Subject: Concerning Eragon
Author:
Posted on: 2013-02-24 17:41:00 UTC
Something I've noticed about the PPC is that everyone says Eragon from the Inheritance Cycle is a Gary Stu. Most of my friends really like Eragon, and I'm okay with the series myself, so I don't quite see how Eragon is a 'Stu. Could someone explain it to me?
Let's take Eragon as an example of bad characterization. On one hand, he claims to be all fair-play and willing to accept his enemies' surrender. On the other hand... remember when he decimated an entire patrol with Arya whilst on foot? The sole survivor of the squad threw down his weapons but Eragon chased him down even as the man pleaded for his life, made it clear that he was unarmed and was surrendering for God's sake... and Eragon catches up to him and wrings his neck like a chicken.
Not cool. That's a war crime.
Paolini also has no grasp of nuclear physics whatsoever. Apparently, one Rider decided that he was going to turn himself into a nuke by saying something along the lines of "herp derp, E=MC2" (just how exactly did they discover the principles of nucleon-nucleon interaction with the technology they have now? You need to set up experiments involving electricity and charged particles to do that) and takes a chunk of Doru Araeba with him. He also leaves radioactive fallout behind too.
What.
Radioactivity is caused by the breakdown of instable isotopes. It affects living organisms by imparting energy into their flesh through particles given off by radioactive decay. Now, the book assumes that the person just becomes energy (I'm going to guess thermal, sound, and light, it is an explosion after all) just like that. There is no radioactive decay involved, nor is the fission of refined U-235, which is the usual source of radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons.
Not on the first point though, that was a bad moment in characterization. Of corse, we always have Galbatorix mind control to worry about, so perhaps he was not as bloodthirsty as it seemed. Still, I do see your point and took issue with Eragon as a character because of which.
However, on the nuclear physics problem, I do have to take issue. While I do not remember the passage you are referring to, I do know there is only one way this could be possible, and that's magic. This is a fantasy world of magic, and once you get magic into the fray, just about anything is possible. Is it a cheap excuse? Probably, however that is how it is. The elves have shown a clear understanding of several scientific principals because they were able to study it using magic, literally feeling how things worked. Add extra long life and a mind that can turn people insane by probing it, and you have a people who can know allot with very little technology.
Further, and this is a gripe about bad physics complainers in general, this is a brand new world. This is a completely different universe, with different rules, different systems. All of our science and physics, which are all theories for a reason might I add, are based off observations from our planet in our solar system in our galaxy, of which is one in billions at least. While fictional works set in other universes have the added bonus of having the possibility of completely different physics rules than our own, what is to say a different planet in a different solar system, perhaps in a whole other galaxy works in a way we currently think is impossible.
Now, this is not to say writers necessarily have a Get Out of Physics Free card, as they have to work with the rules of their world. I don't care if they have blatantly horrible science that make all scientists everywhere turn in their beds, as long as they stick to their world's rules. If your magic has a system to work with, then you break the rules later for 'cool factor' or Dues ex Machina, I have an issue with that. Because what I care about is a good story, something that entertains me or gets me to think in some way. Dues ex Machina is not good storytelling, but science is not necessary for good storytelling. If it is, then clearly everybody who wants to write any form of novel needs to have studied all of the history and science that exists to make sure it is accurate, and all sorts of great fantasy stories would not be nearly as entertaining as they are.
There, my rant is finished. It's just been a problem of mine for a while, and I felt I had to share my feelings on it.
They all have points: the theory thing is a pet peeve of mine too, and science is not limited to studying our solar system. There's a reason it's the gravitational constant of the universe.
But that's not your point, which is that science and magic don't play nice. As you said, "once you get magic into the fray, just about anything is possible". Introducing magic or science to the continuum diminishes or contradicts the existence of the other. Star Trek makes an effort to disprove every bit of "magic" they see (the ones they don't technobabble away are implied, Q being a prime example. In a way, it cements his trickster status, since it riles the main characters up that they can't explain him. But I digress), and Percy Jackson-verse demigods can't use cell phones. So while I can't speak on the specific scene (it's been a while since I read Eragon), I can say that nuclear physics and science are very hard to make compatible.
And that you should follow the established rules of your universe. That is the true indicator of Canon Sue-ishness - for example, Wesley Crusher is a Canon Sue because Picard lets him drive the ship when a) there are qualified Starfleet officers who should have that job and b) Picard doesn't like children all that much.
Anyhow, good points. Glad someone spoke up on the other side. One sided discussions aren't discussions.
