Subject: "handed to him on a silver platter of plot contrivance"
Author:
Posted on: 2011-12-19 23:29:00 UTC
I don't have anything to contribute to the discussion since I haven't read any of them, but I just wanted to say I *like* your phrase there.
Something I have noticed in the PPC is a tendency to refer to Eragon as a Gary Stu. After having thought for some time on the subject, I can't say I agree. Granted, this is taken from the first three books, as I have not yet read Inheritance. If something in Inheritance contradicts something in this post, please just say that Inheritance contradicts one of my points and leave it at that.
According to the PPC wiki pages, Stu-traits include:
Being a combat diety and killing everyone in "awesome" ways. I have yet to see this with Eragon; sure, he's a good fighter, but he worked hard to get that way and it's only the average soldiers that he kills effortlessly. Major threats, like Murtagh and Galbatorix, are people that he still can't counter.
Being superior and always talking about it...well, see above. He's not superior, and thinking one is superior when one is actually not is called "arrogance" and is a legitimate trait.
Made-up weapons. Paolini did not make up the sword, or the bow and arrow. Or magic. Or for that matter, dragons.
Canon distortions. Not applicable for obvious reasons.
I imagine that this has been discussed before, but I'm trying to understand why Eragon has been (somewhat) labeled as a Stu. If anyone can explain, I'm all ears.
I believe I have the perfect trump card to this argument on if Eragon is a Stu or not.
When I was at Comic Con two years ago I saw Paolini speak. There he admitted that Eragon is a Gary Stu.
If you can't believe the author, then who can you believe?
I didn't even know he knew the term...
Still, I prefer to take almost everything I hear with a grain of salt, so I'm not accepting Eragon's Stu-ness just yet.
Maybe once I've had more time to reflect on it, but not now.
I think, if you don't take the author's advice, you should at least take mine. I have read - and anaylzed - the entire series up to Inheritance. ALSO I have a huge f'ing Gary Stu as a character. (Agent Alec Troven, to be exact. He's the physical embodiment of Chaos for the entire multiverse, can manipulate reality at a whim and is unkillable. You can't really more 'stuy than that)
Now Gary Stus as some have said, aren't bad things, it's all a matter of how they're handled. Mercedes Lackey has a tendency to write Gary and Mary Sues. Anne McCaffery's Lessa and Menolly are definitely in the Sue category, to knock off a few names.
However the problem with Eragon is that he he is a Gary Stu and not a very good one at that. In that his Stu'ness, his lack of empathy for others, his idea that he's the Judge and Jury of everything. We are supposed to accept that his actions are Good and Right. Even when they're heinous. I point to Sloan for a good example of that.
But really you can look at my analysis that I've done (I think it was linked to earlier) for my proofs.
I'm simply saying that I'd prefer to think over the evidence gathered here and come to my own conclusions. At this point, I think I have enough of the other point of view to do that.
... Yeah, that pretty much does it, I'd say.
Also, howdy, Kippur! Good to see you here! {= D
~Neshomeh
As I see it (and this is my basis for the new definition on the Mary Sue page), the main thing that makes a Sue or Stu is that other characters don't react to the Stu in ways that make sense, and neither does the Stu behave in ways that make sense. "Sense" is relative, but it takes into consideration the reasonable expectations of the reader and the rules of the world set up by the author.
To use the swordsmanship example, if the rules were that anyone in Inheritanceverse could pick up a stick and learn to be a master swordsman in a couple of weeks, then it wouldn't be Stuish; however, not anyone can do that. Only Eragon can, because he is speshul. It's not really the what that make a Stuish trait (becoming a master swordsman), but the how (doing it in a ridiculously short time when no one either in the real world or the fictional one can do the same).
If Eragon had to work for his success, he wouldn't be a Stu; however, these things are all handed to him on a silver platter of plot contrivance. It makes him boring, as doctorlit noted, and it makes him a Stu.
~Neshomeh
And based on the definition you just gave, Eragon being a Stu does make at least some kind of sense. Again, I'm still not sure I agree, but I understand.
I don't have anything to contribute to the discussion since I haven't read any of them, but I just wanted to say I *like* your phrase there.
