| Article: 345
From: [email protected] (Dani Zweig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.reviews
Subject: REPOST: Belated Reviews #18: Roger Zelazny
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: 28 Aug 93 12:14:26 GMT
Belated Reviews #18: Roger Zelazny
Roger Zelazny's work is more recent than that of most of the authors I've
been reviewing. Indeed, his inclusion represents a problem: Not only is
he still alive, but he is still publishing (much more actively than, say,
Hal Clement), so it might seem that I'm implying that his best work is
behind him -- which would be tactless. Still, since most of the books
I'll cover were written before many of the people reading this were born,
since there's a good chance that many of said people missed those books, and
since some of those books are exceptional, I'll proceed.
Zelazny's books tend to be mixtures of science fiction, fantasy, and
mythology. They are 'peopled' by gods who have a healthy respect for
technology, spell-casting computers, mythological creatures who act
like ordinary humans and humans who act like creatures out of legend.
It's an odd combination, but Zelazny makes it work. His best books were
written in the late sixties and early seventies, including:
"Lord of Light" (****). Those who make a point of locating the better
Hugo winners will have read this. In a distant future, on a distant planet,
some colonists have developed godlike abilities -- patterned upon the Hindu
pantheon -- to fight the native 'demons'. After the defeat of the demons,
those colonists, now unabashedly calling themselves gods, remain in power.
They are opposed by one man, the binder (and unbinder) of demons, the Lord
of Light. What makes the book work is a brilliant balancing of two levels:
The members of the pantheon are godlike immortals, and they are also humans
who remember Earth. Their opponent has the attributes of Siddhartha, and
he is also a somewhat cynical student of history who knows how effective
Buddhism can be in a Hindu culture. "Lord of Light" makes excellent use of
the Hindu mythos while still working as science fiction.
"His followers called him Mahasamatman and said he was a god.
He preferred to drop the Maha- and the -atman, however, and
called himself Sam. He never claimed to be a god. But then,
he never claimed not to be a god. Circumstances being what
they were, neither admission could be of any benefit."
When people talk about "Lord of Light", mention of "Creatures of Light and
Darkness" (***+) is rarely far behind. This book is based upon Egyptian
mythology. In this case, however, the characters really *are* the gods of
ancient Egypt. Or perhaps the gods of ancient Egypt were echoes of these
beings who, for all their timeless divinity, fit comfortably enough into
the galaxy of the future. The gods exist, if not in harmony, then at
least in uneasy truce until, in the House of the Dead, Anubis wakes a
seemingly undefeatable man whose memory he (or someone) has taken.
The style of this book is unusual, and a bit difficult: The story is not told
in a smooth narrative, but in a series of short, often disjoint, episodes,
and by the time the tale is done, most of these episodes have fallen into
place. My personal judgment is that Zelazny could not make this work as
well as he'd hoped, but that it's a remarkable effort. The book is probably
best known, though, not for its Egyptian gods and their struggles but for
Madrak, the all-bases-covered agnostic preacher:
"Then into the hands of Whatever May Be that is greater
than life or death, I resign myself -- if this act will
be of any assistance in preserving my life. If it will
not, I do not. If my saying this thing at all be
presumptuous, and therefore not well received by Whatever
may or may not care to listen, then I withdraw the statement
and ask forgiveness, if this thing be desired. If not,
I do not. On the other hand --- "
"Nine Princes in Amber" (****-) is the first of the five books in the first
Amber series. Fortunately, it stands well enough alone that you can read
it without committing yourself to the four (or nine) books that follow.
It's a remarkable combination of light fantasy and Byzantine plotting.
At the center of reality is the land/kingdom/universe of Amber. Emanating
from it are the Shadows -- other universes or realities -- and members of the
royal house of Amber have the ability to walk from one Shadow to the next.
In an infinity of Shadows, any world that can be imagined exists somewhere.
(Or perhaps they only come into being when they are imagined; is there any
way to know? In either case, knowledge and imagination seem to impose
limits: There is no indication, for instance, of anyone being able to walk
to a hypothetical world of super-advanced technology and bring some of
that technology home.) In some sense, though, Amber itself is more 'real'
than the Shadows, and when Oberon, its ruler, disappears, it is for Amber
that his nine sons compete.
