The Whiskey Boys

After the end of the American Revolution, a set of problem worried the new government. High on that list was the question of how to pay back the war debt. In order to show itself a truly functional government, the United States had to resolve a large debt owed to all manner of creditors, including foreign powers, businesses, bond buyers and war veterans, who in the main had been paid only in scrip. The chosen plan to address the United States’ international financial credibility, was the Bank of the United States, the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, who enjoyed the blessing of President George Washington, whose favor all but guaranteed its support in Congress.

The bank, however, depended on a special security, bonds sold to bring in capital for the government, yet the government needed capital to pay for those bonds as well. Hamilton’s answer, blessed by President Washington and the Congress, was an excise tax on whiskey. To the mind of Congress, this was a perfect solution, as whiskey was considered not only a luxury, but sinful because of the behavior of many men who drank it. Note also that the Congress chose to target whiskey, not wine or any other spirit likely to be imported from a country where the United States wanted to build a commercial relationship. The tax was assigned to whiskey, specifically whiskey distilled in the western territories.

To the pioneers in western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky, the tax was not only onerous, but an outrage built upon another outrage. Many veterans of the Revolution found that they had lost land and property during the war, and so were ‘paid’ with promissory notes, which the Congress dithered about repaying for more than a decade in some cases. Many of these men ended up selling their notes to speculators for land in the western territories, finding out only later that the land was often neither arable nor valuable, and in some cases the new settler discovered that he had not in fact really bought the land at all. Even where the settlers were able to live on the land they bought, they were offered far less than the notes were worth. For these settlers, it was an outrage that having been fleeced by speculators once, they were to be taxed in a manner aimed directly at them, and them alone.

Cash was scarce in the new territories, so barter and various mediums of exchange came into use. While some settlers were successful farmers, because no highways had been built, there was no way to ship produce to the East, and the Spanish who controlled the Mississippi River barred the settlers from shipping goods on it. After some time, the settlers discovered that whiskey was a valuable commodity. Unused grain and fruit would spoil and become worthless very soon, but whiskey could be stored, and in fact gained value as it aged. The whiskey tax, therefore, targeted the principal means of the settlers’ commerce.

Worse, the tax had to be paid in hard currency, and worse still, the tax was not based on cash sales or even proportion of inventory, but on the tax collectors’ estimates of whiskey production. A tax collector could assign literally any dollar amount on a whiskey producer, and many did so because their enforcement rights allowed them to seize property and land. Given that many of the settlers had fought in the war against unfair taxation, this was unconscionable on its face. Protests rose up in short order in many places, including the South where landowners saw the Tax as a prelude to government takeover of anyone in its way. Armed rebellion began in 1794 near Pittsburgh, but no one was killed – the rebels made it a point to voice their anger but stop short of lethal force.

President Washington, under the authority of the Militia Law passed in 1792, called up a military force larger than the entire Continental Army used in the Revolutionary War, and set it under the command of Virginia Governor Harry “Light Horse” Lee, whose grandson, Robert E. Lee, would surpass him. Lee considered the post unsuitable and handed control over to his civilian advisor appointed by President Washington – Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton drove his army into and all about Western Pennsylvania, but the rebel forces refused to give him a target and melted away into the mountains and hills. What’s more, the local citizens were hostile to the government forces – the army was commonly asked why they were unwilling to protect the settlers from attacks by Indians, but were so quick to hunt down veterans of the Revolution, patriots who merely opposed an unfair and discriminatory tax that any free man would find abhorrent – so the army eventually drew up charges – on dubious evidence – against twenty men, two were convicted (but not in Western Pennsylvania), and seeing the futility of the move, President Washington pardoned those two and called the matter closed.

The tax remained fiercely unpopular, helped bolster the fortunes of the young Democratic-Republican Party and Thomas Jefferson, and was repealed in 1803.

Since History is not a popular course these days, either with students or the mostly PC school districts, the lessons of the Whiskey Rebellion are not commonly discussed, much less considered in the light to today’s conditions and events. But men who deem themselves better than the common man, who imagine that their solution will be painless for all just because it benefits them personally, would do well to consider the one notable blunder in Washington’s terms as President, which consequences altered not only political history but the character of American finance – it should be remembered that the Bank of the United States failed, not once but twice – and the lessons of how anyone, when pushed far enough, will push back.

Regicide vox Populi

Today is the day Christians observe the death of Christ, Good Friday. According to Scripture and Christian theology, on this day Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, culminated His mission on Earth as the Messiah and King of Kings, by dying on the cross on false charges of insurrection against Rome, after several sham trials, beatings, and a whipping that tore open His back. The day was shameful for Humanity in virtually every respect, and it is no surprise that memory of the event makes people angry. Jews resent the parts in Scripture where the people and the Levites in Jerusalem rejected Christ and demanded His death though they knew Him innocent and righteous, non-believers resent the account of His courage and resurrection, and even some Christians shrink from the fact that every one of Christ’s disciples and followers fell short of their duty when He was taken – Judas betrayed Christ, all the disciples fled, and the chief among them, Peter, denied even knowing Jesus. And the women, though they held little power, followed close enough to watch the crucifixion and were there when the angels announced His resurrection, also fled at His capture and did nothing to hinder either the Romans or the Levites or the men who plotted against Christ. I say this not in condemnation of any of these groups, but to observe the frank fact that all Humanity was guilty of Christ’s murder, and if you or I were there at the time we would have done no different than these we judge villains in the matter. Grace from God is not for some but for all, and part of the reason for that is that God loves us all, and we all are in desperate need of His Grace.

But Good Friday is not about Grace – it’s about Consequences. Maundy Thursday represents the choice men make to sin, and Sunday the Grace of God which results in forgiveness and rebirth. But Friday is the Day of Judgment, which applies here as allegory in addition to true history. We live in an age where it is popular to imagine that we may do as we please, to enjoy ourselves and imagine that nothing is damaged as a result of our choice. We fail at goodness and so dispute even the existence of holiness, turning our eyes from examples in front of us every day so we can pretend that doing as we will is the highest moral plane, even as teach children to be better and demand it from government, authority, and our neighbors.

This is nothing new, though. The old empires were built on greed and lust for power just as modern men do the same, and Plato once wrote of a kind of man who lived in a cave, being lied to through shadows and darkness, yet when he escaped the cave and faced the true light, he deemed it false because it was alien to what he knew, and he embraced the shadows, even knowing they were false, because it was too much to embrace the truth when it was a truth too strong and bold for him to accept.

The Troll President

There’s this person who visits blogs. A lot. Way more than just a regular reader. He pretty much lives there, and comments on everything. So far, fine. Bloggers love people who read their stuff all the time. But this guy, well, he lives in the wrong side of reality. You got some folks with low self-esteem, some with a bit too much self-image, then you have this guy. A guy who imagines that his opinion is so good, that no one else has a right to do anything but agree. In the old days, a guy like that would try to get his own radio show, and in modern days most such blowhards write blogs or work for outfits like MSNBC or CBS. But some folks are just too stupid and lazy to write their own articles. Instead, guys like this show up in someone else’s blog, and instead of making cogent and reasoned observations, or at least presenting rational opinion and defending it with something like logic, this guy basically screams insults and flings poo. The generic name for this kind of person is “troll”, but you know who I mean. A troll is a person who basically cannot conduct himself in any way but the most vulgar and disrespectful manner.

That kind of person, I once believed, could never rise to the office of President of the United States. History, however, has proven otherwise. We’ve had jerks in the Oval Office before, self-possessed morons who cared more for their image than the nation’s welfare. We’ve even had a few whose mental balance was, at times, quite possibly in question. Yet for all of that, until now every President has believed that what he said and did was in the best interests of the people of the United States, and that the way in which he conducted himself in public, especially in public debate, was to be exemplary. That has changed with Barack Obama. President Obama cares nothing for anyone but himself, and even the welfare of the United States of America is a distant second to getting his way. There is no one he will not attack, malign, defame, bully or extort to get what he wants. The target selection ranges every so often, from blaming former officials to his own underlings, to his role models, to the Congress, to business leaders, bankers, doctors, accountants … pretty much a cross-section of America whenever he thinks a cheap shot will advance his plans. And like all trolls, President Obama is impervious to logic, recognition of the failure of his plans and the irrational character of his rhetoric and vulgar flavor of his behavior. The difference between a blog and the White House, of course, is that you can read a different blog or tune out the troll on the blog; we have to put up with the White House Troll until 2012.

Time for a Little Madness

Sometimes you have to focus on priorities. And for American males, that means it’s Bracket Time. We all know who should win the NCAA Tournament, but the play’s the thing, and the play starts tomorrow, with apologies to Arkansas-Pine Bluff and Winthrop who already had their play-in game. To keep it simple, I propose those interested in the discussion just name their Sweet Sixteen, Final Four, and National Champion. To get it started, here are mine:

Sweet Sixteen
Midwest Regional
Kansas
Maryland
Ohio State
Georgetown

East Regional
Kentucky
Wisconsin
West Virginia
New Mexico

West Regional
Syracuse
Butler
Kansas State
Xavier

South Regional
Duke
Utah State
Villanova
Baylor


Final Four
Kansas
Kentucky
Syracuse
Baylor

National Champion
Kansas

The Comfort Zone

Some years back when I was much younger and more naïve, a friend talked me into joining Amway as a distributor. The premise seemed simple and attractive; Amway offers a range of cleaning and household products that – so they claim – are superior in quality and comparable or cheaper in price. In addition, Amway’s system of compensation – as they described it – allowed the opportunity for distributors to build a network which would lead to income based on other people’s work – a Ponzi scheme, as it turned out, although Amway laid things out carefully to avoid prosecution for fraud – everyone knew what the company was doing, but could not prove it. Since discovering the lies and hypocrisy of Amway and cutting my losses, I have encountered a number of other people who believed the company’s promises and quit when they found out the promise was false, but never yet anyone who made a successful career with the company. The relevance to today’s post, is that Amway pushed its distributors to ‘get out of their comfort zone’, to take risks without carefully considering the full costs against desired benefits. In that light, it should hardly be surprising that so many people who joined Amway suffered losses they never expected, and who found the company lacking in integrity and ethics.

