Fantasy Book Club discussion

Why is wheel of time considered so much better than eddings or brooks it has the similar plot lines right?

I think you'll find opinions vary on this subject.

I can tell you why Brooks and Eddings aren't my favorites, but that wouldn't help much since admittedly Jordan has problems too.

In my opinion Edding's writing is a lot less polished, I would even go as far as to say, childish, by which I mean they seem to be pitched at almost teenagers level of reading. I've only read the Belgariad and The Mallorean and the Sparhawk one's, their names escape me now. Perhaps he has improved with his later books.

Jordan on the other hand builds vivid a vivid world with a detailed and extensive history. His characters also seem to have a lot more dimension than Edding's too.It has depth, feels solid in a way that Edding's for me never did

In my opinion Edding's writing is a lot less polished, I would even go as far as to say, childish, by which I mean they seem to be pitched at almost teenagers level of reading. I've only read the Belgariad and The Mallorean and the Sparhawk one's, their names escape me now. Perhaps he has improved with his later books.

Jordan on the other hand builds vivid a vivid world with a detailed and extensive history. His characters also seem to have a lot more dimension than Edding's too.It has depth, feels solid in a way that Edding's for me never did

It's been such a long time since I've read Eddings but I did find his books to be very enjoyable when I read them. I have to agree with Stublore that Jordan definitely creates far more depth in Wheel of Time though! All in all I love both authors :)

I think both Eddings and Jordan have created vivid worlds. I've read all of the books in the Mallorean and the Belgariad as well as half of Jordan's 'Wheel of Time' series. I have to say that while Jordan is a lot more sophisticated, Eddings is more fun. What I mean by this is, I had several laugh out loud moments while reading Eddings and none with Jordan. While the books are similar in plot, Jordan tends to go on a more somber note and Eddings seems more light-hearted, humorous. It's all personal preference of course.

The problem I have with Eddings is that in the first two series, he has the first book as a set up for the background story. He could have done that in the first 50 pages or less.

Stublore wrote: "In my opinion Edding's writing is a lot less polished, I would even go as far as to say, childish, by which I mean they seem to be pitched at almost teenagers level of reading. I've only read the B..."

One of my friends said that Brook's writing seemed almost geared toward teens.

Even as a fan of Eddings and Jordan, I can say that they are different in tone: Belgariad/Mallorean more young adult while Wheel is more adult oriented. Both are great to me in their own way. As for Brooks, I can't say because I've never been a big fan.

I like both Jordan and Eddings. Jordan is much more complex and intricate and Wheel of Time is what I'll read when I want a challenge. If I want something I can breeze through fairly quickly, I'll happily pick up Eddings.

I just finished the last book of the Wheel of Time today, I'm so happy I finally got to find out the ending and yet sad that I have no more WoT books to look forward to.

I don't think they have similar plot lines. Okay, like a ton of fantasy series there are a group (dare I say "fellowship"?) of people some of which come from a small/backwoods village and are off on quest into the author's imagined world. But, how many Fantasy-genre series does that apply to?

Eddings, Brooks and Jordan have done some of the longest and most recent versions of that theme. And the series have been commercially successful.

Otherwise, I don't get that the plots and worldbuilding are similar enough to get an apples to oranges comparison. Or that one series is considered better.

With the hype with final WoT book just released, no doubt it's burning up the bestseller and popularity lists. So did Brooks and Eddings with their new releases in their series. (Actually, I'm more likely to lump Brooks in with Tolkien and celtic/druid related plots).

Terry Goodkind's series more similar in terms of recent publications and commercial,success that included a Legend of The Seeker tv adaptation. Although I may be dwelling on the gender issues and gender related powers issues when I mentally get stuck on trying to replace Brooks with Goodkind.

