inheritance

[SAVEDbyGRACE]

any other fans of these books around? i'm finally reading brisingr thanks to my friend who let me borrow his copy, it's pretty good a little better than eldest, still nothing compared to the first book (eragon) though, that one was such a masterpiece! if you like the books who is your fave character? i like murtagh, poor guy :/

[sailorsaturn]

I'm a fan! ^_^
Murtagh, the poor thing, he just makes me want to cry; his situation just seems so hopeless! Eragon even tried to tell him how to get out of it, but he just didn't get it.

[Atria35]

There's already a thread for this:

http://www.christiananime.net/showthread.php?t=54914&highlight=inheritance

[rocklobster]

be warned, Saved, those books have quite the hatedom.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Yeah, there aren't a whole lot of Paolini fans around here. I mean read what you like, and no one should ever tell you not to, but as rock said, the Inheritance books tend to attract more venomous hate than any other series I've seen discussed here.
Perhaps we could keep this thread civil and say early on there should be no such bashing on it here?

[mechana2015]

the Inheritance books tend to attract more venomous hate than any other series I've seen discussed here.

We just haven't had a Twilight thread.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I don't bash the author (although he does seem to have a HUGE ego). I just don't think his books are well-written or interesting and I've read the first two. The cursed girl concept was good but that's about it.

[SAVEDbyGRACE]

yeah i know a lot of people hate the books, but that's okay, we all have our own opinion

There's already a thread for this:

http://www.christiananime.net/showthread.php?t=54914&highlight=inheritance

oh i'm sorry -_-'

[Lynna]

I love these books! XD Not a lot of other fans around here T.T

Murtag used to be my favorite character, but now he's beeing quite irritating, although I acctually believe he's not as he says he is. So, I think it would have to be Angela and Solembum! Those two are so funny XD

I can't wait for the fourth book to come out!! Although, I hear Paolini is almost done !!!

And Also, That thread is from almost a year ago. Wouldn't that count as Gravedigging?

[Atria35]

Well, yes. But since I posted the link, there's been a good deal of discussion. Enough to maybe warrent reviving it.

....although this thread might die again very soon, so it won't matter too much.

In any case, I'm not fond of them. I went ahead and read up to the third books. The story is okay, but it's very poorly written. I wanted to desperately to take my pen to it and mark it up, but I couldn't- they were library books. It would not get a passing grade in any college English course.

Aspects of his behaviour also disturbed me a lot, most prominently in the third book. I wasn't sure why exactly I didn't like what he was doing, especially with Sloan. I really hated how Eragon/Paolini treated Sloan. And then I came across http://www.oak-tree.us/blog/index.php/2009/01/21/brisingr-sociopath , which put a lot of things that I had noticed or hadn't really jived with me into focus.

[Lynna]

Well, yes. But since I posted the link, there's been a good deal of discussion. Enough to maybe warrent reviving it.

....although this thread might die again very soon, so it won't matter too much.

In any case, I'm not fond of them. I went ahead and read up to the third books. The story is okay, but it's very poorly written. I wanted to desperately to take my pen to it and mark it up, but I couldn't- they were library books. It would not get a passing grade in any college English course.

Aspects of his behaviour also disturbed me a lot, most prominently in the third book. I wasn't sure why exactly I didn't like what he was doing, especially with Sloan. I really hated how Eragon/Paolini treated Sloan. And then I came across http://www.oak-tree.us/blog/index.php/2009/01/21/brisingr-sociopath , which put a lot of things that I had noticed or hadn't really jived with me into focus.

Interesting article, though I don't really agree with it

The thing is, none of these actions were in conditions Eragon chose. And He it's not like he doesn't care when things like that happen--- That same night, Eragon states how much he hates killing.

Now I do admit it was weird how Ergon said he didn't want to grant the Ra'Zaks request, and I don't like how he fealt good after getting his revenge. I fealt it was unrealistic.

