Talk:The Belgariad/Archive 1

Sources for a potential article rewrite
I think there's enough material out there to make this a good article.

Overviews
 * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/series/TBG/the-belgariad
 * https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-belgariad-volume-1-david-eddings/1007513657#/
 * https://www.fantasticfiction.com/e/david-eddings/

Articles
 * http://www.denofgeek.com/us/books-comics/game-of-thrones/246840/why-the-belgariad-deserves-to-be-the-next-game-of-thrones
 * https://io9.gizmodo.com/in-the-world-of-fantasy-literature-david-eddings-is-tr-1694047046
 * https://www.npr.org/2017/12/30/573832073/does-the-magic-last-revisiting-a-fantasy-classic-as-an-adult
 * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jun/04/david-eddings-dies
 * https://litreactor.com/columns/on-second-thought-pawn-of-prophecy-by-david-eddings

Interviews
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20090815062441/http:/www.starlog.com/franchises/fantasy-worlds/256-recalling-the-late-david-eddings-lord-of-creation
 * https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~cjwatson/eddings/interview.html
 * https://www.sffworld.com/2006/02/scifiint_170/
 * http://www.angelfire.com/ego/elenia/eddingsinterview.html
 * http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2006/02/david-eddings-interview.html

Detail sources CelestialWeevil (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * https://kalten.sandwich.net/eddings/timeline.html
 * http://www.eddingschronicles.com/index.html

Are we talking about the series or the world?
I had some nice commentary on confusing links, but I'm way beyond that.

I've been working on organization. (Main Characters and Important Characters were highly confusing categories!) I also removed Belmakor and Belsambar, who aren't around or mentioned in this series, and Eriond, who doesn't exist yet. Also the mention of Brill being Kordoch, since I suspect that's from later. Errand ought to be listed somewhere, and that would link to the Eriond page, but I need a better place to put him than "Protagonists" or "Gods." (Maybe we need another category for less important protagonists, like Taiba and Errand.)

This is the Belgariad article, not an article about the entire series, so it needs to reflect (as much as possible) the Belgariad only. Links, however, need to go to whatever the final article should be called, so 'Zakath can link to Kal Zakath (although I'm actually in two minds about that one), and Errand can link to Eriond.

-Salli 01:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It definitely needs work, and I've coincidentally just started some revisions of this and related articles. The lists in this article should be shorter, with a separate article for a complete list of characters. (The rulers can probably go entirely.) I'd suggest one list for all the companions (including Errand), one for the main antagonists, and that's it. I also think just Zakath is the best name for the article on that character. (Incidentally, Belmakor and Belsambar are referred to, and Brill/Kordoch lives and dies entirely in this series.) Perey 17:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why the royalty should be removed - many/most of them are important characters. Why not just one list article of List of characters from the Belgariad? john k 17:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there some umbrella term we could use for the whole setting? It would make more sense to me if we just listed Belgariad and Mallorean characters in one article. Such a term would also be useful for a category that would bring together the currently-scattered Eddings story categories. (Just a Category:David Eddings, perhaps (in which case we could have List of David Eddings characters, including characters from other series)? Althugh that's somewhat inappropriate since Leigh Eddings was quite involved and indeed was credited for later parts of the series.)


 * I would avoid listing Belmakor and Belsambar in a list of characters from The Belgariad because they are only mentioned. They don't actually appear, and they are not even of secondary importance in this context. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I like companions and antagonists as categories for the 'Belgariad' article - much easier to follow. (They sure traveled around with a lot of people, didn't they?) And on the characters mentioned above, I can't really keep the distinctions between the series in that world straight, so thanks for correcting me.


 * At this point, the lists are taking over the article, which is why some things need to be moved elsewhere. (Lists and articles serve separate functions, and this is the article, not the list.)


