Talk:Eragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eragon article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy, a project to systematically present information on the Inheritance Trilogy and related articles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy To-do: edit  Collaboration Dashboard This box: view • talk • edit Featured Article Candidates none at the moment Featured List Candidates none at the moment Featured Picture Candidates none at the moment Featured Article Removal Candidates none at the moment Featured List Removal Candidates none at the moment Peer Review none at the moment Good article nominees none at the moment Version 1.0 Editorial Team Assessment Article requests Requests Inheritance-related Articles For Deletion none at the moment Inheritance-related Factual Accuracy Disputes none at the moment Inheritance-related Neutrality Disputes none at the moment Inheritance categories Category:Inheritance Trilogy • Category:Inheritance Trilogy characters • Category:Inheritance Trilogy locations • Category:Inheritance Trilogy events

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject • (Novels, Novellas, Novelettes & Short stories) Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! Critique (Featured Article): no candidates currently - "10 achieved" Wikipedia wide peer reviews: no reviews currently Novels WikiProject Peer reviews : Master and Commander Improve: The Body in the Library • Furies of Calderon • Wolf Brother • The Monk • The English Patient • Bones of the Moon • More... Create: Dover Beach • Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title Adam Bede for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. The new article Fictional locations now exists - as a companion article to Fictional characters - but it is still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. Another new article A Taste for Death (P.D. James novel)‎ now exists - but it is also still a stub and could do with plenty more imput to improve it. A new Infobox exists to support the growing number of "Short Story" articles that are tagged as part of the project - take a look at it and comment on it's talk page. I would suggest we use it for "Short Stories and "Novelettes" and leave the main "Book infobox" for "Novels" and "Novellas". New hitlists added to the main worklist. List of literary works with eponymous heroes List of literary works with eponymous heroines Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

Contents 1 The main page has bias 2 Inaccuracies 3 , 4 Stub created 5 Pronunciation 6 Criticism and Rebuttal 7 Taboo vs. Plagiarism 8 Movie 9 similarities to Tolkein 10 Similarities to Star Wars 11 Article needs sources 11.1 Derivative nature of the books 12 Category:2002 or 2003 novels 13 Fictional infomation e.g. bloodlines/ fractions/ map?/ creations of the world and races/ plants and animals 14 No Plot Synopsis 15 video game 16 Character section 17 Forums Section? 18 Explaining my Edit 19 Why are fansites listed? 20 Synopsis editing 21 Name Changing 22 Criticism 23 Eragon (disambiguation) ? 24 accuracy? 25 bad sentence, "video game" section 26 Spoiler within a Spoiler! 27 SAPHIRA 28 Renameing the books 29 Disappointment With Lack of Criticism (important topic, please read) 30 Eragon (character) redirects to Luke Skywalker? 31 NOT JUST STAR WARS 32 Created an article, List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy 33 People keep on removing parts or all of the Inconsistencies section 34 Separate page for inconsistencies 35 Cleanup tag 36 Summary re-write completed 37 Typical Plonkers 38 article is so good 39 I smell a VANDALISM 40 Criticism section vanished? 41 AAAAAUUUUUUGGGGHHHH! 42 Question about Dune

[edit] The main page has bias

The main page has bias in the form of the Statemnt not a lot of femal characters are promentaly feactured. It makes the series seem chavenstic... I may place a new Warning this apage is under sddebat type of warning mkay.

I removed said statement, the reasong being that the statement can easily be inferred of one's own volition, and as such can only serve to mislead the reader into believing that there is an ulterior motive to Paolini's characters, most likely that of a misogynistic nature. If you really think it bears stating, tell me why and I wont mind putting it back in. Tarranon 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the spioler info on the Eragon page should only refer to spoilers from the book eragon, and not eldest (or empire? when that comes out). I am going to edit some down, including Murtagh's entry on this page. What do you guys think? JohnRussell 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I second the vote against Eldest spoilers. I didn't expect spoilers from the second book, since Eldest has its own article. Iagomonk 11:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

how is Morzan "The first and the last Forsworn" when under Galbatrox it says there are 13. 131.247.44.177 16:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A: First to stand, and last to fall. 66.213.245.98 23:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave the character section out. There's already a category for them. - UtherSRG 22:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Edit: That's true but there are a few characters I mentioned that wouldn't need more than a line or two for their discriptions and most likely won't appear in the rest of the story. I think it would be useful for there to be a seperate section for the characters of Eragon.

-Aznph8playa 22:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten the entire plot section. It didn't have enough detail. It was more of a teaser than a plot.

--Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 3 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracies

"Yet another criticism such as this from USAToday, "The novel also owes a debt to Luke Skywalker as the teen hero trains to be a Dragon Rider while avenging his uncle's murder [10]," is that the plot closely resembles that of the original Star Wars saga[11]. Characters are also similar, down to Brom who is supposedly the last of his order." This is not true, Brom is not related to Eragon and is not the last of the Dragon Riders, as Oromis and Glaedr are still alive -jacobzcoool - 19 June 2006

Obi-Wan was not related to Luke either.

That is only revealed in the second book. Further, Oromis was hidden from everyone, so, for all intents and purposes, Brom was the last of his order.

