Cristicism of Magic in the Inheritance Cycle

[Barely Breathing Banana]

I see your point but I think that while making the wards (for example, on Roran) Eragon made it so that the wards are feeding off of Roran and not Eragon himself or Saphira, that would be suicide.

Good point on the intent-vs-literal definition though, Eragon meant for Elva to be shielded from harm, yet she became a shield for harm. But if thats the case, and words don't matter as much as intent, then wouldn't that mean people who know the ancient language (example Elves) could potentially be dangerous as their every thought could lead to the accidental use of magic?

Then again, that would go against what happened in book one. If magic is based off of intent and not literal definition, then that messes things up. While being attacked by the Urgul, Eragon shot an arrow, and said 'Brisingr.' He didn't know the definition of this word, or intend on setting the Urgul on fire, but the literal definition took over, and made that word magic, though there were no real intentions behind it.

Overall, the magic aspect of this book is quite confusing in terms of how it works and the basic rules of it. Its definatley not intent or literal definition alone, but a mixture of the two.

Edit: to be honest, i think Paolini just writes what's convinient for him in that instant, without any thought for the cause-and-effect, so when comes a time where he decides to clarify the rules of magic, he has all these scenes contradicting one another, so he picks the whichever seems more 'magical' or something...

Then again, we could always explain it using the old "Magic-has-a-mind-of-it's-own-and-can-do-whatever-the-hell-it-wants-so-back-off-and-quit-digging" excuse, though I personally prefer to take the road less travelled