Talk:Eragon/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Article needs sources

In a few weeks, I'm going to start removing this article's unsourced assertions. This includes:

  • rumors
  • criticisms
  • defenses
  • heresay about Paolini's intent

Bring in any notable source. If you don't know how to cite it in page, link it here and explain what you think it references, and someone else will do the wikifying for you. But this article has got to stop being a place for the pro-/con- Eragon wars to play out, and a place for original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a book of literary analysis.

I've added sources for many of the assertions as I've found them but I can't keep doing that. Deborah-jl Talk 00:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the entire "derivative nature" section, since it was utterly unsourced and not particularly encyclopedic. I've reproduced it below; if anyone can find reliable sources for any part of it, restore with citation. Brendan Moody 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Section replaced with citations added.Gnrlotto
I'm afraid that most of those sources don't really pass muster. As I said, what we need are reliable (and noteworthy) sources, not links to low-traffic fansites and reviews by random individuals. As it stands now, the only thing in the section that has a valid source is the stuff tied to the EW review, which amounts to "One critic has called Eldest derivative of The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars." If sites like Anti-Shurtugal were included, then anyone could create a webpage with their opinions and then insert them into Wikipedia, which doesn't make for a useful encyclopedia entry. Brendan Moody 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What you're not seemingly getting is that the site doesn't have to be a well known critical site to simply point out the simple assertion that was being made which was that a) people are comparing it to other works, and b) they are making comprehensive listings of the things it derives. Your argument seems to be that until a publication like Entertainment Weekly makes this listing, it is invalid, despite the fact that anyone possessing Tolkien's and Paolini's works, and with a modicum of common sense could do the exact same thing themselves.
Secondly, one of the sites was a copy and paste of the authors featured Amazon.com review, so while not being "professional" in that she didn't get paid for it, it was cited by enough Amazon custoemrs to be selected as one of the most important reviews of the work.Gnrlotto
What you're seemingly not getting is that your explanation is completely at odds with WP:NOR. (By the by, labelling things "simple" repeatedly does not make them not original research.) The "simple assertion that was being made" is indeed proven by the links you provide, but that assertion is not relevant information for a Wikipedia article. If it were, we could pad the article out to infinity by "proving" that every Tom, Dick, and Harry who ever made a comment on Eragon asserted this or that. ("Internet reviewer EragonIsGrate has claimed: Eragon roolz y'all!") But we don't, because it's understood that that material is not useful for the encyclopedia. (Neither is an Amazon.com customer review, featured or not.) This is a big part of why the original research policy exists. That "Ardwen" is similar to "Arwen" is a fact; that it and the other name similarities make some think the book derivative is opinion, and in this case original research. That you (and I) think the similarities and resultant derivativity are common sense is not relevant; we are not the arbiters of this sort of thing. This is why the policy page specifically mentions "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." My argument is indeed that the listing is "invalid" for inclusion in an encyclopedia article until a popular critical source uses it; this argument is drawn directly from well-established policy. Brendan Moody 06:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the revised version of the section on the books being derivative should suffice, it's filled with plenty of sources, etc., lest someone pull something else arbitrary out of their bottom.Gnrlotto

Derivative nature of the books

There has been much debate over whether incorporating Elves and Dwarves similar to Tolkien's is derivative or respectful. It has also been pointed out that many names in Eragon resemble those in Tolkien's work, including

  • Arya - Arwen, Arda. Um, how about Arya from 'A Song of Ice and Fire'?
  • Ardwen - Arwen
  • Isenstar - Isengard
  • Mithrim - mithril - Myths rim
  • Eragon - Aragorn (but also almost identical to "dragon") --HEY! PAOLINI MADE ERAGON SIMILAR TO DRAGON ON PURPOSE!
  • Angrenost - Angrenost, the Sindarin name for Isengard
  • Morgothal - Morgoth - More goths
  • Elessari - Elessar
  • Furnost - Fornost
  • Hadarac Desert - Harad Desert
  • Melian - Melian - Me lion <-- (A more intelligent response would be "The Melian Dialogues" from Thucydides "History of the Peloponnesian War", c. 431 B.C.)
  • Vanilor - Valinor - vanilla lore
  • Eridor - Eriador
  • Imiladris - Imladris
  • Undin - Fundin - Undone

