Talk:Brisingr

In-universe Style?

I have read the article and it seems to me that it is written in a way that only people familiar with the series would understand. Metalb (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I might agree with you in parts, but I may be thinking of different points to you - could you provide some specific examples with what's wrong with the article? Una Laguna^Talk 10:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary identifies Roran, Katrina, Helgrind, and Carvahall. Who would know why they were significant to the book and series other than its readers? Saphira isn't even identified as a dragon. Orik and other dwarf related things are mentioned, but not identified as such. Also no explanation is given to explain what the Varden are. To put it bluntly, characters, places, and factions are mentioned, but there are no explanations as to what they are or why they are important. Metalb (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's typical of most articles on works of fiction. If there is a page about the characters, it seems generally assumed that linking to the page is sufficient for context. Compare The Hobbit, a GA. So what would you suggest? Gimmetrow 02:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be confusing to readers if they just read the article. As Gimmetrow said, that's why we provide links to the characters page. To explain everything all over again on this page would make the article more clear for those unfamiliar with the series, but would also make the article a more cumbersome read for those already familiar with the series. The other Inheritance articles simply make re-explaining things here unnecessary. Una Laguna^Talk 09:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When you put it that way, I suppose the article is best left as it is. Metalb (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GA

I'm planning on getting this article to GA status, like I did with Eragon. Anybody wanna help? :) TheLeftorium 14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in. I've been a fan of this series since Eragon, so I would love to contribute. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm working on the development section in my sandbox. Perhaps you could expand the reception section with some more reviews? TheLeftorium 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now I'm working on multiple articles at once, so I'll get done what I can, but expect me to focus more later. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

After half an hour of Googling these are the only two additional reviews I've found which might pass WP:RS [1] [2]. I think the two reviews currently featuring in the article cover the main points relating to Brisingr (overly long, but slight improvements in Paolini's writing). Una Laguna^Talk 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Those reviews look solid. I'm going to take a shower and go to my guitar lesson now, but when I get back, I'll look around myself. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's looking great. We just need to expand the "Promotion and release" & "Reception" sections, and I would say it is ready for GA nom. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be submitting this to the GA process within 24 hours if there are no objections. I feel it is ready. The Guy ^(edits) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll deliberately avoid helping out with the article then, as I had offered to do the GA Review. Just give me a ping when you guys are ready. NW (Talk) 03:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say you could do it right now, but there are two reasons I would like to wait for a bit. For one thing, the critical reception section is largely lacking, and I would like to find more reviews. Lastly, I would like to wait for any objections, should they arise. It would be better for them to pop up before the GA process, rather than during. Thanks! The Guy ^(edits) 03:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That is quite fair. In that case as well, I would ask that you wait at least 24 hours after you have all of the information before submitting it to GAN, because I do want you to go over the prose, sourcing, structure, etc. with a fresh mind before I review it. NW (Talk) 03:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The only problem here is that there are two review sources, and now one of them has vanished. So now we have one review. I literally can not find another. The Guy ^(edits) 04:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You've done a great job on the article, Dude527, but there's still some stuff that needs to be fixed. Can we wait until Sunday? I'll try to work on it before then. Theleftorium 11:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've hardly done much to article, save for shortening the plot length and expanding the review section. Also, we can wait as long as you need to work on it. I was hoping to alter the plot format for this and Eragon to match the edits I made to the plot synopsis section of Eldest, anyways. I'm just trying to find a source to say how many days or weeks have passed between Eldest and Brisingr.The Guy ^(edits) 15:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Such a thing would be considered plot-derived information, and should not need to be sourced, in my opinion. So just hunt around on the Inheritance Wikia. NW (Talk) 15:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree in a normal case, but unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the novel doesn't say as much. Therefore it should be sourced. The Guy ^(edits) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Per [3], I will add that it begins the day after. I think I remember that being correct (I don't actually have the book; I ended up reading various friends' copies and at the library) and it certainly makes sense that they left so quickly. NW (Talk) 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Being vague (Almost immediately after the Battle of the Burning Plains at the end of Eragon) actually seems like a better idea. NW (Talk) 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When I had originally scanned the book for an answer, I looked in synopsis of the previous 2 books, and the first chapter. Upon picking up the book to read thoroughly again (as I have also done with Eragon and Eldest in the past week), I found the answer to be four days. In the hardcover edition, in chapter 2, page 12, at the beginning of the the last paragraph on the page, it says: "Now, four days after the battle..." with the preceding paragraph referring to the battle with Murtagh, indicating that that's the battle to which he referred. I plan to cite this, as it's a small (but important) detail that's well-hidden if you're just scanning the book for answers. The Guy ^(edits) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Citing it seems appropriate if both of us could not remember it. NW (Talk) 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding the statement about Paolini's favorite line of the book: isn't it a bit trivial? How does the reader's knowledge of the author's favorite line enhance the reader's understanding of the topic? It seems more like a piece of trivia. The Guy ^(edits) 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I will clean that section up a bit and add some information about the book tour (if I can find reliable sources). Theleftorium 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for GA status now (co-nom with Dude527). If you could do a review, NW, that would be great. Thanks, Theleftorium 14:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pmlinediter, a member of the Inheritance Cycle WikiProject, indicated that he wished to do the GA Review (by creating the subpage), and I am unsure if that is a good idea. I am unsure about how GA usually works, but if there is someone more neutral with the subject matter that is willing to review the article, that person should do it. In any case, I will defer to the rest of you on this matter. NW (Talk) 17:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a confirmation that I was ready. There were a few things I had left to do with the article, specifically with the lead. Oh well, I guess. No hard feelings or anything. That article is pretty good. The Guy ^(edits) 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've withdrawn per NW's comment. Pmlineditor 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All right then. I see that you guys were still working on the article as of July 19, so I will wait until July 22 to review. NW (Talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Arya

