Talk:The Inheritance Cycle

Writing and Publication History

There is something wrong with the timing in this section. If he graduated at 15 and wrote the novel over the next year he would be 16. If he 'fleshed out the characters' for the next year he would be 17 - if the novel was then published by his parents when he was 19 - what happened to the two years inbetween 17 and 19? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.8 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I don´t have this verified but if memory serves me correctly, but I seem to remember reading a short bio of Paolini, which stated that it indeed took him 4 years from when he started writing the book as a personal thing to when it got published large-scale. Said time period was spent, as I recall, by writing the first time for himself, his parents and friends reading it,encouraging him, his rewriting and expansion of the whole thing, then some small-scale publishing mostly for friends and locals,and more chiselling work upon getting a publishing contract. So I think the years might be ok. 89.102.117.206 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It can take a very long time to publish. Some publishers can take up to a year to even accept you book! Then you have to advertise the book. two years is a very normal time to have to wait for a book to be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewdaviper (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is several incidents of vandalism evident in this article, particularly in the first two sections (notably dates and references to Middle-Earth).67.188.86.109 05:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up - I believe I've reverted all vandalism. Una Laguna^Talk 07:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

info on third book

I think there should be more info on the third book if anyone has any that they might know of they should post it promptly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.38.170 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Of course that's true, but Brisingr hasn't been released yet, so there might not be tons of info floating out there. IceUnshattered (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC) It's been published now, I'll drop by a bit later and see if I can add, but it already looks long. xD. I'll add what I know, though. -EshInoBi (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When the third book is going to be published

if you know when the 3rd book will be published you should put it up all i know is that it will supposedly be green with a dragon and rider and some people think it's title will be Empire in correspondence with the other books because they both start with an[E] and have seven letters

but most of all i want to know the publish date Anonymus reader that really likes the series Age 14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.38.170 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The third book will be out September 20, 2008 (US). I'm not sure in what country but it will come out on this date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.34.29 (talk • contribs)

Purpose of article?

What exactly is the purpose of this article? It seems merely to restate the information already available in the articles of the two published books (and multiple other IT articles) with no original or unique purpose of its own. If that is the purpose then the article is redundant and should be deleted. If it has a differrent purpose, then whatever the purpose is needs to be made clear and the article needs to be written to meet that purpose.

You're right that it doesn't really add any new information to the encyclopedia, but the main use is as an overview of the entire set of books, the universe, characters and other adaptations. This is not rare: there are similar articles for Artemis Fowl, Harry Potter, and loads of video game series (I know video games are a different form of media, but I'm only using them as examples as VG articles are the ones I deal with the most). The only difference here is that, to be honest, this article isn't particularly good. Una Laguna^Talk 10:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Harry Potter series- Peanutbutter685

This should be renamed into the Inheritance Cycle, but the problem is that there already is an Inheritance Cycle wiki article. I think we should put on this article that Paolini chose to make the series a cycle because he couldn't fit everything into the 3rd book and then redirect them to the Inheritance Cycle article. EDIT: Nevermind, the Inheritance Trilogy already got changed to Inheritance Cycle. -EshInoBi (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better to have articles for the series and articles for the individual books. Seires articles should concentrate on the overall world. If WP decides its necessary to have individual book articles, then this is where the indepth plot should be discussed. More important than the plog is the big idea that controls the interaction of forces in the fictional realm
WovenLore (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Map Similarity to Wheel of Time?