-* Brom was the only one revealed, and, in the original Star Wars trilogy, Yoda also existed, but was not revealed. --scienceman 11:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Galbatorix was a dragon rider. Like Darth Varder in Starwars but Galbatorix isn't Eragons dad.... It is similar but Galbatorix is the top of the line but Darth Vader isn't. Fra 011 011 08:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Morzan was the father, and Morzan was Darth Vader. Galbatorix is Palpatine. And like Linus said, when Luke went to train, he met what was actually a hidden jedi: Yoda. And Eragon went to train in an isolated area away from the Empire where he met what was actually a hidden dragonrider: Oromis. It's not inaccurate. - Krim

UGH! You guys are heartless have you ever tried to write a 300 page book and keep it consistent? Read Harry Potter and get some perspective. Paolini did a very very good job.

So far most of the criticism is about Arya, who probably follows many vegan rules but not others in order to put on a show. Remember, elves are very political.

"The lack of originality" hmmm, he made over half a dozen cities practicaly from scratch, a map, a magic system, at least fifty characters, smart *gasp* villains, an entire set of elven customs that he kept consistent, and dozens of magical words with thousands of different combinations and uses,....... JK Rowling couln't say that much, though I have to admit she came close on some of those.

"Inconsistency" Ok, on which floor is the bathroom in Harry Potter? Since when did Harry have a bedroom? How many typos are in the first book alone? Ask these questions on Harry Potter, ask those same questions in Lord of the Rings and Ringworld, then come back and ask those questions on Eragon. You would be suprised.

all the criticism of Arya wearing leather is pointless, considering the only instance in which she wears it is right after she comes out of a coma, after being imprisoned, has it occured to anyone that she didn't have a choice in what she wore? Also note that in the second book she switches to clothing not fashioned from animals. It's also mentioned that if the animal was not purposely killed for clothing, then it is considered acceptable to wear their hides. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.87.97 (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

But these aren't typos we're talking about. And JK Rowling was very consistent about where Harry's room was. In fact, it's a reasonably significant part of the first few pages of the first book. JK Rowling spent years planning out the Harry Potter books before she actually started to write them. Paolini didn't do this, and this is evident from the vast quantity of inaccuracies and inconsistencies which fill his book.

And I'm sorry, but every author has made some form of settlement or another. Just because Paolini can invent names doesn't mean he's original (how different are the descriptions for all the cities?). The idea of having a map is copied straight out of Tolkien's works. It doesn't take long to draw a simple picture such as the one he made. I doubt it took him more than an afternoon.

And it's widely known that the majority of his main characters are clichéd. Take away the name from the villagers in Carvahall, for example, and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. The dwarves are clichéd. The elves are clichéd: they live in forests (like in LOTR). They live for a long time (like in LOTR). They embrace nature (like in pretty much every fantasy story with elves). These customs could just have easily been copied from elsewhere. If Arya had been forced to wear the leather clothing then why doesn't she say so?

Paolini himself has said that he was "influenced" by other languages when "creating" his own. This means he took the languages and copied bits and pieces together, occasionally inventing his own words. Tolkien invented several languages. The languages came before Middle-Earth. All Paolini did was try to fit pieces from several jigsaw puzzles together as if it was one jigsaw. It's no surprise that a lot of it doesn't fit. I doubt he'd be able to say right now that he has a dictionary of all the definitions and has grammar rules and suchlike.

Your point about trying to keep a 300-word book consistent? Well, he could have saved several trees by using "said" instead of "mumbled in a slightly more high-pitched voice than he usually does". He writing stinks of amateurism.

If you don't like a Neutral Point of View then get off Wikipedia and consider taking your head out of the sand, where you buried it when you believed that Paolini didn't get any ideas from anywhere and come up with his own ideas. Watch the original Star Wars trilogy and read Lord of the Rings. Then read Eragon again. It just simply doesn't compare. UnaLaguna 07:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah because you clearly have a neutral view on Paolini's work, and noone said his work isn't derivative, but that has nothing to do with inaccuracies ^^^

The lack of originality means that the plot is very similar to other books, and the book is cliche, not the fact that there are different character names. And many books have maps, cities, 50+ characters, magic, and fragments of a new language (which is what Eragon had)

[edit] ,

The first section of the article is advertising --213.35.232.160 18:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about this sentence..."It is thought that the author, Christopher Paolini, got the name from the Viking King Erragon, (sic) since many themes in the book are derived from Norse language." In interviews I've heard Paolini say that Eragon is simply the word dragon with one letter change. Is this viking king being the source of Eragon's name just fan speculation? CalebS 04:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Paolini has mentioned that Eragon has the one-letter change, but not that it was how the name was created. So yes, it is speculation, but has the smae validity of the other possibilites that Paolini has mentioned, such as "Era Gone By". -Bosco

• This page is in need of some MAJOR rewrites. Redundancies need to be removed, the writing style needs to be tamed, etc. I can't do it alone.Phoenix Song 00:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Morzan was the first of the forsworn and the highest ranking but died last.

[edit] Stub created

I've created an inheritence trilogy stub.

Template:Inheritance-stub

So from now instead of putting {{lit-stub}}, you can type {{inheritance-stub}}. Feel free to make any improvements.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry about this page being added to the [[Category:Inheritance trilogy stubs]]

This template was TFD'd.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

I'm not sure the pronunciation information belongs in this article. It seems like something one could look up in the index of the book if one was having trouble with it. Otherwise it isn't relevant to the general reader of wikipedia. I've taken it out a few times but it always ends up back in. Can you explain why you feel this section is important and relevant. Thanks! Cmouse 21:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. No answer. It's gone. Cmouse 05:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I for one have wondered how "Eragon" is pronounced. Because I wonder if it sounds as close to "Aragorn" as it appears. So I would appreciate pronunciation info. Isn't more info better than less? gar in Oakland 06:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and Rebuttal

I'm not sure about the new version as opposed to the old one although it has a citation. It's a lot shorter and doesn't cover everything. I'm not going to do anything yet because I want to hear want everybody else thinks. This is the original text:

"There has been much criticism of Eragon, regarding everything from word usage to the marketing techniques. It is said that the most frequent criticism of the book is that it uses far too many clichés. Paolini employs stock characters, such as Elves, Dwarves, and a pseudo-orcish race known as Urgals, which name is suspicously similar to the phrase "ur gals" (sarcasm alert), complete with an elite sect known as the Kull.

There has been much debate over whether or not using Elves and Dwarves similar to Tolkien's is taboo or not.

Using elves and dwarves is not copyright. If it were, D&D, WoW, NetHack, HP, Munchkin, and EverQuest would be sued a thousand times over.

On the note of Tolkien, it has also been brought up that many names in Eragon resemble those in Tolkien, such as Ardwen (compare to Arwen), Isenstar (compare to Isegard), and Mithrim (mithril). It should be noted that these are just a few examples of many.

Sorry folks, but both Tolkien and Paolini took a lot of names from Norse mythology. Some of the names were English based, too though. John, Brom. Angelina, Angel. Solembum, Solem Bum. Teirm, term. Mythrim, Myths Rim. Zorac, Zoro. You get the idea. You are drawing conclusions from thin air, and believe me their is a lot of chaotic languages floating around even in the thinnest air.

Another criticism is that the plot closely resembles that of the Star Wars original trilogy. Characters are also similar, down to Brom who is supposedly the last of his order. However, Saphira, angelina, solembum, and the twins are entirely seperate from the Star Wars trilogy, to name a few.

Paolioni countered these two remarks by stating that most fantasy is derivative, and that Star Wars has heavy ties to Buck Rogers and Dune. Furthermore, he also believed Tolkien to echo a Norse myth about a ring that made a dwarf invisible.

Conlangers poorly receive Paolini's Earthsea-esque "Ancient Language," though many fans, like me, praise Paolini's ingenuity on the subject.

As far as technical writing goes, it is a fairly smooth novel." 67.166.247.121

It also says that the Durza permanently scars Eragon; which we now know is untrue

-I think that it is true, since he was permanently scarred, except it was removed by magic. I don't think it's wrong, especially since he WAS permanently scarred till Eldest. Eragon doesn't include that part.

---

Put the old one back in. It looks like some Random House employee wandered in and decided to make it all pro-Eragon. -Bosco

HEY! Don't assume people are Random House employees, communists, or anti-homeschoolers. If lots of people tweak things in order to make it pro eragon, well, thats a democracy of sorts for you.

-- Where's the "rebuttal" there? There's two sentences attributed to Paolini after three paragraphs. Since numerous examples are given of alleged plagiarism of Tolkien, shouldn't someone go find examples of what Paolini is talking about(that is, examples from Star Wars mirroring Buck Rogers and Dune, or the actual Norse myth he claims Tolkien mirrored), or at least discredit that?

-An actual quote of him saying that would be nice too. -Bosco

The section on Tolkeinesque language now closely resembles the dreaded Original Research (though interesting, not permitted). Can anyone find a notable source to cite for this? The published reviews all call the book Tolkeinesque, but without so much detail. Deborah-jl _Talk 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

shesh you guys are like that guy in Wierd Al's song "I'll sue ya you never told me not to use your micro wave to dry off my cat". use your brain you will like it it trust me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.167.31 (talk • contribs).

Eldor, Eldar and this kind of words is for sure copied from Tolkien's Lord of The Rings. ExpertPro 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taboo vs. Plagiarism

Can we come up with another word? Personally, I don't think "taboo" is a good fit here but "plagiarism" may be a little strong, given that Tolkien was not the first or last writer to use elves and dwarfs. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what "debatable" and "honorific" as an alternative are there for. It's no secret that Paolini has been accused of plagiarism, particularly by Tolkien proponents who find his work to be overly-referential and juvenile. We're not accusing Paolini of it. We're documenting an actual debate that exists, perhaps unfairly, given how endlessly imitated Tolkien is. We might look for a way to include that, without coming off as biased. But I think "...has been much debate over whether incorporating Elves and Dwarves similar to Tolkien's is plagiristic or honorific is perfectly neutral." --Antrophica 02:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see actual references of such a debate. Given that books which use Tolkien's elfs and dwarfs are a dime a dozen I think that "plagiarism" isn't at all the right word. It's not like Paolini copied something that hasn't been copied countless times before. We really need to keep theories and petty debates out of Wikipedia and we need to make our language as neutral as possible. Thanks! Cmouse 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

But we wouldn't be saying Paolini plagiarizes. We'd saying the debate exists, according to a good number of negative reviews on Amazon.com, for example. Personally, I think he emulates. But if it's a lighter word we need, what about 'derivative'? "...is derivative or honorific, or both." --Antrophica 05:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Derivative is a great word. Cmouse 21:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It works for me. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There are heated debates of that nature on the IMDB movie forum for Eragon. You might also want to provide a link to swankiVY's essay on thet subject (http://members.aol.com/swankivy/eragon.html).

