Dissecting Inheritance: Brisingr - And why people think it sucks

[imp_fireball]

Okay, so why exactly is the inheritance trilogy detested for all the money it's made? Why doesn't it deserve more respect than LotR, Star Wars, or other famous epics wrought with contrived dialogue? Nay, even fantasy series like the Wheel of Time, Dune and others, have a better cult following, in theory. In fact, the Eye of Argon is famous from nerd community to nerd community for both contrived dialogue and character expression! Both of which Eragon has!

Well okay, first lets look at this passage from pg. 458 'A Matter of Perspective'. The beginning of this chapter (of which I've only just read) attempts to take things 'into perspective' obviously from the title. It delves into the view points of other characters. As readers may find, the story has done this before, and this example contains nothing new -


The wind-of-the-morning-heat-above-flat-land, which was different from the wind-of-morning-heat-above-hills, shifted.
Saphira adjusted the angle of her wings to compensate for her weight thousands of feet above the sun-bathed land below. She closed her double eyelids for a moment, luxuriating in the soft bed of the wind, as well as the warmth of the morning rays beating down upon her sinewy length. She imagined how the light must make her scales sparkle and how those who saw her circling in the sky must marvel at the sight, and she hummed with pleasure, content in the knowledge that she was the most beautiful creature in Alagaesia, for who could hope to match the glory of her scales; and her long, tapering tail; and her wings, so fair and well formed; and her curved claws; and her long white fangs, with which she could sever the neck of a wild ox with a single bite? Not Glaedr-of-the-gold-sclaes, who had lost a leg during the fall of the Riders. Nor could Thorn or Shruikan, for they were both slaves to Galbatorix, and their forced servitude had twisted their minds. A dragon who was not free to do as he or she wished was not a dragon at all. Besides, they were males, and while males might appear majestic, they could not embody the beauty she did. No, she was the most stunning creature in Alagaesia, and that was as it should be.


She closed her double eyelids for a moment

Up until now, I never knew Saphira had double eyelids. Huh, neat.


She imagined how the light must make her scales sparkle and how those who saw her circling in the sky must marvel at the sight

She's done this before. We all know that. This must be how women get off. If they're dragons.


Nor could Thorn or Shruikan, for they were both slaves to Galbatorix, and their forced servitude had twisted their minds.

This has also been mentioned before, like eighty infinity times.


A dragon who was not free to do as he or she wished was not a dragon at all.

Oh, so it's a race thing is it?! A human that isn't free to do as he or she wishes is not a human at all! An urgal that isn't free to pee or poop wherever they so wish ain't no urgal I ever heard of - well at least that one's a fact, not necessarily a political belief.

In modern times Saphira might vote for the independent animal rights coalition for the advancement of draconic rights (even though their nigh-immortal nature gives them a bajillion of them anyway; read: draconian style). Wait a second, am I injecting more character into a creation that Paolini has been writing about for years? I should slow down.


Besides, they were males, and while males might appear majestic, they could not embody the beauty she did.

Oh, so it's a sex thing is it?!?! >:O

In truth: at least from what Saphira has seen of wounded beaten up old codjers, this has warped her perspective. Something the writer never ever delves into. That's right, in 700+ pages, he's more focused on the expression of repetitive descriptions, predictable battlefield locations, set-in-stone character roles, etc.

In character analysis conclusion: Saphira is a bit of an arrogant jerk. She's mean to pretty much everyone except those she's closest to. But in part, it's because everyone fears and secretly shuns her. The writer doesn't necessarily delve into this, except to say, 'She's tough, she can take it. She doesn't afraid of anything'.


Her happiness had only one flaw, but it was a profound flaw, and the longer she considered it, the more discontented she grew, until she realized she was no longer satisfied; she wished Eragon were with there to share the day with her.

This is probably the deepest emotional connection we ever see in the entire trilogy. By writer logic, this may be because he thinks readers can relate to this the most - and while it's particularly hard to relate to a half-elf kid and his huffy pet dragon, the main reason behind it is implacably that readers met Saphira and Eragon first. By that logic, every other character must remain a mystery. I don't need to point out the obvious flaws in that.


If he died because she was no longer there to protect him, she would have no reason to continue living, save for revenge. She knew she would tear his killers apart and then she would fly on the black city of the egg-breaker-traitor who had kept her imprisoned for so many decades, and she would do her best to slay him, no matter that it would mean certain death for her.

Okay, wow. This pretty much sums up Saphira quite cleanly. Her entire life revolves around Eragon and enforcing her own draconian lifestyle. From the writer's perspective, and compared to everything else in the world, this isn't really all that bad. In fact, it represents one of the defining powers of team good. If she loses Eragon, she'll be super bummed because her life contains no more purpose - a decisively clean way of getting rid of a character that fit to its purpose. In fact, this leaves little room for surpise. What else will happen? Saphira dies but Eragon survives? Eragon will get the speech (read: buck up, sister), and move on. Saphira on the other hand will kill herself, because the molecular particles that make up her character are too construed and unstable to exist in the space time continuum that is a universe without Eragon.


She was not a wild dragon.

Like good and evil in world full of anti-heroes and gray and gray morality, there's a very fine line between savagery and civility. Then again, this was pretty much the dark ages and life prior to media (or even the internet, for those particularly sheltered among us) in a nutshell. The line between a wild dragon (a dragon without a master; a dragon that isn't truly a 'dragon' by Saphira's philosophy), and a dragon dragon (the opposite) is like the line between the barbarian (the man who can't pronounce 'bread and butter' in the way 'god intended') and the civilized societal member (the one who can and in the way 'god intended').


She had urged him to obey Nasuada and travel to the mountains-higher-than-she-could-fly, but now too long had passed, and Saphira felt cold and empty in her gut.

So why send Eragon to those mountains in the first place? Doesn't her entire character revolve around loving Eragon? Conundrum! Wait, perhaps this connection was established by warrior comraderie? Points for Paolini there, because that is one of the few things traditional fantasy trilogies touch on best. And yet, Paolini doesn't delve into this. He hopes readers will get a feeling of 'Of course she'd push Eragon to do what needs to be done to defeat the enemy and win the day, because things will flow more quickly that way.' There's no reason beyond Saphira somehow having some crazy sense of incredible LG paladin honor that exceeds her bond to Eragon and of which involves winning the day. I wonder how she manages to get up in the morning.
--------

So in short, I've postulated that people mainly don't like Eragon because it touches on so much in the way of conflict and yet never ever delves deeper than a piece of wood floating on an ocean. Something pretty much every fantasy in the history of ever has suffered from since the dawn of time - too convey so much and yet express so little.