The map of Alagaesia that's included in the book looks strikingly similar to that of Robert Jordan's wheel of time. Coincidence, plagiarism, or did he draw upon it for ideas? I don't think this merits going into the article, but hey, who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.45.21 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find one or more reliable sources which put forward this idea, then we can probably put it in somewhere. Una Laguna^Talk 17:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Another similarity from both series is the fact that there's Ajah in Wheel of Time, and a character named Ajihad in Eragon. Brom, and Throm 'nuff said. I haven't got to the book yet, but I heard that Perrin and Roran's situations (Roran in "Eldest", Perrin in "The Shadow's Rising" were quite similar. Plus, I've heard somewhere that WOT's beginning intro paragraph with the fade (fade and shade too) and the shade are quite similar (I haven't read Eragon in awhile, so I can't say for sure, I'd link, but I can't find the exact place to link too). I vote at least mention Wheel of Time in the critisism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.232.235 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe he read those books before and the ideas came to him. I wouldnt say its plagiarism but you know the idea could've came to his mind from the other books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo123spartan (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jordan himself was hardly a trailblazer and considering the reasonable difference between the words Ajihad and Ajah (and the fact that there is no perceivable correlation in their function or use within their respective tales) it would be far easier to write off any plagiarism between Inheritance and WOT. Any similarity betweem those texts does not really transgress beyond what we have come to expct from the fantasy genre, which has really just become the sub-set of Tolkien's fan-fiction. The reason that Paolini has been specifically reprimanded for it by critics was because of the very, very obvious ties between his work, Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars. If anything, its threat is that it shows the modern fantasy writing industry for the hypocritical monster that it is. (Yay POV) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.110.225 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags?

Should spoiler tags be added over the characters section, or the synopsis sections? They seem spoiler enough to me, after all, it is revealed that Morzan is Eragon's and Murtagh's father. Talk about spoilers, that's two in a row, and a important one.

Well, wouldn't you expect spoilers for a story in an article about that particular story? See WP:SPOILER. Una Laguna^Talk 08:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And thats no even true brom is eragons father...--401413Xr (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But we just found that out... -Panther (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Trilogy

Why and when did Paolini change his trilogy into a cycle of four books? Shoudn´t that be mentioned?

He said it was the Inheritance Cycle on October 30th and he said he added a fourth because he had so much he wanted Eragon and Saphira to do that he couldn't fit it in one book. User:broncofreak12321 —Preceding comment was added at 02:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

good job broncofreak you know your stuff. hehe i'm broncofreak. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 12:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

How can Eldest possibly be considered better reviewed when it was considered as one of the worst books of 2005? It's a total weasel word that is completely unsubstantiated. There doesn't need to be any remark about whether it was reviewed better or worse overall because we, frankly, have no way of being sure. Further, there is still no mention of his actual writing in the critical response section. I would think that is as imporrtant (if not more important) than the derivative nature stuff.DeviantCharles (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I like how some book articles (such as Jurassic Park) have a full page for general criticism, and yet THIS series - which has been widely accused of major derivative work - comes out the other side smelling of roses. Sounds like Fanboy editing to me. 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.249.138 (talk)

Maybe no-one cares enough to find the sources etc. to make a proper criticism section. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely make the criticism section into a whole page. If I had as much stamina as I did back in the day with Fable II, I would try it myself. I mean, if Wikipedia has a criticism section for Lord of the Rings, then they should DEFINITELY have one for this. This kid shouldn't be getting 15 million book sales for a simpler, dumbed down, and corrupted Lord of the Rings for 10 year olds. (No Signature)

OK. Hold on people. Here's a minor question I have for those who seem to hate the author's work. Which is odd because I'd think those who hated the book wouldn't want to waste their time editing a page on a book that they hate, when they could be spending their time on works they do like. Sounds to me like someone needs a life. If Paolini stole his plots and themes, then why have people like George Lucas not brought him up on charges? Why? Because they derived their ideas from others too.

As for a criticism page, sounds good. The reason the books are popular has a lot more to do with the characters than the story. I don't recall anyone charging him with the theft of characters. Now, the discussions on plot are another story. Everyone I've spoken with seems to be pissy because the author used a variety of plots for the book, some taken from sources such as LOTRs and Star Wars...Um, NEWS FLASH: To those who haven't deeply studied both fandoms, Tolkien openly admitted gleaming much of his work from history and folk legend. He just spent his entire life writing it. As for Star Wars and George Lucas, um...no one ever hear of Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress and Tolkien. Movies like Alien, Blade Runner, and Mad Max helped pave the way for his final screenplays form in theme of a "used universe".

