Why does christopher paolini write

Epic space battles for the fate of humanity take her to the farthest reaches of the galaxy and, in the process, transform not only her—but the entire course of history. The Fork, the Witch and the Worm: A wanderer and a cursed child. Spells and magic. And dragons, of course.

The names have all come from many different places. Some are invented using the rules of my invented languages, some are wordplay such as Saphira being a play on Sapphire or Eragon being Dragon with the first letter changed. And then others are historical names, I use a certain amount of old English, Germanic names for some of the humans, stuff like that and some of them are just little hidden in-jokes as well, which gives me a little bit of amusement when I'm writing.

You know, no one has caught all of them! I've mentioned a few of them in interviews but no one has caught all of them but maybe one day I'll write a little article or something for the fans and talk about all of those. I think my favourite character is either Angela the Herbalist, who is based on my sister Angela, or the dragon Saphira.

I think her relationship with Eragon is really the heart of the series. I'm very fond of her character so I think any of the scenes with her or from her point of view rank at the top of my list in terms of favourite parts of the series. I'm always going to be fond of Eragon, just because it is the first book of the series and the first book that I wrote.

But I think that the last book I wrote is usually my favourite book, just because I continually try to improve myself as a writer and push myself as a writer and I like to think that I am improving and so I definitely think that Inheritance is the best book of the series and it's certainly my favourite one at the moment. Why are humans different colours? I think dragons are different colours because, one, it would be kind of boring if they were all the same colour and, two, because the dragons want to be different colours.

In my world, the dragons get to do what the dragons want to do and so no one's going to tell a dragon it can't be purple or pink or rainbow coloured so I think it's just because the dragons want to be different colours. Molly — if you could have a dragon, what colour would it be and why? It would definitely be blue but I'm partially colour blind and so the blue I'm thinking of is probably actually purple.

But that, to me, is my favourite colour and that's why Saphira is blue as well. Catherine - do you make up all the characters before you start a book or do you add characters as you go along? I do both. Some of my characters I invented before I started writing the series. All of the main characters, I'd say, were invented before I started writing the series and they have to be because if you're going to figure out where the story's going, which you really need to do if you're creating a large, multi-volume story, in an imaginary world, it's best to put together a framework or roadmap to know where you're going before you dive into it.

In that case, you really need to have a feel for who all the main characters are before you start so, for example, I outlined the whole series before I began Eragon and then I outlined Eragon specifically in pretty extensive detail before getting into it and I've done that with each of the books of the series. So, for Brisingr for example, I did a fourteen or fifteen page outline, single spaced and each paragraph dealt with one main story point.

So, one paragraph would be Eragon goes to such and such a city, this this this happens, and then the next paragraph will say meanwhile, Roran does this this and this — things like that. I think it's important to do that because if you think about it in terms of music, first you compose a piece of music and then you can concentrate on performing it as beautifully as possible. But t is very hard to compose while perform. Some people can do it — I don't want to say it's impossible and some people prefer to work that way — but for me, and very many other authors, our brains just don't work that way.

The rest of my characters evolved out of the needs of the rest of the story as I was writing the rest of the books. In the case of Angela the Herbalist, I didn't plan to put her in the story at all and she just ended up popping up as a bit of a surprise and taking over her scenes. Did anything surprise you about the story as you were writing, despite having it all planned out? Even if you plan things out you have to be open to realising that your characters are no longer who you thought they were or who you thought they would become and you have to be able to let the story change to accommodate those changes in the characters.

If you don't, you end up trying to force them to do things that just don't feel right and then your story will ring false. I've had that happen a couple of times where I'll start writing a scene and it just doesn't work, doesn't work, doesn't work and I'll get through it and then look back on it and think "you know what, that's not whose these people are anymore".

I'm misreading the situation or I'm not thinking about them the way I ought to and so I'll go back and rewrite it and change it sometimes dramatically and then think, yes, that now feels right.

So, for example, in Inheritance, the ultimate fates of several of the main characters changed from what I originally imagined — there are some dramatic differences. The relationship between Eragon and Arya does not resolve the way I originally intended it to.

The character of Roran, where he ends up is also different, so those were things where what I was going to do no longer felt appropriate once I was there actually writing the scenes.

It was a lot of fun. She did it really well. Her writing style is quite different from my own, but she did a good job of matching it to the world while retaining her unique flavor. In doing so, the story gives a different perspective on both Urgals and dragons. The idea of doing a dragon in the old sense, as the force of nature and all-consuming vengeful creature that comes down out of the north, is very archetypal and strangely enough something I had never written before.