I only read the first book because I found it really boring. The setting was boringly generic, and most of the characters felt like vaguely-described fanfic characters. Eragon is the most boring of all, and gets the most screen time, which is probably why he feels so Suish.
Personally I did and do enjoy the Eragon books for one main reason. I am easy to entertain and they weren't badly written. What I mean is the wording, grammar, use, descriptions, and the actual world itself is actually fairly entertaining.
Yes I have ready many books far superior to the series, but its still enjoyable even if he is a Gary Stu. Admittedly there is some excuse for how much stronger he is over the norm by dint of being a "dragon rider" who are supposed to be powerful due to their very nature, but just by being the last dragon rider, that is also a Stu trait, or so I think. I could be wrong on that last.
One of the last, yes, but not quite the last.
And being the last, I don't think, is in and of itself a Stu trait; no one seems to consider Martian Manhunter a Stu (I'll grant that Superman is a huge Stu, but Martian Manhunter's almost as powerful and no one ever seems to call him a Stu). Being the last does seem to boost a character's "Stu-score", though, so that needs to be used carefully.
Also, it's inevitable that whoever the protagonist is, he or she will be special in some way. It keeps things interesting and provides a reason why that person is the main character and not someone else. In this case, I'll grant that he's more special than several other protagonists, but not, I don't think, enough to be a Stu.
Your other point, however, that it's decently-written, is another telling point. Most Sues and Stus are badly-written. The fact that Eragon isn't helps.
Okay, first? Martian Manhunter is arguably more powerful than Superman. He has laser eyes, the flight, and he's just as strong, and on top of that he can shapeshift, is psychic, and can turn intangible. Then again, his weakness is far more common. As Batman says in Justice League: First Flight, "I've got a million-dollar rock for the one in Metropolis. All I need for you is a penny for a book of matches."
Secondly, power levels or being the "sole survivor" aren't what make Superman and J'onn Stus or not Stus. It's how believable they are in their setting. Since Martian Manhunter is a less popular character, he is frequently downplayed, and thus is more believable in within the DCU. Usually Superman is as well, however since he's far more popular, he gets more screen-time, which means more time for writers to play around with him, and pull stuff like the Superman Red/Blue, or having him die then come back to life, or the many times he's been compared to Jesus, or how his powers seem to be "Whatever he needs at that moment in time." When Superman is a Stu, it's a result of bad writing, just like any other character, however since there are many writer who have worked with him, there are just as many occasions where he's a well-balanced, interesting character. All it takes is the right writer.
Saying Superman is a huge Stu, without exception, is a little like saying that Sherlock Holmes is always a huge Stu, just because that how some authors writers write him, regardless of how the original author, or other good authors, have written him.
But I've never heard the Manhunter being called a Stu at all, which was the gist of my point. Probably because of the whole fire thing, as you said.
And I also get what you're saying about the writers, and it makes sense. Things that are annnoyingly Stu-like with one writer may be tolerable or even interesting with another. And that actually sheds a lot of light on the Eragon thing: Paolini may not be a good enough writer to pull off a good Stu completely.
I do think that Eragon is a Stu, but I'm of the opinion that, if well written, Stu's and Sue's can actually enhaance a storyline. Depressingly, these are very rare, but I suppose Eragon falls into this category.
Irrelevently, I tried to write an intentional Stu for a JuNoWriMo once. It failed epicly. He ended up one of the most flawed characters I've ever had.
That skill with fighting? He learned it in days, if not hours. It has been some time since I read the first book. And only that. He also gained the full ability to read and write within an even shorter period of time.
The fact that only major threats are threats at all is a problem.
He starts off the story with no real ties, let alone concerns about what happens to the others, or what might occur. This is self centered behavior, and a common trait of a Sue or Stu.
Arrogance and self considered superiority is still a Stu/Sue trait.
The story is focused- to unfair and ludicrous degrees- on Eragon and his accomplishments, which are completely out of balanced with what should and ought be considered possible by a single character in his home verse. His accomplishments cannot be- and are not- duplicated by anyone else beyond the characters who have been, quite randomly, chosen to be his villains and opposites.
Reconsider the behavior and actions of Galbatorix- who, if I remember rightly, is the ruler. He keeps the land in a state of stability, and moderates it. Law is provided. Things are done to keep unlawlessness and what results from it to a minimum. In many considerations, he has the area kept in a state where he is indicating that his rule is a successful one.
