tfl (02/23/83)
I've been reading Zelazny for about fifteen years now, so considering the
recent interest on the net, I thought I'd tender a few thoughts.
1) Yes his style has changed. If you've been following the Amber series,
you'll notice a change in his description of places and settings from
forest-like (when he was living on the east coast), to desert-like (when he
moved to Santa Fe). This change of scenery is also noticeable in LAST EXIT...
(p.s., the doc mentionned in that book is a reference to Doc Savage, and the
assassin is Johnny Sunlight, also from the Doc Savage series.) If you've ever
driven from Albuquerque to Santa Fe you may have gotten the incredible
experience of seeing what was described in LAST EXIT. Is the most beautiful
(unearthly) stretch of highway in the US.
2) RZ has always shown evidence of his scholastic background (i.e., 17th cent
english lit.). Thus, in many of his best works his heros are symbols, just
like in 17th cent morality plays (e.g. ENOUGH IS AS GOOD AS A FEAST, EVERYMAN,
etc.). In addition, his best heros have been cursed with the hamlet syndrome,
where things have no simple answers, and any choice is fraught with ethical
repercussions (e.g. LORD OF LIGHT). Lately, though, he seems to be caught up
in the marketability of mediochre fantasy.
3) Although I agree that AMBER does not stack up well against his earlier
material, I think that you have to understand all that's going on in Amber to
appreciate it (hint: RZ himself appears in this series. In fact, he's even
referred to as `Roger.' Can you locate the reference?). AMBER is based on
three philosophers: Plato, Hegel, and Nietzsche. In particular, see the MYTH
OF THE CAVE in the REPUBLIC, and THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA. I got to ask RZ at
DISCON II (washington, 1974, I think) whether his cribbing from various
sources such as the ones above, and Milton's PARADISE LOST in LORD OF LIGHT,
was intentional or not. He merely grinned, and replied that he did a lot of
that. I got the impression from talking to him that his books were filled with
sly references (the new moon with the old moon in her arms in NINE PRINCESES
was stolen from the poem: SIR PATRICK SPENSE) and in-jokes ("WUNLIPS" as
opposed to tulips in LORD OF LIGHT), and yet, unlike James Joyce, one's
appreciation of his books is not supposed to be based on `getting' them.
Because of my mongrel background (my undergrad work was in philosophy and
english lit) I pick up on a lot of them, but I'm concerned that these in-jokes
are not sufficient to sustain the sub-standard stuff he's writing now.
4) Of all of the SF I read these days, I still consider RZ to be special.
He's not interested in the sociology of social change, as is Dickson, or the
technology of social change, as is Heinlein, but in the effect that social
change has on the individual, perhaps of god-like stature, but still driven by
the same social conscience that drives us (at least some of us). Perhaps I
just like my heroes to have a little self-doubt, though not enough to
immobilize them totally.
5) I hope that it has become apparent that I like to deal with SF as
literature, very special literature, but literature none-the-less (and I think
that that 5% of SF stacks up quite well against classical literature, thank
you). If anyone else would like to discuss it on that basis, I'd really be
glad to talk with you. Use either my net address, or write me:
Tom Litant
3 Baron Pk. Lane, Apt 36
Burlington, MA 01803