Devil's Advocate means that you are arguing a position that is counter to the one you hold and that doing so will clarify your own position as well as the one you currently argue. That does not appear to be what you are doing. You claim to be arguing your own position. That (and Nesh's issue) aside, I have other problems with your post.
"The elves have shown a clear understanding of several scientific principals because they were able to study it using magic, literally feeling how things worked."
You can't say that it is all magic, so science doesn't enter into it, and then claim that magic was the route through which they learned science. Science either holds in this world, or it doesn't, regardless of how they learned it. You've shot your own argument in the foot, here.
I do completely agree with you that a fantasy universe should follow its own rules. Scientists agree with that, in fact. Scientists love fantasy novels as much as the next person, or so I have been led to believe by hS's continued love of the Lord of the Rings. The problem in this instance is that Eragon doesn't follow the rules the author seems to have set up.
...but then I got off onto a rant, forgot what I set the subject heading as, and sorta left it. Yeah, my bad.
As for the Hypocrisy in my statement, I see what you mean and desided to rephrase it. What I meant was that the elves use so much magic, they have begun to understand the way their world works on a deeper level then other beings, a form of science that is possable in their world that would require advanced technology to understand for our world. This was in responce to the question on how a rider could understand nuclear theory without the technology to support it. However, I worded it poorly (along with the rest of my statement aparently) and thus did not say what I wished to say in the best way posable.
"[Our current scientific theories are based off of] observations from our planet in our solar system in our galaxy, of which it is one in billions[...]."
I think A Brief History of Time covers this, but I think I might be getting my sources mixed up here.
The problem with saying that the laws of physics don't apply to other areas of the universe is that that's implying there is another invisible force at work which modifies the behaviour of the aforementioned laws that we know. That means we should be able to see some boundaries somewhere, or at least measure some sort of difference between two sectors of space.
Furthermore, other galaxies are separated from us only by distance. Why would light/gravity/heat/energy transfer/quantum mechanics/general relativity/orbiting teapots behave differently if we moved several hundred million light years in some direction?
It also comes down to the emergence life being determined by physics too. As odd as it sounds, the laws of physics are so because any other combination would not yield our type of life. So when an author futzes too much with the laws of physics in his/her work, things can get messy (or weird) really quickly.
So... yeah, that's all I've got.
(I just finished a 9-week astronomy course with Coursera, so...)
We observe from the cosmic microwave background ratiation ("the background temperature of the universe") that the energy levels in our bit of space - barring minor fluctuations like galaxy clusters and such - are remarkably uniform. Not completely uniform - there's fluctuations in the CMBR, which correspond in size to the expansion of the universe since the moment space became transparent.
[Quick explanation of this: If we imagine a bit of space one light-year across, which suddenly begins emitting randomised light across itself while expanding - and that one year later it has reached two light-years across - the light moving around in there will not have had time to cross the whole distance. Therefore, while in a small area of this space the temperature/light energy will have averaged out, there is no causal connection between the two sides of our 'bit of space' - they can't average with each other, so any imbalance when we set the light free remains present]
Unfortunately, the size of our observable universe (about 46 billion light-years, I think) is such that, were it to have been expanding steadily since the Big Bang, at the time space became transparent there wouldn't have been enough time for points on opposite sides of what we now see to have averaged out. Therefore, we ought to see wild imbalances in the CMBR, where very early fluctuations were preserved.
We don't. Therefore, it is hypothesised that very early in the universe's life, the whole thing expanded massively, meaning points which had already averaged out were suddenly too far away to have done so, were it not for this inflation.
But... it was proven last year that we (almost certainly) live in an infinite, flat universe. That means it was always infinite... just more compressed (that's how infinity works, I'm afraid). Which means that despite inflation, there are still (sigh) infinite reaches of space which did not have time to average out... and thus could have quite, quite different energy levels.
Of course, we do know that they're far beyond what we can see... which is quite a lot, really.
hS, astronomy!
I think I've seen that photo of the CMBR. Is it
this thing?
If I remember correctly, the inflation is tied to the Big Bang model, right?
*Looks it up on Google*
Boy, it's been a while since I've read about it. Excuse me while I go raid the library for some books on astrophysics...
According to Wikipedia's image of the high-res version, the difference between red and blue on there (with blue being the hottest, because astronomy) is about 0.0002 K (or degrees Celsius if you don't speak science, or very roughly 0.0001 degrees Fahrenheit.
Which is not a lot of difference, when you recall that over a mere nine light-minutes, our solar system varies from millions of degrees to virtually absolute zero (ie, the sun to the dark side of the moon). Hence... well, everything I said before.
hS
Especially the last one. Sure, magic can explain how people can throw balls of fire/energy/stuff, but taking an existing phenomenon (radioactivity in this case) and using it in a way that makes no sense is one of these "rule of cool" things.
The first one to say "It's magic, we don't have to explain it!" will be tuna-slapped for making that reference.
Sorry, but you've tripped one of my pet peeves. ^^;
All of our science and physics, which are all theories for a reason might I add
Let me just point out for posterity that a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifictheory">scientific theory is not the same thing as any old theory. In science, in order for your idea (or hypothesis) to be called a theory, it has to have been thoroughly tested and have a buttload of evidence to back it up. Hence, the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. They're not called theories because there's any doubt that these things actually exist, but rather because they are accepted scientifically as real things that operate in a certain way under certain conditions.
It drives me absolutely hair-tearing INSANE when people go "Well, it's just a theory" to write off science, because that word does not mean the same thing in that context. }=
~Neshomeh
Oh my, I am so sorry, I did not mean for it to seem like I disregarded science. I know what scientific theories are and how they are different from regular theories. The reason I said it like that was because science can, and does, change. That is one of it's greatest qualeties in my opinion! Because it can change to fit the new data that is found that was perviously unknown, it can adapt to fit the truth much beter than some blanket statement of 'it is this and nothing elce.' So when I say 'It's just a theory,' I say it with pride rather than dismissal. My point was that there are several peices of data that we do not have yet, and so when somebody says that it is scientificaly incorrect, I have to wonder if it tuely is. Just because our current science says it is impossable, because it is theory not fact, we are able to see if it is possable under different conditions then what we have seen so far. So that was what I meant to say, not to insinuate that I disregarded science and the scientific principal.
Mainly because you said it in the context of "maybe nuclear physics could work differently someplace else in our universe," which SeaTurtle addressed.
Also, I get what you're saying about science being able to change and improve as we learn more, but I think "just theory" is not a good, clear way to express that, given how people usually use that particular bit of language.
~Neshomeh
I. Nesh is right about what scientific theories are.
II. Science can be disagreed with without the 'it's just a theory' argument (for example: arguing that you can't get any real proof out of induction-based logic, a la Hume).
III. Still and most importantly, using MAGIC to solve your plotholes is cheating. It's just creating a bigger plothole.
Does that also count for worlds where it's used as a primary power source, or where it's so heavily present that it's physically impossible for somebody to not be born with it?
I'd prefer to know in advance so that I can make some game changes before I get too far stuck in a corner.
(Specifically, I'm referencing my two stories, The Chronicles of Zeyr and Mage's Travels, where magic is a lot like oil in the former and oxygen, in a sense, in the latter. Mage's Travels especially tends to abuse the "fix it with magic" thing, but I usually have good reasons for WHY it does, i.e., "fire magic to melt the hinges on a door in case of emergency entry.")
That's using magic the way it was written into the world.
I thought he meant all magic fix-its in general, that's why I was asking.
It can be explained well, it can be overexplained and it can be complete bull in its logic. It all depends on what you do with it.
Mystical power unbound by human hands, understood little but used with practiced skill by those who possess its great gift, that sort of thing.
The Merlin story, basically. Or as close to it as I can get. (He's even referenced as a sort of demigod in the Mage's Travels storyline.)
Even when magic is used as an industrial power source. Because the people who use it like that have literally no idea what all it's capable of.
I can say though, having read Kippur's sporkings, that I at least stick to my already-established guidelines for magic, hence avoiding this magical nuke dump that Galbatorix apparently does at one point.
Wow. That is...uh. Wow.
Especially if he's defecting nuclear explosions.
Galbatorix pulls the nuke card again (by saying "be not") and blows himself up right before Eragon kills the king with feels.
Yeah.
I still think the best part of the book was when Eragon stood at Ground Zero of the Galba-nuke and survived a fireball that, for all intents and purposes, was a mini-sun minus nuclear fusion.
Also, how does one defect a nuclear explosion?
WHAT DID I WRITE?!
Oh for goodness' sake...
That was supposed to be defecate.
THAT NUKE THERE IS A SPAH.
...but yes, Eragon survives a nuke in the face. That pretty much sums up how OP our protagonist is. Then again, he did cure cancer, so nukes are no biggie.
