Good lord. Colour me illuminated. I had no idea that the author was an adolescent at the time of writing: all becomes clear. I read the novel as if it was written by an adult, and it's a lot more acceptable as an adolescent effusion than it would be from an adult writer. It does, in fact, read exactly like a teenage piece, in hindsight. As such, it's even reasonably competent.

I don't have a problem with clichéd fantasy writing, as such; I still derive a reasonable amount of pleasure from McCaffrey, or Feist, or even the first couple of Jordan's novels. What distinguishes all these authors, though, is that they've managed to add a certain personal element to their clichéd motifs: Feist's Rift, Jordan's gender-based magic, McCaffrey's half-assed sf rationalisation. Eragon simply didn't. Much popular fantasy is derivative, but a lot of it manages to be derivative but still, in some sense or another, add new elements to the mix.

Also, I was disappointed because so much contemporary young adult fantasy is actually very, very worthwhile, and manages to avoid cliché: Holly Black, Garth Nix, hell, even Lemony Snicket. They do interesting, edgy stuff. I suppose I expected something similar from Eragon, and was let down when it didn't materialise.

But now I feel bad, having dissed it so thoroughly. As a teenage work it's a lot more acceptable. Hopefully he'll retain the energy and desire to write, but actually find something to say.

I did read the Sharon Shinn a couple of years ago, and remember enjoying them, but I don't remember if I made any McCaffrey connections at the time. I'll have to dig them out again :>.