Themes of the Cycle
Jan. 27th, 2020 02:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
epistler posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
antishurtugal_rebornWhat do you think the over all "theme" or "message" of the Cycle was supposed to be, if it has one at all? Going on what Paolini has said in interviews I get the impression it was supposed to be something to do with "honour", a word which has been serially abused by bad fantasy authors more or less since time immemorial. This tends to happen, I suspect, because either such authors don't actually know what the term means and are just using it as a nice-sounding buzzword like "noble" and "beautiful", or because they're unable to look objectively at the implications of their characters' actions.
For example we have Eragon, who is supposed to be an honourable character. However right from the very beginning of the series he constantly does things which are objectively dishonourable. The code of honour in Alaglag seems to be a fairly straightforward, modern one: honesty, treating those weaker than yourself gently and with kindness, respect the law, and don't commit unnecessary violence and cruelty, even in war.
Eragon doesn't follow any of these guidelines. He lies, more than once to protect his ass from the consequences of his actions, he cheats by not fighting fairly (remember the guy he stabbed through the heart, without even giving him a chance to defend himself?), he treats those weaker than himself with open disdain and callous disregard and has no problem with assaulting, torturing and even killing them if it suits him (the young soldier he killed in cold blood, pleading for mercy, what he did to Elva, what he did to Sloan, his attempt at mind raping the white raven during Eldest, assaulting Serious Ass for not telling him what he wanted to hear, abandoning Murtagh in his time of need, etc), he has no respect for the law as he repeatedly steals from people, commits murder and other war crimes, and takes the law into his own hands when dealing with Sloan despite knowing nothing about the Alaglag legal code, and as for committing unnecessary violence and cruelty... well, the list is endless.
Roran is no better when it comes to "honour", as he also commits unnecessary violence and cruelty to the point of assaulting and terrorising an innocent teenage servant girl with something that sounds horribly close to a rape threat, And even before that when he got his pointless starring role in Eldest he made it clear that he was fine with stealing from civilians and vandalising their property, and openly wished death on a confused, frightened old man for inconveniencing him. Let's not even get into the bit where he slaughters 193 guys in one go and then laughs and boasts about it.
And then we have Nausea, and her very impressive catalogue of war crimes, including the condoning of torture and disrespecting the dead (heads on pikes anyone?) and burning the homes of the poor because they were in the way.
So then, if "honour" isn't the theme or message of the Cycle after all, what is? The other attempted theme seems to be right there in the title - inheritance. Inheriting the struggles and responsibilities of those who came before you. So Ergy "inherits" Brom's role as a dragon rider and rebel against the Empire, Arya inherits her mother's throne, Nausea inherits the leadership of the Varden, Orik inherits a throne as well, Murtagh inherit's his father's alleged evil and role as Galby's minion. That seems to be about it, really. It's not exactly nuanced or subtle, and Game of Thrones handled it far better and more originally. (There's a good moment where Tyrion reflects that he and every other member of his generation have spent their whole lives dealing with conflicts their grandparents started).
Then of course, we have the themes and messages that were unintentional.
The most distasteful of those is one you get in most self-insert Mary Sue stories, which is that "some people are inherently superior to everyone else". This superiority has nothing to do with having good qualities such as courage, or kindness, or moral clarity. It's never earned in any way shape or form. Instead it's just an inborn privilege. You have it because you were just born with it, and it's not any sort of actual burden or hardship, or responsibility. Nor should you be expected to be modest or self-effacing or embarrassed about it, because it's privilege in the true sense of the word: completely invisible to those who have it. The truly privileged are privileged to be blissfully unaware that they have it.
(This is why the majority of, for example, white people don't realise how much easier their lives are. Because if it's not happening to you, then clearly it's not happening at all. Or if it is, it's not important).
So Eragon accepts his special status as a Dragon Rider, which he did nothing to earn, without batting an eye. He then goes on to accept magical powers, immortality, the elfification upgrade, psychic abilities and the best magic sword ever, as if all of this is his due. Most of it isn't anything he actually needs, mind you, any more than Paris Hilton needs more free designer handbags, but he gets it anyway because he's entitled to it. Because he's inherently better, more special and more important than everyone else. Never does it occur to him to realise just how isolated he's become from his own species, let alone to consider that a bad thing. Not once does he feel isolated by his abilities and status, or realise how lonely it is to be the only one of his kind. Who can possibly relate to him now?
