Two times I dissed Neil Gaiman (and one time I praised him)

[trinityvixen]

No, that's not a fanfic prompt, that has been my life this week. In convincing moonlightalice to read some Discworld this week and trying to explain Terry Pratchett's sense of humor and the way he has adapted his worldbuilding as it's started to have continuity, I told her that it was, in effect, much like Good Omens minus all that Neil Gaiman-y stuff. I could

Comments

[anonymous]

Interesting. I like most of Gaiman's work, and I enjoyed "The Doctor's Wife" but I didn't think it was all that--it was fun, it was enjoyable, it wasn't brilliant.

I do definitely agree about Stardust, however--the book is good but the movie is far more entertaining.

[ecmyers]

Someone dissed Stardust this weekend and I explained that I loved the movie and hadn't read the book yet, which seemed to be all the explanation she needed.

I rather like Gaiman's dark humor, but it doesn't always work, especially for longer works--I much prefer the shorter, sharper bite of his short fiction and books like Coraline, which can be moody and meaningful but demonstrate wicked fun along the way. I suspect this is one of the reasons why his Doctor Who script was such a hit, though oddly, it might have been a better fit for broody, tragic Ten, for which it was originally intended.

I intend to read more Pratchett solely because I enjoyed Good Omens so much, but I'd always attributed the best bits to Gaiman... perhaps incorrectly :P

[gryphonrose]

You should absolutely read Pratchett! I thought the same thing about Good Omens because all I'd read of Pratchett was The Color of Magic, which I didn't enjoy at all. Read the Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg books. And, esp. given your interest in YA, read the Tiffany Aching books, starting with Wee Free Men. They're fantastic.

[trinityvixen]

Ooh, that's a good idea. I need to read his YA, too.

[gryphonrose]

I heartily recommend the Tiffany Aching books to everyone. They're not as off-the-wall as his other Discworld books--they actually have more coherent storylines, fewer digressions--but they're sweet and fun and thrilling and still very funny.

[moonlightalice]

A nit: the Grimm's fairy tales were actually the sanitized, cleaned-up versions. They had a scary name but were famous for actually desexualizing and toning down some of the most gruesome stories. (Interestingly, while they toned down the sex, they tended to up the violence re: women.)

[trinityvixen]

See, the violence I remember from reading Grimm's. I knew they were themselves cleaned up somewhat, I should have attributed that more properly.

[gryphonrose]

Weird--I thought I'd replied to this over the weekend. Anyway, I agree with you about Stardust the movie vs. Stardust the book. I've always enjoyed Gaiman's work, though. And I thought the Doctor's Wife was good, solid, enjoyable, sweet in places--but not brilliant, as a lot of people seemed to expect and a few even claimed after seeing it. :)

[trinityvixen]

I should really read more Gaiman before I declare one way or another. I've read all of Sandman, which I will not deny is brilliant; Neverwhere which doesn't really work; Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader? which works but is, like I get from all Gaiman, very melancholic; and Stardust. That's a healthy smattering, but it's not enough to make grand statements against the whole. I just have an impression. It's not even negative, it's just not glowing.

[gryphonrose]

I've read most of his work, though there are a few stories I've missed. Check out the Graveyard Book, which is quite nice. But I'm not a raving fan either--I do like his work, but there are a few other writers I like more (Zelazny, Powers, Wilson, Pratchett).