Belgarion vs Rand ?
Michael D. Steeves
=
= { Munched Belgarion v. Rand discussion.... }
=
= Ideas?
Hmmm.... Perhaps if we (ObTimmy) balefire Belgarion hard enough and
long enough, we can remove David Eddings from the Pattern....
= Pardon a newbie if this subject has been beaten into the ground
= before. :)
Maybe if you're nice and ask Santa. M'self, I don' work for *that*
Clause. I work for the Evil Santa, so anything ya get from my end
will probably stuff your stocking but good....
(Please don't take it personally. I've just had a bad Yule Season,
as I have spent most of the season roaming the malls like a
half-crazed elf, muttering to myself as I tried to find anything
that resembled a Christmas present. Nothing personal, you understand.)
= Happy Holidays!
No. You can't make me.
Thpppllllt!
= "If the monkeys from which we descended had known one day politicians
= would come out of the gene pool, they would have climbed back up the
= tree and written evolution off as a bad idea." Capt. John Sheridan
Oh goody! Politician bashing is almost as much fun as lawyer bashing.
Lemme try....
That is the problem with this rich and anguished generation. Somewhere
a long time ago they fell in love with the idea that politicians---even
the slickest and brightest presidential candidates---were real heroes
and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly
dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children.
-- HUNTER S. THOMPSON
-- _Generation of Swine_
-darkelf
--
Death before dishonor / Drugs before lunch
-Aspen Gun and Drug Club
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.uml.edu/~msteeves | mste...@cs.uml.edu
C D Skogsberg
mste...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Michael D. Steeves) printed thus:
>m...@lpassd.com (Mike ) wrote:
>=
>= { Munched Belgarion v. Rand discussion.... }
>=
>= Ideas?
>Hmmm.... Perhaps if we (ObTimmy) balefire Belgarion hard enough and
>long enough, we can remove David Eddings from the Pattern....
Hear, hear! Of couse, the first fantasy book[1] I read was Eddings
(only half a page, I swear; and I didn't inhale!), but who cares.
>= Pardon a newbie if this subject has been beaten into the ground
>= before. :)
Staked through the heart, beheaded with a silver sword, had it's mouth
filled with garlic and sewn shut, and burned the two parts separately,
scattering the ashes at the four corners of the Earth[2].
>Maybe if you're nice and ask Santa. M'self, I don' work for *that*
>Clause. I work for the Evil Santa, so anything ya get from my end
>will probably stuff your stocking but good....
Like a Gholam?
>(Please don't take it personally. I've just had a bad Yule Season,
> as I have spent most of the season roaming the malls like a
> half-crazed elf, muttering to myself as I tried to find anything
> that resembled a Christmas present. Nothing personal, you understand.)
Books are Good. As are gift certificates for records.
>= Happy Holidays!
>No. You can't make me.
>Thpppllllt!
We haff ways of making jo enjoj Kristmass, jess?
>= "If the monkeys from which we descended had known one day politicians
>= would come out of the gene pool, they would have climbed back up the
>= tree and written evolution off as a bad idea." Capt. John Sheridan
>Oh goody! Politician bashing is almost as much fun as lawyer bashing.
>Lemme try....
Oi! Flavio is our friend. You wouldn't want him to...SUE you...would
you?
Okay, I lied. You probably would.
>That is the problem with this rich and anguished generation. Somewhere
>a long time ago they fell in love with the idea that politicians---even
>the slickest and brightest presidential candidates---were real heroes
>and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly
>dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children.
> -- HUNTER S. THOMPSON
> -- _Generation of Swine_
"A politician is someone who has forgotten what happened yesterday and
doesn't care about what happens tomorrow."
Future bashing is fun too: "The future is like a baboon's ass: lots of
colors and full of shit." -A. Anka
cd
[1]: In English, that is.
[2]: I *know* that it's roun^H^H^H^Hspherical, but it's a nice
phrasing.
--
\\\\\ |Hedgehog Freedom |And All Shall|Bringing Free-
\\\\\\\__o |Front Spokeshuman|Fall Down In |dom to the
__\\\\\\\'/____|CD Skogsberg |Worship of |Common Hedge-
Don't Bugger Me|c...@alfakonsult.se|Jimmy Brokaw |hog since 1995
Vidgame528
would stand there trying to figure out which of the Garions surrounding
him is real, and how to zap him. Add Covenant, and he would look around
for someone to never mind.
Charles Barkley vs. Rand would be interesting. <laughs> Any bets?
-------------------------------------------------------------
...
Terry Butler
Belgarion is much more powerful, and a whole heck of a lot cooler. Rand
can't control his powers, while Garion is a master, being taught by
Belgarath himself. Also there is now no one who will teach Rand. Belgarion
would destroy Rand without even breaking a sweat.
Joseph Butler
michael bruce
>
-Belgarion vs. Rand..hmm. No contest. Belgarion would kill Rand easily.
-Belgarion is much more powerful, and a whole heck of a lot cooler. Rand
-can't control his powers, while Garion is a master, being taught by
-Belgarath himself. Also there is now no one who will teach Rand. Belgarion
-would destroy Rand without even breaking a sweat.
Is that before or after Rand balefired him? This is a rather stupid
discussion, because their powers are entirely different. "Who would win, Pug
or Belgarath?". It is fairly useless to discuss, and you can never be proven
right. Plus Jordan's writing blows Eddings out of the water, but that is an
entirely different matter (I find it demeaning to Rand that he is compared with
a second rate character). Have a nice day.
--
mab
br...@infinet.com
http://www.infinet.com
Marc Gilbert
>From: Terry Butler <tbu...@airmail.net>
>Subject: Re: Belgarion vs Rand ?
>Date: 30 Dec 1995 20:43:04 GMT
Who cares.
Jimmy Mardell
: Belgarion vs. Rand..hmm. No contest. Belgarion would kill Rand easily.
: Belgarion is much more powerful, and a whole heck of a lot cooler. Rand
: can't control his powers, while Garion is a master, being taught by
: Belgarath himself. Also there is now no one who will teach Rand. Belgarion
: would destroy Rand without even breaking a sweat.
: Joseph Butler
I don't agree. I think it takes much longer time to gather ones will
compared to reaching the OP. Belgarion would be balefired before he even
knew it.
//Jimmy
Terry Butler
>
>Besides the fact that the two characters are not likely to try to destroy
>each other without expanding their knowledge first, Rand will only kill
>someone who is trying to stop him from attending the final battle.
>Belgarion is a shallow character who releys on his friends support ( and
>all his friends are in conveniently high places). All the successfull
>plans in Eddings books are a group plan or come from other characters. A
>one-on-one against Rand (however improbable a contest would occur) would
>be one-sided in Rand's favour as a) he has killed many people in many
>different ways; b) He has direction, and experience of thinking for himself.
>
>In general Eddings books allways end very conveniently for the good guys.
>In fact, very conveniently all the way through. Always fighting stupid
>enemies, and having landslide wins. BORING!
>
>Jordan's battles and sub-surface politics is much more gripping and
>believable.
>
>Enough already - Rand Wins!
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>< Damian Wheeler <glas...@adelaide.DIALix.oz.au> >
>< Beware of programmers with >
>< screwdrivers in their hands! >
> =====================================================
>
Edding's books are much better than Jordan's in character development and
Belgarion is Not shallow. The characters in those series I have to grown
to regard them as my second family. Also, Belgarion could use The Orb to
wipe Rand out in less than a nano-second.
Terry Butler
>In article <4c488o$s...@news-f.iadfw.net>, tbu...@airmail.net says...
>>
>-Belgarion is much more powerful, and a whole heck of a lot cooler. Rand
>-can't control his powers, while Garion is a master, being taught by
>-Belgarath himself. Also there is now no one who will teach Rand. Belgarion
>-would destroy Rand without even breaking a sweat.
>Is that before or after Rand balefired him? This is a rather stupid
>discussion, because their powers are entirely different. "Who would win, Pug
>or Belgarath?". It is fairly useless to discuss, and you can never be proven
>right. Plus Jordan's writing blows Eddings out of the water, but that is an
>entirely different matter (I find it demeaning to Rand that he is compared with
>a second rate character). Have a nice day.
>
>--
>mab
>br...@infinet.com
>http://www.infinet.com
>
Eddings'writing is equal with Jordan's in all ways but one. Edding's
character development is far superior to Jordan's. Also Belgarion and Rand
are pretty much equal in power and position, except that Belgarion can use
his power much faster than Rand.
Terry Butler
>>>snip<<
>
>>In general Eddings books allways end very conveniently for the good
>guys.
>>In fact, very conveniently all the way through. Always fighting stupid
>
>>enemies, and having landslide wins. BORING!
>>
>
>>
>Okay, I admit that I haven't read Jordan's books all the way through,
>since they bore me to tears. I don't care about the Rand vs. Belgarion
>debate. However, about the fact that the good guys 'conveniently'
>win--that's what fantasy novels are about, the last time I checked.
>They are there to help escape from reality, that's why they are
>'fantasy.' Sometimes it's nice to see 'the good guys' triumph over 'the
>bad guys' by a huge margin, which is probably why Eddings books are as
>popular as they are, not to mention books by other fantasy authors.
>
>I don't know if this made much sense---
>--Megan
>
>
Thank you for someone finally agreeing with me. Fantasy novels are an
escape from the real world. If the only thing we had to escape to was
something where everything was so close that evil could win almost
instantly, then we wouldn't need to escape from reality, because that's
mostly the way it is in this world. Were it not for the fact that Jesus
Christ died for us, then this world would be totally that way.
Terry Butler
>: Belgarion is much more powerful, and a whole heck of a lot cooler. Rand
>: can't control his powers, while Garion is a master, being taught by
>: Belgarath himself. Also there is now no one who will teach Rand. Belgarion
>: would destroy Rand without even breaking a sweat.
>: Joseph Butler
>
>I don't agree. I think it takes much longer time to gather ones will
>compared to reaching the OP. Belgarion would be balefired before he even
>knew it.
>
> //Jimmy
>
To gather ones will is far easier than gather the OP. First off, Belgarion
would not have to worry about the taint. All Garion would have to do is
quickly gather his will, which would take less that a second, and speak
the word causing Rand to drop dead on the spot. Rand would take longer to
reach the OP, at leat a second and a half, because of the taint, and
stuff, so he would be dead before he knew what happened. Besides,
Belgarion is the type of person who wouldn't fight another good guy that
way unless it were a life or death situation or a lot of lives were at
stake.
- Mat Cauthon
Damian Wheeler
> In article <4c488o$s...@news-f.iadfw.net> Terry Butler <tbu...@airmail.net> writes:
> >From: Terry Butler <tbu...@airmail.net>
> >Subject: Re: Belgarion vs Rand ?
> >Date: 30 Dec 1995 20:43:04 GMT
>
> Who cares.
>
Thanks for the deep contribution.
Besides the fact that the two characters are not likely to try to destroy
each other without expanding their knowledge first, Rand will only kill
someone who is trying to stop him from attending the final battle.
Belgarion is a shallow character who releys on his friends support ( and
all his friends are in conveniently high places). All the successfull
plans in Eddings books are a group plan or come from other characters. A
one-on-one against Rand (however improbable a contest would occur) would
be one-sided in Rand's favour as a) he has killed many people in many
different ways; b) He has direction, and experience of thinking for himself.
In general Eddings books allways end very conveniently for the good guys.
In fact, very conveniently all the way through. Always fighting stupid
enemies, and having landslide wins. BORING!
Jordan's battles and sub-surface politics is much more gripping and
Jeff Schreiber
>In general Eddings books allways end very conveniently for the good
guys.
>In fact, very conveniently all the way through. Always fighting stupid
>enemies, and having landslide wins. BORING!
>
Greg Shaffer
This debate, between Jordan and Eddings, has got to be one of the
shallowest debates I have ever encountered in my life.
Of course there are going to be people who like both series. I've read
all through Eddings' books, and am just starting on the Jordan series. (I
haven't had much time to read lately.) But I'm far enough to get a general
idea about how the series is written.