None of this crosses his mind, unless you count the whining about being rejected by Arya because he "has" to be with another immortal. Because that would mean introducing drawbacks to all the special Sue shit he gets, and we can't have that, can we? That would mean acknowledging that the self-insert Sue being the bestest most specialist person ever isn't automatically a good thing, which isn't how it ever works in Sue Land.
What are some of the other unintentional messages? Well for one there's the ongoing theme that women are weak and incapable of protecting themselves without a man to swoop in and save the day, and that they all love and want BEBBES.
Then there's the message that if you're one of the superior people you automatically know what is best for everyone else, to the point that you don't even have to consult them about it first (see: Eragon overthrowing a peaceful and prosperous Empire, causing the deaths of thousands, without giving a shit what the people who he's supposedly fighting for think). Then there's also the message that moral worth is genetic, because Good people always have Good parents, and Bad people always have Bad parents. And adding to the nasty eugenics subtext is the related theme about how some races (ie the elves) are just born better than everyone else by default.
And then we have the implicit and even uglier message that it's okay to control other people for your own ends, with or without their consent. This one comes up with what Eragon did to Sloan, of course, but reaches its nadir with the whole Vault of Souls reveal. Not only is Eragon unbothered by finding out his entire journey so far has been stage-managed without his knowledge or agreement by a bunch of dead dragons he doesn't even know, but he actually seems to rejoice in the idea of being reduced to their weapon. Though it's entirely possible they manipulated his emotions to make him happy about being controlled.
So at the end of the day, as far as I can tell based on the textual evidence I've described here, The Inheritance Cycle's true message is "Some people are born better than everyone else. This means they have the right to do whatever they like to other people, whose lives, dignity and free will are not important. Women are always weaker than and subordinate to their relationships with men (and BEBBES). And it's okay to use violence, torture and coercion to get what you want, as long as you pretend to feel bad about it afterwards. Also, your moral worth and importance are determined by your genetic makeup rather than by anything in particular you've done."
Now that's a lovely moral to be teaching a bunch of fourteen year old kids.
READER ADDITIONS: ""committing atrocities is acceptable in order to revenge a greater atrocity". Except of course in this case the "greater atrocity" in question is left too vague to have much of an impact and can too easily be written off as exaggeration or propaganda.
"Anyone who is not completely with you is evil, even if they're remaining neutral."
- "YOUR INNER SOUL IS REFLECTED BY YOUR PHYSICAL ASPECT"
"IF YOU ARE BROKEN, YOU ARE BROKEN FOREVER, AND BROKEN CREATURES HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS WORLD". Paolini's obsession with how everyone "good" must be beautiful and cannot be disabled or mentally ill really disgusts me.
"If you are a Hero, your actions are heroic. If you are a villain, your actions are always villainous. No matter when your actual actions are."
For example we have Eragon, who is supposed to be an honourable character. However right from the very beginning of the series he constantly does things which are objectively dishonourable. The code of honour in Alaglag seems to be a fairly straightforward, modern one: honesty, treating those weaker than yourself gently and with kindness, respect the law, and don't commit unnecessary violence and cruelty, even in war.
Eragon doesn't follow any of these guidelines. He lies, more than once to protect his ass from the consequences of his actions, he cheats by not fighting fairly (remember the guy he stabbed through the heart, without even giving him a chance to defend himself?), he treats those weaker than himself with open disdain and callous disregard and has no problem with assaulting, torturing and even killing them if it suits him (the young soldier he killed in cold blood, pleading for mercy, what he did to Elva, what he did to Sloan, his attempt at mind raping the white raven during Eldest, assaulting Serious Ass for not telling him what he wanted to hear, abandoning Murtagh in his time of need, etc), he has no respect for the law as he repeatedly steals from people, commits murder and other war crimes, and takes the law into his own hands when dealing with Sloan despite knowing nothing about the Alaglag legal code, and as for committing unnecessary violence and cruelty... well, the list is endless.
