From: ginsu@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Wes Simonds)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.eddings
Subject: Tolkien vs. Eddings (the battle rages on)
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:14:14 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Newsgroups: alt.fan.eddings
Subject: Re: Eddings vs. Tolkien
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup: 
Distribution: 
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Keywords: 

I think it is indeed fair to compare these two authors, but I don't think I 
could come to a simple decision concerning who (if either) is BETTER, simply
because their strengths are in such different areas.

Tolkien was simply unbeatable as an innovator, a linguist and a world-builder.
There was no genre before him; virtually all of modern fantasy derives
from his work.  Furthermore, the structure of his world, in every conceivable
detail historically, economically, socially, mythologically, etc., etc., is
still without peer in (as far as I am aware) any fictional genre in the history
of the world.  Consider that he actually went so far as to write the Silmarill-
ion, which amounts to a sort of Bible, purely in the interest of completing
the universe in which his stories take place.  It is plain to even the
meanest intelligence that this is not the act of someone who is only
telling a long story per se; rather it is an act necessary for the 
rounding out, in religious and mythological terms, the world of the story.
The world for Tolkien ALWAYS comes first, even at the expense of the story.

Eddings, on the other hand, has superior skills where plot and pacing are
concerned.  He has an original history, but it is present only insofar as it
is useful for advancing the plot; the background on the Orb and the Gods is
really only there so that the reader can get through the story without 
having to pause for long and unnatural explanations on the part of 
Belgarath.  It is interesting to observe that even though the Belgariad is 
longer than LOTR, it never fails to keep the reader's attention engaged; this
is accomplished by way of the steady introduction of trivial conflict, which is
not really significant in terms of the whole story but which does keep things
moving at a pretty snappy clip (for example, the Grul conflict going to Ulgo).

Both writers have clear deficiencies.  Tolkien completely loses the reader's 
interest in the last half of Return of the King, for example, because he is
dedicated to completing the history rather than telling the story.  And Eddings
is guilty of a rather formulaic plot-level repetition throughout the 
Belgariad; the pattern is typically that of having the characters enter a new
country, proceed to the capital, discover the minions of Torak at work, and 
kick butt.  Further, of all the countries in the Belgariad, only Ulgoland
and Riva seem to me to be really original; Cherek is plainly drawn from the
Viking North of the Middle Ages, Tolnedra from Rome, Arendia from Arthurian
legends (Mandorallen is really just Lancelot with a prettier face), etc.

Still, in my opinion anyway, these are the two best series in fantasy, and 
any griping I have is trivial in comparison to the pleasure I have received
from reading and rereading them both many times.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.eddings