We don't see anything that tells us he is an evil ruler. We are only told it to ensure that Eragon, as the hero, has a villain to fight against.
These are off the top of my head. I haven't read them for about eight years now, and not interested in doing so. If you like, I can link Kippur's excellent sporkings of the whole series which tells you exactly how it is one of the most terribly written and hackneyed stories and poorly made worlds of fantasy in this last decade.
...then how do you expect to remember these things? For example, I clearly remember his fighting skills being picked up in a matter of weeks; I'll grant that it was fast, but it wasn't days.
I can't dispute the reading/writing thing, though. I consider that a minor point, however.
Well, the fact that major threats are the only threats is canonically accurate. You might as well say that all Jedi are Sues and Stus, because short of a surprise attack (which Eragon is also susceptible to, you may recall), the average Joe isn't a problem. Granted, you get the occasional Boba Fett or Jango Fett that can challenge a Jedi, but one can also see this in the Shades or the Ra'zac in Eragon.
Why is arrogance so Stu-y? Unless he doesn't get a richly-deserved comeuppance, which I remember he did (remember what happened to Elva).
...any book is focused on the main character. You may recall that many of his "accomplishments" were done with help; he escaped from prison with assistance from Saphira and Murtagh, he killed the Ra'zac with help from Roran, he killed Durza with a timely distraction by Arya and Saphira (otherwise, he was outmatched).
Galbatorix keeps the land stable, yes. Stable in the fact that his pet monsters roam the land doing what they please to the common man (see Urgals). Besides, it is often the evil that does not look evil right away that is the most dangerous.
Personally, I take the fact that I can coherently counter most of your points evidence that, even if he is a Stu, that he's not a horrible one.
...doesn't make him not a Stu.
The sheer unoriginalness and outright stolen ideas scream "STU! STU!"
The plot is the original trilogy of Star Wars, with some Tolkien ideas thrown straight in (undiluted by time), the dragonrider concept and how it works stolen from Anne McCaffery's Pern series (who actually made a go at trying to sue him for it), with the magic style of Earthsea and none of the sense that Ursula LeGuin gave it. Individual items within the series, be they concept, character idea, or creature, or what else have you, can generally be pinpointed down to exactly creator/original story in a mix going back to the 1940s as far as modern fantasy goes.
Oh. Let's not forget the B5 allusion, or the inclusion of the Doctor in ways that make no sense whatsoever.
The Babylon 5 allusion is one a friend of mine caught: 'Eragon at one point says some idiotic thing about "I stand between the candle and the dark." The standard greeting of a member of the Grey Council of the Minbari (totally the elves) of Babylon 5: "I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light."'
As to Doctor Who, to quote wikipedia: 'Paolini admitted he is a Doctor Who fan, which inspired his reference to the "lonely god" (the epithet given to the Doctor by the Face of Boe in the episode "New Earth"), to "rooms that are bigger on the inside than the outside" (from "Questions Unanswered" in Inheritance), as well as to Raxacoricofallapatorius, the home of the Doctor Who Slitheen ("Blood Price" in Inheritance).'
That? That is utterly bad writing. Not because they're allusions, but because they are not clever. They are unsuited to his story and the whole world he has created. They are in for the sake of the cool factor, regardless of any sense they make in the setting or as things for characters to say or name things as.
There is nothing good about any of this. This isn't 'inspired by' or 'influenced by'. This is 'stolen from'. If people cannot separate the idea and see it as being true to the story it is currently in, and instead only see- immediately, often enough- that it is from some different other series, some other story, some other creator, there is something wrong with the writing. You can't claim it as your own if people cannot see your touch to it, if they still see the poorly scribbled out name of the previous user of the idea somewhere on a tag attached to it.
This is what Stus and their stories do. They are derivative for the sake of being cool without anything making much more than an ill made patchwork of sense.
The Eragon books reek of trying to cram all the cool ideas he came up with or wanted to use into a single set of books, with one cast.
Eragon himself is painfully, shallowly, derivative.
And, no. A book is focused on its cast of characters. Even when they are not the main character, they still have agency and other things to do. They should not be relegated into either being 'good' and thus helping or needing help from the main characters regardless, or 'evil' and thus not helping the main characters or actively working to be annoyances if they are not out-and-out bad guys/
Again, here's the sporking of the series, by one of our own.
