Kevin's Watch

G'day, just came home from a medieval fair and managed to pick up the Balgariad series, books 1,2,3,4,5 and the prequel, just wondering should I read the prequel first?
If it was written last should I read it last?
Peter

Personally, I like to read series in the publication order. But I'm not at all familiar with the Belgariad, so maybe others who have read it will feel differently.

That is a tough call, and getting tougher, really. More and more series are starting to jump around their histories, whether it is the original author, or successors. A case could be made for going either way, depending upon the series, and whether you are concerned about potential spoilers. (e.g. Prequel covers the backstory of a character who isn't revealed until the climax of the original.)

On the other hand, if you have read the original, it might be interesting to start with the in-world chronology. Especially if the stories are either largely independent, or follow parallel arcs with only incidental touch points.

I like to read them in chronological order myself. But I can't speak for the Belgariad, since I never made it through more than 2.5 of them.

--A

I never would have guessed you didn't finish any series you'd started. Come on, it'll take you a weekend to read the rest!

He just doesn't do it for me. Only book of his that really impressed me was The High Hunt. Which is not fantasy.

--A

Poider wrote:G'day, just came home from a medieval fair and managed to pick up the Balgariad series, books 1,2,3,4,5 and the prequel, just wondering should I read the prequel first?
If it was written last should I read it last?
Peter

Read the prequel last as it'll make more sense to you that way. Also, like most authors, Eddings goes back and retcons things in the prequel that'll confuse you later if you read the original series afterwards.

Thank you all for your responses, I will read the series first and the prequel last
Peter

I agree with that approach. I read the Belgariad years ago and they read better in that order.

I would read them in this order: first read everything else ever written by any other author, waiting until you are on your deathbed if necessary, and if science somehow cures death before you're gone, and thus you no longer have to worry about wasting a moment in a finite lifespan, you might consider reading the Belgariad after you've read everything else ever written at least one more time, and then what the hell, why not?

They suck, in case my point wasn't clear.

Ah, some people like them Z. Not me, but some people.

--A

Oh, I'm just teasing. I think people should be warned, however, before committing to a long series. I know SRD fans have pretty high standards, and they might want input from others who share those high standards. Of course, reading a bad author can have its own rewards, like providing a contrast by which to measure how great someone like SRD is, even at his worst ... or not so best, like the LC.

Zarathustra wrote:They suck, in case my point wasn't clear.

I found them unreadable as well!*

u.

* I disagree with Z so often on so many things that I like to take any opportunity I can to agree with him!

I liked them when I read them 32 years ago (I would have been 19 at the time).. but I did try a re-read a few years ago and I couldn't make it through even the first book. However different tastes and all.

Zarathustra wrote:I would read them in this order: first read everything else ever written by any other author, waiting until you are on your deathbed if necessary, and if science somehow cures death before you're gone, and thus you no longer have to worry about wasting a moment in a finite lifespan, you might consider reading the Belgariad after you've read everything else ever written at least one more time,

Hee hee! That sounds like how I feel about Terry Goodkind. Often I get gentler with authors, especially if ambitious and trying hard, as the works settle in my brain. Not Goodkind. I might go even farther and say "and unless you intend suicide, don't read Goodkind even then...because they WILL make you want to kill yourself.

[[[and lest anyone think it's because he is an Ayn Rand acolyte...I've read all her fiction [a number more than once] and most of the non-fiction ["Romantic Manifesto" and "Capitalism" a couple times each now] and I'm not dead yet]]]

When I read the Belgariad and Malloreon over two decades ago, I liked them enough to go read the Belgarath and Polgara prequels when thy came out in the mid to late 90s. Attempting to re-read them since then, I found them tedious due to the constant repetition of stereotyping the different races of that world (the Nyssians are always cowardly backstabbers, the Murgos are always murderous religious fanatics, the Tolnedrans are always avaricious, the Thulls are always big and dumb, the Arends always have a foolhardy sense of honor, etc.) and find all the main characters except Durnik to be unlikable.

"Don't waste your time with any Eddings fantasy" is the advice I now have for all who ask.

Cord Hurn wrote:When I read the Belgariad and Malloreon over two decades ago, I liked them enough to go read the Belgarath and Polgara prequels when thy came out in the mid to late 90s. Attempting to re-read them since then, I found them tedious due to the constant repetition of stereotyping the different races of that world (the Nyssians are always cowardly backstabbers, the Murgos are always murderous religious fanatics, the Tolnedrans are always avaricious, the Thulls are always big and dumb, the Arends always have a foolhardy sense of honor, etc.) and find all the main characters except Durnik to be unlikable.

"Don't waste your time with any Eddings fantasy" is the advice I now have for all who ask.

The stereotyping thing is fairly common among fantasy and sci-fi books. I can't really think of any that don't trade in such things to some degree.

*said as someone who doesn't hate the Belgariad or it's sequels but doesn't care enough to bother with the prequels*

Cord Hurn wrote:When I read the Belgariad and Malloreon over two decades ago, I liked them enough to go read the Belgarath and Polgara prequels when thy came out in the mid to late 90s. Attempting to re-read them since then, I found them tedious due to the constant repetition of stereotyping the different races of that world (the Nyssians are always cowardly backstabbers, the Murgos are always murderous religious fanatics, the Tolnedrans are always avaricious, the Thulls are always big and dumb, the Arends always have a foolhardy sense of honor, etc.) and find all the main characters except Durnik to be unlikable.

"Don't waste your time with any Eddings fantasy" is the advice I now have for all who ask.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: we're supposed to find all thieves to be adorably hilarious.

I will say that as I consider my own writing aspirations, that I strive to be like SRD and fear I will end up like Eddings.

And I don't mind Eddings at all as a reader. Just not a lot of believable characters in the real world sense.