I really wanted to! Of course, we always see ourselves differently from other people see us. They wait in the woods again. Just include one paragraph describing how the moon rises on the horizon or the protagonists grow hungry and tired. It is flowery? The emotional expression also needs work. Even with the label, it still comes off as more angry than excited. Quivering, shaking, and shivering are used to describe human motions. Ahead of them, the Shade heard a clink as something hard struck a loose stone.

Faint smudges emerged from the darkness and advanced down the trail. Three white horses with riders cantered toward the ambush, their heads held high and proud, their coats rippling in the moonlight like liquid silver. The good guys have arrived! If they are emerging from it, it should be from a longer distance than the hearing range of a loose stone. The first time I read the second part of this clip, I thought the heads held high and rippling coats belonged to the riders. This is a little odd, it suggests the riders are of secondary importance.

Maybe these are super magical horses? On the first horse was an elf with pointed ears and elegantly slanted eyebrows. His build was slim but strong, like a rapier. A powerful bow was slung on his back. A sword pressed against his side opposite a quiver of arrows fletched with swan feathers. The last rider had the same fair face and angled features as the other. He carried a long spear in his right hand and a white dagger at his belt. A helm of extraordinary craftsmanship, wrought with amber and gold, rested on his head.

Between these two rode a raven-haired elven lady, who surveyed her surroundings with poise. Framed by long black locks, her deep eyes shone with a driving force. Her clothes were unadorned, yet her beauty was undiminished. Why hello, Arwen. Faux Arwen is described as a raven-haired elf with black locks. Aside from Arwen, we have description that is focused more on weapons than characterization. Perhaps the emphasis on the helm is foreshadowing or something. At her side was a sword, and on her back a long bow with a quiver.

She carried in her lap a pouch that she frequently looked at, as if to reassure herself that it was still there. We have a McGuffin! Arwen is… frequently looking at the pouch right now? Or has she been doing that in general during this trip?

This is a tense moment; they are riding into an ambush. The rest of the description covers what exists in this instant, not what these characters do in general, and for good reason. In these situations, make sure the showing details are strong enough to stand on their own, and then remove the labels… or die. The horses snorted with alarm and tossed their heads. The riders stiffened, eyes flashing from side to side, then wheeled their mounts around and galloped away.

Somehow the elves pass just a couple Urgals — who patiently wait to strike at the elves until their kind master orders them to — before the wind changes, and then manage to stop and turn their mounts, then speed up into a gallop, before they are attacked. Looking ahead, Paolini states there are only a dozen Urgals.

I think Paolini meant the elves were looking or gazing from side to side. This line was disorienting. That is some comical spellcasting.

A red bolt flashed from his palm toward the elven lady, illuminating the trees with a bloody light. It struck her steed, and the horse toppled with a high-pitched squeal, plowing into the ground chest-first. She leapt off the animal with inhuman speed, landed lightly, then glanced back for her guards. They fell from the noble horses, blood pooling in the dirt.

And what was up with that helm? This only confirms my suspicion that the horses are the actual main characters. She took a step toward them, then cursed her enemies and bounded into the forest. I think Paolini is relying too much on his thesaurus. While the Urgals crashed through the trees, the Shade climbed a piece of granite that jutted above them. From his perch he could see all of the surrounding forest.

Where did this big piece of granite come from? Holy crap! Or if the McGuffin is too flammable, a quarter mile of flame would still have helped his ambush plans. Grimly he burned one section after another until there was a ring of fire, a half-league across, around the ambush site. The flames looked like a molten crown resting on the forest.

So… he can keep doing that? Suddenly, the Shade heard shouts and a coarse scream. Through the trees he saw three of his charges fall in a pile, mortally wounded. He caught a glimpse of the elf running from the remaining Urgals. I know the Shade has good vision, but can he really tell through the trees at a distance that the wounds are mortal, specifically? And how did they come to fall in a pile?

Paolini should have shown a few blows rather than telling us the results. Perhaps Arwen skewered three at once, like a shish kabob.

Wait, what? It does make sense that she would turn around, ring of fire and all, but we should have seen it happening. This is especially true since she had a bunch of Urgals running after her. She could have been trapped between the flames and her pursuers. Is Arwen carrying her sword and the pouch in the same hand?