If I feel like it, I'll get back to this.

[Brewdude]

So let me get this straight. You're postulating, on a board populated by role playing game web comic readers, that Eregon sucks no less than any other fantasy, and use examples of it's suckitude to prove it?

I'm afraid all you've proven is that Eregon sucks. Something we already knew. Now to complete your argument, you need to show that these other works you've cited suck equally. I mean, where are the citations of braid pulling and arms crossed in front of busoms? What kind of a rant is this? Pfah.

[imp_fireball]

So let me get this straight. You're postulating, on a board populated by role playing game web comic readers, that Eregon sucks no less than any other fantasy, and use examples of it's suckitude to prove it?

I'm afraid all you've proven is that Eregon sucks. Something we already knew. Now to complete your argument, you need to show that these other works you've cited suck equally. I mean, where are the citations of braid pulling and arms crossed in front of busoms? What kind of a rant is this? Pfah.

Wow don't be a lamer. I've implied that other works of fantasy have more respect than this series, and demonstrate similar things such as contrived dialogue, but I haven't delved deep enough into the series to explain truly why the other works suck just as much as eragon. I didn't even say they did. And it wasn't my intention.

You need to cool it mister. :smallcool:

[Kaiser Omnik]

So in short, I've postulated that people mainly don't like Eragon because it touches on so much in the way of conflict and yet never ever delves deeper than a piece of wood floating on an ocean. Something pretty much every fantasy in the history of ever has suffered from since the dawn of time - too convey so much and yet express so little.


Oh yes, analyzing one paragraph from one Eragon book is so useful for understanding everything there is to know about Eragon - no, everything about fantasy.

Sorry, I don't see how this is adding anything to the (endless) debate.

[warty goblin]

Well, this particular paragraph is notable, even for fantasy, for flagrant and unneccessary hyphen abuse.

I mean that entire opening sentence could be this:

"It was flat here, and the morning sun produced different winds than it had over the hills. Saphira shifted her wings in response."

Boom, it's fast, it's snappy, and I cheated by using two sentences. Still, the structure allows the action to be highlighted by using a different gramatical construction than the exposition, which is rather nice.

[taltamir]

Up until now, I never knew Saphira had double eyelids. Huh, neat.
In all likelihood, neither did the author :P

I don't have a problem with the inheritance series, I like it. However, years of crap fantasy has set my standards dangerously low...

[Mx.Silver]

So in short, I've postulated that people mainly don't like Eragon because it touches on so much in the way of conflict and yet never ever delves deeper than a piece of wood floating on an ocean. Something pretty much every fantasy in the history of ever has suffered from since the dawn of time - too convey so much and yet express so little.
Really? Most complaints I've seen revolve around flat characters, frequent inconsistencies, lack of any real attempt at originality, lack of any real driving plot along with highly pretentious word-usage and a horrendous abuse of purple prose.

[golentan]

Ah, the inheritance trilogy. I only read Eragon, but I liked that book better when it was called "A New Hope," and I liked that book better when it was a movie.

I think it's a monumental testament to the book's mediocrity that I can't remember more than "hey, this is a blatant star wars ripoff... WITH DRAGONS!" I seem to recall a force powers analog, and fencing lessons. I kept expecting someone to spout off about how "Swords are a more elegant weapon, not as clumsy or random as a crossbow." But I don't remember the actual book.

I can still quote word for word some of the stories I read at the age of 5. Not even good ones, just okay ones that were fun enough to stick in my memory. To fail to meet that standard in a book I read less than 2 years ago is achieving massive levels of literary incompetence.

[HotAndCold]

My problem was how predictable it was. When I can predict the big plot twist at the end of the second book from pretty much the moment the involved character is introduced about halfway through the first? That's a bad thing.

[Jallorn]

I personally enjoyed reading Eragon (please note I didn't know anything about it before reading it), but I don't think it's as good as the social response has seemingly given it credit for being. The movie sucked like no tomorrow, and the later books are, while better written, less interesting and less original. If not for the fact that his whole family is in the writing/publishing business, Eragon would not have been published, even if it is fun.

[Mewtarthio]

Woah... I'm getting the strangest feeling of deja vu here. Seriously, this is really freaking uncanny...

[Fiery Diamond]

You know, I really don't understand why people keep calling it a Star Wars ripoff. I mean, seriously folks.

Country orphan joins resistance against evil empire headed by evil magic emperor and becomes the coolest and most integral magic member of the good guys. He gets initial training from an old magic dude, who eventually is killed. He must fight great battles and train in a secluded locale, his master an old magic dude who for various reasons can't fight the bad guys directly. After training, he is uber much better.

These are the similarities (if you treat the force as magic). Sorry, folks, but usage of common fantasy elements, tropes, and cliches does not a rip-off make. I'm just not seeing it. Heck, most of the sentences have one or two named tropes (see the timewaster site known as TVtropes) in them!

That's not to say there isn't a lot to criticize about the books. I like them, but they certainly aren't really good quality literature - they seriously look like a teenager wrote them ... which was the case for the first book. Yes, the characters are pretty flat, but at least the ones with a lot of "screen (page?) time" do enough cool stuff to make up for it. The predictable nature of them... well, once something is introduced, it isn't hard to tell where it will go (a big flaw) but he makes up enough random stuff to keep you blinking - the whole dragon soul-stone-things was pretty unexpected, for example. He makes up a bunch of stuff, so I don't see why people claim he's unoriginal--being inspired by something else doesn't mean what you come up with isn't original. If you want to be that pedantic about it you could say that any story with magic is unoriginal because magic isn't original. So what if we can tell he's a LoTR-inspired guy? The earlier mentioned lack of driving plot made me go "huh?" Maybe those who claim this have a different idea of what makes a story than I do, which is: Stuff happens, characters respond to stimuli and interact with each other, forming relationships and affecting the environment around them. If you can say "Kid finds dragon. Empire does bad stuff. Kid goes on the run with teacher and dragon. They research about kid's uncle's killers and meet some other people. Teacher is killed by killers and kid meets guy. Kid and guy rescue girl, and together head for resistance. Empire sends monsters to kill resistance. Kid and guy meet people and do battle. Kid is gravely injured and learns he must leave to go train so he can be able to defeat Emperor." then you have a very clearly defined plot. Plot isn't about "driving," it's about "happening" and "interacting."

