said and done was Elva or anyone else really victimized by Eragon’s “mistake”? Did Elva come out worse for his it? Her enjoyment at wielding the now power-without-price granted to her by Eragon tells me “no”. She endured pain but pain alone is transient and a rather shallow form of suffering. That aside, did Elva’s suffering lead to a result that was permanently detrimental to herself, Eragon, or Eragon’s companions? Nope. And neither did Eragon nor anyone else have to sacrifice anything in order to right his wrongs. Wow, I wish all my heinous errors were that easy to deal with.

    The nuances of Elva’s character is one matter, but this discussion is more pertaining to whether Elva was being used by CP to exacerbate Eragon’s Gary Stu-itis. And I think I’ve already cited plenty of evidence in support of that. If you’re still unconvinced, I suppose we’ll just have to leave it at that and hope that someone after me can argue it more convincingly. ;]

  97. Snow White Queen on 22 October 2008, 23:54 said:

    legion, i think almost every character in inheritance is ‘being used by CP to exacerbate Eragon’s gary-stu-itis’.

    in that respect, elva is hardly unique. :P

  98. Legion on 22 October 2008, 23:57 said:

    Touché.

  99. Addie on 23 October 2008, 00:19 said:

    Legion: No, indeed, you argue quite well. (I’m glad I’m on this site, by the way, where everyone argues so well, than on some ungrammatical fansite.) And I will admit that although Eragon’s ‘mistake’ DID cause Elva a lot of pain, it did not bring tides of misfortune down on his head. I mean, it hardly rates a Shakespearean tragic flaw. I’m just not sure what Paolini meant by the incident. Maybe he WAS trying to show that Eragon was somehow lucky – though I still can’t think quite infallible – because you’re right, the ‘mistake’ was easily fixed. Or maybe it was the reverse: maybe he was trying to humanize Eragon by showing that he did make a mistake, and it had a harmful influence on this young girl, etc. – in which case I don’t think he portrayed the Eragon’s guilt and remorse very well, because it does seem like he frets and then skips off (as I noted in a comment above, actually). Or maybe we’re all reading way too much into it, and Paolini really just wanted an Alia figure, and thought this was the quickest way. I’m not sure; it could be all of them or none. The authorial intent quite escapes me.

    (This discussion is getting quite complex. I’m starting to miss my calculus … )

  100. SubStandardDeviation on 23 October 2008, 02:34 said:

    This horse seems to have been beaten to death, but if I may offer my 2cp…

    Elva’s presence in the story of Inheritance has, so far, consisted of:
    (a) her super-special powers
    (b) crying over said super-special powers

    In other words, she lacks any character independent of her role as a plot device. Part of this, I suspect, is Paolini’s seeming need to rush the story along by aging her prematurely (similar to how Saphira’s babyhood was glossed over) so that she morphs from an infant to a 20-year-old in less than a year. (She not only speaks in complete sentences, she’s philosophizing!) But since she’s not a character, how can the other characters, and by extension, the reader, care about her? The scenes where she moans over her curse are easily dismissed as wangst, on account of her inability to show any other emotion; and when her powers aren’t needed, she may as well have faded from existence. Look at how many readers have wanted to read Murtagh’s POV. This is a character whose suffering we care about, even if Eragon does not. This is a character who, when off-screen, we wonder about what he might be doing/planning/feeling. No-one is wanting a chapter from Elva’s POV, because she does not have one.

    When Elva confronts Eragon, he feels guilty about it for about the span that she appears on-screen, then promptly forgets about her when the plot continues. Eragon’s “mistake” in this regard can be compared to another “mistake” that winds up helping the Varden in the end: Saphira’s breaking of Isidar Mithrim. If the name doesn’t come to mind, I’ll remind you why: because like Elva, nobody cares. There are no real consequences for the Varden, Eragon, or anyone else, except for a vague promise to right the wrong after some more plot is sorted out. The mistake is, like Elva, easily corrected with no ill effects (in Elva’s case, she gets to keep (a) while losing (b). I personally suspect it’s because she wouldn’t have any basis for existence if (a) was gone too), and easily forgiven, such that Our Heroes are praised to the high heavens for it. Story arc over, moving on.

  101. Carbon Copy on 23 October 2008, 07:18 said:

    I think the intelligent conversation in this forum has pretty much covered everything that needs to be said about Elva, but in true Johnny-come-lately style I thought I would add a comment too.

    Elva is not a true mistake, because her curse doesn’t affect anyone in a negative way (I think Elva vomits a bit, but that’s about it). Furthermore, her curse is actually helpful. Even when Eragon makes a mistake, it works to the advantage of the god guys.

    After cursing someone in this way, Eragon’s confidence should have been completely undermined. If I thought I had ruined someone’s life through magic, I would probably vow never to use magic again. (Remember, Eragon also supposedly hates to kill, and yet kills hundreds with his magic, giving him another reason to lay off the true names.) But Eragon doesn’t consider this.

    Just imagine if, by the end of the second book, he was still physically crippled (no silly elf orgy), and had also vowed never to use magic again. Imagine how interesting the third book would have been. How could he still be a hero? How could he be the saviour everybody expected him to be? Perhaps his failures and self-loathing would lead him to joining Galbatorix.

    In Frankenstein, we see the terrible consequences of Victor’s mistake (creating the monster). People die. People he loves. The monster is doomed to loneliness and also dies. Even Victor dies.

    Consider if Paolini had written Frankenstein. After the monster was “born”, Victor would angst for five minutes, but then he would make a mate for the monster. The monsters would go off and live happily ever after, and Victor would sit down with a cup of tea, thinking about what a fantastic job he had done in putting everything right.

    Consider (sigh) Lord of the Rings.

    Boromir makes one mistake and it costs him his life. Furthermore, the mistake results in the breaking of the Fellowship, and the capture of the hobbits.

    Frodo makes the mistake of putting on the ring while being attacked by Ringwraiths. It results in a serious injury that NEVER heals.

    Mistakes should have serious consequences, otherwise what’s the point? I don’t see any way in which Elva has advanced the plot, or caused any of the characters to grow.

  102. Snow White Queen on 23 October 2008, 10:05 said:

    yeah, you and substandard deviation said basically exactly what i feel about elva’s role in the plot.

    and yes, this horse has been beaten to death. what do you guys wanna talk about now?

  103. Snow White Queen on 23 October 2008, 10:09 said:

    oh, what about nasuada?

  104. Addie on 23 October 2008, 11:56 said:

    Yeah, this horse has been absolutely beaten to death … but I just thought I’d say one last thing. Overall, you’re right, Eragon’s ‘mistakes’ are pale things compared Victor’s and Othello’s and even Boromir’s and Frodo’s. Inheritance is nowhere near as serious as that. And his guilt over it is only dealt with in passing, briskly. And Elva is not one of the more comlex characters … but still, I wouldn’t have wanted to be her if that had happened in real life. I still can’t help feeling sorry for her. But I basically get what you mean.

