Eragon: Inheritance, Book I (Inheritance Trilogy (Hardcover))

A long time ago in a fantasy world far, far away, a young boy living with his uncle on a farm dreams The Big Dream of adventure and excitement. When his uncle is tragically murdered by the lackies of Darth Vader - I mean, King Galbatorix - this young boy must escape with the help of an old Jedi - I mean, wizard, who will teach him the ways of the Force - I mean magic, definitely magic. This young...more

A long time ago in a fantasy world far, far away, a young boy living with his uncle on a farm dreams The Big Dream of adventure and excitement. When his uncle is tragically murdered by the lackies of Darth Vader - I mean, King Galbatorix - this young boy must escape with the help of an old Jedi - I mean, wizard, who will teach him the ways of the Force - I mean magic, definitely magic. This young boy has got to find the Rebel Alliance, the Varden, as the forces of the Empire closes in. That's never been done before, right? Eragon is not good fantasy. There is no innovation. The story is clearly structured after Star Wars, the cultures and languages are clearly taken from Lord of the Rings, and the magic system is stolen right out of Ursula le Guin's "Wizard of Earthsea" saga, the structure is based off of a wooden interpretation of the Hero's Journey, and his character and world names sound like sneezes (Durza, Murtagh, Galbatorix, etc.) Eragon is not good literature. Paolini's prose is clunky. He doesn't understand pacing at all, and he introduces irrelevant or unnatural details at odd points, like an aside about the nature of the magic system in the middle of an attack. All of his characters talk exactly the same, they have the social skills of ten-year-olds, and Brom's "wisdom" is clearly the pseudo-wisdom of a fifteen year old, and very often his descriptions are confusing or ambiguous. Why am I hitting so hard on Paolini? He's only fifteen, isn't he? Well, actually, no. He was nineteen when the book was professionally published, and it should have been totally rewritten. He was 21 or 22 when he wrote the second book. His writing should have improved, but if anything it has gotten worse. Another reason I am being so critical is that Paolini may have been 19, but he entered the real world of public discourse and so I'm going to treat his book like I would any other book and evaluate it based upon its artistic merit, literary value, and so on. A third reason is that Paolini is a success not because his book is good. It isn't. It really, honest to God, truly, utterly sucks. But it was written by a fifteen-year-old. The only reason it is making any money is because a fifteen year old had the commitment to write a book and get it published (which was a fluke, actually, and not based on any talent). It was a success because it feeds the desires of other angsty fifteen-year-olds who want to make it big by nineteen. I know I did. But you know what? I'm glad I didn't make it big by nineteen. Looking back, my work sucked more than Paolini's. There *is* such a thing as maturity, and it can only come with age. Nineteen is too young to be a New York Times bestselling published novelist, and Paolini is going to regret it later in life. A fourth reason is that Eragon is becoming an inspiration for kids as young as seven. This is disturbing because people aspire to aim for their inspirations, and instead of aiming for literature that is actually good, like Dracula, the Princes and the Goblin, Narnia, Lord of the Rings, the Odyssey, or, heck, even Harry Potter, these kids standards are being set by the likes of Eragon. Which means that these kids books are going to be *derivative* of Eragon, something that is itself *already* derivative. A fifth reason is that Paolini is an arrogant young man. He has publicly compared his own work to that of Tolkien, something which is entirely laughable, he claims he has created entire languages for the books, but these languages have no consistent grammatical structure and when spoken aloud sound like the speaker is having a seizure, and he talks like he knows everything there is to know about mythology, fantasy, and writing. I have no doubt that Paolini could grow up to be a good writer, but not if he thinks he has now learned everything there is to learn about writing. This book, however, by any objective literary standard there is, is simply terrible and I doubt very much if in fifty years they will be remembered as anything more than "those books that fifteen-year-old wrote." If that.   hide

Oh, Eragon. They're made a movie about it. Everyone I talk to that's read it says it's amazing, but I never got into it. I kept trying to read it, thinking that there must be something amazing about it, but I'm only ever let down by it. I know the beginning was poorly written. I mean, *goes to search for the book on her highly disorganized bookshelf* (I still have to organize that thing *groans*)...more

