Pawn of Prophecy discussion

Greetings Jeremy,

I absolutely agree that nationality is more of a driving force in the Eddings' novels that in our world. The nationalities in their world are effected / influenced / designed by the patron ~Gods~ of those nations. I think that's the biggest difference between their world and ours. We live in a fairly mono-theistic world. By that I mean that although we have various religions other than Judeo / Christian / Islam with avid followers, many of our global cultural traits are the result of monotheism: e.g. wars fought in "His" name, persecutions of the heathen or Pagan, various versions of the Ten Commandments, etc.

Even those religions with a pantheon tend towards appointing one as the Supreme deity--Hindu and too a lesser extent Buddhism do this. Other religions are almost complete unknowns in western society: Shinto, Zoroastrianism, Jhanism. I also posit that we are far more a "western" world globally than we have ever been in the past. It follows, therefore, that our cultural identity--regardless of nation--would be more homogeneous than that presented in the Eddings novels.

In many ways, we have forgotten our "gods", exceeded their limitations, or turned them into laughable myth. The opposite is true of the Eddings. In general, each race is very intimate with their God; almost every race has analogues of disciples (aka Belgarath, Polgara et al). Those peoples exist right alongside their Gods; it's natural that any intentional character traits would breed true from one generation to the next.

As to the Arends, Tolnedrans and Drasnians, I can only point you to further books in the series and "Polgara" for further insight into their characteristics.

I assume your last comment refers to my comment about time that has passed since these books were first published. I meant that to indicate that a younger person would have a vastly different experience reading these than I would today, or when I was that age. I began reading them in the 80's, when there was heightened racial conflict and didn't see racism then either.

Will wrote: ""it encourages thinking a certain way about other peoples in generalizations that go a little beyond what is realistic and healthy. "

This would require a scientific study to prove. While not maybe on Eddings, there is a lot of work to read on racism in Tolkien and maybe there are some actual studies on kids about it.

Anyway if you google "david eddings racism" you can see how this topic has already been discussed, there are some nice pointers already for both arguments, i'm liking the "it was the medieval times, what do you expect" and in general how people match a nation from the books to several real different ones (here jews=tolnedrans, there jew=ulgos to give an example). But one common thing is that there always is someone saying how the "stereotypes" are caused by something (a god did this, polgara did this, etc.) so the books don't give out random values but also explain how those emerged, teaching that you need to study a culture to understand it and then make those general assumptions.

"This would require a scientific study to prove."

Yes, if I were out to prove it. I am just asserting my opinion, though, not claiming it as fact.

I stand by it, too. A book full of:

"Persistent, aren't they?" Silk observed.
"It's a racial trait," Barak replied. "Murgos are stubborn to the point of idiocy."

does not (in my opinion) encourage children to see stereotypes as untrue or an unhealthy way of viewing the world.

I do not believe these books are racist in any way. Being tht the tolnedrans are greedy does NOT compare them to jewish people. It shows that these particular people are more concerned with wealth and status compared to other races within the book. I think the point of having different races boils down to showing different lifestyles and beliefs within the book ! Never ONCE did i think of any race or religion based in our actual world. Think about this ..... If ALL the people were the SAME.....it would make for one dull book! I think people need to stop going out of their way to find something wrong or for a hidden meaning.

This is just a book.....read it, relax and enjoy. If the story is not for you, Try another book.

I don't think you understand what racism is... Racism is not all people being the same, and it doesn't have to directly correlate to racial stereotypes in our universe.

My above quote: "Persistent, aren't they?" Silk observed.
"It's a racial trait," Barak replied. "Murgos are stubborn to the point of idiocy."
is a perfect example of racism.

I just read this entire series and not once did racism EVER come into mind. The Belgariad ended up being one of my favorite reads to date, so I'll likely re-read sometime...this conversation should add a whole new dimension.

WILL : I know very well what racism is.
Racism Can be defined by anyone and everyone in many different ways. We all have opinions on what racism should be based on experiences in our own lives and our beliefs. However, My belief is
:: Racism is The Intent to discriminate against a person or race of people based on their racial beliefs or Racial stereotypes.