 * It makes a lot of sense to have a separate list for this universe, distinct from the others, as otherwise the page would get long and cumbersome. We need some sort of term, as Aranel suggested.  It really needs to be the whole world, rather than each series. Separate character lists for the Belgariad and the Mallorean would be confusing. It'd be hard to be sure minor characters made it on the correct list, there'd be a lot of unnecessary duplication, and what about folks from Belgarath and Polgara?
 * -Salli 18:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've been using "Belgariad" as the umbrella term where necessary (i.e. separate Belgariad/Malloreon articles would be impractical, never mind the two biographies), on the rationale that that's where the setting originated (and I've made a point of mentioning that the article applies to all works from the setting). See Races in The Belgariad, Deities in The Belgariad. Of course, "Characters in..." could well do with separate articles by series. A "David Eddings characters" list could get very long (and would duplicate the category).
 * -- Perey 22:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * "Belgariad" is confusing. I'm afraid we may have to use it as a last resort, though. The world seems to be lacking a name. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Every time I see "Belgariad" on those lists, I want to know if it means the whole world, or just the Belgariad. If we're really, truly stuck, so be it, but there need to be nice explanaitions everywhere or every new person to work on these articles will be confused, and probably some of them will try to make corrections, and it will be a mess. What we really mean, I suppose, is "Deities in the world of the Belgariad," and "Characters in the world of the Belgariad." Is that getting to long?


 * I believe it is perfectly proper not to capitalize the "the," as long as you don't italicize it, at least after the first time you mention the title. -Salli 22:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed bad wiki links
I noticed there were a slew of red links for various character names and country names because articles hadn't been created for them (and probably shouldn't be) so I removed them, leaving just the text. If anything each character should probably be fleshed out within the context of this article not another 1 to 2 paragraph article begging for a merge. Same for all the other existing character articles. I mean there's only so much you can say about a fictional character/country after all. The only real question regarding the character bios is how to divy them up btwn the Belgariad and the Mallorean. 21:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Ø

Let's settle this
Oedalis, I agree that articles like Beltira and Belkira can probably be merged into something bigger, but I don't agree that this is the place. First though we need to settle what we're going to call series-spanning articles. So, can I have a show of hands &mdash; err, comments &mdash; for: -- Perey 22:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "The Belgariad"? (Currently used for Races in The Belgariad and Deities in The Belgariad.)
 * "The Belgariad and The Malloreon"? (More accurate but about as cumbersome as practically permissible.)
 * "the world of The Belgariad"? (As suggested above.)
 * "Belgariad books"? (Or anything similar...)
 * "The Belgariad" and "The Malloreon" and others separately? (Only really practical for larger, less repetitive collections like characters. The aforementioned deities and races articles really can't fill more than one article.)


 * "I don't agree that this is the place." Why not? They're already all linked here which suggests this is indeed the place for them. I'm not sure I understand what precisely you're addressing/trying to do? Whatever is decided on, the mess that currently is the scattered collection of Belgariad/Malloreon character/country articles really needs to be consolidated.
 * 23:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ø


 * I would argue that they are consolidated: merely by being linked from this article, these articles are organised into characters, countries (etc.) of the Belgariad (and Mallorean). At what point do subjects deserve their own article? I've seen "lists", and if the characters only have a few sentences each, then I agree they should all be merged into a single list. But what about characters and countries that have multiple paragraphs? Perhaps these characters should have their own article, while the smaller "few sentence" characters should be merged into a List of minor characters article (Disclaimer: I wrote or had a hand in a few of these articles in question). --Deathphoenix 15:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, although I would hesitate to make a whole new article for them, rather than incorporate this list into an existing article. Either way, go for it.
 * 19:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ø
 * Well, put it this way. Take a look at some of the 'list' articles that do exist, like the aforementioned Races in The Belgariad and Deities in The Belgariad, if not those from other fictions. Can you really see these articles, plus a couple of sentences for all the other information currently linked from here, fitting into one cohesive article? I'm afraid I can't. What I'm trying to do is reopen the debate from earlier on this page with a view to getting a consensus on what to name articles containing information on aspects of the setting for the Belgariad/Malloreon/Belgarath/Polgara series. The present article should only be about the Belgariad book series, in my opinion; its bibliographical information, plot, and a light overview of significant characters and setting elements. -- Perey 15:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can, but that's just me. I imagine that a good bit of the information is redundant once put together in one place. A consensus? I just don't see that happening. Too many people are complacent. Just do something that makes sense to you and then see how people work it to make sense to them. What I usually abide by. Otherwise, it just looks to me like this issue will fall into neglect and be generally disregarded once more.
 * 19:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ø