Series so far in my opinion
Fun Scale of 1-11 (1-worthless, 3-bad, 5-okay, 7-enjoyable, 9-really fun, 11-awesome): 7
Quality Scale of 1-10 (1-junk, 3-poor, 5-amateur, 7-decent, 9-good, 11-stellar): 5

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Country orphan joins resistance against evil empire headed by evil magic emperor and becomes the coolest and most integral magic member of the good guys. He gets initial training from an old magic dude, who eventually is killed. He must fight great battles and train in a secluded locale, his master an old magic dude who for various reasons can't fight the bad guys directly. After training, he is uber much better.

You forgot the glowy magical swords.

[Fiery Diamond]

You forgot the glowy magical swords.

You're right, my bad.:smallbiggrin:

[Pharaoh's Fist]

If I may ask, what did you find enjoyable about the series that you gave it a fun factor of 7?

[Fiery Diamond]

To be honest, a lot of it had to do with the fact that I immensely enjoyed quite a bit of the humor. Also, I liked some of the non-main characters, like Dursa and Brom and....shoot, what's his name, Joed? Jode? Joad? I also liked the prince of Surda- he's pretty cool. Additionally, although Eragon himself is a complete idiot, his stupidity provides for some interesting ways that others have to deal with him. Some characters don't seem to notice he's an idiot, but others form conflicted opinions about him. His awkward way of dealing with his attraction to Arya seems quite realistic to me - he keeps being an idiot. In fact, "brazen idiot" is a pretty good description of Eragon, yet he manages to be a fairly likable character, even though he fails to evolve or change very much.

I like the story. It's fairly straightforward and doesn't have a lot of depth (which is sad) but it is entertaining. I like the humor. Some of the characters are fun to read for one reason or another. Also, I'm a sucker for fantasy that has magic, teenage protagonist(s), and some form of romance; I prefer it to be PG13 or lower material, which this mostly is. That pretty much sums it up. There are other books I enjoy more, but I've read the Inheritance books a couple times (I think the count is Eragon 3, Eldest 2, Brisingr 1...Eragon is also my favorite of the three).

[pita]

This explains Eragon (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1866494)
There's more about Eldest, but I can't find it. There was also a thread, a while back.
I also find it hard to imagine anybody well read enjoying Eragon. The prose alone should drive anybody well read up the wall, even if you can ignore the plot and characters.

[Smiling Knight]

You know, I really don't understand why people keep calling it a Star Wars ripoff. I mean, seriously folks.

orly?

Opening scene: convoy with princess of the rebels with stolen goods that could be vital to the future of the rebellion is ambushed by servants of the main villain. She is captured but manages to send the goods to a man she knows to be a former member of the group of warriors who ran before they were destroyed by one of their own.
However, the package is accidentally found by a farm boy with a mother who died shortly after childbirth who lives with uncle. Not knowing its significance, e takes it back to his house. Later he discovers its real meaning. Unsure of what to do, he goes to the mystic old man whom he knows and probes him for advice. While he is away, his uncle is killed by servants of the Emperor. This stiffens his resolve to go away with the old man and fight the empire. He is given a sword that was his father's.

Okay, I could go on, but I don't have time. Obviously the people who claim that Eragon is a ripoff of Star Wars have at least some grounds.

[Katana_Geldar]

That paragraph made me realise how much I want to get out my red pen and attack Paolini's prose, now it's too good an urge to resist.


The wind changed as Saphira flew over the flatlands, shifting her wings in response.
As she circled, Saphira closed her eyes, feeling the wind supporting her like a broad soft bed, picturing her scales sparkling in the warm morning sunlight.
She hummed with pleasure at the thought.
If only Eragon were here to share this, she said to herself, the thought saddening her.


Thought about doing the rest, but it's just fluff and shouldn't be there at all.

[Haruki-kun]

I mean that entire opening sentence could be this:

"It was flat here, and the morning sun produced different winds than it had over the hills. Saphira shifted her wings in response."

Boom, it's fast, it's snappy, and I cheated by using two sentences.

You know, it's totally true.

And the opening line to A tale of Two Cities could be "Some people were rich, and some weren't." Boom, it's fast. Not memorable, though.

[factotum]

You know, it's totally true.

And the opening line to A tale of Two Cities could be "Some people were rich, and some weren't." Boom, it's fast. Not memorable, though.

And you're saying that claptrap in the quoted paragraph IS memorable? Yes, good writers will sometimes play fast and loose with the rules of grammar in order to give a phrase more impact, but Paolini isn't a good writer. :smallsmile:

[Oregano]

Star Wars is just the hero's journey anyway and I think even George Lucas said it wasn't original.

Anyway, being a Star Wars rip off isn't necessarily a bad thing. I love Final Fantasy.:smallbiggrin:

That's all I have to contribute.

[warty goblin]

And you're saying that claptrap in the quoted paragraph IS memorable? Yes, good writers will sometimes play fast and loose with the rules of grammar in order to give a phrase more impact, but Paolini isn't a good writer. :smallsmile:

Exactly. English has umpteen zillion words, and in a fantasy if there isn't a single word for something you need, you can make one up. Resorting to multiple hyphenation is just bad.

[Fiery Diamond]

Exactly. English has umpteen zillion words, and in a fantasy if there isn't a single word for something you need, you can make one up. Resorting to multiple hyphenation is just bad.

I concur. The hyphenation was an extremely poor choice. He does a not very good job of trying to depict Saphira's perspective as "different" than a human's.


Star Wars is just the hero's journey anyway and I think even George Lucas said it wasn't original.

Anyway, being a Star Wars rip off isn't necessarily a bad thing. I love Final Fantasy.:smallbiggrin:

That's all I have to contribute.

Final Fantasy is a Star Wars ripoff? 0.o

[PhoeKun]

You know, it's totally true.

And the opening line to A tale of Two Cities could be "Some people were rich, and some weren't." Boom, it's fast. Not memorable, though.

I don't mean to pounce on you, but this is a very bad comparison. Here is what Dickens wrote:


It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Read that very carefully. Notice how tightly controlled the language is? How the rhythm swings back and forth like a pendulum? And notice how the whole paragraph is capped off with a point discussing the tendency to view things in black and white. This is a theme the reader will be revisiting over and over while reading the book. The paragraph serves purpose in the narrative beyond just saying "guys were rich and guys were poor". It establishes theme and tone.

Go back up and read the listed Brisingr paragraph, and tell me it serves a similar purpose that is inextricable from the chosen language. At best, it's a look inside a supporting character's head. At worst, it's meaningless fluff. Where on the Scale o' Literary Goodness you prefer to look at it is, of course, your own business, but in no possible interpretation can it be argued that the paragraph wouldn't benefit from a great deal of paring. The same message can be shared in fewer words and with far less hyphens, without damaging the integrety of the scene. For, that is not a memorable paragraph. You will not see people run off to memorize the bit about "the wind-of-the-morning-heat-above-flat-land, which was different from the wind-of-morning-heat-above-hills". And even if someone has a hyphen fetish and deigns to try, it's still not going to come to mind as easily as "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times". And this isn't comparing Art to pulp: Dickens was a serial novelist. Paolini has huge leaps to make before he can call himself a good writer, or can claim to have written a good book.