Additionally, Paolini's Beor mountains are named based on the word "Beorn", which is another word for bear. In The Hobbit, there is a character known as Beorn, who has the ability to transform into a bear. There is a character named Beor in Tolkien's Silmarillion. Coincidentally, Angelina is a word derived from Angel and is therefore unoriginal. On the map of Alagaësia, the spelling of the place name Melian is identical to the name of the character Melian the Maia of Tolkien's The Silmarillion. The Grey Folk, said to be the first few magical beings resemble the Sindarin, who are the Grey Elves - which in turn copies the Greys (as in the alien type). The 'Lonely Mountain' Utgard in Eragon is thought to be based on the Lonely Mountain Erebor of the Lord of the Rings. These are a few examples of what is believed to be a wider occurrence. I, however, am highly critical of these criticisms

Yet another criticism is that the plot closely resembles that of the original Star Wars saga. Characters are also similar, down to Brom who is supposedly the last of his order. Brom's sacrifice to save Eragon resembles that of Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars. The beginning is also extremely similar: A servant of an evil emperor attacks, with an army at his disposal, a convoy bearing an object of power to a rebellion against the Empire. The servant captures the convoy and its leader, but the leader (a princess, no less) sends the object away in hopes that it will fall into the hands of a wise old wizard, who is the last of his kind. The object is found by a poor farm boy, whose family (not parents but uncle) is killed as a result, leaving him nothing to stay behind for. He joins the wizard on a quest, as well as a rogue who has no love for the "empire". They save the princess, then the three flee to rebels. This could be used to describe the first Star Wars movie, and no one would know the difference. In Eldest, the farmboy leaves the rebels after they have just fought a costly battle, to train with a wise old hermit in a forest. He trains and undergoes a life changing experience, and later participates in another great battle. He duels with an enemy, and learns a terrible secret about his family (Father/Brother and Father). As well as this, the colours of the three dragon eggs, red, blue and green, are similar to the main colours of lightsabers, which in turn copies Streetlights and The Muppets. Note that lightsabers could also be purple, and that Galbatorixes dragon is black. Broms dragon was orange, and some dragons are brown.

Some people also refer to the famous fantasy novel, Earthsea. Earthsea's concept of magic, that there is a ultimate language that all beings are based on, and magic can be conjured by uttering those language, is repeated in Eragon. Word based magic is also repeated in Harry Potter, which books are extremely unoriginal. Note that Ursula K. Leguin, who wrote Earthsea, was unoriginal to start with when she based the magic off of Odins magic.

Additionally, the bond between dragon and human is similar to the one between daemon and human in His Dark Materials, by Philip Pullman. But such conclusions are ridiculous considering that Daemons are part of a humans soul, wheras dragons attach themselves to a persons soul. In addition daemons are shape changers, and everybody has them as opposed to a select few.

Also the way Eragon talks to Saphira is very similar to the way that the charicters in Animorphs can communicate while they are morphed, ie: they use their mind and it becoms harder over distance.

Once again, such conclusions are silly - telepathy works like this in almost all telepathy related fiction. Including Norse Mythology, which JRR Tolkien ruthelessly copied. Lets see how long it takes for my post to get deleted.... by communists!

  • There are a load of criticisms in this Amazon.com Discussion Forum. Read it and have a laugh.

