This honestly feels like it's going for the same vibe as some of the old sword-and-sorcery stories... But those stories were really going for that feel of being in the time of myths, while Alagaesia doesn't really have the same vibe, and it makes it feel like Paolini is trying too hard more than anything.
One big problem, I think, is that Paolini seems unable to commit to a single vibe. The prologues are trying for epic sword and sorcery, while the actual text, particularly in his later works, tends to veer sharply into grimderp in between attempts to imitate Tolkien. The resulting tonal mismatches can be rather jarring.
Tolkien had the advantage of being a trained philologist (and therefore intimately familiar with historical poetry, both narrative and otherwise, and how to fit it with the style and themes he was going for) as well as someone who was experienced at writing poetry of his own, not all of which was tied to his Middle-earth mythos. Most later fantasy writers who include poetry because that's what one does (looking at Paolini here, among others) don't have those advantages.
That's pretty close to the point I made in the post I linked to for a "usual" example of Paolini's poetry. When Tolkien writes in-universe epics, he knows what he's doing because he's studied real cultural narratives and developed his world according to his expertise. When Paolini does it, he's just trying to sound grand and not actually engaging with the formulae real ancient works actually use and why they show up. Which is how he ends up with a poem from an atheistic culture which invokes the goddess.
I've talked about this before, but I actually went to Reed College, the same school Paolini got into and chose not to attend, and I firmly believe that if he had actually gone, Eragon and his work as a whole would be much better for it.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2023-11-27 02:31 am (UTC)One big problem, I think, is that Paolini seems unable to commit to a single vibe. The prologues are trying for epic sword and sorcery, while the actual text, particularly in his later works, tends to veer sharply into grimderp in between attempts to imitate Tolkien. The resulting tonal mismatches can be rather jarring.
Tolkien had the advantage of being a trained philologist (and therefore intimately familiar with historical poetry, both narrative and otherwise, and how to fit it with the style and themes he was going for) as well as someone who was experienced at writing poetry of his own, not all of which was tied to his Middle-earth mythos. Most later fantasy writers who include poetry because that's what one does (looking at Paolini here, among others) don't have those advantages.
That's pretty close to the point I made in the post I linked to for a "usual" example of Paolini's poetry. When Tolkien writes in-universe epics, he knows what he's doing because he's studied real cultural narratives and developed his world according to his expertise. When Paolini does it, he's just trying to sound grand and not actually engaging with the formulae real ancient works actually use and why they show up. Which is how he ends up with a poem from an atheistic culture which invokes the goddess.
I've talked about this before, but I actually went to Reed College, the same school Paolini got into and chose not to attend, and I firmly believe that if he had actually gone, Eragon and his work as a whole would be much better for it.