Eddings
J...@b30.prime.com
Is it me, or does Sephrenia from The Elenium closely resemble Polgara
from the Belgariad/Mallorean series? I'm only on Book2, so don't anyone
go and ruin it for me!
-jpj
Bryce Koike
Gee....REALLY?
(Ok, I'm being sarcastic)
But serious, the main reason I consider the Elenium to be
such trash is simply because it's a re-rehashed Belgariad/
Mallorean. You have the Sorceress Who Has Access To Powers No One
Has Heard Before Who Has This Thing About People Taking Baths Who
Takes In A Young Child Who Turns Out To Be Very Important To The
Story...etc.
You have your Band of Warriors On The Quest, and so on, and
so forth. (You even have your good old Kender copy and other such
over-exaggerated character types.)
And I won't get into the "Sephrenia Saves The Day Again With
Yet Another Spell She's Never Cast Before But Of Course It Works"
deus ex machina schtick Eddings uses over and over again.
Dani Zweig
>
>Is it me, or does Sephrenia from The Elenium closely resemble Polgara
>from the Belgariad/Mallorean series?
The two series are *completely* different! The Elenium sorceress is
centuries old, rather than millenia old. The mysterious child with the
unexplained powers is a girl, rather than a boy. The barbarian fighter
talks more like Silk than like Barak. The incredibly powerful artifact
everyone is after is a gem, rather than a stone...
I could go on, but why bother? You're imagining the resemblance.
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine -- Edmund Spenser
Mean Green Dancing Machine
>J...@B30.PRIME.COM:
>>
>>Is it me, or does Sephrenia from The Elenium closely resemble Polgara
>>from the Belgariad/Mallorean series?
>
>The two series are *completely* different! The Elenium sorceress is
>centuries old, rather than millenia old. The mysterious child with the
>unexplained powers is a girl, rather than a boy. The barbarian fighter
>talks more like Silk than like Barak. The incredibly powerful artifact
>everyone is after is a gem, rather than a stone...
>
>I could go on, but why bother? You're imagining the resemblance.
"If sarcasm were posted on Usenet, would anyone notice?" --- JD Nicoll
Anyway, my opinion is that the characters of Sephrenia and Polgara
aren't *that* similar, but the similarities are magnified by their
identical positions within the plot.
Anyone interested in checking out something quite different from
Eddings' fantasy stuff should take a look at _High Hunt_. Despite its
name, it's straight mainstream fiction, written before he started the
Belgariad. The only point of similarity is that precisely one of the
characters in it appears to resemble another character in the Belgariad.
--
--- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
@netcom.com
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
How dare you assume I'm crooked?!
Michael Lerner
What do you expect from a bubble-gum author like Eddings? Try Guy Gavriel-Kay,
he's a much better author, or maybe Jack Vance?
Mike
--
Mark Smith
as a cross between Garion and Belgarath with a bit of Mandorlan(sp?)
thrown in. Talen as a younger version of Silk. etc. etc. etc.
Also, Eddings seems to have a bit of an age in marriage hangup.
Notice in the Mallorean that Silk marries Velvat? and in this series
Sparhawk marries the XXXXXXXXXXX whoever. Lessee, Garion Marries
C'nedra but that's streching it a bit, though C'nedra is described as
'child like' in some passages, but I forgot where.
Don't forget the stones of power, the orb and the rose.
Then there's people who aren't anything like they seem.
Notice the X's? I'm not telling, nyah nyah!!
Dragon Lord
Michel Forget
>
> What do you expect from a bubble-gum author like Eddings? Try Guy Gavriel-Ka
> he's a much better author, or maybe Jack Vance?
>
> Mike
> --
Don't you think you are being a little hard on Eddings? I mean, examine the
situation a little before you tell everyone how lousy he is. First of all,
nearly every one of his books has been an International Bestseller. That means
someone must be buying them, and not because they make good firewood. Eddings
might use plots that are quite simillar, but the *stories* are different. If
you read something and only consider the overall plot, then you could say that
all Fantasy is the same. It all involves a quest of some sort, and it all has
characters that are usually simillar to other characters in other books in some
way. Not everyone is a Tolkien, and you can't expect them to be. Just because
you don't like Eddings, or rather his books, doesn't mean you have to say that
he is a bad author. His books are interesting, and they hold interest. Nobody
can be perfect. I agree with most of the users here that his oerall plot
factory isn't producing many unique ideas, but at least he puts out excellent
writing with the ideas he does have.
<< ------------------------------------------ >>
<< mfo...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca >>
<< ersys!mfo...@nro.cs.athabascau.ca >>
<< Michel Forget >>
<< "Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, >>
<< for they are not happy campers!" - UNKNOWN >>
<< ------------------------------------------ >>
robert hofmann
|> as...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Lerner) writes:
|>
|> >
|> > What do you expect from a bubble-gum author like Eddings? Try Guy Gavriel-Ka
|> > he's a much better author, or maybe Jack Vance?
|> >
|> > Mike
|> > --
|>
|> Don't you think you are being a little hard on Eddings? I mean, examine the
|> situation a little before you tell everyone how lousy he is. First of all,
|> nearly every one of his books has been an International Bestseller. That means
|> someone must be buying them, and not because they make good firewood. Eddings
|> might use plots that are quite simillar, but the *stories* are different. If
|> you read something and only consider the overall plot, then you could say that
|> all Fantasy is the same. It all involves a quest of some sort, and it all has
|> characters that are usually simillar to other characters in other books in some
|> way. Not everyone is a Tolkien, and you can't expect them to be. Just because
|> you don't like Eddings, or rather his books, doesn't mean you have to say that
|> he is a bad author. His books are interesting, and they hold interest. Nobody
|> can be perfect. I agree with most of the users here that his oerall plot
|> factory isn't producing many unique ideas, but at least he puts out excellent
|> writing with the ideas he does have.
|>
I agree. Just because there are similarities between his works does not mean that they are not enjoying. Personally, I did not read Eddings works for the ingenuity of the overall polot, but because I think that he tells a good story and tells it well. It may not be a literary masterpiece, but it reads well, it is interesting and it is an entertaining distraction.