First of all, user 70.70.97.117 didn't even mention George Lucas, or Star Wars, and yet you do. Sounds like someone sees a connection between Star Wars and Inheritance! I do appreciate the author's work, or else I would not be here. I just think that you should not blame others for seeing a connection when you do also .Pumanike (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting source for Lucas was "Joseph Campbell, the famous studier of myths and their common themes. He composed in The Hero with a Thousand Faces" (www. associated content.com/article/155406/the_influences_behind_george_lucass_pg2.html?cat=38 Note: remove spaces, I can't believe someone would blacklist that...geez...you people are something else...). I find it interesting that people in modern literary circles criticize people for using other authors ideas. Last I check that is how progress and literature is made. No one reinvents the wheel. We build of others ideas. I keep finding the piss poor arguments by people against authors such as Paolini redundant. If you have a problem with him using the ideas of others, then stop living in the demented, propaganda world of Bill Gates and find reality. Just because the man brilliantly made the copyrighting of ideas possible, the touch and feel of a product, doesn't mean that the world can operate on it. That is how Bill made the money, by copyrighting something he really shouldn't have been able to. The facts are, what you take issue with is something common to historical literature. An author likes an idea they see in their favorite works (great authors firstly are great readers, they should still teach that in writings as they do in music), then they take those themes, ideas, plots, etc. and blend them to their own ideas. In the case of Paolini, he does this. Now, another important fact is that good ideas can be invented by more than one person at a time, for example, the battery was invented several times over the course of history, lost and reinvented. People can invent ideas that are similar to others ideas. My grandfather was a mechanical engineer and in the 40's and 50's thought about inline skates...had he taken that idea and made something out of it he would have invented them, but someone else produced it first. The point is that people can have great ideas and be influenced by different or similar things. I believe the greatest example is the invention of the Calculus by Issac Newton and Leibnitz, who are credited with INDEPENDENTLY inventing the calculus.

Back to our discussion on the series, if you don't like the idea of people using others themes, than you are going to seriously limit literature. All those books you like have ideas taken from other places. OK, so you don't like Eragon using elves, well then, you can't have Tolkien either. No immortal elves, dang, that kills most of the fantasy publishing industry. See the problem? You don't like how obvious his influences are. OK, that's a literary problem, not an ideas problem. You want him to blend his ideas into a new medium, start a new chain of story, where the themes are less obvious, well, look at the stories without thinking they suck or they are thefts and look at the themes, all of them. What is Paolini looking for and talking about? Well, he focuses on a great deal of nature and the mountains. Tolkien was about that too, why? Because both grew up around nature, both feel comfortable around nature? Yes? Of course. So that is a common theme with the authors lives. You can't say he simply stole it.

There is a great deal more involved here, but I suggest we mellow down the criticism to cited sources and place an honest attempt at literary integrity. If someone criticizes him for the purposes of "I hate the series" that is what the talk pages are for. The main page is for serious literary criticism. I feel like so much of this is about critics being irrational, when most of the stuff out there is taken from somewhere else. Truth be told, we are living in a rather ignorant world, where the true authors are seen as completely original, where when truth be told, we are all thieves in our own way.

Before I end, back to the point about mellowing down to see something, if after you finish reading the stories and you find that they still are too obvious in their themes, then make a logical, rational...AND FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, LOSE THE DAMN LOGICAL FALLACIES, I truly get sick of reading them, (i.e. "it sucks because it sucks", "because no one has ever found a cure for cancer, no cure will ever be found." you get the idea: Informal Logical Fallacies.) argument stating what problems you have with the story and why and post it. A source is contingent based on what the argument of the text is. In the case of an editorial, if the editorial happens to be written from an good argument basis then it of course is valid criticism. The emotive criticism you see plastered over the headlines can only be used if the person is an authoritative head, but even still, if they cannot write coherent, "logically" structured arguments, then breaking down even that is child's play. Just write up some good arguments and post them. The biggest problem to date is flame vs. criticism.