This is interesting. I didn't know of any organized Eragon hatred. But at the moment I'm too tired and lazy to review all of the material, so feel free to incorporate it into the article on your own as long as you can present it in an unbiased manner. --Antrophica 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Eragon Hatelisting. --Antrophica 06:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie

Now that the Eragon film has its own article, do we need all this information on the book's page? How about a simple "See Eragon (film)"?

Also, the movie poster on this article and the one on the movie page are different. One should probably be removed. Which one? (note that the grey-ish one on this page is not actually a poster, but a promotional flyer issued along with other materials - like a map of Alagaesia - by the studio)

Tredanse 11:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] similarities to Tolkein

How do we reference to the fact pointed out that Paolini's dwarf speech is similar to Khuzdul? We can't create an article explaining the semetic sounds of Khuzdul and how the dwarf speech appears to be a copy of this can we? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.182.88 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2006.

No, not really. If you can find a notable review/book/article/website that discusses the similarity, we can cite it. Should be easy enough to do a search (if you can't find anything with Google searching for "Paolini" "Ancient Language" "Khudzul" ask a librarian if they can show you how to search book review and journal databases). But if you can't find anything it's original research, and we can't talk about it here. Deborah-jl _Talk 15:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities to Star Wars

Eragon has some very obvious similarities to Star Wars, but that's not mentioned anywhere in the article. Do you think it should be? Bookworm66 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it is (look in Derivative nature of the books), and secondly, it shouldn't be -- unless we can find an article or other source that says they're similar. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Deborah-jl _Talk 00:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagre that it is a copy of star wars. Many stories have characters go on large quests and are led by a wise old man. So by using this as the main similarity is not a just topic.--Aaronpark 00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That, too, is original research. Wikipedia is not a place for Aaronpark's opinion, Deborah-jl's opinion, or Bookworm66's opinion. It is an encyclopedia. As the guideline says, "Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties." (emphasis mine) Deborah-jl _Talk 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I was reading the section about similarities to Star Wars, and think some of the relationships are a bit strained. For example, the article purports that the plot of Eldest could be summarized as "the farmboy leaves to train with a wise old hermit." Since when can the race of elves be described as an old hermit? I definently agree that there are many similarities, I think the article takes them too far. 67.171.242.75 06:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think wise old hermit refers to Brom, who originally trained Eragon. Care to give any other examples of similarities taken too far?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You probably want to knock the whole Star Wars thing on the head and the LoTR too. Star Wars "steals" from a variety of sources itself including Tarzan by Burroughs. LoTR from E R R Eddission and so on. I would simply let it drop. Candy 13:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-Shurtugal is a good source. Perhaps if you were to leave in supposed similiarities, such as proposed by the Anti-Shurtugal article. Of course it's not an infallible source, though, so some reserch is required. You'll find that the similarities are much, much more than a kid going on a quest. And it doesn't matter if Star Wars takes some of its ideas from other sources, because it did bring some new things to the table. Paolini failed to do so. Here's a brief summary: A farm boy with a mysterious past comes upon a mysterious object sent by a princess that is in distress. The farm boy's house is burned by the evil tyrant's soldiers when the farm boy is absent. The farm boy goes on a quest for revenge, and a mysterious old hermit comes out and joins the quest. Later it is revealed that this hermit is the last of his order, peacekeepers of a once-grand stretch of space. That's the beginning. Which story is this? - Krim

The wise old hermit in Eldest is Oromis. Oromis has a similar role to Yoda... wise old guy who trains the young dimwitter hero further in the ways of the Force - I mean, ah, Ancient Language, after Obi- er, Brom dies a tragic death. One of the hermit's first lessons is hanging Eragon Skywalker upside - I mean, umm, paralyzing him to teach him the subtlties of the Force. More in a moment... 169.229.121.94 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, and it's hinted (due to the strange illness, which is Paolini's own idea) that Oromis will die in Book 3, leaving Eragon to mourn his death (and Saphira to mourn the Dragon Yoda's death, as Glaedr will die w/ his Rider). 169.229.121.94 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And the farmboy thing is just a flaming obvious ripoff. And the lightsabers - ah, I meant Rider's Swords. I draw the line at saying Saphira=C3P0, though. 169.229.121.94 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No no, Saphira as an egg is the Death Star blueprints, when she hatches she becomes an X-Wing fighter. Later in the books she probably is something else, but that's the general idea. 200.48.20.67 15:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As for LOTR... The "I am diminished" line from the Queen of the Elves seems VERY familiar. If not directly, then in concept. Plus, the Valenril the Mariner thing... wasn't one of the Elf twins in Tolkien's Simillarion suffering from the same dilemma? He loved the sea, but also loved a elf-woman? And Eragon's pronunciation is VERY close to that of Aragorn. So much so that I pronounced it like that for about three years, but off-topic. 169.229.121.94 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that Eragon so BLANTANLY ripped off the plotline of Star Wars. That, and the little "homages"

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

... Morzan was your father? Sounded better as I am your father. Search your feelings, you know it to be true? Given almost exactly as one of Eragon's lines in Eldest.

