Mathius wrote:
>
> Errand was a background player in the first book, but he was hardly a
> background player in the second. He even had his own POV's. That makes
him
> a main character right away. Secondly, even if he didn't, he's
constantly
> coming up with things that are necessary to Belgarion's quest. He is
> visited first by Zamandras and the Seer. It's his knowledge of Garion's
> letter that sent Polgara to Riva, without which, the story really
wouldn't
> have gone very far because Geran wouldn't have been born. In fact, if
it
> wasn't for Errand, Belgarath would have still been hunting down trying
to
> find out if the Sardinus and Zamandras were two different people.
There's
> loads of facts to point out that he had unusual abilities that others
> didn't.
Ok, he's not a bit part player in the Mal. But he's still nothing like
Aphrael.
>
> If you want to label them as jobs vs. characters, whatever makes you
sleep
> better. To me it's the same thing. Are they different? Yes, but they
> serve the same basic functions, and are very much alike. If there was
one
> or two characters like this I might say you had an arguement, but
there's a
> LOT of them.
>
> And basically if you want to argue job vs. character, that's irrelevant.
> Either way it's enough to prove my original point, that DE is writing to
> formula, as Aik put it, which basically makes his stories all very much
the
> same. They all move in the same direction, with the same characters, or
> character jobs as you label them, and they have very much the same
results.
I'm not arguing that he doesn't write to a formula - he clearly does.
Nor am I arguing that doesn't sit down within that formula and write
down what archetypes fit the formula. What I'm saying is that those
archetypes that appear across both series (such as the Horse Lord and
the Practical Man, to use the examples we've been discussing) are
seperate *characters* in their own right.
I consider it quite an im****tant point, myself. After all, the main
reason I consider the Bel/Mal and El/Tam good is that the character
interaction is very good and that the characters rise above their
archetypically assigned roles. The main reason I consider tRoA bad is
that the characters don't rise above their archetypes - there is no real
difference between those characters and a lot of the lines could be said
by any of them.
>
> The Bel series was new to us, so we had nothing to compare to. The Mal
> series was specifically noted to be a repeat of events from the Bel
series.
> Belgarath points this out. The meeting between the Child of the Dark
and
> Child of Light has been going on and on and on. There is a repeat of
> events. The Sparhawk series' are very much the same.
>
> A group of characters uses a magical stone, to enhance the main
characters
> power, and defeat a God, with aid from a few Sorcerors and a Godling.
The
> same general description could be used for any one of these series,
except
> maybe the Godling part when applied to the Bel series.
The repeat of events is not to the degree that happens in the Bel/Mal,
although, as you point out, that repetition is deliberate.
I think (and this is only my opinion) that the similarities between the
Bel/Mal and the El/Tam are largely superficial. What you say above is
true, but the method of going from A to B is sufficiently different to
make the series interesting and worthwhile.
The biggest similarity in "feel" between the two sets of series is that
they are all travelogues - they all have a long way to go. The end of
the Tam was pretty much ruined (for me) by the power of Bhellium to
trans****t the characters from one place to another. This plot device
also went a long way to ruining the feel of tRoA.
I think we're arguing to cross purposes, really. My point is that,
whilst DE certainly writes to a formula and the character archetypes are
certainly a major part of that formula, in the first four series at
least the characters rise above their archetypes to become well-realised
people in their own right.
--
Teut
|