My original POINT however has was simply..... Just because some races in the book have Similar racial traits to our realm here on earth DOES NOT make it racism. Stating that some races have traits is NOT racist...... discriminating against them IS.

Thats my opinion like it or not.....
Its just a book and should not be turned into something that it is not based on a few over sensitive people.

I DO however see how that previous quote could be viewed as a racist remark but i believe whole heartedly that it is being taken out of context.....

Bookworm wrote: "WILL : I know very well what racism is.
Racism Can be defined by anyone and everyone in many different ways. We all have opinions on what racism should be based on experiences in our own lives and ..."

Greetings Bookworm :)

It's been some while since there was activity on this thread and I have to say that I agree with you when you say, "Stating that some races have traits is NOT racist...... discriminating against them IS."

If we were to state that this series of books were racist based on the comments of characters then, ALL the main characters (and their gods) would have to be considered racist. Even the Seeress of Kell, who should be "above" such behaviour, makes statements that would be considered racist. The only character that I can't think of making a "derogatory" statement over the whole series was Errand / Eriond.

As the main characters over the 12 books represent each and every race of man in the books, would we then have to say that everyone in the books is racist? That would be ludicrous.

Bookworm wrote: "I do not believe these books are racist in any way. Being tht the tolnedrans are greedy does NOT compare them to jewish people. It shows that these particular people are more concerned with wealth..."

If you had read beyond the thread title, you would know that we've mostly steered clear of whether Eddings' peoples were intended as allegory for real world nationalities, though a couple readers believed that they were. The observation I made in the OP is that nationality determines personality and intelligence to an absurd extent in Eddings' world, setting Eddings' societies apart from real human societies, and my question was whether it was ever satisfactorily addressed in the narrative. Now that I've read through The Belgariad, I have to say the answer up to that point is no. It remained taken for granted throughout the series in a way that would make me hesitate to put these books in the hands of young readers. Stereotypes are rigidly, universally true in these books and it goes completely unquestioned.

Jeremy wrote: "Now that I've read through The Belgariad, I have to say the answer up to that point is no. It remained taken for granted throughout the series in a way that would make me hesitate to put these books in the hands of young readers. Stereotypes are rigidly, universally true in these books and it goes completely unquestioned. "

Greetings Jeremy :)

Regarding your last point. It's always confused me that this series has been included in the YA genre. However, looking at the genre list for this series, it is 3rd with about 1/4 the weight of 1st and 2nd combined.

That aside, if this book is being introduced to YA readers, I think that the topic of stereotypes and whether they are questioned is a good "ask". Would it not be more beneficial to use that as a discussion focus for the series among YA readers?
Roots: The Saga of an American Family is also rife with stereotypes but I don't see them "completely unquestioned" on reading lists for YA readers.

I guess what I'm asking is where you get the impression that these issues are overlooked.

Jeremy wrote: " It remained taken for granted throughout the series in a way that would make me hesitate to put these books in the hands of young readers. Stereotypes are rigidly, universally true in these books and it goes completely unquestioned. ."

Imho your position is overprotective, and ultimately a temporary blindfold that dumbens more than helps. Races, nations, every sort of group has some traits, mostly result of their cultural background, and these books teach that: strangers are different, often they may act irrational, often there is a reason for that, if you take the time to know them you'll understand.

An example:
Asian people might very well be "stubborn about the point idiocy" about their concept of "losing face". Am i racist if i say it? In my opinion not. There is that cultural aspect of their background, people are still influenced by it, not all, surely, but mostly. So i get to read articles written by people to explain what "losing face" is to westeners, and i get to compare it to my nation and find similarity to the point of being surprised it's considered a difference at all.

You want to take these books out of young people hands. It's the usual lazy parent approach, no time to be there to talk with your kid about cultural differencies and check yourself that the wrong interpretation isn't the one that sets.