I also was unsatisfied with the conclusion of Sloan. I admit I really didn't understand how his character was that way, and I don't see why Ergon couldn't have disscussed these things with him before hand. However, it was also because of Sloan that their village was betrayed, and if Eragon was really evil, he would have done what Arya---who I was rather dissapointed with---would have done: killed him on the spot. Ergon also ensured that if he reached the elves he would recieve care, and told him of a way he could escape. It's not what I call an amazing future, but from what I could see, Ergon did the best he could.

Brisinger was much Darker than it's predecessors, but There were still some very interesting things it

[Atria35]

I also was unsatisfied with the conclusion of Sloan. I admit I really didn't understand how his character was that way, and I don't see why Ergon couldn't have disscussed these things with him before hand. However, it was also because of Sloan that their village was betrayed, and if Eragon was really evil, he would have done what Arya---who I was rather dissapointed with---would have done: killed him on the spot. Ergon also ensured that if he reached the elves he would recieve care, and told him of a way he could escape. It's not what I call an amazing future, but from what I could see, Ergon did the best he could.

You're right, if Eragon were truly evil he would have killed Sloan, but at the same time the actions he did take weren't necessarily right or heroic. It still wasn't his duty or right to become judge, jury, and executioner- as the article states, and I very much agree with.

Eragon may also say that he hates killing, but his actions don't always line up with that belief- for instance, kiling the boy soldier. That was completely unnecessary and could have been avoided. But Eragon does it anyway. Actions speak louder than words.

[Lynna]

You're right, if Eragon were truly evil he would have killed Sloan, but at the same time the actions he did take weren't necessarily right or heroic. It still wasn't his duty or right to become judge, jury, and executioner- as the article states, and I very much agree with.

Eragon may also say that he hates killing, but his actions don't always line up with that belief- for instance, kiling the boy soldier. That was completely unnecessary and could have been avoided. But Eragon does it anyway. Actions speak louder than words.

Just out of curiosity, how could it be avoided? I thought the situation was pretty tight.
The real thing is though, the scene with the boy soldier was what I would call author manipulation. The Author was delibraitly tryng to make a situation where Eragon had no choice but to kill someone, so That Eragon could say how much he hates killing, do you get what I'm saying? Because beforehand, Eragon kills how many acctuall people? But Paolini didn't want to make Eragon evil, and yet at the same time, he wanted to disscuss the effects of being in war and the right and wrong of killing people in war. Evidence for this is how Roran does the same thing repeatedly throughout the book. Also, Oromis tells Eragon : "You Have the Hands of a Warrior: take care they don't become the hands of a Man who enjoys the carnage of war"
Now this, I think, is poorly played and an unelegant solution. It could have been done better, but books are never perfect

And With Sloan, I guess it wasn't very good that Eragon was setting himself up as judge, and I don't call it heroic at all, but real people aren't always heroic.

[Atria35]

As per the soldier- that was also addressed in the article, but it's worth repeating. The boy was young, crying, saying that he'd been impressed into the army and only wanted to go home. They didn't have to kill him, since they could have altered his memories or put him asleep for five years.

So why couldn't Eragon have let him go and, when Arya demanded why he hadn't killed him, Eragon could have said that he hated killing? I think the readers would have understood. I mean, do you really feel unsympathetic to a denfenseless (remember, his sword had been lost or knocked away, so he was no threat to Eragon at that point) young boy who's begging for his life?

Letting him go would have sent the message that Eragon hated killing.

You're right in that real people aren't always heroic, but that particular action is protrayed as heroic, and I've met enough people IRL and online who have claimed that particular action was. Which means that the idea that it presents, that that type of justice is being spread around as okay.

[Lynna]

As per the soldier- that was also addressed in the article, but it's worth repeating. The boy was young, crying, saying that he'd been impressed into the army and only wanted to go home. They didn't have to kill him, since they could have altered his memories or put him asleep for five years.