Oh, Eragon. They're made a movie about it. Everyone I talk to that's read it says it's amazing, but I never got into it. I kept trying to read it, thinking that there must be something amazing about it, but I'm only ever let down by it. I know the beginning was poorly written. I mean, *goes to search for the book on her highly disorganized bookshelf* (I still have to organize that thing *groans*) sentences are short and are generally of the same construction. Descriptions are more often than not,misleading, confusing and inaccurate. "'Get ready,' he whispered, his whole body vibrating." Rule number 1: people do not vibrate; vibrators vibrate. Even when you shiver, your whole body doesn't vibrate. I can quiver, it can shake, it can tremble, it can convulse if you're right on the edge of hypthermia. If you're excited and distracted you can totter, you can quaver, and throb and wobble and teeter. You can not vibrate. But in this instance, the "Shade" is excited! His body could be "thrumming" with anticipation. The shade should "almost be able to hear his blade sing though the air." Or possibly "hear the excitement pounding in tandem with the beat of his heart." Or maybe he could "smell the blood that would be spilled." Or maybe he could see the mystic lines of tension building in the clearing." Now maybe that might evoke some emotion in me. Maybe if he used some description to show what kind of creature this is, possibly describe the creature's imagination or the setting with the creature's words and thoughts, then I would be satisfied. All the shade is to me at this point is a bi-polar, excitable creature, that doesn't pose much of a threat. Make me fear this creature when I meet it. "His build was slim but strong, like a rapier." Now, there are many things you could compare to the construction and physical characteristics of a rapier, but a Human's build is not one of them. The animate vs. inanimate object don't make it quite a valid comparison. I mean, a rapier isn't even bendy. Yes, comparing someone's body composition to a whip is valid because the comparison is based largely on the type of movement that is similar between the two objects. Unless this elf being described has a handle and is a thin, deadly sharp piece of unbendable metal, the comparison doesn't work. "A helm of extraordinary craftsmanship, wrought with amber and gold, rested on his head.".... What kind of moron would wear a helmet of amber and gold out on a dangerous mission? And this wasn't a metal that looked like gold, or was similar to gold. No. The text clearly states that this helmet was made of gold. Now let me point out some reasons why gold isn't one of the best ideas. 1) Big mallet. 2) Soft metal. 3) Smash. Is this clear enough? This kind of armor is okay for a ceremony, but these people are obviously not conducting a ceremony or ritual anything. These people are dashing through the woods trying to protect this dragon egg, and wouldn't you think that they'd wear some armor that would protect them? Personally, I'd swap the helmet for something that might be a little lighter, and maybe let me dodge out of the way of said mallet, instead of having this great, unwieldy mass of metal on my head that wouldn't do a thing to protect me. Well, maybe if the mallet had spikes my brain wouldn't be pierced, but that's a moot point if your skull is broken into pieces and shreds your brain instead. "She carried in her lap a pouch that she frequently looked at, as if to reassure herself that it was still there." "As if" to reassure herself? As if? Why not just say that she's reassuring herself? The "as if" implies doubt of her reasons for looking at it. Isn't Paolini the author? Isn't he speaking thus far as an omnicient storyteller? Why is he expressing doubt? If Paolini is expressing doubt, this means that he is an unreliable narrator. So if Paolini is an unreliable narrator, this calls into question the entire rest of the story. You don't play with your reader's trust. If you intend to be an unreliable narrator, there had better be good reason, and you had better stick with it. Paolini also jumps from a narrator voice that knows thoughts and drives of his characters when talking about the creatures, but is curiously absent of definite emotions in the elves. However, none of the story is told with the words of anyone but Paolini. It's just not believable. Why do we know that the Shade's body is 'vibrating,' yet we can only guess at why the elf keeps looking at the pouch? And why else would she look at it? Is it of such an exquisite design that her eyes are drawn to it and it's mystical powers? Probably not, but who would think that? I mean, you have this important elf woman riding on a horse with a pouch in her lap. The fact that Paolini mentioned something as specific as a pouch when not describing a person's general appearance is going to make us pay attention and think it's important. Overall, it's just a bad sentence. Unimaginative, poorly constructed, and kind of redundant. "Garjzla!" Gesundheit! The story may be wonderful, but I'm sorry, I just can't get past his writing style. It's distracting, while at the same time managing to completely not hold my interest. I'm not past page three, people. Paolini said he started writing this book when he was 15. All I have left to add is this: It shows.    hide

What words can I use to describe the monstrosity that is 'Eragon'? Let's start with derivative, unoriginal, badly-written, and cliched. The prose is purple, the metaphors make no sense, inconsistencies abound, and I have yet to see a character that cannot be neatly labelled under 'Generic Fantasy Stereotype #18239'. I'm sure you've heard it time and time again: "'Eragon' is LOTR + Star Wars +...more

