Murtagh Group Spork: Argument (feat. Epistler and Torylltales)

[snarkbotanya]

 

A: Well, here we are. The beginning of a spork both anticipated and dreaded. For anyone new to the comm, I’m Anya, semi-scholarly snarker and author of the long-running deconstruction-reconstruction fic Consequence. I am also, as anyone around here already knows, a big fan of Murtagh the character, so my fellow mods and I have decided that I’ll be taking the lead on the sporking of the book where Paolini does everything in his power to fuck him up.

Speaking of my fellow mods, they’re here to delve into this with me. Epistler, Torylltales, say hello to the readers!

TT: Atra mor'ranr lifa unin hjarta onr. That’s Paolini’s ‘Ancient Language’ for “may peace live in your heart”. If what I’ve seen in previews and my own skimming is any indication, we’re all going to need a lot of peace in our hearts to get through this without damaging something.

E: I promised we’d be back and now the time has come. Chinook and I are, ironically, in a similar position to Murtagh and Thorn: on the run and hoping to avoid being found by Eragon and Saphira since we absconded from their godawful “Academy”. No doubt Nasidiot’s goons are after us too, and I don’t like to think of what they might do to us if they catch us. But we’re more than happy to be here, albeit via magic mirror. Soon revenge will be ours. As for the stranger who helped us escape… but I’m getting ahead of myself.

A: If you’re not sure what’s happening there, you can go check out Epistler’s sporking of the Eragon guide book.

With all that done, let’s delve into the prologue of Murtagh. Or rather, as Paolini has decided to call it, the “argument.” Do you think that’s better or worse than calling it a preface?

TT: He should have called it Apology. Yes, that’s a double entendre.

E: He owes an awful lot of people an apology, one which will not be forthcoming.

A: Heh. I’m personally in the camp of it being just about on the same level, because “arguments” actually are a thing in literature. An argument in literature is essentially a thesis statement, a brief summary that precedes a work. It was pretty common in the Renaissance and was mostly used for poems.

E: I have a degree in Literature and I’ve still never heard of this. Being obscure does not make you clever, Chris.

A: Indeed it does not, especially given that this “argument” is more of an introduction or prologue. Most of it is focused on providing background and recapping, in the most general possible terms, the events of the Inheritance Cycle. There’s only one line that could count as an “argument” in the literary sense, and it’s pretty weak. But for now, let’s take things as they come.

Since the argument is pretty short, I see no reason not to go through it paragraph by paragraph with full quotes. Let’s see how Paolini begins this foray back into his first literary universe.

Behold, the land of Alagaësia, vast and verdant, full of mystery. Here stand mountains that scrape the stars, forests as fathomless as an ocean, deserts scorched to barrenness, and more besides. Throughout, one will find divers peoples and creatures, from hardy humans to long-lived elves to deep-dwelling dwarves to war-wedded Urgals. And above all else, dragons—bright and brilliant and terrifying in their ancient glory.

E: They’re so bright and brilliant and terrifying that they do absolutely fuck all! Chinook says she finds this bit patronising and offensive. 

A: There are parts of this that might not bother me so much if they were coming from any other writer. The alliteration, for example. I like alliteration most of the time, but Paolini really seems to be going a bit overboard with it, and because it’s him and he’s done so much already to exhaust my supply of goodwill, I can’t help but be annoyed. There is one thing, however, that would annoy me no matter who did it, and that’s “divers”. That’s not a typo, and it’s not even incorrect provided you’re a bit liberal with the interpretation. “Divers” as an adjective is its own right meaning “multiple and different,” though semantically it’s a bit more heavy on the number and light on the variety than “diverse”. I’m not even going to quibble with the fact that it’s archaic as all hell. I’m going to quibble with it being used in a context where “diverse” would also make sense. Most modern readers are not familiar with “divers”, so when they see it in a context where “diverse” would also make sense, they’re just going to assume it’s a typo. That’s not a very good foot to get off on in your prologue.

TT: For me personally, the word divers in this context heavily calls back to Terry Pratchett, specifically the Wyrd Sisters book:

‘Divers alarums and excursions', she read, uncertainly. 'That means lots of terrible happenings, said Magrat. 'You always put that in plays.'

‘Alarums and what?', said Nanny Ogg, who hadn't been listening.

‘Excursions', said Magrat patiently.

‘Oh.' Nanny Ogg brightened a bit. 'The seaside would be nice,' she said.

‘Oh do shut up, Gytha,' said Granny Weatherwax. 'They're not for you. They're only for divers, like it says. Probably so they can recover from all them alarums.’

A: I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s where he first read it.

TT: I would argue that it’s also used incorrectly in Paolini’s sentence. The specific definition is “an unspecified number more than one”, NOT an archaic way of spelling “diverse” with essentially the same meaning, the way Paolini’s used it here. “Divers people” means “more than one person”, not “a diverse range of different groups of people”. If I were editing, I’d tell him to add the final e.

