lupus753: Regarding your complaint that Alagaesia wouldn't have so many language origins for their placenames, even if many races settled there: I don't get it. The United States itself has places called stuff like Cherry Hill, but also places like San Diego, for instance. And that's because the United States was home to a large number of ethnic groups, giving a large variety of place names. This is completely unrelated to how country names are different in various other countries. When a place is named by a large number of people, the other people in that country call it the same thing, regardless of language. It could very well be the same in Alagaesia.

Kirity: When I found these essays, I totally had a crack over it. I knew that the Inheritance Cycle was full of flaws, but after reading your essays, I can see the extent of it.

I'll agree with you on the majority of what you pointed out. The sentences are lavished, and long-winded, and more than once, I found my eyes skipping over whole paragraphs just to save me time. The sexism is now plainly obvious, and though it is required in some parts (the series take place in a medieval-ish time, so women weren't exactly getting equal rights, that much I can look over), is it so wrong for the damsel in distress to be a guy for once? I totally agree with you on that.

But I do find some good qualities about the series. Just enough for me to continue reading it and enjoy it, not lament and cry and wonder why did I waste my money like my little sister did on the Twilight series.

And I have a question before I finish the comment: Have you ever heard of Mary Sues? It's a fanfiction term, but Alagaesia is pretty much the land of Mary Sues and Gary Stus. If you haven't......eh.......

Sarah: Ha! I thought your essays were right on and hilarious. Some of your comments--like the one about the elf factory across the sea--were so funny I had to stop reading and laugh. Don't get me wrong, I do like Eragon to some extent. However, the book has quite a few problems, and you did a great job verbalizing them. I especially agree with your complaints on the way Eragon and Saphira can do whatever they want, no matter how unfeeling or immoral, and still be "the heroes". The way Eragon treats Sloan and Elva is down right awful. And Saphira's pride and the way she threatens people is annoying. You wrote a good, level-headed article, perfect for any aspiring author hoping to avoid the mistakes Christoper Paolini made.

Emily Z.: Hi, Ivy! I'd like to say thanks for writing these essays; I've read all of them and they have really helped me in writing by pointing out all of the things that a writer shouldn't do. I do have to wonder, however, why you didn't point out that it was obvious that Arya was going to become the next female dragon rider (and an elf-queen to boot). This was the one continuous thing that annoyed me the most in his books: that these superpowered characters only continue to become more powerful in every possible way.

hehlfhl: k, you read all these books and than spend hours typing this essay just to say that you didn't like the books and they could have been better. clearly you need to sort out your priorities. I mean, if you didn't like the first, why the hell would you read the rest? and then waste hours off your life explaining why you think they sucked. who cares, why don't you go write a multi million dollar book franchise! obviously his books are amazing, or they wouldn't be nearly as popular. So it is clear that you really have no idea what you are talking about and need to get a life

swankivy: Oh, "get a life," I've never heard that one before! It's sad when people barge into my comments to repeat the same things I've already addressed. On the off chance that "hehlfhl," who mashes keys instead of identifying itself, ever reads this, I'll say the following:
1. If giving something negative attention is a waste of time, why are you spending your precious time on reading and commenting on my essay?
2. Why did I read the rest of the books if I didn't like the first? I already went through the long version of that explanation in the essays you're complaining about. I don't need to do it again. Rest assured I don't think literary criticism is a waste of time, regardless of whether I'm saying negative or positive things, but no one--not a single soul--has crapped on my five fansites for authors I like and told me rambling about things I love is a waste of time. Why the special place in your heart for attacking people with negative opinions?
3. "You go write something better then, smart guy!" is a terrible argument. I'll say it again: you don't have to be a chef to be able to tell the food you're eating is shit. My essays are about why I don't think this series deserves to be a bestseller. Clearly there are plenty of people who disagree with me who are giving Paolini money. I have to write a bestselling series before I can explain what I didn't like about his? Wow, that's awful logic.
4. "They're obviously amazing if they're popular" is also terrible logic. No, because it's been established that plenty of people don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to literature. When was the last time you hated something that was popular and couldn't understand why it got the attention it did? Has that EVER happened to you, or do you automatically assume that people liking something MAKES it good? Junk food appealing to tons of people doesn't mean it's nutritious. My essay is about preferring when books are nutritious. Don't like it? Don't eat my essays.
5. I have no idea what I'm talking about? I'll be convinced that you have a point once you try to make one. You spent your entire comment on ad hominem attacks and did not counter even ONE of my content arguments. You fail. End of story.

