Talk:The Chronicles of Amber

Novels: Fantasy Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fantasy task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Miscellaneous

In the first paragraph, it mentions that royalty of Chaos can traverse the Logrus and then walk thru Shadow. This is incorrect. They were unable to walk thru Shadow until the black road was created. I therefore removed that sentence. Imrational (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)imrational[reply]

That's not correct. The Logrus allows one to walk in shadow. Merlin tells us this several times in his series.

"It was time, therefore, to resign the game and employ different means to solve the problem. My Trumps having blown a circuit and my ability to traverse Shadow having encountered a mysterious blockage, I decided it was time to up the power factor by an order of magnitude in my favor. I would summon the Sign of the Logrus and continue my shadow walk, backing every step that I took with the power of Chaos."

--Merlin, Knight of Shadows, Chapter Three Erik M Holmes (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the mention that "Mercedes Lackey" wrote a song inspired by Amber because I googled it and could not find any info and I don't think it is important enough to mention it in the first short paragraph even so.JohnRussell 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC) If someone knows anything about it and can cite it please add it back in later in the article with a link. JohnRussell 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that Zelazny started the series as an experiment--that is, he decided, "I'll have a character wake up with amnesia and go from there," and then made up the story as he went along. Does anyone know if that's true? And if so, can you find a source, and does it warrant mentioning in the article? Fumblebruschi 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no source, but that seems consistent with the whole series continuing endlessly. Writers got to write. Wastrel Way (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Eric[reply]

I believe this to be the correct order for the short stories. [1] JohnRussell 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Roger Zelazny's wonderful audio recordings of him reading the books with sound effects, where would be a good place for that? JohnRussell 22:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added info about the comic adaptations made by Terry Bisson. JohnRussell 18:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great expansion of the article, Indy! It may need a bit of editing for NPOV in a couple of places, and certainly needs some wikification (eg, more links), but a vast improvement over the stubby article that was there. Since I've some time, I think I'll go put in a few hyperlinks right now. -- Logotu 18:29, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC) (PS: Most people don't sign actual articles, though as far as I know there is no rules against it)

Did Zelanzy say that his work was inspired by Phillip Farmer's World of Tiers series? The first novel in that series is only five years before. ChrisG 23:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"In the first paragraph, it mentions that royalty of Chaos can traverse the Logrus and then walk thru Shadow. This is incorrect. They were unable to walk thru Shadow until the black road was created." According to whom? So far as I am aware, Zelazny wrote no such thing. The Characters in the Corwin Arc obviously knew the Courts existed, and there were some suggestions they might not have been able to walk *all the way* to the Courts before the Black Road, and it likewise seems likely those of Chaos could not walk *all the way* to Amber before the Road came into being. Given the nature of Chaos, and how easily one can walk from one shadow there to another (per Merlin's own comments), the quoted statement seems ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.172.164 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order & Chaos

When I was reading the Amber series, I always had the impression that the Courts of Chaos were really more orderly than Amber; the interactions of the families seem to be regulated by many customs etc while the Amberites are just a big bunch of anarchists. I am not sure this was a false impression on my part - it's been a while. -- Nils 12:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you are correct. - Logotu 15:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a scene in the last book of the Corwin cycle where this is explicitly stated (by a talking jackal, of all things.)

I always took this as one of the great oxymorons in Zelazny's works. The courts are in a chaotic place, as far as geography, astrogation, and time flow are concerned, but the inhabitants are extremely orderly, as opposed to Amber where the geography, time flow, and astrogation are orderly yet it is inhabited with many chaotic personas.

A role-playing book

Back in the late 1980s, some other (non-Zelazny) author created a book based in the world of Amber where a non-Amberite needs to find a way of shifting through shadow (they have to sell their soul to do so, as I recall). It was one of those books that was a self-contained role-playing came, using a combination of choose-you-own-adventure style and using dice to go through combat in the book.

I think the book was named "The long black road" or "The long road". I may even have it somewhere at my dad's house. Anyway, if anyone knows anything more about this book, it would be worth listing. And, no, IMHO, it wasn't as god as the Zelazny books. Samboy 05:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added the Choose Your Own Adventure books by Neil Randall based on information listed on amazon.com. Jwolfe 07:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for hunting those down! Samboy 06:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uthark, Nightside of the Runes

Why is a non-Amber work mentioned? If there's a connection, I think it should be explained. —JerryFriedman 00:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I concur - what is its relevance to the Amber series? Lokicarbis 07:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

World of Tiers/Amber

It's been a very long time since I read either, but I recall there were pretty explicit "hat tips" in Amber to World of Tiers, such as the character Dworkin Barimen and the Horn of Shamimbarimen (amazing what the mind retains). adamrice 04:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nature of Chaos

The article contradicts what memory I have of the series as it pertains to the Logrus and its abilities.