So why couldn't Eragon have let him go and, when Arya demanded why he hadn't killed him, Eragon could have said that he hated killing? I think the readers would have understood. I mean, do you really feel unsympathetic to a denfenseless (remember, his sword had been lost or knocked away, so he was no threat to Eragon at that point) young boy who's begging for his life?

Letting him go would have sent the message that Eragon hated killing.

You're right in that real people aren't always heroic, but that particular action is protrayed as heroic, and I've met enough people IRL and online who have claimed that particular action was. Which means that the idea that it presents, that that type of justice is being spread around as okay.

Interesting. It's funny: I and my younger brother were discussing what they could have done instead, and my little brother said " they could have used magic to change his memories":bang:

Letting him go would have sent the message that Eragon hated killing, but It wouldn't have sent the message that sometimes killing might be necissary, which is what the author was trying to say.

As I said, it wasn't very well done. In the end, the magic in alageasia can solve a great variety of problems that people otherwise have to struggle through on their own, which is a fault of the books.

hmmm...well, it's true that Paolini didn't particularly represent the action as being unheroic. It was obviously something he didn't have a problem with. not a good thing, and not something I agree with, but I disagree with a lot of peoples ideas of justice, so I'm not surprised I disagree with his.

[Atria35]

Interesting. It's funny: I and my younger brother were discussing what they could have done instead, and my little brother said " they could have used magic to change his memories":bang:

Letting him go would have sent the message that Eragon hated killing, but It wouldn't have sent the message that sometimes killing might be necissary, which is what the author was trying to say.

As I said, it wasn't very well done. In the end, the magic in alageasia can solve a great variety of problems that people otherwise have to struggle through on their own, which is a fault of the books.

hmmm...well, it's true that Paolini didn't particularly represent the action as being unheroic. It was obviously something he didn't have a problem with. not a good thing, and not something I agree with, but I disagree with a lot of peoples ideas of justice, so I'm not surprised I disagree with his.

Your brother was on the ball! Eragon had used his powers to do that before, he could have done it then. I hate saying that "it's the fault of the books". It's like it's making an excuse for bad writing and a poor way of sending a message. So I'm going to outright say it- it also shows the view of the author at the point that he was writing. Even if he was trying to send that message, he thought that killing a defenseless boy was an okay way to send it. That's not good.

I think there's something in Western mentality that likes the idea of vigilante justice, and that's why people don't think critically of justice and what it means and the responsibility it brings. We aren't so far removed from the Wild West, after all. So that might be why they feel like they do about Sloan's punishment.

[TopazRaven]

Your brother was on the ball! Eragon had used his powers to do that before, he could have done it then. I hate saying that "it's the fault of the books". It's like it's making an excuse for bad writing and a poor way of sending a message. So I'm going to outright say it- it also shows the view of the author at the point that he was writing. Even if he was trying to send that message, he thought that killing a defenseless boy was an okay way to send it. That's not good.

I think there's something in Western mentality that likes the idea of vigilante justice, and that's why people don't think critically of justice and what it means and the responsibility it brings. We aren't so far removed from the Wild West, after all. So that might be why they feel like they do about Sloan's punishment.

Hm, I haven't read the books in awhile, but I do remember the part with the boy soldier did greatly disturbed me. I didn't understand why Eragon had to kill him. It seemed an unneeded act of violence on his part. As for what happened with Sloan, I do think that could have been handled a lot better, it's not right to tell him he could never see his daughter again and I think he suffered enough with the Ra'Zac.

Meanwhile, my favorites characters are Oromis and Saphira. Angela and Solembum are awesome to. Eragon definitly isn't that much of a favorite, I like him but sometimes he annoys me, I'd take Roran over him any day.

[Lynna]

Your brother was on the ball! Eragon had used his powers to do that before, he could have done it then. I hate saying that "it's the fault of the books". It's like it's making an excuse for bad writing and a poor way of sending a message. So I'm going to outright say it- it also shows the view of the author at the point that he was writing. Even if he was trying to send that message, he thought that killing a defenseless boy was an okay way to send it. That's not good.

