On Christoper Paolini’s Literary Offenses
Hello! Me again.
If the title of my following little contribution sounds familiar to you, hold on for just another second and let me explain first:
I have never been a huge fan of Mark Twain’s writing. Maybe because I was growing up in a time period that in Central Europe directly followed the fall of Communist rule and some things, most notably literature, were taking their time arriving to these parts of the world from the West. So I never read classics such as Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn as a child. I only got to the works of Mark Twain when I briefly attended a high school in the United States many years later, so even though his stories for boys may have grabbed me as a kid, I had very little to no actual interest in them at the time. But then our English teacher gave us this to read for an assignment. I was immediately captured by the man’s wit and insight (for until that day I though I was the only one who hated Cooper for his so-called woodsman’s craft—some things are hard to swallow when your father is an actual woodsman and a forester) and I started paying more attention to his other, more mature work.
I stumbled upon this witty little discourse of his recently and while reading it, I could not help noticing certain astonishing similarities between the flaws Cooper made in his writing and those of the one and only Christopher Paolini. I immediately sat in front of my computer and this is what I came up with. Before this begins, let me just add that some parts were directly pasted from the original article, some had certain words changed, some thoughts were expanded upon while others were abandoned altogether. I do not in any way claim to be my original work, at least not in its entirety. I see this much more as a tribute to a great writer and a critic, as well as a way to point out some most glaring flaws Paolini made in his writing and last, but definitely not least, a way to amuse myself and, hopefully, all you reading this. So without further ado, enjoy:
A #1 New York Times Bestseller
2004 Book Sense Book of the Year
A USA Today Bestseller
A #1 Publishers Weekly Bestseller
A Wall Street Journal Bestseller
A Book Sense Bestseller
“Full praise to Eragon, and I want more! A winner . . . tip of the hat to young master Paolini.”— Anne McCaffrey, author of The Dragonriders of Pern series
“Christopher Paolini make[s] literary magic with his precocious debut.”— People
“An authentic work of great talent . . . I found myself dreaming about it at night, and reaching for it as soon as I woke.” ─ Liz Rosenberg, The New York Times Book Review
“Unusual, powerful . . . fresh and fluid. An impressive start to a writing career that’s sure to flourish.” — Booklist, Starred
“An auspicious beginning to both career and series.”— Publishers Weekly
“Will appeal to legions of readers who have been captivated by the Lord of the Rings trilogy.”— School Library Journal
It seems to me that it was far from right for Anne McCaffrey, the author of the Dragonriders of Pern series, as well as for the other reviewers mentioned above, to deliver opinions on the writing of Christopher Paolini without having actually read some of it. It would have been much more decorous to keep silent and let persons talk who actually read Eragon and its successors in the Inheritance series, originally intended as a trilogy, Eldest and Brisingr.
There are nineteen rules governing literary art in the domain of fantastic fiction—some say twenty-two. In his Inheritance series, Paolini violated eighteen of them. These eighteen require:
- That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. In case that it is divided into several volumes, each of them should contribute to the tale in some manner and thus help it move forward. But the story of Inheritance has so far accomplished very little and it arrived in the air, just as Eldest and Brisingr, which served merely as tools of stalling the series’ progress and avoiding the long sought-after closure, have showed us.
- They require that the personages in the tale shall be alive, except in the case of corpses, and just as living persons, the personages in the tale should be multi-dimensional, with logical motivations and believable reactions, rather than cardboard stand-ins for actual characters, that are exceeded even by corpses in their believability. But this detail has often been overlooked in the Inheritance series.
- They require that the personages in a tale, both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there. But this detail also has been overlooked in the Inheritance series.
- They require that when the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject in hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say. But this requirement has been ignored from the beginning of the Inheritance cycle to the current end of it.
- They require that when the author describes the character of a personage in his tale, the conduct and conversation of that personage shall justify said description. But this law gets little or no attention in the Inheritance cycle, as the main character’s, Eragon’s, case will amply prove to any careful and diligent reader.