Merge of individual books here
Each of the five booksm in this series was proposed to be merged into thsi article over a month ago. No one has discussed any of those proposed mergers either here or on any of the talk pages for individual books. All of the book articles are stubs, all but oen are very short indeed. I think the merge is a good idea, and I will probably carry it out quite soon unless soemone objects and gives good reasons. DES 21:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a need to merge. Other individual books in a series often get their own articles, and these ones, while stubs, can definitely expand to a size that warrant their own articles. --Deathphoenix 21:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My view is that when there is a sereis that is pretty much a continious story, that is often better to have a single page for the series. When articles on the individual books are all stubs, then I am doubly inclined to mrege those articles and leave redirects. I recently did such merges for the Wheel of Time series and for the Dark is Rising series. No content should be lost in such a merge. Info on each book will become a section on the series page. If enough content is later added to any or all of these sections, they can be turned back into separate articles. However i don't want to be involved in an edit war. In both of the other cases I mentioned, the editors working on the articles seem happy enough with the merge. DES 21:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I've stated my opinion, but I should also point out that I wouldn't get into an edit war if you were to merge them. If you were to actually do the merge, I would have no objection because in their current states these articles are stubs and probably merge-worthy. My opinion is based on the future (ie, they can potentially be large enough for their own articles). If I were to finally get around to expanding these articles, they'd probably be large enough to form their own articles, but until that time, I'll defer to your judgement (or consensus). --Deathphoenix 14:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your views. I think no future potential would be lost -- any expandign section could always be split out to a separate page again, and should be, if it is large enough to make a good article of its own and if it would work better that way. DES

I just finished the merge, it makes it obvious that added content is needed on all but the first book. DES 23:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with DeathPhoenix, a merge can work for now however in the future all these books should be fleshed out and given thier own articles. Lets be honest the whole David Eddings content on wikipedia is still in its infancy..... a lot of work still to be done! I will certainly help where I can. Dan 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

it would be a crime to remove references an annotations about characters, however remote as each one is intricately woven into not only the plot of the story, but the past, present and future of the characters and the fantasy world in general. as we see in Belgarath belsambar and belmakor both play large parts in the grand scheme of things. if need be, i will go through the entire series and spin off books, and not only create an artice for the relevant characters, but will re-add in any that are removed. i say this not only to this discussion piece, put to anyone who wants to see vital piecess of information ommited.

mike 12.40 22 april 06

Splits
I see that User:silversmith split off the list of characters onto a separate page. This seems reasonable to me. I added a link from the main page to the new one, and a link back. Please in future if a sub-topic gets big enough that a separate page for it is created, include links both ways. DES 18:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the Angarak "racism" issue
Give me a break. There's enough of those kinds of acousations by liberals and get-rich-quick lawsuits. I would hardly call Eddings a racist as he critizies conservatives in this book and portrays them as anti-female. (And yes I am very conservative.)

Actually, I don't think that it is that far-fetched of an accusation, liberal and conservative politics aside, though I do think it is somewhat myopic. The Angaraks, to me, seemed more of a collection of negative traits from all societies, which makes sense insofar as each of the major fictional races has some correspondent in history, so that, metaphorically, it would be the positive traits of the world against its own negative traits. Yet, if they did represent merely Asians, the portrayel is not as negative as it initially seems: only the Murgos are portrayed as very, very bad. The Nadraks' loyality borders between West and East and eventually sides with the West. The Thulls have no loyality to the Murgos, only seeming so from fear of the Grolims. When the war begins, many Thulls surrender and do various minor tasks. The Malloreans, then, are portrayed as urbane and cultivated, with 'Zakath intimated to be concerned only about power. As far as Asians are concerned, I would be inclined to say that the Nyissans represented the Asians--court eunuchs, poisonings, murderous politics, etc.--and, no, it is not a very friendly rendering, either. And, yes, though it may or may not be there, I do think that those who see racism are at least merited in seeing it. However that may be, this is also balanced by the painting of the Tolnedrans (the Romans) as prosaic, unimaginative, pedandtic, and greedy. Likewise, the Arends (midieval British) are pictured as torn by a meaningless civil war, are either stuffy and proud (the Mimbrates) or are fiery and proud (Asturians), and both groups are seemingly indifferent to the sufferings of the serfs, some of whom are reduced to eating barks and grass. Yet, the Drasnians (who, I think, are Russians) are portrayed in a positive light, which one would not expect from a series of books written during the Cold War, and the Algars (Arab Bedouins) are also portrayed in a fairly positive light.

