[Tiste Simeon]

Please someone answer me this. Why did Eddings ever get so popular? I recently found my old David Eddings books and decided to read the Belgariad and the Mallorean again. I remembered that I used to love the books and I feel that it was through them that I got my love of Fantasy, so I thought I would read them again.

What utter drivel! I mean the writing is very simplistic and the characters are all insanely annoying! The plot is so childish and the action poorly thought out. I can understand, in retrospect, why I liked the books when I was in my teens, but why did it ever get any serious adult credit? The only thing I can think of is that firstly Eddings writes with a rather dry and witty style (despite it being fairly awful to read there are bits that are pretty funny) and the other thing is that he has a clear vision, and the ideas are good ones. He just doesn't seem to be able to put them down properly.

I just don't know how he has gained the amazing levels of popularity whilst other fantasy writers remain relatively unheard of... Any theories welcome.

For those who haven't read them, a succinct summary:
The Belgariad
The Mallorean

[Cougar]

Well you've got to consider a few things:

It was written in the early 80s (82 for PoP I think) so our fantasy tastes have evolved since, and rapidly. Think how childish Eddings contemporaneous authors like Feist seem in relation to modern writting (ducks)

He developed strong female characters which were far less common and the relationships between the genders seems more authentic (unsurprising when you consider they were written with his wife)

I agree the prose is poor but given that there was less volume of material on the market at the time I suppose they were more tolerant of the flaws in the writting.

As far as I know their main cache has always been with young adults. However, when your talking mass appeal fantasy the actual target group is of little consequence, the non-hardcore, adult fantasy readers will put up with a relatively underdeveloped style of writting or irritating magic system (f**king will and the word my arse) etc so long as the story is good, I mean how many adults have read Harry Potter!

I read the Tamuli first and thought it was OK, but the characters are very shallow and the number of 'you know the king/leader/chief of the thieves guild/emperor who we've been building up as major hard ass/total upper-class tosspot/oppressor of peasants etc etc, well he's actually a bit of a character, he/she is all wry smiles and jokes you don't expect the emperor to make - isn't that breaking fantasy convention in an utterly unrealistc way' type characters is unbelievable

[Gem Windcaster]

Yeah, the interaction between the characters is what makes the books so successful. Once you're past that, there's not much to them.

And I still want to give Eddings lots and lots of pain for the ending of Tamuli.

[Optimus Prime]

He wrote for young teens man, they gobbled that shit up. When I was 13...I thought David Eddings ruled. I'm not ashamed to admit it...but of course when you grow up and mature the books aren't any good. They have a target audience.

He is funny though.

[RodeoRanch]

I loved them as a teen. Gem is absolutely right, the character interactions made the books. I still read them every couple of years and while they're not great, they still make me grin.

[stone monkey]

I read them as a teen... I remember waiting for each volume of The Belgariad to be published, if you can believe that... But my teenage years are now twenty some years behind me, so I find them nigh on unreadable.

[Optimus Prime]

I remember how I hated the knight character....because of all the "thees" and "thous"....it made my head hurt....

David Eddings is the reason Christopher Paolini is a rich man.

[Elan Morin Tedronai]

I loved them way back then as well, they were amongst the first fantasy I read and I devoured them. Now, in hindsight, they are simplistic and childish yes, compared to what I read now. I still have a soft spot for them though, if only for the memories. I don't actually dare to read them again though tried with the Mallorean two years back I think it was, and had to put it away.

Back then though, it was great

[acesn8s]

I also agree that they are a fun read. I read Eddings in my early teens and loved him. He'll always have a soft spot in my heart, kinda like the Electric Companies version of Spiderman. It's not the big production version staring Toby McGuire, heck Spiderman didn't even talk, but it was great for what we had.

Come'on, admit that you love the fact that Brill fell over a mile and bounced when he hit the ground . . . twice!

[Cougar]

stone monkey;279733 said:

I read them as a teen... I remember waiting for each volume of The Belgariad to be published, if you can believe that... But my teenage years are now twenty some years behind me, so I find them nigh on unreadable.

Waiting for them to be published!!! Ha ha, you are such an elderly monkey!! (remarkably well preserved though)

[Optimus Prime]

stone monkey;279733 said:

I read them as a teen... I remember waiting for each volume of The Belgariad to be published, if you can believe that... But my teenage years are now twenty some years behind me, so I find them nigh on unreadable.

Were books still written with quills and on parchment?

[QuickTidal]

I attempted Eddings Belgariad WAY too late in life. I read the first couple of books in the series about 2 years ago, and found them pretty bad.....but a part of me wonders if I had read them in my youth, would I have liked them? Probably.

Ah well, I don't think they are that great at any rate.

[Slum]

QuickTidal;279937 said:

I attempted Eddings Belgariad WAY too late in life. I read the first couple of books in the series about 2 years ago, and found them pretty bad.....but a part of me wonders if I had read them in my youth, would I have liked them? Probably.

Ah well, I don't think they are that great at any rate.

Me too. I tried to read them after I got caught up with WoT; wasn't happening, I was already, like, 18 or 19.

[Optimus Prime]

The problem was Eddings couldn't kill his characters....

He wanted that bright and sunny ending....bleh.

[Slum]

Xander;279947 said:

The problem was Eddings couldn't kill his characters....

He wanted that bright and sunny ending....bleh.

I think the problem, for me, was that he writes poorly. I never got far enough to care who lived or died...

[Terez]

I loved Eddings. I still do really - I was very sad the last time I read them when I realized I'd never be able to read them again. I barely made it though - the character interactions, as said, were great, but the tons of inconsistencies drove me nuts.

[Optimus Prime]

Wasn't his other set of series the same story, just different names?

Something about recovering another "sacred jewel"

[stone monkey]

After I read the Malloreon I began to suspect that he'd just discovered the "replace string" function on his word processor (or his wife had) and the Tamuli pretty much confirmed it for me. His (and her) books seem to consist of the same characters, just with different names, performing the same plot over and over again.

[Optimus Prime]

Yes.

Yet he still beats TG.

[Hume]

stone monkey;280040 said:

After I read the Malloreon I began to suspect that he'd just discovered the "replace string" function on his word processor (or his wife had) and the Tamuli pretty much confirmed it for me. His (and her) books seem to consist of the same characters, just with different names, performing the same plot over and over again.

Are we talking about Eddings or Goodkind here ?

yeah, I liked Eddings I'll admit when I was a kid. He was the bridge between Tolkien (who i first started on) and Jordan. If it weren't Jordan I wouldn't have discovered Erikson.

So I have to give kudos in that regard.