|
Yet Eddings' characters have the greater freedom & face the greater risk - in that no higher power is going to step in & save them if they cannot save themselves out of their own resources. There is no plan for the universe which says 'X' will happen in the end, whatever you do. (eg you can choose to be a Democrat or a Republican & work, struggle & sacrifice for one party or the other, & your effort will say a lot about you, the kind of person you are & the kind of world you want to live in....but some higher power has already decided that the Republicans are going to win so actually whether or not you get involved or bother to vote is a bit pointless in itself - but if you do decide to go Republican you will feel happier in the end result of course). In Tolkien's world everything is so pre-determined - &, even if we support the 'good' side & want them to win, knowing the ultimate victory will go to the 'good' is a little disturbing (or more than a little) because ultimately the inhabitants live in a world without ultimate freedom to decide their future.
In this Eddings seems more in line with Pullman - in Pullman's world the overthrow of the Magisterium doesn't guarantee anything - the Magisterium, in some form could reassert itself, but with the removal of 'god' & the heavenly hierarchy of supernatural powers the future is up for grabs & the responsibility falls on individuals. True democracy & individual freedom becomes possible, as it does in Eddings' world - but never in Tolkien's. Yet, Tolkien's world contains a guarantee of safety, of hope, of stability & a sense of belonging to something greater, which while it may be rejected, is always on offer to those who want it - & all those things, if present in Eddings' & Pullman's worlds are only present if the characters create them for themselves ...
- if that makes sense - & now the child calls.......
|