RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> [Legends and Lore] >> Writers of Lore >> [The Workshop] >> Craft Discussion



Message

Arzamol -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/9/2009 22:04:28)

I'd have to now more about the qualities of leather... Does it provide any meaningfull protection?

Or maybe they don't eat animals because they consider it to be like canibalism.



Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/9/2009 23:03:02)

Leather is a cool material, but you can survive without it, even in a war.

If they simply don't like /eating/ meat, then that has little to do with "the sacredness of life."

And I'm about to get blow to bits for this, but even cannibalism is relative. Some kinds of bats eat other kinds of bats. So should we fault the big bats for their nature? (We could, of course. I'm merely raising a point on eating meat as a natural instinct vs. killing for a war you chose to join). But I think we're getting so fine here that saying more on this point might not be a productive argument. =P



khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/10/2009 2:42:51)

Arzamol: Sorry about that, I was getting quite concerned when you wrote that statement. I wasn't aware that you were saying that nobody had the power to punish him, instead of he had the right to do anything because he had power to do so, which was my interpretation of that statement.

Firefly: The paragraph that was raised in question is very vital to the discussion of 'preachiness' in the book series - if only for the fact that it is the only time we are presented with the Dwarven view of religion throughout books 1, 2 and 3. Through nearly all of Eldest and Empire the reader has to endure constant adages by the elves about how veganism and aethism is the way to go. Not saying that it is a bad thing (and it would also be supported by realism, since Eragon was at Ellesmera for a long long time), but during Eragon's stay in Tronjheim, I would have rather liked to be presented with the Dwarven view of religion in equal light (which means no Arya smirking behind the unfortunate priest) to how Oromis presented his views. This unequal portrayal of the two beliefs are the reasons why I beleive that preachiness is inherent in his books.

To use your example: A director continually casts black people as the antagonist. I mean continually, interminably, which ever way you want to put it. At this point some people might have noticed that there is something wrong. And I beleive that you yourself don't always type cast your females to be timid? Because if it is a constant element of your books to include a timid female character, then those comments of being sexist might have some justification, which I personally beleive don't because you don't always type cast females as being weak and afraid (I hope).

Falerin: Arzamol stated that "If a book is popular, it's good writing."

May I ask, how did you get that Arzamol was stating Paolini was a good technical writer out of that? I'm not sure if I misinterpreted but to me that statement is pretty much clear, which I gather to mean that Famous = Good Writing, whereas I have a conflicting view, mentioned only several posts above, where I stated that "Success does not equal a good piece of creative writing."

However, I do realize that the quote was out of context, because Arzamol evidently likes with thinking, as opposed to liking without thinking, so I withdraw my statement, with apologies if it offended, on that particular matter.

It is interesting to note that nearly everyone I talked to, both fans and anti-fans of Eragon, almost always seem to agree that Murtagh is the better developed character in the series. I'm not exactly sure what Paolini is trying to pull off there, as the last time I checked, the protagonist, not the anti-hero, is the one that has to have the most attention and detail, else it will draw attention away from him/her/it. And that is exactly what Murtagh is doing - drawing attention away from the main protagonist. This is because Murtagh, unlike Eragon, has personality, develops his character over time, and is essentially flawed, which makes him more human, which in turn allows the very human audience to empathize with him.

Unless Paolini is trying to break traditional conventions by making the anti-hero the centerpiece of the story then I shall remain in my stance that Murtagh's character development was purely accidental. There are other ways to present the conundrum you mentioned, Falerin, than just simply making Eragon have little or no character development and personality, even if he is the embodiment of destiny, which I honestly beleive is still no excuse for poor character development.

Ran out of time, forgive my errors, no time to go through and do my usual edits... :/

And I will post another Epistle as soon as I find the appropriate one.