[1] Would this be a good source? Kate 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Could the Tolkien estate sue if they wanted? Cause I would consider it. Rmt2m 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


The MAJOR complaint (based off Anti-Shur'tugal forums) about the telepathy is that the dragon-rider telepathy is very close to that in Anne McCaffery's Dragonriders of Pern series, including the name 'Dragonrider', the idea that a dragon dies when its rider dies, the choosing a rider from inside the egg thing, and generally the structure of the bond. I've also read that the idea of the Argetlam (although not acquired the same way) comes from David Eddings - could someone please check on this? I'm a fan, but willing to admit it has a lot of flaws - including plagirism, intentional or otherwise. Seems like Anti-Shur'tugal members came to the Derivative Nature section - most of it is valid, but some is definitely from the Nitpicks thread. Anyway... Hail-Anti-Shur'tugal! =) 169.229.121.94 03:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole conversation seems a bit silly to me. Of course this kid borrowed from other stories, anyone can see that, but so did George Lucas, Tolkein, and Shakespeare. Lucas borrowed from mythology back through the ages, and Tolkein borrowed from stories about rings written in his day. Shakespeare stole entire plots from people. I just don't know if you can judge a book based on "theft" from other stories. Everybody does it. They key is presenting it in a way that makes it sell. Mybe someday when we figure that out we'll all write bestsellers too. What I do like about this conversation is that it reveals a lot about where the ideas came from. I think it could make an interesting side-article. I've seen similar ones for Tolkein's books on wikipedia. Wrad 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:2002 or 2003 novels

Is the novel first published in 2002 or 2003? Grey Shadow 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Fictional infomation e.g. bloodlines/ fractions/ map?/ creations of the world and races/ plants and animals

May I add it also like the wonderful LOTR page needs a more fictional info filling in e.g. the world was made from the bones of giant, that the hammer and anvil of a thor like god made the stars. We need someone to fill that stuff in. I havn't the time. Pls someone do this.

No Plot Synopsis

Why doesn't this article have a plot synopsis? The only things mentioned in the article are the characters and criticism of the book. I can't really understand what Eragon is about from this article. 64.167.48.71 02:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Then write one! Join, be bold! Gnrlotto

I seemed to remember writing one, so when I checked the page history I found that someone had removed it. I've one ahead and restored it; please copyedit.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Hmm, Christopher Paolini is homeschooled, the Public school system hates homeschoolers, so maybe thats why your post was deleted? For the record I am being a bit sarcastic, I just wanted to show as much sense as the critics so we could be evenly matched.


video game

There needs to be a link at a top that will direct people to the video game too. I can't find out how to do it, but I'll keep looking.--Spyderchan 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

done--Spyderchan 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Character section

I'm stripping down the character descriptions because many characters have their own articles and some descriptions have information already provided by the plot summary.--Spyderchan 10:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the lethrblaka from the Characters section, since they are not present or ever even mentioned in the first book, to which this article applies. --KittyCollier 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Forums Section?

Why is there a section that lists fan forums? Is this really relevant to the article?

"Links normally to be avoided" says no, unless "mandated by the article." I'm not sure what that means, but i don't think any of those forums are particularly important.Spyderchan 07:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Explaining my Edit

If anybody wants to complain about what I did, here's my explanation.

"There has been much criticism of Eragon, regarding everything from word usage to the marketing techniques (critics deride the labelling of the author as a "prodigy" or "wunderkind"). The book's most frequent criticism is that it uses far too many clichés. Paolini employs stock characters, such as Elves, Dwarves, and a pseudo-orcish race known as Urgals, complete with an elite sect known as the Kull, comparable to Saruman's Uruk-hai. Many believe that it is a marvel that Eragon is on bookshelves, given that the publisher of the book was the author's parents. However, after seeing the success of Eragon, Alfred A. Knopf bought the book rights from the Paolinis."

I put this in criticism; it sure sounds like that. Also the first sentence sounds like weasel words, while the last 2 seem pointless. "Entertainment Weekly lambasted the sequel, Eldest, calling it a "Tolkien knockoff," saying it owed another debt to Star Wars (implying the first did as well), and that overall it is "mind-numbingly silly," finally giving the book a rating of D+ [1]. Later, they named it the number one worst book of 2005, calling it a "700-page Tolkien wannabe [2]."

