[davem]

Hardly any time at all but I am wondering whether it could be argued that Eddings' vision is more 'democratic' than Tolkien's - Eddings' characters have the choice of good or evil & the majority choice wins. Tolkien's characters don't have that choice in that whatever choice the individual makes only affects him/herself, not the world, because in the end Eru wins. And is this because Tolkien was an 'anarchist' - but in the strictly Catholic sense of choosing 'Divine' rule over human, in the sense that God's law will always be superior to man's law. Eddings' seems to be a democrat, in the sense that the people's choice decides the victor. In Eddings world 'evil' has a chance of absolute victory & one is not simply fighting for the fate of ones individual soul, but for the fate of the world. Evil cannot win in Tolkien's world but it can in Eddings', & doesn't that make the battle more worthy of fighting? If all the Children decided to reject Eru & turn to evil (seek 'perfection' in Eddings' sense) would Eru allow that - or would he over-rule their desire - as he did in Numenor. In that sense could it be argued that Eddings' characters have more real freedom than Tolkien's, & thus have a more worthy fight to fight? For Tolkien's characters the internal battle is the only important one - in that the outcome of the 'external' battle has already been determined by Eru, whereas Eddings' characters fight both an internal & an external war, the outcome of both being undetermined by any external 'force'.