If ever there is a sequel to the Inheritance trilogy cycle, I am betting Eragon will invent necromancy or something and overrule the you-can't-mess-with-the-dead theme that was present in Brom's death. It's only logical that after pushing the limits of how much punishment you can take before you die, he goes on to define what "only mostly dead" means.
Not even the mages in my Made's Travels series are quite that OP. (And trust me, sometimes I wonder where my head was in regards to Shepard Hallend.)
For that matter, not even the Immortal Eldraec (no, that is their title of address, they don't actually being to any specific race) aren't that bad. Sure, I might have had them be ridiculously powerful and able to withstand any instant-death method that Fate did not say would kill them (because that's the only canonical way they can die - Fate had to decide as such. The Eldraec are basically representatives of the gods, after all.), but at least there's some power st work that holds them to this guideline. Eragon is apparently flipping off whatever unexplained deities exist in his world. Which I guess is par for the course, considering he's an arrogant prick.
So, Eragon had outclassed my mages, and is dangerously close to outclassing my immortal demigods. Wonderful.
Made of Explodium.
Wait, so I'm supposed to believe that Eragon survived a NUKE?
So, then he's been made basically immortal? (Well, it was listed as a rider trait... Kind of a weak one, though, all you have to do is stab and/or poison them.)
If I might make a reference here, Kaim Argonar from Lost Odyssey survived a meteor the size of Russia being dropped on a battlefield, but even that was just barely due to his immortality stepping in and protecting him.
I am not going to start calling Eragon "Eragon Argonar".
...we get this question every once in a while. I find the easiest way to handle this is to point you to the sporkings of the series that were done by Kippur.
You can find the link here.
... you know it's worth reading.
hS
I love the fact that the fact that Eragon can light his sword on fire is displayed as a negative thing.
PS: Said sword only lights on fire because he accidentally discovered its true name. Also, it was made by a blacksmith who had sworn to never make a weapon for a rider again.
In popular stories, people who don't like the character with a Chosen One archetype who learns magic and other stuff are apt to use Gary Stu as an insult.
Me, I used to like it, but now am just bored with it. But I don't call Eragon a Stu, because his ascension to power is canon. That, and he's countered by more powerful nemeses the whole way through, so it balances out.
This, in fact, makes him counter to what Mary Sues/Gary Stus typically embody, which is usually "Unrivaled in Power" or something like that.
Hell, I got a thief character right now who soon meets his match in the form of a Huntsman with a quicker wit than him.
Anyhow, as I said, I think it's just an argument people who don't like the series try to make, and little else.
In popular stories, people who don't like the character with a Chosen One archetype who learns magic and other stuff are apt to use Gary Stu as an insult.
Maybe this isn't what you mean, but that line seems to say that the only possible reason for people to think Eragon is a Gary Stu is that they just hate the whole Hero's Journey thing. This is problematic to me for a couple of reasons.
First, why did all of these people pick up the book in the first place if they hate the archetype so much? It's pretty obvious pretty quickly that Eragon is a Fated Hero with a Quest of Destiny, IMO.
Second, this is a very widely used archetype we're talking about, appearing in such monumental works as the original Star Wars trilogy, The Matrix, Harry Potter, and The Lord of the Rings. Many of us here are fans of these things, and yet dislike Eragon. Are these people, personally, insulting a character for no good reason just because they dislike his whole character archetype, or is it possible that they have logical reasons backed up with facts about his particular characterization and story? Perhaps a sort of "list of charges" against him, if you will?
Now, it's entirely possible that some people have hurled insults at Eragon just to be trolls or hipsters or whatever and could never have enjoyed that type of story, let alone this one in particular, but you seem to have tarred everyone who thinks he's a Stu with one haterbrush. Just sayin', you might want to think that allegation over a little bit.
~Neshomeh
My only explanation for the allegations is that I dont follow the Eragon fandom at all, and after reading Kippur's sporkings, I'm not sorry for that, and back in my GaiaOnline days it was completely the norm for haters of a story to call the protagonist a Mary Sue without reason or provocation.
Bad excuse, yes, but it's the truth nonetheless.
countered by more powerful nemeses the whole way through, I mean.
Most Sues don't claim to be the ultimate power in the universe etc etc. Most of them pay lip service to the idea that they're weak, or at least weaker than certain others.
But often it isn't true. If I claim to be only a beginner at magic, but then 'amazingly' my newbie Fireball of Divine Sparkliness catches the Big Bad off-guard and blows him to shreds... was I really weak to start with, or just saying I was?
