The Zimiamvian Trilogy - E. R. Eddison

[Fried Egg]

This trilogy contains the following books:

1) Mistress of Mistresses
2) A Fish Dinner in Memison
3) The Mezentian Gate

I've read the first one and have just picked up the last and wondered whether they need/should be read in order? How tightly interconnected are they?

[Extollager]

I haven't read them either. An Eddison expert -- editor of the one-volume book Zimiamvia -- recommends reading them in publication order, as you have listed them.

[j. d. worthington]

I would concur. If you wish to follow the chronology of the events, then (if memory serves) The Mezentian Gate is actually the first in the set. But it is really thematically that the story develops in its most interesting form, so going by date of publication is likely to give the most satisfying experience.

EDIT: I just looked up an old article by Robert E. Briney on the trilogy (originally published in the REH-zine Amra), and here is how he describes the chronology:

Eddison's Zimianvian dates are all reckoned anno Zayanae conditiae, from the founding of the city of Zayana. In these terms, Mistress of Mistresses covers a period of two years beginning on April 22 of the year 777 A.Z.C., ten months after the death by poison of the great King Mezentius[...].

The question of the relation between Earth and Zimiamvia led to the writing of the middle book of the trilogy, "A Fish Dinner in Memison"; this book, in its Zimiamvian portion, covers a period of five weeks in the year 773 A.Z.C., and ends nearly a year before the death of Mezentius (and hence approximately a year and a half before Mistress of Mistresses begins).[...]

But there is still a further question: "whether what took place at that singular party may not have had yet vaster and more cosmic reactions, quite overshadowing those affecting the fate of this planet" It is this question, together with the (strangely related) problem of how and why King Mezentius came to die at the height of his powers, which led to the writing of The Mezentian Gate. This final (or initial) book of the trilogy covers a period of some seventy-two years (702-776 A.Z.C.) beginning twenty years before the birth of Mezentius and ending with his death.[...]

Briney also agrees that the best way is to read it in its publication order, as "they seem to add up to a great deal more than the mere total of their chronological parts". He goes on to explain, but I don't wish to spoil the experience for anyone, hence will leave those interested to look up the essay itself, which was included in The Spell of Conan, edited by L. Sprague de Camp....

[Fried Egg]

I guess had better wait until I find the second book then before proceeding with this series.

Mind you, I could do with giving the first a re-read.

[j. d. worthington]

Yes, it's a somwhat complicated book, for those not used to either that idiom or structure; and I will admit that I had to give it a second reading originally before proceeding on with the others... though once doing so, these quickly became among my very favorites in the entire fantasy genre....

[Teresa Edgerton]

I wouldn't recommend starting with The Mezenthian Gate in any case. Eddison never finished it, and it's largely in outline form. It might (probably would) give you a very wrong impression of how the rest of the trilogy is written. The main interest of the book, in its fragmentary form, is for people who have read the others and want to know what happened before..
.
.
.

[j. d. worthington]

True; it is (or, rather, much of it is) in outline form, an "Argument with Dates"... but it is a rather detailed outline, which enables you to glean a fair amount; and there are sections which he did give final written form... including the conclusion, which he felt (and I would be inclined to agree) contains some of his best writing....

But Teresa is correct. I wouldn't advise going to that final book until you have read the others, for several reasons. It is a great pity that he didn't live to give it final form or, for that matter, live to further expand the work(s), as he himself saw would almost certainly be the case.

[Fried Egg]

I think that when I re-read "Mistress of Mistresses" I shall be better prepared for it and hopefully better placed to appreciate it. I was expecting another "Worm" but didn't get it.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Fried Egg

I think that when I re-read "Mistress of Mistresses" I shall be better prepared for it and hopefully better placed to appreciate it. I was expecting another "Worm" but didn't get it.

Yes, that is the problem with these books and their connection to the more famous Worm; they are completely different types of books. In the thread on "high" fantasy I have made some effort to indicate the distinctions which separate "high" fantasy from other forms. In connection with Eddison, odd as it sounds, I think it the only thing which makes Worm "high" fantasy is its idiom; whilst the Zimiamvian books are most definitely of that sort. Simply put, it is the difference between "sword-and-sorcery" (albeit of a highly literary form) and "high fantasy", the Worm being the former.

[GOLLUM]

Probably a little late to be of much use here but I acquired a single volume copy of the Zimiamavia trilogy a couple of years ago and the order there is the same as you have listed F.E.

I still havent read this 'series' in its entirety. I will be interested to read your impressions.