David Eddings or J.R.R Tolkien

[Jack]

? Um ?
Shall we try layman’s terms?

Elizabeth Moon is not my style of writer, if you dislike the prose or subject/story of a book then it’s a hard sell – I really disliked Paksenarion 1. Because she was a goody-two-shoes and I wonted to hit her continuously in the face with a shovel 2. The style of writing was ‘event’ – event – event! One after the other in too quick a succession – I like fantasy to have a modicum of – well, I don’t know, plot is a nice thing to have – Instant gratification is not my thing in literature 3. It reminded me far too much of pop-fantasy like Dragon lance/ D&D books and I just couldn’t deal with the writing style in any shape or form. Though I have never read her sci fi books, but they are on my to read list - The Serrano Legacy, so we shall see.

As for Eddings – He’s ok for a beginner or a light read – Just as long as you understand a few things – How extraordinary, be nice, it’s a blue gem of ultimate ass kicking, such a nice boy, all stories are ultimately the same and the evil guys are ultimately stupid and/or arrogant – Repeat ad-norsium and viola! Prefer Brooks to be honest with you – Which again is not everyone’s fav.

As for Tolkien – It’s a classic but not my thing, but then it never really was meant as a popular fantasy story more a linguistic and history building exercise for England.

The current nock over backwards book at the minute was Deadhouse gates and Reaper’s gale, of all time – Stranger in a strange land or The Call of Cthulhu

‘I know, sheer blasphemy’

I'm not a witch I'm not a witch!
- But you are dressed as one – Burn the witch!

 

[Connavar]

I actually was asking about Elizabeth Moon in my Good new SF series thread.

She had some military space operas's that interested me. Have you read those? If you please let me know in that thread.

Also you dont have to explain why you dont like a writer a classic or not. We cant like someone just cause everyone else likes him. It doesnt work that way.

 

[Jack]

‘She had some military space operas's that interested me. Have you read those? If you please let me know in that thread.’

Will do Connavar – Though it may take a month or so, still got Flowers for Algernon and Lord of light to get through as well as to finish Sprit gate by Elliott – Which is hard going at the mo. I’ll get there in a month or so though! I think.

I’m a grumpy, mad scientist – What do you expect? Ha ha!

 

[dekket]

David Eddings is the easier author to get a handle on (although I am a great fan of all of Tolkien's works), and out of the series he (and his wife) have released so far, the Elenium is probably the best. Sparhawk feels more real to me than Belgarion any day, but either character is easier to relate to than Frodo, Aragorn and the like.

 

[lathark]

Depends what you want out of the book. Mass consumption is not equatable to good eating, and doesn't imply you can cook.

 

[Joel007]

Always read Tolkien first!

 

[Clansman]

I think Tolkien is where everybody should start. I loved Eddings as a teenager, but it really was fluffy stuff, and his more recent stuff is so dialogue-driven with all of his characters sounding the same as the last book that I just won't pick up his stuff. Read the Beglariad and stop if you know what's good for you. Certainly, don't go any further than the Malloreon, as the Elenium, which started with so much promise (how could you blow it with a character like Sparhawk, anyway?) is just disappointing. I agree with the above post about Sparhawk, which was Eddings' best character ever. It was the story and the other characters I couldn't stand.

Tolkien is the grandmaster of the modern fantasy genre, as he inspired just about everybody who followed. There really wasn't much else to read in the modern fantasy genre until the late 1970's, and the pre-Tolkien stuff is really, really different. The number of copycats to LOTR is staggering, but those authors often developed past that in their later works (Terry Brooks' Sword of Shannara and Dennis McKiernan's Iron Tower were like this, but the authors got much better)

It is interesting to see where fantasy has gone since LOTR was published in the 1950's, which is why it is such a great place to start.

I would, of course, add The Wars of Light and Shadowby Janny Wurst to the lists above as a superior epic fantasy. But then, I have made no secret of my love for that series. I echo the votes for GRR Martin, Steven Erikson, Tad Williams. Through Kay into the mix for stand-alone novels.

 

[Clansman]

I meant "throw", not "through"

 

[j d worthington]

There really wasn't much else to read in the modern fantasy genre until the late 1970's, and the pre-Tolkien stuff is really, really different.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there. Much as I admire Tolkien's work, there is a great deal more to the modern fantasy genre (depending on your definition of that term, granted); nor is all the pre-Tolkien work all that different. There's not that much of a disjuncture between the two; more of a gradual shift over time (as we saw with the novels of sentiment blending into the Gothics and then the Romantics, and so on).

We've had some discussion of this going on in different threads for quite a while now, and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of some of the other writers mentioned in those. While a fair amount was more pulpish in origin, there were the pieces (such as Pratt's Well of the Unicorn) which does not suffer in comparison with LotR as far as being a meaty piece of literary fantasy. I'm glad that more of these pieces are coming back into print again, as I think we're going to gradually see a shift in people's perception of what fantasy was like both pre- and post-Tolkien....

 

[Joel007]

I meant "throw", not "through"

Use the edit button on your previous post for that kind of correction!

(only remains for 30 minutes after posting)

 

[ghost8772]

Eddings or Tolkien? depends on how fast you like action, and how high up the epic tale you want to be. Tolkien starts slow, and works his way up. if you get through the first half of Fellowship then you will notice the speed starts to pick up. Eddings IS an easy read, with sides clearly delineated, and little in the way of hidden agendas. Zelazny's amber books are also good for adventure/battles. if you are looking for a slightly darker side to sword and sorcery stuff, Moorcock (Elric of Melnibone). Any of these authors would be worth the read, but don't be suprised if ten books of eddings takes the same amount of time as four of tolkien. personally I think the elenium is the highest level of storytelling the Eddings' reached. though Belgarath on its own was pretty well done.