In the Corwin series, the inhabitants of Chaos found it much more difficult to move through Shadow than those of Order, and when they could move through it, they were unable to bring others along with them--hence the need for the Black Road. Otherwise they could have moved armies across at any time they liked, yet obviously they never did, since every Amberite short of Oberon and Dworkin was surprised at the mere existence of something on the other side of Shadow.

In the Merlin series, it was established that the Logrus was the Chaos equivalent of the Pattern, and those who had 'negotiated' it were able to pull things to themselves through the worlds of Shadow, as Merlin does numerous times. "Walking Shadow" was apparently possible for anyone born of Chaos, without the prerequisite of negotiating the Logrus.

well, you never actually see a full blood chaosite take part in a hellrun. Merlin does, but we may assume that he is using his pattern magic to do this. Or, maybe the chaosites could always go through shadow, but only initiates of the logrus. thus the need of the black road for those black cats and horned beasts and stuff. as for going though shadow without the logrus, i believe that somwhere in the merlin cycle they say that the shadow interfaces near chaos are "frayed" or something to that effect, meaning that in that area, you can cross the boundaries because they are so ill defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.198.74 (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong in this bit of memory? If so, feel free to edit or erase this post.

As a further irony, the Logrus was made of ever-shifting right angles and straight lines, whereas the Pattern was a series of whorls and arcs, lacking any straight lines whatsoever. Usually Chaos is represented or viewed as non-linear, whereas things linear are viewed as being Orderly. This inversion is as amusing to me as the Chaos family being peaceful and the Order (Amber) family being a bunch of backstabbing plotters.

I remember the Chaos family being a bunch of devious backstabbers, always pollitically plotting, much worse than those of Amber. Merlin ended up succeeding to the throne because all his prececessors were murdered. --ssd 01:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates, anyone?

I think templates such as {{Amber}} and {{AmberCharacters}} would be nice for navigation.

You can see {{Ender}} at Ender's Game series and {{EnderCharacters}} at Ender Wiggin.

I think as it sits now, a template for the books might be nice...though there are "preceeded by / followed by" boxes at the bottom of each of the articles on the books already. For the characters, I only found articles on Merlin of Amber and Corwin of Amber so for now I'd hold off until (if?) someone writes articles on the other denizens of the Amber universe. I'll see if I can fiddle around with an amber template though and get one that looks nice. --Syrthiss 13:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up adding {{AmberBooks}}. KJ 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very nice :) --Syrthiss 18:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logrus section

I cleaned it up a bit, however I am unclear about a few details, mainly how many copies of the Logri there are throughout shadowland. Sethie 23:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember anything from the main series books mentioning echoes of the Logrus in shadow. The swamp / maze that Merlin hid Ghostwheel in seemed to me to have Logrus-like physical qualities, but for actual negotiable Logrii the original in the Courts of Chaos might be the only one. --Syrthiss 13:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "fixed logrus" analog to the "broken pattern" was just a product of the role playing game and fan fiction. Nothing like that ever appeared in any of Zelazny's works. --Darth Borehd 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an edit on this section having just re-read the second Amber series. There are no echoes of the Logrus mentioned in the books so I've removed that comment, as well as editted for readability. --Markeer 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- it's been years!Sethie 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Amber ROCKS

Lost Unabridged Found?

I happened to discover an unabridged version of Sign of Chaos released by a company known as Audio USA. No website is available nor can I seem to Google them. But I have the unabridged none the less. The Audio Copyright is listed as 2002. Perhaps we can get this added into the audiobooks section, and also see if we can hunt down the other unabridged books.Dragonranger 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who reads it? --Darth Borehd 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I as well have "stumbled" upon an unabridged version of Sign of Chaos--though it was through a downloadable torrent source, rather than purchased (I'd buy it if I could find it... but kinda hard to find...). It's read by Roger Zelazny. --EndrilRM 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game?

Wasn't there also a video game made from Nine Princes in Amber? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darth Borehd (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ha! Yes there was. The copy I had was for the commodore 64 on 5-1/4" floppies. Not sure if it was available on other platforms or not though. If I remember correctly, it was mostly text based (like Zork), but there were some simple sprite-like graphics involved for some parts. (essaying the pattern was similiar to one of those sliding-peice puzzles). Cadmunky 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

   edit: found it  Cadmunky 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Shadow existed before the Pattern