I think the racism issue is patently ridiculous and would like to see links supporting the statement that there has been criticism related to racism. The Eddings' pretty cleary state in the Rivan Codex who most of the races are based on. --Discordian 20:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was brought here by seeing someone post that the villains were described as "swarthy" so consistently in this series that when he was younger he thought it was a synonym for "villainous", and apparently it's well known that this series makes all the good guys Aryan and the bad guys dark of skin, hair, and eyes. Seeing the worshipful tone of the rest of the article, I am not surprised that there is no "Criticism" section or anything about the racist reputation of this book series.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.232.246.7 (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Belgarath the Sorceror, Polgara the Sorceress and The Rivan Codex
Shouldn't these books get a mention somewhere:
 * Belgarath the Sorceror
 * Polgara the Sorceress
 * The Rivan Codex

They are all related to the Belgariad and the Malloreon, but none are included in this article. They also have the characters from this series in. -84.12.166.130 09:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * They're all mentioned and linked in the introductory section, immediately above the spoiler warning. -- Perey 11:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

They are listed as prequels, but this is, strictly speaking not true. The books have an introction and conclusion section that is set after the Malloreon. The main content of the books is told as a history by Belgarath and Polgara. I don't know what I'd class them as, but calling them a prequel might prompt some readers to read them before the Belgariad. The nell 87 14:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Another Man's Note! However, though they can be similar at times, the wide variety of characters can more than make up for what this person says is a repeated plot. There are similar themes, however, they vary enough to make it worthwhile." Is that really necessary? Another opinion is good but maybe it should be incorporated into the original point to represent a more balanced view?

I have incorporated the 'Another man's note' into the criticism. 213.46.11.158 13:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone around?
I'm confused as to why each book dosn't get it's own page? If no one brings up any objections I'm going to create them in the next few days. Crazynast 19:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually it's because it's cleaner and simpler to keep them all in one page. If they're big enough though, seperate pages would be cool. PresN 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I infobox'd the books on the main page, it'd be cool if when you expand the other pages, you move that over to them. PresN 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, I will. Crazynast 23:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Three weeks later, he hasn't, so, I re-redirected the Pawn of Prophecy page, which had nothing o it except the same summary that's in this page. --PresN 21:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support seperate pages if the series can be done reasonably swiftly and the articles can be expanded to more than is currently present. Check out WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate for novel article ideas. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  10:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm personally in favour of having single pages of each series. Much as Tolkien considered The Lord of the Rings as a single novel split into three volumes, the Belgariad is a single continuing story that is best served as a single article.  (I've got vague memories that Eddings was originally going to write the Belgariad as 3 books, until his publisher recommended a 5-book series.) Bluap 06:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's correct - he talks about it in The Rivan Codex - was due to the size limitations on books in that genre at the time. Exxolon 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New David Eddings template
I think the headings in the new template need changing - although to what I'm not sure. As I stated on the template talk page I don't think "and friends" is appropriate. Anyone with suggestions (reply either here or at the template talk page)? QmunkE 13:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Queen of Sorcery cover.JPG
Image:Queen of Sorcery cover.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Dreadstar  †  04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dry voice reveal
I haven't found exactly where the initial revelation that the "dry voice" in Garion's head is one of two opposing "necessities" or "prophesies", but Belgarath mentions it while they are traveling through Maragor in "Magician's Gambit", which is in "The Belgariad Volume One". Dreadstar †  00:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Article isn't establishing notability.
I'm aware that the series is popular and successful and that its notability isn't really in question... but there's nothing in the article to establish any of that. The article just describes the content within the books, not the books' place in the real world. Who published them? How well did they sell? Have they been referenced elsewhere? Summarizing the contents is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but it shouldn't be the only thing the article does. 4.154.236.56 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add to the article! – Dreadstar  †  20:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A little less dot points, a little more information.
I propose a complete rewrite of articles relating to the Belgariod and Mallorean, so far all I gather is that there is little to no point to most of the articles. I just think the big thing really would be reorganising it to make more sense. I don't know if anyone is really interested, but I will come up with a proposal for how I feel it would be better organised and see what you think. Lady Brise 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see it! I attempted to rewrite these, but I just didn't have the time (or willpower) to pursue it...yet... Dreadstar  †  05:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My biggest disadvantage is not being a wikipedian, and that im scared of hard work and tend to talk people into doing the work while I organise, but the current state of this makes me cry on the inside, something must be done. Lady Brise 05:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we can work together. What have you got in mind?  What is making you cry?  Perhaps we can start there.  Dreadstar  †  21:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)