From: ins450m@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (T.F. Eccles)
Subject: Re: Eddings vs. Tolkien
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:56:28 GMT

proct_hately@hg.uleth.ca (Kintair of Hawkehaven MKA Bill Hately) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.161429.202061@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, 
>vhspet01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.173508.202050@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, 
>glngar01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>>> IN MY OPINION,EDDINGS IS THE MASTER OF FANTASY(EVEN BETTER THAN TOLKIEN-A 
>>>SOUTH
>>> AFRICAN BY BIRTH I SHOULD TELL YOU.)
>>
>>Heresy! How can you say this! I do not have the time to discuss this in full,
>>but to even compare Eddings and Tolkien on the same scale is ludicrous. 

I say this - If I see one more fantasy book cover with "As good as Tolkein"
at his best" on it again, I'll scream. Oops sorry abut typo.

Eddings
>>is good, if a bit stilted, light fantasy, whereas Tolkien's is a full
>>subcreation. (By the way, Tolkien's South African connections are minimal to
>>say the least. His writings show no hint of influence)

I didn't even know, so....
>>
>>As for the characters: Well, obviously many of Tolkien's characters are not as
>>human as Eddings', since they aren't human. OK. I hate Elves too, and 
>>believe that Tolkien made a stylistic and thematic error in presenting them
>>as he did, but overall, I, and I believe most of the fantasy reading community,
>>would give the mastership awards to Tolkien, and applaud Eddings as the 
>>writer of a interesting little comic ditty.

Smack thud belt thuuung. The Tolkienien elves were the best representative
of an immortal race that I have ever seen. Well, effectively immortal anyway
Oh,sod. I'll keep talking about this with anyone who wants to mail me, but I gotta go.
 

>Good Day people, I have been quiet for a while, and was rather hoping to see
>smileys at the end of the last post.  Tolkien is acceptable reading, but He
>certainly is by no means "The Master of Fantasy" - He was early, and good, but
>there is a lot out there now that is one hell of a lot better, and much more
>interesting and well developed.  Maybe I feel this way because Tolkien wasn't
>the first Fantasy I ever read, so by the time I got to him everything was old
>hat.  Calling Eddings work light fantasy and Tolkien a full subcreation is
>asinine, Eddings has gone in depth into every one of his nationalities,
>every culture has it's own quirks and customs, even the stock characters are
>slightly rounded.  You don't get that in Tolkien, or half the other Authors
>people have been claiming to be Great.  I'm not saying that DE is the all
>round best Authour I have ever read - I won't say that about any of them,
>however I get sick of people saying how great Tolkien is just because he was
>one of the first fantasy Epic writers. (I won't even go into my opinions of
>Donaldson). Well I'll get off the soap box for now, flame me if you want but
>I'll be damned if I'll listen to such rubbish any more

oops. didn't see this before I followed.
Hmmm. I think Tolkien deserves the "Master of Fantasy" because he was one
of the first (tht I know of) who wrote the ""typical"" fantasy novel....
He didn't steal the name or concept (from what I know) directly 
from another book (Clifford who? :) ) Donaldson sucks more often than not. Flame
away.
 	IMHO Tolkien is high fantasy, Eddings light fantasy. 

why compare. Read and be satisfied.

Eccles