I do accept that explanation. I've read almost all of Gaiman's published works, and I became attached to his writing because it wasn't predictable. A great ending where everything's wrapped up neatly typically isn't Gaiman's style. Things do get wrapped up… but not that neatly. Know what Imean? Maybe that made this story a little more unpredictable because I wasn't expecting Gaiman to end it like that. I'm not really disappointed in the book because of the ending -- it just kind of baffled me a little. I do accept the idea that it was Anansi's story to end like that... but for reason I'm not satisfied with just that. It seems too easy.

if you read death:the high cost of living, american gods, books of magic, the wolves in the walls,or good omens, you'll see the same kind of easy ending, and with a lesson learned. so it isn't anything he hasn't done before.

I suppose all those ended nicely (I have not read Wolves in the Wall), but there seemed to be a difference this time. I hate dwelling on this because it didn't really bother me... but those other books didn't have an ending that looked a couple years down the road to see how great everyone's lives had become like Anansi Boys did. Maybe it seemed more important in Anansi Boys, but I didn't think it was necessary. I usually love how Gaiman brings everything together at the end, and I thought it was great in Anansi Boys... but at some point it just seemed cheesy. I didn't get that in those other works.

I felt that for a Gaiman story, it was a bit ho-hum. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't a story that was bursting to be told. Daisy felt to me to be a character who existed purely for plot purposes, rather than a person (which is a surprise, because I think Gaiman does write people, and women, very well).

Fat Charlie - well, its an interesting idea to try to make your lead character very passive and a bit dull, but now its been tried, I can see why authors don't tend to do it.

In fact, I'm not really sure there's a likeable character in the book. Spider has some promise but then quickly gets out-of-character wildly in love with Rosie (who to be honest seems ho-hummy enough to plausibly be with Charlie - and the whole saving herself for marriage seemed to make the book badly dated even though it was contemporary...)

I really wanted to love this book, but I don't think it got much beyond not-minding it in places. The problem with writing a book whose predominant tone is humour is that you've got to be funny. Neil is capable of being very funny, but this usually works better when he uses humour to lighten a scene, rather than tries to be funny.

I would say with all honesty that I've enjoyed most of Neil's blog pieces more than this novel. And I feel bad for saying it, because flawed as it is, its still head and shoulders beyond anything I've ever managed to write - but knowing what Neil is capable of, it disappointed me.

Wodehouse is a hard person to pit yourself against, but I did honestly think that if anyone could actually pull it off, it might be Neil Gaiman. Instead, the novel felt like a better-written Ben Elton...

Having read the quotes thread, I'd accept that the bit with the dragon is wonderful. I very much hope that was invented and not a lift from somewhere, because it was easily the best bit in the book.

quote:

Daisy felt to me to be a character who existed purely for plot purposes, rather than a person (which is a surprise, because I think Gaiman does write people, and women, very well).

I agree. It seemed that Daisy started off (in Fat Charlie's bed and apartment) more interesting than she became at any other time in the book. She seemed to lose her smart cutesyness.

The story has wondeful imaginative peaks: not just the dragon, but all the part of the caves, the Bird Woman, and the disquieting menacious presence of the birds when Charlie and Spider run away through different parts of the world; but the characters are not complete, you can't really feel affection for them despite of the four ladies. The four ladies work, and I have the impression that Gaiman had a lot of fun describing them. They are real to me. While Spider, Charlie, the girls just fade, becoming more ghost-like than Maeve Livingston.
I wouldn't say that all the other works of Gaiman have a easy "happy" ending. Sandman ends with a death. There is the heavy, sad presence of a loss, close to a blind idea of justice. Coraline... Coraline is simply the best novel by Neil, because it remains on a threshold of safety (but you know that danger is quite close). There's a resolution, but somehow something it is suspended, there is still time for belief: think of the epilogue of American Gods, of Shadow talking with the real Odin and the feeling of something that still has to happen, despite of the end of the story. That is great. So Neverwhere (what will happen to Richard and the Marquis cat-in-boots?).
AG was more and more imaginative than AB, and maybe "less" complete: you have the sensation of many interwoven stories that you would like to, but can't really follow, because that was Shadow' story at last. But I don't see this as a limit. You have more pain, sacrifice, "horror" - it was more human. Here you have a completed, well written and nice story and if you didn't know that Neil wrote it, you would think of it just as good. But there's no real depth, it is as if you were allowed to look at the caves from an edge, and yet not able to explore them.

...Think of the lime and - no I'm going to open a thread on that.

hi...

