QT vs Belgariad?

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

This is just a little dispute I'm having with a friend. His favourite series is the Belgariad by David Eddings, while mine is--duh--QT. A lot of our differences are stem from personal preferences, but some, I think, are objective, and I'd like to think that I'm right and not just blinded by steadfast loyalty to QT.
If any of you Sounisians have also read the Belgariad, I'd like to know your answer to the following question:
Whose characters, MWT's or Eddings', are more complex? Obviously I'm not referring to ALL characters, just the protagonists.

I guess my stance is obvious. But I'd like to know others' thoughts on the matter. :D 

Comments

[katsie.livejournal.com]

They are two very different series. I love them both, but I don't really think they can be compared to one another. It's the old apples and oranges debate.

In writing the Queen's Thief series, MWT was deliberately trying to write outside the traditional bounds of speculative/fantasy fiction, choosing a different cultural framework to base her world and characters in. Her story focuses closely in on Eugenides (and Sophos in CoK), we are privy to their emotions and motivations, and the supporting characters are relatively few and intimately interwoven with the main character. It is a more personal narrative.

Eddings was just as deliberately aiming to write inside the traditional "epic fantasy" framework and to put his own stamp on the classic archetypes in telling his story. The narrative is sprawling and the cast of characters equally vast. Our access to Belgarion is, because of the archetypal nature of his character arc, neccesarily limited. We are kept in the dark as much as he is for much of the story.

Essentially, my opinion is that they are two different creatures and should each be appreciated for their own unique stories. :)

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

I agree that they're different and supposed to be different. My friend and I realised that we just don't have the same taste in books. I prefer lots of subtext and puzzling out on the reader's part, while he prefers not having the ability to predict anything to keep suspense.

One of his complaints was actually that QT was TOO personal--the world was not fully detailed, nor did the common people have a voice, nor were universal issues such as class conflicts discussed, and MWT just focused on a handful of rulers. I don't think MWT needed any of that, not yet, anyway. She doesn't need it, and what she has serves her purposes well enough.

But what do you mean when you say Garion is kept in the dark along with us? For most of the series, I wanted to shake him for not realising he was the Rivan heir! It was SO obvious. So in that area, we're not so in the dark. There are times, however, when something totally alien and NOT aforementioned or even precedented looms up, and someone like Silk or Belgarath has to tell him, "Oh, this is ...". I don't like this; it's too convenient. It's too easy and really no fun for the author to introduce something that he's never mentioned, and it just feels a bit loose.

But I do feel that MWT's characters are more complex, if not only more perverse, than Eddings'. I have never been surprised by his explanations of Garion's thoughts--though these explanations are very elegantly composed by Eddings-- whereas MWT continues to impress me with Gen's tortuous psychology. Though, maybe if Ce'Nedra chopped off Garion's hand, we'd have the circumstances for thoughts just as intricate..

[bluestalking.livejournal.com]

I admit I've only ever ever read half of a David Eddings book. I didn't think it was very well written, despite his fan base, so I kind of quit. /o\

[meltintall3.livejournal.com]

Essentially, my opinion is that they are two different creatures and should each be appreciated for their own unique stories. :)

^This. I've read several Eddings series, and my opinion is that his characters more obviously fall into "Here is the wise-cracking thief and here is the mother-figure and here is the mentor and here is the precocious child..." type categories. I read his books because he tells an amusing story, but I read MWT because she makes you think about the consequences of the actions in her story.

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

Haha. I can sympathise with that. I don't think I read enough to be a good judge of what 'good writing' is, but I did sort of sniff at his writing initially, especially at his simple descriptions of setting. His writing isn't what I'd call beautiful or sophisticated, but I think of his style as...solid.

[keestone.livejournal.com]

Oh man. See, I know I read Eddings, but I can't remember a single thing about his stuff except that I've got him lumped him in the "Stock SF/F I read in my early teens and didn't find memorable or worth coming back to" category along with Terry Brooks, Terry Goodkind, and the lesser works of of Anne McCaffrey.

So I can't really help, but you can probably guess my opinion. :)

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

That's how I feel! Enjoyable enough to read through but not rely worth the reread in view of all the books on my reading list.

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

Solid, I like that description of more simplistic writing.

I do think there's two different types of writing. The more solid kind as you describe and the more flowerly kind. One of my favorite authors, Gerald Morris writes in what some may consider simplistic verbal writing but this actually compliments his stories and allows the reader to focus on the weightiness of the subject matter. Of course, I've never read Eddings, so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about!

[crowinator.livejournal.com]

I agree that comparing them isn't fair (again, apples and oranges, like mentioned above), but I have to say, I love both of these series and I think you hit the main difference when you mentioned subtext. MWT has a lot of subtlety in her series that Eddings' lacks, both in terms of character development and narrative arcs. Eddings' characters are complex enough, but they also fall into categories typical with traditional quest fantasies. Also, Eddings' books are whole-world-type epic fantasies with a large ensemble cast, so of course he's going to pull far back from the characters and discuss every little detail of each kingdom in all of his countries, etc.

Eddings' books are holdovers from my childhood, when the traditional fantasy quest felt quite new to me, but I've reread them so many times that they rank right up there as one of the most influential series of my life. I still say MWT's characters are more complex, in that they are more developed outside of their function in the plot. If that makes sense. (c:

[crowinator.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Of course, the "wise-cracking thief" Silk is my favorite character in this series, and I can track my love of this character archetype back to him. For me, he's my precursor to all of the smart-ass fantasy thieves/spies/assassins that I love today.

[lizzyazula.livejournal.com]

I agree that Megan's characters are more complex. As good as the Belgariad was, it's hard to see characters as complex when they quite evidently fit into stereotypical archetype characters of a high-end fantasy. Eddings' character might be complex, but to people who've read so many of those characters, it's like we already know them. Megan, however, provides entirely new characters, setting, and plot twists, making it seem much more complex to some. Not that I didn't love the Belgariad, but I did realize how nicely it fit into the popular whole big, epic story, and my wish for something a bit different. But Eddings did put his own unique humor in the books, which I enjoyed.

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad you agree!

[sarah mastel (from livejournal.com)]

Although I haven't read the series, it sounds like the Belgariad books have a more traditional archetypal plotline. That's fine with me, but as other people have previously stated, following traditional character arcs makes it excruciatingly predictable for the reader, and more often than not the reader knows what is going to happen to the main character before that character does. What I really enjoy about QT is that the main character is smarter than the reader, which is a refreshing take on things. I enjoyed ACTUALLY being in the dark for once and not just the intentionally built-up suspense and doubt more traditional stories have to use to keep you interested because you know what's going to happen anyway. Once you realize how smart Gen is you learn to trust him even when his actions don't make outside sense, because you know he has a reason (he just won't tell you!)