So say what you will about the Inheritance series, it was quite the success. I don't think it'll have a particularly long shelf life compared to a lot of actual classics but it made a lot of money and probably still keeps Paolini in a nice house today. So I'm going to take it upon myself to dissect exactly why that is, starting with the first book (and only the first book since I reckon the success of the series as a whole was carried on the back of the first book).
1. Paolini's Age
So whether he was fourteen, sixteen or twenty when Eragon was written, the fact is he was incredibly young for a published writer. Now that's not really a mitigating point for bad writing but it is a selling point. That fact was marketed and pushed front and centre. And a story behind the story itself is great for publishing. Honestly, I doubt I could have done much better at that age. I expect most teens would be writing at the level of Gloria Tesch (or is that so low it's insulting to teens? I don't know, haven't read Maradonia).
2. The Cover
I've talked about this before when the selfpubilshed version was being shown off at some point. Many of you said you prefer the selfpublished version and I can see why. The picture has some good detail and in the official version Saphira looks rather...horselike (which funnily enough is very sitting for her role in the series). But even if the artwork could be better, the cover itself is absolutely masterful. It's a book that demands to be noticed with it's vibrant blue colour scheme. You pick up the original selfpublished book you might read the blurb and set it down again after seeing Paolini's horrible selfportrait. But the officially published version is something you can't forget about. You see it once and it sticks in your memory and then you see it again and again and again and you think, "this is everywhere, it must be worth talking about", even if the actual number of copies is the same as any other fantasy book on the same shelf.
3. First Book's Not All That Bad
So repeating what we've all heard before but it's worth repeating. Eragon, as a book, isn't absolutely terrible. It certainly has its fair share of issues. Plagiarism and cliche is as heavy as its ever been, Brom's relationship with Eragon isn't nearly as sagelike as it pretends to be, the ending battle comes about very suddenly, the horses are treated like motor cycles and a whole host of other things that don't immediately come to my mind. But on the other hand, there's clearly fun adventure there, Eragon isn't a sociopath and, most importantly, stuff actually happens in it. A lot of it could probably be cut but with each chapter something occurs to change or develop the narrative in one way or another. This is sort of a basic for storytelling of any sort but it's kind of missed in the following books. Now would this book have been good enough to get a publishing deal without the selfpublishing publicity campaign? Probably not, but I've been beta reading a lot of unpublished stuff recently and it is ahead of the curve compared to a lot of things. When it comes to writing (and well basic characterization), the first book might be cliched and plagiarized but it is the least offensive.
4. The Writing Style
Someone here said at one point that Paolini doesn't have a writing style, he imitated what he liked and what was popular at the time of writing, with the first book in particular being lifted from David Eddings. Now I don't know if this is true, I haven't read Eddings, but I can tell that there is a passion and fervor in the first book that was immediately lost in the proceeding books. To say Paolini is a good at world building might be wildly inaccurate. He puts very little effort into thinking about the people of his world and how they'd react to things. However, it's clear that a lot of effort went into trying to create his world. Between the language system, the map, the fantasy names. Now yes, a lot of that stuff is blatantly plagiarized from Tolkien or Iceland, but in reading it, it's very clear that the author loves what he's created and wants the reader to love it too. And that kind of passion can be very appealing. Compare and contrast to a book you've surely read where the author quite clearly didn't care and was just writing to publish something and get a paycheque. I'm sure you can think of a few books like that (if you can't I'll give you a hint, this writing style is not present in the fourth book, or the very movie this book was based on for that matter).
5. It's For Kids
I think the majority of people here fall into two groups. One, they read this book when they were 8-12 and loved it. Or two, they read it when they were sixteen+ and hated it (or had more mixed feelings towards it). I for one was solidly in the former. I read this book when I was about ten and loved it. There was really nothing else like it on the market, at least in that era. It was Lord of the Rings but it was Lord of the Rings I could actually read without getting board to tears. Most high fantasy is targeted towards teenagers or adults but, intentionally or not, Eragon was aimed at children. The writing might have thesaurus abuse all over the place and words kids probably don't understand, but it's still simple. It's easy to follow.
Paolini forged his audience with this first book, that's how he managed to sell the others. But that audience grew up and, while many of us purchased all four books just to see the series through, the books just didn't grow too. Paolini certainly tried to age them with his audience but he failed, a lot. So during the years he waited between publishing the books, the fans just moved on. It happened to me and basically everyone I knew that liked the first book. That's why his fanbase is pretty minuscule today and the word Eragon is more ingrained in pop culture consciousness than Inheritance. At least that's the way I rationalize things. To sum up, the first book had a lot of marketing prowess put into it, wasn't absolutely terrible and appealed to a much less critical and experienced audience than the likes of us.