- They require that when a character is a simple, uneducated, illiterate, hard – working farmhand, he shall not talk like a pompous University dropout with ambitions of sounding educated and well0studied in philosophy, history, natural sciences and many other worldly ways when pondering things silently in the privacy of his mind. But this rule is flung down and danced upon in the Inheritance cycle.
- They require that crass stupidities shall not be played upon the reader as “possible because of magic,” be put in the book because they are rather neat to imagine or be overlooked at all by either the author or the people in the tale. But this rule is persistently violated in the Inheritance cycle.
- They require that the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities, unless it is the case of magic; and if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable within the limits of the given system and natural laws of the world. But these rules are not respected in the Inheritance series.
- They require that the author shall make the reader feel a deep interest in the personages of his tale and in their fate; and that he shall make the reader love the good people in the tale and hate the bad ones. But the reader of the Inheritance cycle dislikes the good people in it, is indifferent to the others, and wishes they would all get drowned together.
- They require that the characters in a tale shall be so clearly defined that the reader can tell beforehand what each will do in a given emergency. But in the Inheritance series this rule is vacated.
- That the ideas that the writer brings into the creative process are his own and not simply stolen from other works of literature and then merely compiled together in the final opus, deceivingly referring to them as “influences”. But this rule, nay, this simple principle of writing courtesy is merrily beaten down and stomped upon also in the Inheritance cycle.
In addition to these large rules there are some little ones. These require that the author shall:
- Say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.
- Use the right word, not its second cousin, especially if you have no idea what the latter actually means.
- Eschew surplusage.
- Not omit necessary details.
- Avoid slovenliness of form.
- Use good grammar.
- Employ a simple and straightforward style.
Even these are coldly and persistently violated during the whole course of the Inheritance cycle.
I may be mistaken, but it does seem to me that Inheritance is not a literary work in any sense; it does seem to me that it is destitute of every detail that goes to the making of a work of literature; in truth, it seems to me that Inheritance is just simply a literary delirium tremens that had occurred during the peak of sexual stimulation over some other, much better-written, more original and overall respected pieces.
An authentic work of great talent? It has no invention; it has no order, system, sequence, or result; it has no liveliness, no thrill, no stir, no seeming of reality; its characters are confusedly drawn, and by their acts and words they prove that they are not the sort of people the author claims that they are; its humor is pathetic; its pathos is funny; its conversations are—oh! indescribable; its love-scenes odious; its English a crime against the language.
Counting these out, what is left is literature. I think we must all admit that.
Thank you for taking your time to read,
Falconempress
Tagged as Characters, Criticism, Falconempress, Inheritance, Paolini.Comment
By Wumpa
on Apr 19, 04:21 AM
You’re right. I think what we need to remember is that Twilight and Inheritance were written as wish fulfilment stories of their respective authors. Meyer wrote about her dream-man, and Paolini, who lived a very sheltered life, wrote a ‘fantasy epic’ to escape. Both weren’t worthy of being published, so I personally can’t regard them as pieces of literature.
By Kitty
on Apr 19, 07:08 AM
All of us are guilty of a wish-fulfillment story…the only difference with Meyer and Paolini is that they’re published.
Nice article, Fempress. I thought the title was a little familiar and then reading on I could pat myself on the back and go “oh ho I am so pretentious” for about five seconds.
By falconempress
on Apr 19, 10:02 AM
All of us are guilty of a wish-fulfillment story…the only difference with Meyer and Paolini is that they’re published.
the fact that they got published is not that much of an issue, at least to me it is not. What is the problem, however, is that they are poorly – written, pathetically stupid and outright ridiculous, yet are still being treated like the greatest thing since the invention of warm water.
I thought the title was a little familiar and then reading on I could pat myself on the back and go “oh ho I am so pretentious” for about five seconds.
XD that is so funny
By Puppet
on Apr 19, 10:25 AM
Darn, I know every time I finish my novel, I’m going to see your list in my head, pointing out the flaws, (not that it’s a bad thing).
