"Teut" <teut@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:UqaDf.216780$D47.184046@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> 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.
The point I was trying to make here is that while there are some external,
cosmetic, and asthetic differences, there are also a great many striking
similiarities between the characters in both series.
>> 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.
There's always exceptions to every rule. I said I like the books. But
I'm
also willing to admit that while not every character is the same, there
are
enough similarities to discount that the stories are completely original
(not an accusation of plagurism, not an attempt to mix the two worlds,
just
that Eddings seems to have a very singular approach to a fantasy world,
from
what he's shown so far). I think Kurik and Durnik were very much the same
type of character. Both solid and dependable, both practical, both died.
Kurik didn't come back from death, but his son, Khalad, very much took
his
place in the Tamuli, so it wasn't necessary. Hettar bore striking
simliarities to Kring, and I think Kring's warriors wore probably a
bi-product of some ****tion of Eddings mind where Hettar's nomads came
from.
I could go on and on, but it's been a while since I've read both series.
>> 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 really have to disagree. Eriond didn't have much of a role in Bel that
I
remember, but in Mal, he definately knew things and had awarenesses and
powers that the others did not, beginning with his manipulation of Aldur's
Orb. There was also his meeting with.... what was that God's name? UL?
>>
>> 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...?
As I already said, I don't think I even read the whole Riven Codex and if
I
did, it's been years and I wasn't impressed, but traditional vs. modern or
not, as an author, you don't set down a formula for writing a book. That
stiffles creativity and originality. Every story has been done in the
history of mankind, every event you can come up with is influenced by
something you read, or did in your own life, unless you grew up in a cave,
but there's a difference in what I'm trying to say. The man's work is too
simliar and I think his approach is just plain wrong from what I've read
from him and about him.
|
