From: ericg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (E. Chris Garrison)
Subject: Re: BOOKS BY DAVID EDDINGS
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:18:40 GMT

In article <10726446.92.711856335@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au> you write:
>>>    Very good.  I find that sums up all the books Mr Eddings has written 
>>>extremely well.  Do you want to comment on the crap he vomits up too?

>>Actually, I found David Eddings' works to be entertaining and
>>interesting, even if they are not masterworks of fiction.  I was
>>particularly fond of the characters and cultures he created in
>>the _Belgariad_ and the _Mallorean_.  
>
>>I think Mr. Eddings is a better craftsman of fantasy than many of 
>>the current authors of the genre, and viewed his series as light
>>fantasy.  
>
>>I realize that you are free to express your opinions, no matter
>>how negative, "Halycon", but please don't squelch other peoples'
>>opinions, either. 
>
>   Pah!  I would have a lot more respect for people's opinions if there was 
>any intelligence in them.  From experience, the people I know reading 

Sir, I understand that you don't like Eddings.  You made that
graphically clear with your first outburst.  

My opinion is not based on what a masterpiece of prose Eddings' books
are:  I don't read fantasy for artful construction any more than I
read the comics for intellectual stimulation.  I read fantasy
for escape.  Eddings provided a comfortable place to hang out,
and sure, a lot of it was merely clever patter, but I found it
enjoyable.  

I don't appreciate your insinuation that I lack intelligence 
because I don't agree with you, either.

>I found two points _really_ annoying about the Belgariad;
> 1.  The characters are written either in a likable or dislikable frame, 
>depending on whether they're heroes or villans respectively.  The reader    
>isn't given a chance to make up their own minds. 

Oh?  What about Zakath in the Mallorean, or Urgit, King of the Murgos?
These are the prime "evil" dudes, yet they turn out to be regular
guys with similar problems to the other nobility in the West.  Is that
clear cut likable or dislikable?  Besides, I believe your statement
holds true for almost *any* fantasy, if you think about it.  Gandalf
was a likeable guy, as were all the Hobbits, Elves and Dwarves.
Saruman, Sauron (though we never meet him), and every last Orc
was unlikable and evil.  Would you call _The_Lord_of_the_Rings_ trite
and shallow because of this?

> 2.  Polgara.  Once I started thinking of her as a villan, every one of her 
>actions take a sour note.  Everything is written to portray her in a good 
>light; all the people consider her to be good and kind and beautiful.  But 
>if you ignore Mr Eddings love affair with her, she becomes spiteful and 
>generally evil.  Case in point; when she 'cure' the blind seeress.  She 
>casually takes away the woman's life and powers, and walks away.  The old 
>hag probably dies a few weeks later from starvation.  

I never liked Polgara either.  She was a fairly worthless character
after the first book or two, and never did anything to endear her
to me.  But then you contradict yourself, you said that good characters
were all likable...  Besides, what about everyone considering Belgarath
to be wise and good, when he really is a drunkard and a liar?  I think
Polgara was considered 'kind and beautiful' by the people in the same
sort of contrast.

>    The other characters are just as bad as this;  I've only singled out one 
>because this is the worst of the lot.

I don't agree.  

By the way, if you hated the series so much, why did you ever finish
all five books?  And if you didn't finish them, what makes you an
authority on how "good" they are?  I still submit that what makes
fantasy "good" is very subjective, and that a work can still be 
interesting even if it is not "intellectual".

Eric



-- 
------
E. Chris Garrison
Technical Support
ericg@ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written