EDIT: Darn my obsessive typo-fixing disorder, now I'm going to be late... ):



Xirminator -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/12/2009 7:06:32)

Could you provide us with the links to where are you finding these? I'm interested in reading everything from this Epistler.



khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/12/2009 8:07:23)

Xirminator: I jumped back onto AS's forum, where the links to the Epistler are found and discovered this note stickied onto it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Epistler

Greetings to you.

The Epistler heard that you were looking for him.

He very much appreciates that you liked and admired his efforts enough to publish them on your site.

He stopped writing Epistles and disassociated himself with AS some time ago, and now regrets his own involvement in such petty viciousness.

He would appreciate it if you were to remove the Epistles, but wishes to add that he thinks your chapter analyses were very well-written and thought-out.


So I was asked by the forum moderators to remove The Epistles from all public sites.

If you want to read The Epistles for your own private use, PM me your email and I'll send them through that medium.

~K~



Erason -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/12/2009 17:46:03)

Note: My username resembling "Eragon" so much is a complete coincidence, and I didn't realise that until I sent the PM for my Name change.

On Topic: I have read all three books of the Inhertience cycle and have enjoyed them. One of the things I like is you can Palino visably progress throught the books. If you compare the beginning of Eragon to the end of Brisingr, it seems like the writer Of Eragon is attempting to (badly) imatite the writer of Brisingr.

I think, unless you read all the books, some things don't make sense, and you're left wondering "What?". A example I would use is the classical "Eragon scolded Murtagh because he killed a slave trader when Eragon himself killed many". It becomes apparent in book 2/3 that Eragon has difficulty killing even the normal soldiers, and has to "tune out" so he could do it better. He realises that he has to kill them only if they are attacking him and his forces, and refuses to kill prisoner or helpless creatures (such as animals).



Xirminator -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/13/2009 12:15:21)

I have to agree with Erason. Paolini's technical writing has improved much since the first book. And not only that. Compared to Eragon, Brisingr goes more into depth into Paolini's created world. In Eragon, the world seemed made to fit with fantasy cliches. By Brisingr, we're getting a touch of Paolini in it.



Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/14/2009 0:50:50)

Hello, I'm back, Khalim. Not saying you'll believe me, but I seriously did write half a response a few days ago. But then I simply got, well, to /bored/ to finish it. My feelings for Eragon are not passionate enough, and my love of debating isn't fueling me as well as I'd like.

However, I am back now, and I think I should at least honour your post with a response, even if the subject is starting to bore me (not to say I won't come back to it a while later, preferably after I've read Eldest and Brisingr).

I can't judge if Paolini is being preachy or not, or if he's portraying the viewpoints in religion unequally. I haven't read that far. However, /so far/, I don't think that he is in any way comparable to a director who continuously casts black people as bad guys. I think it's more of a question of intent and vibe than of pure content. Is he really saying religion sucks, or was it an unfortunate implication picked up by picky people? Of course, if it was the latter, it still means his writing needs to be improved, but that means he's being careless rather than preachy.

That being said, I realize the need to balance things out. To take the timid woman example, in one of my stories, there is a girl who is somewhat "useless" and constantly gets saved by her teammates. However, the other two main female characters (there are five main characters in all) are a lazy genius and a top-of-the-class overachiever with a dark past and even darker intentions. As for the two males, one of them is a determined idiot and the other is seen as a pretty-boy but is actually quite capable and intelligent. On top of that, every one of them gets character development, so even the timid girl and the idiot do become more complex individuals. But I stress: when I made these characters, I was not thinking on the lines of "Oh, that girl's weak, so I'll make this one strong." I simply wrote the characters the way they appeared in my head, and if there was a balance (that isn't for me to judge), it came automatically. I think a writer should be more concerned with telling a good story rather than shoving characters into roles to avoid being criticized.

Of course, a good writer would make stories that automatically don't cause imbalance.

