From: irp@ukc.ac.uk (I.R.Pletcher)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.eddings
Subject: Re: Eddings vs. Tolkien
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:10:10 GMT
Reply-To: irp@ukc.ac.uk (I.R.Pletcher)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

On Tolkein's work

>MINUSES
>most of it is rather flat, I have only read LOTR and the Hobbit [more
>on simmerillian later], there is little or no character development,
>the plot just goes on, and that is about it.
>
>It is a pretty much single plot line story, there are no subplots. sub
>plots are difficult with only about 6 female charachters in the entire
>LOTR B-]

	Why should you need female characters for sub plots. This suggests that
sub plots have to revolve around romances and this is simply not true. In any 
case, there is considerable romance in LOTR, Gimli and Galadriel, Aragorn  and
Arwen (I think I've got the name not quite right) and the Lord of the horse
whose name escapes me at present. (I've not read LOTR for 5+ years.)
>
>he has a single culture. there are no cultural differences between
>geographic areas.
>
This is simply not true IMHO. Gondor is very different from say the Shire.
Indeed contrast the difference between the Rangers (Men of the West) to those
of Gondor, proud and strong. Borromir and Aragorn represent these differences
very well.

>Litterarilly, I didn't find the writing especially good, but then
>again i read it a while ago an dmight be wrong abou that.
>
I think Tolkein's writing is excellent.  His disciptive writing is very
vivid and his character are well developed. It is true that he probably has
fewer characters than Eddings. However, my main criticism of LOTR is that it is
a bit slow paced in places (esp The Two Towers), although nowhere near as slow
or painful to read as Thomas Covenant. Eddings writing on the other hand is 
very poor in terms of style. The language some of the characters use in 
particular really sounds out of place in a fantasy novel, because they tend to 
use modern terminology. E.G in the Malloreon at one point, Ce'Nedra comments
that if Belgarath wasn't over 5,000 years old she'd consider throwing Garion
in favour of him. Throwing Garion ? Surely a master of Fantasy could have 
found a way of phrasing it more in keeping with the setting. This is hardly
an isolated example either.
>
>So, I don't think that Eddings is the master of Fantasy, but perhaps

I agree, Eddings is no master. What he does do well is tell a story. I don't
think he has particularly well rounded characters. Each character has their
own quirks, but the characters are a bit one dimensional, with the possible
exception of Silk, although even there the reader finds out very little about
what Silk is really like, what Silk actually thinks.

What sets the Belgariad apart from things like LOTR and Donaldson is the 
humorous side to the stories. Eddings is not afraid to make fun of his
characters and this does make his books easy to read.

I very much enjoyed Eddings work but there are definately flaws in it. Some
things he does very  well, but he is not the best story teller out there by
a long shot.

Flames if you wish, but expect to be roasted back,

In fun, Ian.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.eddings