Most of us have heard of the ‘comfort zone’. We are told that we get into habits and certain ways of doing things, and that we get used to the routine and resist change, even when it can be good for us or even necessary. People telling us to ‘get out of our comfort zone’ include doctors, bosses, and teachers, but we also run into this from people trying to get us to do things for their benefit more than for our own. A key sign of what sort of motive a person has for pushing you to ‘get out of your comfort zone’, would be whether they are willing to let you think through the argument, and consider in detail what risks and benefits you are facing if you accept or decline the offer or proposition. Anyone pushing you to accept their demands without proper consideration may reasonably be considered a con man more than someone with your interests as a priority. For example, when I was first diagnosed with abdominal cancer in 2006, my initial oncologist wanted to schedule radical surgery, and became very upset when I wanted to get a second opinion. His conduct verged on unprofessional then, as he hid my medical records in a childish attempt to keep me from sending them to the other oncologist. I had a rare condition he wanted to treat for his own intellectual interest, and he could not have cared less about me as a person facing a serious condition. Like others, he pressed for me to agree to major surgery simply because he felt I should have it, and in his argument he argued that my reluctance was more from my ‘comfort zone’ than to reasonable concern to make sure it was the best course of action. In the end, I had to threaten his office with HIPAA to get the records released, but my experience with my oncologist at M.D. Anderson was night and day better, as MDA found a non-invasive way to treat my condition. In truth, staying in my ‘comfort zone’ became impossible once I was diagnosed, but demanding my rights and pursuing all of my options were not at all to do with a ‘comfort zone’, but responsible deliberation of the situation.

The ‘comfort zone’, of course, also shows up a lot in politics. We have seen this with the Global Warming hoax, best demonstrated by the demand from activists that there is no time to verify their claims of cataclysmic climate change, but draconian measures must be immediately undertaken without debate, let alone proof. The con men doubled down with the laughable lie that the science is proven and the debate settled. The hoax has begun to fall apart in recent weeks, but the scheme progressed alarmingly far with little public scrutiny of the hoaxers’ motives and claims. The same propaganda tool was used to pass massive spending programs through Congress, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent on pet projects on the pretense that immediate action was needed to avoid a rise in the unemployment rate – which continued to rise after the legislation anyway, largely because the spending in the bill had nothing in truth to do with protecting or creating jobs in major industries or to help small companies, which make up most jobs. It was, the public is beginning to realize, a lie to cover a money grab for their buddies. More than the Tea Party protests, more than preference for a political party, the public outrage over being lied to is what is fueling the move to throw out incumbents.

That’s not to say that no one should worry about the need to get out of their comfort zone. Those politicians who think they can support Obama’s Chicago Con bills in March and still enjoy re-election this November are in for a nasty shock, as are the party leaders, Republican as well as Democrat, who still ignore the need for reform and attention to their grass roots and the ideals that made them relevant to Americans before the present era. Earmarks and special interest favors are the comfort zones of politics that the public is demanding be ended. The future of American politics depends on the leaders who first recognize and acknowledge that the people are America, and not deep-pocket special interest groups.

Wealth Theory

One characteristic which separates Republicans and Democrats in most people’s minds, is their attitude towards wealth. Democrats often believe that Republicans are biased in favor of the wealthy and against ‘the poor’, who are commonly imagined as minorities, women, and the elderly, and that Democrats stand for fair outcomes, so made by actions taken to punish greed. Republicans often believe that Democrats are biased in favor of special interest groups and against ‘working Americans’, who are commonly imagined as America in total, and that Republicans stand for equal opportunity, so made by elimination of subjective barriers and penalties used to punish business success. Democrats and Republicans both claim to speak for Main Street, although Democrats claim Republicans are buddies of Wall Street, Republicans claim Democrats are buddies of Broadway, and far too many members of both parties act like they live on Bourbon Street. This article is written to set out my understanding of how wealth is created and developed, and to begin a discussion on perspectives of the same concern.

There is a sense in the modern culture that money is a bad thing, and that rich people are bad people. Democrats promote this sense in politics by accusing business leaders and major companies of “greed” whenever the business community is opposed to a policy or bill supported by Democrats. Opposition by Democrats to financial success, however, does not appear to extend to criticism of celebrities and actors, to lawyers or doctors, or to special-interest groups which support liberal causes. This hypocrisy is salient to the matter, since it demonstrates that Democrats are inconsistent in their application of their theory, designating non-productive wealth as acceptable while maligning wealth from production of useful goods and services demanded by the public. America will not be in crisis if Michael Moore’s film fails, but as we have seen, it does fall into crisis when major auto manufacturers cannot produce profits. It should also be noted that it is inherently illogical for politicians, who receive money while producing no useful product, to sit in judgment of people and companies which do produce useful goods. That way lies madness and the myth of Man-created Global Warming.

The liberal lie about wealth depends on the zero-sum fiction of wealth. The idea is that there is only so much of any good thing, and it’s human nature to want as much of it as you can get. That’s greed, as they think of it. Everyone is entitled to their “fair share”, which is almost never how it works out in practice, making the real world “unfair” by their rules. The idea that everyone should have a share of something, even if they did nothing to create or build it, sounds a lot closer to greed than those people who work hard to make a thing themselves. And anyone who’s ever done farming understands that production is not a zero-sum equation. Come to that, farming is counter-intuitive in some ways. The idea that you take edible seed and bury it makes no sense until you understand how germination works. That’s why Agriculture is the ‘First Wave’ of technology mentioned by the Tofflers.

And Industry, by the way, is the Second Wave, and it’s no zero-sum matter either. Not everyone can make all the goods he or she wants and needs, nor equally well. Industry provides a means for a community, country or planet to raise its living standards and quality of life without increasing its cost of resources to the same degree. Capitalism works for many reasons, not least of which include the fact that major capitalist nations have healthier, happier citizens. One of the most basic laws of business is that to succeed, a business must have relatively low prices, superior features and convenience, or superior quality and customer satisfaction, or some two of the three if it wants to lead in its industry. Only a monopoly, like the Post Office or Congress, is immune to these economic laws, and even there, over a period of time degradation is inevitable. Anyone who tells you different is running for office with a jackass for a logo.

There are a few basic rules of how one creates wealth. One may receive it, as in inheritance; one seizes it, as in conquest or eminent domain or nationalization; or one may actually build wealth. Wealth is not simply manipulating numbers a la Bernie Madoff to create the illusion of wealth creation, nor is it the parasitical behavior of people living off other people’s work, like people who make money off things like ‘residuals’ and other gambling-based activities. Wealth creation only occurs when the net wealth of all stakeholders in an enterprise grows. This is why farms, savings and loans, factories, and corporate labs are good investments, while law firms, casinos, and eco-thug restrictions are generally liabilities for a culture. The farmer’s tools, land, and work combine to create food which is worth more than he puts into it. A savings and loan – properly run – protects savings and provides capital for worthwhile ventures, which grow to far beyond their initial investment and outlay. Factories produce products which improve the quality of life for their customers, employees, and communities, especially if they are run by people who live in those same communities, which creates a desire for good corporate citizenship. Corporate laboratories seek answers to pressing medical needs and provide improved options for people living with disease, impaired ability, pain, or other maladies. On the other hand, law firms not only consume assets while producing no goods or valuable services, they also leave impacts which damage communities as a whole. This is not to say that the law is not necessary, but it is abused by lawyers far more than communities are abused by businesses. Casinos also consume resources without creating any physical goods or valuable services; the net effect on a community with a casino is inevitably negative. And politics-based restrictions on corporate operations damages the effectiveness of those businesses, costs jobs, and consumes assets and resources with no production of goods or useful services. The point is that government, even when absolutely necessary, is by definition destructive, wasteful, and a liability to be minimized whenever possible.

All wealth creation involves risk. There is always the risk of failure, such as the farmer whose crops suffer from bad weather or insect blight, or the factory which must stay abreast of consumer demand and the cost-effectiveness of its methods. All successful corporations begin as small businesses, so protection of small business interests is not only quaint, it’s Economics’ version of Pediatric Medicine. As for public corporations, they exist under specific laws and requirements. A lot of people don’t seem to understand that what Enron did, for example, was already against the law, even before the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. While there are crooks in business, there are crooks everywhere, as Congress and most city councils have proved well beyond dispute. There are far more good businessmen than bad, something Congress can hardly claim for itself. That’s not to say that business should operate without reasonable rules and laws, but there’s something very wrong with a Congress that knows so little about Economics and Business, with its own pallid record in Ethics, setting business leaders in general out as the enemy of the nation. And the results of the Auto Bailout in the year just past stand as a painful reminder of just how poorly Congress understands the effects of its actions. The Bank, Auto, and who-knows-what-else-is-to-be-bailed-out industries have not improved in financial stability or health, despite all the money poured into them. Because risk is not mitigated by government meddling, anymore than blaming Wall Street for blundering disasters in the White House is an effective means of improving job creation.

