The Cycle is an excellent deconstruction
The cycle is obviously all about Eragon, so it's no surprise that it's told from the eyes of a teenager. The cycle succeedes in feeling like it is from a teenagers view. The flaws in Eragon's actions don't make me hate the character, they make me cheer him on more when he still aspires to be a good person regardless.
Yes, the books are juvenile - that's the point of the perspective. A teenager trying to put right 100+ year old problems. Eragon is, importantly, trying to do the right thing - and often trying to work out what the right thing is. Not knowing what is right in any situation doesn't make him a sociopath or evil, it prevents him from being a Gary Stu
who does nothing wrong and makes no mistakes.
Maybe deconstruction is too harsh a term, but accidentally or on purpose (I think on purpose) the series repeatedly shows that no matter how much magical power or fighting prowess or desire to do right Eragon might have, it can't prevent him from being manipulated or help him resolve a moral dilemma. He just has to struggle about those like the rest of us.
5th Jun 10
5th Jun 10
Falling for traps, making tactical mistakes and being socially awkward are not moral decisions in the first place. How often does Eragon meet a realistic moral dilemma, debate it in a reasonable manner and come to a conclusion that helps the reader empathise more with his character? To be honest, not often.
16th Nov 10
17th Nov 10
Unintentional deconstruction? Heh.
26th Jan 11
(edited by: iheartmountains)
So, because Christopher Paolini's not assuming Viewers Are Morons
, and letting the story tell itself without blatantly imposing his own morality on the story (Letting viewers draw their own conclusions), it's a bad story? Each Author Tract
is undermined by the deliverer, causing the characters to have the most naturally
displayed flaws. He has [[Hypocrite hypocrites]] that avoid falling into the Straw Hypocrite
trope (Such as... everyone. But notably the Elves
sees the world in their own way, and generally try doing what they
think is right. The author averts And Thats Terrible
by avoiding moral judgement outside the scope of one character judging another, or a character judging themselves by their own sense of right and wrong. Due to the nature of the series' Canon, Eragon is a justified Mary Sue
, as the fate of the Constructed World does
revolve around him. It's actually be quietly deconstructed in the later books, with Paolini's unique writing style averting hanging a lampshade on it. Has the power corrupted Eragon? Maybe, but he's averted Jumping Off The Slippery Slope
Also, Paolini's confirmed that Eragon, while initially being an Author Avatar
in the first book, has become someone else entirely: Someone he's not afraid to show doing questionable deeds, and being called out on them (Or at least having characters discuss the morality). For the most part, though, when he's asked "What The Hell Hero
", his rebutal justifying his deeds isn't hailed as being correct as much as "True to his principals." They'd rather have a steadfast, slightly misguided hero than an unpredictable Well Intentioned Extremist
10th Feb 11
23rd Mar 11
(edited by: Gitman)
13th May 11
In order to post comments, you need to