A father, who has now turned evil, loses his magical blade in a climatic duel with his old fellow mystic knight, and said mystic knight passes it on to the man's good, naive, farmboy son. The boy uses it faithfully, but in the climax of the second episode/book, is defeated by a good man turned bad, and loses it after hearing that his father was evil. Lightsaber of Darth Vader, or Zar'roc? 169.229.121.94 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers end here.

I can go on for a while more... antishurtugal.com will help you out a lot. It's the major Eragon criticism site, and contains the plagrisim sections in its Forums, usually under Common Themes, and has an entire article on it on the main site. ... Anti-Shurtugal is a nice site, fans welcome, feel free to discuss... Eragon's not that bad a book. It just... has originality problems. And Mary-Sue problems, but that's a different matter. 169.229.121.94 03:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First, this isn't a place to bash/praise the book; this is a place to discuss making the article better; if you want to bash the book, that's fine- but do it someplace appropriate, like the anti-shurtugal site, not here.

Second, as Deborah-jl already pointed out, we need to have reliable sources that state these criticisms, otherwise it's original research, which is a big no-no. I'm not denying that there is a strong similarity/ripoff/etc (I've seen the film and agree that it's very derivitive), but our opinions aren't the ones that matter- it's those of the reliable sources. That's why the old criticism section was cut out. It shoudl be noted that one of the reviews that is posted in the current criticism section does mention a similarity to Star Wars. Cheers --DarthBinky 16:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you watched the review show, X-Play's review of the game, it goes into extensive detail on how it ripped off star wars. For more info, go to www.g4tv.com than serch eragon.--Uber Cuber

Then you should add the link to the article for the game instead of here- this article is about the book. --DarthBinky 00:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Category:2002 or 2003 novels

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Mister.Manticore 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. Mister.Manticore 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. Mister.Manticore 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. Mister.Manticore 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. Mister.Manticore 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? Mister.Manticore 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. Mister.Manticore 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. Mister.Manticore 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. Mister.Manticore 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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. Mister.Manticore 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

[edit] 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)

• Yes, it was apparently prank vandalism. Fixed, memorialized, and warned the perpetrator. --DragonHawk 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] NOT JUST STAR WARS

When I read Eragon, I was able to forgive it's similarity to Star Wars. There is a limited amount of ways to begin a story like this. But when I read Eldest and saw noticed how much it felt like both The Two Towers [the defense of Carvahall / the defense of Helm’s Deep] and the Empire Strikes Back [finding that Rider trainer guy / finding Yoda], I thought “Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! WTF is this?” It’s just disgusting. What other stories did he borrow from? These are the questions we must ask ourselves. Not just STAR WARS and LOTR. This is why I hate what I call "The Ring Wars" trilogy. ________________________________________________________________________________________ [Note: This Line has been placed by User:Whytecpress to seperate the above unsigned post from his own.]

Many books/movies/things are like that. Some philologist wrote a paper on it called The Hero With a Thousand Faces(there's probably an article i could link to, but I'm to tired @ the monment.) the Pendragon Series is similar also. WhYteCypResS

The Anti-Shur'tugal site has an extensive list of books Inheritance resembles. And the article, I think, has a list of the 'derivative'-ness of the books. Although some could be concidental. Sorry if my previous posts on the talk page haven't been NPOV, but I read Anti-Shur'tugal a LOT... 169.229.121.94 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's now an article called List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy, which pretty much includes everything. 169.229.121.94 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Created an article, List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy

List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy

I am not an Eragon fan, but I am tired of seeing people with different views flaming each other, arguing on both talk boards and the article itself, the continuing circle of flame-delete-flame-delete war going on Eragon and Eragon-related articles. So, people who would like to have their say about the (arguable) plagiarisms that exist in Inheritance trilogy, now here is a page where you can actually analyse them in a Wikipedian-like manner WITHOUT flaming on neutral articles. And for Eragon fans, here is where you can source counter-critisms and not overflow Eragon/Eldest articles there.