/---------------\
/ \
| |
| <> <> |
| <> |
| |
| ____________ |
| | Rhofmann | |
\ \_________/ /
\________________/
Michael Lerner
Eddings is a hack. He is mass-producing novels with low-quality content to
maximize profits, along the same vein as Piers Anthony, Terry Brooks, and
Robert Asprin. Maybe his works have not reached this putrid level yet, but
IMHO there are much better works to investigate at lower prices, including
works by Jack Vance, Guy-Gavriel Kay, Robert Jordan, and others. I feel that
Eddings' original work could have been compressed into a trilogy easily, but
was overall acceptable. His works since then have been little more than a
rehash of old material, with sub-par storytelling (In comparison to his
original story). He tried to extend a stand-alone, completed series which was
(IMHO) a bit large at 5 books into a 10 book series, and at least 3 or 4
of these books do nothing in the way of plot development (Each 500pp novel
advances about 1 chapter of plot, and the plot itself leaves much to be
desired). Once again, there are better, less expensive authors out there!
Mike
--
dragon_lord
At least you included IMHO! Eddings is one of those authors that has
one or two good stories. He also, as you put it, sticks too much
padding in his stories, but they're still good reads.
Dragon Lord
Abaddon
Personally I think he`s hilarious.
Tabor J. Wells
>as...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Lerner) writes:
>>
>> What do you expect from a bubble-gum author like Eddings? Try Guy Gavriel-Ka
>> he's a much better author, or maybe Jack Vance?
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>Don't you think you are being a little hard on Eddings? I mean, examine the
>situation a little before you tell everyone how lousy he is. First of all,
>nearly every one of his books has been an International Bestseller. That means
I would have to agree with Michael. I've read enough of the SF/Fan genre to
see that Eddings writing is trash. First off Danielle Steel's books are always
International Bestsellers (tm) too. Still doesn't say anything about the
quality of the work. It just tends to show the what people like. Not whether
it is a good work or not.
>someone must be buying them, and not because they make good firewood. Eddings
>might use plots that are quite simillar, but the *stories* are different. If
Nah I'd disagree there. His books are all the same. Just toss in a few new
names hither and yon and you have a new novel. (start blanket statement) Any
author who puts out two or more novels a year is not a good writer. (end
blanket statement) It just shows that he is not putting much time, effort,
thought, etc into his books. Hes more interested in getting another "bestseller"
out on the market than writing a novel/series of quality.
>you read something and only consider the overall plot, then you could say that
>all Fantasy is the same. It all involves a quest of some sort, and it all has
Not really. Sure there's a quest in most fantasy but at least there are other
differences in plot and the stories to make it an enjoyable read. Eddings is
not an enjoyable read. Just a tedious one. With all of the impossibilities,
improbabilities, flippant behavior on the part of all of the characters, its
enough to make any tastefull fantasy reader puke.
>characters that are usually simillar to other characters in other books in some
>way. Not everyone is a Tolkien, and you can't expect them to be. Just because
No not everone is a Tolkien. But then Eddings sure isn't even a Jefferies or
a Williams or a Feist or any of the other authors that write good fantasy.
>you don't like Eddings, or rather his books, doesn't mean you have to say that
>he is a bad author. His books are interesting, and they hold interest. Nobody
The only reason I continued (I will not read any more of them after Sapphire
rose) to read as many of them as I did was just to see how much worse they could
get. And god Sapphire Rose was *bad*. I read Eddings for the same reason
I read Shatner's TekWar, TekLords, and the new thrilling stunning sequel which
is not only worse than the others but just makes me ill, TekLab. Blechhh.
>can be perfect. I agree with most of the users here that his oerall plot
>factory isn't producing many unique ideas, but at least he puts out excellent
>writing with the ideas he does have.
No Eddings hasn't put out anything original or excellent. Its all trite, dull,
stupid, and sickening. Its sad to see what people consider good sf/fantasy
in this world.
Flames straight to /dev/null
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Tabor Wells twe...@rigel.cs.pdx.edu| "All those memories are lost now. |
| #include <disclaimer.h> | Like tears in the rain. Time to die."|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Beren Jamison
>mfo...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget) writes:
>>as...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Lerner) writes:
>>>
>>> What do you expect from a bubble-gum author like Eddings? Try Guy Gavriel-Ka
>>> he's a much better author, or maybe Jack Vance?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> --
>>Don't you think you are being a little hard on Eddings? I mean, examine the
>>situation a little before you tell everyone how lousy he is. First of all,
>>nearly every one of his books has been an International Bestseller. That means
>I would have to agree with Michael. I've read enough of the SF/Fan genre to
>see that Eddings writing is trash. First off Danielle Steel's books are always
>International Bestsellers (tm) too. Still doesn't say anything about the
>quality of the work. It just tends to show the what people like. Not whether
>it is a good work or not.
You may call it trash, but then your standards must be way too high,
because then you got at least 80 current authors who are a step below
him.
>>someone must be buying them, and not because they make good firewood. Eddings
>>might use plots that are quite simillar, but the *stories* are different. If
>Nah I'd disagree there. His books are all the same. Just toss in a few new
>names hither and yon and you have a new novel. (start blanket statement) Any
>author who puts out two or more novels a year is not a good writer. (end
>blanket statement) It just shows that he is not putting much time, effort,
>thought, etc into his books. Hes more interested in getting another "bestseller"
>out on the market than writing a novel/series of quality.
Whoa let's be a bit more reasonable, if he was putting out his books
tehn I would agree with you, However there's someone called a publisher..
Eddings was finished with the Mallorean before he began his next Series.
Did Arthur Conan Doyle clasify as a Bad Writer? He wrote more than two
a year..
Secondly, show me how the stories are just the same rehashed stories, and
then show me that anyone else aren't.
>>you read something and only consider the overall plot, then you could say that
>>all Fantasy is the same. It all involves a quest of some sort, and it all has
>Not really. Sure there's a quest in most fantasy but at least there are other
>differences in plot and the stories to make it an enjoyable read. Eddings is
>not an enjoyable read. Just a tedious one. With all of the impossibilities,
>improbabilities, flippant behavior on the part of all of the characters, its
>enough to make any tastefull fantasy reader puke.
Oh really?? When did God make you king of tasteful fantasy readers??
Enquiring minds want to know.