Remember that this article talks about Eragon, not its sequel. I would rather delete this review altogether because it has no bearing on this book, but I put it in a section on the reviews of Eldest.

I replaced Criticism from the previous title; it seems more accurate.

Even positive reviews of the books can not help but note how derivative the texts are, such as this quote from Kirkus's review of Eldest, noting that it is "suffused with purple prose and faux-archaic language," and is a "patchwork of dialogue, characters and concepts pulled whole cloth from the fantasy canon [2]."

Now this sounds like complete POV. Moreover, it isn't even a criticism of Eragon but of its sequel, as I said above. I deleted it, with good reason.

School Library Journal's review of Eragon was positive, despite admitting that "Eragon does not approach the depth, uniqueness, or mastery of J. R. R. Tolkien's works, and sometimes the magic solutions are just too convenient for getting out of difficult situations[3]," but its review of Eldest has grown more negative, noting that "The plot--indeed, most of the fantasy conventions--is heavily inspired by Tolkien, McCaffrey, and especially George Lucas," and that it will find a fan-base though "there's nothing particularly original here [4]."

This review was already talked about in the previous section and basically repeats it. Again, there's a deleted attack on Eragon's sequel but not Eragon itself. These scathing reviews belong in the Eldest article or the one about the series.

Commonsensemedia, a family-friendly review site, was particularly scathing, stating that, "It's not long, however, before they begin to notice the long-winded descriptions, the clichés and hackneyed dialogue, and the derivative nature of the plot--straight out of Star Wars by way of The Lord of the Rings, with bits of other great fantasies thrown in here and there. That this is a great achievement for one so young is undeniable, and many children will love it. It certainly ranks right up there with other derivative, overblown fantasies written by adults, such as Terry Brooks's Sword of Shannara series[5]."

This section belongs in reviews, and it was moved there.

Both reviews are still briefly mentioned in the criticism section.

Lastly, the section which compares the languages of Tolkien and Eragon seems like original research, although it's too good to be deleted.Hadoren 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: Tolkien and Eragon both based their magic system (word based) races (elves, dwarves) and names on Norse Mythology. Most similarities are pure coincidence. To prove it:

John, Brom. Angelina, Angel. Solembum, Solem Bum. Teirm, term. Mythrim, Myths Rim. Zorac, Zoro. Elf, elk. Murtagh, more tags. Morzan, More Zans. You get the idea. You are drawing conclusions from thin air, which would explain why most folks aren't getting enough oxygen to their brains.

Why are fansites listed?

Why is there a fansites section for links? With perhaps the exception of Shurtugal.com (and even that seems iffy to me), none of them add anything to the article or provide sources for information or anything like that. I propose that they be removed.

I agree, but people would probably start adding them again anyways.--Spyderchan 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, esspesualy for Shurtawhatsitcalled203.24.137.199 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, the "Fansights" aren't made up of fans, but critics.

Synopsis editing

I came to the page by accident and freely admit I know nothing about this book having never read it. However, when I read the synopsis (spoiler) I found the information confusing, overwordy and needed editing. So that's what I did.

I cut a number of repeats, changed syntax to help remove ambiguity and cut parts that didn't help a reader's understanding. I would have cut the thing down more but I didn't know enough about the plot to be able to do this (although I did check on other sites and tehy said the "stone"/egg was found in woods - perhaps in the mountains). It probably need someone to come in who knows the plot and rehack it.

I also put some line breaks in as it was heard to read the solid text. Candy 03:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Question... At the end of the Plot summary, someone added a comment that this is a "It's also a fuckin' ripoff of StarWars"..... I agree, but I have two problem with that addition. First does it not belong under the critics section? Second, must we use the word Fuckin?! There is no need for that type of language.... "Its also a ripoff of .... " get's the point across.