Roran is no better when it comes to "honour", as he also commits unnecessary violence and cruelty to the point of assaulting and terrorising an innocent teenage servant girl with something that sounds horribly close to a rape threat, And even before that when he got his pointless starring role in Eldest he made it clear that he was fine with stealing from civilians and vandalising their property, and openly wished death on a confused, frightened old man for inconveniencing him. Let's not even get into the bit where he slaughters 193 guys in one go and then laughs and boasts about it.
And then we have Nausea, and her very impressive catalogue of war crimes, including the condoning of torture and disrespecting the dead (heads on pikes anyone?) and burning the homes of the poor because they were in the way.
So then, if "honour" isn't the theme or message of the Cycle after all, what is? The other attempted theme seems to be right there in the title - inheritance. Inheriting the struggles and responsibilities of those who came before you. So Ergy "inherits" Brom's role as a dragon rider and rebel against the Empire, Arya inherits her mother's throne, Nausea inherits the leadership of the Varden, Orik inherits a throne as well, Murtagh inherit's his father's alleged evil and role as Galby's minion. That seems to be about it, really. It's not exactly nuanced or subtle, and Game of Thrones handled it far better and more originally. (There's a good moment where Tyrion reflects that he and every other member of his generation have spent their whole lives dealing with conflicts their grandparents started).
Then of course, we have the themes and messages that were unintentional.
The most distasteful of those is one you get in most self-insert Mary Sue stories, which is that "some people are inherently superior to everyone else". This superiority has nothing to do with having good qualities such as courage, or kindness, or moral clarity. It's never earned in any way shape or form. Instead it's just an inborn privilege. You have it because you were just born with it, and it's not any sort of actual burden or hardship, or responsibility. Nor should you be expected to be modest or self-effacing or embarrassed about it, because it's privilege in the true sense of the word: completely invisible to those who have it. The truly privileged are privileged to be blissfully unaware that they have it.
(This is why the majority of, for example, white people don't realise how much easier their lives are. Because if it's not happening to you, then clearly it's not happening at all. Or if it is, it's not important).
So Eragon accepts his special status as a Dragon Rider, which he did nothing to earn, without batting an eye. He then goes on to accept magical powers, immortality, the elfification upgrade, psychic abilities and the best magic sword ever, as if all of this is his due. Most of it isn't anything he actually needs, mind you, any more than Paris Hilton needs more free designer handbags, but he gets it anyway because he's entitled to it. Because he's inherently better, more special and more important than everyone else. Never does it occur to him to realise just how isolated he's become from his own species, let alone to consider that a bad thing. Not once does he feel isolated by his abilities and status, or realise how lonely it is to be the only one of his kind. Who can possibly relate to him now?
None of this crosses his mind, unless you count the whining about being rejected by Arya because he "has" to be with another immortal. Because that would mean introducing drawbacks to all the special Sue shit he gets, and we can't have that, can we? That would mean acknowledging that the self-insert Sue being the bestest most specialist person ever isn't automatically a good thing, which isn't how it ever works in Sue Land.
What are some of the other unintentional messages? Well for one there's the ongoing theme that women are weak and incapable of protecting themselves without a man to swoop in and save the day, and that they all love and want BEBBES.
Then there's the message that if you're one of the superior people you automatically know what is best for everyone else, to the point that you don't even have to consult them about it first (see: Eragon overthrowing a peaceful and prosperous Empire, causing the deaths of thousands, without giving a shit what the people who he's supposedly fighting for think). Then there's also the message that moral worth is genetic, because Good people always have Good parents, and Bad people always have Bad parents. And adding to the nasty eugenics subtext is the related theme about how some races (ie the elves) are just born better than everyone else by default.
And then we have the implicit and even uglier message that it's okay to control other people for your own ends, with or without their consent. This one comes up with what Eragon did to Sloan, of course, but reaches its nadir with the whole Vault of Souls reveal. Not only is Eragon unbothered by finding out his entire journey so far has been stage-managed without his knowledge or agreement by a bunch of dead dragons he doesn't even know, but he actually seems to rejoice in the idea of being reduced to their weapon. Though it's entirely possible they manipulated his emotions to make him happy about being controlled.
