Philosophical Musings of a Book Nerd

This is the final book in the Belgariad series and some people seem to suggest that while it ties the whole series up nicely, apparently it still leaves some questions unanswered. Honestly, the only question that was left unanswered when I finished it was 'what happens next?' Honestly, that is one of those questions that are best left unanswered at the end of most books and movies (though not all of them because some do look out to the future and paint a rough picture of where the heroes go). In a way, to me, living happily ever after never really does it for me because it is simply unrealistic. For instance, once Germany was defeated in World War II and the countries of Western Europe liberated, the world did not live happily ever after.

Anyway, Garion had become the Overking, though a quick glance at the blurb of this book suggests that the name of the original Overking was Riva Iron-Grip. Hardly a name to inspire peace and justice. Rather he seems to be more like a tyrannical king that does not like to have his authority challenged and that his say is final, and beware those who will disagree with him. I know that Aragon in Lord of the Rings also takes the mantle of kingship at the conclusion of the novels, but there seems to be always this struggle between the ideal of what a king should be (as outlined in the Bible) and what a king really is (surprise, surprise, also outlined in the Bible). I guess a part of us desires a good king that will stand for justice and mercy, and also protect us from dangers that may arise.

I am not sure whether the big battle was in this book or the last one, but I do know that the conclusion of this story resulted in the small party of adventurers clambering across a 'bridge' of rocks that joined the two continents to confront the evil god Torak. It was also suggested that the location where Garion was to fight (and hopefully defeat) Torak was the only part of the world where a god could stand. So, my question is, if Torak could only stand in this one spot, why was he so terrifying. Also, would it not be the case that as a god in the heavens he would have more power and influence than he would be trapped in a body of flesh. This is the argument for Christ's ascension after his resurrection for as long as he was on Earth he was limited by his body, but in heaven he would be omnipresent.

I'm not really suggesting that the idea was silly, it was a long time since I read this book and I have no intention of reading it again. However it is a fantasy story for teenagers and young adults, so I can't be all that critical. That is what Lord of the Rings appears to be, though there is a lot in that particular story that is of interest, such as the idea of little people being able to do big things, the value of friendship, and how power corrupts. While the Belgariad has similar themes, they do not really shine as much as Tolkien does in that regard, and in the end it appears to be little more than a cheap imitation.