Why we forgive Zelazny so much

[jibbajibba]

I have been rereading the first five books again and am amazed at how much we allow to slip past. Zelanzy make a number of gaffs that we allow to slip past us because we love the characterisation of Corwin so much. A few choice ones are -
i) Stating Random has the same mother as he does.
ii) Not noticing that Ganelon can out muscle Gerrard.
iii) Having Deidre, Random and Corwin on the road for 3 days and not find time to relate Random's chase from when he was trying to rescue Brand.

As well as these there are a few more general points that I don't feel he thought through fully. He seems to place all the princes as being young at the same point in history. Given 16 siblings with 6 mothers (we are not refering to the possible 64 children Oberon credits to different time lines here) it would be very unlikely that there wasn't a period of maybe centuries between the first and last born.  So would a 150 year old hang round with a 15 year old ?
How do Amberites age? We all assume they age normally up to 18 or so and then the slow to maybe 1/20 of human aging after that. Does that make sense?
The castle (and we have a thread on that one) just doesn;t really make sense. Nor does the City. In the later 5 books the city is brought to life more but the city we encounter just seems too much of a standard fantasy rip off somehow , I mean pet dragons?
Powers , so amny tiems people just don't seem to make use of the Powers at their disposal.

Now I love Amber, love it way too much really when I analyse it a bit more. It's the same sort of blind devotion that means I still think Highlander is a good film.
So why is it that we love it so much and are so blind to its faults?

[RPGPundit]

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and Trekkies.

RPGPundit

[Norbert G. Matausch]

@Pundit: Word! :hatsoff:

First of all: Amber is, by definition, perfect

Second: the Amber novels definitely stick to the Rule of Cool: "The limit of the Willing Suspension Of Disbelief for a given element is directly proportional to its degree of coolness. Stated another way, all but the most pedantic of viewers will forgive liberties with reality so long as the result is wicked sweet and/or awesome. This applies to the audience in general, as there will naturally be a different threshold for each individual in the group."

And Amber is frickin' cool.

[jibbajibba]

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and Trekkies.

RPGPundit

I thought Emerson was referring to a Foolish consitency but a nice use of the quote nonetheless.

But in a game in particular consistency ceases to be foolish and becomes key to keeping the players happy.

[Erick Wujcik]

...Zelanzy makes a number of gaffs that we allow to slip past us because we love the characterization of Corwin so much... So why is it that we love it so much and are so blind to its faults?

Most any book of substance will have inconsistencies. Most any book of substance will be subject to interpretation. Most any book of substance, can be many things to many people, can offer different perspectives, and can inspire, from passage to passage, many wondrous uncertainties.

I find it very interesting that each reading (and I'm up to 65 or so re-readings of the Chronicles of Amber) that while some details may get slippery, the underlying verisimilitude grows, strengthens, and becomes ever more comfortable.

That sense of uncertainty is exactly why there are ambiguities in the role-playing system; that we as Game Masters, and as role-players, want more than just the opportunity to walk around in a well-defined, well-behaved box of encounters. We want, with Amber, the chance for something boundless, something transcendent, something even profound.

Profoundity requires substance. Deep substances that is emotional, not mechanical. Heartfelt, always and forever.

Erick

[finarvyn]

A couple things come to mind:

1. Roger always claimed to be an "intuitive" writer, wherein he would toss in details for no apparent reason and then tie them together much later in the series. This leads to strange things in the text where you wonder why it's there and sometimes it matters, other times not.

2. There are several years between writing of some of his books, and I get the impression that many of the details were left in head rather than committed to paper. Why didn't he re-read his own passages to catch the inconsistencies? Who knows, but maybe he blamed Corwin's amnesia as the reason why all of the details don't match.

3. I forgive Roger because he was a darned good writer, and wrote really great stories. If some hack cranked out boring stuff which was poorly put together I wouldn't give him any slack, but since so much of what Roger wrote is (to me) simply amazing I give him a pass.

[Nihilistic Mind]

Besides, looking for inconsistencies is an editor's job, right?

[gabriel_ss4u]

Don't forget, Corwin is telling the story to his son and may choose to ommit, glance over, or just straight up lie as he sees fit.

as for the age of the siblings, don't forget those fast/slow time shadows.

Highlander IS a good film!!! (the 1st one)

and way to nail it Erick, you da man... everytime I start to read a reply fast, have to slow, stop, go back, and absorb.... I look to the left, and there's your name.  I DO love the manner you set things in perspective. (So, by the by, can I get any copies of some of those Rebma note you were gonna make a book otta?) lol