Is Neil Gaiman Overrated?

[Cuchulain]

From what I've read, I think that Stardust and American Gods are both excellent, but that Neverwhere is a bit overrated.

[Roland_85]

To me he is overrated. He is a brilliant short story writer, and amazing in comic books too, but his children's books are completely whatever, and as for his adult novels, I've only ever liked Neverwhere (mind you, haven't read Anansi Boys yet). He IS brilliant, but not in everything - short stories and comic books are his forte. Sorta like Swanwick (without the comic books) :D

[Azmure]

Personally I think he's a very strong prose stylist, and I've enjoyed most of what I've read by him. I think he is strongest as short-story or novella length. Stardust is my favourite of his novels, and I think Anansi Boys is probably his weakest.

[The Evil Hat]

I don't think he's overrated, personally. I've had some problem or other with almost everything he's written, but they're usually very minor, and his skill with characters and ideas more than carries me through his occasionally uneven pacing. While the prose is definitely unadorned and outwardly simple, I think that it's very distinctive and a pleasure to read.

[Eyelesbarrow]

I thought the Sandman series was a great idea with an excellent execution. I've never read his later novels (stopped at Neverwhere and Stardust, which I both enjoyed) - I remember plodding through American Gods. But agree that his short stories are great.

[Raskolnikov]

I used to be a huge fan, especially when I was just getting into Sandman. And then I read Neverwhere and Smoke and Mirrors and that sealed the deal. I've been pretty meh about his YA and children's stuff though, but that might just be me because I'm pretty meh about YA and children's stuff in general. I didn't enjoy Coraline, and I've pretty much stopped reading him after that. I've never seen the movies as well.

[A Time for Wolves]

Wow, I'm glad to see this stirred up some debate.

I haven't read his short stories yet, but someone bought me Smoke and Mirrors so I'm going to give it a try. And I agree with whoever said they were a Michael Swanwick fan - I tend to prefer his prose style, so that may be why I don't like Gaiman's.

I don't think it's always a good idea to judge an author on the number of awards they've won, nor on whether or not other respected authors find him a good author. I like Terry Pratchett and Harlan Ellison just fine, but if I based my opinions on theirs then my opinions would never be worth much at all. I agree though, that it just may be personal taste on my part - one of the books that I found boring was American Gods, and that one smashed through the awards.

And yeah, the fans are part of why I think he is overrated - it has nothing to do with Neil Gaiman's personal character, actually (because I could see some people were getting defensive about him) but more about how people react to him. Because if I ever say I didn't like Neverwhere, they tend to jump down my throat or not talk to me for the rest of the day. Maybe that's just a symptom of how fandoms are nowadays. It's true that I'd rather be attacked by a Neil Gaiman fanatic than a Goodkind/Rowling/Meyer fanatic.

Anyway, I'll have to see if I like his prose and characters better in Smoke and Mirrors.

[Renasko]

Or Britney Spears.

Yes. He's the Britney Spears of fantasy! :lol:

My proper response would be: of course. He's the cream of the crop. Enjoys a fanbase like few others. A great writer, though, to his credit? I'd say not. He's likeable.

[mormont]

First off, I'm entirely flummoxed by the idea that there's some way in which being a fan of Michael Swanwick would affect whether you liked Neil Gaiman. I mean, I can't see any basis for this claim: it appears entirely random, even leaving aside the fact that (to my knowledge) both authors admire each others' work, and that I know many readers who, like myself, love both of them. No idea what people are on about there, but it sounds pretty silly to me.

Second, on the childrens' book front, The Wolves In The Walls is amazing. Coraline is wonderful: really it's a YA but well worth a read by adults. I didn't care for The Graveyard Book myself, but there's a difference between not personally caring for it and thinking it's badly written or overrated.

I agree with Ran that Gaiman has a very distinctive and clear voice, though he can adapt it to a wide variety of projects. That alone shows the skill of the man as a writer. Apart from his range, though, and the inventiveness even the critics here seem to admit to, he has a perfectly sound command of both character and descriptive prose. It's never overwritten or showy: he never writes to impress you, but that is (if anything) a plus.

I can see that people might not personally find Gaiman to their taste, and the OP's mention of being 'disappointed' suggests that's the case there. Nor is he the greatest writer out there on every possible dimension. There are greater prose writers, greater character writers, greater plotters, etc. But 'overrated'? No. He has a significant body of work that's tremendously influential, critically praised, very well written, and popular way beyond the boundaries of the genre. And I can't see any way in which all of that is down to a fluke or is in some way unmerited. Will history be wondering what the hell we all saw in this guy? I doubt it.

[Ahimsa]

Like many of the others said, I think his short stories show a lot more craft than his novels. Even his books that I like (Stardust, for instance) have some lazy writing (an airship that shows up out of nowhere to rescue them). I generally like his ideas, but his plots can be contrived and it's annoying that he writes himself into a lot of his stories (the sort of bumbling shy British protagonist). Anansi Boys for me was like a greatest hits book; I felt like I'd read it all before.

[Calibandar]

Well....

As far as novels are concerned, I did not care for Neverwhere, Stardust or Good Omens. American Gods I really liked though, and I have yet to read Graveyard Book and Anansi. What little I have sampled from these two books makes me think I will enjoy them more than the Gaiman novels I did not care for, but probably not as much as American Gods. That is his masterpiece.

