From: mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: BOOKS BY DAVID EDDINGS
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 00:28:08 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

ericg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (E. Chris Garrison) writes:

> In article <1992Jul26.050219.3184@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> nudd@yoyo.cc.monash
> >: 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.  
> >
> >Forgive me for intruding on your private conversation, but I resent your
> >insinuation that anything in the fantasy genre is nothing more than
> >light reading. How would you explain Rushdie's _Grimus_, or the _Satanic
> >Versus_, for that matter? As for comics not being "intellectual",
> >perhaps you should reads stuff from pioneering authors like Dave Sim, or
> >Neil Gaiman on a good day. How about clearly brilliant work like V for
> >Vendetta? Please don't let your prejudices distort your judgement of
> >what is, and is not, good literature.
> 
> Sorry, that is not what I meant to convey at all.  I was saying that *I*
> look for light reading and entertainment in the fantasy genre.  Fantasy
> does have many classics and is more than light reading.  Though a large
> portion of the fantasy printed these days is very light, consider the
> way Piers Anthony went from innovative to old hat and trite in the space
> of a few years.  Heck, if you want good fantasy, just pick up the
> Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction.
> 
> I was just comparing Eddings to the majority of the genre and explaining
> my motivation in reading him instead of something more weighty. (not
> counting physical size here... :-) )
>  
> >For the record, I did read David Eddings and I even liked the first five
> >book _initially_. In my defence, however, is the fact that I was a mere
> >youth in those days, and as one grows more discerning and reads better
> >literature, one is better able to see the painful shortcomings in the
> >books by Eddings.
> 
> Yeah, I realize the books have lots of flaws, but I enjoyed them anyway.
> They were fun.
> 
> Eric
> 
> -- 
> ------
> E. Chris Garrison			      Computing Services Support Center
> ericg@ucs.indiana.edu			      Indiana University


Does everyone who ever picked up a book by David Eddings feel that they 
should have been greeted with incredible voyages of the imagination and 
unceasing wonderous prose?  One thing that few people have mentioned 
about Eddings is that the stories he writes are primarily composed of 
character and setting, rather than deep plot.  The enjoyment in the books 
is watching the characters interact with each other and explore their own 
world/universe.  The three groups of novels by Eddings are quite simillar 
in terms of plot.  Nobody can deny that.  But does that make them any 
less interesting?  The world that surrounds the characters is different 
(Belgariad/Mallorean VS. Elenuim) and the characters are interesting to 
read about.  This is not to say that he is the best;  Guy Gavriel Kay and 
Robert Jordan fill that niche quite nicely.  Still, Eddings has written 
some very interesting books, if not very original in terms of plot.


<<  ------------------------------------------  >>
<<        mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca          >>
<<  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  >>
<<               Michel Forget                  >>
<<   The Key:  Spirit over mind over matter.    >>
<<  ------------------------------------------  >>

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written