RyVal said:
Veylon said:
Unfortunately, Paolini then decides to have Eragon perform some disturbing and unnecessarily cruel acts that make this reader, at least, ask "What the Hell, Hero?" Up till now, he's been a well-meaning, if foolish and self-righteousness fellow, and now he does this?
Lord.
If Paolini makes his protagonist righteous and all-powerful, it gets called "Mary Sue". If he gives his protagonist any flaws, like any
real person, it gets condemned as "character derailment".
The man cannot win.
You can't win with everyone; no one can. My gripes are different then other peoples' gripes, and if he changes to suit mine, he'll unleash others.
However, I'm not complaining about how Eragon is/isn't a good example, I'm complaining that he isn't consistent. If Paolini wants to have him be noble and pure, feeling disgust over every immorality around him, well fine. If he wants him to be a vicious no-holds-barred anti-hero, that's fine too.
What happens in this series, is that he frequently performs the actions of an anti-hero: taking joy in slaughter, magically condemning others to a lifetime of misery, lying to his deepest friends, unnecessarily slaying a helpless victim. Simultaneously, he is so sensitive that he doesn't eat meat, because it's cruel to animals, and even vacillates over sucking life energy from some plants to save a man's life. His is portrayed as virtuous and just to the reader, yet frequently acts otherwise, and feels no guilt over these actions, or even seems to sense that there is any contradiction. And all this would even be fine, except that
no one else does either! Every time he performs some despicable act, someone is there to pat him on the shoulder and tell him he's right, when they should be shocked or horrified, or at least question what's going on.