Having read Good Omens a few times, and hearing good things on these boards about Neil Gaiman, I have started reading his other novels.

So far I have finished Anansi Boys, which was good (not great, not bad either) and a bit unusual.

I'm nearly finished listening to the audiobook of Neverwhere, and think it's brilliant. Best book I've read/listnened to in ages. Gripping plot & looking forward to finishing work today so I can finish it.

The final Gaiman novel I have been reading is American Gods. So far I'm half way through it and not sure if I like it. The start was good & I was hooked to the plot but it has gotten very weird near the middle. Hoping it ends well but finding it boring at the moment & willing myself to read on!

So what does everyone else think about Neil Gaiman's novels?
Are there any more of his books you would recommend I read?

I was surprised he didn't get his own thread yet, actually. "American Gods" lies somewhere on my shelf, but I have only red the "Sandman" graphic novel. Back then I thought they were very, very good. I seem to remember that Gaiman denies a strict separation of graphic novels and written-only-novels. His body of work illustrates that very well, it seems.

"Hoher Sinn liegt oft im kindischen Spiel." (Friedrich Schiller)

[quote:3b697f23b5="TheJackal"]
The final Gaiman novel I have been reading is American Gods. So far I'm half way through it and not sure if I like it. The start was good & I was hooked to the plot but it has gotten very weird near the middle. Hoping it ends well but finding it boring at the moment & willing myself to read on![/quote:3b697f23b5]

Finished Amreican Gods, thought overall it was poor, especially by his standards. So I now score Gaiman as follows:

Neverwhere = 3 pts --- excellent
Anansi Boys = 1 pt --- ok
American Gods = -1 --- waste of my time

Thats strange...I'm completely different..

I would score american gods as the 3, Anani boys around a 1 or 2 and Neverwhere a 1...I'm not as keen on it.

I loved American Gods...then again I'm really big on mythology and that subject is right up my street...same with Anansi.

I've read the first few Sandman....only just started and it's hard to get hold of them all here...they're expensive and never available second hand or in the library. I'm enjoying them too, I never really liked reading comics because they always seemed dull but Gaiman's are growing onm me the more I read.

Anyway, American Gods is sitting around the favourites on my bookshelf at the moment and I'd like to re-read it as there was so much in it I feel I missed. I couldn't put it down first time around.

[quote:3c4cbd9e79="fairyliquid"]I loved American Gods...then again I'm really big on mythology and that subject is right up my street...[/quote:3c4cbd9e79]I also feel BIG on mythology but Gaiman's treatment of mythology or gods is very American (as the title suggests). The concept is clever but the way he wrote it betrays his very shallow understanding of mythologies. It's in fact typical of American culture (no offence meant) to simplify things.

I might be misinterpreting here, but if you're saying that Gaiman's 'shallow' understanding of mythologies is something typically American, there's just one small problem: Gaiman isn't American.

amelia: yo
i am a yoyo.

Chris: yes

Whatever.
Doesn't justify his approach to mythology.

Well, your well thought out argument has me swayed at any rate....

Why are pirates called pirates?

Yeah, but it still makes a good part of what you just said a load of bollocks.

And, as I don't see anything wrong with his approach, I don't feel the need to justify it. Not that this is even relevant to what I was picking you up on.

amelia: yo
i am a yoyo.

Chris: yes

Sigh, I guess I need to use some more words.
All right, I did not realize he was British (I should have guessed, after all he is Terry's buddy)
I call his approach to mythology American (in the negative sense of the word) because he showed diffrent gods all bunched up together in one pot and humanized, pauperized, and downtrodden. It reminded me of McDonald's cultural sensitivity. Take something out of every culture and USE it in your own way. The result is a deformed creation, often not recognizable for representatives of the original culture.
Gaiman (who is not American) took a number of gods at random and USED them to make a so-so story.
I know how to explain it to a literature lover: imagine a story in which all your favourite characters from different books all crop up together, out of context. They are carried through a number of adventures, each of them displaying one or two characteristic traits (for more there isn't enough space), and the impression you immediately get is of - what? unfair treatment, isn't it?