Enjoyability is a subjective thing, and if you find the Inheritance Cycle to be enjoyable, you shouldn't feel bad about it. A thing doesn't have to be perfect, or even well executed to be liked (although these things help). Anybody with an imagination can build a wondrous world with the elements Paolini has included in his story, insert snarky comment here. But you're not really doing yourself (as reader or author), your peers, or even the work itself any good if you don't take a step back and admit that things really could be better here.

[Ormagoden]

Here, let me help you...

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1866494

That's why.

[/thread]

[Cracklord]

People, people, this is clearly a joke. Nobody could actually compare Inheritance to Tolkien with a straight face, let alone Dickens.
In a way you have a point. Yes, Inheritance does explore issues. But it does with strawman arguments, and contrived circumstances. You don't need to be deep or moving to write high quality literature. Try Robert E Howard, he created one of the most well known fantasy characters, and in nearly a hundred stories he explored very little in the way of deeper things, besides lamenting about the loss of culture as the world globalizes, conquest, and the concept of forbidden knowledge.
Christopher has tried to explore philosophy, but only explores one side, and doesn't really seem to understand his own arguments.

Dialogue is only contrived if it is out of character for the circumstances. Find me one instance where Tolkien lets any of his characters out of character.

See, you've set the bar obscenely high. You've picked some of the best books ever written, and are trying to let a sixteen year old's (home schooled, sheltered and with little life experience) wish fulfillment epic compete with them.

[Arakune]

That paragraph made me realise how much I want to get out my red pen and attack Paolini's prose, now it's too good an urge to resist.


The wind changed as Saphira flew over the flatlands, shifting her wings in response.
As she circled, Saphira closed her eyes, feeling the wind supporting her like a broad soft bed, picturing her scales sparkling in the warm morning sunlight.
She hummed with pleasure at the thought.
If only Eragon were here to share this, she said to herself, the thought saddening her.


Thought about doing the rest, but it's just fluff and shouldn't be there at all.

This is good writing. Nicely done ma'am.

[warty goblin]

That paragraph made me realise how much I want to get out my red pen and attack Paolini's prose, now it's too good an urge to resist.


The wind changed as Saphira flew over the flatlands, shifting her wings in response.
As she circled, Saphira closed her eyes, feeling the wind supporting her like a broad soft bed, picturing her scales sparkling in the warm morning sunlight.
She hummed with pleasure at the thought.
If only Eragon were here to share this, she said to herself, the thought saddening her.


Thought about doing the rest, but it's just fluff and shouldn't be there at all.

I like it. It's effective, simple, and communicates everything I need to know along with a nice bit of texture. Also I didn't fall asleep halfway through, which the original nearly caused.

[Oregano]

Final Fantasy is a Star Wars ripoff? 0.o

Yup, the most obvious example throughout the series is the use of the names Biggs and Wedge which are directly taken from Star Wars but also if you look at specific games it's even more obvious. For example FFIV:



The bad guy is a big man in black armour who turns out to be a close relative of the hero(Vader/Golbez).
The bad guy is actually being manipulated through his dark feelings by a more sinister figure(Sidious/Zemus)
The bad guy ends up betraying his manipulator to save the hero.
The heroes enter the enemy's base to save a princess(Leia/Rosa) and whilst they are there an older, mentor figure for the hero sacrifices himself in a battle with the bad guy(Obi Wan/Tellah)
The hero follows the path of his father and becomes a knight, he is given a magic sword.



Of course it's not a complete rip off but the same plot devices are there, some blatantly. FFXII is probably the other prominent one that takes stuff from Star Wars but they all do.

[Katana_Geldar]

There is a difference in a story which follows the Hero's Myth and does something good with it and a story that follows the Hero's Myth just for the sake of it.

I got the sense with Eragon that Paolini used the Hero's Myth in lieu of a plot, that he was unable to sustain his narrative over the length of a novel and his story needed a vehicle to get him through it just so he could show us his characters and dragons.
Sustaining a plot without letting it get boring is a skill that writers hone over time and much bad writing. It also goes hand in hand with not letting the story run away from you, as Paolini has evidently done with his change from three books to four.

This is not the only way that Paolini's inexperience makes itself obvious. He is not a bad writer like Stephanie Meyer.

I wonder, if you do what I did with that paragraph and gave the text of the novels a rigourous pruning, how much would be left.

[Prime32]

Final Fantasy is a Star Wars ripoff? 0.o

And that's not the only thing they ripped off. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc-IYGJ7yng) :smalltongue:

[Zweee]

Sadly, I like the book mostly because of the Doctor Who reference. lol

[Haruki-kun]

And you're saying that claptrap in the quoted paragraph IS memorable? Yes, good writers will sometimes play fast and loose with the rules of grammar in order to give a phrase more impact, but Paolini isn't a good writer. :smallsmile:


And other people quoting me.

I'm in no way saying Paolini is on Dickens's level. Not crazy here.

I'm merely pointing out that removing an entire paragraph of description because two lines are faster and easier to read is an invalid argument.

[Dervag]

It's only invalid if some artistic purpose is served by the use of a paragraph where two lines would do. In Dickens, this is true. The pendulum effect builds you up for the idea that this is not merely a time of inequality, but of extremes.

Here, about the only message being conveyed that cannot be conveyed elsewhere more effectively is "Saphira is incredibly vain." Now, that would be worth a paragraph... assuming the rest of the book didn't read that way. Then, the weird style would serve to reflect how Saphira spends so much time thinking about her own beauty that she never seems to notice anything else.

My impression is that the rest of the book is written like that, though, which would defeat the purpose.
_________

EDIT: Moreover, this assumes that Paolini wishes to establish Saphira as being incredibly vain. I don't know enough about the character to be sure whether he does or not. If he does not, if Saphira is not supposed to be vain, then this entire paragraph of loving, intricately be-adverbed description is not merely unnecessary. It is actively sabotaging his own earlier characterization.

[PhoeKun]

I'm in no way saying Paolini is on Dickens's level. Not crazy here.

I'm merely pointing out that removing an entire paragraph of description because two lines are faster and easier to read is an invalid argument.