I would be more worried about the episodes where Belgarion executes a group of raiders in a vigilante tone, but even then Belgarath intervenes to teach him and the reader a lesson

Bookworm wrote: "WILL : I know very well what racism is."

And yet you use a different definition than what the word means? (E.g. "If ALL the people were the SAME," implying this is racism). The definitions of words aren't opinions. There can be slightly different interpretations (to a small degree), and some words can have multiple meanings, but racism can be simply defined (and it's important to agree upon a definition before considering if the book promotes racist attitudes) as a belief that race determines certain characteristics, often negative, and is discrimination based on race (which, in my opinion, is the same as the former). If we were to agree upon this definition, which is the standard definition of racism, then it is pretty clear that characters throughout this series base characteristics, often negative, on entire races of people, which is discrimination, as my above quote demonstrates just one such example.

I said I would hesitate to recommend the books for young people, not that I would stop any young person from reading them. My anti-recommendation would go something like, "They were entertaining but nothing special, and the author seems to have some pretty weird ideas about race." I don't recall having read any book from any era in which human ethnicities were presented as each being composed of such homogeneous personality types. Sure, different cultures have different characteristics, but not characteristics like "They all have an IQ of 87" or "Every one of them is after every cent they can squeeze out of you" or "They all tilt at any available windmill."

Jeremy wrote: "I don't recall having read any book from any era in which human ethnicities were presented as each being composed of such homogeneous personality types. "

Greetings Jeremy,

Ummmm ... have you read any of the Dune series? Or Tolkien's Silmarillion? Or any number of books that typify Fai as a homogeneous group when they are presented as human analogies?

Or do these books not count because the races are "non human" in your interpretation? Is it that what you perceive to be humans are described with racial stereotypes? If that's the case, I have to wonder why you read fantasy fiction.

If that is the case, then I'd stay far away from Mercedes Lackey, who is very "unkind" in her descriptions of the peoples of competing countries in some of her Valdemar books. You'd best cross Marion Zimmer Bradley off that list too as she wasn't terribly kind to lake-village dwellers in her later Avalon books. Also, Julian May who is terribly impolite in her treatment of an alien human-compatible species in her Galactic Milieu series of novels. While you're at it ... best do away with the Hobbit and it's ilk as hobbits may be cute, but they are ultimately "simple" according to the views of characters in those novels.

Has anyone on this thread read The Rivan Codex? Normally not a book I'd recommend, as it sort of ruined the series for me, but it ststes quite clearly what/who each race is based on, why they behave the way they do, where the different prejudices come from etc.

Victoria wrote: "Has anyone on this thread read The Rivan Codex? Normally not a book I'd recommend, as it sort of ruined the series for me, but it ststes quite clearly what/who each race is based on, why they behav..."

Greetings Victoria,

I definitely have. I've also read Belgarath and Polgara which also go further to explain the roots of the "racial stereotypes" under discussion.

Like yourself, I was disappointed in the book. However, I was expecting the texts of the Mrin and Darine Codexes which didn't appear at all. But you're right in that it did go far to explaining the roots of the various races.

I'd really like it if the Edding's actually released copies of the Mrin, Darine, and Ashabine texts!!!!

C-Cose wrote: "Victoria wrote: "Has anyone on this thread read The Rivan Codex? Normally not a book I'd recommend, as it sort of ruined the series for me, but it ststes quite clearly what/who each race is based o..."

That would be good. I loved the prequels but would most like to read Beldin's life story. I think he is easily one of the most interesting character's in the series, and his story would therow a spotlight on how "ugly" becomes invisible, or evil, and how he uses that to his advantage (he can change his outer shape whenever he chooses to after all, but choses not to most of the time)
(I think Eddings said he was reluctant to release the full religious texts for fear people would take them too seriously, and he would become an LT Ron Hubbard by mistake. I can't remember where I read that though, so I may well have dreamed it) :~D

Victoria wrote: "I think Eddings said he was reluctant to release the full religious texts for fear people would take them too seriously, and he would become an LT Ron Hubbard by mistake. I can't remember where I read that though, so I may well have dreamed it"

Greetings Victoria :)

If you dreamed it then we were sharing a dream. I think part of the intro was that he had chosen not to release the codices from the stories in their own books because he explained them to be literary devices that helped to move the story along in the form of "It was written so it must be ...". It helped to cement the over-riding arc of the Grand Quest that the main characters were engaging in.