So at the end of the day, as far as I can tell based on the textual evidence I've described here, The Inheritance Cycle's true message is "Some people are born better than everyone else. This means they have the right to do whatever they like to other people, whose lives, dignity and free will are not important. Women are always weaker than and subordinate to their relationships with men (and BEBBES). And it's okay to use violence, torture and coercion to get what you want, as long as you pretend to feel bad about it afterwards. Also, your moral worth and importance are determined by your genetic makeup rather than by anything in particular you've done."
Now that's a lovely moral to be teaching a bunch of fourteen year old kids.
READER ADDITIONS: ""committing atrocities is acceptable in order to revenge a greater atrocity". Except of course in this case the "greater atrocity" in question is left too vague to have much of an impact and can too easily be written off as exaggeration or propaganda.
"Anyone who is not completely with you is evil, even if they're remaining neutral."
- "YOUR INNER SOUL IS REFLECTED BY YOUR PHYSICAL ASPECT"
"IF YOU ARE BROKEN, YOU ARE BROKEN FOREVER, AND BROKEN CREATURES HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS WORLD". Paolini's obsession with how everyone "good" must be beautiful and cannot be disabled or mentally ill really disgusts me.
- "GENOCIDE IS GOOD IF I DON'T LIKE YOU
"If you are a Hero, your actions are heroic. If you are a villain, your actions are always villainous. No matter when your actual actions are."
no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 05:55 am (UTC)Looking at the wording, it seems like Paolini actually did get an "inheritance" theme, just an extremely toxic one. Instead of being about the changing of the guard, with the young characters taking the world back from the old and remaking it to be better, we get this idea of inherent value and importance that is a static attribute and comes from who you're related to.
I think a lot of this failure comes from the fact that Paolini never set out to write a story with themes or a moral in the first place. Oh, he would say he did, but reading Eragon and seeing how derivative it was while still feeling young Paolini's excitement to be writing it shows that it was written for fun. He started the series by writing a story that he wanted to read, but with an immature, superficial understanding of what that meant, he simply pulled plot and setting elements from things he liked, aiming to create the ultimate Awesome Fantasy Frankenworld. Maybe there was a bit of an inheritance theme based on similar themes present in other books, but he didn't really start trying to push any messages until Eldest... and, well, we all know how that turned out.
After reading this, I feel like writing down some of the intended themes for Consequence, so that I can make sure I stick to them as the story goes on. I'd also be curious to know what themes others have seen in it so far, so that I can judge whether I'm getting across what I want to get across.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 06:34 am (UTC)Another theme Epi sort of touched on is "committing atrocities is acceptable in order to revenge a greater atrocity".
no subject
Date: 2020-01-30 02:11 am (UTC)Definitely. I remember quite well how at some point during the initial hysteria over the first book he suddenly came out with some nonsense about how he doesn't like "stories where the hero just goes around killing monsters and there's no emotional reaction" and how "it's not just an adventure story; it's about Eragon trying to answer big questions like why are we here and how do we live honourably in this life?"
It was almost as if he was embarrassed at having written a mindless piece of candyfloss and had started trying to pretend there was some deeper meaning in it purely because it had gotten so popular. And then Eldest rolled around and he'd stuffed it full of juvenile attempts at moralising.
All the first book really has in the way of any kind of philosophising is the odd bit of random brooding about how unfair it is that people die sometimes. As I recall at one point there's a bit where Eragon thinks about how "he no longer believed that life had any meaning" or words to that effect. Which does at least fit with the fatalistic overtones which start becoming way more prominent in Brisingr (don't fight fate, you can die at any time so oh well).
I have to say that while futility is a theme that can work, it doesn't fit all that well in a story which is nominally about defeating evil and bringing about a better tomorrow. If everyone's that hopeless and resigned to their fates, why are they even bothering?
no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 07:20 am (UTC)It's unsurprising to see this in juvenile fiction in general, really (and by juvenile I mean written in a juvenile manner, not written for younger readers). Juvenile and otherwise immature people pretty much always like to imagine they're special and unique and destined for greatness. The idea of being just another ordinary person seems too depressing for words from the point of view of that mindset.