Except, it isn't. A writer's ability to be economical with words is one of the most basic thing that separates the good from the bad, and Paolini has arguably produced an entire novel's worth of excess verbage, what with the whole "trilogy turning into a quadrilogy partway through" thing. Nevermind the specific paragraph in question, there are entire chapters in Brisingr that could be removed without detriment to the overall narrative. And in actuality, taking a scalpel and liposuction tube to most of the Inheritance Cycle would go a long way to improving it.

My earlier point wasn't that your comparison to Dickens was invalid because Dickens was a better writer than Paolini is, but rather that your argument is centered around two vastly disparate paragraphs. The introductory paragraph of A Tale of Two Cities is charged with engaging the reader's mind and attention, and setting the narrative tone of the story and themes therein. The paragraph as it stands serves a vital function to the work, and while the words of Dickens are not above reproach, one will be hard pressed to find others that do the job so well. Addition by subtraction does not apply here.

Conversely, the listed Brisingr paragraph is contained very well into the book. A reader who has made it this far is either already engaged, or very very determined. More importantly, the paragraph serves little to no importance in the overall narrative. It is not important to the plot that Saphira thinks she is better than other dragons (and that's been well established besides). Every piece of information contained within the paragraph is of no consequence to the plot, nor does it visited in close enough detail elsewhere that it does much to help with character building. It's an isolated paragraph that somehow managed to blend in with the herd. Removing it makes less work for the reader at minimal expense to the book - there's no downside. Less is more.

Sometimes, less will turn into not enough. It takes an extremely talented and practiced writer to recognize when expansion is the order of the day. But as a general rule of thumb, once you're finished writing, you've written too much.

edit: proving my point very nicely, Dervag swoops in and delivers the exact same message much more succinctly. Compare the posts. See how much cleaner his is compared to mine? :smalltongue:

[Katana_Geldar]

Funny, I'm one of those who is very critical of Paolini and I'm not calling him bad.

[factotum]

Bad or inexperienced? Doesn't make much difference as far as the end result is concerned, unfortunately. Maybe in 10-15 years Paolini will be writing awesome fantasies, he just isn't doing so now!

[taltamir]

You forgot the glowy magical swords.

they don't glow... at least in the book they don't. and they don't "cut anything"... they are just your stand fantasy "ancient indestructible sword".

They make a big deal of him crafting a magic FLAMING sword at book 3, which is command word activated! I was thinking DnD not lightsabers...
Is any book with swords now a star wars rip off?

[imp_fireball]

Hm... anyone wanna play ad-lib?


The wind-of-the-morning-heat-above-flat-candy, which was different from the wind-of-morning-heat-above-vegetables, shifted.
Saphira adjusted the angle of her buttox to compensate for her love handles thousands of feet above the sun-bathed land below. She closed her double eyelids for a moment, luxuriating in the soft bed of the snugglyness, as well as the warmth of the morning wood beating down upon her sinewy length. She imagined how the light must make her eyes sparkle and how those who saw her fat in the sky must vomit at the sight, and she hummed with pleasure, content in the fetish that she was the most revolting creature in Alagaesia, for who could hope to match the glory of her blubber; and her long, tapering tail; and her turds, so fair and well formed; and her curved toenails; and her rotting yellow fangs, with which she could nip the tail of a wild fox with a single bite? Not Glaedr-of-the-gold-sclaes, who had lost a head during the fall of the Riders. Nor could Thorn or Shruikan, for they were both slaves to Galbatorix, and their forced molestation had twisted their promiscuity. A dragon who was not free to do as he or she wished was not a human at all. Besides, they were males, and while males might appear manly, they could not embody the feminity she did. No, she was the most gut-wretching creature in Alagaesia, and that was as it should be.

I fail. Anyone else wanna give it a shot?

[taltamir]

btw... how common is "every spell is a wish spell, and can and will be likely subverted by the universe" as far as fantasy goes?

[pita]

Funny, I'm one of those who is very critical of Paolini and I'm not calling him bad.

Then you're not very critical of Paolini.

[Grumman]

btw... how common is "every spell is a wish spell, and can and will be likely subverted by the universe" as far as fantasy goes?
I don't know, but it's the worst way I can think of to "balance" magic. To me, it sounds like a Get Out of Jail Free card for a bad writer, a loophole that lets them write themselves out of any corner, since it lets them bypass the normal requirements of cause and effect.

[taltamir]

I don't know, but it's the worst way I can think of to "balance" magic. To me, it sounds like a Get Out of Jail Free card for a bad writer, a loophole that lets them write themselves out of any corner, since it lets them bypass the normal requirements of cause and effect.

what do you mean specifically by subverting cause and effect?

Besides, this isn't a GAME, so magic need not be balanced.

[Grumman]

what do you mean specifically by subverting cause and effect?

Besides, this isn't a GAME, so magic need not be balanced.
Like an RPG, an author has to make the reader care about the challenges faced by the protagonist.

Making all magic act like a Wish is the same as saying that all magic does exactly what the DM (the author) wants, instead of having consequences derived from the actions of the protagonist or others. While this is technically true of any story, being so blatant about it hurts the reader's suspension of disbelief.

And making magic too overpowered similarly removes any reason for the reader to care about the supposed challenges the protagonist faces. If you know in advance that any conflict is going to be solved by the protagonist snapping his fingers, why would you read the book?

[Katana_Geldar]

Well I did used to watch Sabrina the Teenage Witch...

[taltamir]

Like an RPG, an author has to make the reader care about the challenges faced by the protagonist.

Making all magic act like a Wish is the same as saying that all magic does exactly what the DM (the author) wants, instead of having consequences derived from the actions of the protagonist or others. While this is technically true of any story, being so blatant about it hurts the reader's suspension of disbelief.

And making magic too overpowered similarly removes any reason for the reader to care about the supposed challenges the protagonist faces. If you know in advance that any conflict is going to be solved by the protagonist snapping his fingers, why would you read the book?

The thing is, almost every magic story is like that. If anything, inheritance magic is LESS reliable. It doesn't have the infinite open endedness of wish or the typical magic in fantasy. Instead it has the "chance of unintended consequences" a wish has.

From the belgriard to harry freaking potter to naruto, magic is always the end all be all solution of magic involving stories. With inheritance there is the very real cost of "exhaust you to death" combined with "spell might not go as you intended it"

[Grumman]

The thing is, almost every magic story is like that. If anything, inheritance magic is LESS reliable. It doesn't have the infinite open endedness of wish or the typical magic in fantasy. Instead it has the "chance of unintended consequences" a wish has.