Heavens forfend that we get another LRH!!! One was more than enough, imo :)

C-Cose wrote: "Or do these books not count because the races are "non human" in your interpretation?"

"My interpretation" being the fact that those races are presented as something distinct from humans, who are also present in those texts? In any case, Tolkien's dwarves and Herbert's super-specialized humans were not nearly as homogeneous within their groups as Eddings' human nations. Different personality types express within each culture and across cultures.

Also, the issues with Eddings' books have nothing to do with characters holding stereotypes or how characters view each other. The characters had better believe in stereotypes, because in Eddings' world those stereotypes apply with unwavering accuracy to every member of any given nation.

It's entirely possible there are other fantasy authors out there depicting equally undifferentiated human cultures and my instincts have just kept me clear of them, as those instincts kept me clear of Eddings for years. It's a pretty narrow range of fantasy that I really enjoy, with most of it by volume being Brandon Sanderson and/or Jim Butcher (the Dresden books really scratch more of a horror/comedy itch for me). In general, I steer clear of sword and sorcery because it tends to be a depressingly unimaginative recital of other people's ideas that makes me wonder what would make anyone write it down in the first place.

Jeremy wrote: "In any case, Tolkien's dwarves and Herbert's super-specialized humans were not nearly as homogeneous within their groups as Eddings' human nations. Different personality types express within each culture and across cultures."

Jeremy,

I can't see how you can make that statement unless you have read fairly little of Tolkien or Herbert. How more stereotypical could Tolkien have made his Elves, Dwarves and other races then in how they were viewed by other races in his narrative. The only race of human-like beings that didn't seem to see stereotypes were the Hobbits!! All other races--as separate from the main characters that belonged to those races--looked with disdain, fascination, or fear on the other races.

As for Herbert, you must have missed the oft-used descriptions of "filthy Tleilaxu", "horribly mutated Navigators", the "otherworldly Sisters" of the BG ... all of which are stereotypes of cultures that are not universally true--the exact same criticism that you have against the Eddings.

Fine ... the Eddings obviously aren't your cup of tea. But to state, as you did, "I don't recall having read any book from any era in which human ethnicities were presented as each being composed of such homogeneous personality types...", implying that there weren't other examples in fantasy, sci-fi or other genres, is decidedly close-minded.

I have to wonder what draws you into a discussion about the books of authors that clearly write in the fantasy genre given that there is a "narrow range of fantasy that [you] really enjoy" and the Eddings aren't in that "range".

I can't comment on Dune.

Tolkien, however - seriously? I'll grant the dwarves seem a bit monolithic - partly because they're meant to be (they were manufactured in molds by a smith, after all), and partly because they have a culture that's quite hostile to outsiders so don't reveal much to strangers. But even the dwarves have a wide range of personalities and behaviours - though admittedly this is best found in The Hobbit, which may not be 100% in keeping with the main canon. In LOTR and the Silmarillion, we never see inside a dwarvish community, so they're always rather inscrutable - the impression is less that they're all the same, and more that we don't know what they are like. I certainly wouldn't say, however, that, eg, Mim and Kili have the same personalities.

Elves, however, you can't possibly claim are stereotyped, if you've read the Silmarillion. They have just as broad and individual an array of characters as humans do.