A: As would I. Even if his intent was the meaning of “divers”, the context makes it ambiguous enough that people are definitely going to parse it as “diverse”.

E: Once again we are reminded of the famous Mark Twain quote. “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

TT: Last point, the peoples of Alagaesia are hardly “an undefined number greater than one”. Assuming the use of “peoples” to mean racial or political groups, there isn’t an undefined number. There’s eight. Counting Surdan humans, nomadic humans, and settled Broddring humans as separate groups, but not counting Ra’zac or spirits. Counting all the humans as one racial group, there are five groups of people. Five is hardly divers.

A: Five? I would count six: humans, elves, dwarves, Urgals, dragons, and werecats. It’s interesting, by the way, that Paolini doesn’t include werecats here, considering they’re going to appear somewhat prominently in this book.

For the past century, King Galbatorix reigned as tyrant over most of the human-settled lands and was a terror to the other races as well. By his will, the dragons were broken, and their numbers much reduced until only few remained.

TT: A tyrant who maintained safe trading roads, a standing army patrolling trade routes between cities, religious artistic and intellectual freedom, and basically left everyone alone to live their lives while he brooded in his melodramatic cave-castle. 

E: Chinook says that’s not at all what happened, and she’s quite irate about it. When was he “a terror to the other races”, exactly? No, killing elves and dwarves during the war doesn’t count. They were attacking him. After which he left them to their own devices. I absolutely refuse point-blank to believe that he somehow didn’t know where Ellesmera was. 

A: Paolini would have us believe that Galbatorix was anti-intellectual-freedom and burned books and such, but we never actually see that happening. We just get told that he censored stuff, and the people who say he censored stuff are largely his in-universe political opponents, who probably aren’t the most reliable of sources. Regardless of how you interpret that, though, all the other points stand, especially the “basically leaving everyone alone” point. Hell, Surda managed to secede from his Empire! The only time Galbatorix leaves Uru’baen in the course of the Inheritance Cycle (offscreen, I might add) is to punish Marcus Tábor, the governor of Dras-Leona, for abuse of power.

Those brave folk who opposed Galbatorix fled into the hinterlands, where they came to call themselves the Varden. There they dwelt, with little hope for victory, until the dragon Saphira hatched for the human Eragon.

A: “Hatched for” is a very setting-specific phrasing. Given that this book is supposed to be accessible to new readers, I would suggest changing it to something like “the dragon Saphira chose the human Eragon to be her Rider.” New readers still won’t know the full implications of that, but it’s a lot easier to parse. Not to mention it just sounds more grand, and we all know how Paolini loves to sound grand.

E: “Hatched for” is also still really demeaning to Saphira. When you were born, were you “born for” a third party’s benefit? Unless you’re one of those organ donor babies or a royal heir, I doubt it. When Chinook hatched I made a point of not touching her until we’d gotten to know each other, and even then I let her initiate it. 

Together—and under the wise leadership of the Lady Nasuada—they marched against Galbatorix’s empire.

A: I really hate that em-dash parenthetical. Setting aside the content, here’s my line-edit:

Together, under the leadership of the Lady Nasuada, they marched against Galbatorix’s empire.

A: THERE, I FiXED IT. Seriously, though, doesn’t it flow so much better without the em-dashes? What are his editors even doing? And yes, like Fractal Noise, this book had multiple editors.

E: MULTIPLE EDITORS? What the actual bleeding hell? How were none of them checking for basic continuity? Whoever they are, they should be sacked and blacklisted from the industry because that level of incompetence is absolutely inexcusable. Also I like that you removed the highly inaccurate “wise” while you were at it. Wise. Right. Now there’s a laugh. 

A: Honestly, I didn’t even notice I’d removed that until you pointed it out.

Now the king is slain, and the war to overthrow him is ended, and the land entered a state of renewal.

A: The abuse of tenses here is physically painful to me.

TT: It gives me a tension headache.

Yet even in this peace, shadows stir, and there are whispers of strange happenings about the edges of Alagaësia, and of these, one man seeks to know the truth… 

A: That’s the line I referred to earlier, the one that could be considered a proper argument in the literary sense. 

E: One, did we seriously have to go with the “But ONE MAN…” cliche which even action movie trailers have long since dropped for being far too cheesy, and two, WHAT ABOUT THORN? This makes it sound like Murtagh’s completely on his own (which he might as well be given how utterly pointless Thorn is rendered). The book hasn’t even started yet and Thorn is already being treated as completely superfluous. 

TT: #NotMyNamelessShadow

A: That’s not the end, though. Before we move on to the first chapter, we have to get through… a poem.

TT: Worse, a Paoem.

A: Yeah. Brace yourselves, folks.

E: Christ, what did I do to deserve this? *pause* Oh, right. That thing. *hangs head in shame* Do your worst.

To hold the center amid a storm,

To cleave or cling or seize the standard?