I disagree that we should mention she met Eragon. Sure, it advances character development, but this is a plot summary, where we are supposed to run over the main plot points in as little detail as possible. Therefore, it doesn't warrant mention here simply because it advances the character: this isn't a section about the characters. I would bring this here if you really want to mention how it advances her character. It certainly warrants no mention here simply because it advances her character, as we don't and can't explain that it advances her character. Further, it's not a significant plot lead and doesn't lead the plot anywhere. Therefore, considering it's not a plot lead, much less a major one, it does not warrant mention. Nothing comes of that event in this book. The Guy ^(edits) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems quite logical.  Undone. NW (Talk) 17:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Guy ^(edits) 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mixed reviews

[4] This sentence says nothing, as the same could be said of almost any book. It is therefore not an "intro" and ought to be removed. Gimmetrow 12:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How about now? Theleftorium 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Beowulf

If there is no critical commentary in-article regarding Paolini's use of Beowulf as an influence, the art should be removed from the article. The Guy ^(edits) 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Theleftorium 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Paolini quotes

These quotes by Paolini contribute nothing but his opinion to the article: this is trivial. "Paolini said about the new cover: "I have to say, I love the cover of the new book. I think that John Jude Palencar really outdid himself with this one. It feels right for the book too; Brisingr is the longest and most intense entry in the series so far, and his art reflects that."" What does this contribute to the article? That Paolini approves of Palencar's work? OK, but how does that contribute to documentation of "Title, cover, and audio book?" It doesn't say anything about the process involved in conceiving the title, cover art, or recording the audio book. It simply expresses Paolini's approval. Therefore, it's trivial; it has nothing to do with any of the subjects in the section, and simply expresses the author's opinion. It contributes nothing of significance. Things like that should be removed.

As examples:

• "Paolini said 'the Ancient Language is tricky for me, because I can't roll my r's properly, but I love reading Dwarvish aloud. It's such a meaty language; you can really sink your teeth into it.'" Again, who cares if he likes to speak dwarvish (shouldn't be capitalized by the way, as per the novels themselves)? Who cares if the author thinks dwarvish is a meaty language? What info regarding the process of recording does that contribute? Nothing.

• "Paolini said he thought the Lethrblaka cover would be 'fantastic' because Palencar 'has always excelled at painting dark, scary things, so I’m sure he’ll do a wonderful job. I can’t wait to see what he comes up with.'" Again, we don't need to know what the author thinks about every blasted aspect of the book. I realize this isn't in the current revision, but it's another prime example; almost identical to the other two: just an opinion of the author, adding no significant understanding to the development or promotion of the topic at hand.

• "but he 'had a blast' doing it because Saphira 'really is a wonderful character to write; she has so many interesting thoughts and opinions.'" It's not significant to the article whether or not Paolini had fun writing his book, or what he thinks of his own characters.

Quotes of these kind (almost purely opinionated) should be removed and replaced. It currently looks like they act as filler in the article; a lot of paragraphs have these useless opinions that contribute nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic. They should be removed, and replaced with something more relevant, preferably not a quote. Use your head. The Guy ^(edits) 20:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, the subtitle should be italicized throughout the article. It's part of the book's title. The Guy ^(edits) 20:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the article a bit now. Theleftorium 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking good. Sorry if I sound a bit agitated. I'm having a dispute with a less-than-level-headed editor on another talk page, and it's wearing me down. The one downside to Wikipedia. Anyways, good work. The Guy ^(edits) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hate disputes so I do my best to avoid them. ;) Theleftorium 20:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Me too, but I pursue them when necessary. It rubs off on my other editing though, because an editor disagrees and I get paranoid, "Oh no, this will digress into that as well." Anyways, back on topic. I plan to do a few things with the lead. For one thing, I plan to make it a bit longer and more comprehensive: so that it touches bases on all topics the article covers. I also plan to edit the plot part of it to make it a bit more book-central, and not series-central. Are you agreeable with these edits? The Guy ^(edits) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but don't remove too much about the series. There needs to be an introduction so that readers not familiar with the books will understand the article without having to read another article. Theleftorium 21:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand; I just want to make sure that the weight of the lead is taken off the series as a whole and placed more on the book; the lead doesn't necessarily need to have those details, being an introduction to article, but I understand the need for them in the plot. How about I minimize them as much as possible in the lead in favor of describing the book's premise instead, but leave the plot part untouched? The Guy ^(edits) 21:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's sounds good. Theleftorium 21:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

incorect spelling

the book is not spelled brisnger but brisingr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.207.78 (talk • contribs)

I don't see that incorrect spelling anywhere in the current text. Gimmetrow 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brisinger paperback

Someone with an account should add the information that Brisinger was released in paperback on April 13, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.153.63 (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Brisingr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207110506/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6598359.html?desc=topstory to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6598359.html?desc=topstory
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081122091550/http://www.bookpage.com/0809bp/christopher_paolini.html to http://www.bookpage.com/0809bp/christopher_paolini.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081209041523/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6577725.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6577725.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 13:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brisingr. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081103001300/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/entertainment/2008192289_eragonauthor22.html? to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2008192289_eragonauthor22.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brisingr. 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://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2008192289_eragonauthor22.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081105155423/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C700260412%2C00.html to http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C700260412%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)