Eddings' "The Dreamers"
Jun. 8th, 2009 12:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mouseferatuThe recent passing of David Eddings has gotten me in the mood to read his stuff again. I've long been a big fan of his--I know that his plots tend to all be the same, but I've enjoyed his writing--but I never read his most recent series, "The Dreamers." I'd heard some negative reviews, but I finally decided to give it a try.
Having now gotten over 100 pages into the first book, I'm honestly not sure I'm going to keep reading. Part of it is that the characters don't appeal to me as much as his others, but if that were the only issue, I could work with it.
It's just... There's something off about the actual writing of this series. Those of you who have read his stuff doubtless know how he always writes his prologues in a sort of formal, "ancient tales" sort of prose, before switching to his far more informal, conversational style for the book proper.
It feels like, with this book, he forgot to keep going after taking half a step out of his prologue formality. The rest of the book so far hasn't been quite as formal as the prologue, but it certainly hasn't reached his normal style of writing. And because of that, there's an added layer of distance between the reader and the material (or at least for me there is). It's as though, rather than being immersed in the story the way I usually am, I'm reading about someone who is, in turn, relaying the events to me. There's no immediacy, almost like I'm getting a summary of the tale. Not only is that not the style I prefer, but it clashes with his dialog, which--for some characters--keeps to the same casual tone as his other works. The whole thing feels a bit schizophrenic, and it's completely ruining my ability to immerse myself in the book.
So, for those who have read "The Dreamers," am I making any sense? And if so, is this something that improves later on?
Having now gotten over 100 pages into the first book, I'm honestly not sure I'm going to keep reading. Part of it is that the characters don't appeal to me as much as his others, but if that were the only issue, I could work with it.
It's just... There's something off about the actual writing of this series. Those of you who have read his stuff doubtless know how he always writes his prologues in a sort of formal, "ancient tales" sort of prose, before switching to his far more informal, conversational style for the book proper.
It feels like, with this book, he forgot to keep going after taking half a step out of his prologue formality. The rest of the book so far hasn't been quite as formal as the prologue, but it certainly hasn't reached his normal style of writing. And because of that, there's an added layer of distance between the reader and the material (or at least for me there is). It's as though, rather than being immersed in the story the way I usually am, I'm reading about someone who is, in turn, relaying the events to me. There's no immediacy, almost like I'm getting a summary of the tale. Not only is that not the style I prefer, but it clashes with his dialog, which--for some characters--keeps to the same casual tone as his other works. The whole thing feels a bit schizophrenic, and it's completely ruining my ability to immerse myself in the book.
So, for those who have read "The Dreamers," am I making any sense? And if so, is this something that improves later on?
