IN THE BEGINNING Inheritance part one.
Jan. 8th, 2012 09:53 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
kippurbird.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
kippurcritiquesbadbooksAll right people. Welcome to book four out of three in Paolini's Inheritance Trilogy.
And boy do we start off with a bang. The first couple of lines just made me facepalm.
Is that a good start? I dunno.
What are these lines, you may ask!?
This is from the summary, where we're starting.
Okay. So. In the beginning of what? Were there dragons before there was land? Also beauty makes people despair? Is it a sort of "OH I WILL NEVER BE AS BEAUTIFUL AS THEM I MIGHT AS WELL GO AND BE DEPRESSED?!" And finally, if the dragons were alone, then WHO WAS GAZING UPON THEM AND DESPAIRING?! These few lines are pretty and sound good. I mean people fear dragons, they're so fierce and whatnot. But if the dragons are along, then who can gaze upon them and be afraid? And why does their beauty the cause of the despair from the non-existent people?
Unless they were all despairing while looking at each other? So they whenever they saw another dragon they fled?
Then the dwarf god makes the dwarves from the stone of the Hadarac desert. Which, if I recall correctly, wasn't always a desert. And even if it was, it was a sandy sort, not a stony sort. So were they made of sand? I think Paolini had them created from the desert stone instead of mountain stone because otherwise it would have been... cliche.
Hah.
But this brings up another question. If the god made the dwarves, who made the dragons? Did they just pop into existence? Where did they come from? It just says in the beginning there were dragons. Did the dragons come before the gods?
Do you see what I'm saying here? If something created one thing, where would the other things come from. This is going back to the sort of cheat around that happened when you got the elf vs dwarf thing on religion. He didn't want the elves to be wrong but he didn't want to sound all like the dwarves were stupid or something so he gave the dwarves a god, but still made the elves right because they didn't have a god. So, he wants both of them to be right. The elves have no god, so they just sort of Show Up on the continent. No literally.
The dragons and the dwarves fight for ... some reason not given. Then the elves show up from across the "silver sea". And they too war with the dragons... but the elves were strong than the dwarves. What the hell does that have to do with anything? I guess it would be because they were able to possibly destroy the dragons... but you have to admit the dwarves are pretty tough if they've managed to fight the dragons for...
You know, I have no clue how long they were fighting. There's no timescale here.
It's supposed to be dramatic, but... I have no time scale. I'll say a week.
And they make a truce and there were dragon riders! Which sounds like the dragons got the short end of the stick. Still. A thousand years pass.
Humans show up. From where, I don't know. How were they created? I don't know.
At least we know that the elves are some sort of plant creatures the procreate by budding.
Urgals also show up and from where, I don't know. How were they created, I don't know.
And then the Ra'zac who are the hunters in the dark and the eaters of men’s flesh.
Uh-huh.
See the thing is you can't say how one race was created if you're not going to show how all the others were created.
In Thud by Terry Pratchett we're given the troll version of how all creature were created. Men, dwarves and trolls. And they were all created by Tak. They were all given an origin. The dwarves probably disagree with this origin, but they were all given one in this story because these are the people who the trolls deal with. That exist. If you are going to mention how one thing was created in an origin story or a history, then you need to mention how all of them were created.
Moving on.
The humans show up and they join the dragon rider club. Why? They're pretty.
Actually it doesn't say that. But it doesn't say why they got to join and the others didn't. So, pretty works as much as anything else does.
And then Galby shows up. And then he convinces thirteen others to join him. It mentions that he enslaves Shruikan but not that his previous dragon died and all that horrid stuff that might make us sympathetic to him just a little. God forbid that happen.
And for two and eight... why are we suddenly saying things like two and eighty?
Anyway and this happened. And then that happened. And you know, the blue egg was stolen and the dragons were killed and the Foresworn were killed. And Ayra carried the egg around for twenty five years. And there's no mention of any of the horrible things that Galby did during his something and something long reign just that he reigned supreme which is awful, just awful.
And the over use of the word "And" every other paragraph it seems like is driving me crazy. He's just listing off events here that happened in the books and it is starting to sound like the parts in the bible where we get to the begats parts. You know, the "And Roger lived to a hundred and twenty and he begat Norman and Lily and Harry who was his only daughter and Norman begat Sherlock on Judy who was the daughter of the First Lord of Cheese and begat Sydny on his second wife Rose who was the daughter of Jorah who was the son of ... Tom Tom the Piper's son and Sherlock begat Simon who turned into a monkey. And people were glad of this for Simon was a noonie head. And thus the generations from Roger to Simon were seven and twenty."
Yeah. It basically sums up every "major" event in the books. Just lists them. It's boring and I just skim over them.