I edited the plot again. I think it's still too wordy; basically every part of the book is plotted out. And there was a part about "venturing out into the cruel world" that I cut. It's a plot summary, not a cliche contest. Sorry, that was mean. Anyway, there's also a lot of background info given, which I would imagine is covered in the Algaesia page. I'll probably edit more of that out.
Defenestrating Monday 20:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


I edited the plot summary a little bit. I haven't read the book either, but with all the changes between tenses and complicated wording I couldn't help myself. Still needs a lot of work, but I'll leave that to someone who knows the book well. 203.14.180.97 07:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Name Changing

It seems someone is changing Christopher Paolinis name to Christopher Penis. As of now, I have changed it back.--Wai June Lau 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be "penisless" lol!! 203.24.137.199 03:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats just sad --Brendoshi 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I recognize that several people have made the criticisms they have of Eragon, but those criticisms are themselves flawed. Since everything I have is true and referenceable to Wikipedia, please don't remove them. Otherwise, that violates WP:NPOV by giving too much weight to unsubstantiated criticsm. FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, as long as we don't turn this into a pro vs. anti debate. The review bit should have more positive reviews, too, since the negative clearly dominates. Sorry about deleting before, I'm a bit brain-fried tonight. It wasn't me the first time, if you were curious. Defenestrating Monday 03:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's the problem, Defenestrating. It was turned into a "Well, although this source lays a legitimate claim against Paolini by stating he copied so-and-so, it should be noted that so-and-so also may have copied thus-and-such." It's full of weasel words and became a section of accusations and rebuttal. That's not criticism, and it becomes original research, a huge Wiki-nono.Gnrlotto 06:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet WP:NPOV requires criticism to be fair. See "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone" There is no fairness when you make criticisms that have clear facts that serve as an effective rebuttal, especially when there are sources. (which you didn't ask for, but I provided where appropriate anyway.) By including the crtiicsms without explanation, you are giving undue weight to what is basically an Eragon-hate site, and that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's a biased statement, and that is a problem in and of itself. It would be one thing if they were truly substantial facts, or a legal case involved, but all they really are is opinions that X is bad for doing Y. Since there's a sourceable amount of facts to say that Y isn't bad, to ignore those is a problem in itself.
Now that said, I don't mind if you want to rewrite it, as long as you keep the content itself. Say it a better way, don't delete it. If you can't possible do that, then let's go through the steps at WP:DR and see what we can do, because as it stands, I find this criticism deeply doubling in the way it is written. FrozenPurpleCube 16:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe most of it should be moved to the Inheritance Trilogy page under "Criticism." It seems to me that most of it is about concepts throughout the trilogy more than the book itself. I think the review section would be enough to show how it was received.--Spyderchan 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That might be a good idea in itself, but it is a different problem. FrozenPurpleCube 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the anti point of view is represented much, much more than the pro. But countering that might better be accomplished by adding positive aspects of the book than by debating the negative criticism. Otherwise, as Gnrlotto said, it will be criticism and rebuttal. It is an article, not a debate. Defenestrating Monday 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, handling criticism is a contentious topic, but I don't think praise will quite work as a counter-balance to some of the criticisms given here. FrozenPurpleCube 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're not understanding is that your "effective rebuttal, especially when there are sources," is simply you and I seeing that the idea he stole from authors he has cited as "influences" have borrowed from other sources for their respective works. But since you and I see that but no one has academically broken that down in comparison to his work, anything we put is RESEARCH. Thus a no-no.Gnrlotto 05:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What, you'd prefer to cite the anti-criticism sites? I'd rather not, but if that is what you want, we can do that. Personally, I'm iffy on using the sites at all, they are not very reliable sources at all. However, you should note that the facts themselves are NOT OR. Their existence is independent of Paolini, or myself, and have been around for quite a while. If we present this criticism without the full facts, we're just parroting the words of the critics, and not doing enough for NPOV. If you think better sources are needed, fine, we can look for them, I don't object to that at all. FrozenPurpleCube 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, since it seems we're not going to get anywhere between us, I recommend we go to WP:DR and request some mediation before we get into an edit war. Or would you prefer to hit WP:RFC, WP:NPOVD or somewhere else? What do you want to do, besides going back and forth on this issue? FrozenPurpleCube 05:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, this source [6] already says Researching the magic systems being used by these two authors, I found that the 'words of power' and 'true names' type of systems are present in the native religions of indigenous peoples across the world.
So, a source that has been in the article for a while, but without this very important bit of context. Even if you don't accept the rest, you should probably consider keeping that much. FrozenPurpleCube 05:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing the overarching point being that even with the facts existing outside of this, for you to string them together and not have outside sources that back up what you're writing, it is original research. This is a criticism section meaning the ideas may not be the editors' but must be from outside sources.Gnrlotto 12:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm clearly not striging together the Ursula Le Guin thing. The pre-existing sourcce states it outright. So, that's a keeper, and I'm glad you've recognized that, even though I think that we need to keep the part about Ursula LeGuin saying so herself. Now the questions are about Dragons and the word-sounds. You agree that the information is true and accurate, right? Yet the article as it stands, does NOT say anything of the sort. Accordingly, this critical section is biased. Since WP:NPOV requires "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." and failing to do so violates that because "When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct" which by excluding these other facts, you do not do. It would be one thing if there were no sources, but clearly there are sources to verify these facts, but we've left the anti-Eragon sites predominate. It would be one thing if these were scholarly papers, that had gone through a peer-review, to verify their facts, required to presented a balanced view. But they're not. They're mostly just someone's rants on a website, at most a review in a magazine. Anyway, since you don't want all of the content, I'm going to go up a tag level. FrozenPurpleCube 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think most of the section is crap in the first place. The fact that it is nearly impossible to find positive reviews from reputable sources instead of, "Me and my firend find Eragon roxors!1!" and that that is evidenced in the reviews section is damning enough, as well as the fact that most reviews point out how unoriginal the text is, even when they give it an overall good review. But the "Criticism" section nearly all comes off as NPOV from both sides and so should probably be chopped way down to what it was a long time ago if even kept at all.Gnrlotto 02:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to remove that section entirely, I'm fine with that as well. We can keep the responses down to a few quotes, both pro and con. That would be fine with me. FrozenPurpleCube 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just poking my head in after seeing this at WP:RFC. I agree with Gnrlotto; that initial criticism section seems out of place. What I would suggest is to eliminate that part, and integrate its major points into the reviews section of the article- if most reputable reviews are negative, stating that isn't POV, it's reporting facts. I'm sure the reviews mention the major points brought up in the initial section- some already mention comparisons with Star Wars, for example. Hope that helps in some way. --DarthBinky 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "reviews" section needs to be put back in. The the article linked is POV (criticism can be positive) and it has uncited or original research. Plus the derivative nature can't be the only thing criticized.--Spiderchan 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The "reviews" section as it was consisted of carefully selected soundbites with no useful content to speak of. That's why I took it out. I'm not certain about that criticism article, but not linking it from here didn't serve any purpose either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Eragon (disambiguation) ?