    Nasuada – um, what about her?

  105. SlyShy on 23 October 2008, 12:04 said:

    I think she is one of the better written characters in the series.

    But please, the Trial of Longknives was the stupidest thing I have ever read. That’s the biggest challenge she has to overcome as leader of the Varden? Give me a break.

  106. Addie on 23 October 2008, 12:18 said:

    Well, it did seem a bit random.

  107. SubStandardDeviation on 23 October 2008, 14:59 said:

    I like Nasuada because she’s one of the few characters in the series who isn’t obsessed with revenge. After all, the Orcs murdered her father, and she welcomes them to the Rebels with open arms. Can you imagine what would happen if she’d pre-emptively ordered their envoys surrounded and butchered, and only later found out that they had come in peace?

  108. Addie on 23 October 2008, 15:09 said:

    You know, that’s true, she IS one of the only ones who has no personal vendettas. One of the reasons I like her, too.

  109. Virgil on 23 October 2008, 15:58 said:

    She’s pretty adamant about taking over the Empire, but that’s about it.

  110. Hedwig Widrig on 23 October 2008, 19:00 said:

    Taking over the Empire, abolishing Galbatorix, or just winning…I’m not really clear which.
    I’m curious to know what she’s planning to do once the Varden, inevitably, win. I mean, generically, they’ll probably purge all the evil minions, abolish the last traces of the tyrant’s reign, and set up a new monarch loved by all (at least for the extent of this storyline). So yeah, is she just going to take over and pick up where Galbatorix left off? I’m guessing so, because conceiving a true revolution in the spirit of the American Founding Fathers would take effort and talent.

  111. Snow White Queen on 23 October 2008, 19:55 said:

    yeah, i like nasuada a lot more than some other characters (cough cough arya cough cough).

    yes, it is interesting how openly nasuada seems to accept the urgals. what CP never shows us is how she really feels about it. does she do it as a political manuever, or does she really ‘forgive’ the urgals or whatever.

    but it’s hard to predict where CP will go with her, even though we all know that she’s going to win. like i said before, i’d like her and murtagh to end up together, to rule a new alagaesia with some good ol’ common sense. (anything is better than king eragon)

    probably not going to happen though.

  112. Addie on 23 October 2008, 20:24 said:

    Well, it might. Actually I think it probably will: otherwise why would CP have put in those passages about her and Murtagh? His ‘twists’ have so far been rather predictable, and I’ve never seen him lay a red herring. All the suggestions he’s put in so far have been carried out.

  113. Snow White Queen on 23 October 2008, 22:33 said:

    either that, or murtagh’s going to die.

    i hope it’s option no. 1. the best (or one of the best) characters in the whole piece deserves better.

  114. Hedwig Widrig on 23 October 2008, 22:48 said:

    He could do both. They fall in love, get together, and then Murtagh dies. Fans would find that very emotional.

  115. Snow White Queen on 23 October 2008, 22:56 said:

    ahh didn’t think of that.

    although, i think it would be pretty cool if murtagh is still on galbatorix’s side (unwillingly) and then they fall in love with each other.

    they both will have conflicting emotions. (nasuada loves murtagh but has to do her best to defeat or kill him for the varden, and murtagh doesn’t want to help galbatorix but is forced into it)

    if you’re going for forbidden romance, that’s a lot better than the eragon-arya matchup. (we all know they’re going to end up together somehow)

    however, would CP be able to write a situation like that well enough?

  116. Hedwig Widrig on 23 October 2008, 23:32 said:

    Was that a serious question or…? Just kidding, we can always hope.

    Forbidden romance, yeah! Nasuada could be forced to kill him herself! Ooh, that would be a plot twist.

  117. Snow White Queen on 23 October 2008, 23:36 said:

    yeah it would be!

    in fact, i would much rather read that than about gary-stu (oops, meant eragon) and his dragon.

  118. Hedwig Widrig on 23 October 2008, 23:41 said:

    Yes, let Eragon do his thing with Galbatorix off-screen, if he really must. Paolini already has the precedent in his Oromis-Glaedr death scene. In the meantime, what we actually watch is the confrontation between Nasuada and Murtagh.

    And I knew who you meant…ha.

  119. Snow White Queen on 24 October 2008, 00:30 said:

    sounds ten times better than the same old fantasy-quest already.

  120. Addie on 24 October 2008, 00:50 said:

    Why are conflicting emotions always so interesting?

    You’re right, watching Nasuada and Murtagh struggle with their obligations and forbidden love would be MUCH more interesting than the usual routine ending.

    Knowing Paolini, though, I think he would be unlikely to draw out the angst like that. So far he hasn’t woven any compelling tapestries of emotion. With him, its all straight and simple. Pity, really … it could actually be good …

  121. Snow White Queen on 24 October 2008, 00:55 said:

    do you think it’s possible to write an inheritance fan fiction that’s actually better than inheritance itself?

    take the forbidden romance, murtagh-nasuada plot for example. done well, i think it’d be miles better than the real books.

  122. Hedwig Widrig on 24 October 2008, 01:18 said:

    I’ll bet it is.

    Imagines: A group of fan-fiction writers sketch a storyline and hurriedly complete a manuscript, which they quickly deliver to the fan world, beating Paolini to the punch since he’s taking three years on Book Four. And when the authoritative Book Four is released, it pales in comparison with its own progeny.

    Not to be harsh, though; mine sounds like a vendetta. Vendetta bad. Fun, but cruel.

  123. Addie on 24 October 2008, 01:28 said:

    It would be miles better. Except they MIGHT be missing something juicy Paolini hasn’t told us. Might. Then again, they could probably come up with much twistier twists.

    You know, it’s funny, Paolini could actually be a pretty good writer if he worked really hard and tackled all his weak spots. If he cut out all the unnecessary words (that’s about half, for the record), lost the need to lecture the reader mid-book, stopped throwing in random moral/political dilemmas, made the emotions more vivid, made the characters BREATHE, and – in my opinion – got rid of all the killing and revenge hypocrisy – THEN I could honestly say it was a good book.

    But it doesn’t look likely, does it …

  124. Hedwig Widrig on 24 October 2008, 01:49 said:

    Yeah, that’s a pretty tall order, unfortunately.

    But I just keep hoping…someday, he’ll get it. Someday far in the future, as an older and wiser man, he’ll look back and say “Good God, what was I thinking?”

    It may not be soon, but maybe someday. Although, another one for the record: I’m seven years younger than him and my only hope for him is that eventually he’ll grow up?

  125. Addie on 24 October 2008, 01:56 said:

    Yeah. But you never know, he’s still quite young, he could learn.

    Oh and I forgot to mention he has to quit the archaic language attempts, too – either that or get a LOT better at them. And he has to come up with some genuinely original ideas.

    Man, he really HAS got some work cut out for him if he ever wants to write a classic.

  126. Hedwig Widrig on 24 October 2008, 02:04 said:

    He could. And I know we all learn at different rates, but it’d be nice to see some evidence that he’s beginning to improve.