Jordan's books are probably the closest to the definition of "epic
fantasy" whereas Eddings' are a little different. Jordan's world is more
complex and realistic, and the characters encounter much more realistic
enemies...etc... But in reading through Jordan's books, I haven't laughed
once, whereas I thought Eddings' books were hilarious. Eddings' books are
based more on the "around the campfire" type of reading, basing it more on
the interaction between the characters rather than on the struggle of good
vrs. evil.
I like both series, however, depending on what mood I'm in...it's probably
that way for a lot of people, other than those who narrow-mindedly state
whether one author is better than another. I'll form my opinions once I
read through Jordan's books (based on the looks of them, it could take a
while), but I'll keep them to myself.
Also, as a final word, in terms of complexity and realism, if you don't
think that Eddings can pull this off, even in part, read the Elenium. I
thought that this was the best of Eddings' four series. The villians are
much more complex and the plot is more involved.
Greg Shaffer
Ian Watkinson
>>> >Subject: Re: Belgarion vs Rand ?
Hey lets drag this on a bit more !!
Who would win Rand vs Alien vs Predator vs Terminator vs Belgarion vs
.. Get the point ?? Get a life it doesnt really matter they are two
characters from different pantheons.
Ian Watkinson
ia...@dial.pipex.com
Windows NT error 30147 Computer Hardware not present re-load
Gallus
American beer Vs. Euro Beer?
Appples Vs. Oranges?
Lictalon
jlau...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au says...
>
>In article <4c74hh$g...@news-f.iadfw.net>, Terry Butler
><tbu...@airmail.net> wrote:
>snip<
>PLEASE let this be a troll. I hope no-one is dumb enough to believe
>that. For a start, the words "character development" and "David Eddings"
>are mutually exclusive. Second, no-one who had read the Wheel of Time
>would believe that Jordan's character development is anything short of
>fantastic. For example, Rand starts out as a naive farmboy who gradually
>develops into an arrogant SOB and is slowly going mad as well. In David
>Eddings, lets see, Garion starts out as a naive farmboy who needs advice
>from half a dozen people before he knows how to tie his shoelaces. He
>finishes at the end of the Belgariad (and, for that matter, at the end of
>the Mallorean) as a naive, inept, sorcerer-king who needs advice from half
>a dozen people before he knows how to tie his shoelaces. Changing
>circumstances do not make for character development.
No character development? Please. Garion will always ask for advice, but thats
because he's surrounded by people who are several thousands years old. In the same
vein, wouldn't *you* ask for advice? Just because he asks for advice does not mean
he's a whining, sniveling, know nothing as you seem to imply. He grows up during the
series, and in a way that is believable. You don't *have* to completely alter your
personality to show developement of character, there are more subtle ways of doing
that.
>
>And on the question of Belgarion vs. Rand, an earlier post says it all:
>To paraphrase Moiraine, "Not even Belgarion can stand up to balefire".
I've commented on this already. Whoever originally brought it up should be
balefired/buried in the earth curtesy of Belgarath. 'nuff said.
>--
-- Death is the best part of life. That's why they save it for last.
Doom on you.| The universe is full of surprises. Most of them nasty.
How did I get here? I knew I should have taken that left at Albiqurque...
Q:Whats the Chtorran word for New York?
A: Lunch
Jazza
> Eddings'writing is equal with Jordan's in all ways but one. Edding's
> character development is far superior to Jordan's. Also Belgarion and Rand
> are pretty much equal in power and position, except that Belgarion can use
> his power much faster than Rand.
PLEASE let this be a troll. I hope no-one is dumb enough to believe
that. For a start, the words "character development" and "David Eddings"
are mutually exclusive. Second, no-one who had read the Wheel of Time
would believe that Jordan's character development is anything short of
fantastic. For example, Rand starts out as a naive farmboy who gradually
develops into an arrogant SOB and is slowly going mad as well. In David
Eddings, lets see, Garion starts out as a naive farmboy who needs advice
from half a dozen people before he knows how to tie his shoelaces. He
finishes at the end of the Belgariad (and, for that matter, at the end of
the Mallorean) as a naive, inept, sorcerer-king who needs advice from half
a dozen people before he knows how to tie his shoelaces. Changing
circumstances do not make for character development.
And on the question of Belgarion vs. Rand, an earlier post says it all:
To paraphrase Moiraine, "Not even Belgarion can stand up to balefire".
--
It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful to miss it. - Mark Twain
Jazza
<tbu...@airmail.net> wrote:
> To gather ones will is far easier than gather the OP. First off, Belgarion
> would not have to worry about the taint. All Garion would have to do is
> quickly gather his will, which would take less that a second, and speak
> the word causing Rand to drop dead on the spot. Rand would take longer to
> reach the OP, at leat a second and a half, because of the taint, and
> stuff, so he would be dead before he knew what happened. Besides,
> Belgarion is the type of person who wouldn't fight another good guy that
> way unless it were a life or death situation or a lot of lives were at
> stake.
Have you even read any of the books of the Wheel of Time? If you want to
know how long it takes to wield balefire, read the confrontation between
Rahvin and Rand at the end of The Fires of Heaven. Garion would be dead
before he could ask Belgarath "What should I do now, grandfather?"
Dan Hirpara
: >>snip<<
That's what _Eddings_ fantasy novels are about. Not every
fantasy story has to have the good guys conveniently win.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of stories (and if
you read the WoT seriously you would see this), where
winning might very will mean some pretty big sacrifices,
and the main characters might not even survive the end.
What sacrifices did Belgarion have to make for his power?
What did he lose? What was the impetus for him growing as
a character?
--
-----------------------------------
da...@gordian.com | "Inconceivable!"
http://www.gordian.com/users/danh
Lictalon
jlau...@extro.ucc.su.oz.auu says...>snip<
>
>Have you even read any of the books of the Wheel of Time? If you want to
>know how long it takes to wield balefire, read the confrontation between
>Rahvin and Rand at the end of The Fires of Heaven. Garion would be dead
>before he could ask Belgarath "What should I do now, grandfather?"
never fight. They couldn't even meet. If they do meet, Rand wouldn't payany attention
to Garion, he'd prefer Belgarath as the older, more experianced sorcerer. If they did
fight, whoever got the advantage of surprise would win. If it was a ritualistic duel, they
would tie in speed and probably spend four or five years struggling to gain the upper
hand, destroying planets as they did so. I tend to think if Garion had the orb, he'd over
power Rand by shear force, but who can tell?
--
Death is the best part of life. That's why they save it for last.
Doom on you.| The universe is full of surprises. Most of them nasty.
Lictalon
>Greg Shaffer
>
>
--
Death is the best part of life. That's why they save it for last.
Doom on you.| The universe is full of surprises. Most of them nasty.
Wait a minute, this isn't Pismal Beach... I knew I should have taken that left at
Shawn Chung
(Jimmy Mardell) wrote:
> Terry Butler (tbu...@airmail.net) wrote:
> : Belgarion vs. Rand..hmm. No contest. Belgarion would kill Rand easily.
> : Belgarion is much more powerful, and a whole heck of a lot cooler. Rand
> : can't control his powers, while Garion is a master, being taught by
> : Belgarath himself. Also there is now no one who will teach Rand. Belgarion
> : would destroy Rand without even breaking a sweat.
>
> : Joseph Butler
>
> I don't agree. I think it takes much longer time to gather ones will
> compared to reaching the OP. Belgarion would be balefired before he even
> knew it.
>
> //Jimmy
Since everyone seems so interested in this thread, why don't I start a new one?
Which is more powerful?
The Sword of Tear, Callandor, or the Sword of the Rivan King?
My money's on the Sword of the Rivan King (with Aldur's Orb attached, of
course).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Chung "We are all children,
ech...@alpha1.curtin.edu.au the only difference is
School of Social Sciences the toys."
Curtin University of Technology - Ayrton Senna de Silva -
Perth, Western Australia RIP 1994
SPARKY
>
> br...@infinet.com (michael bruce) wrote:
> >In article <4c488o$s...@news-f.iadfw.net>, tbu...@airmail.net says...
> >>
> >-Belgarion is much more powerful, and a whole heck of a lot cooler. Rand
> >-can't control his powers, while Garion is a master, being taught by
> >-Belgarath himself. Also there is now no one who will teach Rand. Belgarion
> >-would destroy Rand without even breaking a sweat.
> >
> >Is that before or after Rand balefired him? This is a rather stupid
> >discussion, because their powers are entirely different. "Who would win, Pug
> >or Belgarath?". It is fairly useless to discuss, and you can never be proven
> >right. Plus Jordan's writing blows Eddings out of the water, but that is an
> >entirely different matter (I find it demeaning to Rand that he is compared with
> >a second rate character). Have a nice day.
> >
> >--
> >mab
> >br...@infinet.com
> >http://www.infinet.com
> >
>
> character development is far superior to Jordan's. Also Belgarion and Rand
> are pretty much equal in power and position, except that Belgarion can use
> his power much faster than Rand.
I agree, although Jordan's story is far more compelling (could
the Mallorean be any more predictable?), the character's are far
better developed. Outside of Rand, Perrin, and Mat (I'm
currently on the 4th book in WoT), there are a few nice
supporting characters (Thom, Min, and Lanfear (who gives me the
creeps)) But they pale in comparison to the likes of Beldin,
Zakath, Talen and the lot.
I believe the correct way to summarize the two would be to say
that Jordan has a compelling story(I can never seem to put the
damn books down) with good and believable characters, Eddings
produces compelling characters(I can never seem to put tha damn
books down) in good stories. Did anyone's heart not skip a beat
when we all thought Polgara's powers were gone? Or think for a
brief moment Belgarath would go off with Poledra at the end of
the Mallorean?
That's all I have to say about that, kids.
SPARKY
I guess I just want to take the time to ask that if you don't
enjoy a thread, don't follow it. I don't think that's what
Gallus means here, but all the same, let those who wish to
contemplate these things do so.
SPARKY
> : Belgarion is much more powerful, and a whole heck of a lot cooler. Rand
> : can't control his powers, while Garion is a master, being taught by
> : Belgarath himself. Also there is now no one who will teach Rand. Belgarion
> : would destroy Rand without even breaking a sweat.
>
> : Joseph Butler
>
> I don't agree. I think it takes much longer time to gather ones will
> compared to reaching the OP. Belgarion would be balefired before he even
> knew it.
>
> //Jimmy
O.K. let's talk 'home field advantage'. Is the a source for
Rand to draw on the one power in the world of Belgarion? If
not, oops, Belgarion hacks him. On a world where they have no
powers (ie. mano a mano), Garion wins ONLY if the Orb is still
active, I think one hack from his sword would more than
compensate for Rand's superior swordsmanship, if the Orb is dead
weight, then Rand wins quickly. On the world of Rand, even with
the Will, Garion is in for a major world of hurt.
As a side note, I guess I want to take a moment again to defend
Eddings. Just because a character doesn't change throughout a
story doesn't make that character 'less developed' or less of an
asset to the story. Let's face it, Rand whines, too, I'm on
Book 4 right now, and he does little else but bitch about the
Aes Sedai and run away from them like a spoiled child.
On the subject, Eddings' Belgarion is a different person from
day one, he's been raised without a father (opposite of Rand)
by Polgara, so he's a more sensible about things like asking for
advice that we men tend not to do. If you really need a
'developed' character, take Talen from the Sparhawk series, or
Durnink or Zakath. I think that the fact that Garion HASN'T
changed with his greater powers makes him a stronger person than
Rand. Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE fan of Jordan and find
the Wheel of Time a far better plotline than the Mallorean, but
for characters we can identify with, I'd choose Eddings.
Talk about an ongoing issue here! All responses are welcome, I
by no means suggest that MHO is any more insighful than any
others.
Mark A. Jamison
the ridiculous arguement of who would win between Rand and
Belgarion..
It has since degenerated into Eddings' fans telling how much
bettter Eddings is at character development than Jordan is
and visa versa..
So what I would like to know is how does one go about
defining Character Development??
I mean if we don't define the basis of what is being
discussed, how can we discuss intelligently..
Depending on your definition Edding is either
Masterfull at Character development, or awfull..
Jordan is Journeyman in just about any way you define it..
So lets here you definition of Character development..
And who you like as an author who does good Character Development..
In all fairness I'll go first..
Character Development - A means by which the Author shows a character Changing in
some tangible way with regards to his/her maturity.. A good example is a boy/girl slowly
accepting responsibilities and changing to the point where we could accept them as
being a man/woman..
Authors Good at this:
Robert Jordan
Raymond Feist
Tad Williams
Janny Wurts
I just don't see Character development in Eddings' work.. His characters seem to be the same
all the time.. You may learn new things about his characters, but they never change..
I mean Mat Cauthon has shown more Character development than any of Eddings characters,
IMO (based of course on my definition)..
Jazza
<fkow...@stmi.scitek.com> wrote:
> Terry Butler wrote:
> > Eddings'writing is equal with Jordan's in all ways but one. Edding's
> > character development is far superior to Jordan's. Also Belgarion and Rand
> > are pretty much equal in power and position, except that Belgarion can use
> > his power much faster than Rand.
>
> I agree, although Jordan's story is far more compelling (could
> the Mallorean be any more predictable?), the character's are far
> better developed. Outside of Rand, Perrin, and Mat (I'm
> currently on the 4th book in WoT), there are a few nice
> supporting characters (Thom, Min, and Lanfear (who gives me the
> creeps)) But they pale in comparison to the likes of Beldin,
> Zakath, Talen and the lot.
> I believe the correct way to summarize the two would be to say
> that Jordan has a compelling story(I can never seem to put the
> damn books down) with good and believable characters, Eddings
> produces compelling characters(I can never seem to put tha damn
> books down) in good stories. Did anyone's heart not skip a beat
> when we all thought Polgara's powers were gone?
No.
> Or think for a
> brief moment Belgarath would go off with Poledra at the end of
> the Mallorean?
No.
The Belgariad was a short story in five volumes and the Mallorean was
exactly the same short story in another five volumes. The man even
admitted in the book that he was just rewriting the events of the old
book! And in the Elenium, theres something awfully familiar about a group
of people going after a blue stone and helped by an immortal witch who
drinks tea...
Eric Truong
SPARKY <fkow...@stmi.scitek.com> wrote:
>Jimmy Mardell wrote:
>>
>> Terry Butler (tbu...@airmail.net) wrote:
[Munched]
>As a side note, I guess I want to take a moment again to defend
>Eddings. Just because a character doesn't change throughout a
>story doesn't make that character 'less developed' or less of an
>asset to the story. Let's face it, Rand whines, too, I'm on
>Book 4 right now, and he does little else but bitch about the
>Aes Sedai and run away from them like a spoiled child.
Then you would need to continue reading to get off the mode of complaining
about Rand's action. You see, Rand doesn't whine and run away from them.
He does what he has to do. He even accepts the fact that he's probably
gonna go mad. Or that he'll most likely die. Why does he bitch about
Aes Sedai? For one thing, they would probably gentle him if they capture
him. So how could he trust them? Even if they don't gentle him, they
would want to control him. How would you like to be in a situation like
that? As for why he's done what he's done so far, you need to read on.
As for relating to the characters, I can't find myself relating to Edding's
characters because they're not as 3 dimensional as Jordan's. I can
relate to Perrin.
o-----------------------------------------o-----------------------------------o
| Eric Truong | "One day I dreamt I was a butter- |
| Electrical Engineering/Computer Science | fly. When I woke up, I no longer |
| University of California, at Berkeley | knew if I was a man dreaming I |
| er...@cory.eecs.berkeley.edu | was a butterfly or a butterfly |
| Heja Sverige!!! Heja Tre Kronor!!! | dreaming I was a man." - Buddhist |
o-----------------------------------------o-----------------------------------o
Eric Truong
Terry Butler <tbu...@airmail.net> wrote:
>br...@infinet.com (michael bruce) wrote:
>>In article <4c488o$s...@news-f.iadfw.net>, tbu...@airmail.net says...
[Rest munched]
> Eddings'writing is equal with Jordan's in all ways but one. Edding's
>character development is far superior to Jordan's. Also Belgarion and Rand
>are pretty much equal in power and position, except that Belgarion can use
>his power much faster than Rand.
Either you are reading other books, or you don't understand what character
development is. Or are you actually being sarcastic? Jordan is by far
the BEST author in character development. I would say about 75% of Jordan's
books is about character development. On the other hand, I see no character
development in Belgariad. As for Rand vs. Belgarion, I agree with the
previous poster. Rand would wipe Belgarion out of existence with balefire.
Lictalon
ech...@alpha1.curtin.edu.au· says...
>snip<
>
>Since everyone seems so interested in this thread, why don't I start a new one?
>
>Which is more powerful?
>
>The Sword of Tear, Callandor, or the Sword of the Rivan King?
>My money's on the Sword of the Rivan King (with Aldur's Orb attached, of
>course).
Are you insane? :) (That was a joke) The first thread was horrible...But at least we won't
have the stupid "Edding's characters never change" and "Jordan's characters change
too much" stuff going on.
>snip<
This message brought to you courtesy of Trooper Osirus, who Rides a Pale Horse
in service to the Doberman Empire!
Death is the best part of life. That's why they save it for last.
Doom on you.| The universe is full of surprises. Most of them nasty.
Wait a minute, this isn't Pismal Beach... I knew I should have taken that left at
Albiqurque...
Q:Whats the Chtorran word for New Jersey?
A: Hard Tack
Michael Bruce
: I agree, although Jordan's story is far more compelling (could
: better developed. Outside of Rand, Perrin, and Mat (I'm
: currently on the 4th book in WoT), there are a few nice
: supporting characters (Thom, Min, and Lanfear (who gives me the
: creeps)) But they pale in comparison to the likes of Beldin,
: Zakath, Talen and the lot.
Would you like me to name about 32 that we know quite a bit about off the
top of my head? Eddings' characterization is his weakest link. He is
good at banter. That is all he is good at.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Michael bruce |
| psychadelic elephant products |
| br...@infinet.com http://www.infinet.com/~bruce |
| |
+-----------I-have-no-clever-quote,-so-don't-look-for-one-------+
SPARKY
> Character Development - A means by which the Author shows a character Changing in
> some tangible way with regards to his/her maturity.. A good example is a boy/girl slowly
> accepting responsibilities and changing to the point where we could accept them as
> being a man/woman..
>
>
> all the time.. You may learn new things about his characters, but they never change..
>
> I mean Mat Cauthon has shown more Character development than any of Eddings characters,
> IMO (based of course on my definition)..
Your argument is well founded, and I will take back what I have
said on the point of character development. Perhaps people
meant something like 'more developed character', meaning
believable personalities or something.
Still, I think that there are characters in Edding's work that
do undergo change. Zakath, Relg, Talen. For the most part,
though I agree that the changes are to high level supporting
characters, but still not the Big Five (Belg, Pol, Garion,
Ce'Nedra, Durnik).
--
SPARKY
"I don't want to hear from those who know,
They can buy my pants, put on my clothes..."
Corduroy
SPARKY
> Then you would need to continue reading to get off the mode of complaining
> Why does he bitch about
> Aes Sedai? For one thing, they would probably gentle him if they capture
>I can
> relate to Perrin.I find all of Jordan's ta'veren very believable, even Rand. I
think the point I was trying to make was to respond to how
Garion is perceived as a helpless whiner, when Rand himself
shied from the responsibilities too at first. Garion also does
what he must, he just accepts the responsibility a little more
grudgingly.
I think that this topic has reached a point of partisanship, or
at least perceived partisanship. I for one have confessed
Jordan to be a better writer, but I do not think Eddings lacks
any of the necessary ingredients to be considered any less than
one of the three or four best in the genre.
Luke Vaughn
Shawn Chung <ech...@alpha1.curtin.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <4c6pgs$g...@sophocles.algonet.se>, m...@sophocles.algonet.se
>> : Belgarion is much more powerful, and a whole heck of a lot cooler. Rand
>> : can't control his powers, while Garion is a master, being taught by
>> : Belgarath himself. Also there is now no one who will teach Rand. Belgarion
>> : would destroy Rand without even breaking a sweat.
>>
>> : Joseph Butler
>>
>> I don't agree. I think it takes much longer time to gather ones will
>> compared to reaching the OP. Belgarion would be balefired before he even
>> knew it.
>>
>> //Jimmy
>
>
>Which is more powerful?
>
>The Sword of Tear, Callandor, or the Sword of the Rivan King?
>
>My money's on the Sword of the Rivan King (with Aldur's Orb attached, of
>course).
>
Oh, thats an easy one. Fred Saberhagen's Shieldbreaker, the Sword of Force.
Now that was a kick-a** sword. 'Course you can't forget the rest of his Twelve
Swords, they were all pretty cool.
Ta,
Luke Vaughn
vau...@ucs.orst.edu
Patrick Williams
I been following this thread recently (actually I've been following all of
them, but this is the first I've worked up the courage to respond to).
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting in the comparison between Rand and
Belgarion that each can do what the other can't.
Belgarion can bring people back from the dead (The horse and Durnik)
Rand can not. (At least so far. I'm of the opinion that he dies at
the end and gets brought back to life by one or all three of his
lovers.)
Rand can remove someone from the pattern entirely. (Balefire)
Belgarion can not. (First rule -- never try to unmake someone, it
will rebound on you.)
Despite this, I don't think it is possible to determine who is faster,
althought Rand does seem able to block things he either can't see (saidar)
or he doesn't know (any battle with the forsaken so far). I don't recall
Belgarion ever doing that directly. (If I'm wrong about that, please let me
know.)
Anyway, just a thought I had on that.
Pat
Luke Vaughn
I would have to disagree here on several points. Character development doesn't
have to have anything to do with a character's maturity. It has to do with
exactly what Sparky says he thought people meant. It is development of
characters in a story that are believable and life-like. A story can be all
about a five-year old child, but it doesn't mean that the story has to show
the child maturing in order to show character development. Look at the comic
strip 'Calvin&Hobbes', Calvin never matures one whit, but over the years
Waterston(sp?) develops him greatly. What has happened is that over the years
we learned more about him and saw different aspects of who he is and how he
views the world. And I doubt that there are many people that would say there
are any better depictions of a 7 year old boy to be had short of going and
sitting in on a second-grade class.
Another good example of character development is in 'Dune', in the story
there is a scene where Gurney Halleck begs Paul to let him kill Feyd. In this
scene we get not only Gurney, the man who keenly felt the need to kill this
Harkonen, and was hurt when his request was refused. But we also get the
perspective of Paul and what he felt Gurney had become. Compare this with the
movie. In that scene, all you really get is Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck
begging to kill Feyd, and Paul refusing. There is no insight into the character
of Gurney, and I would dare say that the performance given was somewhat wooden
[With all due respect to Patrick Stewart, a very good actor, who happened to
have been cast in a very tough movie]. In the movie there is little
understanding why Gurney wanted to kill Feyd. In the book, by that point there
is plenty of understanding, Gurney's hatred is a natural and expected thing,
and it is good character development.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that character development has nothing to
do with who the character is and what they do, and everything with how well
the audience understands them, and why they are the way they are.
A character who picks daisies is one thing. But a character who is picking
daisies because they are going insane, and through the course of the story
you see something of what is happening to them and why they are the way they
are is something else.
And in that respect, yes, I think Eddings shows a lot of character development.
No not all of the characters change much, but we see different parts of them.
Take Belgarath, at first he is just an old man who tells stories very well,
then we find out he is actually a powerful sorcerer who has lived some seven
thousand years. He seems determined, crotchity, implacable, and dangerous.
Sorta like the stereotypical old man who lives down the street, whose place
all of the children are afraid to go near. But over time we see that he is
devoted, caring, compassionate, a man who would love nothing more then to be
able to spend the next aeon trying to stare past the curtains Poledra has put
up as he learns about mountains. Those are all parts of him, but we do not
know that at first, and it takes eleven books(so far) to learn all that we have
about him.