Considering we have articles about the novel, character, licensed film and videogame. That's a bit of a mouthful for a disambiguation notice.... --Stratadrake 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I had the same thought, it's done. Vicarious 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

accuracy?

takes place inside of a mans hairy anus is this accurate? if it is, man that's some wasted 150mil. --Suleyman Habeeb 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was just some guy thinking that he's funny. I have reverted the vandalism.--DarthBinky 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, man. I really was having a heart attack after I saw the vandalism. I only heard about the series and the movie on tv etc. so I had no idea it was vandalism. --Suleyman Habeeb 13:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

bad sentence, "video game" section

"The game, after being released, is an RPG game where it starts at the very beginning with Arya."

I don't understand this sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.189.146.119 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Spoiler within a Spoiler!

Under the "Unseen Characters" section, Selena was defined as "Murtagh's and Eragon's mother". Selena is revealed as Eragon's mother in Eragon, but not Murtagh's. I suspect it is revealed in Eldest, which I am reading now.... Thanks! I suspected it already. I made the change to read just "Eragon's mother". Deannicholson 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

SAPHIRA

I would like to know why Saphira has feathered wings - when dragons should tradionally have membrained wings and if I am not mistaken "Eragon" states that whilst he was flying Saphira, he made a comment on her membrained wings. I am very disappointed that Saphira looks like a giant duck with an elongated sausage neck.