--Dragoon91786 (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dragoon, a few points. First of all, please calm down. There's no need for caps lock. Second, Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussions about improving the article are fine. That's what the talk page is for. However, please remember this is not the place for you to start an argument with other Wikipedia users who have a different opinion from you. And please remember that Wikipedia is not the place to "Just write up some good arguments and post them" (see WP:OR). Your post suggests that you do not assume good faith in the Wikipedia community ("you guys are something else") - please remember to always assume good faith. Your comment regarding people who dislike the Inheritance Cycle yet still edit Inheritance Cycle-related articles is a borderline personal attack (I have a very low opinion of the book series, yet I have been reverting vandalism, removing original research and occasionally making drastic improvements to articles for over two years, often alone - don't tell me I have been wasting my time).

Now, to respond to the points you made. Regarding the idea of a criticism page, see my comment below dated 24 February 2009. This has been discussed before. If you have any new ideas or points which haven't been brought up regarding a Criticism page, please share them with us. In the past we've found that there aren't enough reliable sources to create a substantial article, and there's no reason the Criticism section here can't be expanded. If you have any problem with any of the sources used in the Criticism section, please list them. Wikipedia policy states that, regardless of whether or not you think an argument is valid (logical fallacies et al), if it is from a reliable source it can be used. Una Laguna^Talk 09:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with several of your points, however, I was not intending on make personal attacks, nor was the "locked caps" anything more than emphasis. Rarely if ever do I shout, and if I did so in my literary style it would be indicated by emphasis with notation for screaming, but that would be rather childish, now wouldn't it? People have a vigilant tendency online to take the fullest extreme of commentary possible. Sensitivity to the language of the written word is something of the new millennium, one which I perhaps must contend with. To go along with political correctness, no less. No, you are not wasting your time, I agree cleaning up vandalism is an important task for people, and I thank you greatly for doing your part to keep the quality of web based encyclopedia in the same or better shape than it began. I have been using this site since my freshman year in HS, c. 2001, and it has progressively improved over the years.

What I was mostly referring to is the general plethora of deconstructive commentary on the talk pages. You made one comment I found rather amusing. "Discussions about improving the article are fine. That's what the talk page is for. However, please remember this is not the place for you to start an argument with other Wikipedia users who have a different opinion from you. And please remember that Wikipedia is not the place to "Just write up some good arguments and post them" (see WP:OR)." The reason I find it funny is that comments like

How can Eldest possibly be considered better reviewed when it was considered as one of the worst books of 2005? It's a total weasel word that is completely unsubstantiated. There doesn't need to be any remark about whether it was reviewed better or worse overall because we, frankly, have no way of being sure. Further, there is still no mention of his actual writing in the critical response section. I would think that is as imporrtant (if not more important) than the derivative nature stuff.DeviantCharles (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I like how some book articles (such as Jurassic Park) have a full page for general criticism, and yet THIS series - which has been widely accused of major derivative work - comes out the other side smelling of roses. Sounds like Fanboy editing to me. 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.249.138 (talk)

We should definitely make the criticism section into a whole page. If I had as much stamina as I did back in the day with Fable II, I would try it myself. I mean, if Wikipedia has a criticism section for Lord of the Rings, then they should DEFINITELY have one for this. This kid shouldn't be getting 15 million book sales for a simpler, dumbed down, and corrupted Lord of the Rings for 10 year olds. (No Signature)

are acceptable because they hide discontent regarding page format and editing over a deep seeded loathing of the series and/or author. I could pull sections from other areas of the talk pages for inheritance, but I've been up all night trying to fix my sleep cycle, so I'm not really up to the effort. Sorry if that was TMI. Regardless, the talk pages read in part like some angry hate forum. Perhaps my linguistic epitaphs were convoluted and easily misinterpreted as derogatory and capricious rants, but they were more or less the relatively objective opinion of someone who has been around a book or two. I can see where people take offense at the series, but "flaming" about it seems odd. I do not intend disservice to time or energy but it boggles my mind as to the effort people put into discussing things they don't like. Now I admit, altruistic reasons for the betterment of Wikipedia are grand and all, but the simple facts are, a negative attitudes by the general talk page poster is farely rampant and if one is going to "shock and awe" the occasional dissenting argument, then one must also chastise the majority.

