My synopsis on David Eddings

[Berk]

Bad guys are:

1) Insane
2) Incompetent
3) Drunk

or

4) Just plain outright stupid,

until the good guys came along who:

1) Are the best at the world at what they do
2) Have no faults
3) Always have the solution to every problem

which:

1) Come one at a time so that there is no need to be facing two difficulties at once.

Amazingly enough,

1) The bad guys were well on their way to victory until the good guys showed up.

Add to the fact that

1) The characters have no individual personality
2) The characters never develop
3) It is known who will marry who, who will die, etc. from page one

and you arrive at the sorriest excuse for a series and author I have ever had the bad luck to experience.

Did I also mention that the plot structure is horrifyingly childish? You may think that RJ is long winded (which I do not) and think that he has no idea where he is going (which I do not, as well), but at least there is REALISM in his storyline. I may not always agree with what people say and do, but at least I believe that those people, in those circumstances, might have acted the way they did. With Eddings, I am continuously amazed at some of the ridiculous things people do.

All in all, I loved Eddings the first time I read it when I was 14, then I read RJ and gained a few years. Now I am 25, and Eddings, IMHO, sucks.

[Mike]

Get 'm Berk! Hehe

But on a sidenote, that's pretty clear. I don't know the dude, and now I probable never will. I hate stereotypes, except in a Terminatorlike movie :)

[Elin]

Oh, come on. I know Eddings-bashing is everyone's favorite sport, but we all loved those books when we were younger. We just outgrew them, that's all - they're basically for pretty young readers. Or for light reading if you're older.

I know that if I reread them now, I'll get tired of his jargon and repetitive sense of humor, plus the fact that his later series are almost carbon copies of his earlier ones. But at least in the Belgariad, there is a kind of warmth that made me love those books when I read them first (I must've been about 11-12). And I still sometimes browse them for nostalgia.

[LaughingTurtle]

I know this has nothing to do with Eddings but you know, Mike's little blurb inspired me...I just have to say, the 2 terminator movies totally rocked! God i loved them and i could watch them over and over and over again. I mean Arnold was in his prime then, and with James Cameron as director, they could do no wrong. oh yeah, big guns = big fun!! Power to the killer robots!

[balefire]

Originally posted by Berk
Bad guys are:

1) Insane
2) Incompetent
3) Drunk

or

4) Just plain outright stupid

I believe the above list corresponds to the below:
1.Zalasta, Torak
2.Chamdar/Asharak, Zalasta's cronies
3.Krager
4.Cyrgon, Zedar, Agachak, Adus, Martel & a whole bunch of other fools from the Elenium & Tamuli.

Originally posted by Berk
until the good guys came along who:

1) Are the best at the world at what they do
2) Have no faults
3) Always have the solution to every problem

I don't agree with (1) & (2), & (3) always applies if you don't want the bad guys to win.

Originally posted by Berk
Come one at a time so that there is no need to be facing two difficulties at once.

Amazingly enough, The bad guys were well on their way to victory until the good guys showed up.

That's typical of short series.

Originally posted by Berk
Add to the fact that

1) The characters have no individual personality
2) The characters never develop
3) It is known who will marry who, who will die, etc. from page one

Did I also mention that the plot structure is horrifyingly childish? You may think that RJ is long winded (which I do not) and think that he has no idea where he is going (which I do not, as well), but at least there is REALISM in his storyline. I may not always agree with what people say and do, but at least I believe that those people, in those circumstances, might have acted the way they did. With Eddings, I am continuously amazed at some of the ridiculous things people do.

I don't think the characters have no individual personality, although some of them are quite similar. And the characters can't really develop in such a short span of time, can they? I don't think it's that predictable who will die, although we can pick out a few key people who're guaranteed to live through the story till the end.

Yes, I don't think there's much of a plot. In the Belgariad & Malloreon series it's all about prophecy, so everything is pretty much set already. And of course most of the time the stories go through the same theme eg the red vs blue thing, the fact that the star character kills a god in both Elenium & Tamuli & in Belgariad (duh!)

What is it about the characters' actions that's unrealistic? Care to elaborate on it so we can get this discussion going.....