Risk is disliked, of course. But because you cannot escape it completely, risk tolerance is a factor in all economic activity. And as a natural function, the only way to persuade someone to accept higher risk, is to offer commensurate rewards for success under those conditions. Also, refusing to reward risk tolerance will inevitably damage performance, as the consistent results of Socialism demonstrate. As an example, consider at-will employment. A man has some money, and an idea. An idea he thinks will produce profits. So he hires employees to help him make the product or provide the service that is his idea. That’s how most people these days make a living – working for a company that hired them to do a job. They could have started their own company, worked by and for themselves, but they did not like the risk, so they agreed to an arrangement where they could be assured of a certain income by doing a certain thing under certain conditions. If things didn’t work out, the boss could fire you or you could quit. Simple, direct, and functional. Companies with good bosses, a good plan, and good employees grew strong. Companies without those things died out. Here in the bailout age, a lot of people would not believe that most of the original automobile companies eventually went under – Stanley, Packard, Deusenberg, Haynes, Studebaker, and Duryea were all major automakers at one time or another but which died out, even though some were successful for some years. The Studebaker was a popular company well into the 1950s, for example. And in addition to government intervention to protect selected industries and companies, there was also the drive to create protected classes of employees. Unions, for example, originally created to protect employee rights to safe working conditions and equal opportunity to advancement and compensation, were soon corrupted to become means to manipulate workstaff and extort money from businesses; the Mafia’s gruesome history alone confirms that unfortunate development. Governments, from local councils to the Congress, have also interfered with business through initiatives meant to accomplish job growth or to advance selected outcomes, but inevitably such programs have cost well in excess of their benefits. The most obvious example would be Medicare, which controlled medical costs for a selected demographic of Americans but only to a degree and only for a finite time span, while the attendant costs have rocketed far beyond all projections. Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection may not prove true with regard to biological cross-species evolution, but it is a truth of economics that cost and benefit can not be artificially manipulated to serve a political aim. While it is true that behavior can be influenced by rewarding desired behavior and punishing undesired behavior, this practice breaks down as the scale of subjects, cost, and time increase. The best examples are black market economies and attempts to legislate moral preferences.

For this reason among others, every nation depends essentially on small business first and foremost. This is because small businesses are most sensitive to new opportunities and dangers, and because small businesses exist for pure business reasons, paying in taxes and compliance for government and special interest interference but operating for valid business purpose. The effect of new policies upon small business is therefore a significant barometer for the economic wisdom of those actions, and should be carefully considered in historical context. An action which was ill-considered in 1934 is not a wise choice in 2010 simply because time has passed.

This brings us to present politics. The plain lesson of History is that policies based on the subjective values of the minority of the population, such as Carbon taxes, ex post facto taxes on executive bonuses, and arbitrary manipulation of mortgage and credit rates, may work for a limited time but in the long term prove ineffective, inefficient, and do more damage to the economy than any good. Any action taken will inevitably affect and influence the behavior of the whole economy, and focusing only on one part is going to lead to unpleasant surprises. Government actions will inexorably damage economic performance, with the exception of actions which reduce government restrictions. This is not to say that government regulation is not needed, but to observe that even the most necessary statutes mean accepting poorer performance for greater stability or control. Consequently, it never even possible for Obama’s “Stimulus” to work as intended, anymore than a perpetual motion engine can function in real life, and for the same reason; economic performance comes from the actions of wealth-producing entities, which are individuals and businesses, never the government. The government is parasitic in economic nature, and therefore any government action which controls and redirects wealth will reduce the total amount in that process; it was therefore impossible ab initio for a plan to spend huge amounts of public money to result in anything but diminished economic performance. Cross-reference East Germany, 1945-1995 and compare to West Germany for the same time period.

This essay says nothing that was not already generally known. The emotional reactions from some folks may, however, serve as a sort of economic literacy test.

Racism and Individualism

Racism is essentially judging a person negatively mostly on the basis of Race. A key component of Racism is that the individual is ignored, and his unique identity devalued. The lesson of History is that great deeds are done by individuals, great discoveries are made by individuals, and that even when a nation or team, accomplishes a triumph, there is always a leader or teacher at the forefront. On the other hand, evil often hides behind the mob, as happened with the Ku Klux Klan in its foul legacy, the Nazis (original and neo-), and countless cults, gangs, sects, and hate groups. Racism takes malignant energy and focuses it against targeted individuals with the intent to tear down and destroy, while individualism calls upon a person's identity and will to grow and achieve on his or her own merit, working alongside others but without detracting from their own identities. An example of such individualism can be found in the Gospel accounts of the disciple Peter, or the Apostle Paul. In each case, the men worked to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ, denying the self while exhibiting their individual identity and growing as individuals at the very same time. The same effect occurs in Science, where individuals build upon the work of predecessors and follow common procedures, yet accomplish unique results and individual discoveries. Einstein built on Newton, and Hawking built on Einstein, yet all three accomplished individual triumphs.

Racism is inherent weakness in a person, while Individualism makes a person stronger. The difference can be shown through the difference of arrogance and self-confidence. The arrogant person asserts superiority by his person alone, that simple existence qualifies him to demand primacy, while self-confidence is rooted not in contention but knowledge of your own limits and growth, the balance between weakness and strength, risk and opportunity, and your ability to advance solutions and consensus. The arrogant man demands others do as he wills, the individual offers solutions and options, and is open to alternatives. So with Racism; the racist demands that his race be dominant in any situation, and is opposed to any debate or discussion, while the individualist accepts, even welcomes, alternative perspectives and options. The inevitable result of these paradigms is that Racism stagnates and atrophies any demographic where it is prevalent, while individualism advances community goals and common ideals.

Racists succeed only in isolated situations, and only when they can intimidate individuals into silence and acquiescence. Consequently, racists are likely to choose fascist methods, force and threats as well as suppression of and attacks upon perceived enemies and opponents. Individualists are aware that they cannot achieve their goals through force or intimidation, and so from the start must gain support through consensus-building and alliances on moral strength of their argument. It is a reasonable measure of a person's character, therefore, to note the method of their presentation and attitude to different and opposing opinions.

How to Choose an Online MBA School, 2010 edition

In my prior articles, I noted that online MBAs have grown rapidly in credibility and value in the past decade, while at the same time the student must chose carefully which path to take to earning an MBA. A Masters of Business Administration is the capstone for many business professionals; there are few reasons to seek a Doctorate, and while there are a number of licenses one may pursue, such as the CPA license for accountants, which enhance the MBA degree, the MBA is a fundamental identity statement for a professional, and so the school where the degree is earned should be a very careful decision. There is no guarantee that earning an MBA from a certain school will guarantee you a job at all, let alone the position you desire in the company you wish to join. But it is true that a good choice of schools can improve your professional profile, and in combination with well-presented experience and career accomplishments can make your resume compelling to the decision-makers who review your application.

In earlier articles I mentioned the sort of student who would, I think, thrive in the different environments of the varying MBA programs. So far as online programs go, there are essentially three types of ‘online’ programs:

[] Minimal online participation - a growing number of schools offer at least some courses online. This makes the curriculum a bit more convenient, but it’s not a true online degree, since the barriers of time and travel would still apply. As a rule, for my purposes a school is not an online school in terms of earning an MBA unless no more than six hours of coursework must be completed on site or at specific sites. In the same way, satellite locations do not count as online schools.

[] Periodic Campus Residence Requirement – a number of programs offer online degrees, but include a requirement of three-to-six weeks of residence a year on campus. This is usually tied to a project or special event, ostensibly in support of the program but too often used to promote the university as a future fundraising beneficiary. I do not consider such programs to be a true online MBA, since the time and logistics required make the program untenable for many students who seek an online MBA.

[] Pure online curriculum – this used to be very rare, but is gaining popularity, due to the fact that so many experienced managers returning to school for their MBA can only commit to an online regimen. The ability to supervise work and examinations (especially with the use of proctors at satellite sites and virtual proctors online) and the ability to use online tools to improve the quality of discussions, group projects and virtual teams all have direct real-world applications value for businesses, and so the online student can offer an advantage to employers as a result of his curriculum. This makes online study an asset rather than a liability.

My review of online MBA schools, therefore, will be limited to discussion of schools which allow the majority of work to be performed online, and are accredited by the AACSB, the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business. Before I go on about the rest of my criteria, let me explain why the AACSB is so important.

The AACSB was founded in 1916, so it’s one of the oldest accrediting groups for business schools in existence, and it’s also the largest, a worldwide organization with 579 accredited member schools (46 for undergraduate only programs, 51 for graduate only programs, 482 for both undergraduate and graduate programs).

The original founding schools include Columbia, Dartmouth, Harvard, New York U, Northwestern, Ohio State, Tulane, Cal-Berkeley, the University of Chicago, Purdue, Illinois Nebraska, Penn, Pittsburgh, the University of Texas, Wisconsin-Madison, and Yale University.

Essentially, every significant school of business has been accredited by the AACSB. Also, the accreditation process is ongoing, so that accredited schools are required to show continual improvement, and includes both self-evaluation and peer review. Most AACSB schools also have regional accreditation and according to the affiliation of the school. The AACSB accreditation therefore is the single most consistent designation that establishes the school meets reasonable expectations of academic quality and ethical standards. The AACSB, in turn, is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Specific standards used by the AACSB for accreditation may be found at its website.


So, I have established that my MBA candidate schools must offer a mainly-online (no more than six hours of face-to-face coursework required) curriculum, at a business school accredited by the AACSB. Tuition cost for out-of-state residents (including fees and service charges), availability of specialized concentrations and dual degrees (such as MBA-JD or MBA-MD programs), average GMAT score and Student/Faculty ratio are all major factors in consideration. Ranking of the full-time program by major periodicals is a minor factor, as is the availability. The 2008-9 profile for each school published on the AACSB website is used for initial consideration. Web information provided directly by the school’s site builds the rest of the report for a school.