I beg to differ, but Eddings characters are the strong point
of his books, they are much more like real people than just about
anybody else's books (IMHO). It's nice to see characters who
annoy people because they like to, there are a lot of people like that
out there, of which you seem to be one.
>>characters that are usually simillar to other characters in other books in some
>>way. Not everyone is a Tolkien, and you can't expect them to be. Just because
>No not everone is a Tolkien. But then Eddings sure isn't even a Jefferies or
>a Williams or a Feist or any of the other authors that write good fantasy.
Each to his own, but I think that those that you just listed are rather
stodgy and boring to read,
>>you don't like Eddings, or rather his books, doesn't mean you have to say that
>>he is a bad author. His books are interesting, and they hold interest. Nobody
>The only reason I continued (I will not read any more of them after Sapphire
>rose) to read as many of them as I did was just to see how much worse they could
>get. And god Sapphire Rose was *bad*. I read Eddings for the same reason
>I read Shatner's TekWar, TekLords, and the new thrilling stunning sequel which
>is not only worse than the others but just makes me ill, TekLab. Blechhh.
Oh really?? It must be nice to be rich, or have such an up to date Library.
I have to disagree with you concerning Sapphire Rose, of all his
concluding books this was the best one. Now of course by your own
standard which you've tried to shove on us , that's not saying much.
I'll agree with you on Shatner's stuff, who thought he could
write worse than he acted?
>>can be perfect. I agree with most of the users here that his oerall plot
>>factory isn't producing many unique ideas, but at least he puts out excellent
>>writing with the ideas he does have.
>No Eddings hasn't put out anything original or excellent. Its all trite, dull,
>stupid, and sickening. Its sad to see what people consider good sf/fantasy
>in this world.
It's sad to see what somebody does when everything is a subjective opinion,
they settle for making a blanket staement about an author, and then start
determing how bad other people are.
i
ALL I said is IMHO.
-Still looking for Luthien
--
-Still looking for Luthien
Raymond Feighery
[Lots of stuff deleted]
>>>characters that are usually simillar to other characters in other books in some
>>>way. Not everyone is a Tolkien, and you can't expect them to be. Just because
>>No not everone is a Tolkien. But then Eddings sure isn't even a Jefferies or
>>a Williams or a Feist or any of the other authors that write good fantasy.
>Each to his own, but I think that those that you just listed are rather
>stodgy and boring to read,
[More stuff deleted]
>ALL I said is IMHO.
Well, you're HO sucks. Tolkien is STILL head and shoulders above all other
fantasy writers.
Just MHO.
> -Still looking for Luthien
>--
> -Still looking for Luthien
Ray.
dragon_lord
>ma...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Mark "Beren" Jamison) writes:
>
>[Lots of stuff deleted]
>
>>>>characters that are usually simillar to other characters in other books in some
>>>>way. Not everyone is a Tolkien, and you can't expect them to be. Just because
>
>>>No not everone is a Tolkien. But then Eddings sure isn't even a Jefferies or
>>>a Williams or a Feist or any of the other authors that write good fantasy.
>
>>Each to his own, but I think that those that you just listed are rather
>>stodgy and boring to read,
>
>[More stuff deleted]
>
>>ALL I said is IMHO.
>
>Well, you're HO sucks. Tolkien is STILL head and shoulders above all other
>fantasy writers.
>
>Just MHO.
>
Remember that your HO is no more or less valid that anyone elses. You
obviously have no more logical arguments and have fallen back on
emotionalism. You act as if repeating something over and over again can
make it true. Do you wish you were in Kansas? Do you wish you were in
Kansas... So, now what's so great about Tolkien? Sure, he took a
little more time and really built the world of middle earth, but his
story telling and characterization isn't all that great. His story
telling is too disjointed. He had to stop and explain EVERY little
detail. He wouldn't just assume that "yes we know what a tree is". As
for his characters, well- they're the "good, bad and the ugly". His
good characters are good and evil are evil. There are no characters
that are primarily good but have some really bad habits.
Ary you going to start screaming now? (vicious grin)
Dragon Lord
Gavin Steyn
>As
>for his characters, well- they're the "good, bad and the ugly". His
>good characters are good and evil are evil. There are no characters
>that are primarily good but have some really bad habits.
Criticizing Tolkien on those grounds is just silly. He's writing an epic;
epics aren't supposed to be subtle. I could just as well dismiss a lot of
excellent books by saying, "well, they've got no epic sweep; how good can
they be?"
(For that matter, Boromir's a good guy who does a pretty lousy thing.
And Frodo nearly doesn't throw out the ring.)
Gavin Steyn
st...@cs.rochester.edu
"There are times...when one wonders, 'Do pants really matter?'"
Scott Barker
> Well, you're HO sucks. Tolkien is STILL head and shoulders above all other
> fantasy writers.
>
> Just MHO.
Well, Ray, we are all very impressed with your ability to repeatedly state your
HO; and your exceptional, insightful, meaningful input remains a source of
amazement for everyone. Take a lesson from those of us in the civilized world
and save your flaming for /dev/null. If all you can do is tell someone that
their opinion sucks, then we really don't want to know what it is that you are
sucking.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in a free world where opinions are allowed
and mature people respect them. Ah well, I guess there are just too many people
who never really grew up after kindergarden. Such a world lives only in
fantasy.
[ Note: I fully respect Ray's opinion, I just don't respect his attitude
towards those who disagree with him. This is not meant to be a
counter-flame, although no doubt Ray or some other person of limited
intellect will see it as such and begin yet another useless flame war.
Of course, I shall not respond since I have already said my piece. ]
--
Thank you for your attention.
==============================================================================
Scott Barker
bar...@enel.ucalgary.ca
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." - Spock
"If winning is not important, then commander, why keep score?" - Worf
"Asking if a computer can think is like asking if a submarine can swim"
- unknown
Kevin McFadden
It seems to me that everything could have been ended nicely.
Miny Book Review: After the King
The cover of this hardback says something like "stories in honor of
JRR Tolkien." I misktakenly thought the settings would be in Middle Earth
but to my dismay the book was just another anthology of short fantasy stories
that happened to have a lot of name authors. All in all the stories are ok
but nothing to pay $18 for.
