David Eddings; good storyteller, bad author [spoilers]

[assasin]

I've reread all of his fantasy books several times. They are pretty good. But he often takes the easy way out.

Example: In the Malloreon, using a character to decide what happens. Boring and annoying.

Many of his characters are too powerful. e.g. those creater beings in the dreamers. can't remember their names.

He uses time travel in a way that a warrant should be issued to recall all of the Redemption of Althalus and the Dreamers. If someone dies an author can't go back into the past and change history. Or even worse, steal a powerful relic. That goes against all understanding of the genre.
The only way that time travel could be used in any way, even these, is if it was the main premise of the books. e.g. The entire series was about going back in time to change history. Not going back in time to make one of the main characters happy and change what happened in the entire series.

His use of prophecy is not as bad as it could be. The main problem I have is that the disciples of Aldur dont realise that various prophecies thay ignored are linked. They not realising that there is another Event taking place is rediculous. It seems to me that Eddings intended to finsh the series but then realised he could work it in such a way that a sequal would be possible.

Another huge problem is his characters. I don't know how many times I've read about match the characters game on these forums. Some of his characters are nearly carbon copies of others.

My fingers are starting to hurt so i think i'll stop here. I'll also repeat I enjoyed his books but he is still one of the worst bestselling authors in the world in terms of story structure. I only stopped rereading some of his books because they were falling apart. I'm starting to repeat myself. I'm seriously stopping now.

 

[nebsmith]

While I agree that Eddings may be the worst bestselling author ever, even though I keep rereading his books. His central characters are too powerful, leading to serious plot holes. And occasionally, it would be nice if they took things a bit more seriously.

I thought his use of time travel in "The Redemption of Althalus" was quite intriguing. Because I don't think he actually changed any events, what he changed was the perception of events. I don't think any actual history was changed.

 

[alternatesanity]

David Eddings is one of the best authors I can think of off hand to learn from - make sure each of your characters is unique
- make sure the plot/events/characters remain plausible within the framework of the story
- keep track of times, events, places and what each character is doing where and when to avoid inconsistencies/discrepencies
- make sure you don't let the story bog down and become plodding
- break up necessary tedious events by switching to cover another character/plot thread
- don't take five chapters to set the scene and introduce the main characters, if something of interest doesn't happen early on readers will go looking for another book
- don't rehash the same plot/characters, people eventually notice
- People change with time, if your story covers an extended period then make sure your characters also change with time in response to events/maturity/learning as people do
- don't be predictable, the unexpected keeps people awake and paying attention
- let peripheral characters have a part in the story, the main characters can not do everything on their own (unless they are gods)
- readers will be from very varied backgrounds and inate intelligence levels, weave a story that will appeal across a wide range of people, entertaining enough to interest people who don't think deeply with undercurrents that will appeal to the more cerebrally inclined
Eddings is not a brilliant writer but his stories are sufficiently entertaining to keep people reading and that is the main point although his last series, The Dreamers, was woeful, I struggled through to book two because it was written by Eddings but two books of nothing much of merit was as much as I could handle.

 

[digs]

I think he's a good launching off point for young readers just getting into fantasy. I read The Belgariad at 13-14 and loved them. Didn't notice the flaws until much later, and by then they'd already become old favourites. I won't read Eddings for a challenge or for anything particularly stirring, but I will read them for nostalgia and easy entertainment.

 

[Kierkegaurdian]

I think he's a good launching off point for young readers just getting into fantasy. I read The Belgariad at 13-14 and loved them. Didn't notice the flaws until much later, and by then they'd already become old favourites. I won't read Eddings for a challenge or for anything particularly stirring, but I will read them for nostalgia and easy entertainment.

My thoughts exactly. I read Eddings, Brooks, et al, after the Lord of the Rings when I was a young one. They are not the best, but serve as a good gateway to much better, more mature authors.

 

[X'Nedra]

Eddings got me into fantasy again as an adult, and I don't think it's necessarily for children, or as a starter book.

OK, so Eddings is fairly easy to follow, but to me the thing that makes his series (particularly Belgariad and Elenium and Belgarath) so fantastic is how you come to "know" and love the characters. When I finish one of these series I always feel like I'm saying goodbye to friends, and when I restart them it kind of feels like I'm coming home after a long time away (very corny analogy I know, but apt!).

They are books I can read again and again and still feel entertained, I still pick up little bits here and there that I didn't notice the last time - oh, and I still laugh out loud!

My brain may not hurt afterwards like it does with Robert Jordan, but sometimes it's nice to just be entertained without giving yourself brain-strain trying to keep up with the storyline!!

If the non-existence of brain strain means the author is bad, then bring on the bad authors!!!!!

 

[Clansman]

Eddings got me into fantasy again as an adult, and I don't think it's necessarily for children, or as a starter book.

OK, so Eddings is fairly easy to follow, but to me the thing that makes his series (particularly Belgariad and Elenium and Belgarath) so fantastic is how you come to "know" and love the characters. When I finish one of these series I always feel like I'm saying goodbye to friends, and when I restart them it kind of feels like I'm coming home after a long time away (very corny analogy I know, but apt!).

They are books I can read again and again and still feel entertained, I still pick up little bits here and there that I didn't notice the last time - oh, and I still laugh out loud!

My brain may not hurt afterwards like it does with Robert Jordan, but sometimes it's nice to just be entertained without giving yourself brain-strain trying to keep up with the storyline!!