Eddings/Goodkind/Jordan, despite my still not being convinced plots were similar, did have a lot of the gender-based powers (and power/control) issues and had some bits dragging the action/plot. Not sure that's what is meant by similar plots.

everyone has a difference in opinion, personally, I think David Eddings, Brooks, Goodkind, and Jordan are very different types of stories. (ok, Goodkind and Jordan are almost two peas in a pod) it all depends on what I'm in the mood for, eddings has a much lighter tone, and makes my laugh...

Well, when I say similar in plot, I mean a group of people heading off to take on the big bad guy growing in power over in such and such kingdom/area of the world. Just like Lord of the Rings. It's a quest plot. However, with Jordan, the only reason why I read half of the series is, by the time I got done with book whatever and had to wait for the next, I lost interest. Everyone has a different opinion, yes, but this is what makes book discussions fun. As long as no one takes it personal if someone says they didn't like any of these books. ;)
Goodkind has some good writing and Brooks, depending on the book, can be a bit tedious. I do agree that Eddings is more YA oriented and Jordan is adult oriented in their writing. That is definitely a good way to put it.

Oh dear! If that's similar in plot, you can encompass nearly very fantasy genre author. Lots of "quest" books...

Yes you can lump just about every fantasy story into that "similar" plot. Right along with "eccentric old timer who is secretly a wizard and helps downtrodden young lad who is secretly heir to the throne in hiding". They are everywhere.

Thank you for clarifying M.L. I was talking about the farmboy plotline

This:

M. L. said, "I have to say that while Jordan is a lot more sophisticated, Eddings is more fun. What I mean by this is, I had several laugh out loud moments while reading Eddings and none with Jordan. While the books are similar in plot, Jordan tends to go on a more somber note and Eddings seems more light-hearted, humorous. It's all personal preference of course."

Somehow, the deep world building is seen as "better" than light-heartedness. As a math person with an English teacher mother, I have had this argument enumerable times. In order to be deemed "literature," it needs to be hard to understand and you need to "study" it and have it explained to you. :D

Personally, I think there is room for all of it. And, I love Eddings but got bogged down by Jordan. It used to really bug me that people "dis" Eddings as young adult and praise Jordan (who was obviously unable to actually FINISH his story - bwahahaha) to the high heavens. Now, it makes me laugh. I do think that different types of people will enjoy one much more than the other. The problem, to me, comes in because it feels like people are insulting ME (and, truly, it is never personal even though it feels like it is) because I much prefer the superficial to the in-depth.

I don't enjoy world building . . . And I have forgotten what was in Book 1 by the time I get to Book 14. I just want to be entertained - when I want to THINK - I open a calculus book. :) It is all personal preference . . . ;)

Sonja wrote: "This:

M. L. said, "I have to say that while Jordan is a lot more sophisticated, Eddings is more fun. What I mean by this is, I had several laugh out loud moments while reading Eddings and none wit..."

You're right, it's obviously down to preference.

However I take issue with your "literature" point. Having to "study" Jordan is not what makes his writing better than Edding's, it's the scope of his stories, the depth of his characters. And yes I agree Edding's would definitely be classed as "lighter", but that is not to say that there is no humour in Jordan, case in point Mat who gave me plenty of laughs.

As for Jordan not being able to finish his books, as far as reasons go I don't think there is not a better one than being dead :(. At least he already had the end mapped out and was able to discuss and explain to another author how he envisioned it. As a dying man to take the time out of his last days/weeks to do so shows to me at least that he was not only deeply concerned about his books but also shows how much he appreciated the fans his work had garnered him.

At least Jordan never rewrote his first books with a crap load of extra padding a la The Mallorean because he was stuck for an idea!

M.L. wrote: "Yes you can lump just about every fantasy story into that "similar" plot. Right along with "eccentric old timer who is secretly a wizard and helps downtrodden young lad who is secretly heir to the ..."
Check out Steven Erikson for a tale lacking such similarities.