AB was my introduction to neil's work, and i just finished it last night. having become a slave to the internet lately, i haven't read much of anything at all in the past few years and was introduced to this book accidentally after i offered to attend a reading/signing as a favor to a friend in the service.

this being my only reference, i can't compare it to any of neil's other books. this is also the first book of this "genre" that i've ever read, so i don't have that perspective either.

that said, i frequently found myself practically leaping off my seat with joy because i was enjoying the experience so much and on so many levels. i can be annoyingly critical about picky little details, but i had no problem accepting anything that happened in the book. well, that's not completely true - i found it strange that charlie and daisy got engaged so quickly and easily. (and i laughed at myself for noticing it, considering all else that had taken place!)

anyway, i had no problem with everyone ending up at the same place. it made perfect sense when you consider the 500 people thing, and the idea that the world is a web, and that we're all connected on various levels. as for the timing of the feather-giving that was mentioned in another thread, my mother always used to remind me, "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear". FC would not have known what to do with the feather if he'd had it any earlier - or worse, he could have misused it and really messed things up. he had to take the hero's journey to discover his true self, and the placement of this detail was logical and right.

i don't know how the other books ended, but i liked how this one wrapped up all happy-like. going through the book, i often had a feeling of safety because i had the impression that neil loved all his characters and would treat them fairly. spider was a huge pain in the ass, true, but he wasn't an intentional jerk - and he had a good side that just needed to be discovered. fat charlie was a bit dull on the outside, but that was just the first layer. i could totally identify with him, and i liked the fact that neil loved him too.

i'm a little disappointed to learn that the humor is much more present in this book than the others. very rarely did i get the feeling that it was forced. (and i hate forced humor!)

there were a few very minor annoyances during the last chapter that i can't quite put my finger on. and one major one that might have been the cause of my distraction: on page 316, rosie says to spider, "only, when i was in the dark, i thought that you were helping me. That you were keeping the animal away." and then later on page 323, as if she just now thought of it, she says, "you're going to think this is silly of me." and repeats the thing about helping her in the dark again.

i have to think that's an editing mistake, and totally forgivable, but right now it's still bugging me.

other than that, though, i enjoyed it immensely. if the others are 'much better' - as others have suggested - then i can't wait to start AG and the rest.

nice to find this board, too!
~chris

I've just finished Anansi Boys!

Criticism, well considering that I've just finished it, my main criticism is that it ended too quickly. I was all ready for a big fight with the bird woman, which didn't happen and I kind of felt she gave up on Spider and the whole bloodline thing a tad too easily.

I wanted more from the Tiger too, especially as he goes on and on for a few pages about how Spider's going to die this terrible death, then he gets bitten by a few spiders (ok, so there was a whole army, but the way it was written was a little too quick for me).

It might be the way I read, I tend to just read books quite lightly the first time, just finding out what happens and not really letting any of the ideas settle in that deeply.

I would have liked a little more of the old ladies too, I enjoyed their banter a lot.

I didn't mind Daisy at all, and thought she was an OK character. Spider kind of got a little washed-out as soon as he put his tongue back in.

Rosie, I agree, was a little too dull for me to believe that anyone like Spider would ever fall for her. I wanted someone with a little more spunk, perhaps someone that Spider had met his match with. Although I could perfectly believe that she would fall for him, I didn't see what attracted him to her. I would felt that he would hold her in the same regard as he did when he went into Fat Charlie's job for the morning, a kind of play thing of sorts.

But, other than that, I enjoyed it anyhow. I liked Fat Charlie, and thought that his transformation thoughout the book was enjoyable and fun. I also liked Graham Cotts too, well, I enjoyed not liking him!

All in all, 7½ out of 10 from me. Something I'd read again, but not in a long while.

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Pack:
the whole saving herself [Rosie] for marriage seemed to make the book badly dated even though it was contemporary...

More than dated, to me it was such an obvious plot device. To make Spider's seducing of her look worse, probably. I would have appreciated some explanation (like religiou/moral resons or a promise made to a dying granny, something). At points I thought Neil was getting "soft" (ie, it was obvious they were not in love really and would eventually see it and break up, and hought maybe he felt having them shag without loving each other would be "bad")... I don't know the reason for that, really.
And the engagement between Daisy and Charlie, I agree, that was too sudden.
(I suppose both things fit with the Wodehouse comedy thing some were mentioning, but I never really felt that wasthe spirit of the book. It was there, certainly, in moments, in some characters, but not as an overall thing. I'll just have to read it again though.)

On the whole, I loved it. It made me laugh out loud many, many times, I loved the way the characters spoke (the dialects, I could hear them in my head so clearly, which doesn't usually happen to me, being foreign and all.)

Hi,

My first post, I have read the thread and I like everyone's ideas they are all well thought out.

