Bullshit Lying Article #567,987 Spork

[epistler]

It's only short, but it pissed me off enough to want to spork it.

When it comes to stories about dragons, few have had the impact of Christopher Paolini’s Inheritance Cycle.

Just keep telling yourself that.

Starting with Eragon, written by a teenage Paolini and self-published with the help of his family in 2001, Inheritance follows the first book’s titular character: farmboy-turned-dragonrider Eragon Bromsson.

Dude, spoilers! 

The dragons are always at the forefront of The Inheritance Cycle.

Uh... no they aren't. The self-insert Mary Sue is always at the forefront. The fact that he has a pet dragon doesn't count.

The premise is that once, dragonriders rode the skies and kept the world of Alagaësia safe and in balance.

Evidence, please.

But when a dragonrider goes dark and murders the rest,

Gosh, that sounds awfully familiar. Almost like it's a direct ripoff of something else.

Alagaësia spirals into a state of oppression and brutality; think life under the Empire in Star Wars, or under Sauron in The Lord of the Rings. 

And they even mention Star Wars without a trace of irony. And again, evidence please. When do we ever see the Empire actively oppressing anyone? The Star Wars Empire blew up entire planets. Sauron wiped out entire civilisations and was actively trying to enslave everybody.
Galbatorix... makes people pay taxes? 

With dragonriders all but gone, there’s little hope of fighting back.

You're currently being ruled by a dragon rider, dipshit.

Then young Eragon finds a dragon egg, which hatches Saphira, the blue dragon that will bond with him and become his partner. The first dragonrider in years, Eragon sets out on an epic quest, and the rest is history.

The rest is bunk, for a more-like.

One of the best parts of this series is the relationship between Eragon and Saphira.

What relationship? You mean the mutually abusive trash fire which begins with her bullying him at every opportunity and ends with her becoming his mindless yes-man? 

The young blue dragon goes through her own revelations and tragedies during their quest,

When did that happen? Seriously, what the hell are they even referring to here?

and since she’s capable of speaking telepathically to Eragon, she’s every bit as sympathetic as any human character in the series.

I would point out that she's a selfish bloodthirsty asshole with an ego the size of Montana, but then I remembered that all the major human characters are just as horrible, so therefore this is technically correct.

These are Young Adult fantasy books, which means they’re a great introduction to dragon stories for younger readers, and a good read for anyone.

Sure, they work as Baby's First Fantasy Novel, but there are way better introductions to fantasy out there. You don't need to keep insulting young peoples' intelligence by fobbing them off with this garbage.

Bah.

Comments

[torylltales]

[epistler]

I know right? I don't know what series this person read, but it sure as hell wasn't the same one I did.

[torylltales]

I've heard a theory that, because the books are so lacking in actual content, readers, especially younger readers, fill all the gaps with a much more exciting story, and then get nostalgic over that rather than the story as it is.

[epistler]

It's the only real way this could make sense, really, other than the second theory. Which is that uncritical readers don't interpret what they're reading beyond just taking the surface level stuff on its face. So if Paolini narrates something like "and it was very moving", such readers will just take his word for it and believe it was moving, and if Paolini has a character say "I love you so much! You're my best friend!" such readers will interpret a beautiful friendship out of that and remain blissfully unaware of how said "friendship" is actually portrayed on the page. It's the most low-effort way to read a book and requires absolutely no thought, and no attention span either. And on some people, that works.

[(Anonymous)]

"I've heard a theory that, because the books are so lacking in actual content, readers, especially younger readers, fill all the gaps with a much more exciting story, and then get nostalgic over that rather than the story as it is."


This is the same side effect seen in people who review "The Last Jedi" and spout terms like meta-narrative or mumbo-jumbo to defend a plot that's not there, but they created in their heads by filling in the gaps in plot, logic, and so on. Whatever it's called, it's still no excuse for bad storytelling, bad execution, and shields the author of criticism, which is needed, as we all know, to excel toward mastery. No one's born a master of his/her craft, but through practice, feedback, and critique, you can have that potential. Why's it seem more modern creatives shy away from the fact that hard work, passion and dedication are the keys to making anything worth lasting... ?

[epistler]

Why's it seem more modern creatives shy away from the fact that hard work, passion and dedication are the keys to making anything worth lasting... ?

It doesn't. There have always, always been lazy artists of every stripe, some of whom became successful despite their lack of talent and/or hard work. It's just that most of them were completely forgotten within a decade or two because they had nothing of substance to offer.

[snarkbotanya]

I've heard a theory that, because the books are so lacking in actual content, readers, especially younger readers, fill all the gaps with a much more exciting story, and then get nostalgic over that rather than the story as it is.

