Inheritance Cycle

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

specifics? http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/wordpress/?p=38 47th Comment

 

[Butterfree]

Huh. I don't really get your arguments there. The article is arguing that the books don't appear to give any good, objective reason why Galbatorix ought to be overthrown or why the dragon rider regime was any better; all you do is attempt to counter a couple of minor points, and kind of fail at that. At least one of your arguments (can't say much about the others since I haven't actually read the books) is just plain "huh":

First of all, just because someone you lot think was great didn’t mind slavery and was a racist, doesn’t make it right.

How in the world were they arguing that slavery and racism were right? They were saying that even the best of people in uninformed times were racist and supported slavery, which is very true - the Empire supporting slave trade does not say anything about its relative morality unless the times truly are informed enough for the view to be widely condemned while they still choose to cling to it.

The others are basically "I came to this conclusion from the book", without any quotes or examples of why you would come to this conclusion. How do you expect to convince anyone with that?

 

[opaltiger]

Well I was looking more for specifics about their supposed inability to argue their way out of English class, but let's look at this comment.

First of all, just because someone you lot think was great didn’t mind slavery and was a racist, doesn’t make it right.

The point was that Eragon is definitely not set in a society equivalent to ours. Thus, things like slavery would logically be more acceptable than they are now, as they were in Jefferson's time.

Second of all, no, the Empire is not in fact evil, I believe that point was addressed breifly by Murtagh in Eragon. It is safe to assume that the Empire itself is a democracy, but Galbatorix is controlling it, which is why Galbatorix’s Empire is an autocracy.

The Empire is a democracy but it's an autocracy. What? What are you even trying to say? The core concept of democracy is that the people elect their leaders. Clearly this is not the case with the Empire.

Third of all, the elves don’t find other races inferior, they revere dragons and they have a sketchy but equal relationship with the dwarves and humans.

"Sketchy but equal"? Have you been reading the same books? At every turn, the elves are arrogant and snobbish; admittedly a staple of elves in fantasy in general, but the point stands. Sure, they treat with other races because they have to, but I get the strong feeling they'd really rather not.

In fact, the only racist elf is Vanir.

No, he's the only openly and blatantly racist elf.

Fourth of all, you frequently say that everyone has the right to an opinion. So the elves have the right to their opinion, which I share, that following a religion is foolish.

The point was that the elves are convinced their view is right and take a condescending attitude to everyone else's views (see also: arrogant). In this case I certainly agree with them, but it still makes them condescending.

Also, it is stated that Galbatorix increased the size of the Empire when he took over.

see also

but it’s generally agreed that an Empire has to have more than one ethnic group under its control, which the Alagaesian Empire does not.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Fine, bad example, I was in a rush to get out of my IT class. These are some examples of how Anti-Shur'tugal, when faced with refuting evidence, completely ignore it:
http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/wordpress/?p=43
Comments 30.

http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/wordpress/?p=18
Comments 44, 46/7 (they're the same point, but bad links) and I would say 60 and 61 but they haven't really had a chance to ignore them yet. Also:

The point was that Eragon is definitely not set in a society equivalent to ours. Thus, things like slavery would logically be more acceptable than they are now, as they were in Jefferson's time.

Or that's how you interpreted it. They said that 'Jefferson[,] one of the ten greatest President of the United States [...] owned African slaves and believed that black people were “inherently inferior” to white people, and didn’t deserve civil rights or liberties."

The Empire is a democracy but it's an autocracy. What? What are you even trying to say? The core concept of democracy is that the people elect their leaders. Clearly this is not the case with the Empire.

I was trying to distinguish between the Empire in itself and Galbatorix's Empire.

"Sketchy but equal"? Have you been reading the same books? At every turn, the elves are arrogant and snobbish; admittedly a staple of elves in fantasy in general, but the point stands. Sure, they treat with other races because they have to, but I get the strong feeling they'd really rather not.

No, he's the only openly and blatantly racist elf.

So what you're saying is that because one elf is openly and blatanly racist and because you have a generalised view of elves, you can say that the elves in Inheritance are all racist and snobbish. Did not the elves dance and drink merrily with Orik, compliment him for his craftsmanship and is Orik not good friends with the elf-smith Rhunon? All of the elves but Vanir are warm and opening to Eragon, even before his transformation.

The point was that the elves are convinced their view is right and take a condescending attitude to everyone else's views (see also: arrogant). In this case I certainly agree with them, but it still makes them condescending.