I just finished AB last week. After reflecting on the novel i find my self debating the last few chapters of the novel. I kept expecting a twist to the fate of Fat Charlie or development of the Daisy character. Maybe a direct tie in to the gods or an oedipial tie to Spider and Fat Charlie's mother to build ties to the cyclical nature of folklore. It wondered if the book was finished in a hurry. The ending was by no means bad! It only seemed rushed.

The only criticism I have for this book is that i feel the female characters (especially Rosie and Daisy) do not have enough fleshing out. Indeed, I felt they were at times interchangeable, and used more as "objects of affection" than real people.

The happiness ending is consistent with Wodehouse, and also reminds me of "My Man Godfrey", a thirties screwball comedy.

*tries to imagine Rosie's mum as an object of affection*
*fails*

quote:

Originally posted by GMZoe:
*tries to imagine Rosie's mum as an object of affection*
*fails*

I really thought that Charlie and Rosie's mom were very similar. They're both boring and safe except that Charlie was a less progressed case. Really the only reasons not to like Rosie's mother are the same reasons not to like Charlie. Charlie is more easy going but if he were to progress unfettered he'd mature into the male version of Rosie's mother.

The question is why do we like Charlie? Seems to me all the characters have their faults and the root is the same for all of them, selfishness or single mindedness. The only change in their manifestations.

Drunk, not so much selfishness or singlemindedness, but characters who are out of balance. Everyone needs to have both risk/safety, active and passive, etc, in themselves or their life becomes stale.

quote:

Originally posted by GMZoe:
*tries to imagine Rosie's mum as an object of affection*
*fails*

Isn't there supposed to be someone for everyone?

Someone once famously said, about how to write a story: "First, get your protagonist in hot water. Then get him out." Done.

And regarding happy endings, etc.: the genre here is comedy, which does not automatically mean "funny," but humour can be incorporated. I cite Northrup Frye: The entire purpose of comedy is to start with a happy or "normal" situation, shake up the status quo or contradict society's norms (ill-fated love, mistaken identities, etc.), and resolve with an improved version of life--frequently including marriage(s).

Seems like AB is a comedy, while AG is a romance (not that kind! more like a quest, even when folks die; it was Shadow's quest). It worked very well for me.

Hi.

I got a bone to pick with Gaiman. ok, there's that expression again... it implies *I* have to provide the picking bone. Got an old turkey wishbone I've been saving for one of my nephews, but it's spoken for. Why a bone? Sure, be glad I don't have a walrus oosik or bat placenta to pick, but it still doesn't explain the bone picking thing.

ANYWAY...

Thus quoth the JIK (that's me, I'm The Ineffable JIK, so don't even TRY to eff me): "This was unfair. It was only a lime; there was nothing special about it at all. It was doing the best it could."

FIE, SIR! FEE FIE! FEE FIE FOE, FUM!

IS WHAT!

FIRST of all, in case no one TOLD you, a limey may take a lime for granted, but in the REAL world, ALL LIMES are special!!!

I'm not going to enumerate the virtues of limehood when that task would be better served by botanists and historians and all manner fruit oriented academics. Ok, not all manner perhaps, but certainly most. I *am* going to do what *I* do best - rant endlessly about the obvious.

The lime in question is the only lime in the story. Special. The only lime that consorts with the son of a GOD. Very special. The lime that wins Daisy's heart. AN AMAZINGLY SPECIAL LIME! A lime that resonates with the color of the fedora that marks the passing of the songbook of web and line, and THAT is PRETTY DAMN LIMERRIFICLY SPECIAL!!!

ALL limes are special, the lime in question was EXTRA special, and I TYPE ALL IN CAPS BECAUSE ONLY TRUTH RESONATES IN CAPS! Lies just look stupid in caps. Truth looks stupid in caps as well, BUT STILL RESONATES!

alakazam, is what!

Finally, please note that the lime in question did indeed do the best it could, its best was suffiicient, and it ultimately saved the day. And the book.

I really enjoyed the implied but unstated coconut that invariably (thanks to Harry Nilson) accompanies the lime.

It's also nice that Harry Nilson shares a last name with the monkey in the suit who lives with Pippi Longstocking. But of course, that's a given.

What ever happened to that Pippi chick? Did she ever get married and have dangerously wacky little redheaded kids? Someone go dig up that Swedish guy and ask. I'll wait here.

AND PLEASE CEASE TO MALIGN LIMES! THANKS IN ADVANCE!

Neil doesn't read the boards. If you want to send this to him, send it via the FAQ line on the main page (NOT the Message Board FAQ, which is just another forum on the boards that Neil doesn't read).

I think the only thing that upset me about Anansi Boys was the ghost lady intercepting Tiger before he could kill Rosie and her mom. I would have bought it if she'd been more like Shadow's undead wife, but the incoporeal nature of her ghostliness made that kinda hard to buy. Otherwise, I had no complaints.