[quote:7ae4079058="chrisjordan"]
And, as I don't see anything wrong with his approach, I don't feel the need to justify it.[/quote:7ae4079058]I never asked YOU to justify it, I just meant Gaiman's approach is not justified.

Is everything clearer now?

Well, i believe the point to having them downtrodden and the like was to show their decline in powers as their believers deserted them.

They were in a far away land, and away from the old customs and traditions, which left them somewhat powerless and so forth.

But basically, look at it from a story telling point of view. If you wanted an indepth look at all the gods, you'd have a book that'd take up several shelves.

So, for enjoyablilty, they are watered down versions. Give you a basic idea of the character, and get on with the story

Why are pirates called pirates?

OK, fair enough. It just seemed like you were dismissing my point because I hadn't justified his approach.

I'd thought the humanising, pauperising and downtroddening (if that's a word) was deliberate, to show that's what was happening to them in that society as they get replaced by other gods. I thought the McDonald's-style treatment was the whole point. But then, I hadn't really considered the mythological characters in the same way that I'd consider characters in literature like, for example, Pratchett. They were more elements of a time gone by to me than how you consider them.

And yes, using more words did help, thanks. Because, to be fair, you hadn't really justified your own point before this.

amelia: yo
i am a yoyo.

Chris: yes

My words, exactly:[quote:a2b3356c2e="Orrdos"]
So, for enjoyablilty, they are watered down versions. Give you a basic idea of the character, and get on with the story[/quote:a2b3356c2e] The story of watered down versions of not just some characters, but - hear, hear! - gods! For enjoyability! phew! If it seems all right with gods for you, I'll ask you again: imagine some author takes five of your really beloved characters from different books. Doesn't your soul writhe in protest?

[quote:f32410e38b="Candeleena"]My words, exactly:[quote:f32410e38b="Orrdos"]
So, for enjoyablilty, they are watered down versions. Give you a basic idea of the character, and get on with the story[/quote:f32410e38b] The story of watered down versions of not just some characters, but - hear, hear! - gods! For enjoyability! phew! If it seems all right with gods for you, I'll ask you again: imagine some author takes five of your really beloved characters from different books. Doesn't your soul writhe in protest?[/quote:f32410e38b]

Well, sometimes you've got to balance readability against making it a carbon copy of things.

It's the same with film adaptations of books. They need to be different to the book to make it work properly, otherwise you'd get a film 3 days long.

It's unrealistic to think that Gaiman could put gods into a novel and make it work without trying to simplify it a bit.

I'd suggest that reading mythology books is what you want if you want to know about gods in depth.

American Gods is basically just a novel, a story woven together using some mythological elements and characters. It doesn't make any claims to grandeur or to be a definitive reference on gods.

I enjoyed it, and I enjoyed the mythology in it. It gave me a rough idea without being bogged down.

I also have to point out, saying things like "American (in the negative sense of the word)" isn't going to endear you to anyone, being the slightly racist statement it is.

Also, patronising sarcasam is never cool. Unless it's me thats posting it.

Why are pirates called pirates?

[quote:e89828de03="chrisjordan"]

I'd thought the humanising, pauperising and downtroddening (if that's a word) was deliberate, to show that's what was happening to them in that society as they get replaced by other gods. I thought the McDonald's-style treatment was the whole point. But then, I hadn't really considered the mythological characters in the same way that I'd consider characters in literature like, for example, Pratchett. They were more elements of a time gone by to me than how you consider them.[/quote:e89828de03]

Thats where I saw it. Okay they weren't the fully throng amzing mythical creatures they once were (and appear in mythology) but I saw that (as you stated as a negative aspect, Candeleena) as a very real and strong comment about American culture and how they like to condense things . So in a way these gods have become a mirror of the way Aerican culture has progressed.

I may be stretching it, but it's arguable.