What Will Happen In Eragon IV: Afterword

[torylltales]

 

 

We're finally here. The last part of this awful cash-grab book.

The rest of the series can be found here: https://antishurtugal-reborn.dreamwidth.org/tag/wwhie4

 

It’s been a long journey, I started sporking this in 2018 or something [edit: 2017]. Richard Marcus has basically recapped the entire series from Eragon to Eldest, and offered his thoughts on what might happen in the final book, Inheritance.

 

I’d say, overall, he was probably about 50% accurate. That’s my gut feeling, and no, I don’t care to go back through it and work out accurate numbers. Feel free to do that yourself if you want.

 

Some of the things he predicted were more or less inevitable, some were favourite fan-theories widely accepted by the fans at the time, and some of his predictions were perfectly reasonable and logical, but wrong. A few predictions were logical and fan-favourites, but Paolini broke his own worldbuilding and foreshadowing because too many people guessed where he was originally going.

 

Throughout the entire book, the one feature that stood out the most was how long-winded and self-important the author can be, stretching a paragraph or two worth of content into entire chapters.

 

With that said, here’s the final substantive part of the book: the Afterword.

 

Over the course of writing [this book], the hardest task I faced was not becoming wrapped up in the story. […] The world that Christopher Paolini has created with his Inheritance cycle is so compelling that it’s almost impossible not to become caught up in it.

 

I seriously beg to disagree.

 

The second hardest task I faced was separating out what I wanted to happen in the story from what I thought actually would happen. Like all fans of the books, I’ve got my favorite characters and my favorite moments, and would dearly love to see certain things happen.

 

Like that guy on Twitter who kept reply-tweeting Paolini with his terrible fanart of Eragon and Arya with the caption “release the TRUE ending!”

 

I know there are predictions in this book that people will disagree with. I also know there will be questions raised as to why I didn’t talk about such and such or so-and-so. That’s fine. I can live with that.

 

Methinks the man doth protest too much.

 

However, as far as I’m concerned, there is only one person who knows what’s going to happen, and that’s Christopher Paolini.

 

Somehow I feel like Paolini himself wasn’t sure how to end the story, or the trilogy wouldn’t have snowballed into a quadrilogy. ad the ending wouldn’t have been so rushed and (as) plagiarised.

 

I would never presume to say that what I’ve presented here are anything more than educated, well-thought-out guesses.

 

Someone else could easily […] come up with a totally different prediction

 

Someone like Paolini, who threw out all of his foreshadowing and setup to change the ending at the last minute.

 

I wrote this book in the hope that people would have fun reading my predictions

 

I’m sorry to say I haven’t had fun with this at all.

 

Also, I wrote it as a way of encouraging people to delve beneath the surface of the story and come to a deeper appreciation of just what Paolini has accomplished with the creation of the Inheritance Cycle.

 

Paolini’s accomplishment is much like Dr Frankenstein’s: An abomination before both Man and God. An eerie and unnatural glimpse of What Ought Not To Be, which Men Were Not Meant To Wot Of.

 

 

 

Jokes aside, Paolini’s heavily plagiarised and derivative surface-level worldbuilding and skin-deep character development are hardly anything to write a whole book about.

 

Although overanalysing a book can ruin it,

 

In this case, under-analysing it is giving it unearned and undeserved credit.

 

that doesn’t mean that there can’t be some benefits derived from reading between the lines and trying to figure out any deeper meanings that the author has tried to impart to the reader.

 

I agree completely. I can only say I sincerely and earnestly wish more fans would read the series from a critical and analytical perspective instead of filling the gaps with their own imagined story and characters.

 

I like to encourage people to think.

 

Again, that’s fantastic. I wish you would do more of it yourself.

 

So even if you disagree with everything I say or predict in this book, I’ll still consider it a success because you thought about the book and came to your own conclusions.

 

I had a lot of fun writing this book, but I have a feeling the fun is only just beginning, now that you’ve read it and want to have your say.