Remember, this is still a Wikipedia article, NOT a free chat board or place to force your opinions and flame each other about it. Remember to cite published reviews (preferably not from Eragon fan sites or anti-Eragon sites) and remain neutral and formal. That includes the talk page. Tinned Butterfly 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People keep on removing parts or all of the Inconsistencies section

The following IPs have removed some or all of the Inconsistencies section:

• 212.2.167.122
• 75.57.125.108

It feels like more than that number, though, and reverting the edits has become tedious. If you are considering removing a section of an article discuss it on the article's talk page! Consider that there are a lot of us working on this article, and that you can't remove a lot of work just because you, one person, thinks this should be deleted. I consider failure to justify such actions as vandalism. You may think otherwise, but you are being destructive rather than constructive in your work. UnaLaguna 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

whys is an OBVIOUS crticism article allowed to be on wikipedia! I thought it is was supposed to be a NON-BIASED article but then I see articles like this List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy
FLAMING Eragon for things arent facts. someone has to justify it or i will recomend the article for speedy deetion. Smith Jones 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The inconsistencies are facts, or at least some of them were, as far as I could tell. [length of gestation period, anyone?] No book is perfect, and of course no book is completely bad. A neutral article about a book, then should contain thoughts on both sides, or else neither. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.39.68.69 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Separate page for inconsistencies

It seems as if a separate page for the inconsistencies would solve this "reverting war." Yay? Nay? BlueCanary9999 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

NAy there arre NO sources for the alleged 'inconstistences' in the book so you CANNOT make an article on WIKIPEDIA. if you want to do that, ythen you cam make your own bashing website and do it there okay! Smith Jones 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

...

If you can find reliable sources for the inconsistencies, provide them on this talk page. Otherwise, they're not really suitable for inclusion. Besides that, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I'm not certain if these things are encyclopedic. A few important examples, maybe. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't just finding the inconsistencies in the book and providing a page reference be reference enough? You don't need a professional critic to identify an inconsistency.

I think that all the criticisms should be lumped together in one article, similar to the Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms page. This would include inconsistencies, and the List of derivative natures in the Inheritance Trilogy could be merged with this.

Thoughts? UnaLaguna 06:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to.

Nevertheless, I would agree with UnaLaguna.

BlueCanary9999 18:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

No, that's probably original research. It might be okay in its own article, I don't know; a merge of the two criticism articles isn't a bad idea. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source." I would say the book itself is a reliable source for information about the book.

BlueCanary9999 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

{{cleanup taskforce notice}}

[edit] Cleanup tag

I know there's a cleanup taskforce tag on the talk page, but it looks like there hasn't been anything discussed in the last week or so. It also doesn't look like it is going anywhere and it doesn't seem to be addressing the whole article, which needs to be cleaned up badly. So I added a complete re-write cleanup tag to the article page and am bringing up some things that need to be done over here.

• The opening paragraph.

I really don't think this is too bad for the most part. However, the list of countries the movie was released in needs to be scaled down. It's far too long and, since this page is about the book, it is rather unecessary. Maybe simply saying it was released this day and have the movie article go more in depth with specific countries would be better.

• Publication history.

I deleted the uneccesary dash at the beginning when I added the cleanup tag. The section is ok, but it seems a little wordy for some reason.

• Summary.

This is where a re-write is in serious need. This is too long. Much too long. A summary should only be a few paragraphs at most. If people want to read a summary, they're going to want to read something short and to the point. This summary is basically regurgitating the entire book back to the reader, not summarizing it. It's not a summary at all if it contains sentences like, "Suddenly two Urgals appear from an alley and attack Brom and Eragon." You could have taken that directly from the book, which defeats the purpose of summarizing it in the first place. Basically, shorten it down. A lot.

• Characters

Needs to be scaled back to only the most important ones. Perhaps create another page listing all of them, but don't list every single person who was even briefly mentioned in the book on this page. For instance, Gertrude. Yes, I know she was the town healer because I read her description in this article. However, if you had asked me after I read the book to tell you her name without looking it up, I wouldn't have been able to do it. Why? Because she wasn't a main character. This should probably be scaled down to about ten characters, maximum.

• Reviews

There is only one review listed. There needs to be more than just one here. Period.

• Criticism

This isn't too terrible. It could probably be kept as is.

• Inconsistencies

This is original research and it doesn't seem like a really important section to have (do you see sections for mistakes in movie articles? No). It seems rather petty to have a section devoted to something that doesn't even come up in other articles, it just looks like it's trying to attack the books some more. A lot of this is also taken straight from Anti-Shurtugal, which leads me to my next point. The Anti-Shurtugal sources need to go; they aren't reliable or notable and this has been brought up on several talkpages including the talk page for no original research.

• References/Notes

Shouldn't it be the other way around? You're noting that #whatever is the ISBN number, but you're referencing those articles. These should probably be switched around.

• External links

This needs to be divided between official and unofficial sites. Anti-Shurtugal should probably go since there isn't a link to someone from the opposite bias there (a fan-site). The other two sites should go as well since they were created due to the movie. If the soundtrack review should be included, it should go on the movie article. However, the sword one shouldn't be here at all as this is simply advertising the site. The site doesn't add anything to the article(s).

