Neil Gaiman - What are your opinions?

[Werthead]

He started off well with The Sandman, which is staggeringly brilliant. Nothing he's done since then has come close to being as great. A lot of it is good or even 'very good', but there's definitely the feeling that he's simply not as capable in the novel form as he is in the comics field.

[Sci-2]

cover art for Gaiman + JH Williams story:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SM-promo-600x905.jpg

[polishgenius]

JH Williams on The Sandman? Consider me sold.

Well, I was sold already. But seriously. JH Williams on The Sandman?

Unfortunately I can not express what I really mean by that with my limited English but I will just say this: a guy like Neiman (1.7 million followers on Twitter who-hoo) putting "new gods" in the "evil" side didn't feel sincere. (eventhough, I am an "old gods" guy myself)..hope that made a bit of sense...

He didn't really do that though - they seem antagonistic because we see the conflict from the 'Old' side, but we find out in the end that in fact the only real 'evil' side are the two old gods who are running a con on everyone else involved...

As for the question of what else by him to read: anything really, AG is probably the least typical entry in his library so far. Stardust or The Graveyard Book are probably the furthest removed from it...

[Sci-2]

I think he sort of made the point that a lot of the gods were straight up dicks, not to mention the fact that the old gods probably displaced old-old gods.

There's also the interesting notion that gods vary between countries (or possibly even regions). I suspect this applies to the new and old ones.

When Gaiman's on a roll he tells an awesome story. He's got that natural oral storyteller shaman thing.

[thistlepong]

You know, I think I mostly agree with Kalbear. When The Sandman came out it was something new, interesting, and tinged with danger; and as a kind of alienated kid I loved it. From there I devoured everything through American Gods, at which point my taste for it apparently soured. I've re-read the Sandman trades several times, though not for several years. And I've read the companion and other interviews trying to get at its sources and intent.

At this point I have to concede that it's basically full of reprehensible shit that nonetheless might have been unique in its time. There's some good, if flip, analysis at Keep Your Bridges Burning: Preludes and Nocturnes, The Doll's House, Dream Country, A Game of You. The last was especially interesting to me, and to the blogger, 'cause you really didn't encounter very many trans protagonists at that point. Now that such are more visible, Gaiman's errors are as aggravating as something like Heart of Darkness.

His best work, subjectively, is Instructions. It's a children's book illustrated by Charles Vess. You can see it and hear him read it

.

I haven't read any of his short story collections since Angels and Visitations, but its last, "Murder Mysteries," has stayed with me to this day.

At this point, someone thinking about checking him out should read American Gods and any one Sandman trade just to get a feel for the works folks go on and on about. If you like those you've got a horde of fiction to satisfy you. If you don't, you needn't waste your time.

[Sci-2]

Now that such are more visible, Gaiman's errors are as aggravating as something like Heart of Darkness.

?

eta: never mind, i'm sleepy. i couldn't place shit in my head, then clicked on the link.

[polishgenius]

At this point I have to concede that it's basically full of reprehensible shit that nonetheless might have been unique in its time. There's some good, if flip, analysis at Keep Your Bridges Burning: Preludes and Nocturnes, The Doll's House, Dream Country, A Game of You. The last was especially interesting to me, and to the blogger, 'cause you really didn't encounter very many trans protagonists at that point. Now that such are more visible, Gaiman's errors are as aggravating as something like Heart of Darkness.

I've got to disagree, tbh: while those articles make some good and valid points (even I noticed the Wanda-looks-natural thing in a Game of You with discomfort, with a viewpoint not skewed in the slightest towards that perspective and tbh the first time I read it still at the point where I found such things a little off-putting - actually A Game of You had a lot to do with me starting to get over myself there, in general) but they focus so strongly on the sex-and-gender side of things that they almost ignore everything else good or bad that Gaiman did and in some cases seem to be aggressively looking for things to criticise. Like, the 24 Hours in a Diner thing:

where did the writer get the idea that Gaiman was using 'your son sold himself for sex in prison' as a criticism of the son, and that the mother's reaction was disapproval, rather than sorrow that it happened? And the whole thing about there being plot points that aren't resolved and that's uncomfortable is like... well yes, the whole point of that story was to try to make you feel as uncomfortable as Gaiman could make you.

