Neil Gaiman

Discussion in 'NON PRATCHETT BOOK DISCUSSIONS' started by TheJackal, Jul 17, 2006.

  1. TheJackal Member

    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?
  2. Hsing Moderator

    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.
  3. TheJackal Member

    [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
  4. fairyliquid New Member

    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.
  5. Candeleena New Member

    [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.
  6. chrisjordan New Member

    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.
  7. Candeleena New Member

    Whatever.
    Doesn't justify his approach to mythology.
  8. Orrdos God

    Well, your well thought out argument has me swayed at any rate....
  9. chrisjordan New Member

    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.
  10. Candeleena New Member

    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?
  11. Orrdos God

    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
  12. chrisjordan New Member

    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.
  13. Candeleena New Member

    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?
  14. Orrdos God

    [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.
  15. fairyliquid New Member

    [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.
  16. Candeleena New Member

    [quote:2e3d1cb43a="chrisjordan"]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:2e3d1cb43a]But mythical characters ARE part of literature! They are at least as real to readers as e.g. Rincewind, and go beyond it as some people actually BELIEVE they exist (-ed). I wouldn't make a difference here. It's not possible to speak of copyright, but you can always exercise Respect.
    [quote:2e3d1cb43a="chrisjordan"]And yes, using more words did help, thanks. Because, to be fair, you hadn't really justified your own point before this.[/quote:2e3d1cb43a] :D All right, I'll try harder next time, I just thought it was obvious.
    [quote:2e3d1cb43a="Orrdos"]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.[/quote:2e3d1cb43a]It's not racist but realistic. There are good and bad features of every nation, even if they are stereotypes. Polish people are wonderful because they (err....) are hospitable and courageous :?, and they are also stupid because they always argue and waste a lot of things. Also Americans are good and bad and if they feel offended by this it means they are even "badder" :badgrin:
    [quote:2e3d1cb43a="Orrdos"]Also, patronising sarcasam is never cool. Unless it's me thats posting it.[/quote:2e3d1cb43a]I'll lodge a complaint with the Equal Rights Commission.
  17. Hsing Moderator

    Hm. Isn't that what a lot of fantasy is all about - using old myths, without necessarily transporting them in all their depth?
    If that irks a reader per se, fantasy might be the wrong genre for him/her. Lets be honest: Not all fantasy is being written to educate us and hone our cultural senses.

    Besides that it's what happened to myths, no matter how highly regarded by some they might have been, all the time - being taken apart, and being used for new stories to be told. Cultural recycling is not necessarila a sign for a lack of respect. It can also be a sign for interest.

    From Candeleena:
    [quote:1a124a8295]
    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. [/quote:1a124a8295]

    That's a description of post-modern popculture here. I don't even think Gaiman would disagree being a part of this culture, and it's not evil per se. I think, consciously or not, we all do or consume it in some way. It brings a lot of not-so-negative things along, too: A lot of the fantasy genre, a lot of the movies we see, a lot of the cuisine we've come to like... And the problematic ones are, if at all (!) those who claim to be accurate descriptions of the truth: Galdiator. The da Vinci Code. Whatever.
    You can't blame that on Gaiman - he just tells stories, and they are labelled fantasy. He's not trying to sell it as entertaining history books.

    We'd all sometimes like to pretend that we all live of the finest, organic cuisine, in a very well mannered way, but few really do live that way every day. And everyone has their Pizza from time to time. That's popculture for you.
    Some say it's American, especially some over here, but it isn't; it's just the times, and it happens everywhere.

    And, well, what I've red of Gaiman was fairly intelligent, and that's worth a lot already.

    To the "typical American" - "argument": that [i:1a124a8295]"that's so typically American/German/Polish/insert whatever"[/i:1a124a8295], always has a bytaste of a serious offense just lurking around the corner, [i:1a124a8295]if [/i:1a124a8295]it is that far away at all. Relativating it by adding "every nation has their good and bad qualities, and this is a bad one" doesn't change the fact that you used being part of a nation or culture as a negative aspect per se. If that's not just grossly simplyfying, its what Doors described it to be.
  18. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    I haven't read Gaiman's book, so this comment may turn out to be worthless.

    A god, or any other mythological character, is a multi-faceted being. They are a character in a story or stories, that is true; but they also serve as metaphors, representative of certain archetypes, ideas or things. To see them only as characters in stories is a misunderstanding of what they are.