But a much more mature and, in the end, far more emotionally fulfilling message is that we're all just ordinary people, and that we can all do great things in our own way if we have the courage to try. One of my favourite little speeches from another far superior fantasy novel goes something like this:
"But she was a hero, and I am..."
"And what are you?"
"An ordinary person."
"We are all of us ordinary people."
"But she was strong of purpose!"
"No stronger of purpose than any of us can be."
"But she was brave!"
"But not with a courage that others cannot seek and find."
"Oh, but she was wise!"
"Her wisdom was to trust in what is right, and any of us can do that."
no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 07:22 am (UTC)The themes I've picked up so far are that the powerful are often blind to the true cost their actions have for other people, and that you don't have to be powerful yourself to try and do what you believe is right. There's also a theme about how arrogant people swiftly destroy themselves.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 08:13 am (UTC)Another theme I'm going for is continuing the canon theme of inheritance, but with a twist. Vanora doesn't inherit anything from her family, as she's of common birth and their home was destroyed during the war, but she does inherit the role of the rebel in Alagaesia's persistent cycle of oppression and revolution.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-28 04:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 06:46 am (UTC)Another accidental theme includes the idea that anyone who is not completely with you is evil, even if they're remaining neutral.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 06:52 am (UTC)It kind of is, though - the moment Nas thinks she's going to die she suddenly starts wailing about how she never had BEBBES right out of the blue, and Saphira's only apparent goal in life is to find a mate and also have BEBBES, and it doesn't seem to be motivated by wanting to save the species. And then Arya goes all mother bear over Elaine's baby and we get this thing right out of the blue about how much Arya supposedly loves kids. It's like Paolini doesn't know how to make a character feminine without bringing motherhood into it in some way.
Oh yeah, I missed that one. "If you're not 100% with me, you're against me. How dare you."
no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 06:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 06:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 11:01 am (UTC)- "YOUR INNER SOUL IS REFLECTED BY YOUR PHYSICAL ASPECT": all the good characters are beautiful, while all the evil ones are ugly. The Cycle is mostly unable to show the evilness of a character without recurring to the childish idea that ugly is bad and beautiful is good. Think about that: dragons are seen as the most beautiful and majestic creatures of the world, and yet even some of them are not spared by this rule - think about Formora's dragon, who is described as a "horrible brown beast" or something like this. Apparently not even dragons get to be beautiful and evil. Nope. Evil dragons are ugly. Even the Ra'zac and the Lethrblaka, a non-human race, is always and only described as being disgusting. Non humanoid races can hardly be ugly, simply because they are too animalistic to be allineated to our conception of beautiful and evil, and yet here we are. There are two sole exceptions for this rule that come to my mind: Morzan and Galbatorix. But Morzan has to be beautiful because he is Murtagh's father and Eragon's supposed father, and Galbatorix... Well, he was never openly described as beautiful, but I think that he's meant to be, because god forbid an average looking dude managed to defeat the perfect Riders.
- "IF YOU ARE BROKEN, YOU ARE BROKEN FOREVER, AND BROKEN CREATURES HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS WORLD". This is a message we received not once, not twice, but at least SEVEN times, and I am sure I missed something along the way.
1) Galbatorix: first example we saw. Galbatorix was fucking nineteen when Jarnunvosk died, and right after her death he spent weeks or months alone, fighting for survival and almost dying in the Spine. He was traumatized and in horrible pain, and what did the the good, compassionate Riders do? They kicked him out because he was "insane". You would like to believe that the champions of the people would have liked to help a traumatized young man who was clearly not fine after having gone through something way worse than death. But nope. The only solution is to exile him when he shows signs of not being mentally fine - good grief, you fucking deserved everything he did to you, assholes.
2) Eragon: do I even have to explain? A disabled protagonist is useless and unworthy of other people's trust. Better Deus-Ex-Machining him to being not only abled again but also even more perfect than before.