This is the foundation for my continuing rankings of Online MBA programs. Further detail as to qualities considered and their weighting will be discussed when I release the results. But I also want to emphasize the chief value of online programs, that in today’s knowledge-based professional world, there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all, nor is any one program the best for everyone seeking an MBA. To my mind, there are generally five categories of people seeking MBAs, though again I caution everyone to think long and hard about their personal needs and goals before considering how they want to build their future. Generally though, there are students who proceed to Graduate school directly from their Bachelors’ degree; there are people seeking to add the MBA to another professional appellation, such as a J.D. or an Engineering degree, because they want to add business value to a vocational specialty; there are people who have work experience but who want to move into Management; there are Managers who have business experience and want a degree that quantifies their ability and skills; and there are managers or business students who intend to become Chief officers at the top private and public firms, and who believe that the most prestigious school is necessary to achieve that end (a fiction, when history is considered, but a popular myth all the same).

A traditional face-to-face full-time program at a prestigious business school ranked by major periodicals is the closest thing to a sure winner, since the programs will teach all of the expected skills, the name recognition at the school will give good opportunities at major firms and may well provide an advantage for six-figure positions. However, such programs often are prohibitively expensive, are resistant to changing business realities (as an example, most prominent business schools downplayed the importance of Risk Management until after the financial crisis of 2008 became apparent), and while rich in theoretical knowledge, are often siloed apart from grassroots business experience. Also, the cost-effectiveness of such programs for anyone not able to find a position paying more than $200,000 a year is, at best, dubious. It is my recommendation to anyone considering a Masters in Business Administration to get the best degree they can afford, but not to be fooled into believing that a big price tag means a better education or opportunity. In the first group, students just finishing a Bachelors’ degree, the school you went to, the amount of debt you carry and can afford to take on, your GMAT scores and GPA all combine to indicate the level you should consider. Generally, young students can best handle the regimented structure of the on-campus cohort, but the debt load should be carefully considered and I would strongly recommend discussions with companies you would like to work for, to find out what sort of degree they want to see.

For students seeking to combine an MBA with another professional license or degree, keep in mind whether your program can offer everything you need, and again what pedigree will impress your desired employer – law firms and medical associations, for example, may well care most about your ‘primary’ degree and only concern themselves with an MBA to the degree that you have one and do well in earning it. People who are thinking about moving in Management, should be particularly sensitive to what the degree will do for them. That is, only certain kinds of people ever get the chance to become CEOs of major corporations, whether private or public. Generally, these are the people who found such companies and build it, or who join the company as a ‘fast-track’ hire, whose degree may impress but more often they had a connection, a mentor or more often a high-ranking patron who opened the door for them that most people never see. That’s not to say you can’t do well without that opportunity, but there is no ‘magic wand’ associated with the top name schools. Your work defines your opportunity, in most cases, and therefore the school becomes less important as your experience grows and you demonstrate a true work history. I have seen many solid executives build their career through hard work and an MBA from a ‘little’ school, but never one who went to a top school but did not also do the work to earn the promotions. Therefore, careful consideration of the school’s cost, its name recognition, its growth in the past decade and its suitability to your personal career goals are all vital factors to include in your decision.

Best MBA Schools 2010: Choosing the Right Graduate School for Business

In an earlier post, I observed four important reasons for the rise of quality online MBA programs; the foreign and expatriate interest in American management programs, the need for mainstream universities to find a way to add students without significant increase in costs, the demographic trend of experienced managers going back to school at later ages to earn their MBA, and the cost-effectiveness of various programs. In this post, I’d like to discuss the types of programs available, and which sort of student should consider a given program as their best option.

Let’s start with the traditional MBA at a prominent university. The MBA, after all, was always intended to mark the superior business professional, someone who could materially improve a business’ performance and profitability. One disadvantage of so many schools offering MBAs these days, is that the degree has lost some of its prestige. That statement is a bit unfair, of course. Some of the so-called ‘prestige’ schools did not really teach business skills so much as reinforce engrained patterns of common behavior. And some schools have found innovative ways to discuss real-world case studies, incorporate personal experience of students who worked in management prior to joining the MBA program, and otherwise increased the scope and validity of management as an academic discipline. But it’s pretty well undeniable that an MBA from Harvard Business School will get many more offers, and for much more money, than an MBA from, say, Penn State or Alabama. And frankly, for-profit schools like the University of Phoenix or Kaplan University are fighting an uphill battle to be taken seriously at all by major companies. In fact, the present climate is such that a degree from a university known only as for-profit is likely to damage the professional image of many managers at major corporations. I don’t agree, but I nevertheless feel compelled to relay the comment made by one executive I overheard about a manager earning a degree from a for-profit school; “If he’s able to earn a degree worth anything, he should go get into a program at a real school.” That attitude, however unfair, is going to continue for a while at some of the larger corporations. This is because such corporations hate the appearance of taking unnecessary chances, so they greatly prefer to hire new executives with degrees from schools whose programs they know – or think they know. Every year a number of major publications rank the ‘best’ full-time MBA programs at traditional schools, and every year the list is a little different, no school shooting far up or down the numbers but a little movement all the same. And little by little some schools gradually gain respect long after they have earned it, while some other schools gradually lose some of their prestige from bygone years, as it becomes apparent that the school no longer stands out among its peers.

There are essentially three types of traditional, full-time MBA schools. There is the elite class, the ten or so schools whose names and reputations pretty much guarantee extra money and prestige to the candidates who are accepted to and graduate from their programs. The next group is a pretty broad group of schools with regional prestige and a certain name recognition, which enhances the reputation of their graduates in a smaller, but very real, circle of influence. And after that are the schools which lack effective name recognition, the schools which may cost less than the prestige schools but offer less value for the money than the high-priced but high-payoff universities. The problem is two-fold. First, the prestigious schools are selective, which means that average grades and test scores won’t get you in. And second, many people who might be able to meet the entrance requirements may have trouble with the costs. An MBA at Stanford or Harvard, for example, will run you about a quarter-million dollars, plus whatever living costs you have, your books, and any accessory costs like a laptop computer and so on. And of course, even if you are freaking brilliant and willing to take on the huge debt in the expectation that after graduation you will be in such good economic shape that the payoff is worth it, you still have a problem if you can’t take off two to three years to go to school. If you are between 22 and 28 years old, able to handle more than $300,000 in debt and stress and a poolful-of-piranha environment, and you can boast a 3.8+ GPA in your undergrad degree and GMAT scores above 720, then congratulations, Clark Kent, you’ve found your MBA home. If you are 30 years old or younger, can handle up to about $175,000 in debt and a moderate level of Machiavelli in your life, a GPA of 3.5+ and GMAT of 700+, then you can look at the regional elites for your avenue. Anyone else can do better with a different route, in terms of cost, stress, and work-life balance. It’s worth noting, by the way, that just about half of the CEOs at major public and private companies did not earn an MBA at one of the traditional “great” schools, so going to such a school does not guarantee you a position at the top of any company, let alone an industry leader, and going to a “lesser” school does not automatically lock you out, either.

Next to consider is the Executive MBA. A relatively recent creation, this particular degree came about as traditional universities began to consider what to do about senior executives with solid experience but no MBA, and no possibility of taking the morning and afternoon classes offered in traditional MBA programs. Rather than add the experience that these professionals carry to the enthusiasm and imagination of the younger generation, traditional schools generally segregate the older executives and group them into their own night and weekend cohort, dubbing their work the “Executive MBA”. The value of an EMBA is very debatable, however. Most companies pay for the degree for their executives and so it’s great for the student who can get that deal, but many companies do not consider the EMBA quite the same thing as a ‘standard’ MBA, largely because many MBAs today are focused on a concentration while EMBAs tend to be less specialized. And ironically, more so, because the EMBA was created for mid-level and senior executives, and so its value depends on the undergraduate degree and the associated work experience. A manager with solid experience can enhance his resume with an EMBA, but the EMBA is not generally helpful in changing industries or demonstrating mastery of new skills or knowledge. Consequently, the EMBA is valuable only as an extension of significant experience, rather than a foundational tool for seeking a position.

This brings us to the part-time MBA. For a very long time, the part-time MBA was dismissed by academics and businessmen alike as a discount degree, something done when you could not afford the time and cost of a “real” MBA. In the 1990s, however, that image began to change, and in the last decade the part-time MBA has gained respect when associated with major schools. A lot of credit for this has to go to schools like Drexel and Wharton, who made sure that part-time MBA curriculums involved the same courses, material, and faculty as the nominal programs, thereby eliminating reasonable grounds for derogation. Also, most schools which offer an MBA to part-time students do not make any distinction when the degree is awarded; it’s simply an MBA, worth everything the school’s name and the student’s effort can claim. What I mean by that last part is this – a number of companies discovered that part-time MBAs were earned primarily by working managers, so that graduates of part-time MBA programs not only had relevant experience in addition to their degree, but demonstrated superior concentration and diligence. It takes real time and money management skills to work full-time and still get your school work done. So much so that there is no stigma at all to the part-time MBA in most working circles. The snob appeal schools do not offer part-time MBAs, but frankly that represents a choice to be obsolete in some respects. I would, however, warn the younger student from the part-time MBA, unless he or she can show that they are working in a position which requires full-time work. It costs just about as much as the full-time MBA, and this option is most valuable to the student who is unmarried but in a professional position, able to go to a specific location for classes without interruption, and who benefits from the structure of face-to-face networking. The part-time MBA is generally best-suited for young professionals between 25 and 35 years old, with no children, some management experience already, and the ability to pay or accept debt of about $25,000 a year.

This leaves us with two roads left to consider, one of which is the online MBA and the other is the temptation to try a quick road to the degree. To the latter possibility, I must be blunt and clear – any Master of Business Administration degree that is honestly earned, must require multiple years of work, at least 48 credit hours of work and no less than sixteen courses, with regular assignments, lecture attendance and participation in discussion, as well as regular examinations with strict supervision, proctors, or some other reasonable assurance of ethical compliance, which I will discuss in more detail as I consider the online classes. There is no MBA value to ‘life experience’, nor does work experience qualify as a waiver of academic prerequisite on its own. Also, some level of accreditation is an absolute must, and I mean one common to nominal universities. My personal choice is the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the international body which considers and evaluates the programs of thousands of MBA programs worldwide, but which has accredited only 580 member schools thus far. If you pay for a degree from any school which does not meet the standards I just described, you are for all reasonable purposes throwing your money away and staining your reputation.