    For example, the Inuit goddess Sedna is the young woman whose father forbade her from being with her true love and drowned her in the sea, but she is also an archetype of forlorn and tempestuous youth, and she is also a metaphor for the dangerous, stormy sea. If I were to write a story where I wrote about Sedna as the sea, this would be a legitimate use of her name, a valid perspective on who Sedna is, and a proper use of her archetype. I shouldn't have to retell the story of her love, the seagull, and what her father did every time I mention Sedna.

    Furthermore, if I simply presented Sedna as an angry and resentful young woman, I would have lost layers of meaning, but the one layer that I used would still be a true one. It might be a bit flat or narrow for a reader who knew the Inuit legend, but it would still be a valid focus.

    Was Philip Pullman wrong in his portrayal of 'God' (in the [i:7b5f88ed67]His Dark Materials[/i:7b5f88ed67] trilogy) to use only certain archetypes and understandings? Perhaps he should have included everything that was ever written about the god of the Christians and Jews. Perhaps he should have included all the theological and philosophical debate of however many centuries. Or perhaps his narrow portrayal of God (which I personally felt missed the point in a theological sense) was perfectly suited to the story he wished to tell and the point he wished to make.

    To recap, a god or mythological character is a metaphor as much as a character - so, in my opinion, to use them as representative archetypes without going into their lengthy backstories is perfectly acceptable.

    Edit: correcting a word.
    Edit 2: clarifying which Pullman books I meant.
  19. chrisjordan New Member

    I know, I know. I wasn't criticising your view of the mythological characters. I was just saying that maybe our opinions on it are different because I don't know the myths they're based on as well as you do. So for me, they were more based on elements of the past rather than literary characters. But for someone who knows the myths well, it might be different.
  20. Hsing Moderator

    Posted on behalf of Garner, who can't access the site from work:
    [quote:04d86bb43b]
    "Anyone ever hear the one about the pollock, the jew, and the negro who stopped at a pig ranchers' place for a few days? No offense or anything. It's just a mythological story about how inferior the poles are to every other less-than-white-american minority.

    How about the one about the scot, the bus driver, and the suit-case? no offense or anything, it's just an observation on cultural stereotypes with no other purpose than to reinforce the negative view of 'foreigners'.

    Anyone ever hear the one about helios, mithras, and jesus? They all walk into a roman empire and get condensed in a very american way into western catholicism!

    Wait, shit, sorry... this 'american' tendancy to condense stuff isn't exactly american, now is it? I think I'll take a lesson from human nature and lump you all into a big condensed group, ignoring your individual qualities and making a big blanket statement: You're a horrible bunch of bigots.

    as for the disrespectful treatment of what may or may not be an abstract conceptualization of natural forces personified in a way to help make early man feel less alone in a cold, indifferent world under a blanket of far removed stars in a deep black night... let's take the analogy of all my favorite literary characters being pulled together into a book where they were treated badly by the new author... let's say they were misrepresented and not kept true to my personal notion/interpretation of them. would my soul writhe in torment?

    fuck no. I'd just not read the book and get on with my life." [/quote:04d86bb43b]
  21. Tephlon Active Member

    [quote:24584f9ed5="Candeleena"]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:24584f9ed5]

    I think Alan Moore might disagree with you.
  22. Maljonic Administrator

    I've only ever known one Polish person, and he would never say such a thing about any nation or people I think - so I must now assume that all Polish women are over-generalising xenophobes, and the Polish men are all laid back people of the world with a penchant for radio broadcasting...

    By the way I see little difference to what Gaiman does with gods in his stories and Pratchett, other than Terry changed their names.

    One of the things, out of many, that I do enjoy about American Gods, as a non-American, is the landscapes and descriptions of towns and lifestyles.
  23. Roman_K New Member

    [quote:b4d2c91d3f="Maljonic"]
    By the way I see little difference to what Gaiman does with gods in his stories and Pratchett, other than Terry changed their names.[/quote:b4d2c91d3f]

    Couldn't agree more. The only real difference is that Pratchett marks it down as 'parody', which is apparently allowed. Frankly, American Gods is also a parody in part. Not allowing the usage of mytho-relgious characters in literature a bit silly, really. They're more than just characters in a book.
  24. Candeleena New Member