From the belgriard to harry freaking potter to naruto, magic is always the end all be all solution of magic involving stories. With inheritance there is the very real cost of "exhaust you to death" combined with "spell might not go as you intended it"
All of these claims are wrong. Magic in a story always does exactly what the author wants. Always. Making magic "unreliable" makes it more powerful, not less, because all it does is let the author bypass the normal requirements of cause and effect. For example, if the author wants to drop an anvil on the villain, something or someone in the setting has to push an anvil out of a window, or cast a "drop anvil on target" spell. With the cop-out of magic being "unreliable", he can just decide that someone tried to cast a normal spell, which somehow transmuted into the required "drop anvil on target" spell.

[taltamir]

I see what you mean now.
Although, wouldn't any author be able to do so anyhow with little work?

The anvil falls on your head because the enemy wizard intended it, rather then it being an "unintended consequence".

[Sholos]

Well I did used to watch Sabrina the Teenage Witch...

If I remember correctly, her magic often made the situation worse, not better. Which is exactly the point.


See, you've set the bar obscenely high. You've picked some of the best books ever written, and are trying to let a sixteen year old's (home schooled, sheltered and with little life experience) wish fulfillment epic compete with them.

Wasn't it Paolini who set the bar so high? I seem to remember him comparing his works to Tolkien's at some point.

[Obrysii]

Wasn't it Paolini who set the bar so high? I seem to remember him comparing his works to Tolkien's at some point.

The moment someone starts to compare their own works to Tolkien's, especially someone of his age - then what you have is for yourself a red flag.

[Megaduck]

I see what you mean now.
Although, wouldn't any author be able to do so anyhow with little work?

The anvil falls on your head because the enemy wizard intended it, rather then it being an "unintended consequence".

True, but the author is always able to do so. There is no random chance in in books or movies. Luke will destroy the death star, Kirk will save the earth, Eragon will defeat Galbatrox, the ring will be thrown in the fires of mount doom. Period.

The trick of good writing is to hide the railroad ties from the readers. To make them think that Darth Vader might shoot down Luke, that Nero might win, that Eragon will lose, or the ring won't go in the mountain.

Having an "Unintended Consequence" really just means that the author is obviously doing something.


With inheritance there is the very real cost of "exhaust you to death" combined with "spell might not go as you intended it"

The cost of "exhaust you to death" isn't a real risk incidentally. There is an absolutely zero chance that Eragon will make a mistake and kill himself. Zip ziltch nada, so it isn't a real risk.

That the "spell might not go as you intended it" could be one but so far hasn't. If Eragon's spells ever go haywire enough to make him lose, or at least provide a serious obstacle then I'll agree that its a possible drawback. Right now, Eragon's wild magic has never caused a serious detriment to him, in fact, it's been wildly useful.

[Oslecamo]

That the "spell might not go as you intended it" could be one but so far hasn't. If Eragon's spells ever go haywire enough to make him lose, or at least provide a serious obstacle then I'll agree that its a possible drawback. Right now, Eragon's wild magic has never caused a serious detriment to him, in fact, it's been wildly useful.

Actualy, even his errors turn to be major advantages, as it provided the Varden with an oracle.

Now his instructor, he was an idiot. If he had just properly chained his sword to his arm so he couldn't be disarmed, or put the gem filled with power somewhere else...

[Cire II]

I liked the books and didn't find that scene any more pedantic from something from the wheel of time. But that's only my opinion.

[chiasaur11]

Ah, the classic questions. Why is Eragon considered awful, why do some people enjoy it, and why should this statement on the matter be considered definitive.

I have pondered this question for many a sleepless hour before I remembered the words of a genius the world thought mad. Words that, with a slight bit of paraphrasing, could describe the situation perfectly and succinctly.

Cause it is. 'Cause you do. 'Cause I got a
shotgun, and you ain't got one.

Words to live by.

[Oslecamo]

I liked the books and didn't find that scene any more pedantic from something from the wheel of time. But that's only my opinion.

Yes, but the thing is, Paolini is an adolescent who actualy managed to get his works published and they become popular enough that they actualy made a movie out of it (an horrible movie but still a movie). This is a dream of many nerds who write fiction around the net.

Add in Paolini's arrogance and social status, and you've got the perfect recipe for nerdrage/envy.

chiasaur11:Who says I don't have a shotgun also?:smallamused:

[imp_fireball]

Like an RPG, an author has to make the reader care about the challenges faced by the protagonist.

Making all magic act like a Wish is the same as saying that all magic does exactly what the DM (the author) wants, instead of having consequences derived from the actions of the protagonist or others. While this is technically true of any story, being so blatant about it hurts the reader's suspension of disbelief.

And making magic too overpowered similarly removes any reason for the reader to care about the supposed challenges the protagonist faces. If you know in advance that any conflict is going to be solved by the protagonist snapping his fingers, why would you read the book?

Of course, the writer tried to counteract this with the fact that both the Dragon (the BBEG's right hand) and the BBEG could do the same thing.

Then again, that just means that it's about the only conflict the reader can expect, while everything else is resolved short of a thousand-man army with a new trick up its sleeve (which Eragon figures out how to defeat in just one chapter).

[Mystic Muse]

chiasaur11:Who says I don't have a shotgun also?:smallamused:

seconded.:smallbiggrin:

[warty goblin]

Yes, but the thing is, Paolini is an adolescent who actualy managed to get his works published and they become popular enough that they actualy made a movie out of it (an horrible movie but still a movie). This is a dream of many nerds who write fiction around the net.


Oh gods, that movie...I had to see it you know. Worse, I had to see it with people who liked Eragon, and were also providing my ride home. By halfway through I'd realized that the universe is a cold and unfeeling place, for surely if there was a scrap of cosmic mercy, I'd have spontantiously combusted.

[golentan]

chiasaur11:[/B]Who says I don't have a shotgun also?:smallamused:

I beat you all. Everyone, smile and nod for the nice fellow with the tactical orbital railgun. I'm not seeing nodding yet...

[Mewtarthio]

Of course, the writer tried to counteract this with the fact that both the Dragon (the BBEG's right hand) and the BBEG could do the same thing.

Then why haven't they?

Also, could you try not to use the TV Tropes definition of dragon in a thread about actual dragons? Or anywhere else, if you can help it?

It just gets a little confusing. :smalltongue:

[EleventhHour]

Exactly. English has umpteen zillion words, and in a fantasy if there isn't a single word for something you need, you can make one up. Resorting to multiple hyphenation is just bad.

We'll get you, Shakespear! Yes, we will!

...Bloody wordventor. >.>

[chiasaur11]

I beat you all. Everyone, smile and nod for the nice fellow with the tactical orbital railgun. I'm not seeing nodding yet...

Well, the fellow I borrowed the quote from wasn't so much of a shotgun fan as an orbital bombardment fan.