R o d Johnson
>SIDENOTE: Why did Eddings HAVE to continue the Elenium????
> It seems to me that everything could have been ended nicely.
Huh?
There are three books. I've only read the first two (yes, I admit it,
with some embarrassment), but the story definitely wasn't over after
the end of either. It's my understanding that the series *is*
finished at three. What do you mean by "continue"?
--
Rod Johnson * r...@caen.engin.umich.edu * (313) 764-3103
"The spaceship looked utterly like itself" --Robert Sheckley
Nathan Shafer
>So, now what's so great about Tolkien? Sure, he took a
>little more time and really built the world of middle earth, but his
>story telling and characterization isn't all that great. His story
>telling is too disjointed. He had to stop and explain EVERY little
>detail. He wouldn't just assume that "yes we know what a tree is".
I agree that Tolkien does do this; however, I think it's likely that
his intent was to give the feeling that in Middle Earth, a tree is not
necessarily a tree as we know it. Certainly, the effect on *me* when I
read Tolkien's extensive descriptions is to feel that I am experiencing
a world where everything is just a *little* different.
>As for his characters, well- they're the "good, bad and the ugly". His
>good characters are good and evil are evil. There are no characters
>that are primarily good but have some really bad habits.
1) This is not completely true. In the trilogy, two counter-exampels come
to mind immediately: Boromir and Denethor...one might also add Barliman
Butterbur, who is essentially a good man, but is narrow, provincial,
ignorant, and obtuse. Or extend it to Pippin, who is also extremely
good, but starts out as impulsive, rebellious (remember the theft of
the palantir), and willful. Then there's Celeborn, Galadriel's husband,
whose knee-jerk reaction to the presence of a dwarf in the company is
not exactly admirable. And if you feel like going back to the Sil-
marillion, there's a whole host of morally gray characters: Turin,
Maedhros, Thingol, perhaps even Feanor. I would even rank Isildur
as "good, but with some really bad habits." Remember it was his greed
that allowed the Ring to survive Sauron's 2nd fall...
2) A more factual criticism might be Tolkien's adherence to the doctrine
that equates moral or inner goodness with physical attractiveness (al-
though he refutes this in the character of Aragorn as Strider). However,
as someone else has noted, Tolkien's narrative is less in the style of
a modern novel than a mythological epic, and the goodness=beauty theme
is certainly characteristic of that style.
Nathan Shafer
Dartmouth College, NH
Jose M Cunha
Anyone know when Jordan's the Dragon Reborn, the third book of his
latest series is coming out in paperback?
--
Heavenly Softness I HATE 4 LINE LIMITS
Blissful and Pleasurable
Given or Denied? sh...@wpi.wpi.edu
Copyright 1990, by Jose Manuel F.V. Cunha
Raymond Feighery
>Well, Ray, we are all very impressed with your ability to repeatedly state your
>HO; and your exceptional, insightful, meaningful input remains a source of
>amazement for everyone. Take a lesson from those of us in the civilized world
>and save your flaming for /dev/null. If all you can do is tell someone that
>their opinion sucks, then we really don't want to know what it is that you are
>sucking.
>==============================================================================
>Scott Barker
>bar...@enel.ucalgary.ca
I apologise for my remarks. Unfortunately I was not in the best of moods and
disagreed with the opinion being voiced; I reacted emotionally rather than
intelligently.
Ray
P.S. I love the taste of humble pie and the smell of burning napalm.
Kristof Roomp
>Huh?
He probably means the _Tamul_ series. There is a burb at the end of the
third book saying that that is the next series. Since there is a Tamul
Empire mentioned in the _Elenium_ he's probably going to continue in the
same world, but with a different empire.
---------
kr...@cue.bc.ca
or
kri...@128.189.38.130
Kevin McFadden
>In article <1992Jan20....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> fkam...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Kevin McFadden) writes:
>
>>SIDENOTE: Why did Eddings HAVE to continue the Elenium????
>> It seems to me that everything could have been ended nicely.
>
>Huh?
Sorry, for some odd reason the top half of the post was mislaid when saved/sent.
>
>There are three books. I've only read the first two (yes, I admit it,
>with some embarrassment), but the story definitely wasn't over after
>the end of either. It's my understanding that the series *is*
>finished at three. What do you mean by "continue"?
>
When you read the third book you will know what I mean. He doesn't
beat around the bush finishing it and he creates a very weak follow up plot in
order to write another series based on the same characters.
I should have said that Eddings is writing a second trilogy to follow the
Elenium.
norr...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
And you seem to have forgotten Gollum, who was arguably the most good/evil
character of them all. And I wouldn't say "perhaps even Feanor" - his pride and
arrogance were overwhelming.
>
> 2) A more factual criticism might be Tolkien's adherence to the doctrine
> that equates moral or inner goodness with physical attractiveness (al-
> though he refutes this in the character of Aragorn as Strider). However,
> as someone else has noted, Tolkien's narrative is less in the style of
> a modern novel than a mythological epic, and the goodness=beauty theme
> is certainly characteristic of that style.
I think that physical attractiveness only equals moral rectitude in the case
of the Elves, and since they were the primary creations of Illuvatar, then one
would expect them to be almost perfect - but again, there are exceptions such
as Feanor and the others mentioned above.
>
> Nathan Shafer
> Dartmouth College, NH
Jamie Norrish "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the
norr...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz earth, if that's alright with the rest of you."
Ray Charbonneau
|>
|> > Well, you're HO sucks. Tolkien is STILL head and shoulders above all other
|> > fantasy writers.
|> >
|> > Just MHO.
|>
|> Well, Ray, we are all very impressed with your ability to repeatedly state your
|> HO; and your exceptional, insightful, meaningful input remains a source of
|> amazement for everyone. Take a lesson from those of us in the civilized world
|> and save your flaming for /dev/null. If all you can do is tell someone that
|> their opinion sucks, then we really don't want to know what it is that you are
|> sucking.
|>
|> Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in a free world where opinions are allowed
|> and mature people respect them. Ah well, I guess there are just too many people
|> who never really grew up after kindergarden. Such a world lives only in
|> fantasy.
|>
|> [ Note: I fully respect Ray's opinion, I just don't respect his attitude
|> towards those who disagree with him. This is not meant to be a
|> counter-flame, although no doubt Ray or some other person of limited
|> intellect will see it as such and begin yet another useless flame war.
|> Of course, I shall not respond since I have already said my piece. ]
|>
Well, Scott, we Ray's on the net don't appreciate you using our name in vain
without giving attribution to the particular Ray. And some of us think it's
pretty childish to get your opinion in and state that anyone else who'd like to
comment is of limited intellect.
