The Belgoriad

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Hell, it's one of MY favorite stories-if one can get past Queen of Sorcery. That one was a bit of a yawn.-----But in all seriousness, I firmly believe those who have said they haven't been able to get through it should just keep at it with another attempt. You won't be disappointed.

[Moggle]

Originally Posted by The Ace

Are you sure we read the same book Moggle ?

Belgarath and Polgara are protecting Garion until he's old enough to deal with his destiny.

Belgarath's potted history at the end of book one gives Garion a framework which is gradually built upon as the story develops, how Garion's ultimate grandmother was Beldaran, Polgara's sister, how Garion's powers gradually develop and his own mind fills in some of the gaps.

Ok, he doesn't know he's the Rivan King until he picks up the sword and it's only later he finds out he has to face Torak, but the clues are scattered throughout the books, as things are explained both to Garion and the reader.

I don't see the relevance of pointing out plot points from later books. This discussion is on book one!

Originally Posted by Contrary Mary

I read the Belgariad and did not find it awful. It does start out slowly, but the patient reader will be rewarded with at fairly good tale. No, it is not the best series I have ever read--but far from worst either.

Of course, Eddings may not be the a writer certain people like, but based on the number of people who have read it and reported, it seems the consesus of opinion is the story is an above average experience.

What is the point of patience when there is barely any progression of the plot from beginning to end? There isn't even a climax to the story by the time you finish so whether you're patient or not there's certainly no reward at the end. It's like reading only 350 pages of a 1000 page book.

Originally Posted by Manarion

Hell, it's one of MY favorite stories-if one can get past Queen of Sorcery. That one was a bit of a yawn.-----But in all seriousness, I firmly believe those who have said they haven't been able to get through it should just keep at it with another attempt. You won't be disappointed.

If the first two books are both a big yawn how can a reader be expected to read the third book?

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Originally Posted by Moggle

If the first two books are both a big yawn how can a reader be expected to read the third book?

You misunderstood. The first book isn't a yawn at all-just the second, and it's not so much that it's a yawn that I didn't like the action. It was a personal opinion-I'm sure many others would enjoy it.

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by Moggle

I am not surprised. I recently finished Belgariad and it was awful. The basic plot of the first book lets us view the world thru the eyes of a 15 year old boy protaganist ("Garion") with a hidden past. We're given a few hints but never find out any thing of real consequence about that past throughout the entire book. He's curious so he's constantly asking friends and his guardians about his past, his guardians, etc., etc. and why they're on this journey and then consistently being told not to ask questions. Consequently the reader doesn't end up knowing much more than he does because we're living vicariously thru him. I have never read a book like this. It's absolutely ridiculous. Barely anything happens between the monotony of Garion asking questions and then being told "don't ask." Even the books two most powerful sorcerers, Belgarath and Polgara are more or less useless and barely even use their magic. What else are they there for? A bad story and paper thin characters really made this book one of the most boring I've ever read. I curse everyone who ever praised Eddings while criticizing some other arthor for some supposed shortcoming in their writing.

There's a reason the title of the book was Pawn of Prophecy. the pawns never know what the chess player is doing. this first book built up character development. We now know who Garion, Durnik, Polgara, Belgarath, Barak Silk, and even Asharak the Murgo are. Yes you are seeing the majority of the story through a "kid's" eyes. Obviously you have gotten used to the D & D lifestyle. mages need to say their spells, and cast offensive spells across the board. basically your own little personal fourth of july celebration in a robe. that isn't Eddings. if you want that kind of stuff pick up TSR books, or Rosenberg's guardians of the flames. these books were written for the young at heart. no ultra complex plot devices, the story goes from point M through to point Z, a-L were taken care of before the book was written. Personally I found the diversity of character much more enjoyable than the simple, LoTR style story, band gets together to go take care of business, and here's the trouble they got in along the way. I note you did not mention the issues that occurred at Val Alorn with the boar, the bear, and the Earl of Jarvik. these were items that were meant to be the Climax of the book, and lead up to the second installment.

[Moggle]

Originally Posted by ghost8772

There's a reason the title of the book was Pawn of Prophecy. the pawns never know what the chess player is doing. this first book built up character development. We now know who Garion, Durnik, Polgara, Belgarath, Barak Silk, and even Asharak the Murgo are. Yes you are seeing the majority of the story through a "kid's" eyes. Obviously you have gotten used to the D & D lifestyle. mages need to say their spells, and cast offensive spells across the board. basically your own little personal fourth of july celebration in a robe. that isn't Eddings. if you want that kind of stuff pick up TSR books, or Rosenberg's guardians of the flames. these books were written for the young at heart. no ultra complex plot devices, the story goes from point M through to point Z, a-L were taken care of before the book was written. Personally I found the diversity of character much more enjoyable than the simple, LoTR style story, band gets together to go take care of business, and here's the trouble they got in along the way. I note you did not mention the issues that occurred at Val Alorn with the boar, the bear, and the Earl of Jarvik. these were items that were meant to be the Climax of the book, and lead up to the second installment.

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.

[ratsy]

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.

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by Moggle

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.

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.

[kirgi08]

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.

[blacknorth]

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.

[Clansman]

Originally Posted by blacknorth

Perhaps you have to catch it at a certain age - 14-17 is probably the best time of life to read Eddings.

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.

[ghost8772]

Originally Posted by blacknorth

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Clansman

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.

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.

[blacknorth]

Originally Posted by ghost8772

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.

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.

[ghost8772]

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.

[Eugotur]

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