    [quote:a8a7f5510a="Roman_K"] Not allowing the usage of mytho-relgious characters in literature a bit silly, really.[/quote:a8a7f5510a]
    Who would have thought how much fuss my opinion will raise! :badgrin: Nobody speaks of NOT ALLOWING, of course with freedom of speech and all that you can write a book about just about anything. On the other hand, readers are allowed emotional reactions - and I guess this is what writers hope to get. If people read and remain indifferent, that's failure. If they read and rejoyce - the author (and especially the publishing house) are happy! but if readers read and feel bad about something, and share the emotion with others, in marketing terms they provide publicity for the book and evoke public curiosity. Tell me honestly: has this discussion encouraged anybody to try and read the book? I think it has.
    The book is not bad, as I said the concept is nice,
    [quote:a8a7f5510a="fairyliquid"]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.[/quote:a8a7f5510a] this quote is very very true (thanks Fairyliquid!), and the only problem is that a particular oversensitive reader had a problem with the treatment gods got in it. Fair is fair. Read it and see for yourselves!
    Concerning national stereotypes (my opinion again caused a lot of hype for no reason). Well, ain't I allowed to say that there are some bad aspects of American culture? Must I always say "Americans are wonderful, oh the pioneerring spirit, oh, the space program, oh, Pizza Hut!" I'm not a xenophobe but I think political correctness is bullshit that does nobody any good. Mind you, I did not say "all Americans (excluding Gaiman who isn't one) are bad", (see this:)
    [quote:a8a7f5510a="Maljonic"]I've only ever known one Polish person, and he would never say such a thing about any nation or people I think - so I must now assume that all Polish women are over-generalising xenophobes, and the Polish men are all laid back people of the world with a penchant for radio broadcasting...
    [/quote:a8a7f5510a] I just said there are aspects of American culture that are perceived as bad by other nations. From the structure of my sentence it should be clear that there must also be some other aspects of American culture, and perhaps even some good ones! Does that really sound like a xenophobic statement?
  25. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    no, from the structure of your statement inherently implied that there is a strong negative quality to America and thus anything American. I'm american. I get teased about it all the time over here (I live in england, a country of primative backwards island savages.) but the important difference is, i get teased either by people who know me and are familiar enough that it has a different intention and impact, and when a stranger makes a humorous comment about an aspect of american life, he does not tar the whole country and everything associated with it using that same brush.
  26. fairyliquid New Member

    [quote:ac61e97fc8="Candeleena"]
    [quote:ac61e97fc8="fairyliquid"]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.[/quote:ac61e97fc8] this quote is very very true (thanks Fairyliquid!), and the only problem is that a particular oversensitive reader had a problem with the treatment gods got in it. Fair is fair. Read it and see for yourselves!
    Concerning national stereotypes (my opinion again caused a lot of hype for no reason). Well, ain't I allowed to say that there are some bad aspects of American culture? Must I always say "Americans are wonderful, oh the pioneerring spirit, oh, the space program, oh, Pizza Hut!" I'm not a xenophobe but I think political correctness is bullshit that does nobody any good. Mind you, I did not say "all Americans (excluding Gaiman who isn't one) are bad", (see this:)

    [quote:ac61e97fc8="Maljonic"]I've only ever known one Polish person, and he would never say such a thing about any nation or people I think - so I must now assume that all Polish women are over-generalising xenophobes, and the Polish men are all laid back people of the world with a penchant for radio broadcasting...
    [/quote:ac61e97fc8] I just said there are aspects of American culture that are perceived as bad by other nations. From the structure of my sentence it should be clear that there must also be some other aspects of American culture, and perhaps even some good ones! Does that really sound like a xenophobic statement?[/quote:ac61e97fc8]

    Frankly speaking there isn't actually anything wrong with condensing things in the first place and, like anything cultural, it varies. The reason many people disagree with American culture so strongly is because it disagrees with their culture and beliefs and is so often imposed on them unintentionally (or in many cases, odly, intentionally) through media or otherwise. It's just a difference of opinion though.

    I'm not terribly fond of a lot found in American culture but I think it is true to say that part of the typical modern life in the US, as is appears to those outside (at least), is that is that of fast food, quick fixes and a way of life that fits everything into small (condensed) time slots with things like adverts - short snappy comments - throwing info at people quickly.

    The fact that the Gods in the book have become trampled over and supressed by this modern culture leads to the question of whether it is a good or bad thing.

