Zohar wrote:I love American Gods. I love Sandman. I dislike Good Omens. I don't think you have to love every single book of a specific author. You're allowed to only like one book and nothing else, too.
Yeah, that's why I'm saying "I just don't know about Neil Gaiman" and not "Neil Gaiman is an overrated hack."
Wait, we already have a Niel Patterson thread.viewtopic.php?f=24&t=15621
Anyway, I profoundly despise American Gods
and think that it is the worst of Gaiman's novels. If you didn't like it, I strongly suggest trying something else. In particular, I found Ananasi Boys
almost made up for American Gods
entirely. It might be just as florid in some ways, but what asides it has are either much, much shorter or vastly more amusing than anything in American Gods
It's funny, most fans say American Gods is one of the greatest novels and easily Gaiman's best work aside from Sandman. In fact, that's part of the reason why I picked it up -- supposed to be "the modern Huckleberry Finn." Or Tom Sawyer. Can't remember. Either way, looking around the net now I've read it, those who don't absolutely love it seem to absolutely loathe it. I'd say it seems 70/30. I wonder why that is. Why it's so polarizing, I mean.
He's got all these fantastic quotes; he's clearly a very intelligent, highly creative person who is not merely creative, but actively creative, plumbing the depths of his own mind as few ever bother to.
I think you will find that his bag of trickses is not quite so bottomless as it initially appears.
Yeah, I've heard it said that basically all his novels have the exact same plot, when you get right down to it -- our protagonist, living in what seems to be the normal world, discovers that things are slightly off, is then plunged into either a literal or figurative parallel world, and saves it. Then again, how many original stories are there? Maybe a dozen? Two dozen? And every story ever told is a derivation thereof. Gaiman gets praise from all the great literary minds of today and gets awards out the wazoo; he's found what he's good at. Can't blame him for sticking to it.
Ulc wrote:It's not complicated and realistic books with a lot of worldbuilding - it's just a nice "enjoy the ride" entertaining style of books, and at that, he excels.
Maybe that's why I'm not thrilled by his prose. Sandman kinda is that way, I guess (though there were tidbits of an overarching storyline), but you don't notice it because it's all images and dialogue with the occasional
, brief narration box.
I'm looking at American Gods again, and it just looks like Gaiman's train-of-thought in the process of making a comic book. That is, he seems to use narration not as a novel writer would use narration, but as a comic book writer would describe to his artist how to make each panel look.
Ulc wrote:One thing to keep in mind with Gaiman is that if you dislike his style in a certain book, it seems like his style is very much subject to his own choice. American gods and stardust as a example, is two completely different writing styles, and it seems like it's a concious choice on his part - and it seemed the same with neverwhere.
How long is Stardust? Because I'm the kinda person who can't not finish a book once he starts. I didn't enjoy American Gods' five hundred freaking pages one bit, but I couldn't not finish once I'd read the first few chapters. I'm not interested in that happening again.P.S.
And thanks a bunch to whatever mod merged this >:( Pretty much guarantees hardly anybody's gonna respond to my lengthy post -- most people just look at the first page (usually first post) of a topic before replying. No. They don't. You've been told many, many, many times how things work here. -ST