dustydigger
8/26/2012
Back in the 60s as a teenager trying to understand this book, I humbly ascribed any oddities or problems in the book to my own inadequacies. After all, I idolised Zelazny, he could do no wrong. Must be me.
Fast forward 40 years, and I cant ascribe the problems only to my own inadequacies. Zelazny was aiming for enigma, and all I get is obfuscation and bewilderment. Too clever by half? Possibly. Wish I was familiar with the original short story to see if it shed more light.
Lots of midsixties eastern mystical overtones, extrapolation of the dangers of the growth of car ownership (very flat and muted this) Masses of psychobabble,which was very prevalent back then, we all loved to spout psychological buzzwords all the time!
Characters? Very flat sketches, only adequate enough to carry forward the plot. Ending so enigmatic/puzzling you can pretty much make of it what you will. All in all, a bit of a pretentious mess, you would say. But ALWAYS with Zelazny we are saved by the stylish writing, which will keep you hooked regardless.
As always, the book is replete with Zelazny's remarkable visions of nature. And in this case it is visions, for the protagonists work is to construct dream worlds in the mind of his patient which he manipulates as a therapeutic means to solve neuroses etc. Zelazny can paint nature for you in vibrant colour and detail,and that always hooks me.
All in all, a mishmash, but intriguing and engrossing, while bewildering and confusing. Not sure how it came to be a Hugo winner, but there is enough true Zelazny to get you through the book. But I must admit it makes me want to reread Lord of Light, and the Amber Chronicles at once!