TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The Inheritance Cycle

Go To

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#251: Jun 13th 2011 at 10:55:05 PM

And then what? Just, not post in the thread?

Because, after all, without being able to discuss differing viewpoints there's hardly anything to say about the series.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
snowfoxofdeath Thou errant flap-dragon! from San Francisco Suburb Since: Apr, 2012
Thou errant flap-dragon!
#252: Jun 13th 2011 at 11:02:55 PM

Well, here it is, then. I didn't want to do this for fear of looking lazy, but I feel that this does the job better than I can.

Dude, making a thread that says, "NO HATERS" isn't exactly good form. It makes you look bitter.

Warm hugs and morally questionable advice given here. Prosey Bitchfest
dontcallmewave Brony? Moi? surely you jest! from My home Since: Nov, 2013
Brony? Moi? surely you jest!
#253: Jun 13th 2011 at 11:22:47 PM

We could do what I tried to bring up before: discuss what parts of the books we like most.

And yeah, I am a little bitter. I cant discuss favorite book series without people trying to convince me to hate it.

edited 13th Jun '11 11:25:09 PM by dontcallmewave

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#254: Jun 13th 2011 at 11:28:42 PM

We're not trying to goddamned convince you to hate it.

You can fucking enjoy a book that has flaws.

We are trying to get you to acknowledge them and tell us why you like it.

Instead, you have continuously ignored our points, even after I asked you to address them.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
dontcallmewave Brony? Moi? surely you jest! from My home Since: Nov, 2013
Brony? Moi? surely you jest!
#255: Jun 13th 2011 at 11:31:51 PM

Which points have I ignored exactly? I think I adressed your arguments adaquatly.

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#256: Jun 13th 2011 at 11:33:44 PM

  • Killing a drafted soldier who was fleeing for his life, after yelling at Murtagh in an earlier book for killing a slaver in the same situation.
  • Committing genocide (It may not be genocide, but as far as Eragon knows it is.)
  • Attempting to kill Murtagh after Murtagh has been bound to serve Galbatori, and refusing to show mercy after Murtagh did.

Not to mention reading the article above and giving your thoughts about it.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
dontcallmewave Brony? Moi? surely you jest! from My home Since: Nov, 2013
Brony? Moi? surely you jest!
#257: Jun 13th 2011 at 11:35:26 PM

I specifically said that I will reply to those later earlier in the thread.

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#258: Jun 13th 2011 at 11:37:17 PM

Because you would be gone.

And yet you are here, posting, in this thread.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
dontcallmewave Brony? Moi? surely you jest! from My home Since: Nov, 2013
Brony? Moi? surely you jest!
#259: Jun 13th 2011 at 11:44:12 PM

I can make short posts now. Those questions would require more lengthy posts, which are somewhat difficult at the moment for me.

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#260: Jun 13th 2011 at 11:45:24 PM

Ah. That makes sense.

Would you be willing to give any articles we post here a fair chance?

I mean, you can refute them and hold your own position, but would you read and consider anything we post?

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
Dealan Since: Feb, 2010
#261: Jun 14th 2011 at 2:43:24 AM

About the genocide thing:

1)It's not genocide (and Eragon knows this!).

As far as I remember, Oromis said that humans arrived to Agalaisia long ago, and they were followed by the Ra'zac. So I assumed that:

a)There are more humans in other islands/continents b)There are also more Ra'zac there.

Why would you think that every single Ra'zak in existance somehow was among those that came to Agalaisia? It doesn't make sense. The same, of course, goes with humans. So Eragon knows that he's only killed all the Ra'zac in his continent. Not in the world.

2)Even if it was a genocide, what's wrong with it? (Genocides are awesome!)

First of all, we are talking about the Ra'zac here. They are, according to Oromis, humans' natural predators. That means that, if they reach a certain population, and the other races don't do anything about it, humans are utterly screwed.

In a normal situation, the decision of whether to kill all Ra'zac or not would be a decision between holding your moral high ground and ensuring your species survival, not mention thriving (the later being impossible otherwise.)

But this is not a normal situation. For Eragon, it's personal. They are the most loyal servants of Galbatorix. They kill people, eat them, and they enjoy it. He also happened to spend half a book with "I hate the Ra'zac" being his main motivation. They killed both of his parents. They destroyed his village, and killed a big number of the people he personally knows. They ate one of them, thus causing him to suffer eternal torment. They also do this regularly to slaves.

Three out of four are already dead, and they died as enemies during one of his missions, so I don't think anyone thinks their deaths are immoral for Eragon.

But what about the fourth? Considering all the above, would you say it doesn't make sense for a "hero" to kill them? Or refusing to have them be remembered? Sure, it's not the "saint" choice, but if you have a problem with that, then you expect Eragon to be completely, absolutely good and pure and perfect.

3)The genocide had already happened, and it was too late anyway. (Or so I think.)

As far as I remember, Ra'zac actually have genders. With only one of them left, they are not able to reproduce anymore, right?

CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#262: Jun 14th 2011 at 2:58:22 AM

Point one.

Eragon does not know if there are more Ra'Zac here or not.