Corwin, the hero of this story, is competing at a particular disadvantage:
Most of his opponents don't know that he has lost his memory, and is running
a very long bluff. In the process of his relearning his way through Shadow
universes and shadow politics, the reader is also introduced to this
fascinating and ambitious setting. "Nine Princes in Amber" is the first
and best of the series. The story goes on too long as, in the succeeding
novels, "The Guns of Avalon" (***), "Sign of the Unicorn" (**), "The Hand of
Oberon" (**), and "The Courts of Chaos" (**), the story becomes more and more
convoluted, and Corwin works out who is betraying what to whom. The second
Amber series, which starts with "The Trumps of Doom" and follows Corwin's son,
is definitely too long and too convoluted. (I really ought to wrap this
up with a clever quote from "Nine Princes in Amber", but none comes to mind.
It's not that kind of a book.)
"This Immortal" (***+) is less ambitious in scope. It takes place on a
future Earth which is tired and tapped out, abandoned by most of its
population, subsisting on memories and tourism. It is typical of Zelazny
that there is room, in odd corners of this gone-to-seed world, for elements
of Greek mythology to coexist with visitors from other stars. One of those
visitors is a very very important personage, with enough pull to demand
that Conrad Nimikos, Commissioner of the Earthoffice Department of Arts,
Monuments, and Archives (ie, a very senior bureaucrat), give him a guided
tour of the old planet -- a tour complicated by the fact that Conrad is
given excellent reason to allow him to be assassinated. And by the fact
that Conrad is a lot older than he seems. (This milieu isn't nearly as
interesting as the others, which is one of the reasons this book isn't as
memorable as the others. The quality of the writing goes a ways towards
compensating for this, however.)
"So feathers or lead?" I asked him.
"Pardon?"
"It is the riddle of the kallikanzaros. Pick one."
"Feathers?"
"You're wrong."
"If I had said 'lead'...?"
"Uh-uh. You only have one chance. The correct answer is
whatever the kallikanzaros wants it to be. You lose."
"That sounds a bit arbitrary."
I'll mention "Jack of Shadows" (***+) in passing. It takes place in a
distant-future in which Earth no longer rotates. The Night side is the
domain of magic, of great mages -- and some subtler powers, such as Jack
of Shadows -- and the Day side is a technological society where the powers
of Night are dismissed as myth. It's one of Zelzny's minor works, but I
enjoyed it. Zelazny has also written a number of critically aclaimed books
which I *didn't* much enjoy. (As a tie-in to the recent discussion about
Tennyson/Silverlock, I'll identify "The Dream Master" as one of those: One
of the main characters is, not coincidentally, named Eileen Shallot.) The
general rule applies: Try his better stuff, and if it motivates you to seek
out his other books, do so then.
%A Zelazny, Roger
%T Lord of Light
%T Creatures of Light and Darkness
%T Nine Princes in Amber
%T This Immortal
Standard introduction and disclaimer for Belated Reviews follows.
Belated Reviews cover science fiction and fantasy of earlier decades.
They're for newer readers who have wondered about the older titles on the
shelves, or who are interested in what sf/f was like in its younger days.
The emphasis is on helping interested readers identify books to try first,
not on discussing the books in depth.
A general caveat is in order: Most of the classics of yesteryear have not
aged well. If you didn't encounter them back when, or in your early teens,
they will probably not give you the unforced pleasure they gave their
original audiences. You may find yourself having to make allowances for
writing you consider shallow or politics you consider regressive. When I
name specific titles, I'll often rate them using the following scale:
**** Recommended.
*** An old favorite that hasn't aged well, and wouldn't get a good
reception if it were written today. Enjoyable on its own terms.
** A solid book, worth reading if you like the author's works.
* Nothing special.
Additional disclaimers: Authors are not chosen for review in any particular
order. The reviews don't attempt to be comprehensive. No distinction is
made between books which are still in print and books which are not.
-----
Dani Zweig
[email protected]
"One of my favorite games when I was a kid was 'murder/suicide.'
Dad would show us a photo and ask us, "Is it a murder or a suicide?"
-- Colleen Doran
|