Interestingly enough, the practice of having many more guy characters in stories or--rarely--of having many more girl characters, doesn't seem to offend many people. And even when it does offend, it doesn't stop some author from writing book after book of only male or only female characters and still having quite a following. Some male writers openly admit that they don't understand women, and they are selling millions. But that's another debate, and perhaps I shouldn't be bringing this up. I don't want sparks to fly.

I don't mind Murtagh being more interesting than Eragon. In most stories, I find side characters more interesting than heroes. A good writer can cast a regular hero-type as the hero and leave the more complicated characterization to a side character (where it won't grow too unpredictable for the plot). But it takes a fantastic author to cast a complicated, flawed, but sympathetic character as the hero, because it'll mean breaking plot conventions along with character ones ('cause this anti-hero sure as hell won't react to things like a regular hero does). And sometimes, even awesome authors make side characters better. It can serve a point, by making the audience realize, at one point, "Hey, isn't this guy better than the hero?" It'll make the audience question /their own/ misconceptions.

So, generally, I have no problem with the side character (Murtagh, in this case) being more interesting than the hero (Eragon). But I do have a problem with the hero (Eragon) being completely uninteresting. (You can be worse than the side character, but you can't be /bad/, y'know?) But anyhow, that's just me, the person who roots for the villain 70% of the time.



Arzamol -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/14/2009 1:11:07)

quote:

Leather is a cool material, but you can survive without it, even in a war.

If they simply don't like /eating/ meat, then that has little to do with "the sacredness of life."
I guess it's one of those accidental flukes I sometimes found in books.

For Example, on I found it Artemis Fowl: The auther had stated that a sertain species was incapable of burping, yet a few pages later, a character of said species burped.



Xirminator -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/15/2009 16:39:27)

Having read all the Epistles by the Epistler, I find that I agree with him/her up to a point. However, I thought he was a bit harsh and focused on points that had nothing to do with writing (such as fans) and connected their actions to the books.



khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/16/2009 5:13:22)

Firefly: Sorry for the long reply... I had a lot of school stuff going on in the past week.

quote:

I think a writer should be more concerned with telling a good story rather than shoving characters into roles to avoid being criticized.

Of course, a good writer would make stories that automatically don't cause imbalance.


Well, as these two contradictory statements of yours highlighted, what defines a 'good writer' is made up of many complex factors, more often than not those factors are also completely subjective.

Well, I guess you do raise a valid point about Murtagh - that it is reasonable to have a side-character which has to do the rule-breaking, unorthodox things in the hero's stead. However, as you yourself said, the problem is that Eragon is just plain boring as a result of having no depth or personality. Furthermore, Eragon's shallowness is hindered by the lack of character development throughout the series.

Xirmi: His/Her writing starts to drift away from annihilating the fanbois after the first few epistles. If you have ever gone to Shur'tugal.com or Shruikan.com then you will understand why he/she has a deep raging passion for vilifying the fans. However, I concur with you that it is not right to attack either the author or his/her fans and I beleive The Epistler realized this, as seen above in his statement to withdraw affiliations with AS and apologize for his/her "petty viciousness".

I'm glad though, that the people in L&L are so much more reasonable.

Erason: I don't think anyone here disagrees with the fact that Paolini is developing for the better. For me, however, the only thing holding him back is the continued lack of character development for all his characters, especially Eragon. If you think about it, the only noteworthy character development Eragon goes through is that he becomes a hippie vegan. Otherwise, he was the same character as he was at the start of Eragon - a moody, angsty, hormone-driven, teenage male with a sword and a dragon. :/



Xirminator -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/16/2009 8:32:52)

I know Khalim. I've been to Shurtugal and I have read all the Epistles.

Seeing the above quote from Firefly, I remember Paoloni's statement that characters are born out of necessity. I think that idealism is what makes his characters so much like cardboard cutouts. He hasn't visualized them as people, rather as tools to fulfill parts of the plot.



Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/16/2009 12:41:47)

@Khalim
I don't see how my statements are contradictory. Perhaps I should've made myself more clear. I don't think a writer should place trying to not offend people ahead of writing a good story. /Every single story in existence/ will have some unfortunate implications, and there always will be people who pick at everything. You can't please those people--and Paolini can't either. It's much more efficient to just please people who judge you reasonably. If your end result has too many unfortunate implications, then yes, you're doing something wrong. But you can't fix it by weeding out the "preachiness" alone. Just keep concentrating on writing a better story, and hopefully you'll improve.

I hope I've made myself more clear. The above has been getting rather general. As I said, I cannot judge if Paolini is really doing something wrong, or if he is the victim of picky people who are never satisfied.

We're in agreement on their characters. I find Eragon just as unengaging as you do, if not more so. =P And I had to laugh at this:

quote:

If you think about it, the only noteworthy character development Eragon goes through is that he becomes a hippie vegan.


And he was moody, angsty, and hormone-driven? I didn't even get that feeling. In fact, I can't think of any words to describe Eragon at all except "overused hero trope." (To any fans out there, that was a, y'know, joke/exaggeration. I don't mean to offend)



Xirminator -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/16/2009 16:53:23)

It's true that Eragon seems to be a nobody. There's a little bit more to him than mentioned in this thread, but this is all I can gather from memory.

He's somewhat rash and arrogant. (Perhaps a defect given him to him by Paolini in attempt to make him not perfect.)
He loves to read and has tried writing. (Something that clearly comes from Paolini.)

Anything else usually comes from other characters, like the vegetarian thing.



khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/17/2009 8:19:12)

Firefly: Whoops, I just love misinterpreting others... >.>

I agree that it's definitely better to write a good story than to focus on getting perfect equilibrium in the way you type cast you characters, reveal differing viewpoints, etc, etc. However, the fact that Paolini doesn't even bother trying to get some sense of equality in his books (and I'm using equality in the broadest sense of that word) is slightly agitating me a little, not quite as big as the other issues, but nevertheless annoying. I guess I should let the 'preachiness' aspect drop, as you and several others in this thread have said, it might not be Paolini's motive to convert us all into hippie vegans so I probably shouldn't be judging that either. <.<

If you can't think of anything to describe Eragon at all, can you possibly describe Saphira, who does even less than Eragon? Or any of the other characters for that matter (with the exception of Murtagh, who surprisingly has more depth and personality as well as more extensive character development, than all of the other plot bunnies in the book put together).

Xirmi: His rashness and arrogance are indeed the 'oh-so tragic flaws' that Paolini attempts to instill in his character to avoid the cliche pit of Mary Sueism/Gary Stuism. However, to me at least, it just makes Eragon seem a little airbrained and slightly mentally challenged.

Worst of all, he is still a Mary Sue/Gary Stu. I don't think Eragon has lost any battles to date, only one time to Vanir, because he wasn't an uber elf-human hybrid thing at the the time (which he then 'remedied' by becoming an elf-human hybrid and humiliating Vanir later*) and the other to Murtagh, because Murtagh apparently 'cheated'.

*I was just wandering along my train of thought and followed this track. Was Eragon's transformation an example of character development or Deus ex Machina? To me it seems like the latter, because Paolini likes to tell not to show, particularly with the essential aspects of character development. Cast your minds back to when Eragon still had the cute little baby blue dragon. How did Paolini explain that little dragon's growth again? Oh yeah. "Growth Spurt". Nothing else.

Sorry if you guys don't understand the above paragraph. I was practicing the contemporary writing style "Stream of Consciousness" randomly for that short space of time. Don't ask me why. Hope it's still legible.

~K~



Erason -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/17/2009 9:37:44)

While character devolpment of Eragon is low, the power devolpment is quite interesting. You read the first book, and see him struggling to lift a pebble with magic, and then the thrid book, where he can do lots of pwny things. Then you wonder how on earth Eragon reached that level without you noticing. A reread will show he slowly devlops power, in a way I think is very well-written.

