Inheritance book review

It has been nine years since Christopher Paolini first introduced us to the world of Eragon, and three years since Brisingr was published, so I and many others were justifiably excited for the publication of Inheritance, the last book in the Inheritance Cycle, on November 8. Due to a ridiculous amount of work, I just finished the book about a week ago, and I thought I'd post my thoughts on it. I think that while those who have been devoted to the series won’t be disappointed by Inheritance, I wouldn’t call it a masterpiece either. Paolini manages to conclude the series fittingly, but the book is plagued with many problems.

For those of you who don't know the basic storyline, the Inheritance Cycle is about a farm boy named Eragon. While hunting at the beginning of the first book, Eragon discovers a dragon egg. The egg hatches and Eragon forms a special bond with the dragon within, who he calls Saphira. Eragon talks to one of his fellow villagers by the name of Brom and discovers that he is part of an ancient order of Dragon Riders who can do magic. The Dragon Riders used to watch over the land of Alagaesia and protect it from strife, but around 100 years ago, an evil rider named Galbatorix overthrew the Riders and killed every last one and their dragons, letting only three dragon eggs survive. After Galbatorix's servants, the Raz'ac, burn down his house and kill his uncle in search of him, Eragon sets off with Brom to hunt for the Raz'ac. He eventually meets up with the resistance movement the Varden and decides to help them in their quest to overthrow Galbatorix. Eragon journeys to the land of the elves and finds a teacher to help him with his magic and swordfighting. He then joins the Varden as they start their campaign to take back Alagaesia. Inheritance opens in the midst of the Varden's campaign.

Those expecting a great work of literature should look elsewhere- Inheritance still has plenty of the clumsy writing that has plagued the series, and Paolini retains his obsession with modifying words. Here is just one example of what I'm talking about: "The herbalist was more than a foot shorter than some of the men, but she showed no sign of fear as she bounded among them. To the contrary, she was the picture of ferocity, with her wild hair and her shouting and her dark-eyed expression." That’s not to say that the book is poorly written; Paolini has flashes of brilliance and plenty of well-written prose exists in the book. For example: "Shields cracked, chunks of torn sod flew over the ground, and sword rang agains sword as they flowed from on stance to another, their bodies twisting through the air like twin columns of smoke."

Most people, though, will be reading Inheritance for the plot. In this regard the book is also a mixed bag. Paolini has a talent for creating particularly exciting battle sequences- I found the siege of Aroughs to be particularly ingenious- and he does a really good job of ratcheting up the tension in the later part of the story. But Paolini’s propensity to waste pages on pages on information that just is not very important to the plot is evident in this book. It really bogs the reader down and hurts the flow of the story. There are several chapters in the later part of the novel, for example, involving Nasuada which I believe could have been shortened greatly or eliminated without any problem.

            The most important question on everyone’s mind is how Paolini concludes the novel, and I don’t think the climactic battle scene will disappoint readers. Eragon’s fight with Galbatorix is well written and the conclusion of this battle is immensely satisfying and fitting. The sequence that leads up to the battle, however, unfortunately seems a bit rushed, and this does cheapen the result a little bit. What is definitely not rushed is the denouement after the climactic battle. Paolini spends about 100 pages after the climax wrapping up loose ends, and it seems very clumsy and unnecessary. All in all, in Inheritance Paolini once again does a great job of sucking the reader into the world of Alageasia, but overly cluttered writing and an obsession with details hold Inheritance back from being the epic novel it could be.

Palestine Bid for Statehood

There has been a lot of controversy lately over Palestine's attempt to be recognized in the UN as an independent state. Which is kind of stupid. What's controversial is that Palestine isn't a UN member state already. We all agree that the only solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is to have two free states living side-by-side, yes? So why shouldn't Palestine be recognized in the UN? They already exist. Just because they were stupid 60 years ago and rejected the UN's partition plan that made Israel a state doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to recognize their mistake and get another chance. If the Holy See is a state, doesn't Palestine have a right to be one too?

What's even stupider about this whole debate is that Israel and the US don't want Palestine to even be an observer member of the UN. This is ridiculous. The Red Cross is an observer member of the UN. Are you telling me that the Red Cross is more of a country than Palestine is?

President Obama, unfortunately, seems to be taking the traditional support-Israel-at-all-costs route. This whole situation shows some of the problems with his governing style. Just a couple of months ago he gave a landmark speech recognizing the need to base the Palestinian and Israeli states on the pre-1967 borders (with some land swaps). When this speech didn't really accomplish anything, he backed off and put the kid gloves back on when handling Israel. He's now agreeing to their every illogical demand in an attempt to be a "conciliator", much like what happened with the debt-ceiling debate.