 

 

Richard Marcus, if you ever do come across this critical deconstruction of your book, I hope you enjoy it. And have learned a lot more about the craft of writing since you wrote this one. It’s about twice the length it should be for the amount of actual content, and most of it is simply rehashing what any fan already knows from the books. The analysis is generally shallow, and there were very few predictions that differed from the popular fan theories already around when you wrote this.

 

I really can’t think of any reason this book should have been written and published. It should have been a series of discussion posts on the eragon subreddit, or something like the old shurtugal.com forums.

 

All the same, you did put the effort in to writing this book, and to your credit I think you put more effort into checking details of the story than Paolini did when writing Inheritance.

 

But still.

 

 

I would ask for my money back, but if I recall correctly, I bought it second hand at a charity shop, and I don’t want to deprive the charity of my dollar.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[pangolin20]

Yeah, he was reasonably good with his predictions, all told; if only he'd kept it to that instead of trying to analyse the books at the same time.

The world that Christopher Paolini has created with his Inheritance cycle is so compelling that it’s almost impossible not to become caught up in it.

I highly beg to differ, too; it's almost impossible for me now to even be caught up in it at all. When I did still like this series, I actually got most caught up in Inheritance, too.

...I'm not going to blast you just because your predictions don't turn out right, Marcus.

Well, I'm certainly "delving beneath the surface", and unfortunately not coming away with any "deeper appreciation" of it, so... I'm not quite sure if that's what he meant.

Although overanalysing a book can ruin it, that doesn’t mean that there can’t be some benefits derived from reading between the lines and trying to figure out any deeper meanings that the author has tried to impart to the reader.

If a book is "ruined" by thorough critical thinking, I don't think it's one I'd want to like very much in any case. I do agree with him further, though I'd say that looking for unintentional meanings can get you a lot out of any work, too.

(nods) In the end, it's still not all that good.

Thanks for bothering to wade through this for us!

[epistler]

If a book is "ruined" by thorough critical thinking, I don't think it's one I'd want to like very much in any case.

Yeah. Brain candy is all well and good, but this is taking it way too far. I mean he basically admitted that it doesn't stand up under scrutiny so just don't go there.

Thanks for bothering to wade through this for us!

Let's get him a present! 🎁

[pangolin20]

Indeed he did! And yeah, it's quite fine not to be all that critical when enjoying media, and that might give you more enjoyment, but for myself, I'd rather know more than less about it, even if it does end up unenjoyable.

Well, I think you're in a considerably position for that than me, but I quite agree with that!

[epistler]

I'm just really uncomfortable with the idea of turning my brain off, and especially in order to enjoy a piece of media I'd otherwise dislike. Like dude we were given brains for a reason. I like being intelligent and thinking about things, even if it sometimes leaves me feeling angry and miserable. Better angry and miserable than oblivious and easily fooled.

[torylltales]

The other thing is that well-trained and regularly-exercised critical thinking skills are important for more than just forming opinions about media: they can also help you avoid being scammed, swindled, misled, conned, or manipulated.

And in today's world of fake everything, the ability to tell the difference between what is true and what is too-good-to-be-true is absolutely vital.

[epistler]

they can also help you avoid being scammed, swindled, misled, conned, or manipulated.

After all, isn't that basically what Paolini is doing here? Fooling people into thinking Eragon and Roran and co. are amazing noble heroes? And so on?

And in today's world of fake everything, the ability to tell the difference between what is true and what is too-good-to-be-true is absolutely vital.

Oh yeah. My autism could well be a contributing factor but I've found I have a natural knack for instantly recognising that horrible creepy AI generated stuff. Ethics aside, it makes me incredibly uncomfortable to the point of becoming upset.

[kirito210]

My autism could well be a contributing factor but I've found I have a natural knack for instantly recognising that horrible creepy AI generated stuff. Ethics aside, it makes me incredibly uncomfortable to the point of becoming upset.

I'm also uncomfortable with AI-generated images. I don't know why, but every time I see one, I get chills, seeing those things so empty and so... dead (especially if they're AI-generated videos). I don't know if I'm making myself clear.

I guess it's also because of my autism.

