From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Amber: Triumphant Conclusion?!
Date: 9 Jan 93 04:15:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <ROTEN.93Jan8162119@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov> roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten) writes:
>I read the first five books in the series, more than 20 years ago.  The 
>first two were _interesting_.  First, Zelazny played with the reader's 
>reality in a fascinating way.  Then, in the second book ('The Guns of 
>Amber'), just as it had become clear that this was another sword-and-
>sorcery series, albeit more well written than most, Zelazny broke _all_ 
>the rules of the genre by injecting modern firearms into the plot.  But 
>once he had so conclusively broken with convention, the whole idea was 
>dropped in the succeeding novels, and never reintroduced, and the Amber 
>books _DID_ degenerate into an increasingly badly written sword-and-
>sorcery series.  Feh !!  

	It's obvious you missed the entire point of Amber in the original
series.

	The reason the guns and so on were dropped was because they were,
basically, a one-shot wonder. Without the value of surprise, the existence
of firearms was at best only a minor advantage which would very, very soon
be wiped out by everyone having them (Benedict knew damn well what substance
Corwin used as gunpowder, and so did Ganelon/Oberon, and you can bet that
others would quickly figure it out).

	The point of Amber and its massive intrigues was that ANY advantage,
no matter HOW well exploited, was only temporary when you're dealing with
immortal beings of equal sublety.

	Moreover, the entire approach to Amber, Shadows, and the Pattern/
Chaos was unique in and of itself, and the plotline of the first five
was solid and tight. People often say that the writing seemed to go down
with the later books, but I think that's mostly the "novelty effect" --
nothing in the series COULD quite compare to that first book's revelations,
NOR COULD IT BE EXPECTED TO. Your first entry into the world of Amber,
from the point of view of someone almost as confused, albeit a bit more
capable, than yourself, had to be memorable and would make the later ones,
which NEED that as a basis, seem just a bit paler by comparison.

	But, then, you're the same man who said that he hadn't seen a
single piece of good fantasy since Tolkien. I felt that the Covenant
Trilogies were original as hell, and that Mordant's Need was magnificent.
(Both by S.R. Donaldson, but I don't like his latest...).

	However, you'll doubtless say that Donaldson is a third-rate hack.
No problem, I'll give you more ammo to shoot at me. I think one of the
best evolutions of a writer has been Terry Brooks. His first Shannara
book was a painfully obvious ripoff of Lord of the Rings... until he 
started taking some wierd turns towards the end.
	Then as he progressed, the Shannara universe departed strongly
from the Tolkien one. He wrote some damn good stuff then, and be damned
to the people who just call him a Tolkien clone and say that Allanon is
just Gandalf in Black... they obviously haven't studied either character.

	If you thought the introduction of guns into fantasy interesting,
did you ever read Brian Daley's  Coramonde dualogy? Interesting twists
there.

>It isn't often that you can really PINPOINT the time in an author's 
>career when he sells out on his talents.  But for Zelazny, the Amber 
>series was that point.  Sigh.  :-(  

	It's pretty obvious that a lot of people don't agree with you.
I think the first Amber series is the greatest thing Zelazny ever did.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: David.Dyer-bennet@f32.n1797.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com