Some books are racist, or stir up racism (not many people would defend Mein Kampff, for example). But can non-existant characters in a non-existant world stir up real life racism? I am not even sure that Edding's characters *are* racist (national pride is normal, and does not imply a contempt for all other nationalities (which is what racism is, to me) - I honestly can't see any harm in that. Life would be poorer if people didn't have different views)

Having said all this, I read the book 15 - 20 years ago, and maybe if I re-read it, it would shock me more now. As a book, it is just a bit of fun - standard fantasy that doesn't take itself over seriously. I got bored after having read the second series, and didn't both with "Belgarath the sorcerer" etc.

Wastrel wrote: "I can't comment on Dune.

Tolkien, however - seriously? I'll grant the dwarves seem a bit monolithic - partly because they're meant to be (they were manufactured in molds by a smith, after all), an..."

Greetings Wastrel :)

I was commenting and using the same parameters of stereotyping that Jeremy (and others) have expressed in previous comments in this discussion.

If you've actually read my comments, you'd see that I do not think that the Eddings were racist in their series (vis a vis stereotypes), nor do I believe that Tolkien or Herbert were.

I was presenting examples of other authors in the same genre in a "Goose v. Gander" format. As it happens, I have read the Silmarillion in addition to everything that I could find by or about Tolkien--although not all that has been written about him.

One can easily reduce his presentation of the races (or Herbert's of his races) to stereotypical descriptions of said races; I believe that this does a disservice to the writing that these authors provide us with. I feel the same for the Eddings.

The discussion, again if you've reviewed the various comments, has also morphed into somewhat agreement that the Eddings, specifically, presented their "human" characters along national lines that were each influenced by the God that assumed the care and guidance of them.

Well again, whether characters have stereotyped views of each other and whether those views are kind or unkind is irrelevant. Indeed, humans stereotype and even demonize one another, and moreso if they mainly know each other's cultures by hearsay, so it makes sense that literary characters would do the same. What Eddings does to an extent I've never seen elsewhere is have his characters unwaveringly embody the stereotypes he's assigned them.

Andy wrote: "But can non-existant characters in a non-existant world stir up real life racism?"

Yes, this is a children's book and can reinforce stereotypes within their own worldviews that are just being developed.

Jeremy wrote: "What Eddings does to an extent I've never seen elsewhere is have his characters unwaveringly embody the stereotypes he's assigned them."

Yes, very much so.

I read this series without ever knowing a thing about it or the author, but the constant stereotypes that are assigned to entire groups/races within the series really struck me as bizarre and antiquated. So much so that about halfway through the second book I logged on Goodreads specifically to make a topic to see if anyone else noticed this only to find this topic already created.

Will wrote: "Andy wrote: "But can non-existant characters in a non-existant world stir up real life racism?"

Yes, this is a children's book and can reinforce stereotypes within their own worldviews that are ju..."

Not sure about this, although it is a very interesting argument. I believe that, for at least the vast majority of people, one can distinguish between real and fantasy. It is like that hoary old argument "pink for a girl, blue for a boy" and the relationship between male / female stereotypes - no causal relationship clearly established. I am sure this discussion could make a good book, and am grateful to people contributing to raising issues and raising awareness of potential racist stereotypes. But I personally don't see it that way.

Yes, but even the most fantastical of fantasies are based on reality, and coming from a child who was indoctrinated into a religion, kids aren't so adapt at distinguishing reality from fiction. Even if a child acknowledges that the world and the story are fictitious, they will still accept many aspects as truth. Good vs. evil is a reinforcement that many children accept. The good guys are always clearly identifiable. Races all have stereotypes that apply to every member of that race, including characteristics both negative and positive. I think you see my point.

Will wrote: "Yes, but even the most fantastical of fantasies are based on reality, and coming from a child who was indoctrinated into a religion, kids aren't so adapt at distinguishing reality from fiction. Eve..."

Greetings Will :)

The only point that I see is that you're applying your own negative (based on your use of "indoctrinated") experiences with religion and overlaying them on the narrative of a fictional series of books.

It does help to explain your p.o.v. though.

Will wrote: "Yes, but even the most fantastical of fantasies are based on reality, and coming from a child who was indoctrinated into a religion, kids aren't so adapt at distinguishing reality from fiction. Eve..."