I think there's something in Western mentality that likes the idea of vigilante justice, and that's why people don't think critically of justice and what it means and the responsibility it brings. We aren't so far removed from the Wild West, after all. So that might be why they feel like they do about Sloan's punishment.

I was trying to say it was the authors fault!!!
*face palm*
forgive me for my terrible communication skills
The article you gave is trying to say Eragon is a sociopath, and I'm saying the scene with the soldier wasn't supposed to show anything about Eragon's character.
The thing is though, even if anyone can think of other ways at that moment, From what Eragon said to the soldier, he seriously believed he had no other option. The author could have created an option, but he didn't want too. He was trying to say war is terrible and if you fight in one you will have to do terrible things, or at least, that was my interpretation of it. And I'm also saying that the author didn't do a good job of it, but I don't think he was trying to say killing was okay. Also, although this doesn't matter much, I don't think the soldier was younger than Eragon, because the book, in all it's often-too-much detail, didn't specify that. I also think a scared kid wouldn't have been able to make so long arguments to Eragorn as too why he should live (although maybe he was a brave kid, who knows)
So What I'm saying is I agree that the author did a bad job, but I don't think he was trying to say that killing is okay.

And as for the vigilante stuff, I think people like it because they'de like to think they could fix all the bad things in the world.

anyways, sorry for my long, useless rant. I guess, in the end, I don't like it when a character is blamed for something that was entirely the authors fault, although that probably makes no sense.

And Topaz, I like how even though you disagree with some of the things in the books, you still like some stuff ^_^

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Oy vey. It sounds like Paolini's abandoned the medicore generic qualities of his first two books and with his third book has gone for more originality but amoral mediocrity instead. And Christians have more issues with Harry Potter?

[TopazRaven]

Oy vey. It sounds like Paolini's abandoned the medicore generic qualities of his first two books and with his third book has gone for more originality but amoral mediocrity instead. And Christians have more issues with Harry Potter?

Lol, yeah, that's true. In least Harry and co don't frolick around killing people. xD

[Atria35]

I was The article you gave is trying to say Eragon is a sociopath, and I'm saying the scene with the soldier wasn't supposed to show anything about Eragon's character.
The thing is though, even if anyone can think of other ways at that moment, From what Eragon said to the soldier, he seriously believed he had no other option. The author could have created an option, but he didn't want too. He was trying to say war is terrible and if you fight in one you will have to do terrible things, or at least, that was my interpretation of it. And I'm also saying that the author didn't do a good job of it, but I don't think he was trying to say killing was okay. Also, although this doesn't matter much, I don't think the soldier was younger than Eragon, because the book, in all it's often-too-much detail, didn't specify that. I also think a scared kid wouldn't have been able to make so long arguments to Eragorn as too why he should live (although maybe he was a brave kid, who knows)
So What I'm saying is I agree that the author did a bad job, but I don't think he was trying to say that killing is okay.

I'm not saying that Eragon is a sociopath, though, and even though the article is saying that he's a sociopath, it does state several of his actions and the reasons why they were wrong.

I think we're at a bit of an impass. Because the author could not make the statement about war in a better way- and in fact, does it in a way that makes Eragon seem like a heartless monster (and I will hold to this. Killing a defenseless boy who's pleading for his life makes any character a monster)- means that any statement that 'war is wrong and so is killing' is meaningless,.

Why? Because while the CHARACTER may not have believed there was any other way, we the readers (such as me and your brother) know better. That means that we know that the character is a hypocrite, lying, or two-faced. Or perhaps an idiot, since the readers apparently know about his options and abilities better than he does. But because we know that he doesn't have to kill the boy, and he does anyway, everything he says about killing being wrong is made meaningless.