    I wont make a comment either way because there are a lot of amazing things in America...things we don't often see or hear about...but are more american than the image presented to us. Which is something that Gaiman presents to us as well...giving us both aspects - the modern advertised way of life of discarding the old ways from their days of immigration for Technology and ever changing ideas as well as the use of tradition in the more rural areas (e.g. the car on the icy lake).

    Gaiman does make the comments about society but he doesn't degrade American culture so much as presents us with a more true picture of their culture - a culture that could only really be seen by an outsider.

    Which is one of the aspects which makes the book so enjoyable.



    edit: crosspost with the garner/buzzfloyd entity

    Poking fun at America is often like poking fun at Doors or the French...it takes the stereotypes of that nation and uses them lightly. It's not a big deal until it is used as fact and not merely an interesting part of a culture.

    Many Brits though, I must admit, can be quite harsh to other cultures. Mostly it's just ignorance though. (I don't mean this in a harsh way)
  27. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    GAH! dammit, that was garner, not buzzfloyd... stupid shared computer...
  28. Candeleena New Member

    [quote:81674f0ad8="Buzzfloyd"]no, from the structure of your statement inherently implied that there is a strong negative quality to America and thus anything American. I'm american. I get teased about it all the time over here (I live in england, a country of primative backwards island savages.) but the important difference is, i get teased either by people who know me and are familiar enough that it has a different intention and impact, and when a stranger makes a humorous comment about an aspect of american life, he does not tar the whole country and everything associated with it using that same brush.[/quote:81674f0ad8]
    You're taking it too personally, Garner (I guess). People make jokes about Americans because it's such a visible country. Try and make a joke about a Mechovian (a guy from Mechovia, in the former Soviet Union) any ideas? No? You see, without knowing you can't tease somebody. (I made up the coutry, it doesn't exist)

    I personally realize that there's loads to be said about my country, and that much of it will rather be on the negative side, and quite truly. And what's so terrible about it? I accept it because it's true, and because I can't force anyone to like Poland.

    Don't you think that people tease you because you get so overexcited about it? what would be the point of teasing somebody who doesn't react? :roll:
  29. chrisjordan New Member

    What, so you mean it in a kind way? :p

    Yeah, I know...this post is slightly useless, but this is something that's appeared a few times in this thread. Adding a disclaimer like 'I don't mean this in a harsh way' or 'no offence or anything' is kind of pointless. If someone disagrees with what you say, they're going to take issue with it anyway.

    You may now resume your discussion.
  30. chrisjordan New Member

    Wait...what? When did this become about teasing?
  31. fairyliquid New Member

    heh, with that in mind CJ you could make an entire new thread about political correctness....
  32. chrisjordan New Member

    Only if I can sob for the loss of my sanity for its entire duration.
  33. Pixel New Member

    First - Clay and Grace - while you are sharing a computer, you could use the logout/login functions so that we know who is talking - you're identity is not totally locked to one computer!

    Candeleena's use of the phrase "American (in the negative sense of the word)" implicitly states that there is a positive sense - every nationality has its own negative views about other nationalities which show up in all sorts of ways - I cannot remember whether it was in Good Omens or was pure Pratchett, but I seem to recall a reference to British enterprise taking an American idea and removing the good part from it, such as removing the "fast" from "fast food" - there is an 18th century French quote that "The English have 60 religions and only one sauce" - the English are firmly convinced that the Germans have no sense of humour (although living in Belgium with cable access to German television I know this is not true - a different sense of humour, but not missing - I have not watched for some years but even not speaking German, I could follow a lot of it - some of the visual humour was in the Benny Hill style - Ingrid Steiger with her tits out helped) - a classic example of English stereotypical views are the old Airfix model soldier sets covering the Second World War - I don't know if they are still on the market - any British troops represented were always doing something militarily constructive, the German sets included dead or wounded figures and the only Italian set included figures with their hands up surrendering!

    The problem is that it is human nature to accept the good things that come from around the world as part of everyday life, but when something seen as bad turns up, then someone to blame must be found.
  34. Maljonic Administrator

    Thing is with me I just can’t stand to hear or see anybody make sweeping statements about a country or race of people, it’s one of the few things that really irks me. Candeleena, your sweeping statement about Polish people is just as irritating to me as the one about Americans, in fact the way you used it is doubly annoying to me. I hate it when people try to cover their insults by ostensibly insulting themselves straight afterwards: saying ‘Londoners are a bunch of twats, but it’s all right because I’m a Yorkshireman and they’re all twats too’ doesn’t diminish the fact that you’ve insulted Londoners, or Yorkshiremen at the same time for that matter, well not to me anyway. For me it’s akin to those idiots you see sometimes who start sentences off with, ‘No offence but…’ or ‘I’m not being racist but…’

    Now I’m not saying you’re racist, just pointing out that your sweeping comments about countries are a bit irksome to me, and obviously a few others, and that continually defending those comments by dismissal isn’t going to make you very popular, and that would be a shame.