If the non-existence of brain strain means the author is bad, then bring on the bad authors!!!!!

If you think that Jordan gives a brain-strain, you should try Martin, Erikson or Wurts! Made for multiple re-reads, they are.

 

[X'Nedra]

If you think that Jordan gives a brain-strain, you should try Martin, Erikson or Wurts! Made for multiple re-reads, they are.

I have given Martin (do you mean George RR Martin?) a try, but got put off by the fact that everyone has been waiting for the last book for years and years... it will irritate me immensely if I find myself really getting into it, and then not knowing how it ends! I read Game of Thrones, but didn't want to get too sucked in. It was an enjoyable read though.

Thanks for the suggestions, I have been looking for a new series to try out - I'll check out your other suggestions!

 

[Kimbo]

I loved eddings' books, but admittedly I was a teenager when I read them. But characters such as Silk and Liselle still live in my memory with fondness thirty years on. What more can you ask of a story but to be entertained?

Kimbo

 

[Venom139]

All I know is that Eddings had issues with females. Most of the females in his books were the most annoying, over-bearing, spoiled, (insert random negative comment here) that I have ever read, and yes I have read Jordan. Ce'Nedra is number one on my most hated characters in literature, and I have read a LOT of books.

 

[Chaoticheart]

All I know is that Eddings had issues with females. Most of the females in his books were the most annoying, over-bearing, spoiled, (insert random negative comment here) that I have ever read, and yes I have read Jordan. Ce'Nedra is number one on my most hated characters in literature, and I have read a LOT of books.

Personally I thought the women in 'Wheel of Time' were far worse than any Eddings wrote. Except for Moiraine and the female forsaken, I've so far despised every female character in the story, especially Egwene and Elayne.

 

[X'Nedra]

I love Eddings' females (in case you couldn't tell by my name!) although Polgara gets on my tits at times. Yes, they're a little bit patronising and goody 2 shoes (apart from Vella of course!) but their hearts are good and I love them.

Have to agree with the person above me that Jordan's women are far more annoying - they're forever bitching and whining and crying and fighting. GAH! Everything that I hate about women all rolled up into 14 big fat books!

 

[Silvio dante]

When I finish one of these series I always feel like I'm saying goodbye to friends, and when I restart them it kind of feels like I'm coming home after a long time away (very corny analogy I know, but apt!).

Thats exactly how I'm feeling at the moment after finishing the Mallorean this morning...

Eventhough I'm sad I'll be eternally grateful to the late Mr Eddings for introducing me to those friends...

 

[biodroid]

He also skips battles and automatically the good guys won and all the baddies are lying around dead. Sparhawk is so awesome it's just a given that he can take out a whole army single handed.

 

[ghost8772]

All I know is that Eddings had issues with females. Most of the females in his books were the most annoying, over-bearing, spoiled, (insert random negative comment here) that I have ever read, and yes I have read Jordan. Ce'Nedra is number one on my most hated characters in literature, and I have read a LOT of books.

Surprised that you didn't notice that Mrs. Eddings was in collaboration with Mr. Eddings in the stories. if unsure read the foreword in Belgarath. they did tend towards archetypical characters, but at the same time I've been certain that Leigh wrote most of the personalities for the ladies, David for the men. much better setup than trying to read a cross-gender story when all you can envision of the character is the author dressed drag.

 

[Polly_Nightwings]

He also skips battles and automatically the good guys won and all the baddies are lying around dead. Sparhawk is so awesome it's just a given that he can take out a whole army single handed.

LOL! I've always thought so!

In the companion books to the Belgariad/Mallorean series, Polgara and her father are terribly imbal...not to mention the enemy! He uses excuses like "there are rules", and the prophecy... Basically, I still fail to see how Torak stood a fighting chance against the prophecy of light. He nearly lost in all the confrontations they had. Polgara kept saying that it was impossible for Durnik (Enchanter's End Game) or Brand (Polgara the Sorceress) to make a wrong decision - but Torak certainly managed to fumble at every step of the way.

What I really like about his writing are his characterisation and description - both of which he does really well - though I must credit Leigh Eddings for that as well.

 

[revengine]

LOL! I've always thought so!

In the companion books to the Belgariad/Mallorean series, Polgara and her father are terribly imbal...not to mention the enemy! He uses excuses like "there are rules", and the prophecy... Basically, I still fail to see how Torak stood a fighting chance against the prophecy of light. He nearly lost in all the confrontations they had. Polgara kept saying that it was impossible for Durnik (Enchanter's End Game) or Brand (Polgara the Sorceress) to make a wrong decision - but Torak certainly managed to fumble at every step of the way.

What I really like about his writing are his characterisation and description - both of which he does really well - though I must credit Leigh Eddings for that as well.

I just finished re-reading The Belgariad and thought that about Torak not really having a chance as well - but not for the reason you listed (although you make a great argument) but simply because Garion had the Orb in his possession and it's fairly obvious that the Orb is much more powerful than Torak. He spent over a millennium trying to subdue it to his will and could barely even stand to look at the box it was placed in, plus that little incineration job the Orb did on Torak is pretty good evidence Torak never stood a chance. Heck I bet Errand could have walked up to Torak holding the Orb, said "Errand!" and the Orb would have finished off its Torak BBQ it started back when he split the world. There were some other flaws I noticed as well, I may come back to grieve them but we'll see.