As for comics, well not everything he does is great is it? I mean he's praised for Sandman, but then his recent Batman issues got mixed reviews as have a lot of other comics that he's done. Eternals for instance.

I also think his output in recent years isn't all that great. He's got great buzz and lots of fans but he hasn't actually shown much work IMO.

Fragile Things is generally seen as a weaker collection than his first, Smoke and Mirrors. But at the same time, much of the shorter stories that he is publishing are quite good and well worth reading.

So, yes, a little bit overrated when you look at how he is sometimes portrayed, but also a capable writer whose occasional work can soar.

[alguien]

Yes. He's the Britney Spears of fantasy! :lol:

My proper response would be: of course. He's the cream of the crop. Enjoys a fanbase like few others. A great writer, though, to his credit? I'd say not. He's likeable.

But he really isn't. I agree with Ran that I'm puzzled people are talking about his lacking a voice. He has a very distinct (fairly British) voice, one can almost spot a Neil Gaiman story right away. If you've listened to him read his stories aloud, you realized that he does so in a way that is exactly in sync with how he's written them.

I am a fan, but not a rabid one. I loved American Gods. His Batman was not bad, as Calibandar says, I liked Eternals better. 1602 was also tremendous fun.

I wasn't a big fan of the Beowulf screenplay (I thought it a somewhat muddled adaptation that tried to do too much) but Stardust and Neverwhere were fun reads.

Anancy is funny, but not as funny as a Pratchett book. More dry.

But I really can't scan how someone thinks he's a bad writer. I know people who prefer their prose a bit more... American, and for them I could see Gaiman's style as off-putting.

I mean, short stories like "A Study in Emerald," "Chivarly," or "October in the Chair"? Those are bloody well-written stories.

[Foreverlad]

Short or long fiction, I don't see what's there not to like. Some might prefer another style, but I see no flaws or failures in the way he tells his stories. Regardless of who his target audience is, I feel each story is being shared between a Vincent Price type narrator and a gentle listener, though without a hint of pretension. Even better, the books rarely feel plotted or planned. There's a sense of drift possible, that the reader may be caught by surprise without the requirement of a macguffin or grand logic to steer them into the closing pages. That kind of uncertainty leaves me always feeling like a kid being read a story to, never bothering to guess at the outcome, simply following along, waiting for the climax and conclusion to reveal themselves.

I'm not certain I've read an author with a narrative voice as distinct as Neil Gaiman, though I suppose Stephen King is fairly unique in his own as well.

So, this long story short, no, I don't think Neil is overrated.

[Mathis]

I'm in full agreement with the OP. I read the blurbs of his novel's and find myself sucked in by his ideas...but then comes the prose. Its so flat. His imagination is wasted because his writing is utterly pedestrian.

IMO of course.

He wins so many awards that I keep trying his new stuff, but it never gets any better.

[Nerdanel]

Yes, I think Neil Gaiman is overrated. It's not like he's a bad author, but he definitely isn't as brilliant as the hype says.

American Gods in particular is hugely overrated. Most people don't notice how much Gaiman rehashes his earlier (and better) comics with that book. If you've actually read those comics, the novelty of the setting has already been spent and what's left isn't that impressive.

[red snow]

I'm waiting for GRRM to post on his blog that "Neil Gaiman is not overrated" so that we can print T-shirts with this statement on it and wear them proudly in the knowledge that this discussion has been settled once and for all.

[Ran]

Mmm... I don't think the reason to admire American Gods is any presumed novelty in the setting. Yes, these are ideas he's played with before in a much more compressed form back in Sandman, in "Calliope" and Brief Lives to name two examples. Doesn't take a thing away from the novel, at least for me. It's like saying ASoIaF is overrated because there's nothing novel in Renly and Loras's relationship because he's already explored something similar in Dying of the Light.

American Gods was well-received for various reasons. I think the expansion of this particular conceit into the American landscape was one part of it.

[Lightning Lord]

I don't think he's overrated. His work has garnered a lot of praise from other writers and IMO deservedly so.

I found Neverwhere delightful, a darkened view of the other side of the Looking Glass. Good Omens was my first exposure and I still love reading it through. American Godsis on my re-read list. He's not the best writer ever, but he's certainly talented enough to be highly esteemed.

But at the moment, I am in a Neil Gaiman mood, having picked up several of his books in the last month or so.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

First off, I'm entirely flummoxed by the idea that there's some way in which being a fan of Michael Swanwick would affect whether you liked Neil Gaiman. I mean, I can't see any basis for this claim: it appears entirely random, even leaving aside the fact that (to my knowledge) both authors admire each others' work, and that I know many readers who, like myself, love both of them. No idea what people are on about there, but it sounds pretty silly to me.

It was a joke based on that favorite author prejudice thread we had a while back, where the discussed article suggested that Swanwick fans thought Gaiman was overrated. I just thought it was a bit funny since that description actually suited me. :)

[mormont]

It was a joke based on that favorite author prejudice thread we had a while back, where the discussed article suggested that Swanwick fans thought Gaiman was overrated. I just thought it was a bit funny since that description actually suited me. :)

This takes me no further to understanding where the original idea in the article came from, though it does explain its presence in this thread. :)

I'm still perplexed by this criticism about Gaiman's prose, too. 'Flat'?