On another note, I expect the fourth book to have more character development, especially for Sappira and Eragon. Some chapters in the third book is written from Sapphira's oint of view, which crafts a personality for her better.



Xirminator -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/17/2009 17:47:38)

Well, it still doesn't explain how he developed from a magical nobody to an unparalleled magician in the space of a few months, dragon-rider or not.

Also, a note Saphira's point of views. In my opinion, Paolini made her look stupid by the way she referred to things. After two whole novels referring to people as "Brom", "Murtagh" and "Arya", I would have expected her to keep doing it.



Erason -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/17/2009 18:46:32)

I liked the aspect of the terminology used by Saphira. it seems less human and more of a calculating powerful beast. And she did refer to Nausda as Nausda and several other major characters by their names.



Firefly -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/19/2009 18:15:10)

@Khalim
Actually, I find that almost every other character in the story is easier to pin down than Eragon. Saphira is sarcastic, temperamental, and hilariously dangerous when drunk. Sloan is selfish and jerkish, but I heard--and this is only hearsay--that he does things to protect his daughter in his own way. Roran is determined if a bit confused. Arya is proud--borderline arrogant--skilled, and a sharp with her tongue as she is with her blade. I'd say that any of these characters are better-crafted than Eragon, who is probably the most cliche of the lot. But your mileage may vary.

The "I can't find anything to describe" Eragon was an exaggeration/joke. I simply meant that he was a bland character, and "typical hero" probably covers most of it.

@Erason
No offence, but Eragon's growth of power was a major annoyance to me. In the span of around a month, he manages to become on par with Murtagh at swords? Just from lessons from Brom? Remember, Murtagh has probably been training all his life, and he's not stupid or untalented. Eragon, on the other hand, shows little makings of a genius and still manages to gain all that power? Sorry, but something tells me that it was given to him by a certain young author whose first name starts with a C...



khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/20/2009 5:45:52)

I also find that the power development is rather abrupt. He learns to become a master swordsman in 1 month (this includes the mastery of both left and right hands), learns to read and write in less than a week and becomes as adept as the elves in magic after the Deus ex Machina ceremony in Duweldensvarden.

That's a wee bit hard to swallow.

Of course, God (AKA the author who's name starts with C) does not want Eragon to suffer any hardships in life. He easily beats anyone he encounters, unless they're 'cheating,' of course. *coughmurtaghcough*. It just seems a case where 'C' always says to Eragon "Look at your weak friends, they're nothing without you. Now Eragon, go and be awesome!" (as seen in the siege of the whatever city it was in the Green Brick).

'C' loves Eragon too much for him to get hurt (permanently, at least), to suffer pain, experience hardship, etc, etc. That's what makes Eragon, to me at least, the most boring character I've ever read (Spot the Dog coming a very close second though). There was one point when I was breathing with relief at 'C's' supposed maturation in the way he dealt with his protagonist - and that was when Eragon had a scar on his back that served as a painful reminder of his battle with the Shade. However, in the next book, 'C' just simply couldn't have his character flawed in any way, and thus removed the only real imperfection Eragon has ever experienced. Of course, it stands to reason you couldn't be "more beautiful than any man, more rugged than any elf" if you had a long ropey, twisted scar on your back, couldn't you?

To me, Firefly, Saphira fulfills the role of either the 'perfect lassie', as described by The Epistler, or as "Eragon's infodumping grandma", as another person puts it. She has no personality and is only there to provide painful comic relief. Being a descendant of such a 'proud and fearless race', it is surprising that Saphira has never once, objected to Eragon. Ever. Saphira, who apparently has wisdom passed down for thousands of years rolling like a trained lapdog to an arrogant teenage male is not something I could swallow.