‘Tis a question troubles even

The broadest mind. A stand of aspen

Grows as tall and strong as the lonely

Oak. Honor demands, duty compels,

And love cajoles, but the self insists.

—Quandaries 14-20

Atten the Red

A: The first few lines of this are… better than usual? The alliteration lends it a bit of poetic flair that a lot of Paolini’s past poetry distinctly lacked. Unfortunately, it still falls apart pretty quickly. I think all of that enjambment may be intended to emphasize the confusion sparked by the “quandary” in question, but it doesn’t really work, because the surrounding text is basically an Ice Cream Koan word salad that doesn’t really tie into an identifiable point.

TT: What is it even about? Part of the poem seems to be about being true to your convictions, but the second half seems to be talking about the power of friendship. It doesn’t really have a clear message or theme. It was clearly inspired by Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” soliloquy, but lacks clear message and direction. The 9-7-9-9-9-9 metre is a lot more consistent than Paolini’s previous poems, credit to Chris for learning how to count syllables, but it’s not really consistent in the syllable stress patterns:

-/-/-/-/-

- -/-/-/-

-/-/-/-/-

/-/-/- -/-

//- -//- -/

-/-/- -/-/ 

Some of the lines are sort-of iambic, one of the lines is almost trochaic, but none of it is consistent enough to really fit a good rhythm. It is a huge improvement over the Woolly Goat song, in that it can actually be set to music, with some finangling, but it’s still not what I’d call good enough to be featured in the prologue of an epic fantasy novel. It’s no “All That Is Gold Does Not Glitter” (Tolkien).

E: Great, and now he’s going down the road of including extracts from imaginary in-universe books; something I’ve always found obnoxious. Also I really wish he’d get over this obsession with “the centre will hold”. 

TT: Look out for Chapter 1: Maddentide, coming soon courtesy of the wonderful ignoresandra.

A: I very much look forward to reading her thoughts. Until then, my fellow Anti-Shirts, namárië!

Comments

[minionnumber2]

Dragons are weird, because they're treated as semi animals and act as semi animals, but they're also treated as wise and have egos that can be bruised, implying at least some state of natural social structure. They're also a species that's been enslaved for centuries, so it's hard to tell if dragons were beasts before the Riders came along and imposed their culture on them. We're told this, but it's by the people who did the binding.

[ultimate_cheetah]

They also have enough of a collective identity to retaliate when one of them gets killed by elves.

[minionnumber2]

Hell, since you're the resident Ra'zac fan, we all know why they're not acknowledged but they full on have their own language. It's really selective in what's considered a "society" and what's considered a monster.

[ultimate_cheetah]

since you're the resident Ra'zac fan

Lmao. I have a reputation now. I think the Ra'zac are quite cute, and I love insects, which they are based on, as well. (My avatar is from the official artwork of them. They're so adorable.)

we all know why they're not acknowledged but they full on have their own language.

The Ra'zac are the designated villains, so they must be evil. They do eat humans, but Saphira straight up kills a messenger in cold blood in Eldest, while the Ra'zac have to eat them to survive. Same as the dragons are designated props, so they aren't treated as an actual society.

If it were acknowledged that the Ra'zac were people of their own accord, then Eragon would have to feel guilty for killing them, wouldn't he?

[torylltales]

That's a good point. That brings up questions of what it means to have a culture. They are implied to be individual rather than social creatures, but have enough social connection to grieve the death of a dragon and retaliate against its killers.

Far less than any of the other races, though, dragons have no sense of cultural history, storytelling or knowledge-keeping traditions, or any of the basic trappings of what we consider to be culture.

Urgals, elves, dwarves, and humans all have distinct societies, art, stories and history, and specific worldviews/religions. Werecats have a king, which implies a social structure, but seem to piggyback on human culture for the most part.

Dragons are said to have a collective inheritable memory, but they have no storytelling or oral history traditions, nothing resembling a village or collective living situation, no arts or crafts or music (Consequence-Thorn's mosaics aside), and nothing resembling a dragon-language or dragon gods.

For all the series is marketed as "dragon books", the dragons really are an afterthought.

[epistler]

A very astute observation.

I note too that Morontagh keeps coming across random ancient ruins and such and there's always some blah blah about how this or that was "elf made" or "dwarf make" but none of it is ever "dragon made".

[torylltales]

Or, for that matter, human-made. What, humans have been settled in Alaglag for the better part of 800 years, but they have no ancient ruins, abandoned settlements, or anything like that? Even in Australia after only 230-odd years of colonisation by Europeans, we can still drive out to the countryside and find some relatively ancient remnant of an abandoned farmhouse, especially in the form of stone chimney stacks left standing when the wooden structure has long since been burned or rotted away.

Paolini treats humans like they've only been on Alaglag for a couple of generations, not for 800 years.

[epistler]

It's another sign of how utterly screwed up the timeline is, too.