    I think he could put all this behind him and make a big move toward salvation if he discovered a passion. Because, you know, most good writers write for a reason, not just to imitate.

    A good, vigorous education could help too: either throw him into college or throw him into a place of strife and obscurity. Wait, those are pretty much the same. At any rate, seriously, there’s a big world out there.

  127. Addie on 24 October 2008, 02:11 said:

    Yeah, I was really surprised to learn he hadn’t gone to college. He’s missing out on so much. A solid education could do wonders for him – for anyone, for that matter. The struggle and resourcefulness it entails are valuable to anyone.

    I don’t know if there’s any evidence of improvement, though. If anything, the last two books are even more long-winded and detailed than the first, and scarcely more original.

  128. Hedwig Widrig on 24 October 2008, 02:21 said:

    Frightening, isn’t it?

    How much can you really be learning when you’re living with your parents and watching your fortune grow while being fawned upon by the media and masses? Yeah, that’s really a writer with a purpose, that is. Tell us what it’s like to be sheltered and famous; we’re curious and would love to sympathize.

    Sorry, I’m trying not to be unnecessarily harsh. Given access to a sympathetic publishing company as he was, many others could have been in the same situation. At least, I know I wouldn’t have hesitated; it’s dizzying to think how much like him I basically am.

  129. Addie on 24 October 2008, 02:37 said:

    No, I understand. And I wouldn’t like to be in the situation he’s in right now: I’d hate to be famous, and I’d hate to be trapped into one career path, even if it was one I liked. I’d rather have education and options. The thing is, though, he could have gone to college, he actually applied and got accepted, but he chose this – which he of course has a right to, it being his life and all. But still, I think it was probably not the best thing.

  130. Carbon Copy on 24 October 2008, 08:05 said:

    Can I just say it makes me really uncomfortable when people start insulting other people’s education and intellect. I don’t like Paolini’s writing, but I don’t think we have any right to say he needs to have a better education, or he needs to go to college, or whatever.

    Paolini is clearly a very clever guy. He is well read, articulate, and technically proficient. He’s just a bad author.

    Furthermore, I don’t think you can blame him for allowing a huge publishing company to publish his book. All people are different. Home schooling works for some people; college works for some people. The correct path is the one the person in question wishes to take.

    Obviously, freedom of speech dictates you can say what you want about Paolini, but I think that when we attack the man, we lose sight of what we are here to achieve.

    Sorry if this post sounds preachy, I’m not having a go at anyone in particularly and I don’t wish to upset anyone. I just think that critiquing the work is valuable, and will help young authors. Making blanket statements about education doesn’t really help anyone.

  131. SlyShy on 24 October 2008, 08:17 said:

    Yeah, certainly there is something to be said for greater life experience lending to better fiction, but without knowing Paolini’s actual circumstances, I don’t want to comment on them.

  132. Snow White Queen on 24 October 2008, 09:58 said:

    well, i don’t necessarily think he’s a bad author.

    he has potential, but he ended up published before he could figure out how to harness it. that’s why his books read like first drafts and not a normal, finished product.

  133. Carbon Copy on 24 October 2008, 10:14 said:

    SWQ – That’s why I said he is technically proficient.

    I have said many times before that he has the basic technical skills to write well. However, potential doesn’t make you a good author. Writing something good makes you a good author.

    Sadly, some people never live up to their potential.

  134. Hedwig Widrig on 24 October 2008, 10:45 said:

    Carbon Copy, you’re right, and I was trying not to get carried away but obviously didn’t manage it. Apologies if I sounded insulting. It’s definitely true that his publishing break was a major component in deciding where he went with what he had. Like I said, I think I was doing very nearly the same things as he was at the age of fifteen, and if I’d had an opportunity like his there’s no way I would have hung back from it. So I can’t judge him for that.

  135. Addie on 24 October 2008, 11:59 said:

    Yeah, I suppose you’re right … I mean, obviously I still think college is valuable, but we shouldn’t draw conclusions for someone else. You’re right, sorry.

    No, I don’t think he’s that bad of an author, either. He is obviously clever, he knows how to put coherent words on paper, he’s crafted a mostly coherent story – and that’s a struggle for any of us, isn’t it? He just needs to word on a lot of things, too.

  136. Addie on 24 October 2008, 12:26 said:

    About his actual writing: Paolini himself has said, “In my writing, I strive for a lyrical beauty somewhere between Tolkein at his best and Seamus Heaney’s translation of Beowulf.”

    And I can sort of see that in the text, how he’s trying, but I don’t think he quite pulls it off. What do you think?

  137. Legion on 24 October 2008, 12:47 said:

    The problem is, lyrical beauty is more than cramming sentences full of adjectives or copypasting phrases coined by other authors and subsequently used so much they’re cliche.

    Maybe one day CP can refine his writing enough to acheive the coveted lyrical beauty in prose but not in Inheritance so far. If anything, Inheritance is proof that CP is still experimenting to find it.

  138. Hedwig Widrig on 24 October 2008, 13:17 said:

    Agreed, Legion. My thing is, no one can become unique and admirable through imitation, so if he’s striving to be like Tolkien and Seamus Heaney, then already there’s a problem. He can develop his own voice based on them, but he can never, ever be them. No one can but those writers themselves. What every author needs is to find something of their very own to care about. Let that drive their voice, and they’ll no longer be imitating the forms without the meaning, but actually utilizing those forms to convey what they really have to say. Writing is not about the forms; it’s about what they are used to convey.

    I understand that this may be harder for a fiction writer, since the focus there is on worlds and action rather than characters and deeper meaning. Even so, a good author should be able to use fiction as a device to portray meaning. That’s what makes the difference between fan fiction and literature.

  139. Addie on 24 October 2008, 13:23 said:

    Oh, I think writing is a little bit about the forms – sometimes. I find the rise and fall of poetry beautiful, for instance. But even then, the forms are nothing unless the spirits shines through them, and I never get that feeling with Paolini. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to use the forms set down by Tolkein and others – people who had no idea they were setting precedents, by the way – but that he’s only imitating the means, not the spirit. It ends up seeming not enchanting, but rather unwieldy.

  140. Hedwig Widrig on 24 October 2008, 14:47 said:

    Okay, I think we’re agreeing. The forms are important, but they can’t stand on their own. It’s like creating something with a skin, but no bones, muscles, or organs. It could look all right, but it can’t support itself; unwieldy is the word indeed. Then again, something with all the bones, muscles, and organs still wouldn’t be too nice to look at if it didn’t have a suitable skin.

  141. Addie on 24 October 2008, 16:47 said:

    Exactly. And in some places I get the feeling he has substance but less form – like in his moral dilemmas; he has all the arguments and all, but they could be done more elegantly. And then in others, forms but no spirit; there’s his poetry, which tries, but isn’t – um – well, very poetic… In fairness, though, he sometimes does very well. Contrary to a lot of comments on this site, I actually thought the dwarves’ politics were fascinating. Orik’s speech was really quite good. (So I shouldn’t have said it was ALL unwieldy.)