Net.police posts are open to net.police.oversight-committee posts.
--
Ray Charbonneau | I feel so inar-inar-inar-inar tic-u-late
rcha...@athena.mit.edu | -- Roger Taylor (Queen)
MIT and the Library Systems Office are glad that I'm posting my opinions
here so that they don't have to listen to them anymore.
Scott Barker
> >and save your flaming for /dev/null.
> I apologise for my remarks. Unfortunately I was not in the best of moods and
> disagreed with the opinion being voiced; I reacted emotionally rather than
> intelligently.
> Ray
And my apologies to you. I reacted much the same way. I just got a little tired
of the hundreds of posts that make for long reading, but say nothing. It would
be so much nicer if discussions were taking place, rather than flaming.
Actually, many discussions are taking place, and those DO make for good
reading. Constructive critizism is informative.
Scott Barker
> latest series is coming out in paperback?
The Dragon Reborn is a spring title, so look for it in paperback sometime
before May. It may or may not come out in trade paperback, depending on
whether the publisher cares about making many people upset (my copies of the
previous two are both trade paperbacks).
Scott Barker
> without giving attribution to the particular Ray.
No offense intended to Ray's in general. The offending post WAS included in my
posting, so the offending Ray knew who he was. In fact, he apologized. And
indeed, so did I.
> And some of us think it's
> pretty childish to get your opinion in and state that anyone else who'd like to
> comment is of limited intellect.
Comment was not discouraged, just flaming. So, if your post was a flame, I am
of the opinion that you do have a limited intellect. I await constructive
comment with an open mind, but am really quite averse to mindless drivel.
I endeaver to make my posts useful, but on occassion I have a bad day, as
did the other Ray. However, I have noticed several persons who seem to spend
their day doing nothing but spewing flame garbage onto the net. I suppose they
are the necessary evil in net society.
If you have comment, please post it. If you have flames, please stuff it.
Chad Lundgren
When you're lost in the rain in Juarez and it's Eastertime too
And your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
Don't put on any airs when you're down on Rue Morgue Avenue
They got some hungry women there and they really make a mess out of you.
-Bob Dylan/Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues
The verse (I think) that was quoted actually made more sense than this:
it talked about friends letting you down, which has something to do with
the book.
--
Chad Lundgren
lund...@vesta.unm.edu
John S. Novak III
>> Anyone know when Jordan's the Dragon Reborn, the third book of his
>> latest series is coming out in paperback?
More importantly (to me, since I read the hardback from a library) how
many books are there to be in the series? The structure seems to
indicate seven, though I won't say why-- it would be a spoiler to
those who haven't read them yet.
Also, when are the next (ie, fourth thru seventh, if a m correct) due
for publishing, and what will their titles be?
Scott Barker
> >> latest series is coming out in paperback?
> More importantly (to me, since I read the hardback from a library) how
> many books are there to be in the series? The structure seems to
> indicate seven, though I won't say why-- it would be a spoiler to
> those who haven't read them yet.
Jordan has said that he plans on writing at least seven books. He may or may
not continue to write more.
> Also, when are the next (ie, fourth thru seventh, if a m correct) due
> for publishing, and what will their titles be?
As I said in another post, these are spring titles. Unless the publisher feels
a need to bring them out more often, there should be one released each spring
over the next four years (and maybe longer).
Haven`t the faintest idea what the titles are to be.
Nathan Shafer
>In article <1992Jan20.1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, nathans@coos (Nathan Shafer) writes:
>> In article <1992Jan20.0...@serval.net.wsu.edu> Dragon Lord writes:
>>>So, now what's so great about Tolkien?
>>>good characters are good and evil are evil. There are no characters
>>>that are primarily good but have some really bad habits.
>>
>> And if you feel like going back to the Silmarillion, there's a whole
>> host of morally gray characters: Turin, Maedhros, Thingol, perhaps
>> even Feanor.
>
>character of them all. And I wouldn't say "perhaps even Feanor" - his pride and
>arrogance were overwhelming.
You're right about Gollum; it's easy to forget that his character, too,
cannot be lightly labelled as "evil." As for Feanor, I did not mean to imply
that we should assume, because he was an Elf and enemy of Melkor that he is
good. Rather, I was assuming that people would consider him simply evil, and
arguing that arrogance and pride were not all there was to him. I guess it
could go both ways...
Derek LeLash
_constructive_ discussions someone mentioned, I'd like to hear people's
thoughts on the merits of Eddings' work. In particular, what about:
* His characters' tendency to speak in 1990's conversational English almost
all of the time; not even a pretense at "epic style."
* His exhaustive use of "travelog" fiction, where you know as soon as you see
a map of an unfamiliar area, that he's going to drag the characters through
each and every region on it somehow, all generally without any sense that
they're traveling hundreds/thousands of miles on horseback (ouch!).
* The undercurrent of racism in his work, such that statements like "the
people from XXX are all yyy" (where "yyy" isn't necessarily positive) are
common.
* The profusion of sympathetic characters, including even the rulers of the
two evil realms in the Malloreon and Martel in the Elenium.
* His inability to kill characters off without a long long lead-in and
potential for resurrection. :-)
Please, no knee-jerk response from either extreme -- I already know that some
people think DE is God and others hate his stuff.
--
Derek LeLash | ...gone where the climate suits my clothes.
FOAF of the devil... >:-) |-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------| "If I *were* the last man on earth, you
de...@netcom.com 408-739-5526 | wouldn't even be allowed in line!" -- EMO
Jennifer Lynn Piatek
>* His characters' tendency to speak in 1990's conversational English almost
>all of the time; not even a pretense at "epic style."