What words can I use to describe the monstrosity that is 'Eragon'? Let's start with derivative, unoriginal, badly-written, and cliched. The prose is purple, the metaphors make no sense, inconsistencies abound, and I have yet to see a character that cannot be neatly labelled under 'Generic Fantasy Stereotype #18239'. I'm sure you've heard it time and time again: "'Eragon' is LOTR + Star Wars + Pern + Earthsea + DnD + Any Fantasy Series In Recent Memory". Well, you heard right. The plot is a clearcut archetypal heroic journey, which excuses none of the lack of originality. If you find something in this series that is original and applied well, please let me know. No, vegan nudist hippie elves don't count. (Although technically that's in Eldest.) Now, I read fiction for the characters. Yes, the plot is an important part of any story, but I hold firm to the belief that it is the characters that drive the plot. So imagine my absolute disgust when I find that there is nary a single sympathetic character to be found in 'Eragon'. The hero himself? The term Gary-Stu was created for the likes of him. I'd like to know where the author got the idea that swordfighting can be taught in a matter of months. The requisite love interest then? (Let's not get into the fact that Our Hero falls in love without ever speaking to this young lady.) Eragon rescues her from certain doom, and she can't be arsed to give up even a half-hearted 'Thank you.' The dragon then? I mean, it's a dragon, it has to be cool! Sadly, Saphira is merely a tool of convenience, no matter what the author claims about the dragon-rider relationship. In the words of someone wiser than I, "Saphira is his robot puppy that can shoot missiles and transform into a car." So much for our main characters, huh? How about the villains? The first one we meet is the oh-so-scary Shade, Durza. He is given no motivations other than 'He's a Shade.' or 'He's working for the King.' Paolini also manages to botch up what I assume was an attempt at a redemption scene. After our scary villain kicks the proverbial bucket, we are treated to a long series of flashbacks explaining how 'Oh, he wasn't REALLY evil, it was the evil spirits!' The question it doesn't answer is: Why do I care? The new insight to the scary villain's character doesn't answer any questions the reader might have had, they do not reveal his motivations for earlier actions, and they do not serve to entertain. Our main villain? Never shows up on stage, and the only reason given for his supposedly evil actions is 'He's mad'. Way to pick on the mentally unstable, Paolini. On to the writing itself. I am willing to bet that the author is very fond of thesauruses. As any writing teacher worth their salt will tell you, please do not think that replacing one word with one pick at random from the thesaurus means that your vocabulary is sophisticated. In fact, don't think that the very meaning of your sentence will stay the same, or if the sentence will still make sense. I'm looking at you, 'cabuchons', 'bivouacked', and 'ablutions'. Don't even get me started on the numerous permutations of 'said'. Just look at this, look me straight in the eye, and tell me Paolini's editor was doing her job. "'Sorry,' apologized Brom." If you can do that, then I will take comfort in my knowledge that yes, people ARE that ignorant. You probably have a pretty good idea of how bad this book is by now, I should hope. If you aren't convinced, that's no skin off my back. But all the same, I'd recommend looking up Anti-Shur'tugal, where they critique 'Eragon' far better than I can. I'll conclude by saying that any further works of Christopher Paolini will not be finding their way onto my bookshelf.   hide

If this book is'nt the most derivative work of fiction ever writen, it's certainly a runner up. I created a list of books that he stole things from and which things, as well as his influences, for a customized project right after I read this book. when, later he came to quail ridge books to do a signing, I mentioned all the books that I could remember as well as a few I thought up from memories...more

If this book is'nt the most derivative work of fiction ever writen, it's certainly a runner up. I created a list of books that he stole things from and which things, as well as his influences, for a customized project right after I read this book. when, later he came to quail ridge books to do a signing, I mentioned all the books that I could remember as well as a few I thought up from memories of the book, I was right on all counts but one, plus he to told me I missed 1, the worm ourobourous. I had been searching for it awhile at the time, as it is out of print, when I later found it, my first thought was that paolini had/has delusions of grandeur. It is written in such a way that it would be impossible for a sub par writer to pull much of substance from that and string it together in any way without coming out with a string of nonsensical gibberish. I guess that one who is relatively inexperienced in reading speculative fiction might find this book amazing, due to the breadth and scope of his theivery, but on the whole it it is a monstrous mishmash of poor writing; terrible, flat, characters; and a mediocre plot that might actually come close to par for a first novel. Eragon is Paolini's new frankenstein, this time with no good intentions, saving graces, or redeeming qualites. Eragon got rejected from every publishing house Paolini sent it to, before one publisher's son read the self-published version, which he had purchased at a local bookstore, he liked it alot, and his father decided to publish. the good thing it does is tell us that BOOKpublication in the feild is possible for someone my age.the book may be an insult to everything it tries to imitate, a placeholder at best, but given paolini's age and inexperience, coupled with the probability that he never expected his book to become a bestseller, means that we can..SHOULD refrain from judging the author too harshly, and allow him, when both he and his writing mature, and he comes to his senses, to be judged afresh...allow him to let this work slink back out of print. Was it Anderson, who once said "I'm glad I don't have my first novel trotted out whenever I am introduced"?   hide