And in this dark tone, we come to the online MBA. The online MBA was not even possible until very recently. The closest comparison would be correspondence learning, where someone would listen to a tape of a lecture, work out the assignments, and mail in their responses. Obviously, this system held a great risk of abuse, and worse, the faculty involved were seldom the first string of schools. And when first offered online, such classes were commonly offered by for-profit schools, unaccredited and lacking any real peer review. As recently as 2000, an online degree was considered of very little value.

That changed for the reasons I wrote about in my last post on the subject, and also with the technological threshold of virtual proctoring. For example, in one online course I attended, an examination was made up not only of coursework questions, but also the occasional personal question that only the student would actually be able to answer, confirmation that the IP address was the same used during discussions and in turning in assignments, and other technical tweaks were used to make sure the student taking the test was, in fact, the student. A variety of technologies were also used to track participation in class, originality of submissions, and other guarantees against plagiarism and cheating. In fact, the actions taken to prevent online students from cheating have made it more secure than face to face classes in many ways. Also, instructors have learned to make use of a number of advantages in online classes. For example, a simple word count helps professors identify which students are leading discussions and which are just hanging out, and the timing of submissions also indicates which students are having trouble with material and assignments. The online class experience is very different from both the full-time and part-time systems. For one thing, online students must be independent of mind and able to stay on schedule for assignments, discussions, and preparing for tests. The online student must take the initiative to seek out other students for study groups and to plan times and locations for practice, study, and test review. Online students generally have to make more extensive use of technology, especially when doing research, a skill which often pays off in work situations, where the same tools are available as well as similar time deadlines. Consequently, the online MBA is optimal for the student who is 28 or older, with significant work experience, especially management, who is time-disciplined and focused on achieving major objectives with effective use of resources both independently and in a team situation. The online degree is usually less expensive, as fees are often waived for parking and campus access, but even so a student should expect to pay between $15,000 and $20,000 a year for tuition, books, fees, and necessary supplies. Obviously, a very good desktop computer and high-speed internet access is a must. The online student should have an undergraduate GPA of at least 3.0 to handle the coursework, and/or a GMAT score above 650.

Speaking frankly, it is a rare student who can overcome a C average or a GMAT below 650 and still do well in an MBA program. That's not to insult anyone, but any good program is going to be difficult and takes discipline and preparation. If your GPA was under 3.0 or your GMAT is under 650, in all honesty I would suggest you take additional undergraduate courses in business at a community college until you can show 3.0+ work. It's not a requirement, but it is a strong suggestion so that you will have a decent chance to succeed.


NEXT – what makes a good online MBA program

“The Tumor Markers are Unchanged”

Yesterday, I went in for my now semi-annual check at M.D. Anderson. Generally, things are going well, except for the new insurance company. It’s bad enough that I got laid off by my old company, but the new job meant new medical insurance, and as some folks predicted it’s not a patient-friendly company. But that’s for another time, perhaps.

Dr. Mansfield was, as before, cautiously optimistic. What had been four visits a year was dropped to two a year after my visit in July, and Dr. Mansfield told me that he saw pretty much the same thing as last time.

“The tumor markers are unchanged”, was how he began. After seeing the blank expression on my face, he explained for a couple minutes that my condition in general was unchanged, which in cancer terms is good. Actually, I’m doing very well, certainly more than I have a right to expect. It appears that my little floating bio-bombs started an uprising back in 2006, got cleaned out for the most part when Dr. Thomas did my surgery in November of that year, and have basically contented themselves to just float around and lurk in my hydroperitoneum. They are still there, just floating about and hard to detect and count except for a cyst on my spleen, not messing with my blood cell count or any of the things that indicate metastasization. As usual, my blood pressure is a little high, even with taking my Exforge, and I carry around a bit more belly than I like, because of a bit of extra fluid. But nothing really serious. Just take my medicine and do my visits, sometimes to my primary doctor and sometimes to MDA.

Oddly, that’s one reason I hate these visits to MDA. I feel like I have no business going in for tests and consultations when I’m not going through any of the things most cancer patients have to endure. I have not had to go through Chemo, no radiation treatment, I got to keep all of my hair, have not had nausea in a very long time. I sit in the waiting room for my tests and doctor visits and feel horrible, partly for how much pain and suffering I see, and partly for the fact that I don’t fit. Of course, my wife would be upset with me if I sounded like I wanted to go through all those things, and I understand – mentally at least – that there is no shame in having caught my cancer early, that my visits are necessary to make sure it has not come back, and my doctors remind me every so often that because the cause of PMP remains unknown, what causes it to metastasize is still unknown, and because my condition is unusual – the cancer having been caught early because I ruptured my appendix – I represent an opportunity for learning more about the thing and MDA is a part of UT Medical Branch and therefore a teaching hospital, that it’s important, a good thing, that I come in for these visits.

Still.

Why was I lucky, but so many others are not? Why can’t I do something that actively helps other cancer patients?

And of course, at the back of all of that, there is that little knowledge that while on the one hand I get to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle and good reports that the nasty little cells are still at bay, there is no way to know what will happen in a couple years, much less later on. The first incident came out of nowhere and the cause of PMP has never even been suspected, and while they are not growing, neither have the tumors gone away. You can’t kill them with drugs or chemicals because they don’t act like any other known form of cancer, you can’t find them all and flush them away, they are there and always will be, floating inside your abdominal walls unless and until they decide to attack you. Makes them sound like a tiny pack of bacterial wolves, I guess, but the point is that while they are well-behaved little cancers in my case, they are a bunch of tiny little microscopic things that don’t belong in me but I have to live with them for the rest of my life.

My point? I don’t have one, really. I just needed to rant, to give voice to worries and some irrational thoughts that nonetheless needed exercise and expression. To express a sense of being an outsider, both from the community of cancer patients and yet also unable to deny my cancer, either.

I’ve been called lucky. I understand why, but I still don’t feel lucky. Not about this.

Just tired. Frustrated. And mad at myself for being this way when others have it so much worse than I could ever imagine.

Some days I can’t find easy answers, is all.

Thanks for your patience.

Best Online MBA Program, 2010 Discussion Part 1

Many of you know that every year, I put together my list of what are, in my opinion, the best Online MBA programs available. While there is a certain subjectivity to any ranking system, I try to be clear about my criteria, and to improve on my system. As a result, if a achool changes in my rankings from one year to another, that should be taken necessarily to mean that the school has improved or declined in quality, especially since more and more mainstream universities are coming to understand the need to serve the demographic of the population which finds the online MBA most appealing. Before looking again the criteria for a top online MBA program, in this first section I want to examine what sort of student should choose that means to atain their Master of Business Administration.

Years ago, there was a pernicious myth spread about online degrees, that they did not represent real work or a quality student. The image of the slacker seeking an easy degree or worse, the cheat who figured he could sneak his way to a degree he never earned, or the school that was 'too easy' on their students who trook online classes, all of these images persisted through rumors and innuendo, perpetuated through imagination and a bit of elitism. The main problem was, a lot of online schools weren't very good, and the conventional brick-n-mortar universities held command of the best job opportunities for graduates. That has changed a bit in recent years, however. That's not to say that you can expect a fast-track-to-C-suite position when you graduate with an online degree, and sadly the 'online' tag still carries a stigma in certain industries. But there are a number of paradigm changes which brought major changes into the online degree community.

First, the global economy. It may seem strange to Americans in this blame-America culture that is so popular, but American business practices, even in spite of Worldcom and Enron, remain the standard for the world, and the MBA is quintessentially American. So, the international professional who cannot afford to come to the United States in person for his MBA, will be interested in earning it online if that can be done.

Second, the economy of Academia. The Boomers have gone and there's no reason to believe the next few generations will provide as many students as before. Costs continue to rise for universities, especially buildings and materials. Eventually, universities will discover that the most cost-effective way to operate is to add online students, which is far less expensive than face-to-face classes.

Third, those demographics again. People earn an MBA to be competitive in their business career. But not everyone is able to go after an MBA right after earning their Bachelor's degree, and many people want to earn their MBA while they are working in professional positions. And if you are raising a family while working a manager's job, your schedule is not always going to allow you time for noinal sclass schedules, especially when traditional schools like to keep their professors happy by scheduling core course in weekday mornings and afternoons when professionals cannot possibly attend. This reality drives professionals, people with serious experience and a very valuable perspective on what really works in business, to attend online classes.

And finally, money. I mentioned that costs for universities are rising fast. But regular people don't have extra money to keep paying higher tuition and fees. Sure, an MBA from Wharton, Harvard, or Stanford would be very nice, but you have to know what you can pay for - it's nice to talk about how your top-tier job will pay for all of that, but frankly it's stupid to count on a top-dollar job in today's world right out of school, it's stupid to load yourself down with debt just to get a degree when half the idea is to make sure you understand the concepts and lessons that make the difference between a true businessman and another Bernie Madoff. And it's stupid to ignore opportunity that is within your range, in terms of coast and with acceptable quality. 90 percent of people who earn an MBA would be wasting money to go to a school primarily because of its prestige, because your career will depend more on your accomplishments in the real job and what you really learn and apply as you get there. Sometime I will mention the top business leaders who never earned an MBA, and I should not have to remind you of the many people proved to be good at making money for themselves, but whose principles were pathetic. If you do it right, you can earn an MBA without getting into serous debt, without giving yourself illusions about who you are and what you can do, but which will equip you with real tools to get a good job, prove your worth and get promoted, and have a truly fulfilling career.

