Talk:David Eddings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: I don't like parts of this article. It contains opinions about David Eddings' writing which are biased. Either remove the negative opinions (and limit the article to factual information) or provide a more balanced set of opinions. If any positive or negative opinions are included, provide references and make it clear what statement has a reference. For example, the following passage from the article: "This has generally caused a great deal of criticism of his work, with some critics and readers labelling it as child-like and repetitive.[3]" The first part certainly gives the impression of general criticism. Reference [3] is a list of Amazon reviews, in which "some critics and readers" express a view which coincides with the article writer's. However, this very amazon.com page shows a general rating of 4 out of 5 for the book and many positive reviews too. Why isn't this reflected in the article's statement or statements (it's ambiguous) using the reference? Following immediately on: "However, some readers find it easier to read and less 'cerebral' than more traditional epic fantasy, because it allows some immediate familiarity with the new races." This seems to say those who like Eddings do so because they like dumbed-down writing. I don't think this counts as unbiased, factual or balanced information. "Eddings has been described as taking a simplistic, lego-like approach[citation needed] to the creation of worlds, races, and characters, an approach used in many SF and fantasy sub-genres (most notably Star Trek)." Again, a negative viewpoint not balanced out with a positive. I'm confident that there are many people unimpressed with Edding's writing, but there are at least as many confirmed fans. I can provide a reference for this: just read the article writer's own reference [3]. Or visit any other forum discussing Eddings. And my point is this: a casual reader of this wikipedia article won't get a sense that there are two significant and popular camps of thought on Eddings. They won't get a sense that general opinion is polarized on Eddings (it is). They will just get the impressions of the negative camp. Thanks, --Darrenyeats 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (edit)

Contents 1 Birth Location 2 Spelling 3 Some hyperlinks...? 4 Praise/Criticism 5 Criticism Section 6 should we give co-author credit or not? 7 Article reads like an advertisement 8 "The Dreamers" does not describe the series 9 A start on the fictional locations in Eddings' work, anyone else want to work on it? 10 Severe cleanup

[edit] Birth Location

He grew up in Puget Sound? In the water? -- Zoe

[edit] Spelling

OK, so is it spelt "Malloreon" or "Mallorean"? Both elicit responses from Google. Best fun is that Amazon doesn't seem to be certain :-) Phil 09:11, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand, the scanned cover at Amazon UK shows "Malloreon", so unless anyone objects massively, I'm going to learn how to rename a page specially for this task. Phil 09:30, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

"Malloreon" does indeed to be the spelling of the series, however in the books the name Mallorean is given to a person who lives in Mallorea. Which does raise the question, was the series name misspelt on all the books ? --Imran

I think the name is not meant to be the same as that for an inhabitant: it's more connected to the nation as a whole. A Mallorean is an inhabitant of "endless" Mallorea, the Malloreon is a "saga" (for want of a better term) focussed on the history of Mallorea. Am I making sense? Phil 11:52, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

(hangs head in shame) I've just discovered that this is all moot since someone has already done the move ... in May! However whoever did it failed to rename any of the links on David Eddings so I think I'll do that instead. Phil 11:55, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Chiming in a bit late, but Phil had it right and did indeed make sense. "Mallorean" is the adjective of "Mallorea", a continent where much of this series' action takes place. "Malloreon" is the name of the series, in the same tradition of Classical-sounding suffixes as Eddings uses for his other series (compare "Belgariad" to "Iliad"). -- Perey 18:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to apologise to all of you for bringing the A/O problem back into the fray without checking the David Eddings talk page (I checked the book talk pages and found nothing there). I am very embarrassed, and I'll be sure not to make a similar mistake again. Also, the actual books themselves use "Malloreon", but I think I must have seen "Mallorean" in my mind until I actually focused on that one letter. -- Deathphoenix 15:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I noticed that the epic fantasy link is broken. I have changed the link (but kept its appearance) to send the user to high fantasy. I understand the possibility that some might see a difference between the two genres, but as Eddings himself is listed on the high fantasy page I see little reason to differentiate. I apologize for taking such initiative (if it is unwarranted) but I am new to wikipedia. Reediewes 01:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC) I went through and infoboxed all of the pages, based on what was on them, followed by info off of Amazon. I also cleared up some issues where links to individual books weren't being redirected to the series, i.e., the first book of the Dreamers and the first book of the Belgariad had thier own pages, without anything that wasn't on the main series page, while the rest of them redirected themselves; this has been fixed. Figured I'd write this on the main Eddings page, rather than each individual series page. PresN 19:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some hyperlinks...?

I just thought that it would be nice if we had some hyperlinks directing to the books, that's all.

