When first I attempted reading the book, I put it down within three chapters, as the word "derivative" pummeled my brain with the same febricity that dragons assault Paolini's imagination (and his imagination is assaulted with considerable frequency, according to Paolini on his website, hosted by Random House).
It was with reluctance that I turned to the book again, and I did so with the singular intent of understanding the remarkable success of the book. We can debate the merits of this book without end, but not its stellar sales.
And the reason for its success is simple. Not since The Sword of Shannara (or lesser works such as Niel Hancock's Circle of Light series) has heroic/high fantasy been dumbed-down to this level. Eragon is a book that requires no forethought whatsoever, little to no concentration, for all plot points are given away chapters in advance.
I don't hold any of the Shannara works (and certainly not the lesser works, such as Hancock's and others) in high esteem. What Brooks did with The Sword of Shannara was to rewrite The Lord of the Rings for teenagers, and in that he succeeded quite well. He didn't write an original book, however. The characters in The Sword of Shannara were almost one-for-one reproductions, with slight variations, from LOTR. Paolini has done essentially the same thing, but whereas Brooks had only Tolkien to draw from, Paolini had many more sources to draw from. And these sources pepper the landscape of his book like a person's salad who forgot to say, "Stop!"
We've heard that all art is imitation (and that therefore to imitate and even copy is OK); and that imitation is the highest form of flattery. In some aspects of art, literature, and life this holds true, but not here. There is too much imitation, and not enough originality. We have (from what I'm familiar of, anyway):
* The Thirteen Forsworn (Jordan's Forsaken)
* Elves on silver ships from across the sea (Tolkien)
* Urgals and Kulls (Orcs and Uruk-Hai from Tolkien with bits of Trollocs blended in from Jordan)
* Dwarves who are absolute reproductions of those from Tolkien, from their mountain city to their use of axes, and even the description of "hewing" heads off Urgals (er, Orcs)
* A Shade (Jordan's Fade, although with an intriguing difference - and it's not the color of the hair)
* Dragons and everything that comes with them (McCaffrey, although she doesn't seem to mind, if her blurbs mean anything)
* A "magic-user" (former Dragon Rider) who refuses to reveal his true nature for no good reason other than to cause dramatic tension (take your pick from any of the lesser derivative works)
* Ra'Zac (All wicked lords need hand servants...and they all get them, no different here)
* Somebody says "Hellfire!" This is an uncommon oath in the "real" world, but not an uncommon oath to Thomas Covenant. There were a couple of other Covenant similarities, but I didn't make note of them.
There are more, but this isn't intended to be exhaustive. Given what some truly great high/heroic fantasists have done (Tolkien, Donaldson, Martin, Williams, and to a lesser degree of late, Jordan), it is absolutely essential to make your own work your own. Is it easy? Not a chance. There are only so many original ideas, only so many different ways to write a high/heroic fantasy, but if you're going to do it, you can't just take what others have done, tweak it a bit, toss it into a blender, and put it out there as your own original work. This is NOT an original work.
As to the writing itself, I refuse to be too critical. This was written and edited by a *teenager*. Some of his descriptions of physical objects and places are excellent, even for a "stronger" writer. Yes, he makes the mistake of confusing salt with adverbs. Most food contains salt of some kind, especially true for prepared foods, and it seemed that way with his sentences. There are adverbs galore. That's a nasty habit he needs to say good-bye to.
As to the writer, well, after reading what he had written about his own work on his website, I lost some respect for him. Granted, this is still a very young person, but he is bragging of "wonders" to be revealed in his books, and says that "I strive for a lyrical beauty somewhere between Tolkien at his best and Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf". That's terrific to strive for, but his writing doesn't come close, and it's more than a little embarrassing, I would think, to make a comment like that. Maybe if Eragon stopped asking seven thousand questions so that Paolini could explain something that he could have done better through narration...but toward the end of the book I wanted Eragon's mouth closed with duct tape. When in Tronjheim, and talking to Angela, a very awkward segue occurs (one of dozens upon dozens in the book). Angela is speaking of Shades, and I'll admit that my eyes popped open a bit at the explanation because it was rather fresh and original. The Eragon ruins it by blurting out, "Why are you living so high up in Tronjheim? Isn't it inconvenient being this isolated? And how did you get all this stuff up here?" This just isn't sensible dialogue.
My final feeling is: I was initially turned off, and then pulled into it as I picked it up the second time, but ultimately turned off. I've read The Lord of the Rings, The Wheel of Time, The Dragonriders of Pern, and they're all better books than this. On the Random House website, Paolini jokes that perhaps an epic trilogy was too much for someone so young. He couldn't have been more right.
However, kids are reading this, and I'm in favor of almost anything that makes kids read more. Hence my three star rating. It would have been two stars otherwise.