{{spoiler}}

Wasn't this "contradication" being taken care of when we learned (in Chaos and Amber) there WAS a Pattern ("beta" version) before begin of Dawn of Amber ? -- Hkmaly 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read those books, but if you believe so then "Be Bold" Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages and change it. I would be careful how you change it though if it is a plot spoiler. If so, please read up on Wikipedia:Spoiler warning JohnRussell 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that it's more about Amber fans that about the books. While I am Amber fan, I don't belong to any of groups who criticized Betancourt (I learned about it only after books were translated to czech) and I don't know what it was really about. Also, I prefer not to edit english wikipedia because of state of my english. But ok, I try it ... -- Hkmaly 13:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Princes Picture

I've added the picture back in and put up a fair use rational; however, if someone could get the omnibus volume and justify it, it would probably be better. Adam McCormick 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle Descriptions

There has been a dispute as to which version of the two cycle descriptions should be used, before we get into an edit war about it, I'd like to get wider input. The two versions are here and here and the disputed sections are "The Corwin Cycle" and "The Merlin Cycle." I'm hoping we can debate this and come to a consensus. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are my main issues with the cycle descriptions, which is why I thought a cleanup was in order: 1) too many spoilers, 2) too much superfluous detail, 3) awkward writing. On point 1: The descriptions give away such major plot twists as that Brand is the traitor, that Dworkin helps Corwin escape, that Luke is Brand's son, and even that Julia faked her own death (!). Anyone who hasn't already read the series and who comes to this entry in order to get a basic idea of what the books are about is going to have every surprise totally ruined in two short paragraphs. At the very least these descriptions should require a spoiler warning, but I think it's silly to even have so many spoilers here. On point 2: The cycle descriptions contain way too many specific details, such as the long-winded discussion regarding the circumstances of Corwin's imprisonment and escape. On point 3: The writing is just plain bad, with overlong sentences full of clumsy parenthetical asides. Random is mentioned twice, but it's never explained who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.145.84 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, have a look at WP:SPOILER, spoiling the book is not a valid reason to remove content. I agree that the sections need rewriting, but the version that you made removed more than it added. I think that the sections should be expanded, broken out by book, with "main article" headers to the articles about the books. I'm not arguing that we don't need a rewrite, but it needs to be a rewrite not a hack and slash. I'll propose my own version as soon as I can. Adam McCormick (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with. I still don't think that a one-paragraph general overview of a series is an appropriate place to reveal key surprises. That's what the entries for the individual volumes with their fair-warning "Plot Summary" headings are for. Even giving away too much detail here about the ending of Nine Princes in Amber (that Corwin is defeated, blinded, grows new eyes, and escapes) seems to me unfair to the potential reader. I think my version strikes a good balance between conveying the broad outlines of the plot without spoiling the reading experience or getting lost in minutiae (I would hardly call my version a "hack and slash"), but I'm happy to consider alternatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.145.84 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at a rewrite. A bit more extensive than the original, but about more than the first book this time. Remember that it's supposed to be a summary of the series, not a catchy preview but a summary. It doesn't need a disclaimer and theres nothing against having WP:SPOILER content. Adam McCormick (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Logrus and The Pattern

Neither The Logrus nor The Pattern is sufficiently independently notable to justify its own article. As such, these two articles should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They get discussed sufficiently for notability purposes; Google Books shows that easily enough. Their articles need referencing work, not merging. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber's Reflections

The queen of Rebma is named Moire, not Moiré,* and she is not the subject of the article on moiré patterns or any of the other articles referred to by the disambiguation page. Similarly, while Tir-na Nog'th is an obvious allusion to Tír na nÓg, Zelazny doesn't use the fada.* Removing the acute accents and the link to "moiré pattern", and inserting the hyphen.

* Both names appear on p. 54 of Nine Princes in Amber in The Great Book of Amber: The Complete Amber Chronicles, 1-10. HarperCollins, 1999. ISBN 9780380809066.

--Thnidu (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Postings

Advance apologies, but I have no idea how to go about using these links in Wikipedia. If anyone can help, please do.

The references cite two Betancourt postings to the now-defunct bulletin boards at bb.bbboy.net. Using the wayback machine, I was able to track them down. The first appears to be the third one down at http://web.archive.org/web/20060614114102/http://bb.bbboy.net/shadowsofamber-viewthread?forum=15&thread=40&postnum=40. The second appears to be the one at top of page at http://web.archive.org/web/20070927160441/http://bb.bbboy.net/shadowsofamber-viewthread?forum=15&thread=40&postnum=67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenCSimmons (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. Thanks for this much.

Neil Gaiman statement. "Neil Gaiman statement at zelazny.corrupt.net" (now reference #11) is also lost.

1. The later block quotation of Gaiman lacks a reference. Does anyone know that the lost statement is the source? Anyone know where to find it now?

2. The link target is http://zelazny.corrupt.net/gaimanondawn.txt, which redirects to http://blog.corrina.name/gaimanondawn.txt. Is this difference related to our problem?

