I stumbled across something on-topic on the Interweb, so I though I
may as well post it here, since we have been a bit starved of on-topic
conversation in recent years.
On another forum someone posted a link to some reviews herely:
http://www.christianfantasy.net/eddings.html
(actually they linked to
the Terry Goodkind page, as there is some amusingly over-the-top
criticism). Out of curiosity, I looked to see what they thought of
David Eddings' works. It does seem slightly incongruous to see them
rate his work as 'dangerous'.
Reading the review, unlike some other similar review websites (such as
the fundamentalist reviews of Hollywood movies site that was widely
mocked on the Internet a while back), they're not too irrational,
although I completely fail to see why the lack of a monotheistic
religion in Eriondia is worth noting even if you are the sort of
person who does believe in such things.
They do, however, have some more arguable points:
"These books are subversive - but only after really extended contact
with them. You are called upon to root for a thief, a drunkard, and a
slew of happy-go-lucky warriors who enjoy killing their enemies.
Little quips of morality are thrown in, anti-serfdom, for example -
but much of that morality is near obsolete from daily Western life,
and therefore is as helpful as rock candy."
It is certainly true that some of our heros are not particularly nice
people - Silk and Belgaraths are murderers, for example, and several
characters are career criminals (Platime, Talen and to some extent
Belgarath and Silk as well, although it was more of a hobby than a
career for them).
I'm not sure I agree that DE was intending to be subversive, and I
think the reviewers are forgetting that the books are set in the
(pseudo-) Middle Ages. Those were often pretty nasty times where the
rule of law was only intermittently enforced. Setting a series in such
a world where some of the characters were nobles, politicians,
military leaders and so on and not have a high pro****tion of them
acting in ways we might consider reprehensible would be unrealistic
and trying to apply too much modern morality to condemn all their
actions would be absurd.
Thoughts?
--
William Marnoch
william@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Film and Book reviews
|