Oromis never told him whether all the humans came over or not. After all, how could he have known? The elves came to Alagaesia before the humans did, and the humans and elves were fighting for some time after that.

The humans fled to Alagaesia some time after the elves. Behind them came the Ra'Zac, humankind's natural predators, and the Lerthblaka, which are essentially fuckin' dragons without magic. And remember, the humans did not have bonds with the dragons before they came to Alagaesia. Which means they did not have any defence against these great big... things eating them, any more than humans did against dragons.

So as to why the humans, who were being preyed upon by things they had next to no defence against, decided to leave for a different continent... I'll leave this up to your imagination.

Point two.

One of the Ra'Zac was female. Therefore, no, they were not going extinct anyway.

Point three.

It being personal does not matter. No matter what a race or species has done to you personally, it does not give you permission to hunt them down and slaughter them in cold blood.

Point four.

Even if the genocide is justified, it is a really, really, really bad idea to willingly not record them for future reference.

After all, what if you're right? What if there are more? Oh, no matter, we'll just go to the library and look them up. They're sure to have them listed there.

Oh wait.

.

Last but not least, I'll leave you with one saying to consider.

Those who forget the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
MrAHR Ahr river from ಠ_ಠ Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Ahr river
#263: Jun 14th 2011 at 2:59:18 AM

Well, two Ra'zac does not a population make. It will be all incesty by generation...2.

Read my stories!
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#264: Jun 14th 2011 at 3:04:34 AM

Some animals can survive that, though.

Plus, you know, magic.

And Eragon stated there may have been eggs scattered around. Except that was a lie, woops.

Honestly, I believe it was probably a good idea. But Eragon didn't do it to rid the world of cold-blooded human predators.

He did it because those predators killed someone he cared about.

And he proceeded to refuse to carry knowledge of them on because they couldn't give him enough knowledge on Galbatorix's plans.

edited 14th Jun '11 3:04:59 AM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#265: Jun 14th 2011 at 3:08:35 AM

Ah, here we go.

It is stated that Ra'Zac lays an egg upon maturation into a Lerthblaka.

Also, it is possible that the Ra'Zac reproduce asexually and/or are hermaphrodites.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
Dealan Since: Feb, 2010
#266: Jun 14th 2011 at 3:18:33 AM

Point four:

I thought too that not storing any knowledge about them was a bad idea, but I kinda figured that the elves would have enough stuff written. Though yes, depending on the (dickish) elves who are out of your reach anyway is a bad idea. Also, I don't remember if Eragon said he'd actively ommit any mention of them whatsoever, or if he denied actively spreading tales about them. There's a huge difference between the two. (Again, I don't actually remember which of the two it was.)

Point three:

Err, he didn't hunt them down. He rescued Katrina, and defended himself in the process. He could leave the last one, yes, but a)this was anyway a bad idea, due to point one and b)Ra'zac are elite, loyal units of the Empire. The fact that they are the last ones is kind of irrelevant when they could screw your rebellion.

Again, I'm not saying it's morally right. I'm saying that, for me, it's not enough to make Eragon seem evil or psycho. His actions are perfectly understandable.

Point one:

Eragon does not know if there are more Ra'Zac here or not.

Umm, where does here mean?

Also, Oromis told something about Pallagar taking his family and/or followers and coming there. I think that it implied there were more humans abroad. But in any case, isn't highly improbably that every single one human (or Ra'zac) was amongst those refugees?

There rest of point one is facts that are in favour of the genocide.

EDIT: Ninjaed. In that case, Eragon is directly responsible for their extinction, no doubt about it.

edited 14th Jun '11 3:20:04 AM by Dealan

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#267: Jun 14th 2011 at 3:27:31 AM

On consideration, I don't actually think killing the Ra'zac was that morally wrong an act. They're doomed here anyway, because with that level of genetic variability they'd have terrible immune systems and would probably end up with destructive recessive genes anyway.

On the telling people about them point, didn't the Ra'zac basically ask him to tell people bone-chilling stories about how awful they were? Make them into bogeymen that humans fear? I don't think he's too unreasonable in denying that.

edited 14th Jun '11 3:28:09 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#268: Jun 14th 2011 at 3:29:14 AM

Also, I don't remember if Eragon said he'd actively ommit any mention of them whatsoever, or if he denied actively spreading tales about them.

Eragon, Roran, and Saphira traveled to Helgrind, where the Ra'zac's secret lair was located. Roran killed one of the Ra'zac, which was revealed to be female, before freeing Katrina, while Saphira slew both of the Lethrblaka. After Roran, Katrina, and Saphira departed, Eragon confronted the last Ra'zac. It spoke with him before fighting, saying that Galbatorix would defeat Eragon even if they should fall, because, "He has more heartsss than you do", probably referring to the Eldunarí in Galbatorix's possession.

The last Ra'zac then requested that Eragon ensure that they were remembered by the human race with the image they had always represented: fear, the monsters in the dark. In return, it offered to tell Eragon a secret; Galbatorix was close to finding "the true name." Eragon refused to parley with the Ra'zac, saying the information was not definite enough to warrant a favor. The Ra'zac cursed Eragon in anger, saying "Curssse you, Rider! I curssse you! May you find no roossst nor den nor peace of mind in thisss land of yours. May you leave Alagaësia and never return!". The Ra'zac attacked Eragon, who won the ensuing fight by killing the Ra'zac.