[epistler]

I find it really interesting that so many of us here are autistic or ADHD or both. There's something about being on the spectrum that makes you... I don't know, insightful? Harder to fool with obvious bullshit? I do know that in other areas of my life I often spot things well before anyone else does, frequently to the point that nobody believes me until they figure it out for themselves. Occasionally I'll get a "we should have listened to you", which is true. People don't listen to me.
It's probably because we think about things in a different way and are naturally more inclined to be analytical over being emotional when the situation calls for it.

[torylltales]

More sceptical of the motivations of authority figures and sales-people?

[epistler]

I definitely have an instinctive distrust toward authority figures (and for good reason - thanks, traumatic childhood where adults kept blowing up at me for reasons I couldn't understand!). And gods know I spent a good chunk of said childhood being approached by smiling assassins trying to fool me into saying or doing things so they could watch me get in trouble. Even aged about seven or eight I wasn't falling for it.

[pangolin20]

Since I'm not wholly convinced, and in the spirit of critical thinking... let me have some thoughts:

I'm certainly autistic, but I wouldn't describe myself as all that insightful, so I'm not certain if that's universally true? I'm just quite skeptical of such claims, especially since autism and ADHD have significant variation in how they manifest; there might well be an effect, but individual variation has quite a lot to say about it, too.

I also don't know that autistic/ADHD people are "naturally" more inclined to be analytical in such situations? I haven't noticed it among those I'm familiar with, at least... (For myself, I'd say I'm rather more analytical than emotional, but I am quite sure that is because of effort on my part, instead of something I am.)

That aside... I'd say that actively working on these skills is still necessary, whether or not you're naturally better at them; it can only make you better, at least.

I'm most probably taking this quite a bit more seriously than it was meant to be, but I just couldn't resist!

[epistler]

I'm certainly autistic, but I wouldn't describe myself as all that insightful, so I'm not certain if that's universally true?

Well of course not; we're all individuals after all. I was having trouble finding the right wording.

That aside... I'd say that actively working on these skills is still necessary, whether or not you're naturally better at them; it can only make you better, at least.

Absolutely! Eragon claimed he had "learned how to think", but you have to actually put in the effort to make THAT statement true.

[pangolin20]

My apologies for not assuming enough good faith, then.

Indeed! And it's also never a done thing; there's always room to improve on it.

[ultimate_cheetah]

I find it really interesting that so many of us here are autistic or ADHD or both.

Yeah, we can sniff each other out like bloodhounds.

There's something about being on the spectrum that makes you... I don't know, insightful? Harder to fool with obvious bullshit?

Maybe. I do hesitate to associate autism with automatic intelligence as that can lend unneeded authority to those on the spectrum who should not have any. What I think is that we don't go along with the usual social performance. Criticism is "rude". If someone has managed to publish a book, the assumption is that they're automatically better at writing than you, I think. Also, there's this movement of anti-intellectualism, which touts criticism as "elitist", and insists that it is somehow snobby to assign some literature as better than others.

Autistic people likely don't buy into this as much because we don't feel the social pressure to do so.

I do know that in other areas of my life I often spot things well before anyone else does, frequently to the point that nobody believes me until they figure it out for themselves.

I can certainly think of several examples of that for me.

[epistler]

Yeah, we can sniff each other out like bloodhounds.

Rather like how queer people always seem to find each other. And there's a definite crossover there too; I don't think I've ever met a fellow autistic who wasn't also queer.

I do hesitate to associate autism with automatic intelligence as that can lend unneeded authority to those on the spectrum who should not have any.

To be fair I never actually said we're automatically smart. I've met at least one autistic person who was also a complete dumbfuck.

What I think is that we don't go along with the usual social performance. Criticism is "rude". If someone has managed to publish a book, the assumption is that they're automatically better at writing than you, I think. Also, there's this movement of anti-intellectualism, which touts criticism as "elitist", and insists that it is somehow snobby to assign some literature as better than others.

Autistic people likely don't buy into this as much because we don't feel the social pressure to do so.

Exactly. This is much more what I meant. We see things differently and sometimes more clearly, and we don't keep our mouths shut about it.

[ultimate_cheetah]

Rather like how queer people always seem to find each other. And there's a definite crossover there too; I don't think I've ever met a fellow autistic who wasn't also queer.