The online MBA, if you earn it from a good school, will be demanding in terms of work and effort, you will worry about getting through some of the classes, and anyone who thinks they are taking an easy road to their MBA is either in for a surprise or picked a worthless school. The online student will have to be self-disciplined, he will have to establish and keep his own study practices, he will have to make contact with and keep a network of study partners and project buddies. And he will have to seek out his own job opportunities, prepare his own resume and monitor his own degree and career progress. That's not to say your school won't help, but the online student must be far more self-reliant and disciplined.

For the record, I completed my MBA from the University of Houston at Victoria in May 2009. I am now making 28% more than my salary from last year, and I am a full garde higher in role, having accepted a position with a new company. Ironically, this came after being laid off. Was I fortunate? Without a doubt, but I worked hard and my degree made a real difference.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can say an online MBA, if you do the work and choose the right school, can be as good as many traditional MBA programs.


NEXT - HOW TO FIND A GOOD ONLINE MBA PROGRAM, AS I SEE IT.

The Continued Chronicles of Amber, 2: What the Short Stories Contributed

WARNING – This essay contains spoilers from the first ten books of the Chronicles of Amber, and speculates on the intentions of the late writer Roger Zelazny, had he written a third cycle.

I finished the first part of these posts by discussing things learned in one of the short stories written by Roger Zelazny after publishing “Prince of Chaos” in 1991. We can get a sense, I think, of where things were headed by considering what we find in those short stories.

For review, and for those who may not know about the short stories, Roger Zelazny wrote six short stories, or fragments of stories, after publishing his last novel in the Amber Chronicles. They were as follows:

“A Secret of Amber” (co-written with Ed Greenwood, begun before 1994 but not published until March 2005, and never completed)
“The Salesman’s Tale” (published February, 1994)
“The Shroudling and the Guisel” (published October, 1994)
“Blue Horse, Dancing Mountains” (published 1995)
“Coming to a Cord” (published 1995)
“Hall of Mirrors” (published March, 1996)

I can’t prove it, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the fragment story, ”A Secret of Amber”, started Roger thinking about another cycle, and the subsequent stories took more and more shape in that direction. As I wrote last time, the short stories introduced a new villain and chief conspirator, hinted at major and surprising changes in Merlin’s relationships with his friends and family, warned that the prime forces of Order and Chaos had no intention of behaving, and reintroduced Corwin’s role in the supernatural conflict, with Dworkin and Suhuy as star players for primal forces. To look at what we can glean from the short stories, I begin with the one first begun, yet ironically never finished.

“ A Secret of Amber” is a difficult work to find. Only a few paragraphs long, it can only found in Amberzine issue 12-15, and most fans will tell you not to buy the anthology just for the story, because there are no plot secrets revealed. Perhaps. Also, since this work was done in cooperation with Ed Greenwood, some may claim that this work is not even pure Zelazny. Again, perhaps. But we do find out a few things from the setting and characters. What happens in the story is a chat between Corwin and his sister Fiona, interrupted by visits from a few ghosts. No new information appears to be divulged.

So, the obvious question – why write the thing to say nothing? Some people might note that Roger died before it could be finished, only four pages got done after all, but then again five complete short stories started after ‘Secret’ and did get finished and published … so hmm? Well, we can pick up a few pieces, starting with the title. Roger put meaning into his titles, and so he hid something here, something he would know to be important. I found three things of note in that short fragment of a story, especially considering only Zelazny’s words to be where he placed his meaning (sorry Ed). First, we know there are two main characters, Corwin and Fiona. Perhaps it’s a nod to the whole Swords and Sorcery genre, but it strikes me to consider Amber’s leading living swordsman (with apologies to Benedict, he’s better but always off-stage in terms of plot-centric swordfights) is having wine with the chief conniving mistress of magic of the realm; things get interesting when we consider what the two would have to discuss, and the timing – it seems to be immediately following Corwin’s return to Amber following Merlin’s showdown with Chaos, something Fiona would certainly be fascinated to know in detail. Also, let’s not forget that Fiona, along with Bleys early on, was scheming to use Corwin in a power plot during the first few books of the Corwin Cycle. Sure, she’s friends with Corwin now, but who’s to say she is not still … curious … about whether she can manipulate him for her ends? Especially since Fiona shows up in the Merlin Cycle working in close cooperation with Mandor, a primary plotter on Chaos’ end? As for Corwin, what is his role in things? Merlin believed that Dara held Corwin prisoner rather than kill him because she feared him, perhaps his death curse, but was there something else? After all, it’s one thing to be a self-made man, but who can claim to have created their own private universe? And third, in the short stories which follow in the sequence, we see Corwin on the road again. It seems he is headed back to Amber, but from where? At the end of “Prince of Chaos”, Merlin sent Corwin directly back to Amber, and in “A Secret of Amber”, we see Corwin in Amber visiting with Fiona. That means he gets a mission, apparently a very personal one. The nature and purpose of that mission is, I think the reason for the story’s title. Roger took his time with it because he did not want to give away too much too soon.

The next story is “The Salesman’s Tale", and focuses on the actions of Luke. Or King Rinaldo, but no, for here we must call him Luke, for his character tracks along the character we knew, hmm, pre-coronation.

In this story, Luke escapes from the Pattern as described in "Prince of Chaos" - turns out when he cries "I spilled it!", he only meant his tea. Luke did that on purpose, to distract the Pattern while he got out fast. From there, Luke finds his way to Amber and meets with Vialle, Queen of Amber and wife of King Random, who is less than friendly with Luke. Along the way, Luke calls up the sword Werewindle to him, demonstrating sentience in the sword with all sorts of implications for Grayswandir and the spikards. Speaking of which, after discovering that Vialle has prophetic powers, Luke also learns about the “guardians”, a “self-exiled Prince of Amber and his sister” who have custody of the spikards, rings of tremendous power which first showed up in “Knight of Shadow” and were named in ”Prince of Chaos”. Vialle asks Luke to query Delwin as to ”whether his stewardship of the spikards remains intact”. We know, of course, from the novels that this is not so; Merlin has two of them now, and in ”Prince of Chaos” Bleys was wearing one. Of the nine spikards total, two became Werewindle and Grayswandir, and three more are accounted for by Merlin and Bleys, leaving only four that Delwin could control. And since Suhuy, Mandor, and Dara are aware of the spikards, the cat is well out of the bag, but Vialle could not know that at this point. A final significance of the story is pointed out by Vialle after Luke speaks with Delwin, that Delwin was intrigued by Brand being Luke’s father, but Jasra’s mention warned him off cold. We see a hint that there is something of a higher-level threat from Jasra, more than was obvious earlier, and by the way the last time we saw Jasra (in “Knight of Shadows”) she was less than completely amiable with Merlin, and by the way she now holds complete control of the Keep of the Four Worlds, or will once she returns from wherever Ghostwheel sent her at the start of ”Knight of Shadows”.

We change course now, and catch up with Merlin in ”The Shroudling and the Geisel”. In this story, Merlin wakes up to find himself in bed with Rhanda, his childhood friend whose parents thought him a vampire or demon. Oddly enough, Merlin now believes Rhanda is a vampire, but in this story he discovers that he is mistaken, as well. Rhanda, it turns out, is of a race known as Shroudlings, sort of high-principled ghouls who only eat “those the word might be better off without”. Shroudlings can enter normal space through mirrors; their world is on the other side and they seek to remain unknown as much as possible, not least because they seem to be dying off, in some part due to a beast known as a Guisel. Shroudlings also have the ability to prevent conscious notice and to remove memory of their appearance and actions in mortal realms. They can also ‘lock’ a mirror behind them to prevent beings from entering or leaving through a mirror. Rhanda, it turns out, regards Merlin as a ‘pet’, of whom she is fond.

Rhanda warns Merlin that Dara and Mandor continue to form schemes, that Julia is determined to play up feelings for Merlin in order to turn Jurt against him again. We learn that despite his front-runner status for the throne of Chaos, Merlin faces six other contenders now that he knows about, and Rhanda warns that there is one more that he does not know. Rhanda calls him ‘the hidden one’, and says “I do not know his name to tell you, though I know you saw him in Suhuy’s pool. I know his appearance, Chaotic and human. I know that even Mandor considers him a worthy antagonist” - though Rhanda also says this ‘hidden’ one fears Mandor. This is a prime clue we must consider later on.

The ‘hidden one’ has procured a guisel and has been using it to kill off rivals, apparently through the mirrorworld for surprise. In between human killings, it has apparently been killing Shroudlings, which seems to be another reason Rhanda seeks out Merlin. Merlin finds a way to come at it through another mirror, but is surprised by it anyway and what’s worse, he finds out that even the spikard has limited effect on it. Merlin calls on Ghostwheel, but discovers the mirrorworld is a place barred to it. Fortunately, Merlin is able to call up Kergma, a childhood friend and more to the point a chaos intellectual structure Zelazny calls “the living equation”. In the end, a combination of the spikard and the vorpal sword last seen in “Sign of Chaos” at the Wonderland Bar are sufficient to defeat the guisel. In an imaginative mood, Merlin saves a last piece of the monster, renews it into a new creature and sends it back after the guy who was trying to kill him.