  142. Hedwig Widrig on 24 October 2008, 17:16 said:

    Funny thing about his moral dilemmas, though, is that they’re still imitation. I get the feeling that he thought he needed some semblance of depth, so he grabbed at what seemed like available topics — veganism, atheism, and of course the forever-relevant issues of war and killing — and sort of picked a side to write about. I think I remember hearing about a remark that he’s not himself vegetarian, he just felt like people should hear the philosophy. So basically, he’s writing without conviction?

    Same goes for the killing scenes, come to think of it: where did he get the experience that left him with a need to work through the dilemma of war? I’m not saying he can’t possibly, but if he does have a legitimate conviction here I’d like to know about it. (Self-consciously trying to avoid a bashfest here.)

    I guess that’s all fine if we keep in mind the intended audience. A nine-year-old may indeed be fascinated by his portrayal of atheism, and try it out. Whether that’s a good thing or not depends entirely on perspective.

  143. Addie on 24 October 2008, 17:27 said:

    “Writing without conviction?” No, not really. That is – what he actually said was that, as a writer, he felt it his duty to understand what motivated different people to do different things, and to portray those characters accurately. Which is commendable, I guess, as it’s for tolerance and understanding, etc. But it makes it hard to figure out if he’s trying to show some moral point (that HE agrees with), or just showing a person as they are. (If indeed we are analyzing that far.)

  144. Addie on 24 October 2008, 17:38 said:

    The funny thing is, though, Eragon seems to share Paolini’s philosophy of tolerance and understanding – he himself says “Understanding breeds empathy” – and you can see him put that to use with the Urgals (rather unwillingly at first) and others … but then at other times he is so obsessed with revenge, even toward people (like Az Sweldn rak Anhuin) whom he should be able to understand. He even says that if Az Sweldn rak Anhuin continue their feud with him, he “might have to finish what Galbatorix started.” Ugh! It doesn’t make sense. Is he enlightened, tolerant, altruistic, or cold and vengeful? It’s confusing.

  145. Legion on 24 October 2008, 18:10 said:

    Addie, you really need to join the forums so we can enjoy the awesomeness of your presence there too. ;]

    Eragon shares alot of things with Paolini because Eragon is a self-insert of Paolini. I believe that CP has admitted to this fact himself.

    The entire Inheritance series is full of inconstancies such as the one you point out. That’s because 1) the novels were rushed to publication and 2) CP is making them up as he goes. I’m afraid that no matter how much you strain your brain trying to find the connecting string that will line all the ducks up in a row, it’s futile because there just isn’t one.

  146. Carbon Copy on 24 October 2008, 18:20 said:

    There is a great danger in what Paolini is trying to do with the vegetarianism situation.

    If he was vegetarian, then what he put in the book is preachy and therefore alienating to the audience. Nobody likes to be told what to do. Nobody likes to be told they are “wrong”.

    If he wasn’t vegetarian, then that’s even worse. When you write this way there is a very real chance that you will end up patronising the demographic you are “representing”. This has already backfired on Paolini, as several vegetarians have expressed disgust that Eragon eats meat in Brisingr (and doesn’t promptly vomit everywhere, as you would expect him to).

    The problem is, if you start writing about things people believe strongly in, you run the risk of seriously offending someone if you get something wrong.

    An upper-class white boy could cause offence if he tries to write a story about a black boy facing adversity because of his colour. A heterosexual man could offend if he tries to write a book about the victimisation of a homosexual character.

    I am not saying it CAN’T be done, but it has to be done with caution, and you better know exactly what you are talking about.

    As an aside, you also run the risk of making your characters look foolish when they aren’t meant to. In Eragon, Arya bursts into a dwarf temple and says religion is for idiots and we are supposed to cheer her and agree. All the elves say they do not believe in gods. However, I have read that Eragon meets a god in Brisingr (I haven’t read Brisingr, so I don’t know). If this is true, the elves are completely wrong, and have been made to look like chumps. If the gods are just strolling around, why don’t the elves believe in them?

  147. Virgil on 24 October 2008, 18:27 said:

    Carbon, you need to join the forums too.

  148. Snow White Queen on 24 October 2008, 18:57 said:

    CP’s logic is indeed dizzying.

  149. Addie on 24 October 2008, 18:58 said:

    Legion: Yeah, I maybe you’re right. Maybe there are just inconsistencies and that’s that. But, good lord, it’s ANNOYING. (Sorry, had to get that off my chest; I’m the sort who likes to have their color-coded pencils all in a row.)

    And sure, of course I’m coming to the forums. ;) I’ve already had a look around, and it looks great.

  150. Legion on 24 October 2008, 19:23 said:

    @SWQ:

    CP’s logic is indeed dizzying.

    Or lack thereof.

    @Addie: Lol, look on the bright side. There’s the long shot chance of CP managing to make everything come together and make total perfect logical sense in the fourth book. If it doesn’t get expanded to five books… what’s that called anyways? “Quintet”?

  151. SlyShy on 24 October 2008, 19:32 said:

    Who else thinks Quartet sounds cooler than Cycle? Although Cycle might be an excuse to make the series 17 books, or whenever they stop selling.

  152. Virgil on 24 October 2008, 19:34 said:

    I have a nasty feeling that the fourth book will be so jam packed with useless stuff the end will be abrupt.

  153. Addie on 24 October 2008, 19:38 said:

    Well, Legion, never hurts to hope, does it? :} But no, I don’t think it’s likely. Eragon’s already done things that are at odd with each other, and there’s no erasing that. All I can think is that Eragon is himself confused. Otherwise he’s just a confusing character.

    Oh, and Carbon: Well, he does have a right to explore whatever he pleases, of course … as do we all. A lot of very brilliant authors have explored subjects that have shocked or offended their audiences. (Think Uncle Tom’s Cabin.) So I don’t think we can fault him for that … He can introduce what topics he wishes to. Still, though, you’re right about the characters: I personally am disgruntled at how confusing it makes them sometimes. If he uses them as slates on which to demonstrate certain issues, especially without regard to their personalities, they’re apt to look a bit foolish.

  154. Addie on 24 October 2008, 19:41 said:

    P.S. I think Quartet sounds cooler than Cycle. But yes, Cycle could mean loads more books. D’you know he’s already said he’s planned another Alagaesia book – besides Book 4, I mean?

  155. Carbon Copy on 25 October 2008, 05:59 said:

    Like I said in my post, an author can write about whatever they want, but if he or she chooses to write about something that is important to people then that author has to write with caution. There is a difference between writing something for shock value (or to make a difference), compared to writing something that belittles or patronises certain demographics.

    If you get it wrong, at best you are going to look foolish, at worst you are going to anger your audience.

    Furthermore, if you force character traits onto your characters for the sole reason that you have a pompous notion that as an author you have a duty to represent all viewpoints, then it makes your characters seem forced and unnatural.

    Not recommended.