Going into the broader issue of Israeli diplomacy, this issue brings to light once again how unnecessarily heavy-handed and self-destructive Israel's foreign relations are. Obviously they are a country that has a right to be fearful and aggressive- they're surrounded by countries that essentially hate them. But that is no excuse for them to be so unnecessarily belligerent or violent. I read stories all the time of rocket attacks by Palestinian terrorists killing one or two innocent Israeli civilians. This is obviously a sad and horrible thing. But rather than being level-headed about it and responding in an appropriate way, Israel goes out and kills several innocent Palestinian civilians (along with several militants). This may feel good in the short run but is extremely harmful to Israel in the long run- it's hard to be allies with a country like that.

I'm not saying that this whole conflict is all Israel's fault- historically it's definitely more the fault of the Arab states than Israel. I'm just saying that right now Palestine is facing severe injustice and the UN should try to do what it can to alleviate that.

Why I probably won't be watching many Redskins games this year

I've been a Redskins fan since first grade, when I was taught by raving Redskins fan and former Redskins employee Mrs. Morrison. But this year I'm facing an existential question- am I really a Redskins fan when I don't plan to watch the games and am rooting against the coach, quarterback, and running back? I'm sure I'm not alone in my significant loss of interest towards the Redskins. I'm starting to think that Dan Snyder and Mike Shanahan have made it their mission to eliminate as much fan interest in their team as possible, because there's no way they could have been so spectacularly successful by accident.

I could handle the years of losing, because there was always one young player at one of the star positions who I could latch onto. While I couldn't always cheer for the team, there was always a player I could cheer for. Not anymore. With the advent of the My Way Mike coaching era, any player who you could possibly rally behind is gone. Jason Campbell? Gone (okay I understand but don't support that one). His replacement, future Pro-bowler Donovan Mcnabb? Gone. Clinton Portis, Malcolm Kelly, Devin Thomas? Gone. My favorite player last year was actually Brandon Banks and I don't think I was alone in this. This year, Banks almost got cut. The fact that this was even a possibility is infuriating and an example of what is wrong with Mike Shanahan as a head coach. Now we're left with Rex Grossman and Tim Hightower to try to cheer for. And Snyder is wondering where all the fans went?

Hightower and Grossman are two of the main reasons for my apathy towards the team this year. Does anybody else realize that at the two most important positions in the game- quarterback and running back, the Redskins are starting two players who have already failed on much better teams? Is this a formula for success? This team sucks, and yet no one seems to realize it. There is no talk of rebuilding. There is no quarterback of the future. There is no running back of the future (unless Roy Helu turns out to be as good in the regular season as he was in the preseason). There is probably not even a single wide receiver of the future. Callers on 106.7 The Fan are arguing about how the Redskins are going to be 5-11, not 2-14. And yet you have quotes like this from Santana Moss: "When you’re going into a year when you’re trying to win now, you’re trying to do some things, you want to be solid at the QB position." As a team and as an organization, the Redskins are completely deluded, and until they wake up, I don't see any reason to care.

The Budget Deficit

Politicians are generally regarded as people who negotiate between themselves to create public policy. Negotiation is generally agreed to involve compromises by those on both sides of an issue. Therefore, through deductive reasoning, we can agree that politicians are generally supposed to compromise to create public policy. As Congress has been trying to reduce the budget deficit in exchange for raising the debt ceiling (which must be done to avoid a catastrophic sucker punch to our economy), there has been curiously little compromise going on in Capitol Hill.

Democrats prefer a plan to reduce the deficit which would mostly include spending cuts but would also include some tax hikes. Republicans want a plan that will reduce the deficit through only spending cuts- including significant reductions in entitlement spending. Right now, it seems like Democrats are compromising on the necessity of deep levels of spending cuts, but are refusing to compromise on cutting entitlement spending. Republicans, meanwhile, are compromising on... nothing. It really is pathetic. We are trying to reduce the deficit by either $2 trillion or $4 trillion over 10 years (depending on who you ask). You cannot do that with only spending cuts. To cut $4 trillion from the deficit, you'd probably have to cut discretionary spending 75% and basically get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It's ridiculous. As President Obama said, "Everybody else has been willing to move off their maximalist position — they [Republicans] need to do the same."