The only times that I recall where Saphira chides Eragon was when she didn't allow him to go off with the voluptuous brunette of the Du Vrangar Gatta, also known as Trianna (matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match indeed). She later reprimands Eragon for chasing Arya, saying that she is far to old for him, and yet still tries to get it on with her ancient senile teacher (hypocrisy, much?). Saphira, in short, acts only as a comic-relief sidekick, a talking magical pet and, what I find most disturbing, a matchmaker throughout all three books.




Erason -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/20/2009 12:42:49)

While I do admit that his power growth is aurpt, Eragon (Darn the change-your-name-only-once-rule) at least has a reason for it, i.e being a Dragon Rider.
And I can think of many incidents where Sapphira stood up to Eragon. Once, when he attempted to kill a lot of urgals with magic. then another where he refused to fly her. And then we have the whole Arya thing. Plus, the Helgrind thing, when he had to force her to go with magic, and she had to fly away otherwise she would kill him.

About the Scar thing: Eragon gained a imperfection, he overcame it. What's so strange about that?

Onto the "he beats everyone he sees". While, from a critical point of view, it's not necessary good, it is very popular for people to see the hero rise up and wallop the person who was constantly besting him. You can see this in many books, a example being Harry Potter, where Harry & Co. always get their revenge on Malfey at the end of every book.



Arzamol -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/20/2009 17:28:41)

quote:

The only times that I recall where Saphira chides Eragon was when she didn't allow him to go off with the voluptuous brunette of the Du Vrangar Gatta, also known as Trianna (matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match indeed). She later reprimands Eragon for chasing Arya, saying that she is far to old for him, and yet still tries to get it on with her ancient senile teacher (hypocrisy, much?). Saphira, in short, acts only as a comic-relief sidekick, a talking magical pet and, what I find most disturbing, a matchmaker throughout all three books
There is a diference. They were the last dragons, age isn't quite as important as keeping a species alive...



illusion99 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/21/2009 4:05:52)

quote:

Onto the "he beats everyone he sees". While, from a critical point of view, it's not necessary good, it is very popular for people to see the hero rise up and wallop the person who was constantly besting him. You can see this in many books, a example being Harry Potter, where Harry & Co. always get their revenge on Malfey at the end of every book.



That is so common that i think if critics are gonna complain that about one book then they might as well complain about that to almost every book! killing everyone in sight is sooo common in fantasy stuff or what ever involves violence! in the end the good guys always win although some authors turn the tables around and make the enemy win.not to mention that is a bit common in comic books



khalim456 -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/21/2009 9:42:03)

quote:

While I do admit that his power growth is aurpt, Eragon (Darn the change-your-name-only-once-rule) at least has a reason for it, i.e being a Dragon Rider.
And I can think of many incidents where Sapphira stood up to Eragon. Once, when he attempted to kill a lot of urgals with magic. then another where he refused to fly her. And then we have the whole Arya thing. Plus, the Helgrind thing, when he had to force her to go with magic, and she had to fly away otherwise she would kill him.


If the excuse that 'he/she is my protagonist so I can accelerate her physical and mental training to exagerated proportions', Harry Potter, for example, would not have lasted for 7 books. It would have just been 1, because in the first month, Harry would have already learned everything he needs to know and would have also surpassed Dumbledore in strength, akin to how Eragon in 1 month surpasses Brom.

But when does Saphira actually get her own way in the books? There is only one time that she gets her own way and that sadly resulted in a the death of a poor minor character. It seems as if Paolini is telling the audience that "See what happens when you leave the dragon in charge? All they do is get your uncle killed!" This inequality in the Saphira-Eragon relationship, or all Rider-Dragon relationships, is further emphasized by the fact that when Riders die, their dragons die too, but this effect does not work vice-versa. If the relationship was truly equal, both would have to die if one of their partners were killed.

quote:

There is a diference. They were the last dragons, age isn't quite as important as keeping a species alive...