[balefire]

Originally posted by Elin
Oh, come on. I know Eddings-bashing is everyone's favorite sport, but we all loved those books when we were younger. We just outgrew them, that's all - they're basically for pretty young readers. Or for light reading if you're older.

I know that if I reread them now, I'll get tired of his jargon and repetitive sense of humor, plus the fact that his later series are almost carbon copies of his earlier ones. But at least in the Belgariad, there is a kind of warmth that made me love those books when I read them first (I must've been about 11-12). And I still sometimes browse them for nostalgia.

Yep, his language is pretty predictable. Someone once complained to me that he overused the expression "like a stick sliding into water" for a swordthrust. The style is the same for all his books, but the humour was fun.

The Belgariad is the warmest of the lot, especially the Belgarath the Sorcerer & Polgara the Sorceress books. The good old days are always something to think back on, hmm?

[Berk]

An example, huh? Try this on for size:

Imagine that you are are seeress of Kell.

You have to choose between one of two people.

One is among a group of people who have been your friend for the last three books. They have helped you and been polite to you, etc etc.

The other is a person who has insulted you and made fun of you for as long as you can remember.

Hmmmmm, I wonder which I would choose.

And just the concept of the entire world hanging in the balance of a CHOICE that one person makes likes the flip of a coin just doesnt cut it as a realistic scenario.

[talyn rahl]

I really liked the Belgariad I though it was great and I've re -read it 3 times and would again if i had the time, I know there a bit corny but that what is so good about them, its refreshing to read a book where everything goes okay and no one majorly important ever dies Coz after reading stuff like WOT and sword of truth (Both EXCELENT I have to add) its good to read summat a bit cheerful.
Sorry i started to rant :)

[balefire]

Originally posted by talyn rahl
I really liked the Belgariad I though it was great and I've re -read it 3 times and would again if i had the time

I've re-read the Belgariad & Malloreon countless times, not to mention Belgarath the Sorcerer. Only read Polgara the Sorceress once or twice because it's so hard to get the book off the library.

Originally posted by talyn rahl
I know there a bit corny but that what is so good about them, its refreshing to read a book where everything goes okay and no one majorly important ever dies Coz after reading stuff like WOT and sword of truth (Both EXCELENT I have to add) its good to read summat a bit cheerful.
Sorry i started to rant :)

Never read sword of truth but yes, David Eddings is quite nice because everything turns out well in the end.

[Cypher]

And because there IS an ending, unlike many book series that people read nowadays.

[Milamber]

I liked David Eddings and, while the story lines do seem likere-makes of each other, I really liked the Good vs. Bad stuff. It was very refreshing after something like WoT, with so much grey it gets hard to see anything else after a while...

Milamber

[Jacob]

I consider Eddings to be light reading and it should be taken as such, I think. If you're a "young reader" then Eddings Belgariand etc is probably a good entry point into Fantasy Fiction. One of the Eddings' main flaws as I see it is the repetion. I.e. The Belgariand + The Mallorian, The Elenian + The Tamuli(an?) are all the same stories basically. Bad God, Worse OverGood thingy that we learn of in second series. Blue fistsize rock thingy that's all powerfull. In the first two series we have the steriotyped Alorns, in the the last two we have the seriotyped Elenes...etc. etc. etc. even onto all the characters being the exact same only with different names. I must admitt though, I'm getting abit curious about the latest from the Eddings, that Thief of Athos or some such.

[balefire]

Originally posted by Jacob
I'm getting abit curious about the latest from the Eddings, that Thief of Athos or some such.

Are you referring to The Redemption of Althalus? Unless there's another book I know nothing about?

[Christy Sedai]

yes,Eddings is light reading. I still think his books are great though. After all my son's name is Garion. :D

[talyn rahl]

The redemption of Althalus is actually quite good. i read it dubiously expecting it to be crap coz i read the first Tamuli and left it at that but i really liked and found it to be an enjoyable bit of light reading to fill the time between WH and the new book

[balefire]

Originally posted by talyn rahl
The redemption of Althalus is actually quite good. i read it dubiously expecting it to be crap coz i read the first Tamuli and left it at that but i really liked and found it to be an enjoyable bit of light reading to fill the time between WH and the new book

What's so bad about Domes of Fire? It's kind of boring at 1st because it's the introductory book like The Diamond Throne & Pawn of Prophecy & Guardians of the West & of course, The Eye of the World.