John Boehner, unsurprisingly, has refused to even think about considering solving the budget crisis by increasing revenue. The main reason that the Republicans are refusing to budge on the budget is because, to them, this is not about actually lowering the debt. This debate is really about accomplishing an ideological goal of theirs to reduce the size of government. They're using the budget crisis as a convenient excuse to act on their ideology. Obviously they do want to reduce budget deficits, but it's more important to them that government's size is slashed- even if this means that we might default on our debt obligations. This is unfair. Even if Republicans think at the bottom of their hearts that America can only be prosperous with a much smaller government, it's extremely wrong and dishonest for them to pretend that they're trying to solve one problem, when really they're focusing on another "problem."

Grover Norquist, probably the most powerful

lobbyist in America

Republican leaders have been able to keep their party members in line in favor of absolutely no tax increases of any kind by pointing to a "no new taxes" pledge that all but 13 Republicans in Congress have signed. The pledge was pioneered by some guy named Grover Norquist, who is the head of the interest group Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist, it turns out, is actually one of the most powerful politicians in the country, because Republicans are deathly scared to violate his no tax pledge. They are so scared of violating this pledge that, for example, Republicans won't even consider ending tax subsidies that they don't support because that is, in effect, a tax hike, which they are sworn to defend against to the death. Let me put this whole situation into perspective for you. One random guy is basically controlling half of our government through a piece of paper. I don't remember ever seeing Grover Norquist on a ballot. Do you?

President Obama made a very good point about what Republicans want in a budget deficit agreement. He said, "if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, if we choose to keep tax breaks for oil and gas companies that are making hundreds of billions of dollars, then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship.  That means we’ve got to stop funding certain grants for medical research.  That means that food safety may be compromised." It seems like to Republicans, it's more important to protect the richest people in the country than to get rid of our budget deficit in a smart, equitable way.

Obviously this country needs to do something to reduce our budget deficit. It is the biggest problem this country faces- more important than the high unemployment rate, in my opinion. But we have to be rational and logical while we try to solve this problem. We have to realize that reducing the budget deficit will require significant budget cuts and tax increases. We have to realize that we will need to do something to make entitlements, especially Medicare, cost less. But we need to do this responsibly. Rather than, for example, privatizing Medicare as Republicans suggest, we could expand on cost-cutting measures that are already included in the recent healthcare reform bill and make them take effect sooner. We have to realize also that reducing the budget deficit will not create jobs as Republicans claim but will actually cost us jobs. It can be tough to accept these hard truths, which is why it seems like many Republicans (and Democrats) prefer to delude themselves and their constituents about what they can get out of a budget reduction deal. But if our politicians really want to do what's best for this country, they have to face the truth and reach an equitable, logical agreement on reducing, and hopefully eliminating, our budget deficit.

In Defense of Graduation Parties

The end of senior year is full of jumbled emotions. It’s a time of hopefulness and optimism mingled with sadness and nostalgia. It’s a time of goodbyes- of coming to terms with the fact that you will never see many of your peers ever again. So in this period of loss and change, what is wrong with having one last get-together with all your friends to celebrate the four years that was your high school existence? Why are many people so opposed to graduation parties?


Many people see those who throw graduation parties as narcissistic (full disclosure, I am one of those people throwing a graduation party). They ask why these people are throwing parties for an event that everyone (well, almost everyone) is experiencing? What is special about these people? Well, honestly, I think the truth is that the people who are throwing graduation parties are just more willing to put in the effort required to organize a party than others. Yes, they are probably more at home being the center of attention than their peers, but this doesn’t mean they’re narcissistic. Or, alternatively, they could have been pushed into throwing a party by their parents. I know that’s basically what happened with me.

I will concede one point to those who argue that graduation parties are a waste of time. It is kind of ridiculous to expect your friends to get you a gift for graduating when they themselves are graduating and aren’t asking for any gifts. But at least from my experience, most grads don’t expect gifts from friends at their parties. I have not brought a gift to a single graduation party I went to and am not expecting gifts from friends at mine. The gifts are expected more from the relatives- who would probably give their niece, nephew, etc. money for graduating even if they weren’t throwing a party. Besides, graduation parties cost money too, and would it make sense to spend a lot of money in the hopes of receiving money?

Rather than being seen as desperate attempts to pay for college tuition, graduation parties should be looked at as a last get-together of all of a graduate’s friends before they all go off to college and head their separate ways. And what’s wrong with that?

Thoughts on the Wizards' New (Ugly) Jersey Design

As I'm sure a lot of you have heard, the Washington Wizards have recently completed a complete redesign of their jerseys and their logo. It seems to me that their are two reactions to the new uniforms- either you love them or you hate them. Well, I, for one, hate them. I honestly don't understand why everyone in the media is so happy with these jerseys. There's no other way to say it: They're just ugly.

To all those nostalgic for the
Bullets' uniforms, I ask, why?