And yes I mean eleven books. That Polgara cried after having to banish that
Grolim priestess in KoM wasn't exactly unexpected, but Eddings didn't have to
write it that way. Most people would have thought nothing of it had Eddings
said nothing about that at all. And a number of other characters show
development in the Mallorean. Durnik, when he has to struggle through what he
did to his friendship with Toth. Poledra, when we learn why she doesn't like
alcohol. Thats character development, before that scene, people may have been
able to guess that she didn't like it, but nobody could have given concrete
proof one way or another as to why. Even Garion shows development. One of my
most favorite scenes is from DLoK, at the very end when they are stealing the
boat. A number of them make complaints to Garion about various things, and
Garion bursts out demanding that they all pile up their complaints at once and
get them over with. They were all shocked when he said that. An earlier Garion
wouldn't have even thought to say that.
Shoot, even Torak gets some character development. One point that sticks in
my mind is the letter to Garion in SoD. It didn't really change who Torak was,
but it may have changed the way people viewed him just a little, and that is
what character development is about.
In all, I think Eddings does a decent job of bringing understanding to the
characters he writes about. Sure, there are a lot of similarities between
characters in his two worlds, but there are as many differences too.
And if you don't believe that Eddings does a good job in character development,
try reading the Kent Montana stories by Lionel Fenn. A very funny bunch of
stories that I happen to like, but in no way do they ever really show character
development. Or try reading the Lensman series by E.E. 'Doc' Smith. Classics
of Sci-Fi, but the characters really don't develop, leastwise not all that
much.
Well, I think I've forced enough of my opinion upon you.
Luke Vaughn
vau...@ucs.orst.edu
St Illusio Diamond-Mask
I'd advise y'all to duck right about now... :)
Why do we persist in carrying on this utterly POINTLESS thread? Try out this
little experiment: Replace "Belgarion" with "apples" and "Rand" with
"oranges". Does the question still make any sense? No. Further, the
question did not make any sense to begin with. Trying to compare fantasy
characters from different universes with different "equipment" (read kinds of
"magic") is about as useless as trying to decide whether an apple or an orange
is better.
FURTHERMORE. To not be seen as a Rand basher or a Belgarion basher, I like
both series equally well. At times I wish that Jordan was a little less-long
winded, but I equally wish at other times that Eddings wasn't so succinct.
I'm sure that people in alt.fan.eddings don't really want to be hearing
discussions about Rand, and people in rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan don't
particularly care about Belgarion. Myself, if I wanted to read about Jordan's
worlds, I'd go to rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan, and vice-versa.
Here's an idea, why don't we form a new newsgroup, called
alt.jordan.vs.eddings? That way, people who want to bicker about whether or
not Belgarion could beat Rand, or whether Jordan has a superior writing style,
can go *there* and argue, and let the people in a.f.e talk about Eddings and
the people in r.a.s.w.r talk about Jordan.
If you like the idea, I'll hop over to the box I'm a newsadmin on and newgroup
it there for y'all.
And then we can read about our respective fantasy authors in peace.
Diamond, who is getting quite annoyed by this thread, and who would really
like to start cancelling articles, if only it weren't for the nanam folks...
Martel
>ia...@dial.pipex.com (Ian Watkinson) wrote:
>>Terry Butler <tbu...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> >Subject: Re: Belgarion vs Rand ?
>>
>>Hey lets drag this on a bit more !!
>>Who would win Rand vs Alien vs Predator vs Terminator vs Belgarion vs
>>.. Get the point ?? Get a life it doesnt really matter they are two
>>characters from different pantheons.
>Yeah, that's pretty stupid. Of course the Terminator would win. ;)
>NTA
No way man.. The Predator would.. He has much better character
development..
Eric
Robert Adlam
: >I don't agree. I think it takes much longer time to gather ones will
: >knew it.
: >
: > //Jimmy
: To gather ones will is far easier than gather the OP. First off, Belgarion
: would not have to worry about the taint. All Garion would have to do is
: quickly gather his will, which would take less that a second, and speak
: the word causing Rand to drop dead on the spot. Rand would take longer to
: reach the OP, at leat a second and a half, because of the taint, and
: stuff, so he would be dead before he knew what happened. Besides,
: Belgarion is the type of person who wouldn't fight another good guy that
: way unless it were a life or death situation or a lot of lives were at
: stake.
: - Mat Cauthon
IMHO, I think you are severly underestimating how fast the moments are when
Rand and all other channelers channel. I think it is quite unlikely that
grasping the OP takes that long... or else the AS wouldn't really be as
powerful or as feared group if it took multiple seconds to summon the
Source and finally do the weaves. If it took that long I'm sure they
would wear some sort of armor or have a heavier escort than one warder
or at least take up a weapon.
I also think the times it take to do their respective magicks would be
comparable.
(I think this is a pointless argument)
--
And remmember:
The sky is a shade of purple!!
Nelno the Amoeba
Aaron Bergman
: Why do we persist in carrying on this utterly POINTLESS thread? Try out this
: little experiment: Replace "Belgarion" with "apples" and "Rand" with
: "oranges". Does the question still make any sense? No. Further, the
I think oranges taste much better than apples. More juice for
one. Just MHO of course.
Aaron (you can too compare apples and oranges)
--------
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://minerva.cis.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
--A flag burning amendment would burn the flag--
Aaron Bergman
: Would you like me to name about 32 that we know quite a bit about off the
: good at banter. That is all he is good at.
He had one kinda cool story, too. Too bad he had to write it four
times.
Aaron
Lord Blackrose
You know, I'm really sick of these arguments. Eddings and Jordan both
have lots of character development if people weren't too blind to see
it. Both are excellent authors. Everyone's going to have their
favorites but quit slamming the other. Besides, this isn't the place
for it.
Lord Blackrose
Dale Fox
>
>In article <30E913...@stmi.scitek.com>,
>SPARKY <fkow...@stmi.scitek.com> wrote:
>>Jimmy Mardell wrote:
>>As a side note, I guess I want to take a moment again to defend
>>Eddings. Just because a character doesn't change throughout a
>>story doesn't make that character 'less developed' or less of an
>>asset to the story. Let's face it, Rand whines, too, I'm on
>>Book 4 right now, and he does little else but bitch about the
>>Aes Sedai and run away from them like a spoiled child.
>
>As for relating to the characters, I can't find myself relating to Edding's
>characters because they're not as 3 dimensional as Jordan's. I can
>relate to Perrin.
Wow. You've got to be kidding. The depth of the characters in Eddings' books
is phenomenal. Silk of course is an excellent example; while Silk never under-
goes any significant changes (until the blonde-haired woman decides she's going
to marry him), he is very deep, and easy to see as a multi-faceted character.
I personally think that the messages I see reading "X can't write" (where X is
EITHER Eddings or Jordan) are incomprehensible; the two authors are fairly
similar, and if you like one a lot you should probably like the other at least
a little. For me, Jordan is excellent, whilst Eddings is excellent-er. Eddings
always adds in little sub-plots which may have little to do with the main story,
but add immensely to the enjoyment of the reader. The young pipe/flute player
who follows Ze'Nedra to the battle on the river (can't remember the forts' name)
from his home with the Arends is an excellent example; his senseless death is quite
a touching comment on human cruelty. I've read up to Lord of Chaos (book 6
I think), and have not found a single "add-on" plot which was added to
give a human touch to the story; the entire thing is a single-minded pursuit
of the main story. Since the main story is interesting, the books don't fall
flat, but they could certainly improve.
Walt Ramsey
>would not have to worry about the taint. All Garion would have to do is
>quickly gather his will, which would take less that a second, and speak
>the word causing Rand to drop dead on the spot. Rand would take longer to
>reach the OP, at leat a second and a half, because of the taint, and
>stuff, so he would be dead before he knew what happened. Besides,
>Belgarion is the type of person who wouldn't fight another good guy that
>way unless it were a life or death situation or a lot of lives were at
>stake.
> - Mat Cauthon
I don't know?
It took Belgarath a long time to defeat Ctuchik, and I believe that
Belgarath has lots more experience than Garion. If Garion is this
all knowing, all seeing stud, why didn't he just nuke Zandramas, and
fly home before dinner.
Rand in round two! (TKO) by Callandor.
Walt
Michael W. Malone
> Still, I think that there are characters in Edding's work that
> do undergo change. Zakath, Relg, Talen. For the most part,
> though I agree that the changes are to high level supporting
> characters, but still not the Big Five (Belg, Pol, Garion,
> Ce'Nedra, Durnik).
Are you kidding? I'll give you Belgarath and Polgara, although I think
that in between the Belgariad and the Mallorean, Polgara undergoes
significant change. But Garion? The rough little Sendar who fuses
together the best of all the races, making them his own? Or Ce'Nedra, who
was a shreiking fishwife when the clan first meets? Or Durnik? Please.
_________________
The views expressed in this post are the author's, and do not
express the views of Business To Business Magazine, WindMill
Publications, Inc., or of it's employee's. Thank You
Mark A. Jamison
I happen to like Eddings thank you very much.. If I need some good banter
or Humour at the time I like him better than Jordan..
And if this isn't the place to discuss such things then where is, oh mighty
moderator..
Tee Chuan Ng
In response to vau...@ucs.orst.edu (Luke Vaughn)
I think what you're explaining is more character facet revelation than
character development. For example, learning that a character doesn't eat
tofu, because he was forced to eat the stuff as a kid, doesn't constitute
character development. Infact, the character before and after the
revelation to the reader is the same. What changes perhaps, is our
interpretation of preceding events in light of the revelation ... e.g..
"ahh .. the kid isn't a brat after all for throwing all that kewl tofu out
the window 2 scenes ago." As such, I like to call these revelations
"traits", "character facets", or perhaps "character premises".
Authors seem to use these to explain some of the character's choices and
actions. A bad example of this usage can be found in some mystery novels
where, in the final scene where everything is revealed, the super sleuth
points out one particular person seemingly not more guilty than the rest.
The sleuth then goes on to reveal the vital piece of information about the
culprit's character which implicates him. Suddenly all the previous scenes
make sense and we're left to ponder the greatness of Mr. Sleuth.
IMHO such revelations should only play a minor part in our understanding
of the character. As can be seen it takes little skill to be the world's
greatest detective if there's an obliging author. The true art of the
author is to hide in plain sight. As such, character facet revelation
should only be relied upon to provide a premise to quickly explain the
character's current situation and bring the reader up to speed and into
the story. After this, character development through current experiences
should act to shape (weakening or strengthening) these traits and to
develop new ones. Where is the development if all there is to a character
are these predetermined traits with more thrown in as needed? I'm no
author but I can easily come up with a character with a multitude of
facets - e.g.. a man who wont go near a car, alcohol, or large bodies of
water - you see, as a child his drunken parents drove off into a river and
drowned, only he survived. What I cannot do is describe such events in a
way which will impress the reader. I am no author. Herein lies the main
difference between character facet and character development. Revelation
is a premise. The author reveals/states it and the reader has to believe
it - it is, after all, the truth. This takes little skill. Character
development is a much more demanding. The author must come up with scenes
not only consistent with past premises but which will show and impress on
the reader how and why our character is changing. It is the act of
convincing the reader which is demanding - convincing yet maintaining
interest whilst telling a good tale.
That facet revelation acts to bring the reader up to speed with the
character makes it ideal for use in explaining the motives behind minor or
supporting characters. An example of this can be seen in the character of
Hadnan Kadere. Hadnan is (or rather was) a friend of the dark posing as
trader in the Aiel Waste. His minor role was as a spy for more dominant
villains. When LTT first meets Kadere at the end to TSR (book 4) he
mutters continually "His eyes ... all that sweating, going white in the
face. Yet his eyes never changed ...", "...a dangerous man...the eyes give
it away", and exclaims "It has begun". After finding two of the Forsaken
in the trader's train at the conclusion of TSR we all but forget these
comments and Kadere with them. He is after all, only very minor character
when compared to the Forsaken, and LTT did seem feverish when muttering
those observations to Mat. However, in the beginning of tFoH (book 5), we
are reminded quite brutally about Hadnan's eyes.