The similarity is that Emmy is very much like Danae; she reverts to Dweia on occasion just as Aphrael sometimes appears in Goddess form. Anyone thinks Andine is the equivalent of Ce'Nedra, except that she's less bitchy than that Dryad wench?

[Knarfling]

I realize that the Mallorean series really hurt the Belgariad. Because everything was pretty much the same and because the story had to follow up on all the hints and statements from the previous series, both stories were seriously crippled.

But look at just the Belgariad. At the time it was written, it was quite refreshing. As for character development, I really thought that there was some decent development. They were as different as they could be while still having the same goals. Plus, the story is told from basically one point of view.

Silk's drive for money, while overblown in the second series, gave enough of a quirk to him to make him interesting. It gave a character flaw to an obviously talented person. Lleldoran went through some changes, although we did not get to see as much of them as I would have liked. His blindness to his surroundings and then his racial hatred and his efforts to overcome them, are examples of character development.

I also disagree with the "characters have no individual personality" bit. While it is true that they have similiar goals and beliefs, they each have a different personality. Being on the same quest tends to overshadow the differences, but they definately had differences. Relg, with his desperate attempt to find meaning in his life by being overly pious, brought a bit of character difference. Hettar's desire to kill anything Angarak, while similiar to Barak's "I will bash anything in my way" and Mandarellan's "I cannot be defeated", was different enough that steps had to be taken when they went to recover the orb. And while Durnik killed his share of Murgos, it was because it was the most practical thing to do at the time, not because he had the same personality as the others.

While I agree that Eddings did over use the same sense of humor in all his books (At least one character in ever book was a smart ass), I will never forget the "trying to fly, last time I saw him" line in book three.

I also dissagree with the "everything the hero does is right" idea. They wasted months in book one looking in all the wrong places while Polgara was telling Belgarath, "I told you so." Belgarath's broken arm and his overextending himself show his own falibility. Even Garion's first concious attempt at sorcery went awry, even though Garath used it to teach him more about the Will and the Word.

I also think that the idea of the Will and the Word, although not unique, was decently developed. Learning to control your mind is one of the hardest things that we can ever do, and having to learn to control your mind in order to use magic was a refreshing idea. We read that much more now than we used to, and I think that Eddings' writing influenced that a little.

I agree that this is a simple series, not in the class of Robert Jordan or Lord of the Rings, but it doesn't pretend to be. I also feel that if the Malorean or some of the other series had not been made, there would be a lot less critisism of Eddings. It was in his later books that we see little or no character growth and a rehash of the same characters, the same jokes and the same story. While telling the same story over and over again makes the story old, telling it the second or third time should not make the first story bad when it was good to begin with.

I will get off my soap box now, but I hate to see a decent story bashed because of what else the author wrote. Again, it is not in the class of LOTR or Wheel of Time, but it doesn't pretend to be. It is a good, simple read, when you want to watch the hero grow up and win instead of grow up and lose a lot just to break even.

Knarfling

[balefire]

Originally posted by Knarfling
I realize that the Mallorean series really hurt the Belgariad. Because everything was pretty much the same and because the story had to follow up on all the hints and statements from the previous series, both stories were seriously crippled.

Well this affects all sequels. Also consider the fact that the Belgariad-Malloreon series has Prophecy at the heart of the whole affair, so a sort of predestination is inevitable. That means only certain things tend to happen, & in a certain way. The Elenium-Tamuli series has less of this problem because nothing is absolutely predetermined.

Originally posted by Knarfling
But look at just the Belgariad. At the time it was written, it was quite refreshing. As for character development, I really thought that there was some decent development. They were as different as they could be while still having the same goals. Plus, the story is told from basically one point of view.

Silk's drive for money, while overblown in the second series, gave enough of a quirk to him to make him interesting. It gave a character flaw to an obviously talented person. Lleldoran went through some changes, although we did not get to see as much of them as I would have liked. His blindness to his surroundings and then his racial hatred and his efforts to overcome them, are examples of character development.

