Well, guess that means my opinion on internal conflict isn't valid then, either, as I have an account with Shurty...
Antishurtugal was started by people who disliked the book. Obviously they're going to write negative reviews of it. This isn't a bias, this is their personal opinion. They're certainly welcome to it. An obvious result of disliking a book is... shockingly enough, you don't think it was well-written/well-characterized. As someone who doesn't entirely hate the book, I'd tend to agree with foxypope's article. Eragon really doesn't show much internal conflict, and he should.
edited 18th May '11 8:17:57 PM by Alynnidalar
http://blip.tv/the-literary-critic/eragon-part-1-3725243
http://blip.tv/the-literary-critic/eragon-part-2-3795372
Eh. I think I'll keep my faith in Paolini till the last book. I'll judge then.
Likes many underrated webcomicsI can't wait for the new book :3
While I'm here, I think I'll deal with some criticisms
- The basic plot has already been done: I see no problem with this. Yes he starts off with his uncle, but does Luke have a cousin? Does his father actually help him while prentending to be the Obi Wan? Does he have a dragon? Did he loose his lightsabe because his half-brother claimed it as his inheritance? Does he have A DRAGON? Does he have a love intrest? The answer to those questions is NO. Also, all the similatrities that Eragon DOES have with characters like Luke are in no way delibrate. They're more... coincdences, like Oromis and Yoda. Let's see, Eragon needs to learn how to use magic and how to fight another dragon rider, but none of the elven mages can teach him what he needs to take on the evil king, so what does Paolini do? He introduces a Yoda that has an ACTUAL excuse for not already fighting (in fact, oromis and his dragon DIE fighting Murtagh).
Paolini may be using Eragon as an Author Avatar , but that's hardly obvious, nor do I care. Its pretty clear that Good will defeat Evil in this story, but I'm here for the details, like WHAT THE F**K WERE THE GREY ONES.
As for bland characters: Wut
The characters are all nicely written, with no blandness as far as I can see. I honestly cannot see where this criticism is coming from, AT ALL.
This series may use a lot of tropes that more famous works used and in fact created, but Paolini crafts a world that is interesting, vibrant, and filled with miscellaneous details, like the history and culture of the dwarves, the nature of magic itself, and the origins of humans in Alageasia. The books are enjoyable and are of high quality, and concerns about the books are not factual but instead opinion based.
And thus I say good night to ye
edited 5th Jun '11 8:56:03 PM by badgertaco
TALOSTALOSTALOSTALOSTALOSTALOSThe character relationships may not be quite the same, but they play the same roles in the plot. It's mostly the first book that's a ripoff; Paolini deviated starting the second book, but still, that doesn't mean they're masterpieces.
I haven't read the books in a while, but since I don't remember anything meaningful about the characters, I will conclude that if not bland, they are still poorly written.
Warm hugs and morally questionable advice given here. Prosey BitchfestThey left little to no impression on me. I never felt their joys and sorrows. They did not feel like real people.
Warm hugs and morally questionable advice given here. Prosey BitchfestI never look for flaws unless I am told to, say for a critique. They just come along and slap me in the face. Usually, if I think about a character from a series I've read, I can think of at least a couple of traits that helped cement that character as unique, their own person. When I think of Eragon, I can only come up with "meh, nothing special" or "I NEED TO SLAP THOSE ELVES SO BADLY". Now, although the elves, Saphira, and Eragon give me a strong reaction, it's the exact opposite of what Paolini intended. Therefore, their personalities, whatever they may be, are poorly represented.
I think the last sentence might have contradicted a previous statement and I apologize, but take this post as mostly true because I come up with things at the last minute sometimes :P
Warm hugs and morally questionable advice given here. Prosey BitchfestFor central characters, it's certain death.
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchI only read the first book. In fact, I own it on my bookshelf.
Yeah, it was pretty cliche, but it's good enough for a read or two. I wouldn't know just how different it is from the original English version, but sometimes translations tend to lose some of the things people are annoyed by (particularly Purple Prose and such). It doesn't really make me wanna read the other books however.
"Liar liar on the wall, give the world to me..."@Snowfox
Just because YOU didn't like or care for the characters doesn't mean they're bland or poorly written. I find the characters to be excellent and well developed, with meaningful backstories. I mean, even Orik told Eragon a story about carving stone trees and hunting a giant wild boar! Oromis came across as a Yoda in elf form (which is not a bad thing). Roran is clearly a man driven by the desire to protect his loved ones, and pretty much every elf besides that one blacksmith is incredibly melancholy with bursts of superhum an emotion (wait, what does that even mean?).
You have not provided any actual relevant criticisms, only your own opinions.
Also, Paolini didn't just create a well developed world, he made an EXCELLENTLY developed world, even going so far as to invent new languages for the dwarves and for magic, providing a mini dictionary of words used from languages in the little universe he's written up. THAT is talent, and I challenge any troper here to top that. /end rantmode
@below
I hardly felt katrina was shallow, and since when is the likabilty of characters NOT determined by their relationship to the main character? Thats practically a staple of ANY single-person motivated story
edited 6th Jun '11 3:00:30 AM by badgertaco
TALOSTALOSTALOSTALOSTALOSTALOSMehhhhhhhhno. The motivations are there, but they are shallow, at best. I mean, sure, you have the whole Roran must go find Katrina debacle, but she's a shallow love interest at best, disposable woman at the worst. And it's rather hard to see the characters as particularly deep when their likability is determined by their relationship to Eragon.
Read my stories!^^I quite disagree about having an excellently developed world. It's reasonably simple to devise a set of words and a basic magic system. There's no evidence to suggest that Paolini has done as Tolkien did, inventing a new language with actual grammatical rules and a "history".
Likewise, a bit of backstory is not nearly enough to make a character likeable or well-developed. Character is found in agency, motivations, interactions with others, how they grow. Backstory has to be consistent with how they act without merely providing a cheap reason. We don't get to see a lot of that in Eragon, and what we do see is generally unoriginal.
"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - BocajBadgertaco, you're not exactly presenting anything other than your own opinions either. I didn't add anything to suppport mine because I had some computer issues to deal with and I've been ninja'd overnight, so I needn't bother. Would you care to present some in-book evidence that prove that these characters are well written?
As for that little challenge of yours, I'd be glad* to show you my worldbuilding notes for my two projects.
edited 6th Jun '11 6:55:30 AM by snowfoxofdeath
Warm hugs and morally questionable advice given here. Prosey Bitchfest

Please do not forget. This is the man who slaughtered an innocent soldier when he could, in fact, have ran away, and been far away before the soldier could have reported in.
There are too many toasters in my chimney!