Reader Question Day #25 – David Eddings, the Catholic Church, and Communism
Manwe asks:
The Elenium and the Tamuli series (JM: by the late David Eddings). I have heard it is really just a less good rehash of Belgariad/Malloreon, though a bit darker. Any good? What keeps me from just picking them up is what others have told me about the series, complete with a corrupt Catholic Church etc etc. I’ve long grown tired of the corrupt church/priest cliche. Or perhaps this is not true? If you read them what do you think?
I did like the Elenium – the Tamuli was okay. I liked the plotline and I liked the characters, and there are some downright hilarious moments in the books. The Elenium also had this excellent late medieval feel to it. Of course, it was an accurate representation of the late Middle Ages in the same way that STAR TREK’s technology is an accurate representation of particle physics.
That said, the “corrupt Church” is a major plotline in the book. One of the main villains is a bishop, and almost all of the high churchmen encountered during the book seem less interested in spiritual edification and more interested in realpolitik. So I do think you wouldn’t like the books for that reason.
The Redemption of Althalus. Eddings managed to write a one book series, amazing! Again I heard its rehash this, rehash that. Worth it?
I thought “The Redemption of Althalus” was one of his weaker books, since essentially it was an entire series crunched down into one book. Basically, it was like the Cliff Notes version of a longer book.
MarxistScholar emails to asks:
Criticizing Star Trek is a priori facile, since a society based an Marxist principles would be vastly more empowering of the disempowered, the voiceless, and the economically marginalized than our current patriarchal, heteronormative, violence-based society. Since true communism has never been tried, is your dislike for communism based upon reactionary fear or false consciousness?
I suspect MarxistScholar is saying that real Communism has never actually been tried – I understand that Marxist-leaning scholars sometimes argue that the kind of states that Lenin and Stalin and the Kim family built aren’t really Communism, that they were (and are) a perversion of true Communism.
To put it simply, I think that view is incorrect. I think Communism has been attempted many times, but that trying it inevitably results in an authoritarian tyranny. It’s not compatible with the social and economic structures actual human beings create. It’s like trying to install a Linux program on a Windows computer, or trying to play an XBOX 360 game on a Nintendo Wii, or attempting to feed a dog asphalt chips.
Or a better metaphor – Communism is like an overdose of a hallucinogenic drug. A 60s-era guru would claim that the drug would expand your consciousness, but in actuality, it leaves you in need of an assisted-cared facility for the rest of your life.
LJL asks:
How did you go about getting your covers? I think having a good cover is very important…even for an ebook.
For my covers, I generally use public domain images. Any 2D representation of artwork whose creator has died before 1923 is in the public domain, which means you can pretty much use the entire canon of Western art before 1923 as a source for ebook covers. (Which is just as well, since a large percentage of Western art after 1923 sucked.) Any photos taken by federal government employees in the course of their duties are also legally in the public domain – so, for instance, all of NASA’s stuff if you’re writing SF. Lately, I’ve been looking at Dreamstime.com as a source for cover art images.
For the actual mechanical business of creating a cover art image, this is an excellent guide. I originally made all my covers in The GIMP, but then I found this and realized it was much more efficient:
http://www.williamking.me/2012/02/22/create-your-own-ebook-cover-step-by-step-with-pictures/
I think the trick is that a cover needs to be both eye-catching and evocative of the *spirit* of the book, if not strictly accurate of its contents. Of course, this is more of an art than a science.
-JM
What an interesting post title! 🙂
“So I do think you wouldn’t like the books for that reason.”
I thought you didn’t like that cliche either?
Regardless, let me be a bit more specific: the corrupt church/priest thing is old hat, annoying, generally based off bad stereotyoes from the enlightenment, etc, etc. BUT, what really clinches it for me is if I sense malice behind it. I guess that is what I was asking, should have just said that instead. See, wiki states that the corrupt church in the books is based off the pre-reformation Catholic Church. So there could be two ways to take it.
1) Eddings, no history buff, was setting his saga in the late middle ages, he (like many others) have heard the oft repeated “facts” about the period, so he assumes the Church was totally corrupt in a cery worldly way (this was not even the historic protestant view of things; forget the priests, it was the dogmas of the Church Luther and co. believed were corrupt and corrupting, leadership can be changed, dogmas cannot be). So Eddings simply takes what he thinks is true of the period, and fleshes that out in his world.
OR
2) Eddings meant it all as an attack on the real Church. For whatever reason, he wanted to spit at Catholicism.
Let’s be honest, alot of times, that exactly what it is. Though perhaps not here?
See, I can stand (at least somewhat) the first, but the historian in me can’t keep his eyes from rolling. The second, not a chance in hell, life is just too short to put up with that kind of crap.
You read the series, and now that I’ve explained myself better, what do you think? I know your not in Edding’s head of course, but usually one can sense malice behind something if it was intended.
On Star Trek:
lol! And here I thought your post was going to pull in angry Trekkies, instead, you got an angry commie! 😀 Go figure.
I have heard this argument before, I’m with Jon on this one, Communism has not been untried, it’s been tried and found wanting.
Honestly though, your a much more tolerant man than I am Jonathan, as soon as MarxistScholar said “heteronormative”, I’d have stopped reading right there. 😉
“the Church was totally corrupt in a cery worldly way”
D’oh! Should read “very” not “cery” 😀
“1) Eddings, no history buff, was setting his saga in the late middle ages, he (like many others) have heard the oft repeated “facts” about the period, so he assumes the Church was totally corrupt in a cery worldly way (this was not even the historic protestant view of things; forget the priests, it was the dogmas of the Church Luther and co. believed were corrupt and corrupting, leadership can be changed, dogmas cannot be). So Eddings simply takes what he thinks is true of the period, and fleshes that out in his world.
OR
2) Eddings meant it all as an attack on the real Church. For whatever reason, he wanted to spit at Catholicism.
Let’s be honest, alot of times, that exactly what it is. Though perhaps not here?”
You know, I’m not entirely sure. I suppose it could be interpreted either way, but my gut feeling is that it was simply a worldbuilding trope and not an ideological statement.
“but my gut feeling is that it was simply a worldbuilding trope and not an ideological statement.”
Well that’s good! Or, at least better than malicious intent. Still a lame trope though.
Actually one more thing I forgot to ask: In a review I read for the book series (it was on a religious site, or at least it considered the deeper meanings, philosophical leaning, morality, etc of different fantasy books), besides being where I first heard about the cliches, it also mentioned that in the end of the series the main character converted from monothesim to pantheism. Is that true? Or, like the last question, is that open for interpretation?
I would say that the book was more polytheistic than anything else – the God of the Church exists, but he’s just the most powerful god around, and several of the weaker gods and goddesses help out the protagonist. Though I think the book if more D&D polytheism than actual paganism – I wouldn’t credit the books with too much philosophical depth.
“I wouldn’t credit the books with too much philosophical depth.”
Hahaha, I see your point. 🙂
Thanks again for your help!