I will admit that wiki has changed since it's inception and the restrictiveness have possessed its downfalls along with its high points. I do believe, however, that the citing of information is dependent on the quality of the source and a source made in earnest of quality is a better argument and citable source, than a simple video clip of the 6'Oclock news. True, this is not about posting new arguments for or against the books, but about improving the overall quality of the page. I do question however, the general attitude of the posters. I feel the same attitude towards vandalizers as I do flamers, which is why I do my best to be neither. I do try to cite information. Nevertheless, arguments can be well documented but nonexistent as we seem to be experiencing here. I wonder though if the best solution is to ask for a general tone reduction by posters. The last thing I want the talk page to turn into is a Roman Circus. There may be a plethora of pedantic pandering and heavily pompastic opinions blasting their weight around, but we need to find temporance. I shall do my best to not offend, but I'd like to see this page make positive narrows towards a middle ground, where there is no discussion as to whether the books rock or not. As you said, "Wikipedia is not a forum" and I wholeheartedly agree, however, me admitting that and being content to accept those facts are not contingent upon others actions, nor are theirs contingent upon mine. So as I would promptly speculate, if the man doth give his servant orders for water in a desert, but gives none to his servant in reward for his labours, the ungrateful wretch may not have a servant for much longer, not will they have water to drink, as the servant may up and leave, taking the knowledge of the water with them. Or more contextually, treat others with respect and they will present respect on to you, lest respect be thrown out the window by all. A variance of the "tit for tat", Game theory.

Anyhow, thank you for the commentary and please keep up the work if you so desire, it is appreciated, even if you did not surmise that from my comments.

-Chris Dragoon91786 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This would not be a problem, as long as you can find a decent number of reliable resources. And FYI, personal blogs and forums are not reliable. (Neither are hate-sites like Antishurtugal)

So by all means, go for it. Spinach Dip 21:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Time and time again people have expressed a desire for a bigger criticism section or article. At one point there was a "Criticism of the Inheritance Trilogy" article. It was found that there weren't enough reliable sources to justify a whole page to itself and that information from reliable sources could be put into a single section of an article.

That was two years ago, and I doubt there are enough new reliable sources to justify their being a whole page of criticism. If there are enough reliable sources, then go for it. I'd suggest expanding the relevant criticism sections in articles which already exist first; if the sections start getting too big then go ahead and expand them to a whole page. But to be perfectly honest, that seems unlikely to be the case. Una Laguna^Talk 07:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much criticism because nothing can be proved. I personally haven't seen any echoes of the LOTR plot in Inheritance (only a bit of the setting), and no star wars at all other than the initial idea which granted is a lot. However I have seen similarities between Horcruxes in Harry Potter and the Eldunarí in Brisingr. But it really can't be proven or even cited because no one is sure. I do think, though, that I recognize the concept of the ancient language from somewhere, that I've seen it before, but I can't think where...-Panther (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See The Speech (fiction). --Thnidu (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Placement?

Should Dragon Riders be put under the catergory of Characters seeing as they are a group of characters and not a character? Xanormin (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some work on it. LMK what you think.

Spinach Dip 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya that's nice man. Tyvm.

Xanormin (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to the Belgariad and the Mallorean

Brom and Belgarath are very similar. Both are storytellers who reveal their identities as dabblers in magic and then compotent magicians. It's also similar how Eragon and Garion first use magic. Eragon says "Brisingr!" in rage and burns some Urgals, and Garion says "Burn" in rage and burns a Murgo. The name for the Urgal race is also very similar to Murgo. I think that these similarities should be discussed in the article.Ianschow (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Three points:

A. Brom (and Belgarath, apparently) are just rehashes of old archetype characters. You can find the same kind of character in any one of a hundred fantasy stories. So, unless you want to mention every single one of them, what's the point?