I am enjoying the book, however, after seeing photos I don't want to spoil it by going to see the movie.

Anyone else feel the same way ?

HAVE YOU SEEN PAOLINI??? HE LOOKS LIKE FAILURE.

Guys, uh... seems a bit impolite to comment on Paolini's looks... (To the first comment) And about the movie, yeah, it does look weird, but I give them points for originality on the Special Effects. A dragon with feathered wings is something new... at least as far as I know, but yeah, the movie does look pretty different from the book (Blond Arya?!). Anyway, this page is supposed to be just for discussion on the article, so back to topic... Does anyone know if that was just an artistic decision, or if there was another reason (such as budget, marketing reasons, Special Effects limitations, etc.)? ==Hail Anti-Shur'tugal!== 169.229.121.94 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to have a dragon with membraned wings in terms of Special Effects? Generally, modern portrayals of dragons also have membraned wings.Why/How Paolini "look like failure"? Whytecypress

Renameing the books

They should be called the "Ring Wars" Trilogy. "Part II- The Fellowship of the Empire" [It's says it's unsigned, but my name is Darren_Trent] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.140.167.213 (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Disappointment With Lack of Criticism (important topic, please read)

I haven't looked Eragon up on Wikipedia for quite a while, however I am sorely disappointed at the state that it is in now. I recall there being a very impressive name comparison, which displayed the somewhat cliche nature of the names found in Eragon, and there were actually links and references to well thought out criticism. It seems that at this current point the only criticism that can be found is reviews section.

Now, I understand that it is not Wikipedia's job to be biased in any ways, and I also understand that my general dislike for the book does make me biased, however when I last looked at the page there were plenty of intelligently phrased criticism and made sense and shouldn't necessarily unset anyone unless they literally liked the book so much that they became totally irrational.

The similarities between Tolkien works, Earthsea, and Star Wars, are undeniable. The debate is not whether the similarities exist or not, but it is rather about whether they were intentional or not. It is obvious that we will never truly know whether or not Paolini intentionally took the ideas from those stories, however because it is Wikipedia's job to inform the similarities should be noted.

Furthermore, the fact that the book is "good" (which is entirely personal opinion) should not be an excuse to cut Paolini some slack, as it were.

Anyways, please, please, please sign your name with four tildas, and use indentations. Thank you. Vjasper 20:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, discussion above reached the consensus that too much weight was being given to such criticism, which was not considered sufficiently reliable or fair for inclusion in Wikipedia, so it was removed. If you do wish to read it, I suggest [www.anti-shurtugal.com], which is still linked at the Inheritance Trilogy page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This is what is happening to the novel article criticisms. It's a systematic bias. People who like the book are most likeley to contribute to an article. But after such an article is well-estabilished and sequels/films come into play, negative criticism becomes dominant, over-editing ensues, and article quality declines.

When negative criticism is dominant,Logically, supporters of the novel/movie/etc., will try to push it out. When neutral or neutrally-operating editors try to equalize the pro-con balance have their edits interpreted as fan-work. No offence to Vjasper, of course, but I simply feel the need to point out an error of wikipedia's contributers so that it can be mended. Whytecypress

Eragon (character) redirects to Luke Skywalker?

Is this just my computer, or other's also? It's very frusterating. --I Will Endure 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps monkeying around with the links and article. Apparently they think that it's funny to change it all to Star Wars instead (likely referring to the criticism that the story resembles Star Wars). It appears to have been fixed now. Cheers --DarthBinky 00:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much... that was very agrivating. --I Will Endure 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/book/0,6115,1095866_5_0_,00.html
  2. ^ http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,1142746_5_0_,00.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eragon/Archive_2&oldid=1067021403"