[Sci-2]

I think Sandman has a lot of issues. But I think that Gaiman was trying to do something good, and someone like me, who'd never thought much about trans people except when they came up during some joke in a TV, benefited from reading the story at the time.

Looking back on it, I can see a lot of issues with the "trans-people will be gorgeous when they die but you're fucked for now", but this is something I've only gotten the barest handle on after doing some homework on transpersons.

I want to give him some credit for trying and failing, without just saying that just sticking in transpersons as characters makes everything immune from criticism.

[thistlepong]

I've got to disagree, tbh: while those articles make some good and valid points (even I noticed the Wanda-looks-natural thing in a Game of You with discomfort, with a viewpoint not skewed in the slightest towards that perspective and tbh the first time I read it still at the point where I found such things a little off-putting - actually A Game of You had a lot to do with me starting to get over myself there, in general) but they focus so strongly on the sex-and-gender side of things that they almost ignore everything else good or bad that Gaiman did and in some cases seem to be aggressively looking for things to criticise. Like, the 24 Hours in a Diner thing:

where did the writer get the idea that Gaiman was using 'your son sold himself for sex in prison' as a criticism of the son, and that the mother's reaction was disapproval, rather than sorrow that it happened? And the whole thing about there being plot points that aren't resolved and that's uncomfortable is like... well yes, the whole point of that story was to try to make you feel as uncomfortable as Gaiman could make you.

The blog's remit is sort of aggressive. A close friend had the same reaction to Binnie's tone, though, so I can probably see where you're coming from. However, Gaiman is a cultural institution, successful in nearly every area of fiction. Pointing out his early missteps isn't going to hurt him and it can only really help us. And c'mon, a blog isn't The Nation, there's no onus of mediated equanimity.

Binnie talks about the conflict she has with A Game of You extensively, about how she took friends to Barnes & Noble to show them the trans character before she really knew why. It still has power in that context, of a kid's first glimpse of who she might be versus who she's been told to be. But at this point, and this is where the Heart of Darkness connection happens for me, it's brutal and archaic. We have better portrayals with better arcs and better conclusions.

And let's be honest, Vertigo at the turn of the decade was wallowing in the Dark Age of Comics. Young, chiefly British, men were trying to shock American audiences with the unfamiliar, the transgressive, and horrific. Many of them have gone on to find distinct voices; some haven't. Gaiman himself stopped killing all his [edit] LBGTQ trans characters when it was pointed out to him, but that doesn't mean those early works aren't fraught, haunted by the fact that he did.

Bette Munroe thinks homosexuality is a sin against god.² Her thoughts about her son, her story with a happy ending, her delusion, is that he "went off to college and never came back to her."¹ She's sleeping with Marsh, has been since his wife died.⁴ His revelation disgusts her. He disgusts her. Her son disgusts her. Her reaction doesn't look like remorse, she swears and shouts.¹⁸ And since there's no evidence Bette's given a bit of thought to Bernard since he left other than to make up a happy story, I don't think Imogen's conclusion is out of line. It's certainly better supported than remorse.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but I think the lack of resolution she refers to is that many of the women, all of the trans people, and all of the black people are dead rather than resolved through the first few volumes. It's not Gaiman trying to make you as uncomfortable as possible so much as it's a young writer not getting what he's doing.

[edit courtesy sciborg2's question below]

[Sci-2]

Gaiman himself stopped killing all his trans characters when it was pointed out to him, but that doesn't mean those early works aren't fraught, haunted by the fact that he did.

After Sandman, when does Gaiman use any transpersons?

[Iskaral Pust]

I finally got around to trying the first volume of Sandman. It was OK but not good enough to make me want to buy any more of them. It reminded me of a lighter version of the classic Creepy and Eerie comic books, except that the Sandman story would be developed much further instead of a short one-off -- like a novel compared to a short story.