  156. loser on 26 October 2008, 02:43 said:

    1. There will be more than 4 books.

    2. Is anyone else sort of disgusted with Roran? I don’t know what my problem is but reading about his 200 man killing spree and his evolution into the Ultimate Warrior almost made me angry.

    3. Does anyone else think the magic system is completely wacky?

    4. What’s so bad about the Empire? What do they do that the Varden doesn’t do? I must have missed something really important.

  157. Addie on 26 October 2008, 03:14 said:

    Well, Paolini probably just wanted to illustrate Roran’s tenacity and his effectiveness as a leader. But nevertheless, I find the killing scenes jarring. I can understand that they have to do it for this war (IF that war is really necessary, that is) … but it’s when they start keeping rejoicing in the height of the carnage, commending Roran because he is an expert killer, that I start to feel truly uneasy. Being a good tactician and a determined person is one thing; celebrating, reveling in their bloody victories, is quite another. They should not act as though there is any HONOR in killing.

    Yes, the magic system is a rather wacky. It includes so many possibilities and uses, and some of them contradict others. I’m not sure it’s a consistent system.

    As for the Empire: Well, according to Oromis, Galbatorix is planning to eventually emerge from Uru’baen and take over the rest of Alagaesia (once he has enslaved the rest of the Eldunari). So one could argue that the Varden and their allies are merely taking preventative action.

  158. Virgil on 26 October 2008, 09:56 said:

    Yes, but we only find this out in the third book. The Empire’s evilness should have been explained in the first chapters of Eragon.

  159. LiquidNitrogen on 9 November 2008, 21:55 said:

    At the start of the book, Saphira encourages Roran to kill.

  160. Rand on 17 November 2008, 17:58 said:

    @SWQ and Anyone else Discussing Luke:
    Luke is a more humbled character, especially in the second movie.

    @ Everyone else:
    An evil father?! I can see where we reached the Eragon = Luke comparisons.

  161. the dude on 19 January 2009, 03:05 said:

    As supported by sporkings, the character of galbatorix is sympathetic and the character of eragon is not. Galbatorix was born and got chosen by a dragon. He rose fast in the ranks of the riders and everyone knew he was great and powerful. Note he was not born evil. Then one day the urgals came upon him and slew his dragon. When this happens to a rider part of their mind dies, and so they go mad for a time. This happend to galby. When he was finaly found by the riders, he was nursed back to health. He went before the council of riders and begged them for another dragon. The council supposedly saw the desperation of his claim and then realized the madness in galby, and denied him another dragon. Let us examine this. The council always considerd galby a good person. The council knows that the death of a dragon will cause madness and possibly death to the rider. They should have had council with him expecting madness and insecurity but instead they realize it during the council. Galbatorix has lost his dragon and thus a bit of his sanity. He wants another dragon in his madness because he thinks it is his only way to be sane again. The council refuses. Instead of placing guards around this youth they believe to be mad or trying to council him, they are completely unawares when he kills a rider and steals a new egg. They shouldv expected it. Then he builds up power gets 13 followers and destroys the riders 1 by 1. Now in his mind the riders denied him another chance at sanity based on his madness…which they shouldv expected since he had just lost a dragon, cant madness be gotten over in time? So he thinks they are evil and destroys them. This is justifiable in his mind. Then he establishes a kingdom. He is a good king, as far as midevil standards go. Note that characters like murtag and oromis who have experience with the king or are very wise describe what a good job the king is doing, and how the people under his rule lead happy productive lives. As sporkings said, this could not be possible if the king were mad. Then there is the matter of slavery which could just be seen as bigotry and racism in this ancient world. Thats like calling American history evil. Galby having slaves is strange seeing as how he received elvish training, but seeing as how he thought the riders to be corrupt and evil(justifiably) it makes sense for him to think of their training as lies and unmoral. So then a group of rebels pops up. They are made up of elves, dwarves and men who, apparently, are pissed off about the destruction of the dragon riders and want to restore them. They start randomly attacking the empires cities. Note- these terrorists start attacking civilian cities and killing payed soldiers. Soon they steal 1 of the eggs galbatorix has saved. They begin trying to overthrow him. Now from galbys point of view this is simple. I went mad for a time, i destroyed the corrupt overlords, i became a king and established a prosperous realm, and now these terrorists are randomly attacking my people and trying to overthrow me. Looks like ill have to raise taxes and create a grand army to keep order and put down this terrorism. Unfortunately from eragon and the vardens point of view, raising taxes is just something an evil person does for no reason, and this army is for subjugation and tyranny, nevermind the fact that the varden started the casualties on this now peaceful nation. Notice how everyone within the inheritance books talks about galby’s armies fighting the varden as a madman sending evil soldiers to kill innocent people. Really what is going through their heads? Do they expect galby to just step aside and order his men to stand down and let them kill him and overthrow his kingdom? Idiots. Of course hes going to defend his kingdom that dosent make him mad that makes him a good king. Then theres the fact that eragon claims to oromis that galby must be overthrown. Why? Because galby destroyed the riders, captured the remaining eggs and rules the land. He would march on the dwarves and elves if he were strong enough and persecutes people all the time. K when have we ever seen him do these things? Yes he destroyed the riders when he wasent in his right mind because they coldy denied him a new dragon. Yes he captured the new eggs with which we later find out he hopes to create a new gengeration of riders with. He has never shown any inclination to attack elves or dwarves except for when they house the terrorists or when they fight alongside them. Seriously he took down an entire order of powerful riders, how is he not able to destroy the elves and dwarves if he wants to so badly? And then some people cite the elves training eragon to respect the urgal society as proof that galby is evil, if he would attempt to get the dwarves and urgals to destroy each other. Ok let us look at this. The riders trained him. He believes the riders to be corrupt and evil. He isn’t going to listen to or accept any of their training. Next, every character in this series including eragon the supposed hero hates urgals with a passion and thinks there evil. Even the urgals admit their race loves war and this explains why the other races either hate them or just wants them out of the way. Because they are dangerous. Urgals also killed galbys dragon. Here we have more then enough evidence. Galby has a terrorist threat on his hands. Instead of sending soldiers with families and lives, he sends the monsters all humans hate and fear, to destroy the terrorists who kill humans and start wars. Ok how is this evil? This is smart. He is hitting 2 birds with 1 stone. And as for employing a shade same difference. The only thing he knows about shades is probably what the riders told him and he thinks they are evil. A shade is a very powerful being. He probly wanted to attempt to control one so that he could keep an eye on it and maybe it could be useful to him, which it was. Then in the 3rd book, we finaly get to meet galby albeit through murtagh. This is the moment weve all been waiting for. We can finaly witness first hand wat makes galby so evil. Does he threaten genocide to all elves and dwarves if the varden dosent stand down? No of course not. Galby talks about how he was foolish and commited atrocities in his younger days. He admits the loss of his dragon sent him over the edge but that he is sane now. Becoming king of an empire, he strove to be a good king, and the empire runs well. But the varden had to be idiots about it. Instead of considering that they were a bunch of pissed off weaklings and the empire was now headed by one of the strongest dragon riders ever, they decided to start a rebellion. Yes they decided to risk the lives of tens of thousands of people. Why? Not to give the people a better life, they already have that under gably as stated by murtagh and oromis. No they did it for revenge. They convinced everyone that they could lead much richer fuller lives and that a new king would never have taxes and would protect everyone all the time.They decided hurting galby for what he did to the riders was more important then thousands of innocent humans. This of course coming from the righteous for the sanctitiy of life elves. Galby admits he has left the elves and dwarves alone, except for those within the rebellion, who were regrettably killed by proxy. He then asks oromis to join with him and help him bring order to the empire. He scoldingly sais oromis is wise and thus he should take the wise course and try to stop the fighting instead of prolonging it. The way he sais it indicates this. Galby established a kingdom. The varden starts a war. Galby relucatantly fights them. He wants to end the war peacefully. The fact that he never directly enters the battle could be seen as another indicator that he is above such petty violence and dosent want to cause death and destruction. But then oromis sais no galby. Once your dragon was killed you fell into madness. We denied you an egg and basically told you to bad so sad. You went crazy and killed us off. We need vengeance now so we must kill you. It dosent matter that you wish to establish peace and save lives, you were once evil so that means you will always be evil and all you do is evil. This sincere apology of yours is obviously just an act to get my allegence. To bad. You will never get the chance to repent for what you did when you were young and half insane. You will be destroyed. Honestly these are supposed to be the good guys? I mean think about it now weve established that galby will never even be allowed to defect and become a nice person he is just destined to be evil. Even if he surrendered and bowed to oromises feet we all know what would happen. Oromis would not take him as prisoner or try to redeem him he would just kill him. So why should galby step down? Why should he surrender? These people are incapable of compassion and they are the true evil in inheritance. These people run around and torment paid soldiers. They don’t understand different point of views they just think well if your with us good but if your against us you are obviously evil and must be killed and if you cast down your weapons and say please i am sorry take me prisoner just don’t kill me i have a wife and 2 children you just behead them anyway because they have done evil things for there evil king. What a crock of shit. After this exchange however, galbatorix sais oromis is a fool and will die. And he will die slowly and painfully. And all the varden will die. Is this evil? No it seems like galbatorix tried to make honest peace with them. He is stronger then they are he could just crush them but he said no lets be compassionate and give them a chance. And if they repent we can save bloodshed but they said no so fuck them they deserve to suffer the way theyv tricked the rebels into suffering for an unjust cause. Now admittedly i missed some stuff galby did like employing razac and enchanting soldiers to feel no pain but honestly he is just trying to maintain rule and put down a terrorist threat. To this end he is allowed to be a bit extreme. I therefore predict that the last book galby will be revealed to us as the true hero and the varden as the true enemy. Either that or cp is truly the most oblivious and worst writer in history. Take ur pick.