When I was a kid, I read Enid Blyton, Capt W.E Johns, R. L Stevenson, the Water Babies by Charles Kingsley....I think all of them could be considered racist, sexist and pretty much anythingist. But this did not directly influence the person I am as an adult, apart from giving me some happy memories. Since I became old enough to make my own judgements, I put all these things in context. Admittedly some people don't. But I think you have to be careful about attributing future personality traits with childhood reading, or even religious upbringing.

"The only point that I see is that you're applying your own negative (based on your use of "indoctrinated") experiences with religion and overlaying them on the narrative of a fictional series of books."

Religion also uses fictional books to reinforce beliefs.

But I'm not merely projecting my own experiences onto a book series, although there's nothing wrong with that. It's only anecdotal evidence, but I'm not out to prove anything, merely shed some light on why the stereotypes offered throughout the series are negative reinforcements for kids.

Will wrote: "But I'm not merely projecting my own experiences onto a book series, although there's nothing wrong with that. It's only anecdotal evidence, but I'm not out to prove anything, merely shed some light on why the stereotypes offered throughout the series are negative reinforcements for kids. "

Greetings Will,

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that or disagreeing that negative reinforcement is a bad thing to be teaching children. Nor am I out to "prove" anything. Last I checked, this was an open discussion about race / cultural expressions in the Eddings work.

I remember reading Grimm's fairy tales in both their "popular" and original forms as a child / teen. I also read the Bible, Book of Mormon, Roots and assorted fiction and non-fiction about slavery, racism and other things at the same time.

I'm sure that there are those that would want to shield or protect children / teens from reading what I read at that age. I don't say that it is wrong to do so. I'm simply stating that explaining yourself as you did helps me to understand your p.o.v.. Not a judgement ... just a statement.

"Nor am I out to "prove" anything. Last I checked, this was an open discussion about race / cultural expressions in the Eddings work."

Whoa, what's up with the snarky comment here? I'm not a child, I know what a forum is, C-Cose.

But this is starting to get sidetracked a bit into speculation.

Will wrote: "Whoa, what's up with the snarky comment here? I'm not a child, I know what a forum is, C-Cose.

But this is starting to get sidetracked a bit into speculation. "

Will,

You might consider that the words I write are simply that ... the words that I write. "Snarky" is your perception and completely your own.

There is no other way I know how to spin such blatant sarcasm as "last I checked... [insert something obvious]" as anything but snarky.

What surprises me most about this thread is the assumption that these books are for children. While I did first read them (and enjoy them) as a child, I understand them much better now I have revisited them as an adult. My eldest would be fully capable of reading them, but I wouldn't recommend them to him, because of the obviously adult themes.

Even kids cartoons have adult themes a lot of times. I didn't even know I was assuming by saying they were written as children's books, I just thought they were. I just read them recently (for the fist time) and it seemed pretty obviously geared towards a young audience, but I guess I'm wrong? Either way, they were still somewhat enjoyable as an adult although highly predictable and featuring many clichéd and "facepalm-worthy" moments throughout.

Will wrote: "Even kids cartoons have adult themes a lot of times. I didn't even know I was assuming by saying they were written as children's books, I just thought they were. I just read them recently (for the ..."

Not saying you are wrong, just that I wouldn't have classed them as children's books.
That may be because I tend to think of the belgariad and the mallorean as one continuous book, sold in many volumes :~)

I would compare it to maybe the Transformers movie. Has adult themes, geared towards children, predictable and tedious plot, yet entertaining in its own right.

I have yet to read any other Eddings; although, considering my thoughts on this series, perhaps his works just aren't for me.

Will wrote: "I would compare it to maybe the Transformers movie. Has adult themes, geared towards children, predictable and tedious plot, yet entertaining in its own right."