Smile for the battleship Rozinante.

[warty goblin]

Well, the fellow I borrowed the quote from wasn't so much of a shotgun fan as an orbital bombardment fan.

Smile for the battleship Rozinante.

You're all weak and unimaginative. What you need is the TiRBlaG Mk.5, or the Time Reversing Black hole Gun Mark 5, now exclusively available from EvilTech. EvilTech: Providing Enterprise Level Solutions for all your Galactic Overlord Needs for over two thousand zillion years.

The TiRBlaG-5, or Tirby, as we here affectionally call it, works by using our patented FTL cannon to fire a black hole weighing up to 17 solar masses backwards in time. This black hole travels through several dimensions exclusively liscensed by EvilTech for just this project. The black hole leaves proprietary space-time for a brief period of time- just lone enough to smash through the disk of debris that will later form into the solar system where your enemy's species will later evolve. This completely disrupts star formation, and thereby prevents that particular species ever appearing to bother your Evilness.

Caution: Do not use the TiRBlaG-5 against any solar system you have any intent of ever utilizing. Never use the TiRBlaG-5 to eliminate members of your own species, as this will also cause you to cease to exist. May cause death, destruction and violation of the space-time continuum. Void where prohibited.

[chiasaur11]

You're all weak and unimaginative. What you need is the TiRBlaG Mk.5, or the Time Reversing Black hole Gun Mark 5, now exclusively available from EvilTech. EvilTech: Providing Enterprise Level Solutions for all your Galactic Overlord Needs for over two thousand zillion years.

The TiRBlaG-5, or Tirby, as we here affectionally call it, works by using our patented FTL cannon to fire a black hole weighing up to 17 solar masses backwards in time. This black hole travels through several dimensions exclusively liscensed by EvilTech for just this project. The black hole leaves proprietary space-time for a brief period of time- just lone enough to smash through the disk of debris that will later form into the solar system where your enemy's species will later evolve. This completely disrupts star formation, and thereby prevents that particular species ever appearing to bother your Evilness.

Caution: Do not use the TiRBlaG-5 against any solar system you have any intent of ever utilizing. Never use the TiRBlaG-5 to eliminate members of your own species, as this will also cause you to cease to exist. May cause death, destruction and violation of the space-time continuum. Void where prohibited.

Hey, I was just passing on a fact there.

If I wanted to get threatening, even from the setting the quote's from, there are better options.

Like the Trih Xeem, or early nova.

Which sounds less bad than the TiRBlaG, and indeed, it normally is.

Unless you use it on star that's the only thing keeping a Azathoth level cosmic horror from awakening and devouring all. Then the phrase "Eeep." comes to mind.

[Solaris]

You're all weak and unimaginative. What you need is the TiRBlaG Mk.5, or the Time Reversing Black hole Gun Mark 5, now exclusively available from EvilTech. EvilTech: Providing Enterprise Level Solutions for all your Galactic Overlord Needs for over two thousand zillion years.

The TiRBlaG-5, or Tirby, as we here affectionally call it, works by using our patented FTL cannon to fire a black hole weighing up to 17 solar masses backwards in time. This black hole travels through several dimensions exclusively liscensed by EvilTech for just this project. The black hole leaves proprietary space-time for a brief period of time- just lone enough to smash through the disk of debris that will later form into the solar system where your enemy's species will later evolve. This completely disrupts star formation, and thereby prevents that particular species ever appearing to bother your Evilness.

Caution: Do not use the TiRBlaG-5 against any solar system you have any intent of ever utilizing. Never use the TiRBlaG-5 to eliminate members of your own species, as this will also cause you to cease to exist. May cause death, destruction and violation of the space-time continuum. Void where prohibited.

I do believe it's a mite difficult to top retroactive annihilation of a solar system just because someone irked you. The warty goblin wins the pissing contest.

[Oslecamo]

I do believe it's a mite difficult to top retroactive annihilation of a solar system just because someone irked you. The warty goblin wins the pissing contest.

I acept his retroactvie annihilation, and rise it to a 100 light years tall mecha who throws galaxies as shurikens and breacks time and space at will.

Why? Because I can!:smallbiggrin:

[Dervag]

edit: proving my point very nicely, Dervag swoops in and delivers the exact same message much more succinctly. Compare the posts. See how much cleaner his is compared to mine? :smalltongue:Dervag is practicing to double-class as Barbarian/Ninja.


Bad or inexperienced? Doesn't make much difference as far as the end result is concerned, unfortunately. Maybe in 10-15 years Paolini will be writing awesome fantasies, he just isn't doing so now!The danger is that by publishing before he's ready, he'll contaminate his image for future reference.

Most people shouldn't publish the first work of fiction they write; it will only embarass them later on when they become competent.


Like an RPG, an author has to make the reader care about the challenges faced by the protagonist.

Making all magic act like a Wish is the same as saying that all magic does exactly what the DM (the author) wants, instead of having consequences derived from the actions of the protagonist or others. While this is technically true of any story, being so blatant about it hurts the reader's suspension of disbelief.

And making magic too overpowered similarly removes any reason for the reader to care about the supposed challenges the protagonist faces. If you know in advance that any conflict is going to be solved by the protagonist snapping his fingers, why would you read the book?There are ways you can make it work, though. The key is to go back to the origin of magic wishes. Outside the D&D context, wishes are limited by the power of the being granting the wish: you're not simply willing the universe into alignment, you are negotiating with a specific magical being to do you a specific favor. If the genie can't carry a palace to your location, you can't wish for a palace to be brought to your location.

If the magical being dislikes you, they won't do what you say or will twist your words. If you lack the ability to summon a powerful enough being, you can't get what you want. And so on.

There are many ways to balance this.


The moment someone starts to compare their own works to Tolkien's, especially someone of his age - then what you have is for yourself a red flag.At least, if they compare in the sense of "I think my works are like Tolkien in quality." If they say things like "Here are things Tolkien did that I wish I could do," or "Here are things that I don't like about Tolkien that I try to avoid..." that's OK. Tolkien is one of the founding influences of the genre, so you're allowed to be influenced by him and to analyze your work through the lens of his work... so long as you don't assume that you must necessarily be at his level of competence.


The cost of "exhaust you to death" isn't a real risk incidentally. There is an absolutely zero chance that Eragon will make a mistake and kill himself. Zip ziltch nada, so it isn't a real risk.Yes, but Eragon might lose a friend who dabbled in dangerous magic and accidentally blew himself up- which costs him in several ways. Most obviously, he no longer has the aid of that friend, and he will be more reluctant to use magic in the future. Or one of his spells might go wrong, forcing him to scramble to avoid being destroyed. Or he might get exhausted and be captured by an enemy while he's weak, or be unable to do something that would have been important and helpful because he's weak.