I have read all three authors and agree that it comes down to preference. Brooks couldn't hold my attention with his books, and I don't even remember why now. Eddings was great - read The Belgardiad series when I was in college. I have faithfully kept up with Jordan with each new release. The Wheel of Time ranks as my all-time favorite series. Before I read a new WoT book, I read the previous one again because I can't remember the intricate details that make his stories great.

Thank you, Stublore, for pointing out that it's hard for an author to complete his series when he is dead. I met Jordan twice in my life and actually have pictures of us back from 1997. I get to meet Brandon Sanderson next month when he visits my city for a signing. I'm still debating how bold I want to be in asking for a picture with him and Harriet. :-)

Sonja wrote: "praise Jordan (who was obviously unable to actually FINISH his story - bwahahaha)"

A little insensitive there. He died from a rare disease.

Another trend I don't like is where a book or author gets disrespected or avoided because the book got dubbed "ya" strictly according to a reader's perception of how much, what degree and how explicit or graphic the violence, sex, language or other issues were in a book. To me, those issues are only useful in letting readers concerned with those issues make an informed decision (or a rating like for video games or movies possibly) but don't define a genre. Even an amateurish or juvenile style of writing doesn't make something YA genre.

Okay, genre definitions are not exact and slippery. But "YA" to me is specifically targeting teens and teen issues, characters remain teenagers or younger (possibly edging into college years) throughout entire book or series (I don't toss a book out as "YA" if the farmboy or other character starts out as young if they grow up in the course of the book). It's still a teenager book facing high school issues even if the high school becomes a special academy in an imaginary reality. My "YA" radar starts going off if I sniff a clique/meangirl situation, locker room bullying, angst over if they'll get asked to a dance—basically elements that reek of high school environment or any subjects leading to teenage angst.

"YA" does not mean the book is not SF/Fantasy genre as well. "YA" doesn't necessarily mean I won't read (with all the Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games wannabes out there, way down the to read list and I will not finish if angsty love triangle or a highschool angst setting no matter how described).

I just don't see authors like David Eddings, Robin Hobb, Joshua Palmatier or others as "YA" writers because the books don't contain a lot of smut or edgy sex. (Eddings an odd author for me because as much as I loved the Belgariad and Malloreon series, even the less exciting spinoffs, and ount them as some of my all time favorites—their other books were amongnhe worst I read or tried to read).

if I picked up david eddings pawn of prophecy and started reading today without comparing it to any others is it good?

Todd wrote: "if I picked up david eddings pawn of prophecy and started reading today without comparing it to any others is it good?"
Yes, it's an enjoyable read.

Todd wrote: "Thank you for clarifying M.L. I was talking about the farmboy plotline"

Well those are both in Eddings' books. XD Double cliche? lol

Todd wrote: "if I picked up david eddings pawn of prophecy and started reading today without comparing it to any others is it good?"

Yes. And lucky you or anyone starting the series without having to wait for next in series to be published! I remember how agonizing the wait, determined to get as soon as out...

I have a friend just recently into SF who was getting spoilt by just visiting my bookshelves and being able to grab the next book in an already completed series. Recently, she exhausted my print copies and moping because the new stuff she's been reading are making her wait for the next book to be released.

I do like starting a series already completed! If reading ebook version, always check for omnibus.

I enjoy Edding and Jordan as well as Erikson. They are different. Darker doesn't automatically mean better. Jordan clearly got bogged down and couldn't find his way out. I'm not sure the series ever would have ended had he lived. I finally gave up in book 10 after hundreds of pages that did not advance the story in any way whatsoever. From that perspective, Eddings books are much better paced.

In terms of the "young adult" label, that I think is more marketing than who the book is written for. I think it often does a disservice to the work if adults think that it means childish and can miss some truly outstanding books.

I've never seen Eddings and Jordan as similar, and I've enjoyed them both for different reasons. They each bring something different to the table, and that's fine by me.

Todd wrote: "if I picked up david eddings pawn of prophecy and started reading today without comparing it to any others is it good?"

