From: steyn@cs.rochester.edu (Gavin Steyn)
Subject: Re: BOOKS BY DAVID EDDINGS
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:57:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.173253.22701@walter.bellcore.com> tedk@jpl.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ted Ko) writes:
>Also, one has to understand the context of the series.  It was written quite a
>while back when so many ideas, styles, plots hadn't been exhausted.  Most
>importantly, I believe an ideal time to read it is in high school maybe as 
>an introduction or starter into the realm of fantasy.

I agree with the second half of this statement.  I read the first few
in high school, and quite enjoyed them.  I think this is more because I
hadn't read the more interesting fantasy at that time, more than any intrinsic
merit in the books (I've tried rereading them to no avail).
  The plot, though, is your basic quest plot.  It's not bad, but not all THAT
interesting.

>Anyway, some points in Eddings favor:

>1) The characters were "solidly" developed with distinct personalities, goals,
>troubles, etc. which made the story more personal than some of the shallow
>stuff you read nowadays.

The characters are interesting for two books.  I did like the interaction
between them.  But they never really change very much (with a couple of
exceptions).  Certainly not as much as they should, given the momentous events
they're involved in.  But it was a nice relief to find characters not
taking life as seriously as I was used to.  (Of course, I've since found
older fantasy that does the same thing better, but you've got to give
Eddings a bit of credit for making it work for a while)

>2) It was (to use a cliche) a real page-turner.  You could sink yourself into
>the story and not leave the world until you realized the book was over.  Again,
>I've read a lot of modern stuff which is a serious struggle to finish.

It is a real page-turner, but when you're done it's as if you hadn't really
spent all that time on the book.  Nothing really stays with you.  Personally,
I find a lot of modern fiction to be page-turners, but I'm a bit weird
that way (I found _Shadow of the Torturer_ to be a page-turner...)

>3) It had a good sense of history and the big picture.  The characters actions
>were of monumental importance and you could feel the years behind the story.

This one I really disagree with.  If anything, it is the opposite feeling that
makes the story at all attractive.  The characters don't take everything
seriously, and so the reader doesn't have to either.

>There's not much else to say.  It's difficult to describe why you enjoy a book
>when if you try to dissect it, it becomes that much less enjoyable.  The 
>Belgariad has gotta have something going for it or it wouldn't be so incredibly
>popular...

I think you can enjoy a book more after dissecting it, since you can spot
resonances you'd otherwise miss.  (Although dissecting _The Belgariad_
would have no point--there aren't really any resonances to miss.)
  As for the popularity thing...well, I hope popularity never gets confused
with quality (otherwise McDonalds serves the best food in the country, and
Danielle Steele writes the best novels).

Gavin Steyn
steyn@cs.rochester.edu
"There are times, Jeeves, when one wonders, 'Do pants really matter?'"


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written