Nice article, I don’t think anybody else here has pointed out the flaws of the Inheritance as clearly as you have here.
By Morvius
on Apr 19, 11:28 AM
Ah Eragon…I am going to write a review of it for my school’s newsletter. Oh about that Twilight review, apparently they planned on a positive and a negative one. But no one dared to do the negative one.
By falconempress
on Apr 19, 12:28 PM
@Puppet – thank you so much but I think the credit does not belong to me, rather than to Mark Twain who wrote the original essay I tweaked a little (I provided the link above, definitely check it out, it is a great read)
@Morvius – oooh, when you are done with your review, will you post it here? And it is sad that nobody would dare criticize Twilight. Though seeing how batshit crazy avid some of the fans are I cannot say I dont understand
By OverlordDan
on Apr 19, 12:29 PM
Nice article! You don’t happen to have an unabridged checklist of the 19-22 rules governing literary art, do you?
By Spanman
on Apr 19, 12:54 PM
YES! I love Mark Twain’s tearing apart of James Fenimore Cooper’s writing, and here it is applied to Inheritance! So many kinds of awesome.
My favourite rule is “eschew surplusage”. XD
By Fenix
on Apr 19, 01:03 PM
Is this a repost of an earlier article posted at another site? I remember reading something similar.
By Lookingforme
on Apr 19, 02:01 PM
Hehehe…I also really liked the Twain piece you’re referring here, and I like your article too! It really is uncanny how much Cooper and Paolini have in common—stilted dialogue, NO sense of how an actual hunt goes, thesaurisitis, etc. I am actually a pretty big Twain fan, probably because he’s a sort of celebrity where I come from—it’s nice to know other people enjoy his humor too!
By Wumpa
on Apr 19, 03:30 PM
What I meant by the wish fulfilment is that both are personal pieces. Not in the deep way, such as any classic you care to name, but in a selfish and shallow way.
…I can’t remember where I was going with this. So yeah.
By swenson
on Apr 19, 05:25 PM
applauds
Brilliant. I love the original piece, and applying it to IC is an extremely good idea!
By Skorponok
on Apr 19, 06:48 PM
All too true.Great article too.And now,I have to find the original piece and read his books again.
By Sing
on Apr 19, 11:59 PM
:] Great article. I love Mark Twain to death, haha.
Anyways, I have this sudden urge to go through the Inheritance cycle and highlight every place where these standards are violated.
By falconempress
on Apr 20, 12:45 AM
@Skorponok – the original piece is linked in the introductory paragraph. Just scroll up and click on the link:)
@Overlord Dan – I am terribly sorry but I could not find the rules Twain mentions in the original and unabriged form.
And I am very happy you enjoy the article:)
By sansafro
on Apr 20, 01:32 AM
I haven’t read Brisingr, but seeing it laid out Twain-style, I think the dialogue is what really kills the series more than any other factor. Yeah, the prose is awful, but even if it were on-par, the dialogue is so preposterous none of the characters ever establish themselves with any kind of consistency since they are essentially voiceless.
By Jerk
on Apr 20, 07:55 AM
All stories are about wish fulfillment of some sort or the other.
By Wumpa
on Apr 20, 09:45 AM
Not necessarily. Some, like myths, are to explain abstract concepts. Others are to make a statement – look at The Great Gatsby or The Crucible.
What I was trying to say was that Inheritance and Twilight were written by bored people with time on their hands. They weren’t written for a wider audience. They were written by the author to the author.
By Jerk
on Apr 20, 09:59 AM
Then it’s a wish to tell the world your ideas, perspectives, or insights. That’s still a wish of the author regardless.
I think all writing boils down to seeking a certain form of living past death. You may die, but the experiences you have gone through will not have all gone in vain. What one might call a soul lives in your written works—a sum of all the experiences, thoughts, sensations that makes you you. Except you express them in the form of drama.
