Top 20Internet Top 100 Short Stories Novellas, NovelettesHomeHugosNebulas P.K. Dick Locus Grand MastersNewberyWorld Fantasy

Amber Discussion

"I came across my cousin's SF/F Book Club omnibus editions of the first Chronicles of Amber when I was a Sophomore in high school; I devoured them greedily, and have wished several times since that I could read them again for the first time. I've re-read these stories at least four times since then (I'm 31 years old now) and Zelazny's epic masterwork (IMO) has never failed to impress me greatly. IMO I'd rank these stories right up there near Tolkien's LOTR and on par with Donaldson's first Thomas Covenant series, and, along with these books and Glen Cook's Black Company series, Amber holds a hallowed place on my bookshelf. All of these novels take me to another place in another time and I never tire of re-visiting them all every five years or so. Amber, The Land, Middle Earth, and Cook's world are all truly magical and hold a special place in my memories and my heart.

"It seemed written for a junior high school level, somewhat shallow and unrealistic. For example, how could the princes have lived so long considering how blood-thirsty and incautious they were."

Oh, I really have to take exception with these comments. Junior High? Shallow and unrealistic? Perhaps one in a crowd of typical junior high kids could appreciate half of what Zelazny really does in this series.

Specifically in what way is Zelazny unrealistic? (Wait, didn't you also say that Cook's BC series was shallow? Hmmm . . .) Far be it for a fantasy author to stretch our suspension of disbelief once in a while. What are you looking for, exactly, in SF/F that can be very "realistic?" In essence, what's "real" about fantasy, anyway? How realistic was Tolkien or Donaldson? I've always thought that getting away from the "real" world (call it escapism if you must) and a life that is often too harsh and familiar at times and overwhelmingly unexciting at others is one of the reasons why we fans of SF/F read so much of this stuff in the first place.

BTW, *all* of Oberon's princes have not lived so long, and they are *anything* but incautious, and if you'll read the rest of the series, you'll not be able to use these arguments any longer.

"It's hard to like a book very much if you don't like the main characters. It's hard to like the main characters when they're so violent and uncaring, mistaking courage for fool-hardy idealism."

Here I have to accept you're argument, even though I don't agree. I myself don't particularly care for Robert Jordan's characters, after the first WOT novel, and so I'm not even reading his stuff anymore. You're certainly entitled to dislike Corwin, et al, although I think he's one of the most interesting characters I've ever stumbled across. Sure, they're all violent and uncaring and petty and jealous and inconsiderate and scheming at times (kind of like real people, eh?), but hey, where's the story if everyone all gets along and sits around eating honey, drinking mead (or smoking pipes!), and waxing poetically about birds and trees and such? Do you have a brother? Zelazny's brother's (and sister's) political intrigue alone, I think, is enough to make this series stand out from the pack in such a way that makes it fresh and vivid, almost (shudder) "realistic" in a way, if you will. In addition, Zelazny's "shadows" and the immortal Amberites who live, play, and die in them in their various pursuits are as highly original as *any* fantasy out there. This is good stuff!

From your corner I do detect a common note here, however, which may be an insurmountable barrier during my attempt to convince you of this series' worth. You're statement about not liking the characters reminds me of the very same thing people who hate Donaldson's Covenant works say about his main character. You may have developed a dislike for Corwin that is so deep, perhaps, that you just can't get around it. You're statement about the characters being violent and uncaring reminds me of what people say about Glen Cook's BC series. I see from whence both of these attitudes are coming from, but, these things, to me, seem to elevate these works, rather than detract from them. Otherwise you've got yet another Tolkien imitator. And if there's one thing I *don't* want to read, it is someone's attempt to write another LOTR.

Of course I do realize that people are different and looking for different things in their favorite reading. I read your review of Donaldson's first Covenant series, and I agree with everything you said there. Bravo! You obviously were able to look beyond whatever shortcomings Covenant had and get in touch with him in spite of his anti-hero stance.

However, if you don't like Cook, to me it's no wonder why you don't like Zelanzy. The darker side of human nature, with good people gone bad and vice versa, is very interesting to me. The depths that people will plumb in their pursuit of power, money, sex, etc., is also interesting. And, the eventual growth and realignment of some of these characters' attitudes and how they react and interact to each other in new ways (much like you and I and every other human out there has done) can be even more engaging.

Zelazny and Cook and their respective works really don't stand up to comparison; they are apples and oranges. I do experience very similar feelings, however, when reading either of the series. Which, of course means that you and I will simply have to agree to disagree.

"Am I being too harsh? This was the first in a long and very popular series. Was I just in a bad mood? Does it get better? Should I give The Guns of Avalon a chance? Please let me know."

You asked for it! :-) Harsh? I think so. Bad mood? Perhaps. Better? I liked them all, but I'd have to suggest that the series *will* get better if you take time to read the *whole* story. Give "Guns . . ." a chance? Absolutely yes, and don't stop with just the second book. Please take the time to read all five of the first Chronicles; if it's been a while, go back and re-read "Nine . . .", in order for the later intrigues and subtle plot developments to make better sense." - Bill Acuff

For me, fantasy has to be more than escapism. Otherwise, it would be like watching mindless TV shows or reading a romance novel. The Donaldson books have just as much excitement and imagination-stretching imagery as the Black Company and Nine Princes but also add a deep psychological dimension. (See the recent discussion about rape on that review page.)

I believe that good Fantasy and Science Fiction books have the value of openning our minds to greater possibilities. Instead of just escaping from a hum-drum, insipid daily life; they can help infuse our drab world with colorful corners and more creative options.

"In essence, what's "real" about fantasy, anyway? How realistic was Tolkien or..."

The feelings are real, the inner struggles, confusion, and inspiration. Environments and situations tend to be very "unreal" but I think we can identify with the responses, the way characters react. And from this point of view, think of the differences between Thomas Covenant and Corwin.

Thanks for the good feedback - you've convinced me to at least read the next book. - Steve 6/8/98

"I will always feel a sense of undying appreciation for Zelazny's work, particuarly Doorways in the Sand. I wrote my pre-admission essay for St.Leo College about its significance to me. I think he is the best writer in the history of speculative fiction. You can read my essay at <http://members.aol.com/PMReichold/doorways.htm>" - Mike Reichold 6/23/98

More opinions and discussion
(send your thoughts and we'll upload here)

Please email comments about this book or review to stroy@jade-mtn.com.

HomeHugosNebulas P.K. DickLocus Grand MastersNewberyTop 20 Internet Top 100Short StoriesNovellas, NovelettesWorld Fantasy