Stardust

[Newt]

This was a fun little picaresque fantasy. Gaiman's a lot more enjoyable when he's not dragging an idea to death (cf. American Gods) and trying to show off how clever he is. This story was compact (I finished it in one sitting) and to the point, the invented world was a fun neo-Celtic pastiche, the characters charming, the plot predictable but satisfying.

The book reminds me very much of Piers Anthony's Xanth novels- the early ones, before they got bogged down by poor Anthony's determination to use every pun, no matter how idiotic, sent in by his readers.

[Calloway]

I saw the movie and was kind of curious on how the book went. So far Gaimen hasn't disappointed me.

[Newt]

I haven't seen the movie. Was it good?

[Calloway]

It was alright. It was a date movie for me. They seemed to pull out a lot effects that were seen in the trailer but overall it was apt. A rental at most.

[The Anti-crest]

The book and movie are different in small ways. The heart of the story is in the movie and thats what was really important in the story.

The book is funny, charming and an adventure. I prefer Gaiman's American Gods though which taught me so much about writing just by reading it.

[Mike225]

I haven't seen the movie. Was it good?I hated the movie. I really enjoyed the book, for much the same reasons you listed.

One sitting, though? Have you gotten the circulation back in your legs?

[Newt]

I'm a fast reader.

RE: American Gods, I am currently re-reading it to try to figure out why it fell so flat for me, despite being hailed as another miracle from the Fantasy Messiah by other readers. I'll let you know when I finish it.

[josephrey]

i'm consistently finding his stuff flat as well. not sure why, as it seems SO close to being quite good.

[PIMPZILLA]

I'm a fast reader.

RE: American Gods, I am currently re-reading it to try to figure out why it fell so flat for me, despite being hailed as another miracle from the Fantasy Messiah by other readers. I'll let you know when I finish it.

Stardust was good. Neverwhere was also good but I was reading it while watching the tv mini-series(they're the exact same) my dad spoiled it, and I couldn't finish the book, cause I already knew how it ended. Anansi boys was pretty good, but also a little bit weird.

American Gods I thought was really good, but I really love hearing about ancient gods, heroes, myths, monsters, etc. and I think it slightly catered exclusively to that crowd. Anyways, best line ever. "Say nevermore." "F--K you."

[Newt]

I'm a big mythology buff too, and I didn't feel it catered to me. I felt it talked down to me, if anything.

[The Anti-crest]

Really? there was so much accurate history in that book that it made me wet myself. The amount of research in that book is what made me realize that writing fiction can still be a way of communicating knowledge and ideas. Up until I read American Gods I wanted to write known fiction and almost never even read fiction books. It was like a spiritual awakening for me. I never realized books could be THAT good. Mostly, fiction was fun but never that insightful or MORE than just fun. I had read books by the supposedly best writers in the markets I enjoyed the most and slowly they stopped impressing me. It became routine.

I read american gods when a friend encouraged me, he bought me a copy and said YOU WILL LIKE THIS and I owe him the world for that. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be trying to write comics or even "fantasy". I wouldn't know who Octavia E Butler was or who Alan Moore is, for that matter.

American Gods changed the way I read books. Now I look for the historical info, the well researched bits. Books like 'The Da Vinci Code" annoy me because the research was so poorly done.

[Mike225]

Really? there was so much accurate history in that book that it made me wet myself. :blink:

Now there's a guy that enjoys accurate history!

[The Anti-crest]

You have no idea. Historical accuracy is one of my favorite things in entertainment. ha.

[Newt]

I'm a big fan of thorough research (I am in fact a professional researcher, as it happens). But American Gods had info in it that was provided for no reason other than to show off Mr. Gaiman's erudition, or highlight facts he thought were especially cute. The story must come first.

I also didn't enjoy the characterization much in that novel. Shadow especially was a weak character, and Mr. Wednesday as well. Gaiman seems to do better with single-minded oddballs than with more rounded characters. The protagonist of Neverwhere (Richard?) was quite weak as well. They are amorphous; they do what Gaiman needs them to do, and feel like puppets of the author rather than living agents. In other words, their actions do not follow from their personalities.

The premises as well seemed ill-conceived compared to the tremendous amount of research into the details. 'Gods as real beings created by our belief' is a standard fantasy device, and 'worship of money and technology as though they were gods' is a well-worn and cliched criticism of modern culture. The idea of new versions of each god being created in each new land was not really explored; are they limited to continents, countries, what? And where the hell did the ancient Slavic gods come in? I doubt any nineteenth century Russian immigrants still worshipped minor deities like Czernobog and Belobog (the latter quite probably a construct of mythographers and never actually worshipped by anyone). Gaiman just jammed them in there because he liked them, not because it made any sense in the context of the story. And why did the gods have to masquerade as humans, and get menial jobs, and so on? Again, there was no logic behind it, it was just the way Gaiman wanted things to play out. It felt like he started with the notion of half-forgotten gods trying to scrape by as regular schmoes, and then didn't bother to fully create the world in which that situation should come about.

I didn't really mean for this to be the American Gods discussion thread. I should wait until I've finished re-reading it to start that thread.

Additionally, I should say that I don't dislike Gaiman's writing. I just don't think it belongs on the absurdly high pedestal on which comics and fantasy readers have placed it. He's a good fantasy writer, but I wouldn't place him among the greats.

[The Anti-crest]

I think you are wrong on a lot of levels. The characters in that book are strong, though I agree that Shadow isn't. Shadow gets bullied, pushed, manipulated and tossed around to the whim of other characters and I think thats why I liked him.

You ever read Roger Zelany's mask of loki?

[Newt]

I don't mean 'weak characters' as in their character is that they are weak (that would be fine), I mean that they are weakly characterized. Their actions do not flow from their personalities and motives, but rather seem to come about as the plot demands; too, their personalities change as needed.

No, I haven't read 'Mask of Loki', though I've read and enjoyed some of Zelazny's other work.

[The Anti-crest]

Yeah, his character is weak. He doesn't react to what the plot needs though. It's rather he reacts to what the other characters want. Wednesday, Anansi, Czernobog, Bast and the other gods are characters with strong, fully fleshed out personalities. Shadow just kind of bumbles along with them.

I like the story though, I think its probably the finest literature I've ever read.

Mask of Loki is a story in which this ordinary joe finds out that he is meant to duel with Hasan, and in the end this ordinary joe learns that he is actually loki. Good book, not great, but decent.

[Calloway]

Shadow comes across more like a red herring. Odd that it's a person but I felt he was just there to move the story along.

[The Anti-crest]

I see it so differently.