Personally I wouldn't recommend it to anyone under 14/15 due to the references to sex slavery etc (my kids would ask me about it. Lots. Am not ready for that conversation yet)

You aren't ready for that conversation, or they aren't? ;)

I think 3rd grade I knew just about everything just from classmates (although a lot of it slightly wrong) and this at a Christian school. Just hope your kids aren't already learning about this stuff from friends, but getting misinformation instead of the correct info!

I think anyone under 13 reading this series will probably miss the "sex" implication in the slaves, although I'm not a hundred percent sure on that.

Will wrote: "You aren't ready for that conversation, or they aren't? ;)

I think 3rd grade I knew just about everything just from classmates (although a lot of it slightly wrong) and this at a Christian school...."

Definitely I am not!!
Incidentally, it is not so much the sex as the coercion that I'd struggle to discuss. I have a do not lie to the kids policy, so if asked I would have to tell them that yes, that sort of thing does happen in real life, even in our country, maybe our neighborhood, then I would have to see them lose another little bit of innocence, and I hate when that happens.
You are probably right that eldest has heard about these things at school (although I am not quite sure how old a child would be in the 3rd grade -I don't think they sync up with English Year groups exactly) and feel we have the kind of relationship where they could ask me about these things, if they felt they needed to.
I don't think my son would miss the implication though, especially when Tabia meets Relg and they discuss the nature of sin.

Oh, yeah, I can see how that would be difficult. I was certainly shielded from that. I think I learned the nasty bits of humanity from reading newspapers.

Third grade is about 8 years old in America, so fairly young. I do recall now that Tabia's explanations were pretty straight forward, that she did what she had to do to stay alive. That was probably the darkest part of the whole series, and oddly surrounded by all of the light-hearted banter between the characters.

Will wrote: "Oh, yeah, I can see how that would be difficult. I was certainly shielded from that. I think I learned the nasty bits of humanity from reading newspapers.

Third grade is about 8 years old in Ameri..."

I'd agree that it is among the darkest parts. But I think Tabia makes good point when she explains that Relg's denounciation of a victim doing what they must to survive is the more sinful act. And that is probably a good lesson whatever your age.

Greetings all :)

This whole afternoon I was wracking my brains trying to understand what I wasn't getting in Will's objections to this Eddings series and why I didn't seem to be able to communicate my position clearly. Then I recalled when the first time was that I had read PoP ... the early 80's ... then I started thinking about the YA genre and maybe that was the part that I was missing.

Reviewing the discussion between Will and Victoria, it would appear that this may very well have been so.

I would have been in the 10th or 11th grade when I first read PoP. At the time, the YA genre was, for all intents and purposes a "dead" genre that hadn't seen much new material since The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, and contributions by poets such as Maya Angelou. In any case, it was a vastly smaller section in just about any bookstore or library that I was familiar with than sci-fi, horror, children's, or mystery.

When I was in high school, those that didn't read for recreation had very few choices. You tended to plod through whatever books had been assigned in English, Language Arts, or other classes. These books tended to be the "classics", the afore-mentioned YA novels, biographies, or Shakespeare, outside of strict non-fiction. I was, and still am, someone that reads for "recreation" and was always precocious when it came to the books that I would read.

I clearly remember purchasing my first copy of PoP--from the fantasy section, mixed in with Tolkien, Lewis and the like--and being warned that it wasn't an "easy read" by the store clerk. I was 15 or so, the book looked interesting, and I was actually buying a book rather than borrowing it from the library. I didn't care that it wasn't an "easy read". I took it home, did my homework, and then dove in thinking that I'd get a few chapters in before going to sleep.

Yeah ..... 6 hours later, I had to put PoP down and get ready for school. Time stood still and sped up at the same time when I read it. The next few years saw me waiting patiently at the bookstore every time a new book in the series came in.

My point? I wasn't reading PoP as a "young adult" or as someone that had picked it from the YA section of the bookstore. I was reading, as a teen, a book that I had clearly been warned may not be appropriate or directed at someone of my "tender" years. I loved it anyway!