"As she reached for the door, her eyes going to the handle, he (Hadnan)
had the kerchief spun to a cord in an instant and around her neck. He
tried to ignore the rasping gurgles, the frantic scraping of her feet on
the floor. Even keeping his eyes open, he saw Teodora; he always did, when
he killed a woman. He had loved his sister, but she had discovered what he
was, and she would not have kept silent. Isendre's heels drummed
violently, but after what seemed an eternity they slowed, went still, and
she became a dead weight dragging at his hands. He held the cord tight for
a count of sixty before unwinding it and letting her fall. She would have
been confessing, next. Confessing to being a Darkfriend. Pointing a finger
at him ... Rummaging in the cabinets by touch, he pulled out a butchering
knife ... Kneeling he hummed quietly to himself as he worked, a lullaby
that Teodora had taught him"
For a small character, such tricks of revelation add substance to the RJ's
world. A certain insight gained to the most insignificant of characters
lends a sense of depth to rest of the environs. However, in no way does
Hadnan's character develop. He was, is, and ever will be the a darkfriend
at heart - until he gets toasted by Lanfear. Touches such as these can be
seen in any number of smallish characters like Ingtar, Masema, Uno, Bayle
Domon, Egeanin, Tallanvor, Basel Gill, Lamgwin, Mandein, Rhodric, Jeordam,
Lewin, Adan, Jonai, Coumin, and any of the Foresaken. These are just a
handful of characters with revealed character facets. However, I do not
consider their characters very developed. That they are interesting, yes.
That they are well developed, no. This despite our first hand experience
of Adan's disowning of Lewin and how it affected them both. I suppose
looking at Raen and Illa loosing Aram from the way of the leaf would cause
the same dilemma. We know about Ingtar, understand his basic motive and
perhaps the reason for his self sacrificial act, but we know Perrin much
better. No matter what Bayle says about "no taking my own mother if she
can no pay" the fact that he kept the cuendilar seal when he thought it
was the source off all his problems with trollocs shows otherwise. Infact
Bayle is the character I like the most. However as likable and interesting
as he is, his journey throughout the story is a short one when compared to
the Emond's Fielders. The Bayle in Tanchico is the same as the Bayle in
Falme and Tear despite Egeanin.
What this rambling is getting at I think is that all characters must have
facets, even the most minor. Otherwise they wouldn't be interesting. That
Gurney Halleck has a reason to hate Harkonnens doesn't make his character
developed. More interesting is Yueh and his dilemma. He has a reason for
hating, loving, and betraying. It is the conflict with himself and how it
develops within which is character development.
The more important a character is, the more RJ develops his/her character
traits. We might learn about Thom's guilt over his perceived failure for
his nephew Owen. That this is the basis of his interest in the Emond's
Fielders. However, as befitting a more visible character, this is subtly
altered in the course of the books. By Salidar is his presence still at
the request of Rand or more to do with Elayne? By Tear is not his once
dislike of all Aes Sedai more and more feigned (at least in his thoughts
of Moiraine)? Add to this Daera (sp?) and even an old, experienced, and
seemingly implacable character like Thom is altered.
The Emond's Fielders undergo the most change since, being young, they
should have the least amount of facets (or character) to start off with.
Their complexity therefore is developed in the course of the story. In his
mad dash towards Callandor in tDR, Rand kills a woman coming to kill him.
Her death and his feverish arrangement of the corpses kneeling towards him
is not only the genesis of his later inability to harm females but perhaps
a catalyst to his growing insanity. The dead girl in Tear which he tries
to revive horrifyingly is an extension of this. Thereafter every Far Dares
Mai death he commits to memory - perhaps to expiate his toh. Rand knows
ji'e'toh better than he believes. In Cairhien he cannot save himself by
defeating Lanfear - so leading to Moiraine's death. All the while he seems
to become more and more insane. This is a far cry from the Rand of Emond's
Field. There is no one scene which explains Rand's behaviour but rather a
collection of scenes/experiences which act to form or enhance this facet.
It is the writer's ability and timing which determines the success or not
of these to convince the reader of the believability of such character
definitions. A badly written scene might not sufficiently impress the
importance of an event for the character to the reader. This usually
results in characters which make decisions which seemingly have no basis
at all.
Your wrote:
"Take Belgarath, at first he is .... Those are all parts of him, but we do
not
know that at first ... "
No we do not know him at first. But that doesn't mean he develops during
the Belgariad or the Malorean. Events don't seem to effect the old bugger.
It is all well and good for the series that we learn his various facets in
installments but these facets are constant and aren't altered. Are they
even tested/challenged? If not, how can Garath be developing?
Hmm ... I've rambled on enough. All the above IMHO, of course,
TeeC
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Mandisa T Washington
tired, but there must be *some* interest, otherwise it wouldn't keep coming
back (over and over and over, ad infinitum). If you really want to compare
Eddings to Jordan, you should look at E's latest book, Belgarath the Sorcerer,
which sums up the whole Belgariad/Malloreon series and explains the stuff that
was left out (most of it, anyway). As for who can draw power faster, Rand or
Garion, who knows and who cares...what matters is how *much* power you can
draw.
IMO, Garion w/ the Orb is more like two strong channelers being linked
together (we'll say a M/F pair, since will has no sex :), while Rand w/ the Orb
is still just Rand, but a bigger and badder Rand, with a serious adrenaline
rush. Anyway, you'd have to figure Garion (and the Orb) on the OP scale, but
IIRC, Lanfear once told Rand that a strong man & woman could do much more
linked than alone. But I think the question is moot, since neither one likes
to kill people, even really bad people...
Rand: Wow, you just killed a billion people with a thought & a word huh?
Golly, that's pretty bad...maybe I should stop you or something...
Garion: Yes, I killed them, but they were all bad people. Didn't you kill a
bunch of innocent people, including your family? I never even told my aunt
"no". I'm such a little angel.
Rand: Aww, I didn't mean to. I was crazy or somethin'.
Garion: That's alright, let's be friends.
Rand: Really, gosh, that's *awful* nice of you.
And now they start singing the song from "Barney"...
Mandisa
===========================================
Gratuitous cliche: "It's not your strength in the Power, it's what you do with
it."
Loki
: Lord Blackrose wrote:
: > You know, I'm really sick of these arguments. Eddings and Jordan both
: > have lots of character development if people weren't too blind to see
: > it. Both are excellent authors. Everyone's going to have their
: > favorites but quit slamming the other. Besides, this isn't the place
: > for it.
: I happen to like Eddings thank you very much.. If I need some good banter
: or Humour at the time I like him better than Jordan..
Uh ... did you -read- his post? He just finish saying they were both
quite good, to which you responded that you happen to like Eddings. I'm
wondering if you thought you were replying to something different, but then
your next paragraph indicates that you are replying to this one.
: And if this isn't the place to discuss such things then where is, oh mighty
: moderator..
What -were- you thinking?
Loki
--
+----------------------+---------------------------------+------------------+
| gwis...@uoguelph.ca | cs1...@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca | Geoffrey Wiseman |
+---------------+------+---------------------------------+------+-----------+
| http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/~ontarion/users/geoff |
+-----------------------------------------------+
Mardoch@Infinity (infinity.syr.edu 4242)
Sarcena@Angalon (neuromancer.tamu.edu 3011)
Loki@VirtuMUD (not open)
Michael Bruce
: You know, I'm really sick of these arguments. Eddings and Jordan both
: have lots of character development if people weren't too blind to see
: it. Both are excellent authors. Everyone's going to have their
: favorites but quit slamming the other. Besides, this isn't the place
: for it.
Uh, if this isn't the place to discuss it, where is?
And how can you possibly say Eddings is an excellent author? The man has
written one story four times. I enjoy his work, I'll give you but when I
want something deep and engrossing, Eddings does not show up on the list.
Lictalon
>
>All right.
>
>I'd advise y'all to duck right about now... :)
>
>little experiment: Replace "Belgarion" with "apples" and "Rand" with
>"oranges". Does the question still make any sense? No. Further, the
>characters from different universes with different "equipment" (read kinds of
>"magic") is about as useless as trying to decide whether an apple or an orange
>is better.
>
>FURTHERMORE. To not be seen as a Rand basher or a Belgarion basher, I like
>both series equally well. At times I wish that Jordan was a little less-long
>winded, but I equally wish at other times that Eddings wasn't so succinct.
>
>I'm sure that people in alt.fan.eddings don't really want to be hearing
>discussions about Rand, and people in rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan don't
>particularly care about Belgarion. Myself, if I wanted to read about Jordan's
>worlds, I'd go to rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan, and vice-versa.
>
>Here's an idea, why don't we form a new newsgroup, called
>alt.jordan.vs.eddings? That way, people who want to bicker about whether or
>not Belgarion could beat Rand, or whether Jordan has a superior writing style,
>can go *there* and argue, and let the people in a.f.e talk about Eddings and
>the people in r.a.s.w.r talk about Jordan.
>
>If you like the idea, I'll hop over to the box I'm a newsadmin on and newgroup
>it there for y'all.
>
>And then we can read about our respective fantasy authors in peace.
>
Amen.
--
Trooper Osirus, Doberman Empire:
"Behold, the Pale Horse, and the man who sat on him was Death, and Hell followed
with him..."
Death is the best part of life. That's why they save it for last.
Doom on you.| The universe is full of surprises. Most of them nasty.
Wait a minute, this isn't Pismal Beach... I knew I should have taken that left at
Albiqurque...
Friendly fire...Is never friendly...and is a Class A Goatfuck!-Lictalon Crager, 85 P.A.
Magnus Itland
>Edding's books are much better than Jordan's in character development and
>Belgarion is Not shallow.
We're talking about two meanings of 'character development'.
Edding's characters do not change all that much thru the series,
but the relationships among them make the characters personal
trait stand out very well, giving 'well developed characters'.
Eddings is one of my favorites, too. But _IF_ I had to choose
whose book to buy next, my money would go to Jordan.
>The characters in those series I have to grown
>to regard them as my second family.
That's a typical reaction to Eddings writing style, yes.
>Also, Belgarion could use The Orb to
>wipe Rand out in less than a nano-second.
Uh, but he wouldn't do that. Neither would Rand balefire
Belgarion. It's as realistic as Eliah fighting Moses.
They would end up on the same side as soon as they
could decide which of their universes to meet in...
--
itl...@sn.no The One and Only Magnus Itland
'Life is not only short, but also very thin'
John Novak
>Rand: <insert balefire here>
>Belgarion+Orb: Uhhh... Why can't I unmake things grandfather?
I _know_ I'm going to regret this, but wouldn't balefiring the orb
count as trying to unmake it?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net
Tee Chuan Ng
>Basically I agree with what you've said but I still believe that Belgarath
>does show some character development. For example, he befins to openly
>show affection for Polgara (in the scene where he says "What a son you'd
>have made") and generally shows signs of becoming softer in other ways. I
>don't really think you can expect a 7000 year old man to change vastly, say
>as you would expect Garion to do.
Good point. I suppose nothing much would change a guy who is that old.
I hope I didn't say that there was no development at all. Apologies if
I did. I just wanted to point out that such development was minimal when
compared to that of RJ's characters.
I'm not anti-eddings. As such here's a suggestion for you Edding's
admirers: perhaps considering "characterisation" as opposed to "character
development" would be more fruitful in highlighting his strengths?
Peace be on you always,
TC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will find the song, or another will find the song, but the song
will be sung, this year or in a year to come. As it once was, so
shall it be again, world without end. - RJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Shin Richard
Distribution:
Mark A. Jamison (be...@sound.net) wrote:
: Character Development - A means by which the Author shows a character
: Changing in some tangible way with regards to his/her maturity.. A good
: example is a boy/girl slowly accepting responsibilities and changing to
: the point where we could accept them as : being a man/woman..
