"Eragon is a children's book, duh..." -random fan, when confronted by a number of flaws the book had
This response is so common it would be redundant to post actual quotes from actual fans. I guess the reason is it seems like a reasonable assumption...our criticisms sound like they should only be used for adult, sophisticated books...hence, Eragon and Eldest shouldn't count because they're made for children.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case.
Do you know The Hobbit?
How about A Wizard of Earthsea?
Redwall?
These three books are all intended for children. While they may have faults on their own, they are judged equally among the ranks of "adult" books. I've yet to hear someone justify The Hobbit's faults simply because it's a 'children's book'. Please. Unless we're talking about the fantasy equivalent of Blue's Clues...there is just no reason for a children's book to be crap.
You might have already perused through the vast Inheritance section of our site, so I won't tire you with the mechanics that bog down Paolini's books. However, it goes to show that these faults should not exist simply because his stuff is being marketed towards children--or rather, shall we say, early teens. You don't feed your child garbage. You may feed him pre-digested food, but the food would be the same calibre as what you would eat yourself. It doesn't make sense otherwise.
At that very point alone, this common excuse has already been torn apart.
But (at the risk of sounding like an infomercial)--wait, there's more!
Is Inheritance really targeted for children in the first place?
Let's go back to when I made a food analogy, and that of pre-digested stuff. Children's books normally start out with very simple words and sentences. It gets longer and more difficult as the child grows, which is why you have various "reading levels" and grades. I'm sorry to say that I don't see anything 'pre-digested' in Eragon or especially Eldest. Many words are very difficult to understand, the exposition is long and dragging, and so on and so forth. You could cut the corner when you consider it a "Young Adult" piece, but again, the length of the novel and the way it is written suggests that the writer was aiming for an older audience...his age (when he began) and up, at the very least.
But but but...isn't the sole purpose of getting kids to read is to teach them stuff? I've heard fans excuse the big words by saying that kids could learn that kind of thing better because Eragon and Eldest are using them. That, again, doesn't make sense. I would suggest you peruse my friend Arget's Word Usage article. Here, she talks about how the words in Eragon and Eldest are used without rhyme or reason, and most importantly, without regards to context. Using words so that you can guess their meaning by the context alone is very important in getting someone--especially a younger person--to learn what that word means. The most Paolini does is throw random words at his reader and hope he or she would take the time to open a dictionary and learn what the word really means. And even then...
Well, wouldn't it technically be bad if the child is being taught the wrong meaning of a word? Again, referring to Arget's article, you can see that Paolini used words wrongly several times.
As well, it is worth noting that a lot of subject matter in the books are not particularly "child safe". Now, I don't believe in censoring--I think parents should be ultimately responsible in the number of adult things they are comfortable with letting their children experience--but the fact is, most young adult novels and many children's books I've seen lack scenes of violence, gore, and sex. Paolini's books, particularly Eldest, contain a number of these. Some details are particularly disturbing (I bring to light the naked elven groin that Oromis sports). Saphira's continous attempts to mate with Glaedr can be confusing to children. These things necessarily aren't bad, but they do go against the fans' argument that Eragon and Eldest (can be excused) because they are children's books.