    sorry this was originaly made for fans of the series but the dam sites wouldnt let me join so if its patronizing sorry but i think it makes sense and send it to fans if you want

  162. CometStorm on 19 January 2009, 03:20 said:

    The Dude that was a very well thought out reasoning. It makes much more sense then most of the jargon in the Inheritance series. I seriously, doubt though that Christopher Paloani (spelling?) will make Galbatorix the true hero. That would contradict the fact that Eragon is Chris’ self-insert and that would make Chris, by extension evil (although some of us might argue that he already is :3) Plus it would probably piss off a lot of the fans and hurt book sales, which Knopf wouldn’t let happen.

    I will say that would have been a lot easier to read if it had been split up into paragraphs!

  163. the dude on 19 January 2009, 03:28 said:

    lol sorry i kept trying to get onto fan sites to prove to them galby was evil and im a poor self editor. when i finaly got here i didnt care anymore and just sent it but if u can decipher it between the paragraphs it makes sense i think. like some things from the books are missing or not elaborated on but the main points stand true

  164. CometStorm on 19 January 2009, 03:32 said:

    It definitely makes sense! I just makes eyes start to cross and everything gets kind of fuzzy. Maybe it doesn’t help that I don’t have my glasses on ><

  165. the dude on 19 January 2009, 03:48 said:

    As supported by sporkings, the character of galbatorix is sympathetic and the character of eragon is not. Galbatorix was born and got chosen by a dragon. He rose fast in the ranks of the riders and everyone knew he was great and powerful. Note he was not born evil. Then one day the urgals came upon him and slew his dragon. When this happens to a rider part of their mind dies, and so they go mad for a time. This happend to galby. When he was finaly found by the riders, he was nursed back to health. He went before the council of riders and begged them for another dragon. The council supposedly saw the desperation of his claim and then realized the madness in galby, and denied him another dragon. Let us examine this. The council always considerd galby a good person. The council knows that the death of a dragon will cause madness and possibly death to the rider. They should have had council with him expecting madness and insecurity but instead they realize it during the council. Galbatorix has lost his dragon and thus a bit of his sanity. He wants another dragon in his madness because he thinks it is his only way to be sane again. The council refuses. Instead of placing guards around this youth they believe to be mad or trying to council him, they are completely unawares when he kills a rider and steals a new egg. They shouldv expected it. Then he builds up power gets 13 followers and destroys the riders 1 by 1.

    Now in his mind the riders denied him another chance at sanity based on his madness…which they shouldv expected since he had just lost a dragon, cant madness be gotten over in time? So he thinks they are evil and destroys them. This is justifiable in his mind. Then he establishes a kingdom. He is a good king, as far as midevil standards go. Note that characters like murtag and oromis who have experience with the king or are very wise describe what a good job the king is doing, and how the people under his rule lead happy productive lives. As sporkings said, this could not be possible if the king were mad. Then there is the matter of slavery which could just be seen as bigotry and racism in this ancient world. Thats like calling American history evil. Galby having slaves is strange seeing as how he received elvish training, b
    ut seeing as how he thought the riders to be corrupt and evil(justifiably) it makes sense for him to think of their training as lies and unmoral.

    So then a group of rebels pops up. They are made up of elves, dwarves and men who, apparently, are pissed off about the destruction of the dragon riders and want to restore them. They start randomly attacking the empires cities. Note- these terrorists start attacking civilian cities and killing payed soldiers. Soon they steal 1 of the eggs galbatorix has saved. They begin trying to overthrow him. Now from galbys point of view this is simple. I went mad for a time, i destroyed the corrupt overlords, i became a king and established a prosperous realm, and now these terrorists are randomly attacking my people and trying to overthrow me. Looks like ill have to raise taxes and create a grand army to keep order and put down this terrorism. Unfortunately from eragon and the vardens point of view, raising taxes is just something an evil person does for no reason, and this army is for subjugation and tyranny, nevermind the fact that the varden started the casualties on this now peaceful nation. Notice how everyone within the inheritance books talks about galby’s armies fighting the varden as a madman sending evil soldiers to kill innocent people. Really what is going through their heads? Do they expect galby to just step aside and order his men to stand down and let them kill him and overthrow his kingdom? Idiots. Of course hes going to defend his kingdom that dosent make him mad that makes him a good king. Then theres the fact that eragon claims to oromis that galby must be overthrown. Why? Because galby destroyed the riders, captured the remaining eggs and rules the land. He would march on the dwarves and elves if he were strong enough and persecutes people all the time. K when have we ever seen him do these things? Yes he destroyed the riders when he wasent in his right mind because they coldy denied him a new dragon. Yes he captured the new eggs with which we later find out he hopes to create a new gengeration of riders with. He has never shown any inclination to attack elves or dwarves except for when they house the terrorists or when they fight alongside them. Seriously he took down an entire order of powerful riders, how is he not able to destroy the elves and dwarves if he wants to so badly?