I'll probably go through some of this stuff and help clean it up, but I can't do it all by myself. If anybody else would be willing to help out, that would be great. --pIrish 15:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE ERAGON IS NOT SIGNIFFICANYLT WORSE THAN THE REST OF THE INHERITANCE PARTICLES JUST LEAVE IT ALONE! PLEASE! Smith Jones 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you the one who wrote the majority of this article? If you are, when you wrote it, you agreed to the fact that your work can be edited mercilessly. If you aren't, why don't you think it is any worse than the other articles? While I do agree that every article pertaining to this series needs a bit of work, this one in particular is a trainwreck, as is evident by the points I brought up. That aside, I will be editing it and I'm sure others will be as well. That is one of the primary principles Wikipedia was founded on. Thank you. --pIrish 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not write the article i just dont think that the mosst of the article i S ALL THAT BAD i agree with some of yourpoints like the original research but some of the rhtoses are just sniptick. my idea is to rewrite the summary to condense it. then Smith Jones 16:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You completely freaked out at my message, capslock and all. My only assumption was that you have some sort of attachment to the article and don't want to see it changed for some personal reason. I've already done a ton of cleanup on the article, all of which have improved it, not deteriorated it. I'm not seeing what your fuss is about. All of my points are very valid, just ask any reliable editor. It's not nitpicking when you want the article to be good and of the highest quality. --pIrish 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, so movie and TV articles don't have sections on inconsistencies. I'll ignore the "goofs" sections which are identical in nature to our inconsistencies section. So yeah, I totally agree we should remove that section from Wikipedia ¬_¬. D'oh! UnaLaguna 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please show me a film article that is listed as a featured/good article that has this section. --pIrish 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Casablanca (film) has an "errors" section which addressing the same thing. It is featured. I'll ignore all the articles about films adapted from book that have inconsistencies sections. UnaLaguna 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I am truly impressed with your achievement. Afterall, it is rather difficult to find one of the only featured articles with a bloopers section that hasn't been taken off the list yet. Good job! Also, inconsistencies between a film and the book it was adapted from are not the same as bloopers. We're dealing with the article for the book, not the movie, so that point is moot. Now, as to the section for this article? It still can't go in, even though you managed to find that article. The points were either original research or they were copied almost verbatim from an unreliable source. Both of which are strictly against Wiki policy. --pIrish 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary re-write completed

The novel starts out with Eragon finding a blue stone that turns out to be a egg. he takes the egg to slaon after the butcher doesnt want to buy it he decides to keep it at home until it hatches. then he receives the gedway ignnasia that marks him as a Dragon Rider. shrotly aftewards, he meets the storyteller Brom of Carvahall and learns about dragons, the history of the Dragon Riders, and Galbatorix. It is after that then Eragon names his dragon, Saphira.

Eragon raises Saphira shortly until two evil creatures known as the Ra'zac come to his vilalge nad attack his home, killing his uncle and forcing them to fleet. ERagon runs away rom Carvahall then, accompanied by Bromm on his revenge quest to get vengeance on the RA'zac who killed his uncle.

After confronting a band of urgals, Eragon, saphira, and BROM decide to go to see the Varden, a rebellion movement who is trying to defeat Galbatorix. They get assistance from Brom's friend Jode and then Eragon receives a fortune from an mysterious witch calle d Angela. They continue onto their journey and are ambushed by Ra'zac, only to be rescued by Murtagh. This is sad because Brom dies.

Eragon decides to rescue the elf Arya from an evil sorcerer named Durza and hs band of Urgals. He does so but is captured and needs to be rquestuced by Saphira and Murtagh. Murtagh manages to shoot Durza between the eygs and make him vanish but this is only temporary. Later, they find out the directions to the Varden and are able to travel there, even after being pursued by Kull, Galbatorix's elite URgal troops.

Upon arriving at the varden, Eragon is greeted and Murtag is imprisoned by the leader, Ajihad, the leader of the Varden. There, they befriend Orik, a dwarf, and revive Arya as well as meet back up with Angela the witch who makes Eragon's prophecy and her pet cat Solembum, who can shapeshift. The safety of their stay at the Varden city of Tronjheim is broken when Galbatorix attacks with his entire army of Urgals and Kulls that threaten to destroy everything. The Varden manages to defeat them and finally Eragon stabs his enemy Durza through the heart, destroying the shade. Unfortunately, the result of the Battle of Farthen-Dur cauises him to go unconscious but he is rescued by a mysterious stage called Oromis, who beckons him to travel to the elven ctiy of Elemsmera, where he will be trained.

---

I wrote a new summary for the aritcle please cnegge me gfebdacke. Smith Jones 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do NOT add that into the article yet. It's a great length for a summary, however, it badly needs to be checked for grammar and spelling. I haven't read through it either as I'm pressed for time. I can do that during my lunch break in about an hour and a half, but I don't have time to yet. If you can fix the errors, then go ahead and add it in, but please fix them first and then triple check to make sure you got it right. --pIrish 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

okay i'll leave it out but i thought that it should be put in the article so thatt people can haveve a chance to raed over it and make thier own edits but now that you tell me i wont put it back in utnil its at least been checked. i agreed with you that the original summarry is murch too long and really too dettailed to be less than ca cha pter analysis. It also violates NPOV and stuff. Smith Jones 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with you putting that in, word for word, is that it's going to get reverted because it looks like vandalism. By putting your version on the talk page, as you have done, people can edit, check, whatever, and then put a fairly completed version in the article, where it will then be nitpicked to death. It shouldn't be editing to fix spelling, grammar, and capitalization once it's actually in the article, it should be what tense to use or re-arranging sentences to sound better. To be blunt, nothing should ever go into an article if there are more than five errors in the first two sentences. As soon as I save this message, I'm going to go over it and try to fix what I can. --pIrish 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