 

[Connavar]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there. Much as I admire Tolkien's work, there is a great deal more to the modern fantasy genre (depending on your definition of that term, granted); nor is all the pre-Tolkien work all that different. There's not that much of a disjuncture between the two; more of a gradual shift over time (as we saw with the novels of sentiment blending into the Gothics and then the Romantics, and so on).

We've had some discussion of this going on in different threads for quite a while now, and I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of some of the other writers mentioned in those. While a fair amount was more pulpish in origin, there were the pieces (such as Pratt's Well of the Unicorn) which does not suffer in comparison with LotR as far as being a meaty piece of literary fantasy. I'm glad that more of these pieces are coming back into print again, as I think we're going to gradually see a shift in people's perception of what fantasy was like both pre- and post-Tolkien....

I know exactly how you feel J.D about this i have read in the internet and heard in real life many times. People just assume Epic Fantasy and Tolkien is where fantasy started. Cant seprate Epic fantasy from fantasy in general.

The more i read older and different fantasy , the more i get annoyed by the lack of respect for all authors of fantasy before and after Tolkien.
Which is why i enjoy reading your posts on this subject in several threads, with your huge experiance and knowledge of fantasy its nice seeing some people understand that the genre's fame isnt only about Tolkien

 

[Dozmonic]

I have only read one Eddings book and after that I won't be picking up another. It had no plot - the main characters are captured and remain so even though they can escape at any point quite easily. They spend their time chatting like teenagers about how they're 6,000 years old, have killed gods, get a bit enraged sometimes and then wait until the book is 75% through before they finally go "oh ok let's escape".

I just wasn't sucked in to his world at all, and his characters were, like I said, teenagers with anger issues.

Tolkien, well... read LOTR when 7 or 8, so I'm biased towards loving it.

-- just noticed the date on the previous posts, sorry for digging old stuff up!

 

[murphy]

Which Eddings book did you read? His Belgariad wasn't too bad, but after that he got rather repetitive.

 

[Pyan]

-- just noticed the date on the previous posts, sorry for digging old stuff up!

Nah, don't worry about that - happens all the time, and quite often a new perspective revives an old thread....

 

[Dozmonic]

It was Demon Lord of Karanda. We have books in our staff room at work that are pre-release copies and so free to read!

For a third book in a series he covered the general series plot well enough and the world historywas discussed at what I can only imagine was great length for those who have read the other books.

But as a book on its own, I just felt nothing really happened. I had heard good things about Eddings, and so was looking forward to it.

I'm working through a GRRM book and finding that better going. It does appear to be fantasy written in a modern way. Looking back at older books they seemed to have much fewer and longer chapters, whereas the more modern books you are faced with perhaps 35-45 chapters of 3,000 words rather than say 20 chapters of 7,000 words. It moves the story along faster and makes telling it from multiple viewpoints easy, but it loses some of the pacing I find ;-)

 

[Kyndylan]

Apologies if my views have been posted already...I'm in a bit of a rush so I don't have time to read through 6 pages!

I challenge anyone to name Eddings as better than Tolkein. Lord of the Rings is the archetypal epic fantasy, and as such most modern alternatives pale in comparison. The sheer detail of worldbuilding will probably never be equalled. But enough said - a quick Google search will no doubt give you more articles that you could ever read extolling the virtues of LotR.

Having said that, the early Eddings are extremely accessible and highly enjoyable. I would avoid the more recent stuff as much as possible (The Redemption of Althalus stands as one of my worst fantasy books ever).

Consideration should also be given to GRRM and Erikson - the best author's writing epic fantasy today, in my opinion, and possibly the best since Tolkein.

In the end, my advice would be to read it all! In any particular order. I would be very suprised if you did not enjoy the lot!

Have fun

 

[Archus]

hmm a logical standpoint would be Eddings, then Tolkien, if only from a literary point of view.

Having said that, even from a storyline/character point of view, Eddings is simpler and thus should be read first. You won't be degrading yourself if you read it, chances are you'll read LOTR anyway, and the more you read, the more you will find out what you enjoy. You may end up hating Eddings, or Tolkien. But the thing is, regardless of what the people before me have said, you will never know until you try.

One piece of advice on that though: Read the entire series first. That is, with Eddings, read the entirety of The Belgariad before you say 'yay' or 'nay'. With Tolkien, it gets a little harder. If you want a 'complete picture' on both him and his writings, then you're going to have to brave out both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. If you just want to delve straight in to a work of Tolkien, then just read Lord of the Rings, but pay attention to the prologue - it summarises The Hobbit and many elements it contains (such as hobbits).

From there you have to decide if you want to read The Mallorean (the sequel to The Belgariad), or The Hobbit and Tolkien's other writings (History of Middle Earth, Children of Hurin, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales).

Chances are though, if you like both or either of them, you'll read them all eventually, and maybe even re-read them. Noone is going to come to your door and inquire if you are doing everything 'correctly'. There is just you, your books and your money, should you wish to get more of them (the books, not more money). Enjoy yourself. Pick one up, then read it. Enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, then at least read through the entire thing before you can make an informed opinion.

My two cents.