3) Oromis and Glaedr: two characters, ancient and wise. Both disabled. Die like idiots because of Oromis' illness. Don't even deserve a glorious death or to live long enough to see the knew Order being built (yes, Glaedr technically does, but I am still salty, ok?). Also, I am glad to notice that seeing the whole Order being wiped out and all their friends die and being tortured apparently didn't give them any sort of PTSD. Again, apparently PTSD and trauma is something that only horrible monsters like Galbatorix get.
4) Roran: gets his arm magically healed and made perfect again. It didn't even bother him, just god forbit a main character is less than perfect.
5) Elva: goes to horrible trauma because of the protagonist idiocy and is portrait as disgusting person and a villain who deserves to be bullied into submission. Because got forbid someone can be ostile toward the person who put them through hell (I am not arguing that Elva is a good person, I hate her).
5) The child that gets plastic surgery: while I can see the point that a child with a cleft palate can have a difficult life, the chapter pushes way too much on the horrible destiny of having an imperfection. Also, the child and the family are nothing but plot devices to make Eragon look cool.
6) The Priests: don't make me comment on the Priests and on how they die. Just don't. I will treat them right in my story.
7) Shruikan: god forbid the dragon who was portrayed having gone through a fate worse than death gets saved from his abuser to heal from his wounds.
- "GENOCIDE IS GOOD IF I DON'T LIKE YOU": honestly, the concept of an evil race that deserves to be exterminated already sounds a bit too nazi-like, but glorifying a genocide and unborn babies being burned alive is a bit too sociopathic even for the standards of the Cycle.
...There are other concepts like "power is more important than experience or humanity" and "some races are better than others", but I think it has already been covered by others
no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 11:28 am (UTC)Good catch - I forgot to mention how goddamn ableist and hateful toward the mentally ill this stupid series is.
And then there's this. It's okay to drive an entire sentient species to extinction if they're ugly. (Lions, tigers, bears, snakes, elephants and hippos kill and sometimes eat people, but nobody thinks they deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth).
no subject
Date: 2020-01-27 12:19 pm (UTC)There is also a continuity error in this logic. In canon we don't know where Lethrblaka came from, this mostly because they are a rip-off of Tolkien's fellbeasts and fellbeasts, having been created instead of being a natural race, came from nowhere, basically. But the Lethrblaka are seen as a natural race, and it is interesting to notice that, listening to Oromis, they came to Alagaesia after the humans, and it is implied that they shared the humans' previous land. This because it is logical to think that creatures evolved to prey on humans shared the same habitat of the humans, no?
So, this is where things get weird, because humans were clarely able to built ships and habitations and weapons when they arrived in Alagaesia. They were not scared, uncivilized and hunted animals who were running foe their lives, and their behavior let it understand that they thought about settling in Alagaesia or not. This matters because, if Lethrblaka were so horrible and violent and nocive as Oromis described them to be, then it doesn't make any sense than humans still managed to flourish under their presence. Lethrblaka are simply too strong compared to their preys, they would have prevented and destroyed any attempt of civilization - its the same reason why mammals evolved mostly after the extinction of the dinosaurs.
So, if 2+2=4, the only logical answer is that Lethrblaka were not even remotely that bad, surely not bad enough to deserve extinction.
Given the level of civilization the humans had, I think it is safe to assume that the two races left each-other mostly alone, or (dare I to say?) may have even had a sort of symbiotic relationship. Such as feeding criminals condemned to death to the Lethrblaka to provide them food in exchange of protection, but this is just an idea. What is a fact is that the Lethrblaka explanation doesn't make the slightest sense in canon, and I hate how this race was treated.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-15 05:44 pm (UTC)-Ultimate Cheetah
no subject
Date: 2020-04-16 01:29 pm (UTC)...And yes, the Ra'zac and the Lethrblaka were underused. A pity, because they could have been just so interesting.
Oh, I could write an entire lore over how and why they crossed the sea :)
no subject
Date: 2020-01-28 01:43 am (UTC)If you are a Hero, your actions are heroic. If you are a villain, your actions are always villainous. No matter when your actual actions are.
no subject
Date: 2020-01-28 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-01-28 06:08 am (UTC)Could you please maybe edit the post to include a list of the themes we've all identified in the comments? Just so there's one list instead of lots of different comment threads
no subject
Date: 2020-01-28 06:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-01-28 03:58 am (UTC)