    Then some people cite the elves training eragon to respect the urgal society as proof that galby is evil, if he would attempt to get the dwarves and urgals to destroy each other. Ok let us look at this. The riders trained him. He believes the riders to be corrupt and evil. He isn’t going to listen to or accept any of their training. Next, every character in this series including eragon the supposed hero hates urgals with a passion and thinks there evil. Even the urgals admit their race loves war and this explains why the other races either hate them or just wants them out of the way. Because they are dangerous. Urgals also killed galbys dragon. Here we have more then enough evidence. Galby has a terrorist threat on his hands. Instead of sending soldiers with families and lives, he sends the monsters all humans hate and fear, to destroy the terrorists who kill humans and start wars. Ok how is this evil? This is smart. He is hitting 2 birds with 1 stone. And as for employing a shade same difference. The only thing he knows about shades is probably what the riders told him and he thinks they are evil. A shade is a very powerful being. He probly wanted to attempt to control one so that he could keep an eye on it and maybe it could be useful to him, which it was.

    Then in the 3rd book, we finaly get to meet galby albeit through murtagh. This is the moment weve all been waiting for. We can finaly witness first hand wat makes galby so evil. Does he threaten genocide to all elves and dwarves if the varden dosent stand down? No of course not. Galby talks about how he was foolish and commited atrocities in his younger days. He admits the loss of his dragon sent him over the edge but that he is sane now. Becoming king of an empire, he strove to be a good king, and the empire runs well. But the varden had to be idiots about it. Instead of considering that they were a bunch of pissed off weaklings and the empire was now headed by one of the strongest dragon riders ever, they decided to start a rebellion. Yes they decided to risk the lives of tens of thousands of people. Why? Not to give the people a better life, they already have that under gably as stated by murtagh and oromis. No they did it for revenge. They convinced everyone that they could lead much richer fuller lives and that a new king would never have taxes and would protect everyone all the time.They decided hurting galby for what he did to the riders was more important then thousands of innocent humans. This of course coming from the righteous for the sanctitiy of life elves. Galby admits he has left the elves and dwarves alone, except for those within the rebellion, who were regrettably killed by proxy. He then asks oromis to join with him and help him bring order to the empire. He scoldingly sais oromis is wise and thus he should take the wise course and try to stop the fighting instead of prolonging it. The way he sais it indicates this. Galby established a kingdom. The varden starts a war. Galby relucatantly fights them. He wants to end the war peacefully. The fact that he never directly enters the battle could be seen as another indicator that he is above such petty violence and dosent want to cause death and destruction.

    But then oromis sais no galby. Once your dragon was killed you fell into madness. We denied you an egg and basically told you to bad so sad. You went crazy and killed us off. We need vengeance now so we must kill you. It dosent matter that you wish to establish peace and save lives, you were once evil so that means you will always be evil and all you do is evil. This sincere apology of yours is obviously just an act to get my allegence. To bad. You will never get the chance to repent for what you did when you were young and half insane. You will be destroyed. Honestly these are supposed to be the good guys? I mean think about it now weve established that galby will never even be allowed to defect and become a nice person he is just destined to be evil. Even if he surrendered and bowed to oromises feet we all know what would happen. Oromis would not take him as prisoner or try to redeem him he would just kill him. So why should galby step down? Why should he surrender? These people are incapable of compassion and they are the true evil in inheritance. These people run around and torment paid soldiers. They don’t understand different point of views they just think well if your with us good but if your against us you are obviously evil and must be killed and if you cast down your weapons and say please i am sorry take me prisoner just don’t kill me i have a wife and 2 children you just behead them anyway because they have done evil things for there evil king. What a crock of shit. After this exchange however, galbatorix sais oromis is a fool and will die. And he will die slowly and painfully. And all the varden will die. Is this evil?

    No it seems like galbatorix tried to make honest peace with them. He is stronger then they are he could just crush them but he said no lets be compassionate and give them a chance. And if they repent we can save bloodshed but they said no so fuck them they deserve to suffer the way theyv tricked the rebels into suffering for an unjust cause. Now admittedly i missed some stuff galby did like employing razac and enchanting soldiers to feel no pain but honestly he is just trying to maintain rule and put down a terrorist threat. To this end he is allowed to be a bit extreme. I therefore predict that the last book galby will be revealed to us as the true hero and the varden as the true enemy. Either that or cp is truly the most oblivious and worst writer in history. Take ur pick.

    sorry im to lazy to correct the original text right now is this better?

  166. CometStorm on 19 January 2009, 04:12 said:

    Thank you!

  167. Ri on 19 January 2009, 06:22 said:

    Isn’t it evil of Galbatorix to not send Feinster reinforcements? Also in Eragon they found Yazuac destroyed by Urgals under Galbatorix’s orders. What about Jeod? Galbatorix destroyed his fleet. He could’ve just cautioned him or something, instead of destroying a profitable business.

  168. scary_viking on 19 January 2009, 06:36 said:

    Isn’t it evil of Galbatorix to not send Feinster reinforcements?
    We have no idea what the strategic situation was like, so we have no idea how to judge this. In any case, if it would have been strategically profitable to do so, then Galby would seem more incompetant than evil.

    Also in Eragon they found Yazuac destroyed by Urgals under Galbatorix’s orders.
    Yes, but the Urgals were not following Galbatorix’s orders directly at the time. I would point out that, regardless of how bad it seems from seeing just that one town, the fact that people haven’t fled the region as a whole (note: Daret) seems to indicate that the overall situation isn’t THAT bad. I’d say as high bound estimates maybe 500-1000 total civilian casualties from the urgal movements. Which is a lot less loss of life than sending your own men into Farthen Dur.

    Sorry if that justification sucks, maybe I’m too Machiavellian. Whatevs.

    What about Jeod? Galbatorix destroyed his fleet. He could’ve just cautioned him or something, instead of destroying a profitable business.
    Destroying a profitable business? Sure, if ‘profitable’ means ‘profitable for the terrorist rebel army.’ Jeod is directly supporting the Varden. The Varden are waging an aggressive war against Galby. If Galby warns Jeod first, Jeod will relocate stuff and a ton of Varden war material won’t be destroyed. Why the froodlenutzsky should he be leniant in any way shape or form towards a major supplier of a terrorist rebel army?