B. This would classify as original research, and thus, something Wikipedia should stay away from.

C. Belgariad and the Mallorean? Really? If you want to criticize Eragon's lack of originality, there are about a dozen other sources which come to mind before this one.

So, in short: No.

Spinach Dip 07:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As your user page suggests you are a major fan, I'm going to take what you say with a pinch of salt. There is a great deal taken from the Belgariad in the first book, such as the bridge scene and aforementioned burning scene. It's obvious that Paolini has taken / stolen concepts (whether or not it is plagiarism, I don't know) from the Belgariad, as he has with pretty much every book he's admitted to have read. You're being ridiculously if you suggest otherwise.

So, in short: STFU, people should agree with the OP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.114.70 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not I am a fan of the series in question has nothing to do with the fact that the proposed addition is original research. Now, if you can find a reliable resource mentioning the similarities, no editor on Wiki would have a problem with them being mentioned in the article. In fact, if such a resouce existed, I'd write the section myself!

Second, this point is over two years old, and should probably be let rest since there is nothing new to add.

And finally, please assume good faith when talking to other editors on wikipedia. This means staying away from insults and being civil at all times.

Thank you. Spinach Dip 06:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reliable resourse concept is an out of date (in the modern internet world, a personal blog quoting from the books should have as much relevance as a published article doing the same) concept that certain people here are hiding behind in an attempt to protect the books from criticism. The killing off of the seperate criticism article is enough to show this, and your admitted fandom makes you unsuitable to edit the page itself.

Why should it be laid to rest whilst it's still relevant? There's still similarities / plagiarism (the scenes skin very, VERY close to plagiarism) to the Belgariad within the series itself.

I was merely imitating you. As the saying goes, don't give what you can't take.

--77.97.114.70 (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. Accusing someone of being "unsuitable" to edit this page because of their "fandom" doesn't help anyone. (One could say the same about you, replacing "fandom" with "hate", but that wouldn't make it so.) WP:OR, WP:N and WP:RS all apply. We've already mentioned the films/books Paolini has been criticised for borrowing/stealing/plagiarising from. We're not saying "no" to you because we don't want any criticisms listed. We're saying "no" because a few people with little to no authority finding a few similarities with a few obscure books isn't worthy of a mention in an encyclopedia article. Una Laguna^Talk 15:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the Inheritance Cycle but agree 100% with Spinach Dip. WP:OR and WP:RS are fundamental Wikipedia policy. Una Laguna^Talk 06:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's Meltrancha and Zestra

I've never heard their names before and yet they're on the list of characters. There are no articles on them and I don't think they were ever mentioned in the book. Are they like characters that paolini has released but not put in a book yet?

If anyone knows, please respond.

They are not in the article as far as I see. Probably just some vandalism that was removed shortly after it was posted. Spinach Dip 05:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Should I make a list of translations?

Should I make a new part about traslations? Where shuld it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 401413Xr (talk • contribs) 01:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you mean a part about translations of the book into different languages, a whole section probably isn't necessary. A short paragraph in the Publication History section should be enough.

If you mean a guide to the languages in the Inheritance Cycle, then no. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or instruction manual. Sorry, but that's policy.Una Laguna^Talk 06:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Similarities

I have read a lot of scifi and also noticed how much these books pull from so many others. But I was surprised to see no mention of how much was drawn from The Wheel of Time. I mean, the first few chapters are so similar I did a double take. Could this be added? I'm alone in this? I'm new to this, but I feel this is worth pointing out. 24.93.25.166 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up before. We can only include information in an article (such as similarities between Inheritance and Wheel of Time) if it is backed up by reliable sources. Otherwise, it counts as original research: a big no-no on Wikipedia. I haven't stumbled across any reliable sources discussing similarities between Wheel of Time and Inheritance, but if you do, then feel free to go ahead and add the points discussed in the source to the article. Una Laguna^Talk 08:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"They are extremly good."