I honestly don't know why he needs to put these in (except as a word count buffer? Did he have a quota?)
If you've read along with me or if you've read the books, you know what happen.
It ends with But still the Varden continued, and even now they march deeper into the Empire, toward the capital, Urû’baen, wherein sits Galbatorix, proud, confident, and disdainful, for his is the strength of the dragons.
What we have here is Paolini trying to copy the biblical style of writing. However there's a problem with this. While the bible is an important book, according to some the most important book of all time, it is not good reading. I mean this from a literary easy to read and engaging point of view. Especially the parts that he's trying to copy.
Mimicking the bible's style does not make your work biblical. Much like mimicking Tolkien does not make your writing Tolkienesque. The stories in the bible are pretty epic but they're told in very compact ways that aren't, when it gets down to it, really good for a coherent novel structure. And yes, I realize he's trying to sum up, but there were better choices he could have used. OR just not put it in at all.
I had this complaint the last two books too, didn't I?
And boy do we start off with a bang. The first couple of lines just made me facepalm.
Is that a good start? I dunno.
What are these lines, you may ask!?
This is from the summary, where we're starting.
In the beginning, there were dragons: proud, fierce, and independent. Their scales were like gems, and all who gazed upon them despaired, for their beauty was great and terrible.
And they lived alone in the land of Alagaësia for ages uncounted.
Okay. So. In the beginning of what? Were there dragons before there was land? Also beauty makes people despair? Is it a sort of "OH I WILL NEVER BE AS BEAUTIFUL AS THEM I MIGHT AS WELL GO AND BE DEPRESSED?!" And finally, if the dragons were alone, then WHO WAS GAZING UPON THEM AND DESPAIRING?! These few lines are pretty and sound good. I mean people fear dragons, they're so fierce and whatnot. But if the dragons are along, then who can gaze upon them and be afraid? And why does their beauty the cause of the despair from the non-existent people?
Unless they were all despairing while looking at each other? So they whenever they saw another dragon they fled?
Then the dwarf god makes the dwarves from the stone of the Hadarac desert. Which, if I recall correctly, wasn't always a desert. And even if it was, it was a sandy sort, not a stony sort. So were they made of sand? I think Paolini had them created from the desert stone instead of mountain stone because otherwise it would have been... cliche.
Hah.
But this brings up another question. If the god made the dwarves, who made the dragons? Did they just pop into existence? Where did they come from? It just says in the beginning there were dragons. Did the dragons come before the gods?
Do you see what I'm saying here? If something created one thing, where would the other things come from. This is going back to the sort of cheat around that happened when you got the elf vs dwarf thing on religion. He didn't want the elves to be wrong but he didn't want to sound all like the dwarves were stupid or something so he gave the dwarves a god, but still made the elves right because they didn't have a god. So, he wants both of them to be right. The elves have no god, so they just sort of Show Up on the continent. No literally.
The dragons and the dwarves fight for ... some reason not given. Then the elves show up from across the "silver sea". And they too war with the dragons... but the elves were strong than the dwarves. What the hell does that have to do with anything? I guess it would be because they were able to possibly destroy the dragons... but you have to admit the dwarves are pretty tough if they've managed to fight the dragons for...
You know, I have no clue how long they were fighting. There's no timescale here.
It's supposed to be dramatic, but... I have no time scale. I'll say a week.
And they make a truce and there were dragon riders! Which sounds like the dragons got the short end of the stick. Still. A thousand years pass.
Humans show up. From where, I don't know. How were they created? I don't know.
At least we know that the elves are some sort of plant creatures the procreate by budding.
Urgals also show up and from where, I don't know. How were they created, I don't know.
And then the Ra'zac who are the hunters in the dark and the eaters of men’s flesh.
Uh-huh.
See the thing is you can't say how one race was created if you're not going to show how all the others were created.
In Thud by Terry Pratchett we're given the troll version of how all creature were created. Men, dwarves and trolls. And they were all created by Tak. They were all given an origin. The dwarves probably disagree with this origin, but they were all given one in this story because these are the people who the trolls deal with. That exist. If you are going to mention how one thing was created in an origin story or a history, then you need to mention how all of them were created.
Moving on.
The humans show up and they join the dragon rider club. Why? They're pretty.
Actually it doesn't say that. But it doesn't say why they got to join and the others didn't. So, pretty works as much as anything else does.
And then Galby shows up. And then he convinces thirteen others to join him. It mentions that he enslaves Shruikan but not that his previous dragon died and all that horrid stuff that might make us sympathetic to him just a little. God forbid that happen.
And for two and eight... why are we suddenly saying things like two and eighty?