THIS. I think there's a similar effect behind the anti-fandom's love of Murtagh. If you look at him in the books, besides the little actions we point out to support his niceness, there's... really not much there. Leah Clearwater from Twilight is similar: a character who, if you just read what's in the text, is basically empty, but who due to circumstances ends up being the person the antis end up projecting themselves on rather than the intended self-insert.

[epistler]

Any port in a storm, really.

[snarkbotanya]

The things that attract us to Murtagh and Leah are actually pretty similar. To paraphrase Das Mervin, they 1) have legitimately tragic backstories that inform their personalities and shape their characters, 2) lack most or all of the negative traits present in the leads, 3) have something that actually resembles a character arc, and 4) are undeservedly shit upon by the entire rest of the cast.

[epistler]

That is very true, and the last one makes them a pleasant change from the constant fawning praise the favoured characters get. The more the other characters fawn all over your hero, the less the reader will like him, and conversely the more a character is shat upon the more likely the reader will be to sympathise with them. It's amazing how so many authors have so badly missed the point on this one.

[torylltales]

everyone loves the underdog, as they say. It's sports movies 101.

[epistler]

“I can sympathize with people’s pains, but not with their pleasure. There is something curiously boring about somebody else’s happiness.”
— Aldous Huxley

[ultimate_cheetah]

Sigh. If anything, I wouldn't show the IC to a young reader, because it's full of bad messages.

[epistler]

It really is. The morals this thing showcases are simply horrible. Such as that if your crush turns you down you should keep stalking and harassing them to the point of sneaking into their house and going through their stuff. And that it's okay to use violence as a first resort when someone displeases you, that negotiation and compromise is for losers, that it's okay to lie to your own loved ones if it's more convenient for you that way, and that's not even getting into the racism, the sexism, and the horribly mishandled depictions of mental illness and suicide.

[littlecaity]

There's only one response I have for the writer of this article.

You what, mate? You remember a veeeery different series to the one we slogged through! There's memories warped by time and then there's self-delusion and this sits dangerously close to the latter.

[epistler]

I wonder if they even read it at all, or were just going off second-hand reports from some breathless twelve year old relative, or very dim memories of having read it fifteen years ago...

[silverskyfeather]

>"When it comes to stories about dragons, few have had the impact of Christopher Paolini’s Inheritance Cycle."

That's why when the fourth book came out, everyone responded with so much enthusiasm! Wait...

>"The premise is that once, dragonriders rode the skies and kept the world of Alagaësia safe and in balance."

Water, Earth, Fire, Air... Long ago, the four nations lived together in harmony -

>"But when a dragonrider goes dark and murders the rest,"

Then everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked.

Basically the premise of Eragon is not really a selling point, because it's so generic. If you described Star Wars or Avatar: The Last Airbender on premise alone I would think it's probably going to be boring.
Who is this article supposed to convince again?

>"The first dragonrider in years, Eragon sets out on an epic quest, and the rest is history."

...that's it? What about Eragon's revenge quest? Eragon didn't go on a quest because he was a dragonrider! Did you even read the book you're shilling, author? Eh, probably not.

>"One of the best parts of this series is the relationship between Eragon and Saphira. The young blue dragon goes through her own revelations and tragedies during their quest, and since she’s capable of speaking telepathically to Eragon, she’s every bit as sympathetic as any human character in the series."

Aside from the fact that this tells us nothing, it's technically accurate! Because basically none of the characters are sympathetic, and the ones that are only are so due to tragic backstories, disagreeing with the main characters, being nice, or all three.

>"These are Young Adult fantasy books, which means they’re a great introduction to dragon stories for younger readers, and a good read for anyone."

Yes, but they're very long and boring.

Thanks for the spork! Awful article, barely said anything.

[epistler]

Basically the premise of Eragon is not really a selling point, because it's so generic.

Yeah. When you're shilling a book you want to go for the aspects that are the most eye-catchingly original or emotionally engaging. If the plot is this goddamn generic, focusing on it as a selling point is really not a good idea.

Aside from the fact that this tells us nothing, it's technically accurate!

The Eragon/Saphira "relationship" was clearly supposed to be the emotional centre of things, but...

Because basically none of the characters are sympathetic

...then you have this. None of the characters you're supposed to sympathise with are sympathetic. Just the opposite, in fact.

Yes, but they're very long and boring.

Yeah, at the very least is it too much to ask that they be fun to read? Inheritance is not fun. It's too padded, too pretentious, and too boring.