I keep in mind that J.K. Rowling gained much of her public and critical praise because she "single-handedly" revitalized a genre that had been lagging for years when she published her first Potter book in 1997. That means that there is been a whole group of YAs that started and finished their basic schooling since it was first published! Since then, we've had an explosion with the (dreaded) Twilight series, Hunger Games, revived interest in L.M. Montgomery, Lewis and many other "classics". Now the choices specifically targeted at YA audiences is quite broad and covers an array of books in other genres.

I also keep in mind that, often, "genres" are at least partially influenced / created through clever marketing rather than the content of the work. Some of the work directed at a specific age group, gender, or other category is derivative of other work in a completely different genre.

I fully admit that an apology is due. I was engaging in this discussion as someone that had read PoP, as a teen, without thinking of it as a teen book. I couldn't understand why it would be considered as such given my own experience. I hadn't considered that others would see it as a YA book and judge it according to what they felt was appropriate to YAs in their life.

C-Cose wrote: "Greetings all :)

This whole afternoon I was wracking my brains trying to understand what I wasn't getting in Will's objections to this Eddings series and why I didn't seem to be able to communicat..."

Although I read it as a teen, I thought of it (and still do) as an adults book, if I thought of that at all. I was mainly too caught up in how real the characters were to worry about who wrote it or why, or even what they were trying to say (at the time). I just drank it down like a cool glass of water on a hot day. And isn't that really what enjoying a book is all about?

Victoria wrote: "Although I read it as a teen, I thought of it (and still do) as an adults book, if I thought of that at all. I was mainly too caught up in how real the characters were to worry about who wrote it or why, or even what they were trying to say (at the time). I just drank it down like a cool glass of water on a hot day. And isn't that really what enjoying a book is all about?"

Greetings Victoria :)

Agreed!!!! On a scale of pure enjoyment, I enjoy the Fables of Leonardo Da Vinci, Stephen King's Dark Tower series, Plato's The Symposium, and the Eddings (earlier work) equally as well (I'm not overly fond of the latter "Dreamers" series).

Fantasy, sci-fi, sci-fan, dystopian, mystery, horror, "adult" ... doesn't matter ... as long as I am drawn in by the tale and characters, I'm going to enjoy the book.

Exactly like a "cool glass of water on a hot day".

I must admit it is years since I read this series but as I've just lent the books to a fantasy-loving friend I thought I'd look into some of the current discussions.

As far as I recall thinking anything at the time of reading I saw the novels more as being analogous with an east/west and USA/USSR type situation with the outcome being that actually the evil empire to the east wasn't so evil once you got to understand it a bit better, though some individuals and in some cases the state did still carry out what we might consider to be evil acts.

There are plenty of other parallels to be drawn such as the maybe too obvious parallel with Middle Earth where the protagonists can be seen as representing the Allies and the Axis powers of the Second World War or the Star Trek universe where in the 60s the great evil are the Russian-representing Klingons who in the late 1980s, as the cold war ended are brought into the fold of the Federation to be replaced in the mid 90s with the far more middle eastern sounding Jem'hadar.

For me the characters themselves hold attitudes towards other races but these are influenced by their Deity. Remember in this "Fictional" world where these are real entities that interact with their worshippers. They have been commanded to hate each other and have no choice. Even so they are really not any different to our own dark ages, a trait we have only partially overcome even now.

Yes we meet stereotypical examples but usually as "badies" (technical term :p) later on we meet positive examples Oskatat, keeping secrets to try and change some of the core historical problems of his country. Lady Tamazin And Praia are positive Murgo's, female ones at that. Edding's even looks at characters who wish to implement a meritocracy within these cultures including the difficulties they face. So ye the characters may have these traits but that doesn't mean they are shallow characters rather they are flawed ones. Many Angaraks hate their religions, it is based around an evil god.

So maybe you are reading too much into it, but even if we say you are right then you haven't got to the part where these are revealed as unjust cultural prejudice. We actually meet positive examples and cultures later on, Melcene, centres of culture and learning in Mallorea for example.

Maybe we should take up this discussion when you have finished the Malloreon.