I agree that Character Development must be defined but I must also
disagree with your definition...
IMHO, a good character is a complex individual that can't be described in
one paragraph or page. Thus, I argue, Character Development is the manner
in which an author *reveals* a character, rather than *changes* one.
Let's face it, some characters just aren't meant to change...
Take Belgarath, for example...I dunno' about you, but I would think that
a sorceror would be rather set in his ways after living 7000 years. In other
words, how could Eddings possibly develop the maturity of a 7000-year-old
demi-god?
Then there's good ol' Durnik. Even after his divine transformation, he's
still essentially the same artless, practical Sendarian. These stubborn
qualities, I argue, are precisely that which endears him to the other
characters and to the reader (though not myself)...
This is kinda' getting long, so let me summarize by saying that if
Character Development exclusively involved *change*, writers would be
hard-pressed creating good, static-type characters like Moraine (from
WoT), or good villains like Darken Rahl (from Wizards First Rule) with
single-minded pursuits to conquer the world...
Writers with good Character Development (again, IMHO) utilize the entire
novel to drop descriptions and personality quirks here and there. The
resulting character is one with a genuine feel and one that can be
related to by the reader.
***Characters can change 'till the cows come home, but if they aren't
described convincingly or act consistently, are no characters at all***
Try using this definition and you may be pleasantly surprised that both
Eddings and Jordan have *at least* a rudimentary knowledge of Character
Development...
Boy, that was cathartic...:)
Regards...Rick
*Note* This was, in no sense, a defense of Eddings' writing...
His dialogue is very good (though the banter can get irritating)
but his characters are unconvincing and his storytelling is poor...
I readily confess though, that my writing is crap compared to his,
so peace...:)
Tee Chuan Ng
development is a much more demanding. Here the author must come up with
scenes not only consistent with past premises but which will show and
impress on the reader how and why our character is changing. It is the act
of convincing the reader which is demanding - convincing yet maintaining
interest and telling a good tale.
That facet revelation acts to bring the reader up to speed with the
character makes it ideal for use in explaining the motives behind minor or
supporting characters. An example of this can be seen in the character of
Hadnan Kadere. Hadnan is (or rather was) a friend of the dark posing as
trader in the Aiel Waste. His minor role was as a spy for more dominant
villains. When LTT first meets Kadere at the end to TSR (book 4) he
mutters continually "His eyes ... all that sweating, going white in the
face. Yet his eyes never changed ..." and "...a dangerous man...the eyes
give it away". After finding two of the Forsaken in the trader's train at
the conclusion of TSR we all but forget these comments and Kadere with
them. He is after all, only very minor character when compared to the
Forsaken, and LTT did seem feverish when muttering those observations to
Mat. However, in the beginning of tFoH (book 5), we are reminded quite
brutally about Hadnan's eyes.
"As she reached for the door, her eyes going to the handle, he (Hadnan)
had the kerchief spun to a cord in an instant and around her neck. He
tried to ignore the rasping gurgles, the frantic scraping of her feet on
the floor. Even keeping his eyes open, he saw Teodora; he always did, when
he killed a woman. He had loved his sister, but she had discovered what he
was, and she would not have kept silent. Isendre's heels drummed
violently, but after what seemed an eternity they slowed, went still, and
she became a dead weight dragging at his hands. He held the cord tight for
a count of sixty before unwinding it and letting her fall. She would have
been confessing, next. Confessing to being a Darkfriend. Pointing a finger
at him ... Rummaging in the cabinets by touch, he pulled out a butchering
knife ... Kneeling he hummed quietly to himself as he worked, a lullaby
that Teodora had taught him"
For a small character, such tricks of revelation add substance to the RJ's
world. A certain insight gained to the most insignificant of characters
lends a sense of depth to rest of the environs. However, in no way does
Hadnan's character develop. He was, is, and ever will be a darkfriend at
heart - until he gets toasted by Lanfear. Touches such as these can be
seen in any number of smallish characters like Ingtar, Masema, Uno, Bayle
Domon, Egeanin, Tallanvor, Basel Gill, Lamgwin, Mandein, Rhodric, Jeordam,
Lewin, Adan, Jonai, Coumin, and any of the Foresaken. These are just a
handful of characters with revealed character facets. However, I do not
consider their characters very developed. That they are interesting, yes.
That they are well developed, no. This despite our first hand experience
of Adan's disowning of Lewin and how it affected them both. I suppose
looking at Raen and Illa loosing Aram from the way of the leaf would cause
the same dilemma. We know about Ingtar, understand his basic motive and
perhaps the reason for his self sacrificial act, but we know Perrin much
better. No matter what Bayle says about "no taking my own mother if she
can no pay" the fact that he kept the cuendilar seal when he thought it
was the source off all his problems with trollocs shows otherwise. Bayle
is, in truth, the character I like the most. However, as likable and
interesting as he is, his journey throughout the story is a short one when
compared to those of the Emond's Fielders. The Bayle in Tanchico is the
Field. There is no one scene which explains his behaviour but rather a
collection of scenes/experiences which act to form or enhance this facet.
It is the writer's ability and timing which determines the success (or
not) of these to convince the reader of the believability of such
character definitions. A badly written scene might not sufficiently
impress the importance of certain events to the character. This usually
results in characters which make decisions which seemingly have no basis
at all.
You wrote:
"Take Belgarath, at first he is .... Those are all parts of him, but we do
not
know that at first ... "
No we do not know him at first. But that doesn't mean he develops during
the Belgariad or the Malorean. Events don't seem to effect the old bugger.
It is all well and good for the series that we learn his various facets in
installments but these facets are constant and aren't altered. Are they
even tested/challenged? If not, how can Garath be developing?
Most of the examples of "character development" supplied for the Belgariad
and the Malorean (sp?) seem to be little more than revelation. That
Polgara has a stated reason to dislike alcohol doesn't constitute
develoopment. It is the same with the others. Perhaps it is just me but I
do not consider "characterisation" and "character development" as always
equivalent.
Hmm ... I've rambled on enough. All the above IMHO, of course.
Peace be on you always (RJ),
TC
(I posted this again since the original didn't seem to have made it to
rasfwrj).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a great round wonder rolling through the air.
Walt W
`------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Vidgame528
else sucked. Especially Mandorallen - can you believe that Cyan (or
Cayenne) Garamonde was actually a better character?
-------------------------------------------------------------
...
Shin Richard
Distribution:
Lord Blackrose (lo...@pepper.ncinter.net) wrote:
: "Mark A. Jamison" <be...@sound.net> wrote:
: You know, I'm really sick of these arguments. Eddings and Jordan both
: have lots of character development if people weren't too blind to see
: it. Both are excellent authors. Everyone's going to have their
: favorites but quit slamming the other. Besides, this isn't the place
: for it.
M'Lord Blackrose
Dost this banter makest thee sick? Prithee Lord, use thy 'killfile'
command or turneth off thy computer and lie for a bit...
Thy obedient servant...Rick
--
Vidgame528
heart of the book. No one else has, but then neither have I.
-------------------------------------------------------------
...
K C Moore
4r...@qlink.queensu.ca "Shin Richard" writes:
> FA....@sound.net>:
> Distribution:
>
> Mark A. Jamison (be...@sound.net) wrote:
>
> : Character Development - A means by which the Author shows a character
> : Changing in some tangible way with regards to his/her maturity.. A good
> : example is a boy/girl slowly accepting responsibilities and changing to
> : the point where we could accept them as : being a man/woman..
>
> I agree that Character Development must be defined but I must also
> disagree with your definition...
>
> IMHO, a good character is a complex individual that can't be described in
> one paragraph or page. Thus, I argue, Character Development is the manner
> in which an author *reveals* a character, rather than *changes* one.
> [ good illustrative matter deleted ]
On the matter of nomenclature I agree with Mark and (AFAIK) his would
be the meaning of the term as used by students of english literature.
(Me, I'm just an engineer trying to become a musician.)
In Jane Austen, for example, what is admired is the way she shows her
main characters changing their minds about things: D'Arcy and Elizabeth
have to rid themselves of the attitudes of the title of the book before
they can get together; Emma has to realise that all her scheming is
based upon speculation which is not in accordance with the facts; Anne
Elliot has to learn to disregard the advice of someone older but less
intelligent than herself and make her own decision.
Mainstream literature is not full of 7000 year-old demi-gods, and I
agree that a different approach is necessary for them. Why not call it
"Character Revelation"?
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Shin Richard
:
:
: : Character Development - A means by which the Author shows a character
: : Changing in some tangible way with regards to his/her maturity.. A good
: : example is a boy/girl slowly accepting responsibilities and changing to
: : the point where we could accept them as : being a man/woman..
: On the matter of nomenclature I agree with Mark and (AFAIK) his would
: be the meaning of the term as used by students of english literature.
I appreciate your opinion and the brevity of your discourse, though, as of
yet, I'm unprepared to concede any error on my part...:)
The more arguments I see in this thread, the more I'm convinced that
this has become a debate of improper *terms* as opposed to improper
definitions...
If, indeed, 'Character Development' is a true literary term that refers
to, and I quote, 'A means by which the Author shows a character Changing
in some tangible way with regards to his/her maturity.', than I stand
corrected...
I'm convinced however, that the term 'Character Development' was
conceived by the originator of the posting, as spontaneously as your
suggestion of 'Character Revelation'...
If that's the case, since the words are so ambiguous, the def'n of
Character Development could be as specific as a perceivable *change* or as
all-encompassing as the manner in which a writer reveals a character
*whether static or dynamic*...
: Mainstream literature is not full of 7000 year-old demi-gods, and I
: agree that a different approach is necessary for them.
I believe an approach has already been taken...Not very many 7000-year-old
demi-gods, I agree, but there are very many characters who begin and end
novels essentially unchanged, who are no less 'developed' than ones who
do change...Examples include the Wife of Bath from Canterbury Tales, Kurtz
from 'Heart of Darkness', Henry Higgins from 'Pygmalion', Gandalf from 'LoR'
and my personal favorite, Sherlock Holmes...the list is nearly endless...
The *kernel* of my argument is this: If, indeed, Character
Development means exclusively *change*, then this literary device is
either present or absent in a novel and should *never* be criticized...
Pray, let this be my contribution to this thread...:)
Regards...Rick
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Rick Shin O---{============>
BA Honours in English
Queen's University
Email address: 4r...@qlink.queensu.ca
"It is with heartfelt gratitude that I live to tell the tale of when I
had a plastic bag stuck over my head. I can hear the eulogy now,'Rick
courageously fought to remove it but in the end the plastic bag was
victorious...Let us pray to Almighty God that we will see an end to the
plastic bag: a bane to the environment and to curious young boys...'"
______________________________________________________________________________
Hamish Laws
> As for who can draw power faster, Rand or
>Garion, who knows and who cares...what matters is how *much* power you can
>draw.
How about when Rand was bound, there it was largely the delay which caught
him, he was hit by people before he could respond.
In WoT terms it doesn't matter whether you are balefired by 1 second and the
opposition would have been by 5 years. If they hit you first you're gone.
Mad Hamish
Gmoney
>FA....@sound.net> <4chpe4$6...@salt.ncinter.net>:
>Distribution:
>M'Lord Blackrose
>Thy obedient servant...Rick
>--
Amen.Amen..Amen Sir Rick
Gmoney
Loki
: If, indeed, 'Character Development' is a true literary term that refers
: in some tangible way with regards to his/her maturity.', than I stand
: corrected...
Although it doesn't seem to be in my copy of _A Glossary of Literary
Terms_, that would be the understanding of that particular term that I've
come to. Character development is how a character changes (or at times,
remains stable) through a novel, in reaction to the novel's crises.
Under "Character", _AGoLT_ has:
A character may remain essentially "stable" or unchanged in outlook and
disposition, from beginning to end of a work (Prospero in The Tempest,
Micawber in David Copperfield), or may undergo a radical change, either
through a gradual process of motivation and development (the title
character in Jane Austen's Emma) or as the result of a crisis
(Shakespeare's King Lear).
