Scan barcode
A review by writervid
Eragon by Christopher Paolini
3.0
Ruining My Childhood! Spoilers for future books ahead, too.
I was obsessed with these books for a LONG time. I loved fantasy, I loved dragons, I still love dragons (I'm ace, hello?), and I had a thing for really epic feeling series. Obviously, check marks all around.
After watching all the LOTR movies for the first time, I figured I might dive into the canon I knew best that felt closest to that high fantasy cutout. I could very distinctly remember a few things from the series--Murtagh's betrayal later in the series (particularly with the whole true name thing), Brom telling a story as exposition early on, Arya as a character, what Brisingr meant, that Eragon wasn't able to read and that I found it refreshingly accurate, etc, etc. Small snippets of what makes the series, the series. Truth be told, I can't remember much of anything after Brisingr; I'm pretty sure I only read the last book once, so it will be interesting (to say the least) rereading that one.
I started rereading with a mainly critical eye. I was shocked by the strength of the prose in its word choice; Paolini did an excellent job at using few words to convey a strong picture, particularly in reference to landscapes. I also liked the clear understanding there was of dragon anatomy, and how each stage in Saphira's growing process was clearly thought through. I also forgot how distinct and lovable side characters like Solembum and Angela are.
However, I do get the sense that outside of the Riders, not much was thought of as a way of separating from the typical high fantasy canon, which can be seen in how extremely overpowered the elves seem, as well as the very basic language structure (Arget is....so obvious as a root word. And doesn't Varden mean forest in this world based on the place Du Weldenvarden?) Similarly, I don't think the Act Two of the book was fully thought through either. It's dense for little reason, and the conflicts between Brom and Eragon are repetitive. But this isn't the central weakness of this book.
The main issue with Eragon lies in the source of its title. I don't get a strong enough sense of who Eragon is; he feels like a self insert protagonist, clever enough at the right times to make readers cheer, but hotheaded to cause minimal conflict and make him seem like a teenager. While there were times I could understand his irritations, oftentimes his issues escalated too quickly. After his arrival in Tronjheim, he turns overnight into a strategical mastermind able to hold his own in courtly matters. Same with swordsmanship and Brom teaching him. And yet, I don't understand why Saphira picked him. He's somewhat bland and extremely inconsistent, and lacks a true arc.
I think the root of this problem lies in the narrative distance we have from Eragon--we are not typically in his head, but rather looking just over it, enough to get a vague sense of what might be going on inside it but nothing more. If I had been immersed in his perspective, I might have been able to root for him more, as well as understand his nuances and the way he grew. I wish we were more in his head. It would've made fpr a more interesting book.
I might've rated this lower, but I can't. I loved these books. They influenced me so much as a kid. And I still enjoyed reading this. It's fun! I love dragons and memory lane both.
I was obsessed with these books for a LONG time. I loved fantasy, I loved dragons, I still love dragons (I'm ace, hello?), and I had a thing for really epic feeling series. Obviously, check marks all around.
After watching all the LOTR movies for the first time, I figured I might dive into the canon I knew best that felt closest to that high fantasy cutout. I could very distinctly remember a few things from the series--Murtagh's betrayal later in the series (particularly with the whole true name thing), Brom telling a story as exposition early on, Arya as a character, what Brisingr meant, that Eragon wasn't able to read and that I found it refreshingly accurate, etc, etc. Small snippets of what makes the series, the series. Truth be told, I can't remember much of anything after Brisingr; I'm pretty sure I only read the last book once, so it will be interesting (to say the least) rereading that one.
I started rereading with a mainly critical eye. I was shocked by the strength of the prose in its word choice; Paolini did an excellent job at using few words to convey a strong picture, particularly in reference to landscapes. I also liked the clear understanding there was of dragon anatomy, and how each stage in Saphira's growing process was clearly thought through. I also forgot how distinct and lovable side characters like Solembum and Angela are.
However, I do get the sense that outside of the Riders, not much was thought of as a way of separating from the typical high fantasy canon, which can be seen in how extremely overpowered the elves seem, as well as the very basic language structure (Arget is....so obvious as a root word. And doesn't Varden mean forest in this world based on the place Du Weldenvarden?) Similarly, I don't think the Act Two of the book was fully thought through either. It's dense for little reason, and the conflicts between Brom and Eragon are repetitive. But this isn't the central weakness of this book.
The main issue with Eragon lies in the source of its title. I don't get a strong enough sense of who Eragon is; he feels like a self insert protagonist, clever enough at the right times to make readers cheer, but hotheaded to cause minimal conflict and make him seem like a teenager. While there were times I could understand his irritations, oftentimes his issues escalated too quickly. After his arrival in Tronjheim, he turns overnight into a strategical mastermind able to hold his own in courtly matters. Same with swordsmanship and Brom teaching him. And yet, I don't understand why Saphira picked him. He's somewhat bland and extremely inconsistent, and lacks a true arc.
I think the root of this problem lies in the narrative distance we have from Eragon--we are not typically in his head, but rather looking just over it, enough to get a vague sense of what might be going on inside it but nothing more. If I had been immersed in his perspective, I might have been able to root for him more, as well as understand his nuances and the way he grew. I wish we were more in his head. It would've made fpr a more interesting book.
I might've rated this lower, but I can't. I loved these books. They influenced me so much as a kid. And I still enjoyed reading this. It's fun! I love dragons and memory lane both.