Leave a comment

Comments 19

ryl December 12 2009, 05:22:24 UTC
Stardust is the rare book where I thought the movie was better. The whole middle part of the adventure in the movie: the awesome sky pirate sequence. The middle part of the adventure in the book: "And Tristan and Yvaine ran around and did stuff and it was cool but I'm not going to tell you much about it at all."

The biggest Gaiman ending fail for me was American Gods. I wanted to smack him in the face with a hardcover of that book when I finished it. One day when I feel like facing the flames I'd get for dissing it, I'll post my analysis of why it failed here.

Coraline and Neverwhere were wonderful, so I know it's not Gaiman who fails, just some of his stories.

Reply

Completely Agree! jarredgoddess December 12 2009, 05:50:05 UTC
I saw the movie and thought that the book would be completely FABULOUS because the movie was so good. I couldn't wait to see the sky pirates expanded and explored. They got less than half a chapter in the book. Boo!

I also thought the chemistry between the star and Tristan was quite absent in the book and it wasn't in the movie.

Reply


tatjna December 12 2009, 05:39:08 UTC
I want to bang star lady's head on a wall. She starts out with such promise but ends up being a wimp, and kind of useless, and in need of rescuing a lot, and pathetically in need of her man. Her and Bella, both of them need lessons in how to grow a spine and be self-reliant.

Apart from that annoyance, I enjoyed the book.

Reply


isteillia December 12 2009, 09:36:34 UTC
This book, like the seventh harry potter book, would have been perfect without the epilogue.

Seriously though? The last HP book's epilogue made me think some sue lover on FFnet wrote it.

UGH

Reply

lone_she_wolf December 12 2009, 09:44:22 UTC
Unlike many here, I actually have no qualms about the Harry Potter epilogue. Sometimes it's okay to have a happy ending. We're too cynical as a society. We can accept elves, and wizards, trolls, goblins, unicorns and dragons but a happy ending? That's what we deem unrealistic? This is tragic to me ( ... )

Reply

isteillia December 12 2009, 09:46:39 UTC
true, but I should elaborate what made me mad- I don't know WHY this pisses me off but it does- The fact that the kids were named after people who died. My favorite book, The Sight, by Clement-Davies, had the same thing and it made me so mad. I have no idea why it does, but it does. It's a pet peeve of mine, I guess

Reply

lone_she_wolf December 12 2009, 09:57:52 UTC

Some people are like that, in real life. My family is OBSESSED with naming people after the dead. I and all my female cousins (There are at least four of us, it's a large family) have the middle name Louise (My grandmother's name). My brother is named after my stepfather's deceased brother and his middle name is the name my mother was going to use for a baby that she miscarried when she was younger. And my aunts are very obnoxiously pushing me that should I have a daughter I NEED to give her my mother's first name either as her first name or middle name.

Almost EVERYONE in my family is named after someone whose dead so Harry giving his kid those names doesn't bother or surprise me because I grew up with it really being done commonly.

Reply


alexwearspants December 14 2009, 23:04:12 UTC
I thought the ending suited the book - it made me sad but it fit, it felt right. Gaiman said from the beginning he wanted to write an adult fairy tale. So not a fairy tale with swearing or sex or violence, but a fairy tale with consequences for your actions, that doesn't shirk from them with a 'happily ever after'. And the really important thing to remember is that the story wouldn't have had a happy ending even if she had died. This is a kingdom in which the children kill each other and their parents in order to inherit. This is accepted, it's normal. By having Yvaine rule forever, Gaiman eradicates that tradition, so it's a bittersweet ending, I feel.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up