That would fall under "character development" pretty much anywhere I've
heard the term used.
Loki
--
+----------------------+---------------------------------+------------------+
| gwis...@uoguelph.ca | cs1...@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca | Geoffrey Wiseman |
+---------------+------+---------------------------------+------+-----------+
| http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/~ontarion/users/geoff |
+-----------------------------------------------+
"The Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in
any form, in whole or in part. Copyright (c) Geoffrey Wiseman, 1995.
License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $250.
Appearance without permission constitutes agreement to these terms."
ang...@ix.netcom.com
>In article <4clar3$2...@knot.queensu.ca>
> 4r...@qlink.queensu.ca "Shin Richard" writes:
>> FA....@sound.net>:
>> Distribution:
>>
>> Mark A. Jamison (be...@sound.net) wrote:
>>
>> : Character Development - A means by which the Author shows a character
>> : Changing in some tangible way with regards to his/her maturity.. A good
>> : example is a boy/girl slowly accepting responsibilities and changing to
>> : the point where we could accept them as : being a man/woman..
>>
>> I agree that Character Development must be defined but I must also
>> disagree with your definition...
>>
>> IMHO, a good character is a complex individual that can't be described in
>> one paragraph or page. Thus, I argue, Character Development is the manner
>> in which an author *reveals* a character, rather than *changes* one.
>> [ good illustrative matter deleted ]
>On the matter of nomenclature I agree with Mark and (AFAIK) his would
>be the meaning of the term as used by students of english literature.
>(Me, I'm just an engineer trying to become a musician.)
>In Jane Austen, for example, what is admired is the way she shows her
>main characters changing their minds about things: D'Arcy and Elizabeth
>have to rid themselves of the attitudes of the title of the book before
>they can get together; Emma has to realise that all her scheming is
>based upon speculation which is not in accordance with the facts; Anne
>Elliot has to learn to disregard the advice of someone older but less
>intelligent than herself and make her own decision.
>Mainstream literature is not full of 7000 year-old demi-gods, and I
>agree that a different approach is necessary for them. Why not call it
>"Character Revelation"?
>--
>Ken Moore
>k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
No 7000 year old demi-gods? Howabout YHVH? He seems to muck up
things pretty well for at least the last 5000, and he develops along
the way. Don't believe me? Read "God: a biography" by Jack Miles. He
lays out the divine character's changes pretty well.
JT
Dale Fox
>Have you actually READ LoC? It
Yes, of course.
>is roughly a thousand pages, and Rand is only present in about a third of
1000??? Seems less than that when I had it :)
>One example of many is the whole conflict between
>Mat and the women. This isn't in any way part of the main story, but it
>is a very enjoyable scene.
Don't know which scene you're refering to due to the number of times Mat gets himself
in trouble when talking with women :)
But yes, Jordan made a good decision when he went with three ta'veren (sp???) instead
of one Child of Light. Due to the fact that Rand, Perrin, and Mat are all the
"main charater group" I wouldn't consider him a secondary character. Someone like
(man my memory is going) the guy in charge of Rand's Black Tower would be secondary.
Is it just me, or has everyone else read "Sword of Shannara"? Even though this story
is pretty short, and overall I would not rank it as the best, this book has the best
"parallel threads" that I've read. The main party spilts up into about 5 groups, and
the author (Brook?) does an excellent job maintaining and binding them all together.
Jordan's attempts in this area are good part of the appeal (for me) of LoC.
Dale Fox
P.S.: I'm killing myself laughing at some of the people in this conference... That someone
could claim that Eddings/Jordan is fantastic and Jordan/Eddings doesn't justify the
use of the paper and ink is, at best, laughable.
C D Skogsberg
the scribe Mandisa T Washington <disa_t> printed thus:
>[Trimming along...]
> IMO, Garion w/ the Orb is more like two strong channelers being linked
>together (we'll say a M/F pair, since will has no sex :), while Rand w/ the Orb
>is still just Rand, but a bigger and badder Rand, with a serious adrenaline
>rush. Anyway, you'd have to figure Garion (and the Orb) on the OP scale, but
>IIRC, Lanfear once told Rand that a strong man & woman could do much more
>linked than alone. But I think the question is moot, since neither one likes
>to kill people, even really bad people...
<Must not jump into this, must not...Heck.> Well, if Garion has the
Orb, then Rand should have at least Callandor, and more probably the
sa'sa'sa'angreal link <evil grin>. Thus, it would be Garion Toast
time, I guess. Not to mention all those lovely Asha'man, who, unike
Our Intrepid Heroes, doesn't have any qualms about killing. But, even
in the *unlikely* event that the twain would meet, I'd agree with most
of the others that they would not attempt to kill each other...
Just to add my $.02 to the "Who is YOUR favourite author" discussion,
I'd say Jordan. He has a number of on-going plots, quite three-
dimensional characters, AND a very neat universe, including such
things as the Borderlanders, and the Blight. With that off my chest,
I'll add that I like the magic in the Elenium/Tamulion.
All IMHO, of course.
cd
--
\\\\\ |HFF Spokeshuman |And All Shall|Bringing Free-
\\\\\\\__o |Archbishop |Fall Down In |dom to the
__\\\\\\\'/____|CD Skogsberg |Worship of |Common Hedge-
Happy New Year!|c...@alfakonsult.se|Jimmy Brokaw |hog since 1995
Jennifer A Yockey
I think that there is a difference between character _development_ and
character _growth_. I believe that a novel's character development would
be dependent upon the author's ability to write characters who have
believable pasts, feelings, concerns and trials. A "three dimensional"
character is one with depth who we can understand, and most of the time,
sympathize with. Character _growth_ (what this argument seems to be
centered on) is the change that a character undergoes throughout the book.
And if it's growth you're talking about, Tad Williams wins hands down.
(Of course... you're all free to disagree with me...)
-Jen
K C Moore
> No 7000 year old demi-gods?
I didn't say there weren't any, just that literature was not full of
them.
> Howabout YHVH? He seems to muck up
> things pretty well for at least the last 5000, and he develops along
> the way. Don't believe me? Read "God: a biography" by Jack Miles. He
> lays out the divine character's changes pretty well.
Christians call him "unchanging": perhaps that's a recent development.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
David Rosoff
: I _know_ I'm going to regret this, but wouldn't balefiring the orb
: count as trying to unmake it?
This could definitely make an interesting discussion. Doesn't balefire
make things cease to exist, and even go so far as to erase what these
things have done reverse over a certain length of time? I think that's
how it works. So yes. Ah the horrible things that happen with fantasy
worlds collide.
--
----- -- DavId Rosoff -- -----+
Available by email at: I http://www.arc.unm.edu/~drosoff/ I
dro...@arc.unm.edu <- for me I Un! Znqr ybi ybbx! (Use rot13 to read) I
fin...@ix.netcom.com <- for DCIC I PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) Info Page: I
Get PGP-it's your privacy at stake I http://www.arc.unm.edu/~drosoff/pgp/ I
I prefer PGP-encoded email, please I Childrens' Peace Statue Page: I
Key from finger or keyservers I http://www.arc.unm.edu/~drosoff/statue/ I
==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--***I*********--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==I
Magnus Itland
>Why do we persist in carrying on this utterly POINTLESS thread?
Because of its entertainment value. RASFWRJ has harbored lots of
silly threads for more than a year, and I think it will continue thus.
I love it. :)
>FURTHERMORE. To not be seen as a Rand basher or a Belgarion basher, I like
>both series equally well.
I certainly like them both, too.
>I'm sure that people in alt.fan.eddings don't really want to be hearing
>discussions about Rand, and people in rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan don't
>particularly care about Belgarion. Myself, if I wanted to read about Jordan's
>worlds, I'd go to rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan, and vice-versa.
Well, but comparing series and writers is kind of fun, too, and you
can't do it in one single group.
>Here's an idea, why don't we form a new newsgroup, called
>alt.jordan.vs.eddings? That way, people who want to bicker about whether or
>not Belgarion could beat Rand, or whether Jordan has a superior writing style,
>can go *there* and argue, and let the people in a.f.e talk about Eddings and
>the people in r.a.s.w.r talk about Jordan.
>If you like the idea, I'll hop over to the box I'm a newsadmin on and newgroup
>it there for y'all.
>And then we can read about our respective fantasy authors in peace.
I have an even better idea. Everyone get a good program for reading
newsgroups. Where you can just cancel a tread you don't want to
follow, and then you never sea those messies again.
That's the way I do it.
ang...@ix.netcom.com
> -Jen
A most excellent point. I can only quibble about one particular.
While I have never read Tad Williams (and you may be right in pegging
him as the best at character growth) I submit that it would be
difficult at best for him to exceed Lloyd Alexander in his ability in
portraying character growth. Because Mr. Alexander wrote for
adolescents, his entire point is growing into responsibility.
Just an opinion.
JT
mls...@ibm.net
It could be said that only the perception his worshipers have of him has
changed. If you don't mind being called a blasphemous unbeliever by the
more reactionary of those worshipers, that is.
===================================================================
Marc Sanders (mls...@ibm.net)
"A good insult is like a good knife: short, sharp, and pointed."
===================================================================
GM Jason
character development defined the way he defined it.
Eddings' characters are the same throughout his different series. The
Elenium characters are very similar to the set of heroes in the Belgariad.
Jordan has marvelously detailed characters and great character
development, but we have yet to see whether he put everything he knows
into the Wheel of Time or if he can create another miracle with his next
series.
Jason Woerner
GM Ja...@aol.com
jwoe...@gic.gi.com
ujwo...@mcs.drexel.edu
K C Moore
> [ re YHVH ]
> It could be said that only the perception his worshipers have of him has
> changed. If you don't mind being called a blasphemous unbeliever by the
> more reactionary of those worshipers, that is.
As I see it, the author of the story of Abraham & Isaac is saying
either "You got it wrong: He doesn't want human sacrifice." or "He's
changed." I slightly favour the second, but I can't think of a third.
--
Ken Moore who accepts the description "blasphemous unbeliever"
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Dale Fox
I thought so...) The hopeless, typically-Arendish honorable
love-triangle betwixt him, his ~master and his master's wife was
hillarious, as was its' resolution.
Dale Fox
Eric Truong
Michael Wyatt <s217...@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>A final word for all those Belgarion lovers out there !
>Consider this :
>Jordan dies of a coronary infarction 100 pages from the end of the
>last book.
>WOULD YOU LET DAVID EDDINGS FINISH IT ?!?!?!?!?
As much as I love Eddings' works, NO WAY! Their style is totally
different. Eddings is on the light side and Jordan is heavily into
plots. Eddings' characters are too 2-dimensional. I don't think
he can handle Jordan's characters.
I'll go with G.G. Kay though. Jordan did say that he admires Kay's works.
o-----------------------------------------o-----------------------------------o
| Eric Truong | "One day I dreamt I was a butter- |
| Electrical Engineering/Computer Science | fly. When I woke up, I no longer |
| University of California, at Berkeley | knew if I was a man dreaming I |
| er...@cory.eecs.berkeley.edu | was a butterfly or a butterfly |
| Heja Sverige!!! Heja Tre Kronor!!! | dreaming I was a man." - Buddhist |
o-----------------------------------------o-----------------------------------o
Michael Wyatt
mls...@ibm.net
>In article <4ct67t$19...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> mls...@ibm.net writes:
>> [ re YHVH ]
>> It could be said that only the perception his worshipers have of him has
>> changed. If you don't mind being called a blasphemous unbeliever by the
>> more reactionary of those worshipers, that is.
>
>As I see it, the author of the story of Abraham & Isaac is saying
>either "You got it wrong: He doesn't want human sacrifice." or "He's
>changed." I slightly favour the second, but I can't think of a third.
The problem with a changing YHVH is that it conflicts with the All-
Knowing (in general; how much detail is a *big* can of worms, mainly
because of free-will), All-Powerful (self-limited to at least some extent;
again, how much is open to a lot of debate), All-Benevolent (in the long
run), and Perfectly-Just conception. If He (I don't really like applying
gender to trancendental entities, but that's the way the material has been
presented for the most part <shrug>) were truly all of those things then
such large changes in personality should *not* occur.