You can like Eragon, sure. You're allowed to have a guilty pleasure. It doesn't mean you have to defend it, say it isn't bad, say Eragon isn't much of a Stu though. Doing that is completely, utterly unnecessary because he is a Stu, and a very big one.
...even if I don't agree with it, and I put this up to understand the other side, so I think that this was time well spent on my part.
Personally, I think that either I'm relatively tolerant as a reader, or the people who see all the "stolen" materials are relatively strict, because I don't really see the use of several of these things as a problem. Heck, I didn't notice that the plot was related to Star Wars until someone else pointed it out to me (although that probably argues that I'm too tolerant...or just unobservant). I also have difficulty seeing any outright stolen ideas from Tolkien, although I can see his influence.
I can't speak for Babylon 5 or Pern, having never seen/read them, but the Doctor fits anywhere. Except maybe My Little Pony or Winnie the Pooh, and I'm sure someone could figure out a way to write the Doctor in there if they really wanted.
Also, I'm not seeing the clear-cut good/evil that you're seeing. I'm seeing several complex individuals all trying to achieve their own ends, which oftentimes clash with Eragon's ends.
Still, I think I get where you guys are coming from, and so I thank you all for clear summaries of your position.
He somehow became better than Brom in the course of weeks fighting with sticks. I would like you to somehow become better than an actual sword fighting master in a few weeks, using sticks that aren't even analogous to how one would use a sword at all and claim that makes you actually good. Nowhere did I see him ever do drills, learn footwork, study technique... This is like saying he improves by LARPing for a few weeks against somebody with greater skill. It doesn't work that way.
And then he switched to actual swords. He sparred against his mentor with the actual weapon he would use to kill people like it was no big deal. Sure, Brom shielded the edge with magic, but he was still flailing around a heavy metal bar that 1) he is totally untrained in the use of, sticks discounted, 2) he does not know the weight of, or his own strength. He by all rights could break bones and seriously hurt a person. And his instructor is a so-called swordfighting expert? What kind of teacher would have completely NO knowledge about basic safety, or even that maybe Eragon should learn how to not hurt himself before he pretends his LARPing skills can serve him in an actual fight with dangerous steel weapons, sharp or otherwise?
My family reads buzz-books on principle, and is a fan of fantasy in general. So we all picked up a copy of Eragon and passed it down the line. My father, a blackbelt in aikido and quite proficient with the sword, threw down the book in disgust, absolutely mad that this kid had the gall to think he was good at any kind of martial art, when he'd practiced for only a few weeks, utterly disregarded safety, his mentor acted with total lack of knowledge, and somehow was superhuman enough to become good enough to BEST that skilled mentor with only a few weeks of effort that shouldn't have taught him anything in the first place.
I'm sorry. Eragon is bad. The way he treats learning new skills, the total lack of research, the sheer disregard and disrespect of those who actually had to spend time and effort developing said skills... he's bad. He's a Gary Stu, through and through. He is like the manifestation of all dweeby people flailing around their sticks and LARP swords and wishing that they could be MASTER SWORDSMEN!!!11one! with just a few weeks of 'practice,' and don't need discipline or applied study because they're special and amazing.
(No insult to LARPers. I am one, in fact, but the dweebs have seen... for every person who tries to study footwork and technique and improve, there is a guy who thinks flailing around like Star Wars Kid makes him a combat master)
I am sorry. I have read the books, but I'm so sorry. Eragon is terrible. I can really only see it as maybe somebody's guilty pleasure. It's just so totally entitled, disrespectful, and uninformed. Argh blargh blah.
I'm trying to figure out what you're saying and I get most of it, but I think that I'm being hampered in full understanding by my lack of knowledge of what LARP is.
Still, your points are well-taken, and I will concede that, weapon-wise, he is a bit of a Stu. Now I think I understand the viewpoint (even if I still don't completely agree).
...Galbatorix does endorse slavery, though in retrospect, it seemed tacked on to give Eragon something to rage about.
I mean come on. Sword of Sueness if I've ever seen one.
And the elves. Mary-Suetoipa and author tract to the maximum.