Again, you're generalising. Arya is likely the only applicable example when she was dealing with the Dwarven priest but she was angry that the Church was controlling the money and that they were spending so much on statues of their gods instead of more important things like helping the poor or disabled. If you try to use Oromis as an example, he states his beliefs simply and calmly, its Eragon that acts indignant at the thought of atheism, not Oromis at the thought of theism. And if we try to use Vanir, well Vanir is a condascending arrogant racist bastard.

see also

Yes? Are you saying that there's only one ethnicity in the Empire? Let's see, well there are the Kuastans, Brom's people, there's Nasuada's people (they're not Surdans), there's the general Alagaesian people, there's the Hadarac people (like Torkenbrand), which leaves us with 4 ethnic groups minimum.

 

[opaltiger]

Fine, bad example, I was in a rush to get out of my IT class. These are some examples of how Anti-Shur'tugal, when faced with refuting evidence, completely ignore it:
http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/wordpress/?p=43
Comments 30.

There is in fact a reason given for their fading, but you clearly decided to give that paragraph a skip eh? The spell that connects the dragons, elves and humans. When Galbatorix obliterated the dragons, he damaged the elves and humans, causing them to decline. It’s been mentioned a multitude of times in the books.

I am guessing they are ignoring you either because a) they don't read the comments or b) you aren't actually quoting the book.

http://www.anti-shurtugal.com/wordpress/?p=18
Comments 44, 46/7 (they're the same point, but bad links) and I would say 60 and 61 but they haven't really had a chance to ignore them yet.

First off:

The term flamberge, meaning "flame blade", is an undulating blade found on both long blades and rapiers.

Anyway, you’ve made an error in your arguments. It isn’t that magic cannot be used in Du Weldenvarden, it says that items cannot be magically passed in or out. As for them being inside Du Weldenvarden, I think you should consider that Urgals stack dead bodies, as they did in Yazuac. The ambush happened around the time that Arya passed out of Du Weldenvarden, otherwise the fire that Durza started from a cliff in the Spine. The likelyhood is that the ambush occured just outside Du Weldenvarden and the bodies were stacked a few metres away inside Du Weldenvarden. Not that I can prove that to be true myself.

The argument still stands; why couldn't they have just walked a few feet out of the forest, sent the egg on its merry way, then gone back? Just because the spellcaster would have to travel a small distance does not invalidate the base argument, which is that carrying the egg physically makes no sense.

Or that's how you interpreted it. They said that 'Jefferson[,] one of the ten greatest President of the United States [...] owned African slaves and believed that black people were “inherently inferior” to white people, and didn’t deserve civil rights or liberties."

You're quoting out of context. The next line clearly indicates that the point is about time periods, not individuals: "And this wasn’t even in the Middle Ages, where Eragon is nominally set."

I was trying to distinguish between the Empire in itself and Galbatorix's Empire.

... what

So what you're saying is that because one elf is openly and blatanly racist and because you have a generalised view of elves, you can say that the elves in Inheritance are all racist and snobbish. Did not the elves dance and drink merrily with Orik, compliment him for his craftsmanship and is Orik not good friends with the elf-smith Rhunon? All of the elves but Vanir are warm and opening to Eragon, even before his transformation.

I am saying that based off my observations and the vibe I got from the text, the elves are arrogant and snobbish (at no point do I say racist). Your mileage may vary.

Again, you're generalising. Arya is likely the only applicable example when she was dealing with the Dwarven priest but she was angry that the Church was controlling the money and that they were spending so much on statues of their gods instead of more important things like helping the poor or disabled. If you try to use Oromis as an example, he states his beliefs simply and calmly, its Eragon that acts indignant at the thought of atheism, not Oromis at the thought of theism. And if we try to use Vanir, well Vanir is a condascending arrogant racist bastard.

And all the preaching about vegetarianism?

Yes? Are you saying that there's only one ethnicity in the Empire? Let's see, well there are the Kuastans, Brom's people, there's Nasuada's people (they're not Surdans), there's the general Alagaesian people, there's the Hadarac people (like Torkenbrand), which leaves us with 4 ethnic groups minimum.

Fair point, but the fact remains that you're arguing a ridiculous technicality which ignores the point of the article you were criticising.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I am guessing they are ignoring you either because a) they don't read the comments or b) you aren't actually quoting the book.

Well it's not a) because I've seen them to respond to people who haven't argued against them. So probably b). If by b) you mean that I didn't include a quote, not meaning by b) the information I presented was incorrect.

First off:

Yes, I know that. A flamberge is a type of blade, not a rapier. That was my point.