We return to Prince Corwin in ”Blue Horse, Dancing Mountains”. I found this story especially intriguing, for the following reasons. First, it reintroduced Corwin as a major character, and seemed to indicate a father-son team might be in the works. Next, it tied two of the stories together, as it foreshadowed ”Hall of Mirrors”, an irrational phenomenon of magic and psychology which appears to act independent of any power but its own, although in ”Prince of Chaos”, Merlin seemed to believe it was influenced by Suhuy, which carries its own implications. At first read, one may be confused by Corwin’s purpose and timing – Zelazny never mentions what Corwin was doing, that he had to flee Chaos on the strange steed Shask. This does not pick up where ”Prince of Chaos” ends, since at the end of that book, Merlin sent Corwin from Chaos directly to Amber by way of his spikard. Therefore, Corwin returned to Chaos, and did something that required him to flee in great haste. As the story tells it, Corwin “fled smoke ghosts across the Uplands of Artine. I slew the leader of the Kerts of Shern as her flock harried me from hightowered perches among the canyons of that place” . Sounds like we can rule out sightseeing or a simple vacation, especially since in the Merlin Cycle there were a number of references which implied peaceful conditions between Amber and Chaos, such as the fact that Mandor was free to return from Amber to Chaos, even following the disaster when the Pattern and Logrus clashed in the castle itself in ”Knight of Shadow”. We are not told what Corwin was doing in Chaos, but as it follows the chat he had with Fiona in “A Secret of Amber” and the visit by Luke to Vialle – who incidentally told Luke in that story that she was expecting Corwin to arrive back in Amber, and as a by-the-way Corwin was referenced by her talking sculptures as vital to addressing the crisis.

Soon after escaping from Chaos, Corwin finds himself making his way in a more leisurely manner, indicating no rush – whatever was important, it was in Chaos but apparently not time sensitive. That changes during the first night out, though, as Corwin finds himself to a very strange variety of chess game between Dworkin and Suhuy – one in which the known universe comprises the pieces, with Amber Castle and the Unicorn on one end of the board, and Thelbane and the Serpent on the other. Pieces specifically named in the game include Mandor, Corwin, a Fire Angel, and a female being manipulated by Dworkin which surprises Suhuy, in that the woman is of Chaos. Dara? Or someone else?

The two masters also discuss a ‘hall of mirrors’ which is important to their contest – but only if he gets there in time; Suhuy wonders “without their clues, how effective will he be?” As if on cue, Corwin wakes his steed and rushes him to reach Amber in time.

next: “Coming to a Cord”, "Hall of Mirrors”, and some speculations.

Jobs and Politics

Earlier this week, I heard a couple radio guys discuss the rumored severance package for talk show host Conan O’Brien for an estimated thirty million dollars. “If I got a 30 million dollar severance package”, quipped one of the guys, “I’d announce my retirement!” Certainly, many people would stop working if they found their way into a lot of money – a lot of people only work because they need to pay the bills. But I remember reading about people who win the lottery, then their lives are effectively ruined – turns out that even winning a ton-o-bucks can be traumatic and the cause of all kinds of problems. Strange as it sounds, the routine of life gives a person a sense of identity and purpose that affects everything important when it’s disrupted, and so the work we do, even when we don’t like our job, provides us with a sense of who we are and what we are worth. Consequently, the question of whether a person is employed, unemployed, or under-employed is a very important one, beyond the obvious financial perspective.

Imagine you woke up tomorrow and discovered you now had all the money you’d ever need. Doesn’t matter if you won the lottery, an inheritance, whatever, you now have complete financial freedom for the rest of your life. Your kids too, for that matter. Let’s also say that you have done a whole bunch of travelling and vacationing; you have gone every place you were ever curious to see but never had the money or time to do, and you are at peak health and fully relaxed. So, what do you do now with the rest of your life? A lot of people have trouble answering that question, falling back on making more money or doing more traveling. It’s simply too strange to seriously consider living your life with a truly open horizon.

The opposite is also true; the loss of employment or a serious change in your work conditions can create an environment which may well seem impossible to face. While the at-will concept has its virtues, it is pretty much undeniable that the concept makes it possible for employers to treat their people as disposable assets, and some businesses do just that in practice. It’s my opinion that most such businesses doom themselves to mediocrity or worse if you think it through, but that’s small comfort to an employee who is turned out simply because the company chose to cut them loose. The best remedy to that, is to become as close to indispensable as possible. The aphorism that no one is indispensable needs to be linked to the fact that certain people still matter very much. Oddly, while companies are generally careful to consider the value of their property and equipment, it’s all too common to discount the value of the talent and experience of your staff. But that’s getting away from the topic.

Economic crisis causes social tension, aside from the financial stress. For example, the Great Depression not only caused people to lose their businesses, savings and homes, it also forced migration to cities and regions where people believed they could find employment or better financial opportunity. The recession of the 1980s forced the city of Houston to diversify its industries, because the loss of the oil industry as a constant economic anchor had a disparate impact on Houston than the rest of the nation (Hint, that’s how to repair Detroit’s infrastructure – build on more than vehicle manufacture). The industrialization of the United States came to pass in part because of economic opportunities in urban factories that could not be matched in rural communities after the 1870s, a generation of human capital having been wiped out by the Civil War.

This brings us to politics, which finds its way into every human endeavor, and not often in a benevolent manner. The plain fact is, that as much as people dislike having to work to pay the bills, they really don’t like seeing their jobs put in danger. And, hate being the most convenient emotion to conjure in election campaigns, candidates from long history have run on promises of job creation and warnings that their opponents will take jobs away. This is hardly restricted to American politics, nor indeed did it begin here. Even in Ancient Rome, nobles took careful consideration of the public mood, and made sure to couch their plans in terms of the public weal. Taxes were always to be collected from someone else, and the providence of the dear leader, whatever his title or country, was always focused on making sure the people were fed and occupied with work, whatever else was done. Some cynical types have claimed, not without evidence, that wars have been brought about for this reason of giving people an occupation; in more modern times this has become unfashionable, so we have seen the rise of welfare in its place, the problem being that simply giving money to unproductive citizens is not only unsound economics, it fails to provide the occupation which is, in the end, the main point of things.

Moving to more modern times, the short version of things is that Democrats have presented themselves as the champions of the employees, while Republicans have presented themselves as champions of economic freedom. Of the two, voters have traditionally resonated more easily with the Democrats, ignoring the cost of Democrats’ taxes and bureaucracy – it’s not often considered, for example, that besides raising tax rates far more than Republican administrations and Congresses, Democrat administrations and Congresses have established costly and burdensome bureaucracies, such as Medicare and Social Security which, while perhaps useful in concept, have greatly increased their cost far beyond projections not only in financial terms, but also in legal complexity and burden of compliance. However, the Democrats have focused on the sense that voters have that they stand at a disadvantage when their jobs are in peril, that the Democrats are more concerned with protecting their specific jobs. Republicans have forfeited that advantage in order to press the more holistic condition, that the nation as a whole can ill afford cumbersome rules and tax rates which always go up. Republicans understand that the overwhelming majority of businesses are small businesses, especially one-owner businesses, and that the overwhelming economic base for employment comes from protecting the freedom of economic opportunity. All other arguments aside, this moral position explains the reason why Republicans are generally opposed to taxing Carbon Dioxide and other harmless gas emissions. The Democrats are concerned with creating an industry in compliance with government programs, economically, while Republicans are concerned with protecting businesses from the absurdity of paying for release of a harmless gas, and taking resources that could be used to grow the business and pay productive employees, and waste them on frivolous hobbies of politicians. To put it another way, Democrats focus on the immediate short-term benefits of an action on a minority of citizens, while Republicans focus on long-term economic costs and effects of an action on the nation as a whole. In the short term, the appearance of this contrast benefits Democrats, as their programs are served well by sound bites and local appearances, where those benefited by their proposal can be seen and heard, while those who pay the longer cost are invisible to television. However, when such programs are taken to excess, such as the ill-conceived and worse-executed Stimulus Bill promoted by Barack Obama, the long-term effects become apparent more readily and the lack of proportional benefits also becomes obvious. When that happens, the Democrats tend to lose credibility and Republicans are – for a time – in the ascendency.

The Continued Chronicles of Amber? Thoughts on Zelazny’s Unfinished Masterpiece

WARNING – This essay contains spoilers from the first ten books of the Chronicles of Amber, and speculates on the intentions of the late writer Roger Zelazny, had he written a third cycle.

In late 1991, Roger Zelazny published his tenth book in the Amber saga, “Prince of Chaos”. The book completed the second five-book story arc in the series, the first five addressing Prince Corwin and the second five his son Merlin. The first five, originally published between 1970 and 1978, were originally considered collectively as the ‘Chronicles of Amber’, but when the second series started the first five became known as the Corwin Cycle. The second series, known as the Merlin Cycle, were originally published between 1985 and 1991, and continues where the first series left off, but with a different focus on events and characters. Most fans of the Chronicles prefer the first series over the second, for its complex imagery and character development, but generally anyone who reads the first book of the collection will make his way through them all. And the books hold up well to re-reading and time; there is a timeless quality to the Chronicles which makes it genuinely great literature, as I see it.

Roger Zelazny passed away on June 14, 1995, from kidney failure associated with cancer. The news shocked the literary world and his fans have for the most part never found someone worthy to fill Roger’s place. This is important, because of a crucial question – would the series continue? John Gregory Betancourt began a new series of Amber stories in 2002, but they failed both critically and in sales; fans simply found the stories incomparable to Zelazny’s level. I think they failed for another reason, which I shall address in the next paragraph. There is also Roger’s clear statement that he did not want anyone else writing about Amber, which at first may seem a bit of selfish proprietorship but upon reflection I think it was a wise proscription, one his family should have heeded.