    Anyway I like the idea of gods moving with the times, and new gods coming into being as old ones fade away. After all their mythologies are all products of people’s ideas and imagination at some point, they didn’t actually go blazing across the sky in chariots and weaving the universe from a spider’s webs, any more than they jump around inside the internet crashing computers and altering the Stock Exchange.
  35. Katcal I Aten't French !

    Bloody humans... All the same, they can never agree on anything and end up arguing about little things :D
  36. Candeleena New Member

    You're very easily irked, Maljonic. It isn't going to help you keep your popularity, which would be a shame :badgrin:
    The thing with sweeping statements is: sometimes I want to present a general view, not about one particular representative of a nation who is incidentally a lovely person, but about the 50 million of other people who happen to live in the same country. The statement will be unfair to lots of them, but still true to the lot of them as a whole.
    Really true or untrue- that's a philosophical question. What is truth? Truth is probably something many people agree on. There is no other viable definition.
    Now the origin of this partly unfair statement. Stereotypes are organic to human perception, our perception is BASED on stereotypes whether we like it or not. Our opinion of a person is reportedly based on the first seconds of contact (this opinion may or may not change later). Our opinion of a nation as a whole is based on what we hear around and what we learn from random contacts with representatives of the nation. These experiences are sometimes good, sometimes bad.
    If we dicuss the characteristics of a nation we invariably employ the stereotypes which form our perception of that nation. What else could we use?

    And now: why can't we speak of some negative things too, provided we do it in unexaggerated and polite way? Are we only allowed something like "Slightly unpleasant things please happen to Americans for their offhand approach to other cultures?" Can't I just say blantly that I don't like it?
  37. Maljonic Administrator

    Well of course you can, if you want to come off as a no-brained fool who believes the stereotypes are true - sweep away, just don't expect too many in agreement. :)
  38. chrisjordan New Member

    Wow...you know what, I was sort of following your argument, but now you've lost me completely. This is some really twisted logic you're going by, Candeleena. If a statement is untrue about a lot of them, that means it is not true of them as a whole.

    It's not even worth trying to have a discussion with someone who's trying to justify stereotypes. Yes, stereotypes will have elements of truth in them, but that does not mean they can be used to judge any group of people, in a general way or otherwise.
  39. Candeleena New Member

    Thanks! :D
    I don't crave for agreement, I just can't believe somebody here would object to such innocent opiniona as mine. 8)

    But we're off topic.

    Gaiman - I thought Neverwhere was rather good. What do you think?
  40. chrisjordan New Member

    ...you're insane. Quite mad. Stone bonkers.
  41. Candeleena New Member

    Oh, me and chrisjordan posted at the same time... "thanks" was to Maljonic, not you, of course!
  42. Candeleena New Member

    Who, me? insane?
    You believe your thinking is not based on stereotypes?
  43. chrisjordan New Member

    Ah, right. You seem slightly less insane now. My apologies.

    Edit: to clarify, this was meant in reponse to the post before the last one. Crossposting. Blah.
  44. chrisjordan New Member

    I'll admit that there's probably some prejudice in the views that I have of people, as much as I try not to. That's true of anyone. But only extremely ignorant people will try to use stereotypes to justify their arguments.
  45. Candeleena New Member

    [quote:6cbdfad59a="chrisjordan"] This is some really twisted logic you're going by, Candeleena. If a statement is untrue about a lot of them, that means it is not true of them as a whole.
    [/quote:6cbdfad59a]

    No, I insist that it's true
    1 individual --> subject of psychology
    10000 individuals --> subject od sociology
    Even if, say, 100 indivuduals behave or think differently to the rest, still as a group they will behave or BE PERCEIVED as behaving just the same as the crowd. And that's enough to form a stereotype.

    (which can support an argument)
  46. chrisjordan New Member

    And what if a statement is untrue about just under a half of them? Would you really say that it's still safe to make a generalisation based on that?