I actually laughed out loud when they made Galby evil for kicking somebody in the crotch. Sure, it's dirty, but it's simply the mark of a combat pragmatist.
I really really want to read that part.
The forging of the sword is in the third book. The mention of Galbatorix kicking Vrael is in Borm's legend in the first book.
You realize that every other Rider had one of those swords? It's only unusual because most of the other Riders died.
I have yet to see evidence of the elves being Sues any more than I can see any other elves being Sues.
And about that last, I distinctly recall asking for 4th book spoilers to not be discussed. Granted, this is minor (and I have to agree with the point you've made, from what little I know of the incident in question), but I would still like to actually read the book and find out for myself.
Brisingr, the sword, DESPITE being made in one night, by the elf lady who swore she'd never ever make another sword again and so used Eragon as her hands (And thus technically breaking her oath) made a sword that she declared to be the BEST SWORD SHE EVER MADE EVER.
So, Eragon is special enough that the sword that the Best Sword Smith Evah made him the Best Sword Evah. And not only that but she did it in impossible time. And it's still the BEST SWORD EVAH as opposed to barely functional.
Not only that but it's the ONLY SWORD EVAH that bursts into fire when you say its name. All the other swords are just normal swords. But Eragon's is special enough to burst into flame.
Book three.
She did it in one night because she used magic, which had previously been indicated could do anything as well as manual labor.
Which may also have something to do with it being possibly the best sword she had made.
As for the flames...I don't recall them being useful. If they were useful, I could see Sword of Sueness.
Okay. So she normally uses magic in the forging of her blades anyway. I just checked.
And yet the one sword she made on one night, not the sword she spent hours and days and months and years on, designing, forging and spelling a sword. Her masterpiece is something she does in one night. She didn't take any time - she didn't have any -to work out what would make this sword so great. She was rushed. AND DESPITE THIS ALL she has made the Best Sword Evah. And it's Eragon's sword.
Not only that but ERAGON is the one person who convinces her to violate her oath. NO ONE ELSE is special enough to do that. She made an unvioltable oath which she violates for ERAGON.
As for the sword bursting in flames, -I haven't read Inheritance yet- but he's only had it for a few days. I'm sure the flames will come in handy. ALSO it doesn't matter if they don't do anything. IT STILL TURNS ON FIRE. No one else's sword does that.
Short of going to recheck the book, I have no way to either prove or disprove your first point, and presumably you checked thoroughly, so I won't bother. I'll take your word on this.
Which pretty much derails my thought concerning the whole Sword of Sueness thing.
However, I'm not sure it was Eragon that convinced her so much as the circumstances. Finally there was a Rider who could challenge Galbatorix...but he needs a sword. Thus her forging Brisingr.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that it takes a useful trait for the sword to be Stuish. Being a pink and sparkly sword would be a charge for a Sue, but not a Stu. On the other hand, a useful trait like being able to fling lightning, say, would be more of a Stu trait, since Stus are more combat-oriented by definition. Of course, this last is probably just my personal paradigm of Sues and Stus (which may account for this whole thread to begin with: my personal Stu definition not matching the PPC's).
Just with this one point-- I only read the first book once, and never touched the rest of the series. So I've only got a clinical sort of point to throw in, here.
Having a cool feature that doesn't add anything the conflict/plot/etc... actually kind of makes it more Stuish, not less. One of the defining characteristics of a Sue/Stu, IMHO, is one that Calista pointed out earlier-- there's all kinds of 'cool' and 'awesome' features thrown in, not to advance the story, or add characterization, but because it makes the character look cooler. Which, quite frankly, is exactly what Brisingr looks like from here.
I'll have to think about that one, but I do think that I'll probably end up agreeing with this one point, at least.
My first introduction to modern fantasy was R. A. Salvatore's Drizzt Do'Urden. Chaotic Good dark elf who flees his Chaotic Evil home in the Underdark and makes his way above the surface... and he was my absolute favorite thing to read for a very long time, and he is such a Stu. He's got lavender eyes (in both infrared and visible light), he angsts about his past in a journal* at the start of every chapter (and frequently throughout), he has two über-cool scimitars, which he wields frequently, he manages to befriend a Lawful Good dwarf and his human daughter...