I also disagree with the "characters have no individual personality" bit. While it is true that they have similiar goals and beliefs, they each have a different personality. Being on the same quest tends to overshadow the differences, but they definately had differences. Relg, with his desperate attempt to find meaning in his life by being overly pious, brought a bit of character difference. Hettar's desire to kill anything Angarak, while similiar to Barak's "I will bash anything in my way" and Mandarellan's "I cannot be defeated", was different enough that steps had to be taken when they went to recover the orb. And while Durnik killed his share of Murgos, it was because it was the most practical thing to do at the time, not because he had the same personality as the others.

Yes, they all have their little quirks.

Originally posted by Knarfling
While I agree that Eddings did over use the same sense of humor in all his books (At least one character in ever book was a smart ass), I will never forget the "trying to fly, last time I saw him" line in book three.

Eddings' language was funny at 1st, but after seeing it in both Elenium & Tamuli after already getting it from Belgariad & Malloreon, it wears off.

Originally posted by Knarfling
I also dissagree with the "everything the hero does is right" idea. They wasted months in book one looking in all the wrong places while Polgara was telling Belgarath, "I told you so." Belgarath's broken arm and his overextending himself show his own falibility. Even Garion's first concious attempt at sorcery went awry, even though Garath used it to teach him more about the Will and the Word.

I agree that not everything the hero(s) do(es) is always right. Nobody's perfect, so a perfect character would be unrealistic to the point of childishness.

Originally posted by Knarfling
I also think that the idea of the Will and the Word, although not unique, was decently developed. Learning to control your mind is one of the hardest things that we can ever do, and having to learn to control your mind in order to use magic was a refreshing idea. We read that much more now than we used to, and I think that Eddings' writing influenced that a little.

Oh yes, they also need to keep themselves under control. No matter how furious they get, they must have enough self-restraint not to will something out of existence. BTW, it was Eddings that got me started on the road to fantasy.

Originally posted by Knarfling
I agree that this is a simple series, not in the class of Robert Jordan or Lord of the Rings, but it doesn't pretend to be. I also feel that if the Malorean or some of the other series had not been made, there would be a lot less critisism of Eddings. It was in his later books that we see little or no character growth and a rehash of the same characters, the same jokes and the same story. While telling the same story over and over again makes the story old, telling it the second or third time should not make the first story bad when it was good to begin with.

I will get off my soap box now, but I hate to see a decent story bashed because of what else the author wrote. Again, it is not in the class of LOTR or Wheel of Time, but it doesn't pretend to be. It is a good, simple read, when you want to watch the hero grow up and win instead of grow up and lose a lot just to break even.


Yes, it doesn't have the depth of Wheel of Time, but sometimes I like it more because everything turns out well in the end. Randland stuff can get really dark sometimes. I don't want to bash Eddings either, in fact I liked the idea of the House in The Redemption of Althalus

[talyn rahl]

well Balfire i found it all a bit the same as the Belgariad-mallorean so i just didn't bother :( sorry oh yeah and if you call C'nedra a dryad wench again ill keeeeeeeeel you :)

[balefire]

Originally posted by talyn rahl
if you call C'nedra a dryad wench again ill keeeeeeeeel you :)

Well I think all Dryads are wenches. See how they breed. And their behaviour in general. Burn them all to hell!!

Ce'Nedra is a typical spoilt-brat princess. I always find such people annoying. I can't see why Garion actually likes her & tries his very best to pander to her whims & temper tantrums. I would have tied her to her personal oak tree & set both on fire as with Chamdar.

[Arawis]

hmm.......how do you 'keeeeeeeeel' someone?¿?¿?

[talyn rahl]

furry muff Balefire that ure view.
oh yeah and it meens kill Arawis

[balefire]

Originally posted by talyn rahl
furry muff Balefire that ure view.

I don't get what you're saying. :confused:

[talyn rahl]

furry muff = fair enough :D just a bit of my random word swapedge soooo sorry

[Sorcerian]

Hi, I have read the Belgariad and the Mallorean over 15 times each(i'm 31 at the moment) it is one of my favorite series. They are light reading but they do have deeper meanings as evidenced by Berks missing the entire point of the Seeress' decision and all of the things that lead up to it and why it was not and could not be just a flip of the coin decision but was shaped by all the actions of everything everwhere(chaos theory explained simply). The characters are nicely fleshed out and have small character flaws that are quite endearing instead of being just heroes.