The argument still stands; why couldn't they have just walked a few feet out of the forest, sent the egg on its merry way, then gone back? Just because the spellcaster would have to travel a small distance does not invalidate the base argument, which is that carrying the egg physically makes no sense.

Actually, there is nothing to stop something leaving Ellesméra, that was a mistake on my part, but the problem is created when trying to send it back. Not only are only the elves strong enough for such a long-distance transportation, but it's possible for a second ward to be erected in the vicinity of the transportation. Durza, for example, would simply need to be in the general area of the egg's transportation and he could stop it leaving that area. Therefore, it would be more logical to send a group of highly skilled elves to transport it both ways, as only elves or those with elves as their guides can hope to find their way through the forest.

You're quoting out of context. The next line clearly indicates that the point is about time periods, not individuals: "And this wasn’t even in the Middle Ages, where Eragon is nominally set."

Fair enough, I'll digress on that one.

... what

Let me elaborate. Prior to Galbatorix siezing power, the Empire still existed, then known as the Broddrig Kingdom. Given the technological timeframe (if Anti Shur'tugal can make fictional-to-factual timeframe guesses to work out what medieval timeframe Inheritance is based in, so can I), the Broddrig Kingdom was most likely a constitutional monarchy, in other words, a democracy with a monarch figurehead. That is the Empire in itself.

When Galbatorix siezed power, he did just that, he's an absolute monarch, and without a lesser court of nobility or a powerful religion, he is in full control, making Galbatorix's Empire an autocracy.

I am saying that based off my observations and the vibe I got from the text, the elves are arrogant and snobbish (at no point do I say racist). Your mileage may vary.

Fair enough.

And all the preaching about vegetarianism?

They don't necessarily preach, but they enforce it while in Ellesméra and they expect a Dragon Rider to follow suit. Admittedly the second instance appears pressured at first, but Eragon makes the choice deliberately.

Fair point, but the fact remains that you're arguing a ridiculous technicality which ignores the point of the article you were criticising.

The point of the article: To question two things: One: Paolini's usage of the term Empire and the misusage of words co-relating to his usage, and Two: Paolini's stance on the Empire being evil.

I think I was arguing against the first point with the point on multiple ethnicities, lands added and the fact that 'the Empire' is actually the Broddrig Kingdom, which agrees with their statement that the title might not be changed so as to keep with tradition, as with George III.

As for the second point, mustn't an autocracy ruled by an inherently evil man be inherently evil? Galbatorix ordered the slaughter of a village because the Varden organised an ambush on his military's supplies. He destroyed the Dragon Riders, who were able to keep peace in Alagaesia for who knows how many years, it's irrelevant that they were a military junta, they were benevolent, Galbatorix is malevolent, he ended a peace that had lasted centuries. Galbatorix is the Empire, Galbatorix is evil, therefore the Empire is evil.

 

[opaltiger]

Well it's not a) because I've seen them to respond to people who haven't argued against them. So probably b). If by b) you mean that I didn't include a quote, not meaning by b) the information I presented was incorrect.

I did mean the former, yes.

Yes, I know that. A flamberge is a type of blade, not a rapier. That was my point.

The picture you linked to was misleading, though, since a flamberge can refer to a rapier.

Actually, there is nothing to stop something leaving Ellesméra, that was a mistake on my part, but the problem is created when trying to send it back. Not only are only the elves strong enough for such a long-distance transportation, but it's possible for a second ward to be erected in the vicinity of the transportation. Durza, for example, would simply need to be in the general area of the egg's transportation and he could stop it leaving that area. Therefore, it would be more logical to send a group of highly skilled elves to transport it both ways, as only elves or those with elves as their guides can hope to find their way through the forest.

If they were to transport it from one of their strongholds to a remote place on the fringe of the forest, it still seems to be a lot safer than traversing the entire continent.

Let me elaborate. Prior to Galbatorix siezing power, the Empire still existed, then known as the Broddrig Kingdom. Given the technological timeframe (if Anti Shur'tugal can make fictional-to-factual timeframe guesses to work out what medieval timeframe Inheritance is based in, so can I), the Broddrig Kingdom was most likely a constitutional monarchy, in other words, a democracy with a monarch figurehead. That is the Empire in itself.

Not really; given the medieval timeframe we seem to be agreeing on, an absolute monarchy would be more likely. Plus this is all assumption on your part.

When Galbatorix siezed power, he did just that, he's an absolute monarch, and without a lesser court of nobility or a powerful religion, he is in full control, making Galbatorix's Empire an autocracy.

The article raises a good point: there is no way he can possibly control the entire empire himself, particularly given how reclusive he seems to be. Plus, there quite clearly are lesser nobility; see the closing chapters of Brisingr.