--P64 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Of Amber

I've re-organized and tightened this section, making it focus more clearly on just the follow-on series rather than rambling into other topics. This meant removing the reference to other Amber items which were authorized by Zelazny. The 'controversy' on whether or not he would have wanted other books written is the series might be better if moved to a subsection.

An awful lot of what I tightened included phrasing line 'some fans' and other vague references. I do recall such controversy, but have not got any references to it. In particular, the description of it as 'fan fiction' should either be properly referenced, or removed/weakened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenCSimmons (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

characters and influences

It's worth noting (but I don't have a formal cite, and thus am not placing in the page) that the nine princes were based on real people that Zelazny knew from the Baltimore/Johns Hopkins science fiction scene. A friend of mine had "corwin" as a physics tutor in the mid-1980s, he died shortly after. The pattern was based on a room with a cool pattern on the floor; I think it might have been an air conditioning equipment room. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.37.159 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Geography of Amber

I believe you've got some issues here. As I recall, the Stair is on Kolvir's eastern (seaward) side, the exact opposite of how your article presently describes it. I believe that the stair is described as being on the mountain's "eastern" face in Nine Princes in Amber, and in the Merlin story arc, Merlin and Coral descend the stairs to arrive on the beach and explore some sea caves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.172.164 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC) To prove the point, text from Nine Princes in Amber describing Corwin's assault up the mountain: "We were about two-thirds of the way up by then, and the stair zigged and zagged its way back and forth across the face of Kolvir. The eastern stair is seldom used." The stair IS on the EASTERN side of the mountain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.172.164 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

Your description of the stories are full of spoilers. At the minimum, you should warn readers of this; preferably, the text should be re-written to remove the worst offenders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.172.164 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the sections on Geography, Trumps, Reflections of Amber, and the Pattern and Logrus. I removed spoilers, irrelevancies, and many errors and misstatements, as well as adding information. I suggest, as did a previous commenter here, that you completely delete the synopsizes of the individual books -- they do little besides spoil surprises for the reader, and I note earlier versions of this page did not describe the plots of the novels. Future editors to the page should take greater care in what they give away!

No one else seems to be "talking" here. Looking at Wiki's page "Manual of Style/Writing about fiction," the existing synopsizes of the individual books are "in-universe" summaries, full of plot spoilers. Wiki instead wants "real-world" descriptions, not what it calls "in-universe" text. Spoilers are not to be provided unless an "encyclopedic purpose" is being served. Wiki provides no definition of the "encyclopedic purpose," but common sense suggests the entries are much longer than is typical for a work of fiction. If nobody else chimes in here, I'm just going to delete the existing book summaries, which will basically return that portion of the page to an earlier version. If I do so, I will also look at editing my previous changes to a "real-world" perspective. I assume someone is monitoring this page, so please discuss if you're going to.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.172.164 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber) and The Logrus

CLOSED

no consensus as per WP:Consensus. The merge proposal was put, then a counter proposal was put. Discussion followed on the counter proposal, that it have a draft; and then another discussion followed on establishing notability of the Pattern + the Logrus. There was no merge discussion proper; ergo, close discussion. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Administrative closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the discussion at Talk:The Pattern (The Chronicles of Amber)#Notability, I don't believe those two topics have stand-alone notility, but there is some content that could be merged here (literary analysis, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently my favorite solution would be a merge of those two topics with each other. Several secondary sources have to say something about those two in comparison. What we already have as sourced analysis seems to me a bit much for our article here. And I think taking everything together would fulfill the amout requirement of WP:WHYN, that we can write "a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". Complemented by a reasonable explanation and plot-summary section, of course. Daranios (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a reasonable alternative - are you able to write up a draft to give an idea of how it would be? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack: As for a draft, nope, sorry, too much on my plate to take this project on myself. What it could look like: Taking the two concepts and their interrelation together. Either by using the section we have here in the article and expanding it by some points and sourced sections from the individual articles. Or the other way round, putting the two articles together and shortening the material, and using pieces from our section here to explain their interrelation. Then add/combine what's in the respective reception sections. Add some more points from the secondary sources used in those reception sections which are not yet present. I'd planned to do a little more of the latter when I get around to it. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About notability: I've just realized that this 10-page essay is to large extent about the Pattern: Richard, Marie-Ève (2014). "Transmutations et métamorphoses des lieux et des corps: Topologie de l'idée de nation dans la science-fiction du cycle des Princes d'Ambre de Roger Zelazny" (PDF). Postures. 20: 23–33. Retrieved 5 November 2021. "Marelle" (hopscotch) seems to have been used in the French translation as the name for the pattern, an this appears throughout the essay. This also contains one longish paragraph on p. 31 comparing the Patten and the Logrus. This should go a long way towards establishing notability for the Pattern or the Pattern + the Logrus. Daranios (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.