By Dan Locke
on Apr 20, 11:30 AM
You can’t be serious. I think that C. S. Lewis said it best:
If they won’t write the kind of books we want to read, we shall have to write them ourselves.
By Jerk
on Apr 20, 12:16 PM
And what exactly do they want to write and publish those books for, pray tell? Isn’t it satisfying enough to have the type of story you want to experience in your head, or is there some secondary reason to publish those stories for others to read? Everyone has a story in their heads, but why is there this burning desire to have others experience them too?
We all love to hear express our thoughts and feelings and perspective. No need to be bashful or embarrassed.
By Apep
on Apr 20, 10:23 PM
While having a lage audience is great, and getting joy out of telling stories is wonderful, liking your own story is probably the most important thing as a writer. If you don’t like the story you’re telling, chances are the reader’ll pick up on it.
By Jerk
on Apr 20, 10:25 PM
Why the hell would you write a story you do not like?
By Dan Locke
on Apr 21, 12:13 PM
It’s not that I want others to experience it. It’s that I want it in a concrete, definitive form that gives it life. Which is more satisfying: reading a synopsis of a book on Wikipedia, or reading the book? The book makes the story real.
By Jerk
on Apr 21, 05:00 PM
Even penning it down makes some of the meaning you have in your head disappear. The experience you have in your head will always lose some of its content however you want to record it, writing, film, whatever. Until scientists find a way to transfer pure thought without information loss, that’s the unfortunate consequence of choosing any medium. Whatever you bring alive will never be as alive as the creation in your mind’s eye.
If you really want to go ahead and deny that most authors’ reasons for writing is simply to be read and have someone else understand their story, I will not stop you. One day when you are writing, you will stop and stare at the screen and wonder why you are writing at all. Why did you choose to be a writer? This serious questioning of your own motives will not leave you until you explore every single angle of your own choices. It will haunt you, and you will not be able to seriously write until you find your real reason for writing. True, there is a muse, but the muse is not answer enough. There are far more personal reasons most people write, other than to just feed themselves.
I suggest you read a few biographies of authors and you might see what I’m getting at. Once you discover why you are really doing this in the first place, writer’s block doesn’t become a big obstacle anymore. But it requires absolute honesty to oneself.
By Spilly
on May 6, 04:41 AM
I don’t think I consciously chose to become a writer, I just started writing and found that a) I was good at it, and b) I enjoyed it. And thus I started doing it more.
@ Jerk;
I routinely ask myself that question, and sometimes it can be quite depressing seeing the mountains of stories I’ve yet to complete.
I think I write because it’s the one talent that I’ve got that I can do which will one; decrease the activity of my hyperactive imagination, and two; offer me an escape which books can never offer, because in my head, when I review my stories, I’ve got a complete understanding of what a certain character is like, why they act a certain way, and how they should react to certain situations. I suppose you could call it empathy, although I have a niggling feeling that isn’t the right word to describe it.
The hard bit is transfering that understanding to a reader without boring them to death. :)
By Rocky
on May 24, 12:22 AM
Look at him, a prisoner of the gutters!
Condemned by every syllable he utters!
By right, he should be taken out and hung,
For the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue!
By Steph the Phantasmagorical
on May 24, 02:12 AM
I love the prisoner analogy in that, Rocky. Very well done.
As to why I write, sheer ego and aesthetic sensibility would be mine. Added to which, I wholeheartedly agree with CS Lewis.
By Lisa Jonte
on May 24, 05:51 PM
At the risk of being forward, I think I love you.
I tried to read Eragon but gave up, crying for mercy, about halfway through the prologue. The word ‘derivative’ doesn’t come close to covering how I felt about the small bit I did manage to slog through.
In the end, ‘good writing for a 15-year-old’ is not the thing same as good writing.
By Spilly
on Jun 3, 07:23 AM
In some ways I agree, in other I don’t.
I think he’s had a fair try at it, and did well to get it published.
But I’m an ametuer and I’ll probably never be published, so I can’t really judge him.