  169. Legion on 19 January 2009, 11:36 said:

    @the dude: If you’re interested in how much fail Paolini is with Galbatorix, may I point you to this article? .

  170. lolli on 22 February 2009, 02:25 said:

    I’m not trying to attack anyone here, but the format of this review has strange similarities to this one about Code Geass:

    http://trainwreck.ggkthx.org/2008/09/28/final-rating-schneizel10/

  171. Legion on 22 February 2009, 02:50 said:

    Obviously, it means that me and the other blogger are the same person. Obviously.

  172. lolli on 22 February 2009, 06:37 said:

    Just assume I have mental issues then, because it isn’t obvious to me. There just are so many cases of plagiarism on the Internet.

  173. Legion on 22 February 2009, 07:50 said:

    the Internet

    • Anonymous is the Internet
    • Anonymous is devoid of humanity, morality, pity, and mercy.
    • Anonymous works as one, because none of us are as cruel as all of us.
    • Anonymous cannot be harmed, no matter how many Anonymous may fall in battle.
    • Anonymous doesn’t fall in battle, anyway.
    • Anonymous only undertakes Serious Business.
    • Anonymous is everyone
    • Anonymous is everywhere.
    • Anonymous cannot be out-numbered.
    • Anonymous has no weakness or flaw.
    • Anonymous exploits all weaknesses and flaws.
    • Anonymous doesn’t have a family or friends.
    • Anonymous is your family and friends.
    • Anonymous is not your friend.
    • Anonymous has no identity.
    • Anonymous does it for the lulz.
    • Anonymous is humanity.
    • Anonymous is Legion.

  174. falconempress on 22 February 2009, 10:26 said:

    we do not forgive. we do not forget. expect us.

  175. Stranger than death on 29 March 2009, 08:28 said:

    I recon’ that CP just might be making inheritance up as he goes along.
    The CP interview on here obviously proves this. Really, every second question it was

    ‘Oh shucks! Sorry, I have to keep that a secret! Tis a spoiler!’

    And the questions were relatively spoiler free if you think about it! Revealing if a character is going to be in the next book, Galby’s sword, the color of his dragon, ect.

    Also, when I tend to do improv with writing (or music) it tends to be fairly long-winded and has many ridiculously random plot-twists with no sense of direction. Just like Brisingr.

    Its worth noting that before coming upon this site I worshiped Inheritance like a god. (Thank god I realized what a pile of shit it was)

    Come to think of it, most Inheritance fans often do bible-like ‘scripture battles’ with the text of Eragon, Eldest and Brisngr. Mainly due to the fact of huge plot holes, which lead to speculation, and contradictions.

    Oh and does anyone find the little oddities of CP’s world weird? For example, that apparently dragons have feathers and that you can store power in figurative hearts of dragons? (I suppose the latter was CP’s attempt to attempt something physiological)
    And that the biggest threat to the empire (yoda and his magical planet) can remain hidden from someone that was powerful enough to slaughter all the jedi?
    I’m not sure, was he hidden or did Galby know about him all along? The book was so long and boring that I hardly remembered anything that happened. Oh yeah! Now I remember they have light sabers too! What next? Magic rings and sith lightning?

    Oh wait!

  176. Legion on 31 March 2009, 18:25 said:

    Well, CP is either one of two things: Making it up as he goes or horrendous at plotting out the story. Neither of which is very flattering.

    I tend to believe the former, he’s making it up. In addition to the reasons you cite above: Book 3 was split into Book 3 and 4 midway through the writing of Book 3. And the biggest indication: All “plot twists” and “shocking revelations” are pounded into the reader with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. If CP had been planning, he would have had plenty of time to carefully plant the hints that would have enabled him to pull off the plot twists gracefully. A reader can tell instantly: Well planned = When we get to those points in the text, it’s both a surprise AND something that we have been seeing the entire time. Improvised = Forced/contrived because it came out of nowhere or is super obvious and not suprising at all because CP hinted at in an amazingly unsubtle way 10 pages ago.

  177. Stranger than death on 3 April 2009, 08:30 said:

    I really wonder just how inheritance will end with one book? Unless Eragon goes through another one of CP’s magical transformations or there is a giant plot twist-I don’t see how one book is going to cut it.

    It would be funny though if book 4 was a masterpiece though.
    Harty Hah Hah.

  178. Kevin on 3 April 2009, 13:59 said:

    I actually read on anti-shurtugal’s live journal that he put out a newsletter saying he was expanding to seven.

    He put it out on April 1, though, so who knows.

  179. Diamonte on 6 April 2009, 19:29 said:

    Kevin – that post was an April Fools joke. Read the comments on the second page of it. ;-)

    And babe… Shakes head

    Anyone know why we’ve had so many spammers and trolls lately?

  180. Kevin on 6 April 2009, 19:47 said:

    Ah, gotcha, thanks. Yeah, on April 1 I think the lj-ers were still unsure.

  181. Legion on 6 April 2009, 20:22 said:

    Yes, that was a rather flattering comment from babe. Good to know that my article can still inspire such fierce, instinct-driven reactions from someone. However, seeing that I’m going to have to decline, the invitation has been removed. =]

  182. Jamaal on 5 May 2009, 18:58 said:

    Does this mean Star Wars is the same? I mean Star Wars 4-6 are exactly like these books so far.

  183. Puppet on 5 May 2009, 21:58 said:

    Hopefully we don’t see Star Wars 1-3.

  184. jeeze on 15 October 2009, 19:54 said:

    Wow give him a break shure not his best work but do you wana try to write his books? This guy sold milions of copies of all his books and making him a very rich man. Overall he must have done somthing right, so cut him some slack and move on.

  185. SlyShy on 15 October 2009, 22:15 said:

    Yeah, I mean, Stalin governed a great nation. Shure not his best work, but do you “wana” try to rule his lands? This guy enslaved millions of people and making him a very powerful man.Overall he must have done somthing right, so him some slack and move on.

  186. meaningless prose on 12 January 2011, 04:03 said:

    It’s okay to make things up as you go, how else does anything get written? As long as you correct the holes/flaws/inconsistencies on the revisions.
    He only got where he is ‘cause his parents published his book themselves and nearly went broke trying to support it, if it hadn’t landed in an agent/editors hands it never would have gotten anywhere else.

  187. why do you care on 20 March 2011, 19:52 said:

    I think that was overkill the picture summed up what you were gonna say, but on the other hand it was a GOOD book even though it is true that the parts about roran were total

    CRAP

    IT DID TOO HAVE A PLOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    8)

  188. Like a sophisticated employer on 27 March 2014, 21:37 said:

    You fool!!! ‘Twas an illustrious piece of literature, and if your tiny mind can’t comprehend it, shame on you! It only took me nine days to read it, because I can recognize when a book will be remembered for it’s greatness! You fool, you fool, you primitive fool!