Brisingr

[DragonMaci]

As some of you may already know from this thread, I have already read Eragon and Eldest, books 1 and 2 from the Inheritence Trilogy. I have yet to read Brisingr though. Has anyone else read it? If so is it worth reading?

I am sceptical about it given a statement Paolini made in the official email newsletter for the series. In the email he stated that

Eragon meets a god.

This makes me reluctant to read the book.

Edited June 6, 2009 by DragonMaci

[Grames]

You'll read a book about dragons, but absolutely draw the line at gods? A god that can be met?

[khaight]

You'll read a book about dragons, but absolutely draw the line at gods? A god that can be met?

I suppose one could view dragons as something that could exist inside a framework of natural law, while gods are inherently in conflict with the law of identity.

That said, I think that a character meeting a god is a pretty weak reason for rejecting a work of literature as not worth reading. It is quite possible to find significant values in works that are based on false philosophical premises. Leonard Peikoff once gave a lecture on exactly this point; as I recall it was aptly titled "The Survival Value of Great (Though Philosophically False) Art".

I'll give a personal example. Watership Down is one of my favorite novels. It's an epic tale of loss, survival, courage, loyalty, war and triumph. The protagonists are talking rabbits, and at the end one of them meets a god. Anyone who refused to read Watership Down on that basis would, in my opinion, deprive themselves of a profound artistic experience.

I haven't read the Inheritance Trilogy, so I can't speak directly to the quality of the third book. But I would suggest asking yourself what it was that you liked in the first two books, and whether you have any evidence that those things are likely present in the third. The goal, after all, is to find art that you like, which gives you spiritual fuel.

[Maximus]

Don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Enjoyment of fiction, like that of a movie, sometimes requires the suspension of disbelief. If you value the enjoyment that reading this series brings, by all means continue. I enjoy reading the Greek mythologies and the Elder and Prose Eddas. The Mists of Avalon and other such fiction continue to be one of my favorite forms of escapist literature. Dosen't means you are irrational, so, don't worry so much. Causes wrinkles, ya' know.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Maximus

[DragonMaci]

You'll read a book about dragons, but absolutely draw the line at gods? A god that can be met?

The two are not comparable. Dragons are much less powerful and not as unrealistic, so are much harder to suspend disbelief for. But more importantly, it is the myticism of having a god in the book. Not to mention it contradicts the view point of the elves, which would be rational at least in our world. Plus there is this:

while gods are inherently in conflict with the law of identity.

That isn't why I am not sure why I want to read it, but I didn't make that clear and I apologise for that. My reluctance springs from the inherihent mysticism involved in having a god or gods in the books. I question whether a book with inherihent mysticism can have any greatness in it.

I haven't read the Inheritance Trilogy, so I can't speak directly to the quality of the third book. But I would suggest asking yourself what it was that you liked in the first two books, and whether you have any evidence that those things are likely present in the third. The goal, after all, is to find art that you like, which gives you spiritual fuel.

I mainly like the interaction between human and dragon that Eragon and Saphira have and the battle of good against evil, but I can get a better version of both from the books I am planning to write. Well, I also like most of the Elven philosophy, but the existence of this god contradicts much of it.

Enjoyment of fiction, like that of a movie, sometimes requires the suspension of disbelief.

Therein lies a part of the problem; I cannot suspend my disbelief over something as highly mystical as a god.

[Edited wording.]

Edited June 6, 2009 by DragonMaci

[Maximus]

Therein lies a part of the problem; I cannot suspend my disbelief over something as highly mystical as a god.

Best not read The Iliad then.

[Prometheus98876]

Dragons are pretty mystical too if one means dragons as usually conceived by 99.99999% of the fantasy authors out there. Of course not every author need portray dragons as mystical beings that are impossible to beleive in ... even though that might go against what is usually meant by dragons. One might also attempt to use gods without neccesairly using them as most mean them ( ie totally mystical, incomprehensible etc), just as long as one is careful to make it clear that what he refers to as gods is not an anticoncept but something that relates to intelligible beings.

Of course one might wonder why he is calling them "gods" (or just the one as a "god") in that case...but that is a slightly different issue and I hope nobody would refuse to read the book because of it

Now if I could determine that the fact that a god does appear does in that instance involve an unintelligible "entity" much like the usual "conception" of a "God" then that might be a reason to suspect that the book and the author is not entirely rational. However to make a truly informed decision one should try and determine if the author perhaps has mixed premises and despite an element of irrationality is capable of writing a somewhat rational book. A lot of very good authors are like that you know...even the ones that employ grossly irrational elements are capable of redeeming their work.

[DragonMaci]

Dragons are pretty mystical too if one means dragons as usually conceived by 99.99999% of the fantasy authors out there. Of course not every author need portray dragons as mystical beings that are impossible to beleive in ... even though that might go against what is usually meant by dragons. One might also attempt to use gods without neccesairly using them as most mean them ( ie totally mystical, incomprehensible etc), just as long as one is careful to make it clear that what he refers to as gods is not an anticoncept but something that relates to intelligible beings.

Well, if books 1 and 2 are anything to go by then gods are such in the Inheritence Trilogy. Mind you, that is what the people of that world believe gods are, not necessarily what gods actually are. As for dragons, they are a not anywhere near as bad as a god in that regard.

However to make a truly informed decision one should try and determine if the author perhaps has mixed premises and despite an element of irrationality is capable of writing a somewhat rational book.

The beliefs of his elves suggest such may be the case.

[Greebo]

While you're not reading books where there are Gods, make sure you skip "American Gods", by Neil Gaiman. It's riddled with them - Norse, Egyptian, Ancient American, and new ones like Media, Internet, and The Spooks.

You'll be missing out on an excellent foray into a fascinating fictional concept, however : the concept that the Gods only exist when and because people believe in and remember them. Don't read "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett either - cause that's another one with Gods in it under the same fictional concept.

[DragonMaci]

Don't read "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett either - cause that's another one with Gods in it under the same fictional concept.

I already have read it. However, unlike Paolini, Pratchett gets points for making fun of gods and religion.

[Prometheus98876]

Indeed Pratchett does! And not just in Small Gods, but in most [ of his earlier books ] from memory, though its been a while since I have read too much Discworld...