[TopazRaven]

I think an important thing we need to remember here though is that humans aren't perfect. Not even elves and dragon riders. We all make mistakes and sometimes horrible and sickening choices. Another thing I'd like to point out, is perhaps this was an event done on purpose for character development. Lets go all the way back to the first book shall we? There is a scene in which Murtagh kills a slave trade in the desert and Eragon throws a complete hissy fit. Murtagh at this time knew nothing of magic and in his mind he had no other choice, but to kill the slave trader or else he would flee to the nearest civilization and tattle on them. He explains this to Eragon and yet Eragon still throws a huge tantrum about how killing is wrong, even the killing of a ruthless slave trader. Look how his personality has changed from Eragon to Brsingr, he has grown from a boy who couldn't stand the thought of unneeded killed to a more cold and calculated man who is willing to kill over the slightest threat. This is what war does to people. In least to some people. I think this is the point Paolini was trying to make. We can see from the battle scenes with Roran throughout the books that war is a terrible thing, I don't think he was trying to say," alright kids, killing is a-ok!" That's just my opinion though.

[Atria35]

^ I can see where you're coming from, and in some ways I do think that's true. But at the same time, Paoilini rarely displays anything to dispute that his character is anything but perfect. Everyone -except the bad guys- kisses the ground at his feet. He can do no wrong. So I would say that to interpret this one incident as Paoilini as saying his character is less than perfect is unsupportable, or at the very least shakey.

Especially considering the glaring errors in the rest of his writing. Taking that into account, I don't think that was Paolini's intent at all- he's just not that sophisticated a writer.

[TopazRaven]

Perhaps you're right. I like the books, but just like with the Twilight series, I agree that the writing could use much improvemnt. The elves always seem to come across as perfect as well and it's annoying. Eragon is far from a perfect character, but I do think it's obvious all of his new found power has gotten to his head if he thinks he can be lord and judge over others. He is a different man then he was in the first book, so I suppose in my own mind I looked into Eragon's changed and disturbing behavior and tried to make up my own explinations for it. This is actually another reason I prefer Roran over Eragon. He seems more, well, real to me. He knows he's not perfect and he doesn't try to be.

[Davidizer13]

The optimist in me thinks that this sociopathy that's appeared in Eragon in the last book is going to be a plot point in the end of the series: one theory I read is that it'll be a sign that he's unfit to rule, a bit like in Fullmetal Alchemist where [spoiler]Roy is this close to killing Envy, but the other characters realize that he's let his vengeance consume him and pull him back from the brink[/spoiler] only with the opposite outcome: because of it, he realizes that the time for violence (and for the Riders, even) is at an end. The world has moved past that, and Eragon will have to come to grips with that fact.

Of course, I like my theory that he's a pawn of the oh-so-perfect elves, who are using him to weaken both the Empire and the varden and take over the world.

[Atria35]

Of course, I like my theory that he's a pawn of the oh-so-perfect elves, who are using him to weaken both the Empire and the varden and take over the world.

Best Theory Ever.

I want that to happen so bad! XD

[Lynna]

The optimist in me thinks that this sociopathy that's appeared in Eragon in the last book is going to be a plot point in the end of the series: one theory I read is that it'll be a sign that he's unfit to rule, a bit like in Fullmetal Alchemist where [spoiler]Roy is this close to killing Envy, but the other characters realize that he's let his vengeance consume him and pull him back from the brink[/spoiler] only with the opposite outcome: because of it, he realizes that the time for violence (and for the Riders, even) is at an end. The world has moved past that, and Eragon will have to come to grips with that fact.

Of course, I like my theory that he's a pawn of the oh-so-perfect elves, who are using him to weaken both the Empire and the varden and take over the world.

Except Eragon himself doesn't believe he's fit to rule.

Atria, I agree with more points that you're saying than you obviously understand I do, so I won't argue further. I suck at communicating arguements and you obviously aren't getting what I'm trying to say. Topaz Raven said half of it. So if we can't agree, let's just agree to disagree okay?