I never got all that into comics because I could not afford them as a kid and and then found them lightweight, albeit entertaining, as an adult. I think American Gods, Anansi Boys and Smoke & Mirrors will remain my preferred Gaiman material in that order.

[felice]

I'd recommend trying at least one more volume of Sandman; he's still finding his feet with the first few issues.

[Sci-2]

Does anyone else think Gaiman not naming the mystery god in American Gods has gotten stale?

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'd recommend trying at least one more volume of Sandman; he's still finding his feet with the first few issues.

Yep. In Preludes & Nocturnes he tries to fit his series within the existing DC Comics universe - the series moves away from this later.

[Sci-2]

I love most Gaiman, don't care much about others....I've also read some great short stories by him, especially one that's a sort of reimagining of Sherlock Holmes called....."Study in Emerald", I think. So give those a try as well.

This story is here:

www.neilgaiman.com/mediafiles/exclusive/shortstories/emerald.pdf

eta: fixed link

[Calibandar]

Neil Gaiman's new novel for adults has given a release date and a synopsis. The book comes out in June 2013 in UK and US.

The Ocean At The End of the Lane is a novel about memory and magic and survival, about the power of stories and the darkness inside each of us.

It began for our narrator forty years ago when he was seven: the lodger stole the family's car and committed suicide in it, stirring up ancient powers best left undisturbed. Creatures from beyond the world are on the loose, and it will take everything our narrator has just to stay alive: there is primal horror here, and a menace unleashed -- within his family, and from the forces that have gathered to destroy it.

His only defense is three women, on a ramshackle farm at the end of the lane. The youngest of them claims that her duckpond is an ocean. The oldest can remember the Big Bang.

The Ocean at the End of the Lane is a fable that reshapes modern fantasy: moving, terrifying and elegiac -- as pure as a dream, as delicate as a butterfly's wing, as dangerous as a knife in the dark.

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/10/the-ocean-at-end-of-lane-other-bits-of.html

[Marcus Cicero]

Does anyone else think Gaiman not naming the mystery god in American Gods has gotten stale?

I doubt that it's any specific god, even if he says it is.

[Arthmail]

I have only read American Gods. And while i didn't mind it, it didn't push me to pursue any more of his works. I certainly don't understand this hype he recieves as some sort of world class story teller. But i've only read one book.

I guess the line in the synopsis above; "the power of stories and the darkness inside each of us", strikes me immediately as contrived and reminds me of something written by a high school kid. He might not have had anything to do with it, but the air of it, the feeling that resonates within the statement, makes me want to put my money elsewhere.

[Calibandar]

I can see that actually, I feel the same way. It feels so over the top and well, ridiculous really.

I did like American Gods a great deal in the end, it's a very good book, but it took me a good while to get into it.

With Anansi Boys and Graveyard Book he did show, for me anyway, that he is a good storyteller, with a pleasing writing style.

I agree that an awful lot of people seem to see him as the bee's knees in the genre, whereas I find his output sofar not quite worthy of that status.

I think his pleasant personality ( this is how he is perceived) and online persona also work into this. The Gaiman status sometimes reminds me of China Mieville's status, which seems very much blown out of proportions ( I myself have not gotten enjoyment out of any his books, post-Scar, and he seems to be trying too hard to be different, resulting in some downright unreadable shit ).

Also, I'm not hugely excited about the synopsis for the new book, it leaves me on the fence on whether or not this sounds good. But it's an interesting release at this point.

[Isalie]

The Ocean at the End of the Lane is a fable that reshapes modern fantasy: moving, terrifying and elegiac -- as pure as a dream, as delicate as a butterfly's wing, as dangerous as a knife in the dark.

Fables are all the noice recently it seems. Reshaping modern fantasty, neat! Elegiac, got to be honest, I like the gloom, bring it on. Pure as a dream, I dreamt that I was chased by a bear the other night, stabbing it didn't work, eventually I got the best of it by pulling out both its eyes. Knives are like scissors, don't run with them, especially in the dark.