Gallus
> Jordan dies of a coronary infarction 100 pages from the end of the
> last book.
>
> WOULD YOU LET DAVID EDDINGS FINISH IT ?!?!?!?!?
Nah I'd let the Other Conan writer Leonard Carpenter finish it
Gallus
Doug Roussel
: I have to agree with the previous post. I think Eddings has a problem with
: character development defined the way he defined it.
: Eddings' characters are the same throughout his different series. The
: Elenium characters are very similar to the set of heroes in the Belgariad.
Another problem with Eddings' character development is that you see many
of the same traits in all of his characters, in both of his universes.
For example, most of the characters in both the Belgariad and Elenium
have the same exact sense of humor, although maybe to varying degrees.
Eddings' characters also generally have one specific trait which dominates
their personalities and they seldom do anything that isn't motivated by
this one dominate personality trait. It gets very annoying when the
"sneaky" one has to pick the pocket of everyone he encounters solely
because he is the "sneaky" one. Eddings' characters may be memorable
and amusing if you like that type of light reading, but to be honest I can
think of lots of more well-defined characters...in the World Wrestling
Federation alone. :-)
Speaker for the Dead
Belgariad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|"Confess quickly. If you hold out to long, | Speaker for the Dead |
| it could jeopardize your credit rating." | |
| | |
| -Brazil | spac...@vm.temple.edu |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Roussel
: <Must not jump into this, must not...Heck.> Well, if Garion has the
: Orb, then Rand should have at least Callandor, and more probably the
: sa'sa'sa'angreal link <evil grin>. Thus, it would be Garion Toast
There's still one problem: Whose home field will this fight take place on?
I am assuming that Eddings' and Jordan's universes aren't the same, so that
the orb wouldnt work in Randland like it does in Eddings' world and likewise,
Rand wouldnt be able to draw from the One Power, as it doesn't exist in
Eddings' universe. And then there's the fact that Garrion's power comes
from his patron God (Aldur or whatever his name is) and Rand's comes from
the True Source, made by the Creator. Any universe where both Garrion
and Rand could use their powers would be one where both the Creator
and Eddings pantheon exist simultaneously, as well as both the Pattern and
the Destiny of Light, which would be acting to preserve the combatant to
which each is linked. And it just gets more complicated from there. Why not
just settle their differences via fisticuffs,or maybe best-3-of-5 in scissors,
paper, stone.
Doug
Magnus Itland
>No 7000 year old demi-gods? Howabout YHVH? He seems to muck up
>things pretty well for at least the last 5000, and he develops along
>the way. Don't believe me? Read "God: a biography" by Jack Miles. He
>lays out the divine character's changes pretty well.
Carl Gustav Jung (the renowned founder of analytic psychology) has
also written a terrifyingly thought-provoking book on this subject.
I share his general view that the changes seen in God reflects changes
to the human civilizations relating to the Divine.
Most writers simply cannot wait for such change to take place.
'Fro Boy
>Rand wouldnt be able to draw from the One Power, as it doesn't exist in
>Eddings' universe. And then there's the fact that Garrion's power comes
>from his patron God (Aldur or whatever his name is) and Rand's comes from
>the True Source, made by the Creator. Any universe where both Garrion
>and Rand could use their powers would be one where both the Creator
>and Eddings pantheon exist simultaneously, as well as both the Pattern and
>the Destiny of Light, which would be acting to preserve the combatant to
>which each is linked. And it just gets more complicated from there. Why not
>just settle their differences via fisticuffs,or maybe best-3-of-5 in
>scissors, paper, stone.
not to be getting off subject. but exactly how do you infer that the will and
the word comes from his patron god? besides. what about the people who
taught sorcery to themselves. the club footed alchemist comes to mind.
--
Dean Backeris, Head Chief of Staff, Dept. of Smoke and Mirrors. Room 13A 4th
level Sub-Sub-Sub basement, Whitehouse.
"Sumimasen, demo anatawa akuma desu ka?"
"Oui et j'ai un shea."
John v
comparing Opera and Industrial Rock. Sure it can be done but why would you
want to.
DE is a 'feel-good' writer with nice bubbly plots where everyone on the "good
side" gets along with each other and so have a nice easy (relatively speaking)
victory.
RJ's books (at least Wot I haven't read any of his others) Tend to be more
"thinker" books. Deeper subplots, more symbolism (I hate that word) and a
more realistic "good side" complete with in-fighting.
John v.
Nathan Forrester
I agree. If fact, if one does the comparisons you'd find that he has
the same characters in both series. Well, not _completely_, just
enough to make the conincidence staggering.
Andyman
> }Now does erasing somethings existence back in time constitute un making or
> }destroying. I tend to think that it is somewhere in between, mainly because
> }its makeing something not exist a few moments ago. All we have to do is
> }decide whether balefire unamkes things or destroys them. I vote for
> }unmakeing myself.
> }
>
> I vote for destroying. Balefire just destroys the object at some point in the
> past.
>
IMNSHO, balefire unmakes them because, as opposed to disintegrating or
burning something, where there the matter of the object still exists in
some altered form (burned ashes, gases, etc), balefire completely removes
the object's existence.
Andy
Gmoney
Well, excuse me kind sir, but thy aloofness does displease me...
And I do beleive that you left out the best character in the book
SILK!!!!
ro...@solution.maths.unsw.edu.au
Good point! Another difference is the plots of their respective books.
<Dons Asbestos Armour>
Eddings wouldn't know a good plot if it fell on him. The plot of the
Belgariad was mediocre at best, and then he reproduced it 3 times for
the next 3 series. As for subtlety and small clues in Eddings books, hah!
He's as subtle as a brick. By the end of QoS it was obvious they were
going to visit every country on the map (literally). As for the big
mystery of "The place which is no more" in the Malloreon; what a joke.
It was patently obvious to anyone who'd read EEG where it was. It was
laughable the way these supposedly clever sorcerers couldn't solve such
a simple puzzle like that one.
Another difference is that Jordan doesn't mind killing off major
characters. Not just the evil ones either. It nearly made me vomit when,
at the end of SoK, Eddings finally killed off a character. It had me
guessing from the moment he said in GoW that one of them was going to
die which it would be. And what does he do??? He kills off the most
boring, useless, dull member of the party that no-one else would miss!
Why not a slightly more tragic ending? Say, breaking up one of the
couples. Silk, Velvet, Garion, Ce'Nedra, Belgarath, Poledra, Durnik,
Polgara, Zakath or Cyradis. Pathetic!!! If I wanted to read feelgood
romantic endings I'd read trashy romance novels.
The only thing Eddings has going for him is the interaction between a
variety of VERY interesting characters which he does brilliantly.
<Removes Asbestos Armour>
Next time I'll have a go at Eddings' feeble grasp of military tactics
or his annoying habit of making all members of a particular race the
same.
Till then, Rory
Nathan Forrester
> And then there's the fact that Garrion's power comes
> from his patron God (Aldur or whatever his name is) and Rand's comes from
> the True Source, made by the Creator.
Actually, Garion's power comes from his own mind. All Aldur did wal to teach his
disciples how to harness it. Also (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the Creaton
didn't make the TS. It is the force of nature that drives the Wheel.
Allsortz
<sniip>
>As for the big
> mystery of "The place which is no more" in the Malloreon; what a joke.
> It was patently obvious to anyone who'd read EEG where it was.
>
I don't agree with most of these comments, BUT I so think that everyone
is entitled to their own opinions, and I can see where he is coming
from. The only thing I really disagree with is the statement above.
This seems to imply that you were thick if you didn't know where TPWINM
was. I really didn't know until SoK where it was, and , owing to the
fact that I used to watch a load of soaps, I am pretty good at spotting
blindingly obvious plots.
Life is like a box of chocolates
Some swine's always stolen the best bits before you get to it!
Allsortz
John C Mumaw
Nathan Forrester <nat...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[munch]
> Also (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the Creator
>didn't make the TS. It is the force of nature that drives the Wheel.
Ah, but who made the "force of nature"? <grin> This reminds me of the
alleged ancient Chinese saying, which runs (approximately):
Mankind was made by the gods
The gods were made by the impersonal forces of nature
The impersonal forces of nature were made by the Tao
And the Tao just happened.
-john
--
John C. Mumaw jmu...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (614)292-6314
Ohio State University Libraries Columbus, Ohio
Bobert
Why did you crosspost this to RASWR-J? It has absolutly nothing to do
w/Randland.
Justin Hall
>From: @ (Bobert)
>Subject: Re: Mandorallen
>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:32:35 GMT
>In <4dk2ct$l...@castle.nando.net>, Gmo...@Nando.net (Gmoney) writes:
>>SPAC...@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Speaker for the Dead) wrote:
>>>>Hey! Mandorallen was a well-developed cool character :) (Leastwise,
>>>>I thought so...) The hopeless, typically-Arendish honorable
>>>>love-triangle betwixt him, his ~master and his master's wife was
>>>>hillarious, as was its' resolution.
>>>
>>> I particularly enjoyed how Mandorallen dealt with fear early in the
>>>Belgariad.
>>Well, excuse me kind sir, but thy aloofness does displease me...
>>And I do beleive that you left out the best character in the book
>>SILK!!!!
>>
>Why did you crosspost this to RASWR-J? It has absolutly nothing to do
>w/Randland.
possibly because the original question was cross-posted here from rasfwr-j,
about Edding's character development versus Jordan's. relax..
"Who owns a man? The one who rules him,
or the one who pays him?" -Eriond
Justin "Skale" Hall hal...@one.net
http://w3.one.net/~halldp/index.htm
Jay McFadyen
--
Jay McFadyen
Development Tools and Infrastructure, C2PSD, Ford Motor Company
mcfa...@cadcam.pd9.ford.com or JMCFADYE
(313) 33-73359
Scott
watching several interesting, distinct characters slowly take on
so many of each others characteristics (examples: Barak doing the
subtle Silk jokes, Saraphin, the bloodthirsty Elene impression)
that you can't tell whose making a comment except by reading to
the end (," said so-and-so). While I do get tired of fantasy with
no personality developments, Mr. Eddings, how about stop
plagarizing yourself?
Richard Anthony Hein
: Doug Roussel wrote:
: > And then there's the fact that Garrion's power comes
: > from his patron God (Aldur or whatever his name is) and Rand's comes from
: > the True Source, made by the Creator.
: Actually, Garion's power comes from his own mind. All Aldur did wal to teach his
: disciples how to harness it. Also (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the Creaton
: didn't make the TS. It is the force of nature that drives the Wheel.
The Creator did what Creator implies: He/She/It created
everything, including the True Source, the Wheel, and the threads used to
make the Pattern. The only thing the Creator didn't Create, is the
Pattern itself, which He/She/It will not interfere with, now that the
Wheel is weaving. The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills.
Rick Hein RH...@is.dal.ca
P.S. I always liked David Eddings, and many other authors. Read them
for their merits, instead of criticizing so much. If you didn't like the
Belgariad, or the other series', then why did you read them all?? I
personally found the Lord of the Rings to be mostly boring, with only a
few interesting points (surely because I had read many fantasy books
before Tolkien, and it wasn't all "new"). To most of the readers in this
newsgroup, that probably makes me sound ridiculus. Well, that's fine. I
absolutely _loved_ Dune, however, and I never thought I'd read a better
series than that - until THE WHEEL OF TIME!! Which blew me away, and I
find now that I've read it, all other fiction seems boring, shallow, and
slow paced. RJ just destroyed the Shannara series for me - I was in the
middle of reading the Talismans of Shannara before I started reading the
WoT, and now I can't finish it, because I keep thinking about the WoT,
and end up rereading passages of it, over, and over. I only hope that I
find another author, and story that I like as much as RJ. David Eddings,
is one that I hope will fill the gap a little better than some others
I've tried.
Rick Hein RH...@is.dal.ca