Yes, he does tend to do this. But not that much (remember Christian
Slater's "F**k me, they made it!" from Robin Hood?). I think it adds to
the readability of his stories. He has already shown that he can write Old
English (Mandorallen). Also, it makes his characters sound real -- they don't
sound like they are acting, and its much easier to empathize (sp) with someone
you can understand than someone you can't. Many books in which that main
characters speak other languages are written in English -- if Eddings is
going to be criticized for his characters not speaking in "epic style" then
we should criticize other authors for not writing in the language the
character is speaking. And since that is not feasible....yes, it would make
it seem much more 'medieval', but it might detract from the reader's
perception and like/dislike of the characters.
>* His exhaustive use of "travelog" fiction, where you know as soon as you see
>a map of an unfamiliar area, that he's going to drag the characters through
>each and every region on it somehow, all generally without any sense that
>they're traveling hundreds/thousands of miles on horseback (ouch!).
This is annoying, but it does give us a good view of what the world he has
created is like, and a chance to see the different people in it. It would be
hard to write a good story that is filled with "Then we rode for three weeks
due east without any trouble. It rained once or twice, but..." That would
distract from the flow of the story...
>* The undercurrent of racism in his work, such that statements like "the
>people from XXX are all yyy" (where "yyy" isn't necessarily positive) are
>common.
Yes he does this -- perhaps this is not a flaw per se, but rather a
reflection of how our own society treats people?? Think long enough, and
you probably can come up with some common ones. (No, I'm not trying to make
a political statement here, but maybe Eddings is?). The races and peoples
he creates tend to be very flat in their race characterization (i.e. all Alorns
are empty-headed warmongers, all Tolnedrans love money, etc.), but the
characters he creates from them tend to be much rounder -- they could be more
well developed, however. What he doesn't do is give us an example of the
exception to the rule -- a smart Alorn, an honest Drasnian, stuff like that.
>* The profusion of sympathetic characters, including even the rulers of the
>two evil realms in the Malloreon and Martel in the Elenium.
Sympathetic? Maybe, maybe not. Self-serving, maybe. 'Zakath was not
exactly congenial in any of the books, and he never wanted to help until
Cyradis *told* him he had to. And Martel hasn't done anything I'd call
sympathetic -- he has a goal, and if killing Sparhawk in that tent with
Arasham would hinder that goal, then he wasn't going to do it.
>* His inability to kill characters off without a long long lead-in and
>potential for resurrection. :-)
Who? I don't recall anyone, except Durnik, and we KNEW about that way
ahead of time. I won't say who died at the end of Seeress of Kell, since alot
of people may not have read it yet, but that person is not coming back, as far
as I can tell. And all the knights that have died in the Elenium aren't coming
back, either -- maybe as ghosts, but not resurrected. Yes, he hasn't killed
a main character yet in the Elenium, but we haven't gotten to a stage where
the situation is desparate enough for that to happen....
I don't think Eddings is "God" per se...he is alot better than many of the
other writers out there, or at least the ones I've read (this is IMHO! no
flames please!!). I liked the Diamond Throne a whole lot, and regardless of
the similarities one can think up between it and the Belgariad/Mallorean, I
can say that I like the Elenium better than the other two -- and I can't wait
til I can read the Sapphire Rose and find out what happens.... I'll buy it
when the hardcover gets really cheap -- I'm not that crazy about Eddings..
Jen
pia...@rpi.edu
Mark Smith
But isn't that evil? Isn't arrogance evil? From what I've seen,
arrogant people don't consider others need/desires/hopes/etc. to be as
valid as their own. Therefore, they feel justified in doing what ever
it takes to satisfy their own needs, even if it means destroying
anyone/thing that possesses what they want or is in the way of obtaining
that desire.
Craig Levin
>To try to get this thread back to its title :-) and to start one o' those
>_constructive_ discussions someone mentioned, I'd like to hear people's
>thoughts on the merits of Eddings' work. In particular, what about:
>* His characters' tendency to speak in 1990's conversational English almost
>all of the time; not even a pretense at "epic style."
I personally find that a refreshing approach. The forsoothish
speech, as it's called in the SCA, was conversational. If we are to
truly believe that a person is acting naturally, we have to believe
that he'll speak like a normal person. Most people don't speak
fosoothly, so they expect characters to speak non-fosoothly as well.
>* His exhaustive use of "travelog" fiction, where you know as soon as you see
>a map of an unfamiliar area, that he's going to drag the characters through
>each and every region on it somehow, all generally without any sense that
>they're traveling hundreds/thousands of miles on horseback (ouch!).
These characters are used to life in the saddle; IMHO, I'd
consider a whiny traveller as maybe not fit for knightly duties. As
for his travelog approach, isn't the whole reason for fiction to see
places that you never would/could in reality?
>* The undercurrent of racism in his work, such that statements like "the
>people from XXX are all yyy" (where "yyy" isn't necessarily positive) are
>common.
That is a problem, I daresay. However, we have seen individual
citizens from one nation or another, and our heroes manage to discover
that not all XXX'ians are yyy.
>* The profusion of sympathetic characters, including even the rulers of the
>two evil realms in the Malloreon and Martel in the Elenium.
Martel is supposed to be sort of understandable-the archetype
of the shopworn Galahad and the sinful knight are part of literature.
Personally, while I don't feel sorry for Martel, I can understand some
of his motivations. The same goes for Their Majesties.
>* His inability to kill characters off without a long long lead-in and
>potential for resurrection. :-)
It's a failing, I guess :-), but I think that at least one
major character in the Elenium who died as a protagonist will stay
dead.
--
Craig\The Moonman\Levin Alferez Pedro Alcazar, RN (Portugal)
moo...@camelot.bradley.edu House of the Moss Rose, Barony of
Illiton, Middle Kingdom
Gavin Steyn
>In <1992Jan24.023...@netcom.COM> de...@netcom.COM (Derek LeLash) writes:
>
>>To try to get this thread back to its title :-) and to start one o' those
>>_constructive_ discussions someone mentioned, I'd like to hear people's
>>thoughts on the merits of Eddings' work. In particular, what about:
>>* His characters' tendency to speak in 1990's conversational English almost
>>all of the time; not even a pretense at "epic style."
> I personally find that a refreshing approach. The forsoothish
>speech, as it's called in the SCA, was conversational. If we are to
>truly believe that a person is acting naturally, we have to believe
>that he'll speak like a normal person. Most people don't speak
>fosoothly, so they expect characters to speak non-fosoothly as well.