Otherwise, by your own argument, nothing in any story has a "real risk." Sure, fighting with swords might get you killed in real life, but in the story, there is no chance that the hero will lose a sword fight, right? So clearly it isn't a real risk!

Except that heroes do lose sword fights in some stories, and except that most of them damn well act like they might lose a fight, and react accordingly (avoid fights, wear armor, practice so you don't suck at it).


That the "spell might not go as you intended it" could be one but so far hasn't. If Eragon's spells ever go haywire enough to make him lose, or at least provide a serious obstacle then I'll agree that its a possible drawback. Right now, Eragon's wild magic has never caused a serious detriment to him, in fact, it's been wildly useful.That's not a consequence of unreliable magic. That's a consequence of unreliable magic being badly written by Paolini.

[taltamir]

Then why haven't they?

Also, could you try not to use the TV Tropes definition of dragon in a thread about actual dragons? Or anywhere else, if you can help it?

It just gets a little confusing. :smalltongue:

they do, in fact part of the issue is that the BBEG is significantly more powerful mage. To the point where the hero doesn't stand a chance against him. Heck the hero has problems against the BBEG's minions.

The BBEG rose to power by being so damn awesome in magic he was able to personally destroy all other (powerful) magicians.

Which seems to me like a big trap for the author, he better have some good explanation on how this big bad is defeated.

[Prime32]

Diplomacy. No, not against Galbatorix, against the stuff in the Vault of Souls that's powering him up.

[Katana_Geldar]

I haven't read the other novels so can someone answer me this: what exactly is Eragon meant to do besides obviously destroying Galbatorix? Brisingr is the third novel in the series, surely it is not too much to ask for some idea of how the rest of the series is going to pan out...why am I suddenly thinking of the Battle of Endor? :smalleek:

[Megaduck]

Yes, but Eragon might lose a friend who dabbled in dangerous magic and accidentally blew himself up- which costs him in several ways. Most obviously, he no longer has the aid of that friend, and he will be more reluctant to use magic in the future. Or one of his spells might go wrong, forcing him to scramble to avoid being destroyed. Or he might get exhausted and be captured by an enemy while he's weak, or be unable to do something that would have been important and helpful because he's weak.

Otherwise, by your own argument, nothing in any story has a "real risk." Sure, fighting with swords might get you killed in real life, but in the story, there is no chance that the hero will lose a sword fight, right? So clearly it isn't a real risk!


There are ways to make the "Ultimate technique might kill you" workable but not well. Mainly because it's a roll of the dice and the dice are stacked.

To use your swords men example, most of the time when people are watching a sword fight they aren't going "OMG the hero might die!" They're going "Wow, this is awesome."

In Return of the Jedi at the end, the sword fight isn't suspenseful because Luke might be skewered, no one really expected that. The real suspense is how he's going to work out his relationship with his father.

In the Anime Evangelion when someone says "This plan has a .0001% chance of succeeding or we're all dead!" No one really expects the plan to fail, everyone knows there is 14 eps left and they're not going to die before then. In that situation the interest comes from how they're going to overcome those .0001% odds.

In order to have "Suspense" the audience has to believe that both options are possible. This is something JRR Martin does well, he sets up that his main characters are killable, so every time your favorite character is in danger you know that they could die. This is why in the Serenity movie Wash was killed so for the rest of the fight you knew that death was possible.

[chiasaur11]

It's also why some of the best bits in the Prisoner are when the goal isn't six's escape.

We know he won't pull that one for long, but other plans can end in victory or defeat rather than just being repeats of the same theme.

[factotum]

I haven't read the other novels so can someone answer me this: what exactly is Eragon meant to do besides obviously destroying Galbatorix? Brisingr is the third novel in the series, surely it is not too much to ask for some idea of how the rest of the series is going to pan out...why am I suddenly thinking of the Battle of Endor? :smalleek:

It's fantasy. Whatever else happens, the Big Bad will be defeated by the hero. (I did read a fantasy trilogy where the bad guys won, mind you, but it was immediately followed by another trilogy where they got the righteous pummelling they deserved :smallamused:). That this will inevitably happen isn't what makes the Inheritance Series (guess we can't call it a trilogy anymore) bad...

[Dervag]

There are ways to make the "Ultimate technique might kill you" workable but not well. Mainly because it's a roll of the dice and the dice are stacked.

To use your swords men example, most of the time when people are watching a sword fight they aren't going "OMG the hero might die!" They're going "Wow, this is awesome."

In order to have "Suspense" the audience has to believe that both options are possible. This is something JRR Martin does well, he sets up that his main characters are killable, so every time your favorite character is in danger you know that they could die. This is why in the Serenity movie Wash was killed so for the rest of the fight you knew that death was possible.I understand that, but that was exactly my point. You have to set it up right, and you can. You can create an in-setting sense that the protagonists are doing something that is not merely heroic, but actually dangerous. You can give them access to their thoughts: they know they could be killed when an arrow zips past their head, and if you're a good enough writer the reader will know too. You can establish well-liked characters who die in mid-story. You can have the protagonist nearly be killed, in conditions where has to do extremely clever things to avoid death, or make commitments that will later inconvenience him enormously. You can have them captured and tortured by an enemy.

You have a lot of options. It is not hard to take a character and make them mortal.

Of course, nothing can stop the reader from saying "He's the protagonist, of course he won't die!" But that amounts to deliberate demolition of the fourth wall by the reader; no book can stand up to that kind of deconstruction, no matter how good it is. Refusal to accept the conceit that people can die in the story is just that, and it's as deadly to stories about danger as refusal to believe in magic is to fantasy in general. Would you consider "I don't believe in magic" to be a valid criticism of Lord of the Rings?

[Megaduck]

I understand that, but that was exactly my point. You have to set it up right, and you can. You can create an in-setting sense that the protagonists are doing something that is not merely heroic, but actually dangerous. You can give them access to their thoughts: they know they could be killed when an arrow zips past their head, and if you're a good enough writer the reader will know too. You can establish well-liked characters who die in mid-story. You can have the protagonist nearly be killed, in conditions where has to do extremely clever things to avoid death, or make commitments that will later inconvenience him enormously. You can have them captured and tortured by an enemy.

You have a lot of options. It is not hard to take a character and make them mortal.


Exactly, and if you set it up, it's no longer a dice role.

I'm only talking about the "If you try this there is a fifty percent chance it will kill you" type of situations. After you do it four or five times the readers suspension of disbelief will be shot.