I have no friends who aren't at least one of the two. I have one non-autistic friend who is bisexual, and my one (confirmed) straight friend is autistic. (The possibly straight friends are also autistic.)

To be fair I never actually said we're automatically smart. I've met at least one autistic person who was also a complete dumbfuck.

I didn't mean to imply that at all, don't worry. I was just thinking about how my non-autistic friend puts autistics on a bit of a pedestal.

Exactly. This is much more what I meant. We see things differently and sometimes more clearly, and we don't keep our mouths shut about it.

Yep. We tend to be of the mindset that if you don't want to see criticism of something you like, don't seek it out.

[epistler]

I didn't mean to imply that at all, don't worry. I was just thinking about how my non-autistic friend puts autistics on a bit of a pedestal.

Scales seemed to think I had, so I just kind of assumed. At least it's a change from being called stupid all the time? :/

Yep. We tend to be of the mindset that if you don't want to see criticism of something you like, don't seek it out.

And if you go around calling a pile of shit a bunch of roses, don't expect us to politely go along with it.

[pangolin20]

Oh, I didn't mean to say you had, just that I'd seen that thread myself, and I felt the need to explain why I didn't like it... something I could've certainly been clearer about.

[epistler]

Easily misinterpreted internet discussions strikes again!
At least my leg stopped hurting eventually.

[pangolin20]

That's good to hear!

[pangolin20]

For myself, I've put too much effort into training it (be it only on media), and it's too useful for me not to use it. I also just like using critical thought, so why wouldn't I?

[torylltales]

Let's get him a present! 🎁

ooh, presents! I hope I get Brandon Sanderson and Chris Paolini in a thunderdome death match, with only one (1) acrylic replica of Zar'roc between them. **crosses fingers and wishes really hard**

[epistler]

TWO INSUFFERABLE HACKS ENTER, ONE INSUFFERABLE HACK LEAVES.*

**starts wishing really hard too**

(*The winner then has to take on the vengeful fire-breathing ghost of Tolkien)

[minionnumber2]

Wait, when did people start hating Brandon Sanderson? I have my own biases because I dislike Mormons on principal, but I thought he was like the Golden Boy for fantasy writers and especially magic system creation?

[epistler]

I've been told he's a better and more consistent writer than Paolini, but he also acts like just as much of an insufferable manchild, plus he's that guy's number one enabler when he should really know better. That's why I personally don't like him at all. Plus they both harassed Robin Hobb, which is a real dick move.

[torylltales]

I first started disliking him after that interview where he and Paolini harassed Robin Hobb, but since then I've noticed that:

• he enabled and continues to enable Paolini's worst traits as a celebrity author
• he's the king of the fantasy dudebros, which is a subset of the fantasy community that has a reputation for being toxic in various ways, notably the exclusion of non-male, non-white, and non-straight authors from their in-group
• he opposed marriage equality and gay rights because of his religion, until he had a financially-convenient change of heart right when his earlier comments might start to affect his book sales
• he wrote a pro-Zionist book set in modern-day Jerusalem (and even visited in 2019 to give a talk) that paints the Palestinians as violent terrorists and the Israelis as the peace-loving victims only acting in self defence.

Plus I wasn't thrilled with the attitude and manner in which he took over finishing Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series after Jordan's death, and then positioned himself as the authority of the series for the Amazon Prime show adaptation.

[epistler]

Wow.
You know how some people have gaydar? Well, I have douchebagdar. I instinctively hated Rolf Harris for no reason I could put my finger on since I was a child, decades before it became public knowledge that the guy was a rapist scumbag. To name just one example. Again and again I've gotten bad vibes about someone who hadn't done anything wrong that I was aware of, who later turned out to have done something very wrong indeed.

Then I saw Sanderson in that video, yukking it up with Paolini, and something in me just screamed "this guy is a huge asshole who thinks he's the cat's particulars."

[torylltales]

I have a feeling Sanderson would be good friends with Shadiversity if they were in the same country and/or tax bracket.

[epistler]

Ugh, same. Complete jerks always attract other complete jerks.