Lady Nimue of the Lake 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Praise/Criticism

I'd like to see a Praise/Criticism section so people can get an idea of what kind of writer Eddings is. Such as his fantastic Character Development vs. his books being all very similar in structure. only up to wikipedia standards, which i find myself unable to meet usually.Phil 11:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not really within the scope of a Wikipedia biography page. Also, I think most pragmatic readers would agree that Edding's character development is incredibly poor. After all, what do you really know about Belgarath AS A CHARACTER at the end of the Malloreon, that you didn't know about him at the end of the Belgariad? Nothing. How has he changed? He hasn't. Some facts are revealed about him perhaps, but that is not character development. Contrast this with a fully realized character like Roland Deschain, from The Dark Tower...Mikejstevenson 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I prefered that the Belgarath character remained a bit mysterious. The character was much more further developed in Belgarath the Sorcer. Maybe that was Edding's way of getting people to buy more of his books. If you knew everything there was to know why would you pay money for a biography?SaraJean 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree here. I think Eddings does a beautiful job at character development. When you can hear a characters voice while reading the words, character development has to be working. When you can laugh at the conversations and feel shock, sadness, mirth in the words, there is talented character development. Everyone I know who has read the Belgarion and the Malloreon have been able to find people in their on lives that could be each and evey character in the books. The mother figure Polgara represents is found in households all across the world. Guiding, teaching and caring for all; while making it look so simple. Belgrath, is the lovable slighty seed uncle that you see now and then and when you do he always has a story to tell. You can find these characters and relate to them as easily as you breathe. In the next to series, some of the fun of reading the books, was the seach to find the remembered favorite character from the first set. Most were not direct copies of the former charcter but the character given a new traight, skill, kindness or a new deminsion, a deeper purpose. If you don't want or need to know more about the past of the major characters, don't read them. Apprently, the characters were developed well enough for you to have read the books about their pasts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.165.105.118 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

What you are describing there is not character development. I don't disagree that Eddings took numerous obvious archetypes and represented them as characters - making it very easy to feel 'familar' with them (just as he recycled wholesale various historical races). But having a character that exhibits certain traits and characteristics that you can relate to does not equate to character development. I'm not having a go at Eddings here - I actually quite enjoyed the Belgariad when I read it, although my taste has matured since then. But charitably I think even he would admit he is hardly a great writer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikejstevenson (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

This is just discussing views; there's an Eddings usenet group for that (I'll fail to resist chipping in anyway by saying it would look rather unconvincing if a 7000 year old character who's been through a great deal in that time did change much over the few years of the books). Riedquat 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Criticism Section

Its an editorial piece trashing the guy's writing, not fit for an encyclopedia. Get a source, and give a brief view of the criticisms, but most of his page is a (bad) point-by-point analysis of his books that could be easily applied to any SF/F writer.

I agree. This entry seems overly critical of his writing style. Roger 02:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree Bluap 05:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. It describes exactly what he is doing - he has stated he uses these approaches himself in the Rivan Codex, which is cited as a source. Go away and read that book, then come back and dispute the content of this article with that in mind. Until then, don't react like a petulant child just because you think your favorite author is being criticised. Also, have the guts to sign your comments. Mikejstevenson 13:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is an opinionated piece. One tell-tale sign of this is the references in the article are poor. An example from the article: "This has generally caused a great deal of criticism of his work, with some critics and readers labelling it as child-like and repetitive" has a reference [3] that applies only to the second part of the sentence. And, reference [3] is a list of Amazon reviews, in which "some critics and readers" express a view which coincides with the article writer's. However, this very amazon.com page shows a general rating of 4 out of 5 for the book. So the reference shows that the writer is being selective in his/her observations. I am being kind by commenting on a statement with a reference. There are several other non-cited statements in the article that show a bias, possibly born of personal taste. The point is, anyone would struggle to find a completely negative (or positive) reference about Edding's work. So why the tone of the article? Make it more even-handed please.--Darrenyeats 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is a little biased against Eddings. And what is this "fairly transparent MacGuffin" that they're talking about?

A "little", is an understatement. Besides, from what I've seen, the people who criticise his books, do so for three reasons. One, the plot is a little obvious. So what! If a person dint want to know what would happen at the end of the book, they should have read a mystery book. This is high fantasy. In high fantasy, the journey is WAY more importaint that the destination. Also, in the Belgariad and the Mallorean, the little side trips and detours they take contribute to the story, and are unpredictable. Two, he copied elements and charectors from one story into others. Why does it matter. Again, i say, if this isn't what you were lookig for, you shouldn't have been reading high fantasy. I can't count the number of 'farmer boy becomes king' books i have read, and I'm not going to stop reading them just because i've already read a few. Three, Eddings is both sexist and racist in his books, specificaly the Belgariad and the Mallorean. If this is how the author wants to write, so be it. you dont have to read it if you dont like it. And besides, whos to say that, in this world, people really are like that. How can we assume anything about the people of this world wthout asking Eddings himself. So, after listing all those complaints and their answers, i come to my point. Why isn't any of THIS mentioned in the page. Because its all opinion. So, why then, does the page talk about the negative sides of Eddings writing, without also providing the opposing arguments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.203.24 (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Um, whether or not one of the very few "citations" is accurate, it's still presented in a negative fashion, as is the whole article. I don't think it's "reacting like a petulant child" to expect an unbiased and accurate entry, which this most certainly is not. I will admit that I have not personally read the Belgariad or Malloreon, but I get the impression that the author of this article has read nothing else of Eddings' work. Despite the sweeping statements that he applies to all of the books, examples are only drawn from those first two series. The gross generalizations are ill applied to trilogies such as the Elenium and the Tamuli, which I gather from what I've read in this article, are almost completely different and original pieces of writing. Furthermore, it is in extremely poor taste to include critical comments in the opening section of the article. Sentences such as "A fairly transparent MacGuffin" do not belong in an encyclopedic entry at all, let alone in the section designed to impartially introduce us to a subject that will be examined in more depth further on. Similarly, things like office fires also belong later on, not in the heading. Overall, this is a poorly written, borderline slanderous article, which does not belong on this website. jedapo 02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to make the article less of an attack piece, citing some sources and cutting some uncited and needlessly biased comments. I still think the article has a unneeeded negative slant for a beloved and bestselling fantasy author. BoosterBronze 16:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