The exact line is:

"Remember usss... asss fear."

Which is fair enough. They are predators, and should be remembered as such. They are not easy prey for humans.

Also, Oromis told something about Pallagar taking his family and/or followers and coming there. I think that it implied there were more humans abroad. But in any case, isn't highly improbably that every single one human (or Ra'zac) was amongst those refugees?

It was not one single Ra'Zac who followed them over. It was hundreds of them. The Riders had to kill most of them.

The fact that humans still did not know what the Ra'Zac were, less than a hundred years later...

And the amount of refugees/Ra'Zac who came over to Alagaesia is not clear. It's never said how many, if any, stayed behind. Or why any would stay behind in a realm infested with Ra'Zac.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
Dealan Since: Feb, 2010
#269: Jun 14th 2011 at 3:31:36 AM

So... you agree that it's very probable that there are more Ra'zac or not? I'm confused.

(Also, why should they have that stupid apostrophe in their name?)

edited 14th Jun '11 3:34:01 AM by Dealan

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#270: Jun 14th 2011 at 3:33:56 AM

So - the Ra'zac's request was that humanity remembers them as the embodiment of fear and death, something supernatural that cannot be fought. Eragon denied that - so maybe he just plans for them to be remembered as terrible monsters that are exceedingly difficult, but not impossible, to defeat?

Be not afraid...
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#271: Jun 14th 2011 at 3:34:55 AM

On consideration, I don't actually think killing the Ra'zac was that morally wrong an act. They're doomed here anyway, because with that level of genetic variability they'd have terrible immune systems and would probably end up with destructive recessive genes anyway.

Some animals can survive inbreeding.

Look at the South American Sea Lion. Historical analysis indicates that a population expansion from just two matrilineal lines are responsible for most individuals within the population. (From Wikipedia.)

And the gender of the Lerthblaka was never revealed. Nor is there any indication these Ra'Zac were the children of those Lerthblaka.

(You'll have to explain this, all I can understand is that it's apparently possible for populations to survive from as little as two female lines.)

edited 14th Jun '11 3:38:01 AM by CyganAngel

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#272: Jun 14th 2011 at 3:37:13 AM

So... you agree that it's very probable that there are more Ra'zac or not? I'm confused.

I'm saying there's not enough information to know either way, but it is more likely than not that all remaining humans fled to Alagaesia in fear of the Ra'zac.

So - the Ra'zac's request was that humanity remembers them as the embodiment of fear and death, something supernatural that cannot be fought. Eragon denied that - so maybe he just plans for them to be remembered as terrible monsters that are exceedingly difficult, but not impossible, to defeat?

No. Their request, their exact line in the book, was "Remember us as fear".

That was up to Eragon's interpretation. There are MANY types of fear they could be remembered as- including just fearsome predators.

There are too many toasters in my chimney!
Chaosjunction Since: Feb, 2010
#273: Jun 14th 2011 at 4:59:23 AM

It's quite funny how people ignore the fact that the Ra'Zac are cannibals. They eat people. We see them hunting deer, so it isn't as if they have to eat people. They are intelligent, so it isn't as if they don't know better. A race that eats another intelligent race for no reason other than the lulz don't get my compassion.

As for Sloan, the only thing Eragon did there was him being too nice. Say what you will, but at the end of the day, Sloan is still alive and doing fine and Roran and Katrina's marriage is still doing fine and well. Any other options Eragon could have taken would have lead to Sloan dying and being buried in a shallow grave somwehere and marital problems for his cousin. If it was me, I would have either left him there or dragged him back so he can be executed and let Roran deal with his marriage.

So to summarize, Eragon did something of great danger and inconvenience to him, so other people could live and be happy. What a horrible human being, right?

edited 14th Jun '11 5:01:55 AM by Chaosjunction

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#274: Jun 14th 2011 at 5:07:06 AM

It was rather cruel to forbid Sloan to ever see his daughter again. His daughter is literally the only person or thing he cares about - and one of the only things that might have helped him become a better person.

Be not afraid...
CyganAngel Away on the wind~ from Arcadia Since: Oct, 2010
Away on the wind~
#275: Jun 14th 2011 at 5:11:36 AM

the Ra'Zac are cannibals. They eat people

They'r cannibals because they eat species other than their own?

I'm not saying they're worthy of compassion. I'm saying that rather, Eragon did not hunt them down and slay them because they eat humans.

He hunted them and slew them, he committed genocide, because of what they, personally, did to him and his cousin.

Did it need to be done? Yes. But he didn't do it for the right reasons.

And even after that, he refused to record them in history. That's not only immoral (no matter how bad someone is, you don't wipe them from history books) it was fucking stupid.

As for Sloan, the only thing Eragon did there was him being too nice.

Please, remind me. What were Sloan's crimes again?

What gives Eragon any right to pass judgement on him?

To reiterate my first point, what crimes did he commit?

There are too many toasters in my chimney!

Total posts: 833
Top