Okay, it's a given that most of us here are fans. However, is there anything about Neil Gaiman's work or writing that you don't like? A technique he uses too often? A certain style of writing? The names of his characters? (If it's the latter: How could you?!)

Quite frankly, it's been a while since I read anything he wrote that I liked a lot. 1602 didn't do anything for me, nor did Mirrormask (although that was mainly due to the directing, I think). However, even in the books that I *really* like, I think he's better with short, episodic narratives than with long, sustained stories. It's the detours and small stories that I tend to like more than the overall story arcs. That's one of the reasons why I didn't particularly warm to American Gods, I think.

Well, as you say, it's a given that I love his writing, or I wouldn't be here on this board. But my one complaint is that he "gives away the store" too much. He puts in intriguing little things, but then often will also provide the background or explanation himself. I find that a little bit deflating and vaguely anti-literary when it happens.

I guess maybe he could have a wider audince if the books didn't become SO gross and horrific occasionally.

Hehe, I think his audience would be different if the text wasn't gross and horrific in places. Some of us actually like that about him.

I dont like that there isnt more of it.

I don't think I've ever read or watched anything by Neil that truly supreised me..IE made me go "Wow, I never expected him to write somethting like THAT!" I love his work, but it does all seem to folow the same themes and style.

I've just read Fragile Things, and while I can't quite put my finger on what I don't like about his writing, I think Mutate's got it pretty much right - apart from a few of the stories that I really liked, most of them were just plain old Gaimanesque, with nothing intriguing or new about them.
The ones I really really didn't like were almost like a bad fan writer trying to pastiche his style...

Well, I've only read the intro to Fragile Things, which was enough to move me to tears. The paragraph beginning "As I write this now..." Wow.

But he does use 'and' an awful lot. With adjectives that seem kind of weird together, but strangely work. It's a cool device, be he does it a whole lot.

For example: "Stories, like people and butterflies and songbirds' eggs and human hearts and dreams...."

Well those are nouns, but you get the point

I think the "fantasy-meets-reality impacting protagonist-and-love-interest-relationship" bits in the various novels are all just a bit too similar for my taste. I'd like to see that element set aside next go-round.

I know it's very human and character development and all, but it feels a little boilerplate at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by Ubiq:
I think the "fantasy-meets-reality impacting protagonist-and-love-interest-relationship" bits in the various novels are all just a bit too similar for my taste. I'd like to see that element set aside next go-round.

I know it's very human and character development and all, but it feels a little boilerplate at this point.

I have to admit, I don't understand this. Love interests? This isn't a common theme of the stories. Can you be more specific?

Shadow and Laura, Charlie and Rosie, Richard Mayhew and what's her name. All predictable, similar, relationships severed by the intrusion of Neil's fantasy characters in one form or another.

quote:

Originally posted by Ubiq:
Shadow and Laura, Charlie and Rosie, Richard Mayhew and what's her name. All predictable, similar, relationships severed by the intrusion of Neil's fantasy characters in one form or another.

Okay, got the Charlie and Rosie thing, kind of. But then, that relationship was actually doomed from the start, regardless of Spider and the supernatural because Rosie doesn't really love Charlie. Richard isn't in love with anyone, and certainly not the beautiful Jessica. Helping Door gave him the chance to break away from her control freakness. Shadow and Laura . . . hard to say. He really loved her, but she was having an affair with his best friend and she was the reason he was in prison in the first place. The supernatural only shows what's actually already there. Just my opinion though . . .

Good points. Character content and love meters aside, though, "fantasy-meets-reality impacts protagonist-and-love-interest-relationship" is still a formulaic Gaiman plot mechanism that needn't be in the next novel, at least in my opinion.

I'll agree with Ubiq -enough with the pattern.
What those relationships have in common is the 'what you thought you wanted isn't what you REALLY want/need at all'. I'll add Tristran Thorn and Victoria to that list. And in some cases it not only applies for the love relationships, but for the general lifestyle as well -Richard's job in London, Coraline's idea of parenting, the girl in MIrrormask who wants to brak free... Although I do love plots about characters trying to be normal and then realising they don't want to be normal after all, coz it fits my inner rebelliousness, it's getting a bit repetitive already.

There's more thing I'm becoing more disenchanted with, but I can't put my finger on it yet. I'll finish Fragile Things (which, btw, I'm not enjoying even a 3rd of what I thought I would) and think about it.

I can totally see what you guys are saying about: Richard & Jessica, Fat Charlie and Rosie, Tristran & Victoria. I felt like with Shadow & Laura it was a nice veer from the pattern, but I wouldn't mind seeing the next adult novel with a different set-up altogether (probably won't happen with the Graveyard Book, I'm guessing).

What's bumming you out about Fragile Things, Clover? I haven't had a chance to start reading it yet.

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one with these opinions, I guess.

I hadn't mentioned Stardust or either of the kid's books cited because I haven't made my way to those yet. I do have a lovely signed 1st Edition of Stardust gracing my bookshelf, though. Looking forward to it (and 1602, and continuing on with Sandman, and, and...).

quote:

Originally posted by The Scoundrel:
I can totally see what you guys are saying about: Richard & Jessica, Fat Charlie and Rosie, Tristran & Victoria. I felt like with Shadow & Laura it was a nice veer from the pattern, but I wouldn't mind seeing the next adult novel with a different set-up altogether (probably won't happen with the Graveyard Book, I'm guessing).

What's bumming you out about Fragile Things, Clover? I haven't had a chance to start reading it yet.

The only thing that the above listed couples have in common is that they are NOT all three respresentations of real love interests. Richard and Jessica break up right at the first of the book and then there is a whole wonderful story with no love interest at all of any kind. Charlie and Rosie are completely different: they have problems due to the fact that they aren't in love, and it's the supernatural intruding that helps them realize it. And Tristram and Victoria have no relationship whatsoever -- he wants it, but there isn't one. At all. And so again we have a whole great story with no real love interest getting in the way of what's going on. Tristram doesn't realize he in truth loves the star until the very end, after everything else has happened. So there isn't a pattern about love interests in his works.

What is the pattern is that Neil Gaiman writes about the supernatural intruding into this world. And that can and does mess up all sorts of relationships.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: the madness of queen monk,

The argument could be made that it's always the active and forward-moving guy who falls in love with the reactive girl, but that's a sort of weak argument.

The only thing I don't like about Neil's books are his children. They're all just too damned plucky.

I must admit I'm not that keen on his poems, apart from the one in 'The Kindly Ones'.

I like some of Neil's poetry. It's not all good and it's not great, but some are really good. He writes very story-like poems. The day the saucers came, I really thought was spectacular in that does describe that obsessiveness of waiting for someone to call. And I enjoyed that the events used are extraordinary but used to describe this mundane action of another person.

What I wish is that Neil would stop telling stories within stories. There are some stories in Fragile Things where I don't understand why there's a framing story at all. [spoiler]
"October in the Chair" has a really interesting concept, but I want to say that it's not even a proper story. I don't understand why I'm listening to the months gather. They sit around and argue a bit about precedent and tell tales. October tells a story, which is a story but doesn't conclude it just ends, and then they leave. Nothing happens, nothing changes.

The story within a story device is one that he keeps using, and I wonder if it isn't sometimes just to fulfil a word count, rather than to serve a purpose.