I haven't read the series in years, but if you put it in front of me right now, I would probably drop everything and be late to work because I'd start reading immediately. He's a total Stu, and I love the series anyway, and shrug when people tell me it sucks. Likewise with the new TV show, Terra Nova. I know it has issues, I know it has flaws, I know quite a few of the plot twists were predictable, and I just don't care. I like it. Why do I care whether it's clinically GoodTM or not? Or, as my friend said about Flashpoint, "It's not that the show has no flaws. It's just that I don't care."
Eragon being a totally overpowered Stu doesn't invalidate your enjoyment of him. It doesn't even have to be a 'guilty pleasure'! You know he's not the most developed character in the world, but who cares? You like it; that's what matters.
*I will admit that two of those journal entries were excellent, and stuck with me-- the one on dragons, and the one on shadows. "There are no shadows in the Underdark." And he goes into a whole explanation of how shadows can be seen as a metaphor for imagination, dreams, for the twilit world of 'maybe-there,' but in the Underdark, none of those things matter, there is no time for maybes, for dreams. Then the one on dragons, where he muses that perhaps dragons represent everything unconquerable about the world, that we, as humans sapients, need something out there so mysterious, timeless, wise-- that it will be a tragedy when the last dragon is gone. Very poignant, those.
I don't hate him. Nor do I like him better than say, Belwar or Buenor. What I don't like is that he's frequently ripped off, to the point that other takes on Good Drow get ousted.
If a sword can cut through a magic door, burn wood, and destroy metal reinforcements while on fire, I'd say there is a good chance the sword would be Speshul. In my opinion, doesn't matter whether the flames that cover the sword are useful or not, the question to ask is: "Do the other Riders' swords have magical properties (other than the energy sink in the jewel), or is it just Eragon's?"
I just realized Eragon's name is one letter away from spelling "dragon". Kinda late to the party, but yeah.
...but if not, point taken.
...one
I've read most of the Inheritence books (haven't managed to get my hands on the fourth one yet, but I'm planing in it soon) and I'll admit, they are a guilty pleasure.
The Elves in Inheritance are kind of sueish, truth be told. They are portrayed as 100 times better than us mere mortals could ever hope to be. They're faster, stronger and more beautiful. They have better magic, better senses, and are immortal.
Now, this wouldn't be so bad, if say, there was a good reason for all of this. It's very much like this with the Elves in LotR after all, they don't get sick, have elven speed, strength, grace, beauty and senses as well. But Tolkien's elves have a reason for this: their bodies and souls are more closely connected then those of men because they are bound to Middle-earth, while the Race of Man isn't and goes on beyond the circles of the world when they die.
The closest thing the Elves in Inheritance have to a reason for their uber-awesomeness is their pact with the dragons, which is relatively weak in comparison, considering that later on Men were allowed into this pact, and still aren't as good as the Elves.
Tolkien's Elves also had a history and culture built up around them, a complex one (you could fill up a whole book with it infact!) and a tragic one. The bad things done by Tolkien's Elves were portrayed as being bad and they had consequences.
In Inheritence, the picture we have of the Elves's history and culture is shallow and flat at best. They are portrayed as the authors ideal society, but nothing more beyond that. Beyond that it is clear that they are a rip-off of Tolkien's elves and the uncreativeity and unoriginality there are signs of suedom.
When Paolini's Elves do bad things (like attacking nearby human settlements with no real excuse or reason besides "well, they are part of the Empire, so...why not?" like in Brisingr it is portrayed as perfectly alright. That kind of protaginist centered morality is probably one of the most telling signs of of Sues and Stues. Now I haven't read the fourth book, so it could be that Paolini knocked his elves down a peg or two and I just don't know about it, but as it stands now, his elves are a race of Sues
Personally, I think that a major part of Sueness is being the protagonist, which the elves aren't. I will grant that they might be there just to have someone for Eragon to become as good as, but I think they fall just short of Sueness due to not being protagonists.
It spits flames. 'Nuff said.
As for the elves, they seem to be the idealized version of the author's society. Nothing wrong with that, but it still gets on my nerves.
Galbatorix pulling a groin attack on Vrael happens in the first book, by the way.
Also, I remember a sneak attack, but I don't remember the attack being to the groin. Still, my memory may be faulty on this point; it's relatively minor, in my mind at least.