The Belgoriad

I actually have read them a couple times and even thought the story is simple, I do enjoy them. I don't know how anyone could be bored with a 300 page book especially with the quick pace of these ones. I wouldn't rate Eddings up there with the best of them but he tells a good tale that the young and old can enjoy.
 
Moggle said:
If those events are supposed to be climaxes for the book then that only proves my point regarding how boring the book was. Even those who went as far as reading book 2 say Edding's books are a snoozefest.
Click to expand...


went back an reread the posts here. the person who started the post couldn't get through the story, manarion said Queen of sorcery was a bit of a yawn, you hate the series. every other post has stated that they loved the series, either as kids when first reading it, or feeling it is timeless. wondering how you are trying to put a single person saying book two was a bit of a yawn as plural responses, and tagging the whole series as a snoozefest. I still enjoy both series in this world, as well as the Elenium. These books were not instant action, they weren't meant to be, they were a quest, spread out over several books. The characters were introduced and developed before they were set on their way. One of my great likings for the Eddings' works are character development and diversity. Pol, Durnik, Old Wolf, Garion, Silk, and Barak all have different personalities, intelligence levels, quirks, and methods of handling individual situations. I've found many books where the author has one character, but with many names.

So for personal opinion, if you don't like the book, and aren't even gonna crack the other four, don't. pick up some books known for instant gratification, full of life or death action, every turn is peril. You won't find it in Eddings stuff, brooks, tolkien, or even rowling.
 
If you compare "Belgarath the Sorcerer" ta the 2nd book of the "Belgariad" you'll see David was laying the groundwork for a addendum.'08.
 
I think it's absurd to suggest these books don't deliver. I read the Belgariad and The Mallorean as a teenager and was completely enthralled. It takes wordage to establish characterisation that will be strong enough to support a series and Eddings does it economically in the first half of Prophecy. He offers quite a few intriguing premises and always delivers, even if the pay-off is four books down the line.

There are, of course, redundancies - the whole 'boundless hordes of Mallorea' thing is tedious. There's little humour or compassion in the 'other side' which is always a weakness when an author is dealing so starkly in good vs bad.

I'm not generally a fan of fantasy and read very little of it - to this date Eddings is one of the few authors who has succeeded in transporting me. Perhaps you have to catch it at a certain age - 14-17 is probably the best time of life to read Eddings.
 
blacknorth said:
Perhaps you have to catch it at a certain age - 14-17 is probably the best time of life to read Eddings.
Click to expand...

I think you have hit the nail on the head, squarely. I read the Belgariad when I was 15-16, back in the early 80's, and a re-read or two shortly thereafter. The Malloreon didn't do the same for me, but it was later, and I was older.

I will never read the Belgariad again, because it will sadly fail where it succeeded so well almost thirty years ago. But that is because I, and the world around me, have changed. The Belgariad has stayed the same.
 
blacknorth said:
I think it's absurd to suggest these books don't deliver. I read the Belgariad and The Mallorean as a teenager and was completely enthralled. It takes wordage to establish characterisation that will be strong enough to support a series and Eddings does it economically in the first half of Prophecy. He offers quite a few intriguing premises and always delivers, even if the pay-off is four books down the line.

There are, of course, redundancies - the whole 'boundless hordes of Mallorea' thing is tedious. There's little humour or compassion in the 'other side' which is always a weakness when an author is dealing so starkly in good vs bad.

I'm not generally a fan of fantasy and read very little of it - to this date Eddings is one of the few authors who has succeeded in transporting me. Perhaps you have to catch it at a certain age - 14-17 is probably the best time of life to read Eddings.
Click to expand...

Yes, there angaraks were stark, homogeneous society , though as Eddings himself said (through belgarath) it wasn't good and evil he was concerned with it was Us and Them. and even then the perception changed as the story got intertwined with the angaraks.

Clansman said:
I think you have hit the nail on the head, squarely. I read the Belgariad when I was 15-16, back in the early 80's, and a re-read or two shortly thereafter. The Malloreon didn't do the same for me, but it was later, and I was older.

I will never read the Belgariad again, because it will sadly fail where it succeeded so well almost thirty years ago. But that is because I, and the world around me, have changed. The Belgariad has stayed the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Mallorean was written with more depth and character than the belgariad had. it does end up being a bit of a disappointment if you go from the end of the mallorean and start over with the belgariad. It IS what happens when there is at least a decade from the beginning of a story and its finale. they, David and Leigh Eddings, cut their teeth in extensive multipart storytelling in the Belgariad. and refined their work over ten books. Belgarath and Polgara I think were done by each, Belgarath by David, Polgara by Leigh, with minimal collaboration by the other. as with other authors, if one reads a book done by the author early in their career and read one later, its like seeing the difference between Michelangelo's sistine chapel, and his four year old finger paintings. The same core, but visible differences in skill between the initial attempts and the mastery of.
 
ghost8772 said:
Yes, there angaraks were stark, homogeneous society , though as Eddings himself said (through belgarath) it wasn't good and evil he was concerned with it was Us and Them. and even then the perception changed as the story got intertwined with the angaraks.
Click to expand...

At the time of reading I viewed it as a crude cold war analogy - moral USA versus evil Soviet empire and, over the years, my viewpoint hasn't really changed that much, except it is interesting to see how Eddings dreamed up the satellite nations.

If he had invested the Mallorean axis with a deeper culture and compassion the books could probably be revisited by adults - as it is, they remain juvenile (perhaps that's too strong a word). But you get my drift.
 
Basically its an extension of Us and Them. Through the Mallorean the people shown gave more of an even description of "them" who became more us through exposure.
 
I'm just on my second read through of the books and I'm not going to lie I think my English teacher spoiled them for me, in that he keeps telling us that one of the important points of writing is showing not telling, and it sort of felt like Eddings did that an awful lot. Other than that I feel it's a great series, sort of like the game of thrones of the eighties
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top