Once, perhaps, could be actual luck. But when a character goes up against 'more powerful' enemies repeatedly and wins every time (or every time it matters)... well, you have to wonder.
hS, Level VI caster of Fireballs of Divine Sparkliness
I think a lot of it could also be chalked up to the Willing Suspension of Disbelief, too - how much are you willing to let slide before you finally call bull?
When it's an original canon, I'm much more forgiving in this regard, so I'm not always apt to jump to Mary Sue protagonists at the first red flag. Call it a failing on my skepticism's behalf.
*In which SC proves that if you mapped his brain on a scatter plot chart, you would find it very difficult to read, because his mind is super-screwy.*
... although I did watch the film, I recall.
Anyway, one highly popular (at the time) dissection of why the Inheritance Cycle is often reviled is Kippur's sporkings. Kippur, by the way, is a former PPC (author of Agents Alec Troven and Verra Rose of the Department of Improbabilities), and I think quite funny.
Also, the sporking features zombie horses. So it can't be all bad.
hS
Has anyone else read his Maximum Ride sporking? Maximum Ride is a series about a group of avian/human hybrids that sounds interesting when you first hear about it, but then when you read it you realize it's a bunch of plotholes held together by some snark. And Kippur points that out hilariously.
Maybe it's because some of his characteristics fall into traits that Suvian characters display a lot.
Being unique by last surviving member of an order? Speshulness. Possible angst hidden in there somewhere? Eyup. et cetera. Entire thing centered mostly on him slightly moreso than other protagonists? Resolved itself later, but somewhat. Dead parents? He's no batman, but using it to accentuate a charge list might not be good.
However, Sues aren't all bad...When written well, or baked into souffles.
...And I need to work on writing charge lists for Sues just over the border.
Nah, I'll just judge the outcome of a 30-sue-pileup in the Harry Potter canon.
... a conflict of definitions.
However, Sues aren't all bad...When written well
I'm aware that in some circles, the term 'Mary-Sue' is used almost as a synonym for 'original female character'. That's fine - people are allowed to define words however they want.
However, the PPC definition strongly implies (although it doesn't appear to actually state) that a Mary-Sue - when the PPC-at-large talks about them - is first and foremost a badly-written character.
To avoid killing a real character, the assassination must be justified with charges. Some characters may only be borderline Sues, with the potential to become real people with a bit of outside help.
Thus, as a fact of definition, a Mary-Sue is badly written. While there is a comment to this effect on the linked Wiki page:
It is important to note that this does not automatically mean that a Mary Sue character can't be enjoyable to read about if written well, but there's the rub: it is extremely difficult to write about this character type in a way that creates an entertaining story.
... I understand this to mostly be discussing parodies of various stripes. The self-aware Sues, the ones the canons are aware of, the ones who get nitpicked or the ones who lose - these are fun to read about, because they're being written as a Mary-Sue, not as an attempt to make a wonderful character.
hS
My point exactly. PPC-targeted Sues aren't written well. That's why it's so fun to point out the impossibilities in a sporking.
So, what I've gotten from that is Eragon has 'Stu qualities, but having those qualities doesn't necessarily make him one because the story is well-written. Am I on the right track?
In the linked Mary Sue page, there's a distinction made between characteristics associated with Sues (Secondary Traits) and characteristics that make a Sue (Primary Traits). IMO, Kippur demonstrates that Eragon possesses all three primary traits, therefore he is a Stu by our definition, regardless of the technical quality of the writing (which, as hS points out, is debatable).
That doesn't mean you're not allowed to enjoy the books, though. If it doesn't matter to you whether he's a Stu or not, and they give you joy, then who cares? {= )
~Neshomeh
The thing is, in some ways 'well-written' is subjective. Obviously actual errors in grammar and elementary logic are one thing, but when it comes down to 'unbelievable', then... well, practically all of fiction is unbelievable. No, boys who have grown up on a farm don't go on to become Jedi super-pilots who can down giant war machines with a freak shot - they go on to become farmers, or at best, in times of extreme need, mediocre pilots after a whole heap of training.
So you draw the line in your own head. Doubtless there are people who think Luke Skywalker is a Gary-Stu - equally, for literally any character you can name, there are going to be people who think they're well-written and entertaining.
(However, all that said, I personally think Eragon does fail Basic Logic - both my wife and the Kippur sporkings note 'the Urgals sprang back, motionless' in the prologue. It takes some doing to go wrong that fast...)
hS