The point of the article: To question two things: One: Paolini's usage of the term Empire and the misusage of words co-relating to his usage, and Two: Paolini's stance on the Empire being evil.

I think I was arguing against the first point with the point on multiple ethnicities, lands added and the fact that 'the Empire' is actually the Broddrig Kingdom, which agrees with their statement that the title might not be changed so as to keep with tradition, as with George III.

I would say the point of the article was solely to question the Empire's villainy, with the word use thrown in as a side note.

As for the second point, mustn't an autocracy ruled by an inherently evil man be inherently evil?

The point is that we have no evidence that Galbatorix is inherently evil. Plus there's the matter of his ability to govern the whole Empire, as I mentioned above.

Galbatorix ordered the slaughter of a village because the Varden organised an ambush on his military's supplies. He destroyed the Dragon Riders, who were able to keep peace in Alagaesia for who knows how many years, it's irrelevant that they were a military junta, they were benevolent, Galbatorix is malevolent, he ended a peace that had lasted centuries. Galbatorix is the Empire, Galbatorix is evil, therefore the Empire is evil.

Sure, he's done some questionable things, no doubt there. Yeah, calling them "evil" isn't too much of an overstep. The point is, as a ruler is he bad? Because if we judge a ruler by the actions e took to gain control, many would be quite terrible indeed. Without anything from Galbatorix's point of view, we do not know his motives or his thought process, and thus there is no way for us to judge whether or not he deserves to be called evil.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

The picture you linked to was misleading, though, since a flamberge can refer to a rapier.

Granted

If they were to transport it from one of their strongholds to a remote place on the fringe of the forest, it still seems to be a lot safer than traversing the entire continent.

But Farthen Dur was the only Varden stronghold at the time, meaning they had to traverse the continent. If Durza could pinpoint where Arya and he guard would pass, it wouldn't be beyond him to find a transport location.

Not really; given the medieval timeframe we seem to be agreeing on, an absolute monarchy would be more likely. Plus this is all assumption on your part.

Yes, it is all assumption, Paolini is giving us little details on the Empire's workings, we have to make assumptions.

The article raises a good point: there is no way he can possibly control the entire empire himself, particularly given how reclusive he seems to be. Plus, there quite clearly are lesser nobility; see the closing chapters of Brisingr.

Admittedly, I haven't read Brisingr, I've got the entire plot but I haven't procured the funds necessary to buy all the books I'm looking at yet.

I would say the point of the article was solely to question the Empire's villainy, with the word use thrown in as a side note.

I would say the premise of the article was to question the Empire's villainy, but with the amount of time given to word usage and requirements for being an Empire, as well as irrelevant, unnecessary passing comments about the elves, they more or less devoted only half the article to their main point.

The point is that we have no evidence that Galbatorix is inherently evil. Plus there's the matter of his ability to govern the whole Empire, as I mentioned above.

Sure, he's done some questionable things, no doubt there. Yeah, calling them "evil" isn't too much of an overstep. The point is, as a ruler is he bad? Because if we judge a ruler by the actions e took to gain control, many would be quite terrible indeed. Without anything from Galbatorix's point of view, we do not know his motives or his thought process, and thus there is no way for us to judge whether or not he deserves to be called evil.

Few evil figures have an exposed thought process, no one knows what Sauron's thought process was and yet, it's safe to say that he is inherently evil. Also, we are given brief insight into Galbatorix's mindset when he orders Murtagh to destroy the aforementioned village. He curses and scorns the Varden in fury before ordering the destruction of a village where some Varden members stayed, a situation which applies to any number of towns, village and even cities. These were Galbatorix's actions as a ruler. He ordered the slaughter of his own citizens, who could well have been totally oblivious to the Varden in their midst. That is an inherently evil act. He was not protecting his Empire in this act, he was simply acting out on his own blind fury.

 

[Harlequin]

No Sauron was corrupted by an evil Vala named Melkor. He desired dominion over the people of Middle Earth and he really was evil. He was a corrupted Maia spirit much like Gandalf was an uncorrupted Maia spirit. We know Sauron's motivation and thought processes pretty well actually.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Well that's got me beat.

 

[Music Dragon]

If you're interested in Sauron, The Silmarillion provides a little more insight than LotR.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Thanks MD, I've been meaning to read that.

 

[opaltiger]

But Farthen Dur was the only Varden stronghold at the time, meaning they had to traverse the continent. If Durza could pinpoint where Arya and he guard would pass, it wouldn't be beyond him to find a transport location.