The main praise for these uniforms seems to be that they look similar to the old uniforms of the Washington Bullets. Well, I've got news for these people: the Bullets had really ugly uniforms too (just look at the picture to the right). Besides, these new uniforms will theoretically be used for the next couple of decades, so it shouldn't matter at all how much they look like the old uniforms- because 20 years from now, no one is going to remember the old uniforms. What matters is that the uniforms look good to the new generation of fans that the Wizards hope to attract. Unfortunately, the team failed at this task.

I have two main problems with this uniform. First of all, there's too much going on. The stripe across the middle of the jersey really ruins it. It makes the uniforms look amateurish and screws up the continuity that a good jersey needs. Just look at how much better the uniform would look without the stripe in the middle:

I don't know where this picture comes from, but if these
were the real uniforms they actually wouldn't be half bad.

But even without the stripe, another big problem plagues the Wizards' new jerseys: the ugly red color. The red they chose for the new uniforms just does not look good. Compare the Wizards' ugly, eye-straining red to the much more classy red of the Chicago Bulls and even the Miami Heat. There's really no comparison. Because the red completely dominates the away uniforms but is only an accessory to the home unis, I like the home uniforms a lot better. Regardless, both are pretty ugly.

Even considering how bad the jerseys are, the new logos are even worse. From what I've heard, the main logo will continue to be the weird Wizard-like scribble, just re-colored in a hideous combination of red, white, and blue. Honestly, I don't think an uglier logo could exist.

What were the Wizards thinking
when they made this?

And the secondary logo isn't much better: the generic letters "dc" (my friend thought it said "cic" at first, not a good start), with a random hand extending from the stem of the d, trying to catch a basketball. I know that this is also a shout-out to the old Bullets and their logo, but just because something is retro doesn't make it automatically look good.

Maybe I'll learn to like these uniforms; that's what I'm banking on. But if I'm being honest, what I really hope is that these new jerseys go the way of the alternate gold uniforms the Wizards unveiled a few years ago, and just fade into oblivion (with much better-looking jerseys to replace them).

Why I chose UChicago

An aerial view of the University of Chicago campus

So this is a little overdue, but I wanted to explain why I decided to go to the University of Chicago over Georgetown. In my last blog post I said that I was leaning towards UChicago. But soon after writing that, I changed my mind and started leaning towards Georgetown. The first day back from spring break I had a meeting with my counselor and came away convinced that I was going to go to Georgetown. But the next day, when I was supposed to pay my deposit, I started having second thoughts. I was telling myself the reason I wanted to go to Georgetown was because of its location in Washington D.C. (I'm thinking of majoring in political science), a feeling I had that I'd fit in better with Georgetown students (as I said in my earlier blog post, there are a lot of weird people at UChicago), and the belief that Georgetown and UChicago were pretty academically comparable.

But the more I thought about it, I realized the real reason I wanted to go to Georgetown was because I was scared of UChicago. I was scared that it would be way too much work (the Huffington Post rates it as one of the 10 most grueling colleges), that everyone there would be weird, and that it'd be bitterly cold. As I pontificated (there's an SAT word for you), I realized that I didn't want to choose my college based on abstract fears that may not even be true. I also realized that while Georgetown's location in Washington D.C. might be a deciding factor for most poli sci majors; the fact that I lived in Northern Virginia meant that I could get a poli sci related internship in D.C. pretty easily over the summer.

A conversation I'd had with a family friend who was a senior at Georgetown didn't help either. She said that there were some crappy professors at Georgetown and that "I guess you could have more interaction between students and professors at other colleges." I compared this to the glowing praise for the professors and classes by people I knew who went to UChicago. This helped me realize that UChicago really was a better school academically than Georgetown.

I still wasn't convinced about UChicago, so I decided to call a family friend who lived in Chicago and had graduated from the university about 12 years ago. She really reassured me that I would in fact be able to have fun at UChicago and find plenty of people who weren't weird to hang out with. She said it was a lot of work, but that it would prepare me well for the rest of my life- because life is a lot of work too. Even my BC Calculus teacher, a 2008 UChicago grad who had told me that almost everyone at UChicago was weird, told me that while it's true that the majority of people at UChicago are pretty weird, there are non-weird (what he called "worldly") people who go to the University also. Plus, he's pretty weird himself (this is self-professed), so I feel his perspective is a little bit skewed.

After I made my decision, I knew it was the right one. It just felt right to me- unlike my earlier decision to go to Georgetown. I realize that it's going to be a lot of work and I'm still a little scared, but I'm also excited to be going to one of the best universities in the country and maybe even the world. Soon enough I guess I'll be fully immersed in "the life of the mind."