needs more goddesses, kthx

[ivy_chan]

I've been reading 'American Gods' by Neil Gaiman, and I'm not sure what to think about it. Don't get me wrong, the concept is fascinating, the writing itself is brilliant, and the world he brings to life is clear in my head. I actually do care about the main character and especially his wife, Laura, and most of the other characters are depicted in

Comments

[meganbmoore]

Gaiman is good, but really only writes one or two types of characters well, and they're definitely male characters. In my admittedly limited exposure, the only female characters of his that he's really done justice to are Death and, to a lesser degree, Yvaine (much as I passionately adore Yvaine). Helena in Mirrormask was also pretty well done, but blatantly owed a lot to Labyrinth's Sarah, and Gaiman has pretty much said that he was just providing words to help tie Dave McKean's ideas together. In general, I find that while I like Gaiman as a writer, most of my interest in hs stuff stems from the fact that he appears to be a seriously cool guy and class act as a person.

ETA: And, uhm, Neverwhere has Door. Of whom I'm also quite fond, but feel is underused. That said, I actually recommend watching the miniseries over reading the book, as blatantly cheaply done as it is. Mostly because the book is actually an adaptation of the mini-series's script. Rather like how Stardust loses a lot without Charles Vess's illustrations

[redbrunja]

Also, the Marquis in Neverwhere? *rarw*

(Although I liked the book better than the mini series, personally.)

[meganbmoore]

In the book, I think I just kinda got bored with being in Richard's head.

[redbrunja]

Understandable.

[redbrunja]

Yeah.... while American Gods is technically very well done, it left me cold.

But give Neverwhere a try - it's my favorite Gaimen, and the ladiez not doing enough is SO not that book's problem. (Seriously, the most badass character is a chick, the person driving the plot forward is a chick, the main hero is kind of along for the ride.)

[ivy_chan]

Ooo, that does sound cool! I'm just wrapping up with this book, so I'll pick up Neverwhere when I get the funds. (With all this Christmas shopping, it may take a while.)

[redbrunja]

There is always the local library.

[ivy_chan]

That's true. I'll go there and read for about an hour. (If I really, really like a book, I want to buy it. I don't know why. I feel so disatisfied reading it and knowing I'll have to return it when I'm done. Some of that is probably possessiveness and the rest is likely me not wanting to be rushed or feel on a deadline when I'm enjoying a book.)

[frau_eva]

I definitely got the faraway coldness from this book's characters as well, and I'm a big fan of Gaiman. Would have thought it would be my favorite given the subject matter, but its really one of my least favorite. The book's more a vehicle for cool ideas than characterization.

But so you know, you're halfway through, and Wednesday is definitely NOT a nice guy by the end. I won't spoil it, but not at all nice. Ever. And the female problem definitely isn't a problem in Stardust, nor Neverwhere. Can't speak for Anansi Boys since I haven't read it(don't know why I dropped off on reading Gaiman).

[ivy_chan]

Having almost finished the book, I am glad to discover that Wednesday is not and wasn't meant to be a likable character. I'm really fond of all the epic imagery in this book, too, despite some of it being a little too heavy-handed.

And yeah, definitely picking up Neverwhere next. So many people seem to enjoy it!

-edited for better spelling!-

[lvsinsanity]

I'm the only one here reading Anansi Boys it seems, so I'll let you know how that turned out.

I agree with the others, read Stardust and that was pretty decent, I won't gush over it but I enjoyed it.

I do admit, when reading Good Omens (a book by Pratchett and Gaiman) You could tell definitely who wrote sections...though that book sexualized War, and another female character through the eyes of an idiot character.

I haven't read the Sandman series, only vaguely flipped through it, and I'm curious about it, so I'm not sure what's being discussed about raping in that.

Gaiman I think is just one of those writers where you either dislike him or you don't. He has some all right work, but most of it I do think is like this... And I don't think most people even realize how wrong parts of his books are (mind you, most of the people I talk to that rant and rave about the wonderful person Gaiman is, are male..so that might explain my naivete when talking about him)

Re: -edited for better spelling!-

[ivy_chan]

I don't really dislike Gaiman. If I can read Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality through all of its horribly sexist books and still manage to like it despite its blatant, blatant faults, I can stick through Gaiman and his fascinating world that actually has women who aren't under constant threat of rape. It's more like I enjoy his writing and his characters, but I feel disappointed and let down that they don't have more women in the spotlight.

And yeah, the book sexualized War quite a bit. Since none of the others were, and they were male, it was pretty obvious why she was being picked out for it. If Pestilence was female, I'm sure Gaiman would have found a way to make her sexy, too. I liked the little girl, who I am sure was Pratchett's idea. He makes female characters more around that type, and seems to like the tough ladies.

[pimpypantsmcgee]

I didn't read your review because I haven't read this book. However, I'm sure I'll have the same problem with it that I have with everything Gaiman is attached to.

He was a big fish in a small pond when he was writing comics just because most legitimately good writers don't bother with writing for comics, and most people who love comics and want to make them don't know how to compose a story.

He is a medium sized fish in an ocean when he's writing prose. There are just way too many superior writers out there for me to consider him anything more than what he is: A mediocre talent with a disproportionately large ego because of his success in comics.

I believe that the sense of detachment is related to his writing and writing style more than anything.

[ivy_chan]

I very nearly didn't read this because Gaiman is so hyped. I make a conscious effort to not read hyped-up things, both because I know that they'll disappoint me, because they never live up to their hype at all, and also because I have a resentfulness of something that's that overblown. I keep thinking: "How good could this possibly BE?"

[pimpypantsmcgee]

I find myself doing the same. I make exceptions every now and then.

"Neverwhere" was okay, but it wasn't great. I read it and I concluded that Gaiman needs to stick to comics.