Mathius wrote:
>> 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.
:-/
The first two books I read were MG and EEG, and it wasn't until after I
was waiting for KotM to be released that I got around to reading the
beginning of the Bel.
>>
[Various SNIPping throughout]
>
> 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!
Enough changed between the Bel and the Mal to make things interesting.
Whilst the actual events (long quest to recover that which was stolen)
the mix of characters was slightly different, and their roles also
changed somewhat. For example, Garion became far more of a leader in the
Mal. It's quite easy to forget just how downtrodden he is in the earlier
Bel books. Silk's relation****p with Velvet is also a major change in
character from the earlier books, although I've never felt that DE
handled it particularly well.
I thought BtS was probably the best Eddings book I've read (although
I've not read either HH or tL). PtS was good also, as a book, but rather
ruined Polgara herself for me as a character. I'm glad both books were
published - the points of view are very different, and many events in
one aren't covered in the other.
tRC was a bit of a waste of cash, really, although it gave an
interesting insight into the mind of DE.
>
> 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.
The Bel/Mal is a typical fantasy quest story - the interest lies in the
character interaction more than the actual plot itself. The El/Tam
series are far more political. The Tamuli, especially, is not really a
quest-based fantasy. To begin with, certainly, a Seven Samuari-type
group set out into Tamul, but it rapidly changed into a more political
setting, helped in the end with a ridiculous instant-trans****tation
device. It was this same plot device which helped ruin tRoA, imho.
>
> 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.
I can't really comment on the Dreamers books, as I've only read the
first one once and the others not at all, but the character similarities
between the Garion and Sparhawk universes aren't really all that severe.
There is no parallel for Kurik, for example (he's *not* Durnik), or
Hettar going the other way. There are some similar personalities, and
perhaps there's more than you would expect, but most of the comparisons
I've read in the newsgroup over the years I've felt to be unfair.
>
> 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....
There's really very little of this in the Garion universe, as Eriond
really isn't the same child god figure that Aphrael represents.
>
>
> 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?
From what I remember of tRC, he was deliberately writing a particular
style of traditional fantasy story and very specifically *not* a modern
one.
Incidentally, glancing through my rarely-opened and therefore pristine
copy of tRC, I've come across the following line in his Afterward, where
he teaches people how to write:
"Don't wrote down to your readers. Don't do a re-write or Run, Spot,
Run! Belittle your readers and you belittle your work and yourself."
Isn't that pretty much what people have been accusing him of since
Althalus...?
--
Teut
teut@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