You've got the best one to start with - lucky you! The rest of the Belgariad work well, and his writing is tighter and more controlled than in later books. Eddings says as much himself in the prologue to one of the later editions of the Malloreon, commenting that with the success of the Belgariad, some of the constraints that applied there could be relaxed. I take that to mean that the editing was less severe - certainly, that's what it feels like. As for the Sparhawk and similar ones, they're a good read, but you don't want to look at plot too closely, as they are all a bit Deus ex Machina in their solutions.

I don't think you can make a real comparison with Jordan; they're quite different in style, structure and outcome. I know which I like best - but that's my preference, nothing more ...

DavidO wrote: "Sonja wrote: "praise Jordan (who was obviously unable to actually FINISH his story - bwahahaha)"

A little insensitive there. He died from a rare disease."

Sorry. I certainly did NOT mean to be insensitive. (My entire post was really written tongue-in-cheek - spent too much time feeling inferior to my English teacher Mom . . .) More than Jordan's early death, I refer to the fact that when I first started reading his book, it was supposed to be a hexology and with every book that was written, 2 more were projected. What I like to call the Big 3 (Jordan, Martin and Goodkind) really ruined me on series of any sort. I started them too soon. :D

Again, sorry for any offense. It was not intended.

Debbie wrote: "Another trend I don't like is where a book or author gets disrespected or avoided because the book got dubbed "ya" strictly according to a reader's perception of how much, what degree and how expli..."

I tried, really hard, to figure out WHICH part of this post to quote. In the end, I gave up. I agree with almost all of it. The YA tag feels so often like criticism. *I* define YA the way you do:

It's still a teenager book facing high school issues even if the high school becomes a special academy in an imaginary reality

I have not and will not read Harry Potter (of course, it doesn't help that she killed off half the characters . . . ) And have been forbidden by MY children to read the Hunger Games. (It would leave me depressed for WEEKS.)

I frequently have to debate the YA tag because I do not enjoy a lot of sex in books. If I have to skim over half the book, I am missing out on relationship time. And, lets fact it. Kids today may know more about "sexy times" than do I. :D

It is interesting that people bring up Eddings, Brooks, and Jordan but only one person mentioned Steven Erikson's Mazalan Book of the Fallen.

I read the Belgariad when it first came out (as a "young adult") and really enjoyed it, while I read the first three Jordan books and stopped out of frustration. I felt that that the plot and the characters were already marching in place. As a friend of mine cried out: "Just balefire [Shaitan] from orbit already!"

On the other hand, I loved reading Erikson from the first volume to the last. It was a real challenge to read. Finally, here was a series that really felt epic in every way--from characters to magic to gods to monsters to plot.

If you like fantasy that pushes the boundaries of the literature, Erikson is the way to go.

Why is Terry brooks considered ripping off lord of the rings and Robert Jordan isn't?

The first book of WoT feels like Lord of the Rings, the rest doesn't. All 3 of the first books of Brooks feel like LoTRs.

Rob wrote: "It is interesting that people bring up Eddings, Brooks, and Jordan but only one person mentioned Steven Erikson's Mazalan Book of the Fallen.

I read the Belgariad when it first came out (as a "yo..."

I agree. Erikson right now is the number one to me in fantasy. He takes what fantasy can do, and stretches the limits on it. I think his best work is
Memories of Ice, which has nothing but action.

Stublore wrote: "In my opinion Edding's writing is a lot less polished, I would even go as far as to say, childish, by which I mean they seem to be pitched at almost teenagers level of reading. I've only read the B..."

I'm not sure I feel it's written by teenagers, but I can certainly say that the characters sometimes ACT like teenagers lmao. I loved the Belgariad, the Malloreon less so (still haven't finished reading it :P) I remember loving the world and the arc about the gods, but I fucking hated Ce'nedra lmao. I think she quite possibly ruined the whole thing for me.

I read a lot of Brooks when I was about 16 and I really did love it back then, I'm not sure how I would feel about it now though. It was good back then though!

I'm reading Jordan now, just about to finish the first Wheel of Time book. I am actually really liking it but I can see why some people without the patience for the long windedness would dislike it. It is incredibly in depth, which I love, but some people like less description and more imagination.

The underdogs that I really think should get more spotlight are Daniel Abraham for his Long Price Quartet and Lian Hearn for her Tales of the Otori, those are both fantastic works, and relatively original too.

Sorry written FOR teenagers!

If JJ were here he'd tell you they are in entirely differently subgenres and while its fun to compare and contrast and even bond or argue, in the end you simply have two vastly different styles of fantasy that appeal to people for different reasons.

Personally I prefer a well developed and intricate world with a long, dark tale most of the time. I'm a big Jordan fan. But sometimes I just want a light-hearted romp with less work involved in my enjoyment.

Personally comparing Jordan and eddings is wrong they are too far apart in writing styles and as mentioned Eddings are for teens.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was WRONG, it's not exactly Mein Kampf we're talking about.

Silly perhaps, but not WRONG

Josh wrote: "I wouldn't go so far as to say it was WRONG, it's not exactly Mein Kampf we're talking about.

Silly perhaps, but not WRONG"

Yes I agree bad choice using wrong.

Mark wrote: "Josh wrote: "I wouldn't go so far as to say it was WRONG, it's not exactly Mein Kampf we're talking about.

Silly perhaps, but not WRONG"

Yes I agree bad choice using wrong."

Haha don't worry I do it all the time ;)

Now who do we compare Jordan and Eddings with?

Frank Herbert? :D

If I had to choose who to invite to a party, I think I'd rather have Barak and Silk than Rand and Elaine. It's personal preference for sure, but to me, Eddings characters feel like old friends and even though I've finished WoT I'm just not that emotionally invested with Rand and gang.

Of course, I admit in threads elsewhere that I like best a book that is both great fantasy and able to offer a giggle or two.

As for Goodkind, I'm no prude, but his bsdm fantasy life pushed into the storyline squicked me enough to leave behind what seemed to be an interesting plot. But that's just me.

Angela wrote: "If I had to choose who to invite to a party, I think I'd rather have Barak and Silk than Rand and Elaine. It's personal preference for sure, but to me, Eddings characters feel like old friends and ..."

What she said.

Angela wrote: "Eddings characters feel like old friends"

I agree with you on every point bar one.

Ce'nedra.

If she turned up to my party I would have a can of mace and a cattle prod

I just remembered that when I was in 9th grade I came down with a terrible flu. My now husband brought me the first 5 Eddings books to read while I was bedridden. I inhaled them then (1988, 1989?) . I read them again every few years.

I won't say I married him because he brought them to me...but you never really know.

Angela wrote: "I won't say I married him because he brought them to me...but you never really know. "

Does he, by any chance, possess a small orb the size of a pommel stone? ;)

I read the Belgariad when I was a teenager, and liked it. Moving on to the Mallorean, I got really bogged down and couldn't finish it for some reason I couldn't determine, but like I said, I was a teenager and wasn't too self-aware. I then tried the Sparhawk stuff, but couldn't get through any of that, either. I eventually realized that all of these story arcs were extremely similar, and that once I had made it through one of them, well...the thrill was gone.

Later in my teens, I found Jordan. Now this stuff I could get into. Sure, he has his flaws. He borrows fairly heavily from myth and other fantasy writers. His characterizations are fairly flat. But I felt he could do epic a lot better than Eddings.

Now, both of these authors initially appealed to me when I was a teen. The difference, I think, lies in the fact that I stayed interested in Jordan's world long after I lost interest in Eddings'. I'm now in my early thirties, and I just finished the Wheel Of Time, whereas I haven't touched Eddings since I left him, when I was 14.

We may consider comparing Eddings with Feist or Brooks as they all released their books at the same time.

Elfstones not Wishsong came out in 82. (corrected)