Glaedr doesn't think so. And he has more wisdom than Saphira does. So there is something Paolini is holding back at this point. Because if there are only 4 dragons left willing to mate (Shruikan, Thorn, Saphira and the unknown 'Green Dragon'), inbreeding would be a devastating flaw resulting from the limited gene pool available. Scrap the reality, if you will, but then this is also roadblocked by another actor - the dragon's own sense of morality. Glaedr is unwilling to mate with Saphira because of their substantial age difference, so it would be likely to assume that the dragons don't take kindly to incest either. So either Paolini has several more eggs up his sleeves, random dragons that escaped the purge of Galby or the traditional "Don't worry about me, dear heart. There will be more dragons when we cross the ocean blue." Personally, I will retch if the last option is picked. It's almost as bad as ending a horror story with "And then he/she woke up."

quote:

About the Scar thing: Eragon gained a imperfection, he overcame it. What's so strange about that?


His only imperfection. One, little, itty-bitty flaw. And Paolini couldn't bear to have his hero flawed in any way, and thus removed it with a Deus ex Machina ceremony. It would have been remotely passable if Eragon himself overcame the imperfection with a little bit of soul-searching and acceptance to live with that flaw, however, he was just lucky enough to get healed by some elves during their magical feast harvest thingamajig. Nothing on his part whatsoever. Might I remind you again that this is was his only imperfection?

quote:

(Darn the change-your-name-only-once-rule)


Why are you so worried? I assume that everyone in L&L would be intelligent enough to not judge character solely on the name of one's account on a Gaming Forum, at least I certainly don't. Erason sounds cool any way, so just chillax and keep debating. ;)




Erason -> RE: Eragon - Epistler #2 *Warning - May Contain Spoilers* (8/21/2009 22:37:58)

quote:

If the excuse that 'he/she is my protagonist so I can accelerate her physical and mental training to exagerated proportions', Harry Potter, for example, would not have lasted for 7 books. It would have just been 1, because in the first month, Harry would have already learned everything he needs to know and would have also surpassed Dumbledore in strength, akin to how Eragon in 1 month surpasses Brom.


Yes, I agree that "He is a Dragon Rider, he gets to become uber-powerful in a fraction of the needed time" is abused, but at least it's a reason. Some similer books don't even give a reason.

quote:


But when does Saphira actually get her own way in the books? There is only one time that she gets her own way and that sadly resulted in a the death of a poor minor character. It seems as if Paolini is telling the audience that "See what happens when you leave the dragon in charge? All they do is get your uncle killed!" This inequality in the Saphira-Eragon relationship, or all Rider-Dragon relationships, is further emphasized by the fact that when Riders die, their dragons die too, but this effect does not work vice-versa. If the relationship was truly equal, both would have to die if one of their partners were killed.

Palino doas need to work on a way to make Saphira a more independent character, but she doas tell Erason to do/not do lots of stuff. Something of the top of my head is wearing Zaroc in Tronjhem.
And I do not recall that dragon's die when the rider is killed. I know both sDragon and Rider would go insane or die if their partner died, but not that dragons will always die.

quote:


His only imperfection. One, little, itty-bitty flaw. And Paolini couldn't bear to have his hero flawed in any way, and thus removed it with a Deus ex Machina ceremony. It would have been remotely passable if Eragon himself overcame the imperfection with a little bit of soul-searching and acceptance to live with that flaw, however, he was just lucky enough to get healed by some elves during their magical feast harvest thingamajig. Nothing on his part whatsoever. Might I remind you again that this is was his only imperfection?

Everyone has their own preferred character setup, and I like characters that don't get tortured to move a finger up and down. I do dislike way over-powered characters, like in the Molly Moon books, but, as long as Glaby and Murthugh are more powerful then Eragon, I don't have a problem.

quote:

Why are you so worried? I assume that everyone in L&L would be intelligent enough to not judge character solely on the name of one's account on a Gaming Forum, at least I certainly don't. Erason sounds cool any way, so just chillax and keep debating. ;)

Heh! How different then the OOC room.[&:]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.1401367