    And aside from that, stereotypes are rarely true of a majority. So stereotypes are not something you can use to make a valid point about a group of people.
  47. Candeleena New Member

    Sigh.. I think what we are doing is called "beating about a bush"
    let's stop it, OK? It doesn't really matter. Perhaps there are some people who would really prefer to say something intelligent about Gaiman.
  48. chrisjordan New Member

    Meh. I'm fine with that. And apologies to all those who were talking about Gaiman. But if you're going to make such bold statements, Candeleena, you have to be able to back them up. Preferably with something other than stereotypes.

    In response to your earlier question: yep, I liked Neverwhere. It was my kind of book, really. Nice and dark. :)
  49. Electric_Man Templar

    [quote:4cb77df53d="Candeleena"]Even if, say, 100 indivuduals behave or think differently to the rest, still as a group they will behave or BE PERCEIVED as behaving just the same as the crowd. [/quote:4cb77df53d]

    What?

    so if 100 people behave differently from everyone else, they will behave the same as everyone else?
    or, alternatively, somebody will look at them and say they behaved the same as everyone else...

    That is amazing logic! I applaud you! Bravo!


    edit: sorry, go back to Gaiman if you want, the only (co-)work of his I've read of is Good Omens. just felt i needed to say something there, even if I did crosspost horrendously
  50. Candeleena New Member

    [quote:15638b7b6b="Electric_Man"]

    so if 100 people behave differently from everyone else, they will behave the same as everyone else?
    or, alternatively, somebody will look at them and say they behaved the same as everyone else...

    That is amazing logic! I applaud you! Bravo![/quote:15638b7b6b]

    Just one more comment. I'll illustrate it with an example. We in Poland believe that Germans are an extremely tidy nation. When we go to Germany and see some dirty corners (work of the 100 untidy Germans) , we say to ourselves "a-ha! some Poles have been here" because our stereotype of Tidy Germans is too precious to lose

    If we want to discuss this further, why don't we start a ne thread somewhere?

    To chrisjordan: didn't it remind you slightly of Jonathan Carrol?
  51. chrisjordan New Member

    I haven't read any books by Jonathan Carroll, so I wouldn't know. Does he write quite dark stuff?

    (I'm personally loathe to start a new thread because this is just going around in circles, but feel free to do so if you want. All I'll say is that yes, there are good stereotypes as well as bad, ones which you might be proud of, but they're still liable to misrepresentation, so the fact that they can't be used to judge a group still remains.)
  52. Candeleena New Member

    [quote:835e2d52ce="chrisjordan"]

    I haven't read any books by Jonathan Carroll, so I wouldn't know. Does he write quite dark stuff?

    [/quote:835e2d52ce]
    Quite dark, and it's sort of warm and soft dark. In a way he develops his stories similar to Stephen King, like you always get a quiet neighbourhood, normal, lovely people. But then gradually something weird begins to happen.
    Not all of his books are good, though.
  53. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:582703615b="Candeleena"] Perhaps there are some people who would really prefer to say something intelligent about Gaiman.[/quote:582703615b]
    Well, I did, but you ignored it. I'm waiting to hear what you think about the idea that, since gods are more than just characters in stories, a narrowed or selective presentation of them is justified. I'm going to ignore all this other bullshit for now and just talk about the literature - but I'm not going to keep talking about it if you don't bother to respond.

    [quote:582703615b="Pixel"]First - Clay and Grace - while you are sharing a computer, you could use the logout/login functions so that we know who is talking - you're identity is not totally locked to one computer![/quote:582703615b]
    Excuse me, but [i:582703615b]I[/i:582703615b] have not made any posts under the wrong username! Clay is using my computer, which has my settings on it. Nevertheless, when he leaves it with his settings, I manage to check and change them. Clay, of course, is fully aware of the login/logout function, but sometimes forgets. He has made it clear every time he's done so. The fact that he has not simply posted as me constantly should indicate that we are trying to do this. Also, "your". :p

    [quote:582703615b] the English are firmly convinced that the Germans have no sense of humour [/quote:582703615b]
    Which English? Not this one.
  54. Katcal I Aten't French !

    Now come on Grace, that's not fair; we all know [b:c66ba66145]you [/b:c66ba66145]have no sense of humor either ! :D
  55. Hsing Moderator

    She does. Its just not that easy to decode for the unpracticed commoner. ;)
  56. Katcal I Aten't French !

