just a dribble

[kippurbird]

As I'm doing the various chapters in the Inheritance series I notice that I put in a lot of "What the Hell Hero" moments. I've started to wonder if I'm being fair to Paolini and Eragon, after all there is no law that says that the Hero has to be perfect. In fact, I'd like it if they weren't and isn't that what Eragon is doing? Being highly imperfect? My own protagonists are far from perfect, even if they aren't as blood thirsty as Eragon they've got their own flaws. At least, I hope they do. So, I wonder, am I being hypocritical in my writings?

And then I think back to the fact that Eragon is supposed to be the Traditional Hero. The standards that I'm using to judge him by are those of the Traditional Hero. Sure, he should of course have flaws, but he's supposed to be a paragon of moral virtue. The one who doesn't want to kill. Harry Potter, Rand Al'Thor, Harry Dresden, Spider-Man, Captain America, Superman, these are all Heroes. Yes, I know, I listed Rand there. See, despite the whole angsty life that Rand leads, he is a Traditional hero. I never got a WTF hero moment from him. Just in regards to the plot. The Never Ending Plot. WHY WON'T IT END?! Soon it'll have more books than the bible!

I digress.

The standards that I hold my characters up to are different than the ones that I am holding up to Eragon. The protagonist verses the Hero.

Comments

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

I've had "WTF Hero?" moments with Harry Potter, too. But that's because Rowling thinks that Harry is heroic and noble even when he demonstrably isn't.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Mmm... this is true. But he's more heroic'lly minded than Eragon.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

In the early books. By HBP and DH, he pretty much fails at heroic anything and has joined the Holy Cult of Dumbledore. ("Dumbledore is good. Dumbledore is right. I must do whatever Dumbledore says, even commit suicide by Dark Lord, because Dumbledore loves me and Dumbledore is always right...")

[falconwhitaker.livejournal.com]

I was more concerned by him using Unforgivables and not getting punished for it. I mean, WTH?!

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that counts as total heroic fail. Spells that strip people of their will or are capable of causing madness-inducing agony don't suddenly become virtuous when the protagonist casts them.

[faded-enmity.livejournal.com]

I had no idea he used those (I stopped reading after Azkaban, honestly); that's pretty awful.

And that is a good comparison with Eragon, then, because the same thing happens; horrible things are justified or handwaved because he's the good guy and can do no wrong.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that bit got a little odd.

Also, I like your icon.

[ceitfianna]

Maybe its because Eragon is inconsistently imperfect and its not giving him more character, its more the author wants something to happen so he does something.

[kippurbird.livejournal.com]

That could be it.

[reverie-shadow.livejournal.com]

Clichés and everything aisde, I think that all everything boils down to is one important question: Is it good writing? As far as I'm concerned, you can have the most clichéd plot that's ever existed with heroes and villains and saving the world, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is whether if it's any good or not.

I think the difference with Paolini as opposed to these other Hero-types is that... it's not good writing. Without good characters and good writing, the plot becomes shit. End story.

If you're entertained, if you're engrossed, if you muse over its storyline afterwards, then yeah, it's pretty good. Paolini's writing does not fall into this category. I can't even get through his drabs of shit he calls novels. They're awful.

So yeah, that's my two cents.

tl;dr: Anyone can use all of the Hero-clichés they like, just make it entertaining and good.

[kevias.livejournal.com]

The moments are jarring in Inheritance because they come out of nowhere, don't tie in with the character or his abilities, and then vanish without further comment.

He does something bad, unnecessarily, then promptly forgets all about it. He doesn't learn, he doesn't change, and it never comes up again. A traditional hero would notch one step closer to being a "True Hero" through overcoming whatever flaw led to the moment. A nontraditional hero might either make preparations to avoid it coming up again, or else justify it as necessary.

[hekateras.livejournal.com]

I don't think you're being unfair. You didn't arbitrarily decide to judge Eragon by Traditional Hero standards. You intuitively use those standards because that's the way the book is written, that's the standards the book itself uses. If I had to name one thing that was wrong with Paolini's books - just one - I'd name the huge disparity between how the books read and how one feels they're intended to read. After all, with books, things like lack of action, or a slow plot, or cliches, or a lack of character development, or a bad style - all those things can be forgiven if the book makes up for it in other departments and, more importantly, doesn't let you or make you dwell on them. In other words, when the book isn't trying to beat you over the head with how eloquent the style is supposed to be, or the originality, or the author's inventiveness. Paolini's books, on the other hand, attempt to be a whole lot of things, which only draws attention to flaws that might have been unnoticed otherwise.