1. Paolini's Age
So whether he was fourteen, sixteen or twenty when Eragon was written, the fact is he was incredibly young for a published writer. Now that's not really a mitigating point for bad writing but it is a selling point. That fact was marketed and pushed front and centre. And a story behind the story itself is great for publishing. Honestly, I doubt I could have done much better at that age. I expect most teens would be writing at the level of Gloria Tesch (or is that so low it's insulting to teens? I don't know, haven't read Maradonia).
2. The Cover
I've talked about this before when the selfpubilshed version was being shown off at some point. Many of you said you prefer the selfpublished version and I can see why. The picture has some good detail and in the official version Saphira looks rather...horselike (which funnily enough is very sitting for her role in the series). But even if the artwork could be better, the cover itself is absolutely masterful. It's a book that demands to be noticed with it's vibrant blue colour scheme. You pick up the original selfpublished book you might read the blurb and set it down again after seeing Paolini's horrible selfportrait. But the officially published version is something you can't forget about. You see it once and it sticks in your memory and then you see it again and again and again and you think, "this is everywhere, it must be worth talking about", even if the actual number of copies is the same as any other fantasy book on the same shelf.
3. First Book's Not All That Bad
So repeating what we've all heard before but it's worth repeating. Eragon, as a book, isn't absolutely terrible. It certainly has its fair share of issues. Plagiarism and cliche is as heavy as its ever been, Brom's relationship with Eragon isn't nearly as sagelike as it pretends to be, the ending battle comes about very suddenly, the horses are treated like motor cycles and a whole host of other things that don't immediately come to my mind. But on the other hand, there's clearly fun adventure there, Eragon isn't a sociopath and, most importantly, stuff actually happens in it. A lot of it could probably be cut but with each chapter something occurs to change or develop the narrative in one way or another. This is sort of a basic for storytelling of any sort but it's kind of missed in the following books. Now would this book have been good enough to get a publishing deal without the selfpublishing publicity campaign? Probably not, but I've been beta reading a lot of unpublished stuff recently and it is ahead of the curve compared to a lot of things. When it comes to writing (and well basic characterization), the first book might be cliched and plagiarized but it is the least offensive.
4. The Writing Style
Someone here said at one point that Paolini doesn't have a writing style, he imitated what he liked and what was popular at the time of writing, with the first book in particular being lifted from David Eddings. Now I don't know if this is true, I haven't read Eddings, but I can tell that there is a passion and fervor in the first book that was immediately lost in the proceeding books. To say Paolini is a good at world building might be wildly inaccurate. He puts very little effort into thinking about the people of his world and how they'd react to things. However, it's clear that a lot of effort went into trying to create his world. Between the language system, the map, the fantasy names. Now yes, a lot of that stuff is blatantly plagiarized from Tolkien or Iceland, but in reading it, it's very clear that the author loves what he's created and wants the reader to love it too. And that kind of passion can be very appealing. Compare and contrast to a book you've surely read where the author quite clearly didn't care and was just writing to publish something and get a paycheque. I'm sure you can think of a few books like that (if you can't I'll give you a hint, this writing style is not present in the fourth book, or the very movie this book was based on for that matter).
5. It's For Kids
I think the majority of people here fall into two groups. One, they read this book when they were 8-12 and loved it. Or two, they read it when they were sixteen+ and hated it (or had more mixed feelings towards it). I for one was solidly in the former. I read this book when I was about ten and loved it. There was really nothing else like it on the market, at least in that era. It was Lord of the Rings but it was Lord of the Rings I could actually read without getting board to tears. Most high fantasy is targeted towards teenagers or adults but, intentionally or not, Eragon was aimed at children. The writing might have thesaurus abuse all over the place and words kids probably don't understand, but it's still simple. It's easy to follow.
Paolini forged his audience with this first book, that's how he managed to sell the others. But that audience grew up and, while many of us purchased all four books just to see the series through, the books just didn't grow too. Paolini certainly tried to age them with his audience but he failed, a lot. So during the years he waited between publishing the books, the fans just moved on. It happened to me and basically everyone I knew that liked the first book. That's why his fanbase is pretty minuscule today and the word Eragon is more ingrained in pop culture consciousness than Inheritance. At least that's the way I rationalize things. To sum up, the first book had a lot of marketing prowess put into it, wasn't absolutely terrible and appealed to a much less critical and experienced audience than the likes of us.