    [quote:f0b20adf96="Hsing"]She does. Its just not that easy to decode for the unpracticed commoner. ;)[/quote:f0b20adf96]
    Said the German who obviously has no sense of humor either :D ;) QED

    (And I know she does, it's just as weird as mine ;))
  57. Candeleena New Member

    [quote:e11f42fea3="Buzzfloyd"][quote:e11f42fea3="Candeleena"] Perhaps there are some people who would really prefer to say something intelligent about Gaiman.[/quote:e11f42fea3]
    Well, I did, but you ignored it.[/quote:e11f42fea3]
    Oh you did? where was that... let me see

    Was it this? excuse my sarcasm then

    [quote:e11f42fea3="Buzzfloyd"]I haven't read Gaiman's book, so this comment may turn out to be worthless.

    A god, or any other mythological character, is a multi-faceted being. They are a character in a story or stories, that is true; but they also serve as metaphors, representative of certain archetypes, ideas or things. To see them only as characters in stories is a misunderstanding of what they are.

    For example, the Inuit goddess Sedna is the young woman whose father forbade her from being with her true love and drowned her in the sea, but she is also an archetype of forlorn and tempestuous youth, and she is also a metaphor for the dangerous, stormy sea. If I were to write a story where I wrote about Sedna as the sea, this would be a legitimate use of her name, a valid perspective on who Sedna is, and a proper use of her archetype. I shouldn't have to retell the story of her love, the seagull, and what her father did every time I mention Sedna.

    Furthermore, if I simply presented Sedna as an angry and resentful young woman, I would have lost layers of meaning, but the one layer that I used would still be a true one. It might be a bit flat or narrow for a reader who knew the Inuit legend, but it would still be a valid focus.

    Was Philip Pullman wrong in his portrayal of 'God' (in the [i:e11f42fea3]His Dark Materials[/i:e11f42fea3] trilogy) to use only certain archetypes and understandings? Perhaps he should have included everything that was ever written about the god of the Christians and Jews. Perhaps he should have included all the theological and philosophical debate of however many centuries. Or perhaps his narrow portrayal of God (which I personally felt missed the point in a theological sense) was perfectly suited to the story he wished to tell and the point he wished to make.

    To recap, a god or mythological character is a metaphor as much as a character - so, in my opinion, to use them as representative archetypes without going into their lengthy backstories is perfectly acceptable.

    Edit: correcting a word.
    Edit 2: clarifying which Pullman books I meant.[/quote:e11f42fea3]

    Very very valuable comment indeed, I did not ignore it - there was just too much commotion to answer carefully.
    You're absolutely right. To use a mythological archetype is absolutely justified and without using archetypes literature and in fact the whole culture would be completely non-existent. It's a different matter if you use the archetypes to twist their basic nature. Imagine using your Sedna in a story where she appears as a prostitute and gets killed in gang shooting. You immediately ask: where is the stormy sea, where is the forlorn love? Where is the romance and power? What have you done to such a beautiful, full-blooded character?
    I haven't read Pullman, so no comment there.
  58. redneck New Member

    Maybe the author wanted to destroy not only Sedna in the story but also our view of her. The author is god while writing the novel. One of my favorite radio comedians has a skit entitled, "The Midlife Crisis of Dionysus" is which the god of revelry and wine grows old and doesn't enjoy it anymore. It completely goes against the nature of the god to not want to drink all night and have orgies. It also goes against the nature of gods to get older. Yet he does both in this particular skit.
  59. redneck New Member

    [quote:a898ae18bb="Candeleena"][quote:a898ae18bb="fairyliquid"]I loved American Gods...then again I'm really big on mythology and that subject is right up my street...[/quote:a898ae18bb]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.[/quote:a898ae18bb]

    The writer of the skit I mentioned in my last post is very knowledgeable in mythology and literature. By reading or listening to the story one could suggest that the author betrays a very shallow understanding of gods, but that would be untrue. The story may not fit one's particular idea of who or what the god is, but suggesting that the author is clueless when it comes to gods only betrays the ignorance of that person.
  60. redneck New Member

    [quote:561f24dc62="TheJackal"]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?[/quote:561f24dc62]

    I didn't like the Middle of American Gods either. I did like the ending though. My favorite of his is Stardust. Next would be Neverwhere, followed closely by American Gods. I haven't read the rest of his books.

Share This Page