I've seen a couple of messages talk about this, and I don't think the
issue is so clear-cut. One can write in an epic style without the
characters sounding as if they're direct imports from the Middle Ages,
and even still feel as if the characters are talking naturally. How-
ever, because their speech would be slightly elevated, the reader can
get more of a feel that he's in a fantastic world. (Ursula LeGuin talks
about this idea in "The Language of Night," an interesting essay about
the use of language in modern fantasy.)
Because Eddings's characters tend to all be flippant, it's a lot
harder to get the feeling that they're involved in momentous events,
or that they're that different to us. That makes the books less in-
teresting for me to read (which is why I stopped reading them a few
years back), but I guess it's not a reason to dismiss them outright.
ELLEN G. COHN
but not as good as the Belgariad - too much repetition, I think. I've
not read the Elenium.
I agree that the stereotyping of peoples is a problem. All Tolnedrans
seem to be incredibly fond of money. All Alorns seem to be stupid to an
extreme. All Murgos are evil (although Zakath's mother and her new
husband....forget his name offhand seem fairly nice people to me!)
But other people have already covered this topic. My other concern
with Eddings is the number of dead bodies he leaves strewn about. I mean,
everywhere our valient company go, they leave lots of corpses behind.
Mostly Murgos and Grolims, but still corpses! And they enjoy the killing.
I remember somewhere in the Belgariad (sorry books at home, me at office)
Garion gets upset because someone else killed a Murgo for him. He wasn't
upset that the Murgo was killed, he was upset because HE wanted to kill
that Murgo himself! The only times we see people sad at death is when
it's a known character - Garion's old playmate, or that serf C'Nedra
picked up, or Brand's son. Many tears are shed over these deaths. But
thousands of other people are killed and no one really cares. The entire
war that C'Nedra's army fought (in the Belgariad) was really just done
as a distraction. Thousands of people killed just to cause a diversion?
Okay, C'Nedra was unhappy about that, but she did it anyway. And no one
else seemed at all upset. The series are just littered with corpses,
practically every other page sometimes.
Having said all that, I still like the books! ;-)
Ellen Cohn
IST...@indyvax.iupui.edu
Craig Levin
>My other concern
>with Eddings is the number of dead bodies he leaves strewn about. I mean,
>everywhere our valient company go, they leave lots of corpses behind.
>Mostly Murgos and Grolims, but still corpses! And they enjoy the killing.
>I remember somewhere in the Belgariad (sorry books at home, me at office)
>Garion gets upset because someone else killed a Murgo for him. He wasn't
>upset that the Murgo was killed, he was upset because HE wanted to kill
>that Murgo himself!
His upsetness was caused by battle madness, probably. I've
played role-playing games before, and one usually picks one's opponent
just before conflict. Unless you need help, that grunt across the
field is _yours_, and others need not interfere. Plus the majority of
characters are trained warriors, who are faced by trained warriors.
What does one expect in a religious conflict of that nature?
>The only times we see people sad at death is when
>it's a known character - Garion's old playmate, or that serf C'Nedra
>picked up, or Brand's son. Many tears are shed over these deaths. But
>thousands of other people are killed and no one really cares. The entire
>war that C'Nedra's army fought (in the Belgariad) was really just done
>as a distraction. Thousands of people killed just to cause a diversion?
>Okay, C'Nedra was unhappy about that, but she did it anyway. And no one
>else seemed at all upset. The series are just littered with corpses,
>practically every other page sometimes.
Again, that's because Eddings's characters are fairly
believable sorts of people. Few people can mourn for people they don't
really know or care about. As for the Great East-West War in the
Belgariad, it was also something that had to be done, since Murgodom
and the Mallorean Empire had gotten large enough and strong enough to
threaten the safety of the West. Realpolitik in action.
>Having said all that, I still like the books! ;-)
I hope that our commentaries somehow reach Mr. Eddings, so
that he can find out what his public likes and dislikes. Does anyone
know if he does or does not read Compu$erve or a similar service?
Derek LeLash
>
> Because Eddings's characters tend to all be flippant, it's a lot
>harder to get the feeling that they're involved in momentous events,
>or that they're that different to us. That makes the books less in-
>teresting for me to read (which is why I stopped reading them a few
>years back), but I guess it's not a reason to dismiss them outright.
>
choice... I remember when Belgarath described the way wizards dress in
Darshiva (?) as a "passing fad." Blech. And the amount of sarcasm and
"gay banter" that goes on, even during the latest quest to save the world
and Prince Geran, gets so heavy that Eddings has to jerk it to a stop every
50 pages or so when someone reminds the group about the seriousness of their
affairs...
Anyway, I don't mean to damn his efforts; I bought and read all his books,
though I may not go so far with the "Tamuli" (?) series when that happens,
and while I don't think he's as good a writer as, say, Jordan, I was interested
and I enjoyed reading them (up to a point). So there.
(By the way, has there ever been more biographical data released about him
than the one paragraph which appears in all 13 books? :-)
Derek
norr...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
In a sense it is definitely evil, but the point is that it was not the only
facet to his personality. Feanor had both good points and bad, which makes him
more than the simplistic stereotype someone had earlier claimed all of
Tolkien's characters were.
Michel Forget
> > Anyone know when Jordan's the Dragon Reborn, the third book of his
> > latest series is coming out in paperback?
>
> The Dragon Reborn is a spring title, so look for it in paperback sometime
> before May. It may or may not come out in trade paperback, depending on
> whether the publisher cares about making many people upset (my copies of the
> previous two are both trade paperbacks).
>
> --
> Thank you for your attention.
> =============================================================================
> Scott Barker
> bar...@enel.ucalgary.ca
>
> "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." - Spock
> "If winning is not important, then commander, why keep score?" - Worf
> "Asking if a computer can think is like asking if a submarine can swim"
> - unknown
Does anyone know if there will be more books in this series? I read The Dragon
Reborn, and there seem to be a great deal of loose ends. I won't spoil the
book for others by mentioning them, but I would like to know what happens.