Kevin: Why do you even read books?, I'ts apparently painfull for you. You spend more time trying to find logical, and geological mistakes (In a fiction book), than enjoying the story... You overthink things too much, obviously. And your collection of complaints was was way too long-winded to even read all the way through. And my constructive criticism is thus: I suggest sticking to non-fiction books, no one wants to hear about your wasted time, of nit-picking a great book (series).

swankivy: This clever little fellow not only said ridiculous things, but decided to use his friend's e-mail address! When I answered his poor excuse for a rebuttal, the (much more well-spoken) friend explained to me that he had some idea who might have put his address into the box instead of taking ownership of his words. Here is the response I would have sent to this dear little guy if he'd been able to handle hearing back from me:

"Why do you even read books?, I'ts apparently painfull for you."

Awww. You probably wish that you could express yourself better here, but really you're just upset that I didn't like something you like. Reading books is only painful for me if they're terrible. My sophisticated understanding of language also allows me to enjoy masterpieces authentically. (If this e-mail is any indication of your language abilities, you struggle a lot. A comma after a question mark? An apostrophe in the wrong place in "It's"? "Painful" with two L's? That's a lot of screw-ups for one line.)

"You spend more time trying to find logical, and geological mistakes (In a fiction book), than enjoying the story... You overthink things too much, obviously."

So instead of actually responding to any of my problems with the story, I should have just ignored everything that sucks about it and just tried to like it anyway? I didn't have to "try" at all to find poor writing in these books. It jumps out at me. I notice that you didn't even come up with ONE counter to an issue I had, which probably means you can't. You're too busy attacking the fact that I said it at all. If people aren't supposed to react poorly to things that they think are . . . poor . . . then why don't you take your own advice and not bother to complain when you read a review you don't like?

"And your collection of complaints was was way too long-winded to even read all the way through."

Did you happen to notice that your comment came after more than 200 people have weighed in, and that most of those comments are positive? Of course you didn't. But go on, speak for everyone. Tell me how my writing "was was way too long-winded" because YOU personally didn't have the patience for it. Or maybe you should learn that literary criticism is an art in and of itself and hundreds of people appreciated what I've done because they felt the same way.

"And my constructive criticism is thus: I suggest sticking to non-fiction books, no one wants to hear about your wasted time, of nit-picking a great book (series)."

No one? Except those other people in the comments who loved what I did, whose opinions are plainly visible? Considering my essays about this book are the most popular criticism of Paolini's work on the Internet because SO MANY people read the books and Googled "Inheritance Cycle criticism" (or "Eragon sucks," if they felt crude) . . . I think you're actually the one who's making a mistake here. Your comment isn't "constructive criticism." It's "shut up because I don't like what you said." You didn't even bother to counter anything I did say. You just don't want me to say it because it's uncomfortable for you.

As for how I should stick to non-fiction books, here's another assumption you made: did you know I have FIVE fansites about books I love? (And only one collection of essays about a book series I hate?) Well of course you didn't know that. Why would you bother to actually do any research on the person you're trashing? No one has ever written to me about what a waste of time my fansites are, with my analysis of how much I love the writing. I also have nearly 700 reviews on Goodreads and fewer than 20 of them have a one-star rating. (Four of those are the Paolini books.) I am by no stretch of the imagination a grump hell-bent on hating everything good. But for people like you, character assassination and wild assumptions with a dash of ad hominem attacks are par for the course.

Literary criticism is not a waste of time; hundreds of people have written to me thanking me for what I do and praising me for helping them learn about writing; and you need to learn not to criticize other people personally just because you disagree with their opinion. You're allowed to dislike what I say, but it's in terrible taste to storm in and rant about how I just shouldn't have said it.

Mangraa: Just wanted to offer this possible explanation to something you mentioned:
"Nothing escapes you, does it?"
"Let it escape. (paraphrase) I care about what exists."

Consider:
"it" = "nothing", so if nothing escapes her, she doesn't care since it is nothing and therefore nonexistent.

I like the wordplay, but having to see PaoPao self-fellate his self-perceived "cleverness" using his characters as proxies is just snooty and attention-begging.

Hope this..."helps"?

Jocelyn: This was a pretty well written essay. I always wanted to be a writer, and this was hugely helpful in telling me what not to put in whatever I write. I remember writing stories when I was younger, and they're such crap that retracing them makes me want to vomit.
I actually liked this series, in spite of all its flaws, because, while the plot was a total rip-off, it was still somewhat engaging. (though Eragon was one of the worst protagonists I have ever read about). Still, you had some legitimate and justified points that prove, without a doubt, that these books should never have been published. You're probably not the most famous writer, as most of your hate mail hypothesizes, but you're definitely an amazing author. Keep writing!

Name: I'm loving the insights, they've been a real eye-opener for me.