tttthankky you if you need any help pleas ask mE. Smith Jones 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just put an edited version of your summary into the article. Let me know what you think, though I won't be able to respond to any messages for a few hours. Thanks. --pIrish 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

i like your verion its much more clearer and polished than mine. i think it mide bit a good idea to add some links to the summary. Smith Jones 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to get it in there to replace the current novel and I knew either you, me, or someone else would add them in eventually. Thanks! --pIrish 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the current summary has been completely rewritten to conform to the movie. The movie and book are vastly different, so which should be included in this article? Bio 16:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that the movie was made from the book and the movie was basically a synopsis of the book, I really don't see your point. The current summary is a vast improvement to the novel it was before. Could you at least point out where the summary sides more with the movie than the book? While doing this, please remember that this is a summary, not a regurgitation of the book. It's supposed to summarize the main points of the book, hence, a summary. --pIrish 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry the article appears to have been fixed. The last I saw, a synopsis of the movie had replaced the book, with certain details that were changed for movie purposes (ex. Brom being killed by Durza, instead of Raz'ac). Someone has fixed it, so no harm done. Bio 18:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All righty. I was going to say, I was pretty confused there for a minute. ;-) --pIrish 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typical Plonkers

HAHAHAHA Vandalism?

I think that the editing of the Eragon articles should be restricted to members only, or a few members. There too many people pranking these pages by needlessly editing stuff here. Would be good to stop that, it means a lot less work cleaning up.

Also, I think that only the base of criticism, plus a few examples should be posted, with a citation, and a link to articles or sites which have all the information ready, rather than listing it all here.N Dot W 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, absolutely not. There aren't enough edits to the page to consider full protection at this time, let alone vandalism edits. I'd be genuinely shocked if we even managed to get semi-protection for it. For now, I suggest you just watch the page and revert vandalism when you see it. What we have now for the criticism secion is exactly what you described. It's pretty short, it gets the point across and highlights examples, and it has linked notable sources to back it up. No reason to slim something down that's pretty good as is. --pIrish 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article is so good

i think that this article is a-class now. Smith Jones 04:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't. It's short, somewhat vague and the like. But that's not why I'm posting, rather to point out this statement in Arya's character bio. "She was imprisoned by Durza in Yo mama..." Vandalism?

Agreed. This article is missing so much information. Look at other featured literature articles and you will see how little this article offers. The only thing it deals with are details regarding the book's plot and the critical reception it received. There is nothing about when Paolini wrote it, at what age, and how it was published. There is plenty of information available on the internet regarding this. The "Eragon in other media" section is, quite frankly, an embarrassment. The article also has barely any references.

We have A LOT of work to do if we want to get it to A-class, and it's certainly nowhere near such a high level of quality. UnaLaguna 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I smell a VANDALISM

"They travel through several cities, and Eragon is shocked by the way that the Empire is harming the land and its poop. Finally, after obtaining information in the town of Teirm, bob concludes that the Ra'zac reside in Dras-Leona, a city. There, Eragon, Saphira, and bob are lured into an ambush by the Ra'zac. Although they are rescued by a stranger, Murtagh, bob is gravely injured and dies shortly after geting poop flinged at him — but not before revealing that he was a poop eater whose deceased turd shared Saphira's name."

Yeah...

--Wassamatta 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Wassmatta

I've reverted it. I'm not too sure how long it sat that way, but it would have been nice if someone had reverted it sooner, especially considering that there are many people who watch this page for edit changes. I am slightly irritated that you took the time to post this message, but didn't revert it for some reason or another. If you don't know how, I do apologize. Vandalism needs to be reverted as soon as it's seen, and anybody can revert it. If you or anyone else doesn't know how, just go to this page. --pIrish 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I DO know how to revert it, but I wasn't sure in what way to change it, as I have not fully read the book.

I just informed. I guess I should have looked it up in the history archives. Next time, I will. Has anyone been concerned to semi-protect it due to the ongoing vandalism? --74.133.238.232 23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Wassamatta

It's ok if you weren't sure, it happens. Protecting the page has been suggested before, but, to be honest, it doesn't really need to be protected. Even if it was, it can't stay protected forever. Yes, it consistently gets vandalized, but not enough to warrent protection. It'd be easier to just revert the vandalism than go through the trouble of protecting it and then possibly denying access to those who may want to edit the article for the better. Times to protect usually occur when there are many edits of vandalism by several different IPs in a short amount of time. If it's just one person, they can be reported at WP:AIV. If it's just sporadic edits of vandalism, it really is just easier to revert the edits. --pIrish 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section vanished?

What happened to it? I couldn't see anything wrong with it (it was cited and well-written). I'll trawl through the history to try and find it and re-add it. Them cursèd vandals! UnaLaguna 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAAAAUUUUUUGGGGHHHH!

I read Eragon and I'm going to die if I don't read Eldest but I can't get my hands on a freakn copy of it AAAAAAAUUUUGHHH!

You could always just watch The Empire Strikes Back ;) UnaLaguna 05:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Dune

Why do the comments on the similarities between Eragon and Dune keep getting removed?

202.160.44.85 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It keeps getting removed because there is no reliable, notable source to back the claims up. Without one, it can only be assumed that it is original research and can't be included in the article. Find a source and it can be included. --pIrish 14:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)