The Hand of Oberon by Roger Zelazny

The further I get into this series the better it gets. At this point it's clear to me that the five books trace a single story arc, rather than each book having its own. If these were published now they'd be a single volume with the heft of a Robert Jordan epic.

The action is picking up, the intrigue is great, and all the complexity that Zelazny has put in place over four novels now comes to a head--just like you'd expect at the climax of a single novel. I really like the story, but now I'm met with a roadblock. I don't have the fifth installment--I have the sixth.

Oh, and I saw the Ganelon thing coming on two hundred pages ago.

Sign of the Unicorn by Roger Zelazny

More of the same, but in this book the intrigues are more intriguing, the surprises are more surprising, and Zelazny's originality is starker than in the first two books. This is my favorite of the series so far.

That said, it's time to change gears. I need to read more serious material for a while.

The Guns of Avalon by Roger Zelazny

This is the second installment of Zelazny's Amber stories. The good points here are the same as those in the first book: Zelazny's world is interesting, Corwin is an interesting and believable protagonist, the specific fantasy and SF elements of the story are unique, and the voice is effective. Think Raymond Chandler without the restrictions of reality.

The flaws I find are the same as I saw in Nine Princes in Amber as well. The story is really just an installment in a series and not one that can stand on its own. There's a progression of action without a real arc, and that makes the book feel like I'm reading Super Mario Brothers at times. There's little to no character development, though there are revelations that make Corwin alter his plan and make secondary characters change in their dispositions toward Corwin.

Again, a satisfying diversion, and it's probably exactly as Zelazny intended it. What I see as flaws are recognized within serial fantasy as mere convention, so it's another reminder that just because it doesn't satisfy me doesn't mean it's objectively bad.

Nine Princes in Amber by Roger Zelazny

I've noticed Zelazny's books on the store shelves since I started prowling the Science Fiction/Fantasy sections twenty-five years ago. At first they didn't interest me, because they seemed to be an uncomfortable (for me) blend of fantasy and science fiction. I recently read one person's description of the Amber novels as "science fantasy." I don't like it as a category, but it suggests some of the right things. Over the years people have suggested I read these books, but I've mostly moved on to literary fiction and philosophy now, and when I read something frivolous I get frustrated with myself. But I took the recommendations seriously--especially that of fantasy author Steven Brust, who loved these books so much he named his son "Corwin" after the protagonist.

So I found four of the Amber novels at a flea market for fifty cents apiece and grabbed them. When taking a chance on new genre stuff, it's my practice to go as cheap as possible.

Okay, about the book. Zelazny does a good job of incorporating a kind of pulp-crime tone into this story. He does a really good job with point of view, his pacing is pretty good, and there is no way to predict the direction of the story (except for the assumption that Corwin will survive--fantasy stories are reliable that way). The conventions of fantasy literature are met in unique ways, and that has been difficult for everyone in the genre.

That said, I have a quibble: The arc of the story is incomplete. This is clearly intended as the first in a series, so that's probably nothing Zelazny would worry about, but I dislike when authors pull this kind of open-ended crap. Even Robert Jordan had a plot-arc for each of his sprawling monstrosities.

I'll get around to reading The Guns of Avalon at some point, but the guy at the flea market didn't have that one. Until then I'll have to stew on the non-ending of Nine Princes.

A Poorly-Written Fantasy

Don't get your undies in a bunch, Buckaroo and Jam. I'm not making a statement about Zelazny's Amber novels. I'm not even done with Nine Princes in Amber yet. But the book did provoke some ideas, and those led to the phrase "poorly-written fantasy."

I'm a little more than halfway through Nine Princes, and I've been pleased. The story is characteristic of 1960s fantasy in that Zelazny isn't following a series of expected developments, but is telling a story that surprises--and when it doesn't surprise, it at least wasn't predicted. Too much of what happened in the 1980s led to formulaic stories. The quest starts with an unlikely hero who meets with some companions he has trouble getting along with, and they slowly bond as they struggle along a Quest. The good guys are easily identified, as are the bad guys. The quest inevitably involves finding some ancient artifact or recovering a long-forgotten tradition with which the hero ultimately defeats the villain. The hero is able to succeed because goodness is his essence. There's more of a postmodern, realistic grit to Zelazny (so far).

The formula novels are boring. I like Zelazny's style (even if the story is eerily reminiscent of Heinlein's Glory Road at first) because life isn't predictable and easy like that. We have to think to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. We can't just look to what's been done in the past, because as times change new solutions are needed to solve emerging problems. Tolkien set the stage, and if you can trust Terry Pratchett (and I do), all of fantasy literature is merely rearranging the furniture in Tolkein's attic. It's the guys like Zelazny, Glen Cook, Steven Brust, Fritz Lieber, and Michael Moorcock who surprise, who deviate and invent. Even Robert Jordan, who was very good at what he did, only modified Tolkien's formula. I need something new--I've seen the old. So Zelazny is a good break.

But as I'm reading Nine Princes, I'm also following the political process, the run-up to the November Presidential election. I know already that I'll vote for either the Democratic candidate or an independent who I agree with almost completely. I won't vote for a Republican because the American conservative political position is morally and intellectually bankrupt. The Republicans drive me crazy with their us-vs.-them oversimplicity, their blind reliance on tradition, and their insufferable self-righteousness.

And then it occurs to me: American political conservatism is a poorly-written fantasy. Conservatives are the "good guys," everyone else is the "bad guys," and these lines are easily identified. They cling to tradition, regardless of changing circumstances, and they have nothing new to offer.

But what they didn't imagine is that in 2008, Sauron would be represented by George W. Bush.