Otherwise, is she waving the sword over the pouch or something? If you actually need to hide some foreshadowing, you have to disguise it as something else , not just put it in there and hope no one notices. In addition, readers gain nothing by keeping this thing a surprise. The horned monsters came out of the forest and hemmed her in, blocking the only escape routes…. As the Urgals surged forward, the elf pulled open the pouch, reached into it, and then let it drop to the ground.

In her hands was a large sapphire stone that reflected the angry light of the fires. She raised it over her head, lips forming frantic words. Why lookie here, Paolini does know how to narrate spellcasting without making up silly words.

He just chooses not to. Also, put that Shade dialogue in a new paragraph where it belongs… or die. We also have a couple phrases that have been weakened by making them secondary to the action. A ball of red flame sprang from his hand and flew toward the elf, fast as an arrow. But he was too late. A flash of emerald light briefly illuminated the forest, and the stone vanished. Then the red fire smote her and she collapsed. The Shade hollered in rage… He shot nine bolts of energy from his palm—which killed the Urgals instantly….

The Shade can casually shoot energy bolts from his palm that kill people. Why did he need the Urgals again? Besides simply making his enemies and everything around them explode in fire, he could have just shot energy bolts at them and taken the stone. The entire point of a prologue like this one is to set up the threat of the story.

How does watching him lose do that? Paolini would have done better by showing The Shade succeed at a smaller goal, and then cackle about how he will soon have the stone or something. That is, assuming he bothers to explain what the stone can do, so we know what the stakes are.

Miraculously, Arwen is still alive. Apparently the big red fire that downed her horse was just a sleep spell. The prologue ends with the Shade grabbing his horse out of no where and taking her as his damsel. I imagine it will be up to the chosen one to rescue her — but why should readers care? Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in? Mythcreants is an ad-free publication.

If our work has helped you, please keep us going by chipping in. Your patronage keeps this site running. Become a patron. How stories like that managed to be published? The market was not as saturated like today? It is true that today we have more information and opportunity to correct errors with so many in this world of books. I see you have so many good tips that your stories should be awesome! And readers craving another Tolkien, Harry Potter, or Buffy might overlook flaws too.

He wrote it when he was 14 for a writing assignment. Published it when he was 15 and toured with it until it got enough attention that the big six took notice and he got picked up for a publishing contact. However, they should have edited it better once big six got ahold of it. Interesting though that he had such a work ethic that young. Have you seen the size of those books? Clunky prose, or not he worked hard, and did something adults struggle to do.

I think Eragon is okay but once you thoroughly analyze it it seems like the modern Sword of Shannara. I never could get into it, it reminded me of Tolkien too much and I never liked his work either. To be fair I only got a few chapters in before I was putting it down and the people I spoke to who read it enjoyed it. It was the only series that kept my dad reading even though he hates reading. But It bugs me when younger writers praise him, like they do Tolkien for being the best fantasy writers out there.

In my writing group I see this way to often. But can you argue with a mass of young writers and authors who hate diversity. Thanks for the article! Tolkien has its strong points and its weak points — as many very popular works receiving praise do. I just finished Lord of the Rings, but it was my second attempt, and I only managed because I knew and liked the story from the movies. A huge core message found in the books is the value in simplicity, peace, friendship, and compassion.

I am sure drawn out battles would have personally been difficult for him to write as he despised war. Also, battles arent really that interesting. If you read A Song Of Ice And Fire, very fer words are spent on soldiers trading blows its the build up and the aftermath that are that are interesting.

Of course battles are interesting. They are the focal points of the story, the points in time where the characters win or lose, live or die. Tolkien had a propensity to gloss over these moments without ever justifying them.

But it gets almost nothing in terms of page count. Coupled with the overly descriptive, flowery dialogue and you find the biggest flaws with those books.

There are certainly many people that are turned off by them, even though he created modern fantasy. LotR also needed a really good, hard editing. You could almost condense it down to a single if thick novel. Easier for a movie or TV series, because humans are visual animals and can take in a battle shown much better than a battle described.

This failure is the primary reason that some have written millions of words and woven hellishly complex plots yet failed to achieve anything nearly as powerful as his effects. First, he worked his backgrounds out in enormous detail and so had plenty of details to choose from when he needed to present something from the past.

By comparison even the biggest names of the contemporary fantasy genre are lazy; their backgrounds tend to be sketches. And it shows. Second, Tolkien almost never uses that background to explain anything but rather puts it to artistic use creating more questions and mystery. The huge amount of detail he has available allows him to present just the right details to accomplish this.

