Cthulhudrew said:Much as I love Corwin- and I think he'd agree with me here- I wouldn't say he's a hero's hero. He does some things that can be characterized as heroic- and some decidedly selfless things- but he can also be pretty damn cold-blooded. My favorite Corwin scene is when he runs away from Borel at the Courts of Chaos and tricks him into an ambush, killing the other swordsman. "Oh, basely done!" cries Borel as he lay, dying. To which Corwin merely replies- "This isn't exactly the Olympic games."
Great scene. I guess I meant "hero" in the same sense one would call Conan a great hero, despite the character's amoral streak. He's somebody I could really root for.
The notion that Merlin relies too much on his magic, items, and powers to get out of danger making him unheroic seems a bit... odd, to me. After all, they are *his* powers and abilities. He's not quite the physical threat his father was (he's not the second or third best swordsman in the universe... but then, he hasn't had centuries to become so), but he is pretty darned powerful a magician- when he takes the time to lay out his spells. Corwin, had he had those abilities, would surely have made use of them, too. He only narrowly escapes death by the grace of the Jewel of Judgement at one point, and a couple of times by virtue of the Trumps. Does that make him more or less heroic than Merlin, who uses similar means to survive and prosper?
Insofar as that Corwin had to be resourceful in how he used the finite powers at his disposal, then yes I'd say it makes him more heroic than a character whose powers are decidedly open-ended--including some instant-death effects like a cardiac arrest spell, and something called "Concerto for Cuisinart and Microwave". In one case, the ground rules of the power are laid-out for the reader, and when the character engineers a clever way of using it, the reader thinks "wow, why didn't I think of that?".
In the latter case, the power is so conveniently utilitarian that it's easy to put the character in a seemingly impossible situation and then have him "poof" his way out, and to a gullible reader it looks clever because they don't notice that the writer just makes up the rules as he goes along (kind of like a mystery writer who introduces new clues or characters in the last five pages). I do respect an underdog who wins a fight with his wits more than a guy who can kill you just by pointing his finger at you.
I would also go so far as to say that ring he finds at the end--which really ramps up the power creep to pointless proportions--isn't really "his". Rather, he becomes its tool. Having him fall ass-backwards into semi-omnipotence and brush off all of his problems with some deux ex machina was a pretty weak way to put a capstone on the series. Don't know how that can be viewed as anything less than a cop-out.
Add to that, there is a lot more raw power being tossed around on all sides- the first series was much more of a swashbuckling jaunt, while the second is a magefest. I know a lot of people dislike what they see as the power creep, or munchkin effect, that seems to accompany the Merlin tales.
Yep, that's about what does it for me.
Anyway, I think I'm starting to ramble.
Actually, that was a great post. Gave me a few things worth reconsidering.
You should check out the short stories, if you haven't read them. Very good- particularly (and this probably won't surprise you) "Blue Horse, Dancing Mountain" and "Hall of Mirrors", which feature Corwin.
I may have read those already, but I will check into it. Thanks.
Last edited: