I believe that the two simply can't be compare. I think that they operate is different genre. I will admit that I have read more King then Gaiman however what I have read of Gaiman has been very interesting. Good Omens was a wonderfully funny twist on an old tale. American Gods - was also delightfull in the use of old legends and fables.
Taking the stories of our childhood and entertaining us with them as adults takes talent. Gaiman reminds me of the village storyteller that would pass on the lessons of our ancestors. I hope that everyone that reads his work can get something out of then just a good read. American Gods brings to light some very complex issues including religion, belief, and faith. Perhaps others don't share my thoughts, but I am sure many will say that they enjoy the story.

Hate King


Like Giaman




"I keep a sketch pad so that I can draw my own conclusions..."
Metamorpheus

Like King.

Love Gaiman.

King, I think, writes quite good stories, but most are not terribly deep stories. They are there more to entertain than to make you think or feel. (There are exception to this, including the Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and his Gunslinger series). King himself has acknowledged this. He once said, (sometime during the 80s), that his novels were the litereary equivilant of McDonald's. This has changed somewhat as he's gotten older, and his style has matured, but it's still true, for the most part.

Neil, on the other hand, always seems to have a purpose and focus behind his stories, even when it's fairly light stuff. And there are almost always deeper meaning and thoughts behind his words. For that reason, I like the comparison of him to the village storyteller a lot, I think it's a very fair and true comparison.

Also, just a comment: you haven't read Neil until you've read the Sandman series. The things you will find in there are truly mind blowing. He truly takes you on a trip through imagination, myth and legend. It will surprise you, delight you, make you laugh, and there are several moments guarenteed to make you cry.

To my mind, Sandman is by far the best work Neil has done, and although I'm a fan of King, it blows all of his works out of the water. (Even those I mentioned above).

In the end, I think King has talent, and the potential very good stories when he's on the ball. (And good ones even when he's not).

Neil, in King's own words is a "treasure house of stories," and has the potential to write truly great, moving stories.

-
James

Larger than life is the perfect size

Knight of the Amii

Consort to Amy of the Lost Ark

The one place where I think they can be quite favourably compared is in their short story writing.

Well, if we hear any inspirational power chords, we'll just lie down until they go away.
-Giles
__________
AJGraeme

... apart from The Shawshank Redemption, his work has never interested me...

He's certainly a mature writer with control over his craft, but his ideas, themes and execution of said themes leave me always disappointed...

Neil, on the other hand, writes on themes that have an emotional importance to me, and his writing style is always poetic...

... okay, sometimes he disappoints me too, but he's been consistently good since Sandman...

I place him among my favourite writers: Borges, Cortazar, Calvino and Moorcock...

To Absent Friends...

I like them both. I just picked up King's latest, "The Wolves of the Calla" which is the 5th of 7 books in his Dark Tower cycle.

Yes, King has written some "junk food" but he writes some incredibly moving and powerful stuff too. The Dark Tower books in particular I think are deep. And "The Stand" is right up there too. What's also interesting (to me, anyway, in a geek way) is that King has stated that most, if not all of his books connect to the Dark Tower in some fashion.

But it all comes down to the blurb on the back of American Gods: "Gaiman is a treasure house...we are lucky to have him" (Stephen King)

I'm a long time fan of both authors. Probably for the same reason.. both write excellent stories, create well developed characters, some for whom one can develop a great fondness. I have to disagree with Ronin.. there's alot stirring beneath the waters in many of King's stories.. he does get unfairly branded as popular fodder.. but so did Dickens and a great many other authors in their day.

S fhada an gladeth bho lochodha

well the fact is that they ARE compared ;(
which is sad.

My American Gods copy has a big green sticker on its cover, proclaiming it to be "AS GOOD AS STEPHEN KING OR YOUR MONEY BACK".

Now what the purpose of that is, the Gods alone know. Are we supposed to send it back to the publishers with a note, Sorry, I really liked this book, much more than I liked The Shining, now I'd like my 13 euros back?

Also as a way of attracting people's attention I'm not sure it entirely works. I suppose the people they want to read Gaiman's work are people who read Stephen King, Michal Crichton, and other popular novelists who aren't usually accused of literature. But there are plenty of people out there who would love American Gods, but who shun aforementioned authors, thinking them inferior. I was going to recommend AG to my dad, who is really into mythology and surrealism, but he saw the green sticker, and said, You're sure reading trash these days...

Re: Stephen King vs. Neil Gaiman, the BIG difference is that in his universe King NEVER
has any redemption of his characters no matter how noble, good and righteous they are. Gaiman at least has some of his characters attain salvation. Please note that this salvation isn't
strictly based on the type decribed in the Bible
rather it is a deliverance from their past wars,
demons, travails and suffering.

I dont think thats true, AKM. In most of the King books i've read (The Dark Tower, Green Mile, The Stand) the characters get something of a reward or, as you called it, redemption. Sometimes its not so obvious. John Coffey ends up getting the electric chair, but remember that he wanted it, that he just wanted to lean back into the folds of reality (or god's hands, depending on how you look at it) and die, to get away from the horrible world. to me, thats a redemption of sorts. Roland and his ka-tet are, obviously still on their way to the Tower (cannot wait till november!! oh god the time is so draggingly SLOW), but no matter what they encounter there, from the way the sereis is going, they will all find something there that theya re looking for.

Now, as to my stand on this: I've read King far alonger than I've read Gaiman. I admire and am a huge fan of both of their work. If you ask me, the two are, in a lot of ways, equal in talent and vision. And although King says that his tories are purely for entertainment, i think he sells himself a little short on that account. If you look, and if you want to look, there can be jsut as much revelation and magic in King's stories than Gaiman's. Neither is better than the other, and in comparing them, theyre jsut better at waht precisely they do. Neil Gaiman is likely to replace King as the top American (not to mention HUMAN) author once Dark Tower is finally published and digested with a satisfying 'ahhhh' by fans who've been waiting since the 70s for it, but persoanlly, i dont think i'll notice too much of a difference

The end of It is one huge catharsis. Same with The Shining. Much of King's fiction is informed by the sure and certain fact that there isn't a one of who's earned redemption, and that the universe isn't beholden to give it out to us.

In probably his best non-fiction piece, "Last Run on the Ladder," a man has managed to move on from his friends and childhood and has found a sort of redemption in anonymity, only to find that even that has its price.

Redemption is a rare currency in Gaimanland as well. Why is the writer in The Gift so especially cursed by the Devil? What did he do to deserve it? As far as we know, absolutely nothing, it's just what the Devil's decided to do, nothing more.

I've never read any of King's novels, but I have seen movies based on his books, but I know enough to know that King and Gaiman should not be compared. Gaiman writes a majority of Fantasy, King is more of a Horror/Suspense kind of guy from what I understand. Of course, I'll always say Gaiman is better, but that's only because his stories sing a special song to me.

Anybody read Kim S. Robinson's "The Years of Salt and Rice"?? It's a totally different type
of work but very apocalyptic. I wonder what would have happened IF Weensday had triggered
Ragnarok/Gotterdammerung.

I'm kind of disappointed in King because he's letting his magnum opus descend into gratuitous pop-culture references, and heading towards some crazy self-referential loop too. Still awesome books though, but it'll be like my McDonalds' fries are going a little cold.

On the other hand, I don't think Gaiman has ever let me down; his stuff is constantly surprising and new.

At the begining, King played with the paranoïa and the primal fear of men. Gaiman is more spiritual in his writting, in his story board. I prefer Gaiman, it's more my style.

Hmm...I've only read two books by Stephen King, Dreamcatcher and From a Buick 8. Dreamcatcher was awesome. But I like Neil Gaiman a lot more. He's just a genius! I'd like to read more stuff by King though. For some reason American Gods kind of reminds me of Stephen King's style...I don't know why...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Artemis:
I dont think thats true, AKM. In most of the King books i've read (The Dark Tower, Green Mile, The Stand) the characters get something of a reward or, as you called it, redemption. Sometimes its not so obvious. John Coffey ends up getting the electric chair, but remember that he wanted it, that he just wanted to lean back into the folds of reality (or god's hands, depending on how you look at it) and die, to get away from the horrible world. to me, thats a redemption of sorts. Roland and his ka-tet are, obviously still on their way to the Tower (cannot wait till november!! oh god the time is so draggingly SLOW), but no matter what they encounter there, from the way the sereis is going, they will all find something there that theya re looking for.

---

Oh, i disagree. There's been dark foreshadowings since the first story; the world is unravelling; now its more metafictional; all of them, Roland especially, have commited many sins; now the ka-tet is breaking (like the Fellowship in LOTR; note the Palantir), perhaps temporailly.... whatever happens at the end, it may not be happy... but it will effect the entire Kingverse

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duskrider:
I'm kind of disappointed in King because he's letting his magnum opus descend into gratuitous pop-culture references, and heading towards some crazy self-referential loop too. Still awesome books though, but it'll be like my McDonalds' fries are going a little cold.

On the other hand, I don't think Gaiman has ever let me down; his stuff is constantly surprising and new.

---

I think Gaiman's new stuff isn't as great as his old stuff, but I haven't read 1602 yet... where if Doombots show up, and somebody says "hey, those are Doombots, only they look stupider then Doombots", it'd make sense in context.

I like Doombots, but not wimpy Doombots with wireless modems and wolf heads... and i don't like the implication that the ka-tet is against some kid mucking with realizy to match his favorite shows. King's used the concept before; comic books have used the concept before; the JLA cartoon used the concept wonderfully; but IT'S BEEN DONE.

heh... comparison between King and Gaiman: both harboured, at one point, an intense desire to write for Marvel. Neil got to, but King is left sneaking bloody Doombots into his stories (and real Doombots would have been smarter and more powerful, since they're more like Doom)

BTW, what are we comparing here? If you compare "American Gods" to "Desperation", its better. If you compare it to "The Shining", its about equal.

If you compare Sandman with the Dark Tower series, you'd need King Solomon himself to get me to choose one

another comparison:

King: references Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, 50's rock, the Rolling Stones

Gaiman: refernces Tori Amos (who's cover of "Thunder Road" ended when she forgot everything after the second verse), a bunch of goth bands, Elvis Costello, They Might Be Giants

*looks up* King wins this round, but its just personal preference