There are a number of reasons, however, why many fans believed that the Amber saga should continue. In the first place, a number of mysteries and questions were unresolved at the end of “Prince of Chaos”. But more, Roger himself began to indicate he was headed towards a new series. After “Prince of Chaos”, Zelazny wrote six short stories between 1994 and 1995, of which five were linked in a clear continuation of events following the end of “Prince of Chaos”. Those short stories introduced a new villain and chief conspirator, implied drastic changes in Merlin’s relationships with his friends, family, and even the prime forces of Order and Chaos, and reintroduced Corwin’s role in the supernatural conflict, now being acted out between Dworkin and Suhuy as agents for the Absolutes. It was certain that Zelazny planned to conclude his Chronicles with another series, once beginning where “Prince of Chaos” ended. This, by the way, is one reason Betancourt’s series failed – he set his stories as a prequel, focusing on Oberon and frankly failing to show in that character the progenitor of Eric, Corwin, Benedict, and the other heroes of the family. The new series by Betancourt also demonstrated the difficulty which any author would face in continuing the story – the Zelazny touch is singular, priceless, and frankly inimitable. Even if an author got all the facts right as Roger would have had it, the style would be impossible to mimic perfectly. It would simply sound ‘off’, no matter who attempted the venture.

So then, are we doomed to never resolve the questions or to unravel the mysteries? Perhaps not. I am hardly able to read the mind of Roger Zelazny, but I can read a map, and he laid out his stories in a way which points to certain places to go. Like Merlin’s instructions to Ghostwheel when seeking the Logrus, certain indicators are laid out which tell you a general direction to turn, and so give a hint of the picture. This writing is an attempt to consider those hints.

I’d like to start by re-examining a common contention made by fans of the saga, that the Merlin Cycle is inferior to the Corwin Cycle. What strikes me about that claim, is the question of why that should so, assuming that is correct? Some fans have claimed that Roger knew he was dying and wanted to finish his books before he died. However, that claim has problems, including the fact that Zelazny lived for four years after “Prince of Chaos” was published, and “Prince of Chaos” left a number of important questions hanging, something Roger would not do if he just wanted to wrap up the saga. Also, on a personal note, I was once told that I was likely to die from my abdominal cancer, a form known as Pseudomyxoma Peritonei. The oncologist who said so was, it turned out, not up to speed on the treatments available for my form of cancer, but at the time it did give me a sharp recognition that my life was not unlimited, and that there were certain things I had better get done soon if I expected to complete them. My point there, is that at no time did I decide to rush off a sloppy job just so I could say it was done – if I was going to die soon, the last things I did were things I wanted to get done as perfect as I could. I would want my last work to be my best, not some sloppy effort. I can hardly imagine that Roger Zelazny would care less about what he considered his final work.

If this is true, however, it brings us back to ask why the Merlin Cycle appears to be less satisfying then the Corwin Cycle. Some of that comes down to Zelazny being fifteen years older when he started the “Trumps of Doom” from when he began “Nine Princes in Amber”, but I also think it comes down to the fact that Zelazny wrote the Corwin Cycle, he knew there would be five books but was not sure whether the series would prove popular enough to continue the story. He had a lot of back-story, but could not know in advance how much demand there would be, to learn more about Grayswandir, about Dara, about Merlin and the Courts of Chaos, about the nature of the Pattern and the structure of his universe. When he started the Merlin Cycle, Zelazny knew that the market would bear not only the second series, but another after that, and I believe that from the start of the second series, Zelazny was thinking not just about books six through ten, but all the way through to the end of the saga. Look through the first ten books, and you will see any number of references or comments which point to doors for plot departures. While some of those were used, I believe, to counter any sense the reader had of omniscience in the story and to provide Roger the means to drop in plot surprises when he pleased, I also think they were there to be used in later parts of the story. Merlin’s decision to spare Corwin the first time they met in the Courts of Chaos, for example, foreshadowed Merlin’s determination to find and save his father in “Prince of Chaos”.

And that is part of the dance, as well, the matter of sensing which themes and events are meant to reflect others in the story. Certainly Zelazny pointed this out in a number of places, that there is a balance and a certain continuity to things, a literary yin/yang balance if you will. Zelazny noted, for example that the royal family of Amber was in constant chaos, while the royal family of Chaos was serene. Therefore, we do well to consider the themes and lessons we have already seen in play during the first two cycles, as they will be repeated or continue in the same manner in the third series.

The first cycle focused on Amber. The second cycle focused on Chaos. The third, then, will focus on Shadow.

The first book of each cycle featured the imprisonment of the main character. So will the third.

The final book of each cycle saw the death of a King, and a new King. So will the third.

Corwin was betrayed by a love. So was Merlin. This will happen in the third cycle as well.

Corwin depended on his magic word, Grayswandir. Merlin depended on his shadow computer construct, Ghostwheel. The protagonist of the third cycle will depend on a similar artifact specially suited to his person.

In each of the first to cycles, the hero grew through the books from a self-centered person to a duty-focused person. So too in the third cycle.

All through the books, we saw that people were not as they seemed. Carl Corey discovered he was really Prince Corwin, his buddy Ganelon turned out to be his father Oberon, Dara was Corwin’s lover and the mother of his son Merlin, but she never loved him and wanted Amber destroyed , Merlin’s best friend Luke tuned out to have attempted his murder several times, his girlfriend Julia became his nemesis Mask, and his brother Jurt, who spent his whole life trying to kill Merlin, in the end became his ally and helped him free Coral from the Pattern and the Logrus both. So moving into the last series, we should expect to not only see new characters added, but also see some surprises from the cast in place. Especially from Mandor, Fiona, and – wait for it – Bill Roth. Yep, good old “mortal” Bill, Corwin’s lawyer buddy from shadow Earth. There’s things to chew on regarding this guy, and more than a few suspicions. Consider how many times we see this guy throughout the stories. Bill Roth out-lives several major characters and turns up in all kinds of important places.

When Corwin got stabbed in “Sign of the Unicorn” and was bleeding to death, who found him and got him to a hospital? Bill Roth.

Who helps Corwin with the disposal of his house on Earth in “The Hand of Oberon”? Bill Roth.

Who wrote the terms of the Patterfall Treaty between Amber and Chaos? Bill Roth.

When Merlin decides to deal directly with whomever is trying to kill him in “Trumps of Doom”, who does he talk to besides Luke and (unknowing) Nayda? Bill Roth.

Merlin talks again with Bill Roth in “Sign of Chaos”, he even runs across Bill Roth in the Hall of Mirrors, and when Merlin looks into Suhuy’s pool in "Prince of Chaos" to consider candidates for the throne and people who are playing a role in that conflict, one of the people Merlin sees … is Bill Roth.

If Roger Zelazny had written a third series, Bill Roth would be a major surprise character, someone much different than he appeared to be all along. Some readers will remind me that Bill Roth is just a mortal human, but to that claim I would remind you that the claim came from Bill himself, and we have no proof whatsoever that Bill Roth is just what he claims. In the Merlin Cycle we discovered that Luke was not what he seemed, nor Coral, nor Julia. So Bill Roth, I strongly suspect, is a ringer.

Let’s go back to a nagging question that a lot of readers had in the Merlin Cycle: How, exactly, are we supposed to believe in Merlin as the new King of Chaos? Merlin himself admitted that he was far from qualified, yet at the end of “Prince of Chaos” it sure looks like he got the job. Why, exactly? OK, I get that Merlin is from the royal houses of both Amber and Chaos, but again, why should this impress us? Where has he shown special qualities that would explain both the Unicorn and the Serpent wanting to sign up Merlin as their figurehead?

Merlin regards himself as a dime-a-dozen sorcerer, a decent but unexceptional swordsman, and an utter neuf in matters of state and politics. So how does he get the crown? We know from “Prince of Chaos” that Merlin defeats both Dara and Mandor, and with the help of Ghostwheel he even seems to force the Logrus to accept his terms, after an earlier confrontation with the Pattern which seems to have been 90 percent luck on Merlin’s part, and a healthy assist from Luke for the rest of it. But Merlin does not accomplish this with skill or brilliant planning – he basically carries around the magic version of a handheld nuclear power plant and simply uses force until the obstacle is removed. And Merlin did not create or develop the Spikard – it was given to him! We find out from Bleys that there are nine of these rings, and it so happens that Merlin gets to carry out a second ring, which previously belonged to King Swayville and which was enchanted by Mandor and Dara in hopes of controlling Merlin. So OK, what are the odds , if you’re Mandor, say, that you come across an artifact of fantastic power, so much so that the bearer is all but unstoppable, and your thought is not only to not keep it for yourself, but hand it off to someone you plan to control, on the assumption that if things don’t work out you can still regain the upper hand? Isn’t it a lot more likely that you’d find more than one of those, so you had a power source of your own, should you need it? But of course, when Merlin dueled Mandor, he won. Odd. But I noticed something there.

Merlin mentioned that Mandor was fond of carrying around a group of small iron balls, which he used as an idiosyncratic magic aid. This is important for two reasons – one, in the short story “Hall of Mirrors”, Zelazny confirms that two of the spikards were turned into swords – Grayswandir and Werewindle, as a matter of fact. So there’s no reason that Mandor could not have transformed his spikard into three magic iron balls. And reason two, when Merlin abruptly confronts Mandor, he catches him by surprise. Mandor is led to believe that he is in control of Merlin through the spell on what he thinks is Merlin’s spikard, and in that section we never see Mandor use his magic iron balls. Guess Mandor picked a bad day to leave them at home or send them on an errand, huh?

By the way, in the short story “The Salesman’s Tale”, we find from Luke that he can summon Werewindle to him by way of a Trump. This lets us know that the spikards can be manipulated in the same way, and also oh by the way this answers a lot of questions about how Grayswandir shows up in various places seemingly on its own, such as Merlin being able to use in the land-underneath-Shadow in “Knight of Shadow”. Being able to call up artifacts on cue makes things a lot more fluid in the third cycle, hmm?

Before moving on, I also found ”The Salesman’s Tale” an important revelation on another score – Vialle’s ability for prophecy. One valid criticism of the first cycle was the limited value placed on the women in the stories, especially the Princesses of Amber. Zelazny’s discussion of Vialle’s prophetic powers is not only consistent with her legacy from Rebma, but a welcome acknowledgement of her value in her own right as a person – Queen in substance as well as name.

to be continued