---

The front page is wrong, it shows Regina's song under the standalone fantasy novels section, however following the link shows it to be a Mystery non-fantasy novel

Actually, if you read Regina's Song, it starts as a non-fantasy murder mystery, but the ending (i'm not gonna give away any spoilers here) is definently a fantasy novel. --Quadraxis 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat silly psychobabble is not the same as fantasy, no matter how outrageous it is. The novel was marketed as a thriller, and was identified as such on the dust jacket. BoosterBronze 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] should we give co-author credit or not?

I'm going to be controversial and ask a question about other articles in this one(I'm a rebel like that :P ). Now that it's pretty much out in the open that Leigh Eddings was co-writer on all of David Eddings' books should we give credit to Leigh Eddings on the individual pages for the books and series where she doesn't get cover recognition or not? at present they mostly just state "written by David Eddings." would it be overstating her involvement to say "written by David and Leigh Eddings? Elmo 20:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say not. Perhaps a mention (properly cited) that later in his career Eddings acknowledges his wife's collaborations, but the authorship is a matter of record, and that was 'by David Eddings.'BoosterBronze 23:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As a general, rule I would assume the publisher to be correct thus, whatever the latest published copy of the books displays. A note in the introduction to articles for books where Leigh Eddings was 'legitimized' would probably be appropriate for books originally credited to only David Eddings, but as long as we don't omit the lack of credit in their earlier works (and in doing so, changing history) any appropriate mention may suffice. Psydexzerity 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was redirected here after clicking a link for Leigh Eddings, shouldn't there be something here about her if she doesn't have her own page? Either that or why even bother having a link? ~Anonymous 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.27.122 (talk)

[edit] Article reads like an advertisement

--68.161.190.120 (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This article continues to come across as either advertising copy or the work of a total fanboi. Examples:

2001 brought yet more success to David and Leigh, with the publication of his third non-fantasy

Hundreds of fan sites now exist as a tribute to his work, along with several role-playing games, fan clubs and forums dedicated to his work.

Despite celebrating less popularity than its predecessor, ‘The Tamuli,’ proved a worthy sequel.

Any disappointment the reader felt however was quickly averted by the publication of ‘The Redemption of Althalus,’ in 2000.

This kind of language is not appropriate to Wikipedia and should be cleaned up. --Thetrick (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned out the worst of the text and separated it from the bibliography. However, it is still pretty bad and totally uncited. More work is needed. --Thetrick (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Dreamers" does not describe the series

Quoted from the article: Despite the luke warm anticipation awaiting the publication of ‘The Younger Gods,’ David Eddings still remains one of the most respected and successful authors of modern fantasies. Hundreds of fan sites now exist as a tribute to his work, along with several role-playing games, fan clubs and forums dedicated to his work. Heavy metal band Elenium not only derived their name from his work, but also base most of their songs around the fantastical sagas that David and his wife create together.

This does not at all elaborate on the actual novel and would better be suited in another part of the article. 90.230.54.138 (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A start on the fictional locations in Eddings' work, anyone else want to work on it?

I started a page in my user space about the fictional locations in Eddings' works. Anyone else want to add something, think it's a bad/good idea, anything? I don't know what I am going to do with it. Even though it is in my user space, fiddle with it. If I don't get a response soon, I may just have it deleted. - LA @ 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Severe cleanup

I've removed basically the entire section on the Belgariad and the Malloreon. At first glance, it's almost entirely pulled from http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/David_Eddings. Even if they pulled their text from this article (and there's a chance they did), the text that was here was pretty awful. No article on Wikipedia should have the following text:

The Belgariad, however, remains a classic fantasy to its core. There is magic, a mysterious and powerful artefact to be sought in the form of Cthrag Yaska (Or the Orb of Aldur) and a quest.

The entire section was filled with pure OR text. It looks like it came from a book review or something. I'm going to think about how to rewrite that section, but until then, I think it just needs to be links to the main pages. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)