I'm going to attempt to respond to both of you here......
"Mandorallen" <Mandorallen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4pn773-rbi.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 2005-12-14, Lord Kalten <Kalten@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I have always though that the Belgariad was the best series I have ever
>> read. Okay, the first of Eddings books I read was Guardians Of The
West
>> not
>> knowing there was a previous series and got totally confused with
>> references
>> to Old Wolf in passing conversation.
>>
> I can't remember if I read the Elenium first or not, but I know that
GotW
> was
> my first look at the Bel/Mal world. Although that was because teh school
> librarry had the entire Mallorean, but only 2,4 & 5 of the Belgariad.
:-/
>
>> However, I do recall that when The Redemption of Althalus came out.
New
>> readers of Eddings' books liked it a lot more than the original
>> Belgariad/Elenium series.
>>
>> Personally, I thought that with later books, such as Althalus, the
heroes
>> were never in the same tight spots that previous books presented.
>>
>> However, is it really more the fact that older readers simply have read
>> similar Eddings books in addition to having higher expectations. If
all
>> books before Althalus never were published, we'd all be cheering on
>> Eddings
>> at the moment? If all books prior to Althalus came out after the
current
>> books, we'd all be slagging off the Belgariad as being a rehash?
>>
>> Any thoughts?
I think one of the definate pluses of the Belgariad and the Mallorean
series
was definately the length of the two series. Don't get me wrong, I
enjoyed
Althalus and I just finished the Dreamers book 1, but the Sparkhawk and
Garion books definately kept me entertained a lot longer.
As for content though, I don't think it matters to readers which books
they
read first, I think they will come to the same conclusion (whether it be
liking him or not liking him) regardless of how they start reading his
books. I'll elaborate on that a little bit more down below...
> I do thtink that the reason most long-term Eddings readers dislike his
> latest
> works is that it feels like reading a bad copy of his earlier stuff.
From
> what
> I've heard of the new series each *book* is like a bad copy of the last
> one. I
> think if the Bel/Mal or El/Tam were to be released today, rather than
when
> they
> were originally, we'd probably appreciate them as decent fantasy, and be
> saying
> that this is how Althalus et al *should* have been. My main issue with
> Althalus
> in particular (aside from there being no main characters he hadn't used
in
> 2
> other series already), was, as you said earlier, that it was rushed. It
> would
> have been much better as a duology or trilogy, giving him the extra
pages
> needed to invest in the locations & people involved.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I definately enjoy Edding's
books. I want to state that first, clearly. But I will say that I feel
he
is definately a lighter read, and definately lacks diversity in his
writing.
From a sales standpoint, the man is an absolute genious. Not only did he
write the Bel series, which was good, but then he wrote a whole 'nother
series with the story demanding that the events were almost exactly like
the
first series he wrote (Mel). As if that wasn't enough, the man actually
wrote the same book twice. (Belgarath the Sorceror and Polgara the
Sorceress) and managed to sell it to people!
I will also agree that his books all seem to be a copy of each other. I
used to program for a MUD and I would write "zones" which were areas you
could explore. The entire thing was text based. Now some people based
their MUDS on present, some on fantasy, some on modern etc. I used to
maintain that I could make any zone fit any MUD, by leaving the content
the
same, and just changing the genre. Eddings is living proof that this is
possible. The Sparhawk series, the Garion series, even Althalus and the
Dreamers all share the same bulk content.
More obvious is the fact that all his characters are more or less the
same.
They all speak in that bantering, wity tone. I just re-read Domes of
Fire,
and immediately after, read the Dreamers book 1 for the first time. If
you
read a Sparhawk book, and then read Dreamers, you will immediately see
that
almost every line in the book has some wity comeback, and all his
characters
share this. Thinking back, so did the folks with Garion.
Also likewise is that all his characters rely on a godlike force, most of
them specifically ARE gods. Most of his books have involved a small
child.
Btw, I want to meet the six year olds that Eddings hangs out with on a day
to day basis, because they are the most gifted children you'll ever meet
if
they carry on conversations like the six year old examples he gives in his
book... This just from reading about Aphrael trying to be Dianne and
Eleria
from Dreamers....
> The thing that annoyed me the most about the Rivan Codex, was the way
that
> he
> ranted about not liking fantasy, that he felt it was beneath him, and
that
> fantasy readers couldn't handle a "real book". That single passage
> probably
> lost him more readers than the abysmal quality of later work.
I missed that comment. I can't remember if I read the whole Riven Codex.
It's definately been a while since I picked up a copy of it. But the most
striking thing I found in it that solidifies for me that Eddings has no
diversity and has thus far been able to create any new stories or new
characters is that he actually listed in the Riven Codex that there was...
and I forget how he put it, but there was a formula to writing a fantasy
novel. I remember him labelling each character and what their purpose
served.
The man can't really believe that you can't write a fantasy novel without
these?
|
