You bring up a good point about talent. With chess, math, music, there are objective measures in how "talented" the person is. You can say person X is performin

You bring up a good point about talent. With chess, math, music, there are objective measures in how "talented" the person is. You can say person X is performing above their grade level, or person X is in the top Zth percentile of all competitors in their arena. But what is talent in something more subjective like writing or art? What does it mean to "perform at levels above most adults"? Perhaps the reason you do not see "child prodigies" in these areas is because it is hard to come to any consensus on how to gauge talent here. On your point that he was 19 at the time of publication. Sure you can say he was not a kid when he wrote it, but the act of writing it was not something that just happened over night(and certainly not with a piece of work as long as Eragon). I would still argue that he is a prodigy in the sense that he found success as a writer much earlier than most writers usually do. And perhaps this had little to do with his writing talent. Maybe, maybe not.