I was reading American Gods (Neil Gaiman, if you're ignorant like that :P) on the green today while passing a cancelled class, listening to the boy playing the fiddle up on the statue of Marcus Aurelius (it was very faint, from where I was sitting, and with the book and the music I kept thinking of leprechauns), and I remembered something the friend I was talking about
the other day said regarding why she didn't like American Gods (and therefore, Neil Gaiman, who I've never heard anyone who's read him regard as anything less than genius):
She didn't like how EVERY character was a god.
Which, you know, is kind of the point. Shadow gets himself involved in a gods' war, and having humans involved would undermine the essence of the story.
So I'm feeling better about the fact that she so misinterpreted the epilogue (and really, the entire series' relationships) in DH, since she apparently tends to misinterpret books in general. I mean, if you're over the age of, say, 15 and prefer Tamora Pierce (whom I love, by the way; she's got fantastic worlds and stories and I own half her books, but still, her style is a little lacking) to Neil Gaiman (who's got style as well as plot and characters and worlds and originality), I'm not sure how much I can respect your opinions regarding books. I can still like you, of course, but that baffles me, a little.
Mm, American Gods. I still prefer Stardust, of course, because I lived on fairy tales as much as food when I was growing up, but still. I love it. :D