[Vanidar]

Wow, I haven't posted in forever and a day, but it's nice to be back. I reread the Belgariad, Mallorean and Pol/Belgarath while healing from a car accident. While the story holds few surprises of course, it was refreshing for the simple fact that these recurring characters, stereotypes and themes are architypal fantasy. I started reading fantasy for the conquering hero, the spirited beautiful woman, the wise, gruff wizard, etc. While my tastes are more sophisticated now than when I first read the books, and RJ has the depth and subtlety to be at the top of my list, I can appreciate the lighthearted escapism Eddings offers. It may not be for everyone, but there is definately a place for it on my bookshelf.

[balefire]

Originally posted by Sorcerian
They are light reading but they do have deeper meanings as evidenced by Berks missing the entire point of the Seeress' decision and all of the things that lead up to it and why it was not and could not be just a flip of the coin decision but was shaped by all the actions of everything everwhere(chaos theory explained simply).

I don't really see how. She just chose Eriond on a whim right? There was nothing to help tip her decision either way. She already made it clear that she had to choose without regard for her personal feelings towards either Child. If I remember correctly, she said something to the effect that if she had to choose between Garion & Zandramas as opposed to the Light & Dark, she would reject the bitch because "....for in truth, she hath caused me much vexation." Ultimately she wasn't thinking in terms of Eriond & the Grolim witch, but the 2 possible Destinies. That, I'm afraid, is what I find ridiculous. The Dals have become so caught up in the philosophical & metaphysical distinction between Light & Dark that they lost sight of simple good & evil, right & wrong, which is so apparent to us normal people.

[Arawis]

lol, i know what it means tr :rolleyes: i was jma :)

[talyn rahl]

oooh furry muff :D

[Raperd Waellor]

C'mon give poor old Eddings a break. His was the first fantasy book i ever read (not counting "the hobbit" which my mother read to me) and got me into the whole genre. I know the sense of humour is a little tiring at times, but Silk and Barak's idiocy always kept me reading.

I probably wouldn't enjoy it that much if i read it now though, admittedly, it is immature but is good reading for beginners.

BTW: has anyone else noticed the similarities between Moraine and Polgara?

[archely]

Well, this isn't very heartening...

i just picked up book 1 of the belgariad yesterday and read it. I didn't really know who it was intended for, but i think it's definitely intended for beginners. At least i hope so. I felt like i could pretty much tell the whole story after the first 20 pages. Edding's "hints" as to what is going on are painfully obvious. I'm going to finish the series, just because i don't like to leave something unfinished like that, but please tell me there is a twist...somewhere?

I guess i just didn't discover this series early enough. :(

[James]

I know exactly what Berk is talking about, and I find it hilarious :) me and my friend have noticed for a long time that right from the start the bad guys don't stand a chance because the good guys are so omnipotent and seemingly invincible :D brilliant books though

[mindphone]

Originally posted by Berk
Bad guys are:

1) Insane
2) Incompetent
3) Drunk

or

4) Just plain outright stupid,

until the good guys came along who:

1) Are the best at the world at what they do
2) Have no faults
3) Always have the solution to every problem

which:

1) Come one at a time so that there is no need to be facing two difficulties at once.

Amazingly enough,

1) The bad guys were well on their way to victory until the good guys showed up.

Add to the fact that

1) The characters have no individual personality
2) The characters never develop
3) It is known who will marry who, who will die, etc. from page one

and you arrive at the sorriest excuse for a series and author I have ever had the bad luck to experience.

Did I also mention that the plot structure is horrifyingly childish? You may think that RJ is long winded (which I do not) and think that he has no idea where he is going (which I do not, as well), but at least there is REALISM in his storyline. I may not always agree with what people say and do, but at least I believe that those people, in those circumstances, might have acted the way they did. With Eddings, I am continuously amazed at some of the ridiculous things people do.

All in all, I loved Eddings the first time I read it when I was 14, then I read RJ and gained a few years. Now I am 25, and Eddings, IMHO, sucks.

that about sums it up.
david eddings sucks