Who the hell wrote this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; it's already been removed.

Spinach Dip 08:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Long Lists

As much as I dislike the series, in Wikipedia's best interest, I think that the long lists here (Characters, locations) should be shortened down or even removed, as there are whole pages containing info. Throwing in a thought. 72.237.55.2 (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you entirely - the trouble is that, once the list is shortened, others will add minor characters to it and the list will gradually expand over time. For example, a few months back I condensed Characters in the Inheritance cycle to 27,379 bytes; after five months it's expanded to 47,809 bytes. Someone should definitely shorten the lists here - I'll try and do it over the next few days. Una Laguna^Talk 17:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of the extraneous characters on the characters page, if anyone feels differently about those removed, feel free to comment here. I also think that the character and locations lists on the Inheritance Cycle page should be reduced or, in the character list's case due to it having its own page, eliminated. I am not an expert at editing wikipedia, so maybe someone else could find a way to do this. I really think that all of these comprehensive details should be saved for wikis devoted to the subject.Vrinan (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bingo - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. I think an overview of all characters with non-trivial parts in the Inheritance Cycle should be at the Characters page, but a synopsis of their role in the Cycle should be adequate. The locations list on this page should be cut down to list plot-critical locations - the ones whose description is simply "A city within Du Weldenvarden" shouldn't be included, for a start. I think a brief section on the characters is okay on this page - if we just listed the major characters. I'll start trimming now.

And if you're unsure of how to go about doing something - be bold! If you mess things up all we need to do is press the "revert" button. Una Laguna^Talk 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Arya (Inheritance Cycle) and Murtagh (Inheritance) up for deletion

For those who haven't already noticed, I've nominated these two articles for deletion. The deletion discussion can be found here. Thanks, Una Laguna^Talk 10:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Elvish language

I think it should be mentioned that the "ancient" language is basically just icelandic with a few letters removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.217.247 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source which says this, then go for it. Una Laguna^Talk 08:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Ancient Language is based on Old Norse. Theleftorium 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Order of the Article

I think that the order of this article should be changed. The plot of the actual books might even be separated into separate articles, but that is separate from my point. I think the lead of this article should concentrate around the Archetypical 'bigger picture', and I would like to add some references to some analysis from academics.
While I gather my references, I'd like to hear any comments on rearranging the article to put the plots of the stories below the 'bigger picture' items such as race, language, magic and history.
WovenLore (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policy on what a lead section should look like - see WP:LS. It should act as a summary of the article. Currently this article's lead section is dreadful - it goes into far too much detail about certain plot points. The publication/writing history mentioned could probably be expanded, and there is next to no summary of the series' critical reception.

To be quite frank, this article is currently a mess. I think we can (to some extent at least) use Harry Potter, currently a Good Article, as a model article to decide on the structure and content of this article. The fact that the Inheritance Cycle hasn't been nearly as successful as the Harry Potter books will limit the comparisons, though.

Certainly the plot summaries need a serious trimming-down, particularly for Brisingr. The synopsis on the Brisingr page is shorter than that! The synopsis of the books in this article should be substantially shorter and, as you've said, focus on "the bigger picture" rather than an in-depth summary of each book. The character section can probably go - a link to List of Inheritance Cycle characters does everything the current section in this article needs to. The section on Alagaësia should probably be either heavily condensed and/or merged with the plot summary.

I'd like to encourage you as much as possible to find some analysis from academics, to expand the Reception section and start work on a Themes section. Although, as you've said, any criticism and analysis should refer to either the series as a whole or each book's place in it: in-depth analysis/criticism of each book belongs in the corresponding book's article rather than this article, which should act as an overview of the series.