I immensely enjoyed this book while growing up. On another note, I would totally read your Eragon rewrite, fixing his tendency to tell not show and write with a thesaurus at his elbow, among other things. Please provide…. That makes a scary amount of sense. I was hoping they were smell-related. Boy wakes up, smells whatever it was that alerted the Shade, and discovers that he is the one chosen to smell the… smell.

Since he was in his teens when he started writing the story, all his characters think, feel, and react like teenagers. Which is okay for characters like Eragon who actually is a teenager, but for his supposedly elderly mentor and his elf girlfriend it comes off as a little ridiculous. This is also the main reason why the Shade is so not scary.

He reacts to failure pretty much like a toddler if toddlers could shoot fire from their hands. He strikes out randomly, killing his own allies out of spite. So I know from the get go that unless the hero is totally incompetent, this guy will be pretty easy to defeat. A few chapters in and what do you know? The hero is totally incompetent. You need practice to write a really good book. The genre has enough trouble getting respected in the world of modern literature.

But what you need most of all is life experience and emotional maturity. I agree with you Tamara. But have you tried to correctly write characters to perfection? What I find about books is that most books do not have good character transitions.

I was annoyed by that until I tried it myself. It is difficult. Therefore, Tamarra, it is not necessarily a flaw. Paolini having written it at such a young age, it is astounding that Eragon even has a proper character arc. Kind regards I am no longer frustrated Tago, Orca and Opal.

You make some good points, but as someone who has read this series multiple times, I can easily tell that a lot of your misconceptions come out of ignorance. However, when I really took the time to get past those few chapters, I really began enjoying the book. It was in my opinion very well done for an author of that age. Thank you— especially for the correction examples. I agree that these are flaws in the book, though your criticism is a bit harsh.

I figured you were a writer yourself, so you must know about how difficult it can be and that everyone makes mistakes. Constructive criticism is not the same as criticism used for the sake of hurting someone, it instead helps us to learn from our mistakes, shows us things from another perspective, etc.

A passionate writer knows that constructive criticism, given well, can be one of the most helpful tools they can receive far, far better then praise as it helps the writer see their work from a fresh perspective, reflect on it, and so grow as a result. Harsh constructive criticism is the best kind, free from sugar-coated delusion which serves no good purpose; After a while you develop a thicker skin anyway, especially when you begin to see the results of your newly applied knowledge.

This is a book that someone thought was good enough to publish, and made bazzillions of dollars. Thank you, though, for pointing out that Christopher Paolini, who might have had the core of a decent story in there somewhere, really needed a serious editor and about five or six more years to grow up. The most hilarious article I have read in a very long time. How easy it is for a bunch of no names in the writing world to critique another who found success.

It must be much harder for them to find success. I know many a young adult who devoured his books and perhaps he did not find the need to over-complicate his books for an audience that would in large, never understand or appreciate all the adult idiosyncrasies you imply the book is missing.

The basics are there with a highly entertaining story that obviously hit a note for both its intended audience and movie makers. This was a meager attempt to sound more knowledgeable and successful than is reality and nothing more. It worked for him and his intended audience. That IS success as an author. I agree. His books were intended for the younger crowd. I liked it, when I was a teen. I will never not like it. Most of this is rubbish. I think it seems unfair to require having read the full book in order to critique its beginning.

Now, the merits of the beginning are a matter of opinion, as is this article. Some might find this start intriguing, others sloppy and messy. And, I dunno, scoffing at the jealous haters who dare to differ in said opinion as this comment you agree with is doing just seems unconstructive. Similarly, nobody needs to be a famous author to criticize something.

Its only the prolog. Prologs are notorious for not being needed. You could skip it and it would have very little impact on the story. The shoddiness or lack thereof of this excerpt is the subject of debate. I get that Chris only gives us his first impressions while opening the book, but here he straight up assumed what the authors goals and opinions were from just a few words. And as it will turn out in the latter books, false.

Hardly worthy of the caustic commentary. He obviously did what needed to be done on a higher level than many people out there who write so-called correctly. Of course few actually like to hear that fact so…. Some think Paloni fumbled the ball, but many thousands of others thought and still think differently. You perceived faults that prevented you from enjoying the story, but others did not. If those things were true, we might as well send art critics of all mediums packing.

Also, editors. We would have no reason for the Hugos, because all worthy works would have already been rewarded by their own popularity. I agree with you that popular works are clearly doing something right, and often critics overlook that. Unfortunately, the thing they are doing right is not always what most people consider merit.

Furthermore, a book can always be MORE popular. Books can be good in some aspects and terrible in others, having good traits does not mean they are flawless.