Anyway and this happened. And then that happened. And you know, the blue egg was stolen and the dragons were killed and the Foresworn were killed. And Ayra carried the egg around for twenty five years. And there's no mention of any of the horrible things that Galby did during his something and something long reign just that he reigned supreme which is awful, just awful.
And the over use of the word "And" every other paragraph it seems like is driving me crazy. He's just listing off events here that happened in the books and it is starting to sound like the parts in the bible where we get to the begats parts. You know, the "And Roger lived to a hundred and twenty and he begat Norman and Lily and Harry who was his only daughter and Norman begat Sherlock on Judy who was the daughter of the First Lord of Cheese and begat Sydny on his second wife Rose who was the daughter of Jorah who was the son of ... Tom Tom the Piper's son and Sherlock begat Simon who turned into a monkey. And people were glad of this for Simon was a noonie head. And thus the generations from Roger to Simon were seven and twenty."
Yeah. It basically sums up every "major" event in the books. Just lists them. It's boring and I just skim over them.
I honestly don't know why he needs to put these in (except as a word count buffer? Did he have a quota?)
If you've read along with me or if you've read the books, you know what happen.
It ends with But still the Varden continued, and even now they march deeper into the Empire, toward the capital, Urû’baen, wherein sits Galbatorix, proud, confident, and disdainful, for his is the strength of the dragons.
What we have here is Paolini trying to copy the biblical style of writing. However there's a problem with this. While the bible is an important book, according to some the most important book of all time, it is not good reading. I mean this from a literary easy to read and engaging point of view. Especially the parts that he's trying to copy.
Mimicking the bible's style does not make your work biblical. Much like mimicking Tolkien does not make your writing Tolkienesque. The stories in the bible are pretty epic but they're told in very compact ways that aren't, when it gets down to it, really good for a coherent novel structure. And yes, I realize he's trying to sum up, but there were better choices he could have used. OR just not put it in at all.
I had this complaint the last two books too, didn't I?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 06:10 am (UTC)Ands can be such an easy and lazy writing habit to get into. I know I see myself falling into them and have to stop myself because they sound stupid.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 06:21 am (UTC)As for the ands thing, I completely agree with you. I find myself doing that too sometimes and have to kick myself to make me stop.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 06:27 am (UTC)If you're relying on it too much in writing and you're not purposefully setting out to do something that says clearly, I am doing something like Homer's lists then don't or the Bible begats. Sorry, my Classical thinking was showing there as that's my first association with the begats later. It can work but it can become a writing crutch quickly.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 06:39 am (UTC)And when they do do it there's usually an inherent sort of rhythm because it's supposed to be told by speaking and has to be well... be able to flow off the tongue for lack of a better term.
This... does not.
I do think he is intentionally trying to mimic the bible here to prove how EPIC his work is. If it can be summed up in biblical style then it must be EPIC and worthy of being taught in the classrooms like Beowulf etc. Which it's not.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 06:45 am (UTC)Oh yes, I've done oral storytelling and the way I think about my words is different from how I treat them for written work. In college, I actually wrote my senior paper on oral and literate styles of writing in Greek and Roman lyric poetry, it's a topic I can go on about for a while.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 07:25 am (UTC)I haven't done oral traditions myself very much, but I know enough of it to know what he's doing.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 09:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 05:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 08:22 am (UTC)When I first read that quote my jaw dropped. How can he be so damned BLATANT and not called on it?!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 08:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 07:18 am (UTC)Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 07:26 am (UTC)Yes, I believe he did.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 07:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 08:55 am (UTC)Because everyone knows that the Bible = epic.
You can't get more epic than that. So of course you have to go with that.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 07:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 08:15 am (UTC)I have not read your essay yet. I'm trying to go at this as unbiased as possible.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 06:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 07:05 pm (UTC)Here's a question.
Date: 2012-01-13 07:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 08:25 am (UTC)Great job by the way. Loved your other sporks. They were a strong inspiration to do some of my own.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 08:42 am (UTC)Yes, Paolini is trying for the cliff's note version of what happened, but there are better ways to get that information across. Although, I suppose I should be grateful that it's not dumped in as an "as you know Bob".
Though I have a feeling that there will be plenty of those.
I'm glad you enjoyed them, though I'm not sure if I should be pleased that I've inspired people to subject themselves to these sorts of things. :D
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 10:10 am (UTC)That's far, far more than necessary.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-09 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-10 08:35 pm (UTC)Also, being that I am following the LotR posts over on Mark Reads presently, it's hilarious to go from that amazing bit of high fantasy to see Paolini's hamfisted attempts...I mean, this still reads like something written by a high schooler. You'd think he'd have evolved by now!
I got the first couple of books from thie series as gifts, but I very much prefer exploring them through your critiques. Love the posts! I can't wait to read more!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-24 06:09 am (UTC)