I still don't see why they couldn't teleport the egg between it and, say, the eastern fringe of the forest. I mean, how is riding across the entire country meant to be in any way safer?

Yes, it is all assumption, Paolini is giving us little details on the Empire's workings, we have to make assumptions.

What details?

He curses and scorns the Varden in fury before ordering the destruction of a village where some Varden members stayed, a situation which applies to any number of towns, village and even cities. These were Galbatorix's actions as a ruler. He ordered the slaughter of his own citizens, who could well have been totally oblivious to the Varden in their midst. That is an inherently evil act. He was not protecting his Empire in this act, he was simply acting out on his own blind fury.

Well, no, it is protecting the Empire. Rebels want to overthrow the empire. Destroying possible safe havens is in the best interests of protecting your empire. Yes, I get your point, killing civilians etc etc. It is still not inherently evil. There is nothing that suggests, beyond the killing of civilians - which, by the way, was carried out by henchman; there is no proof that the orders came from the King himself - that Galbatorix is not an excellent ruler.

 

[foreign contaminant]

i remember reading eragon in eighth grade; i thought it was alright. i picked up eldest immediately after that and i thought it was terrible. i'm not going anywhere near the new book.

 

[Icalasari]

I wanted to comment on the age issue:

I thought they were just brought to the eggs as children so training could start as early as possible. I did not pick up ANYTHING on an age limit, just that the dragon inside the egg chose their rider

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I still don't see why they couldn't teleport the egg between it and, say, the eastern fringe of the forest. I mean, how is riding across the entire country meant to be in any way safer?

Because Durza, or even Galbatorix for that matter, is magically powerful enough to stop the egg mid-transport. Let's say we have the Varden at Point A, the Elves at Point B (outside Du Weldenvarden) and Durza and Galbatorix at Point C.

What you're thinking is this:

A---> --->B
____C
What I'm thinking is this:
A--->|___B
____C

What details?

That Galbatorix is King. That's really the only detail.

Well, no, it is protecting the Empire. Rebels want to overthrow the empire. Destroying possible safe havens is in the best interests of protecting your empire. Yes, I get your point, killing civilians etc etc. It is still not inherently evil. There is nothing that suggests, beyond the killing of civilians - which, by the way, was carried out by henchman; there is no proof that the orders came from the King himself - that Galbatorix is not an excellent ruler.

But the Varden are not threatening the citizens of the Empire, they are only threatening Galbatorix's control. Admittedly, they want to replace the Empire with a Republic, but the point still stands, they are not threatening the citizens. And if Galbatorix was to destroy safe havens, he's have to destroy Teirm, his most important port. Also, the scene in question is in fact of Galbatorix himself, ordering Murtagh, in person, to have the village and all its inhabitants wiped from the face of Alagaesia.

 

[Harlequin]

He's protecting the Empire. Eragon and the guys are domestic terrorists. Galbatorix is doing what he needs to do to stop them from performing their coup.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

So wait, there's this village where, as far as he knows, and it's never made fact, a couple of Varden members, might, have stayed, in the past, at a time unrelated to the sabotage that has just happened. And he's protecting the Empire by slaughtering all its inhabitants, who probably had no idea that any member of the Varden had ever stayed there?

Then he goes on to destroy Carvahall because Eragon...lived down the road from it? He didn't even live in Carvahall, he lives off down the valley. And no threat was coming from Carvahall, it was not a Varden safe haven, yet still he has it completely obliterated.

And does it not seem an inherently evil act to almost bring a race (Dragons) to extinction, just because he lost his original? He had every living dragon except Shruikan, Glaedr and the steeds of the Forsworn killed. He started one of the most brutal wars in the history of Alagaesia, ruining thousands of years of peace. Because he wasn't allowed to have a new dragon.

 

[Exdeath]

He didn't originally want Carvahall destroyed; the Ra'zac were coming for Roran. The whole 'destroy the villagers' act came when the villagers attacked attacked them (killing a soldier), meaning the villagers are aiding a possible traitor. Even afterward, the Ra'zac don't outright kill them all for treason and actually make an offer to the villagers; granted, it's not a pleasant one, but considering treason was punishable by death in medieval times, it's a lot more than what typical commanders would've done.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

According to my copy, he sent not only the Ra'zac, but a unit of Imperial soldiers to attack Carvahall and sieze Roran. Notice the word attack. Naturally, the villagers are less than happy about being attacked and attacked back. Then they were indeed given that offer. Which would you have taken? Lifelong slavery or keep fighting, when you have a chance to escape?