In short: go for it!!! Una Laguna^Talk 12:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a bold removal of many of the plot points. Feel free to revert if anyone disagrees.--v/r - TP 18:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the list of Characters

there are some inconsistencies in the list of characters, eg: present tense for Oromis when it is meant to be past tense. Also Katrina is not mentioned. I am fixing some of these but if any of you see anything wrong please feel free to fix it. Maybe this should be put at the top ofthe page on one of those banner-things, that say this page needs refereces, expert persons etc.

by jhgenius01

Reads like a press statement

"This is the much-anticipated, astonishing conclusion to the worldwide bestselling Inheritance cycle." "This full-color book provides 15 spreads chock full of spectacular artwork, engaging novelty elements, and fascinating insights into Eragon’s home." The article is meant to give an overview of the books, not copy the back covers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.46.48 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned the article up a little and moved some of the content around. I've also taken a large portion of the characters list out, as all of its content is available at List of Inheritance Cycle characters, and the section was becoming very long. Any feedback? Noom _talk ^stalk 15:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Book Statistics

Added some book stats, primarily from the Inheritance Wikia. If anyone has any better stats or sources, please include them! I tried finding publisher stats (for a little bit) and I didn't find any --Dantiston (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inheritance Cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1095866,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge

I think that List of Inheritance Cycle characters should be merged here. The list is full of WP:TRIVIA and there is absolutely no real-world coverage. SpringBeauty (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the lack of outside coverage mainly because no one has gotten around to referencing it. The list is large enough that merging it here would make this page ridiculously large, and any characters list is going to be mostly trivia. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed as it was added by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Tarage (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section doesn't make sense, even on a grammatical level. 2A02:1810:151C:E00:FD62:1B89:E7DF:8040 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop that runaway sentence!

§Inhabitants consists of two (top-level) sentences, the first of which consists in large part of one of the worst misuses of parentheses I've ever seen, if not indeed the worst:

Alagaësia is populated by various sentient races, including humans, elves (the Fair Folk), dwarves, Urgals (Urgals who grow over 8 feet tall are referred to as Kull), dragons, werecats, weredogs/werewolves

(mentioned in Eldest was a Weredog and as a woman with a cloak on

(the hood and rest would cover ears and tail)

who turned into a she-wolf. They have the ability to turn into any canine and appear as a human with a tail and wolf ears. She may or may not be an elf),

spirits (beings of pure energy), Shades (a human that is possessed by a spirit or spirits that are stronger than the human vessel), and Ra'zac. Alagaësia was once host to a now extinct race or people known as the Grey Folk.

The double- and triple-indented sections modify "weredogs/werewolves" and should be popped out into a separate sentence or three, coming after the end of the monster sentence ("Ra'zac.") or at the end of the paragraph.

Ra'zac are the only kind mentioned here with no explanation, though Urgals could really use one as well; what differentiates them from humans if they're under 8 feet tall?

I'm unfamiliar with the series, so I'm not even going to try to fix this, but somebody sure should. --Thnidu (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Thnidu

- there are no weredogs/werewolves in Alagaësia. I removed the section.

- Ra'zac aren't the only ones without explanation, dwarves and dragons don't have on as well for example. To simply name the inhabitants, this is sufficient. To describe them, a paragraph for each would be more fitted.

Also, I would think that shades are not an independent being for themselves and shouldn't be listed for the same reason Eldunarí aren't listed. Tippfehlr (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Murtagh (book)

Any interest in including the newly released Murtagh book in this article? Or would it be better to create a standalone article for the book? Should it be considered a part of the series or simply a sequel set in the same world with many of the same characters? gingerlines (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

According to Paolini, Murtagh is the fifth book of the saga, but not Book 5 of Inheritance Cycle, which means that Murtagh is a spinoff. The fifth book of the cycle, with Eragon again as the main character, is in the works. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus against this proposal right now after several listing periods, because no evidence of compliance with the WP:NAMECHANGES guideline has been shown in the nom. The only source given is a primary source of the author's own video talking about this.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

---

The Inheritance Cycle → World of Eragon – Christopher Paolini expanded the Inheritance Cycle into the World of Eragon, which encompasses the cycle and the related books: see here Tenebra Blu (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 03:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Novels has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 03:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose No convincing evidence presented that the WP:COMMONNAME has changed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.