Talk:Merlin of Amber

I think the cleanup tag can be removed. The page has roughly tripled in size and quality from December 2005. Dslotman

I removed it (as I'm the one who placed it way back in the hoary depths of time). Good work! --Syrthiss 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ghostwheel and the conclusion of Merlin's cycle

I don't have the books at hand right now, but I'm quite sure that the Pattern and the Logrus don't see Ghostwheel as an equal; they specifically talk about how annoying it would be to destroy Ghostwheel, and that doing such would leave them vulnerable (but not destroyed themselves). It's more along the lines of "I can't afford to deal with you when there's a bigger rival." Merlin is no longer a pawn, due to the powers at his command, but they don't see him as an equal by any means. Of course, if they knew that he had two Spikards, their attitudes might change. ;) Ladlergo 19:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% that the Pattern and Logrus don't see Ghostwheel as equal, but they don't see each other as equal either. They are impressively arrogant. I seem to recall an implication that Ghostwheel could match them, particularly in their delicately balanced and fragile state of flux. Perhaps my memory has faded. I do remember that Merlin tries to juice Ghostwheel with the Spikard (I believe during the Pattern-Logrus skirmish in Amber), but Ghostwheel informs him that he had found his 'own sources of power.' Can we agree at least that the Pattern and Logrus have decided to treat Merlin and Ghostwheel as equals in temporary practice if not fact? (That's why I used the word nominal as it implies a "lesser" sort of equal.) Dslotman 28:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I found in a quick flip: "It is not yet time to weaken myself in your destruction. Not when another waits for me to falter." (PoC)

I think your change is fine, unless we decide to go into more detail (unlikely). Ladlergo 12:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

After rereading that section, I agree with your conclusion--the Logrus (and probably the Pattern) both believe they could easily beat Ghostwheel at the price of weakening themselves. My memory was probably biased by how much I like Ghostwheel. Feel free to edit it in that direction; perhaps something like: "...Ghostwheel had developed enough that his support of Merlin temporarily forced the Pattern and the Logrus to treat the pair with greater respect than mere pawns." (Changes in italics) Dslotman 16:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll let my brain mull on it for a while. I'm not sure of the best way to phrase it. Ladlergo 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ghostwheel separate or under Powers?

Should Ghostwheel be listed under Merlin's powers or should it remain separate? For that matter, should Merlin's magical artifacts be listed under his powers or go under a new heading? Ladlergo 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep Ghostwheel separate because it is its own entity and it is interesting in and of itself. On the other hand, Merlin's Spikards and Frakir are only interesting because of their association with him. If there is more to say about them, they can be separated, but Merlin's powers are somewhat minimal when separated from his power items. Dslotman 20:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems dubious (at best) to claim Merlin created Ghostwheel for the "protection of Amber." I at least recall nothing in his motivation that would warrant such a strong statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armon200 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ghostwheel -- Origin of the name

Interestingly, Ghostwheel seems to take its name from Gilgal Refaim, which in Hebrew literally means Ghostwheel. I wasn't aware of this when I read the books, although that was a long time ago. Perhaps this should be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.213.58 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Attunement To The Jewel Of Judgement

Merlin is not listed as having been attuned to the Jewel, under his list of powers. He describes the process of becoming attuned to it, and later states "I'm even a little leery over how the Logrus will take to me, with this higher order Pattern attunement I'm wearing.", in Knight Of Shadows, Ch. 9. Later still, Ghostwheel comments upon it, I believe, when saying that he too went to the Crystal Cave to do the same. Further in the book, he makes several comments about the pattern in the Jewel, and relies on its protection from Amber's Pattern after he removes the Jewel. Now, I am aware of the (to me, at least) obvious contradiction at the start of Prince Of Chaos, wherein he says he is only aware of how attunement works because of how his father described it, and that the Jewel seems to reject him with "Go no further" ... "You are denied the higher initiation." How is this seeming inconsistency usually resolved? Or is it? I would personally resolve it in favor of the earlier book, since without the power thus obtained, the character would not have lived to the latter book. Shouldn't there be at least some listing of this under his powers, with perhaps a note about its reliability? Tacticus (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. There's also a bit a little later in Prince of Chaos where Ghostwheel remarks on its own attunement to the Jewel; if Merlin had actually been denied attunement, you'd think he would have remarked at that point. For the inconsistency to be real you have to assume at least two different things: one, Merlin temporarily forgot he was attuned, perhaps due to confusion from the compulsion spell on the spikard, and then later forgot that he had forgotten; two, the Jewel did actually refuse him a second attunement. Maybe you are only allowed one? Maybe the Jewel in Coral's eye is a fake or shadow? Dunno. Anyway, that's a lot of maybes; Occam's Razor says it's just a mistake by Zelazny. Jef (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No listing for Mandor in his brothers

This page lists him as only having two half brothers: Despil and Jurt. While Mandor is more in the nature of a step-brother, Merlin certainly considers him to be his brother, and introduces him as such at every opportunity. Should we not then list that thing somewhere? Tacticus (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)