More to the point, the ending is almost like a cliff-hanger. There is a lot of
room for the story to continue, but will it? Only the first three books are
listed at the beginning of the book? I haven't read the first book because I
haven't been able to find it. Am I missing some vital information about the
continuation of the story?
<< ------------------------------------------ >>
<< mfo...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca >>
<< ersys!mfo...@nro.cs.athabascau.ca >>
<< Michel Forget >>
<< "Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, >>
<< for they are not happy campers!" - UNKNOWN >>
<< ------------------------------------------ >>
David Zink
>mfo...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget) writes:
>>as...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Lerner) writes:
>>> What do you expect from a bubble-gum author like Eddings? Try Guy Gavriel-Ka
>>> Mike
>>Don't you think you are being a little hard on Eddings? I mean, examine the
>>situation a little before you tell everyone how lousy he is. First of all,
>>nearly every one of his books has been an International Bestseller. That means
>>someone must be buying them, and not because they make good firewood. Eddings
>>might use plots that are quite simillar, but the *stories* are different. If
>
>Nah I'd disagree there. His books are all the same. Just toss in a few new
>names hither and yon and you have a new novel.
For a thorough dissection and destruction of Eddings, one need only refer to
E. M. Forster's Aspects_of_the_Novel, (c) 1927, the chapter titled "Story",
of which EMF would claim Eddings to be a master.
-- David
No, I won't include the entire text of the chapter with little >'s in front
of it.
Mark Smith
[lotsa stuff chopped]
>>
>> But isn't that evil? Isn't arrogance evil? From what I've seen,
>> arrogant people don't consider others need/desires/hopes/etc. to be as
>> valid as their own. Therefore, they feel justified in doing what ever
>> it takes to satisfy their own needs, even if it means destroying
>> anyone/thing that possesses what they want or is in the way of obtaining
>> that desire.
>
> In a sense it is definitely evil, but the point is that it was not the only
>facet to his personality. Feanor had both good points and bad, which makes him
>more than the simplistic stereotype someone had earlier claimed all of
>Tolkien's characters were.
>
Ah, but the point is, when it was 'in a pinch time' their selfishness
and arrogance became dominate. This lead to at least Borromirs (sp?)
death at the river when orcs attacked. Borromir may have been repentant
with all those arrows pinning him to a tree, but he still screwed up
because of his arrogance..
Scott Barker
> Reborn, and there seem to be a great deal of loose ends. I won't spoil the
> book for others by mentioning them, but I would like to know what happens.
> More to the point, the ending is almost like a cliff-hanger. There is a lot of
> room for the story to continue, but will it? Only the first three books are
> listed at the beginning of the book? I haven't read the first book because I
> haven't been able to find it. Am I missing some vital information about the
> continuation of the story?
You're not missing anything vital, but you are missing a very good book. I
haven't read the third yet, but the first is better than the second (not that
the second isn't fantastic, either).
But, anyway, the last I heard was that Jordan himself had stated that he
planned seven books for this series, and was thinking about writing another
one in the same world.
--
Thank you for your attention.
==============================================================================
norr...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Actually, Boromir "repented" seconds after Frodo put on the Ring and
disappeared. He realized the madnesss that overcame him, and then acted to try
and save something of the situation. Any other examples?
Jamie Norrish
norr...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
jerry cullingford
>To try to get this thread back to its title :-) and to start one o' those
>_constructive_ discussions someone mentioned, I'd like to hear people's
>thoughts on the merits of Eddings' work. In particular, what about:
>
>* His characters' tendency to speak in 1990's conversational English almost
>all of the time; not even a pretense at "epic style."
A plus point, or at least not a negative one :-). People do speak in
normal everyday language. Even the epics were using the everyday language of
the time. And given that the characters usually either start off as :-) or are
pretending to be :-) ordinary people, it fits pretty well. Lets you concentrate
on the story rather than "This must be an epic cos they're talking funny".
>* His exhaustive use of "travelog" fiction, where you know as soon as you see
>a map of an unfamiliar area, that he's going to drag the characters through
>each and every region on it somehow, all generally without any sense that
>they're traveling hundreds/thousands of miles on horseback (ouch!).
HeHe! True, in hindsight.. but since it's usually a "chase" style plot,
probably excusable. And it does make it somewhat easier to vary the background
setting/people. Now you mention it though, you're more or less correct about
the 100% coverage...
>* The undercurrent of racism in his work, such that statements like "the
>people from XXX are all yyy" (where "yyy" isn't necessarily positive) are
>common.
Ye gods! don't you think that's overreacting a bit? Stereotyping, yes,
but I wouldn't call it racism. This is a _book_ remember, about _imaginary_
places. And stereotyping is a fairly quick way of giving people a rough picture
of the world. Remember also that this is a fantasy setting, where things are
often more clear-cut than in real life, and a low-tech one, with many little-
travelled inhabitants, so such stereotyping would be more likely. And in any
case, individual characters often turn out to be different form the stereotype.
>* The profusion of sympathetic characters, including even the rulers of the
>two evil realms in the Malloreon and Martel in the Elenium.
Not totally surprising, given that the evil was imposed by Torak in the
Mallorean. And didn't Martel start off originally as a good guy?
>* His inability to kill characters off without a long long lead-in and
>potential for resurrection. :-)
A not uncommon affliction among authors that like to eat :-). Surprisingly
enough, the hero usually survives to the end of a book...
>Please, no knee-jerk response from either extreme -- I already know that some
>people think DE is God and others hate his stuff.
Well, I liked the Belgariad, was deeply dissapointed by the Mallorean, which
comes over as a rehash with practically no new ideas and little interest, and
enjoyed the Elenium (probably more because Sparhawk comes across as the way
I'd like to play a paladin in D&D (Which the rules wouldn't allow) than
anything else) although it also uses a fairly similar basic plot.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| Jerry Cullingford #include <std.disclaimer> +44 442 230000 | ,-|--
| j...@crosfield.co.uk (was j...@cel.co.uk) or j...@cel.uucp x3203 | \_|__
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ \___/
Michel Forget
> In <01GFP6WU6...@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU> IST...@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU ("ELLEN G
>
I wonder if he does read such services. I suppose if you really wanted him to
know what people think, you could mail him a selection of the general view care
of his publisher. That way if he reads letters he gets, he'd know what people
are saying about the books he writes.