I liked American Gods. It was a good book, entertaing, had some truth in it. But i don't think it deserves some of the praise its getting. The book jacket has someone saying "not reading American Gods is like never having tasted an orange." That praise was, I think, originally applied to "One Hundred Years of Solitude" and is complelty inappropriate for American Gods. Many of the other reviews also praise AG way too highly, in my opinion.
Anyone else aggree? Disagree? Bear in mind that i like American Gods- i just don't think its pure genius.

The(respond!) Floyd

Hmmmm...that's the thing, isn't it, about reviews and opinions? They're so subjective. One man's American Gods is another's One Hundred Years of Solitude (though why the reviewer had to lift the quote, if he did, is beyond me).
I really enjoyed AG. Is it the best thing I ever read? Well, my opinion as to the best of anything changes so often, I can't really say. Probably not, but it depends on the mood I'm in. Is Neil Gaiman the best author I've ever read? Maybe, but I read so many genres, I don't know if I can even say that.
Is the book over-rated? Maybe. Maybe some people think it's under-rated.
Interesting discussion that really has no answer--but it's fun to debate!

I think the book is quite possibly the most unique I've ever read. The originality leads to overblown reviews perhaps. Probably not the best thing I've ever read, but I would honestly have no idea how to compare it to anything else.

I don't usually pay attention to blurbs so this may be way off... but aren't those quotes at the back of books usually exaggerations or over-statements?

Is American Gods over-rated?

By whom?

You have your opinion ... I have mine.

You obviously (and rightly) value your opinion, and I value mine.

What matters is the concensus of informed opinion developed over the fullness of time.

And ... in *my* opinion ... the balance of informed opinion will rate American Gods as one of the *seminal* works of the early 21st Century.

YMMV

Colin
--

Well, they say you havenÂ’t made it until youÂ’ve had a proper backlashÂ…

well, this really isn't a backlash since there seems to be a consensus that AG is a well-crafted, enjoyable book. its more a re-assesment or a review, i guess.

I agree. There's not much disagreement that American Gods is a good book. I, and some others, just don't think its "one of the most mythic works of this age" or whatever critics have been saying about it. They seem to apply praise that should go to Sandman to anything Neil does. The "never having eaten an orange" quote cheapens what it the work that it orginnally praised.

The (likes this debate) Floyd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Celiaka:
Well, they say you havenÂ’t made it until youÂ’ve had a proper backlashÂ…

---

Yeah, and the Official Radiohead Backlash was beginning to run out of steam. LET'S GET NEIL!

(just kidding here)

(But A.G. DID seem kind of overlong to me.)

Having finished AG, I would have to say that it's the best thing that Neil has written post-Sandman. However, it still doesn't match up to what he did with Sandman.

Having read the "Kindley Ones Theory" from the other board, it's obvious that Neil has a great mind for thinking long term, for weaving a lot of different threads together. I'd like to see what he could do with a series, a plot that stretches out over three or more books.

As far as the blurbs go, I think their supposed to gush and say great things. I think a lot of people in the business say such hyperbolic things about Neil because he is a very talented writer, and a swell guy to boot.

I can't comment on AG yet as I'm waiting for it to arrive in the mail. However, Neil made a long comment about blurbs in his journal. You can access it in the archives, but I'll copy and paste here for convenience.

"Monday, April 16, 2001

The whole process of getting and giving blurbs is an odd one.

(Minor side note. If memory serves, BLURB as a word was created by American humorist Gelett Burgess (who also wrote the 'Purple Cow' poem). It means, basically, the puff stuff on the back of a book that tells you you ought to read it. The other word Gelett Burgess tried to introduce was "huzzlecoo" meaning, I think, to schmooze. It failed to catch on.)


I've met people who assumed that the whole blurb-giving process was one that authors were paid to do. Not so.


Generally blurbs mean one of two things; either the person giving the blurb really liked the book, or that complex networks of favour and obligation have been called into play.


It's seldom simple logrolling -- normally the reason why two authors say nice things about each other's stuff is that they like each other's stuff. But the process of getting something read, and of getting a quote can mean anything. It could mean that you have the same editor or agent or film producer as the book author, and they pressed you to read it. It could mean that the author is somone who did you a good turn once. And normally the favour is in getting the book read -- anything after that depends mostly on whether or not the reader liked the book.


A very few blurbs make a difference. Clive Barker's career was given a huge leg up by Stephen King's "I have seen the future of horror and it is Clive Barker" , and I think Sandman was given a huger boost than I ever realised from the Norman Mailer quote (although, oddly enough, DC has never run that on anything except SEASON OF MISTS). I doubt that they actually changed anything for either of us; they might have sped up processes that would have happened anyway, though.


Most of them probably don't do a thing. But in book publishing (as with movies) nobody knows anything. So they put them on the book jackets anyway and they hope.


Most successful authors could make a life's profession simply reading books and giving blurbs -- in any given week I get two or three books arriving with nice pleas from editors to read their book and say nice things about it. Also I get a couple of things from authors.


As to what I blurb... It depends a lot on what gets read, what I have time to read, whether it's something portable and booksized or a huge heap of paper, sometimes even if there's anything I have to say after reading something. It also depends a lot on whether or not I liked it once I have read it, if I did read it.


Sometimes I wind up reading something long after it's come out in paperback and just feeling faintly guilty, especially if I did like it a lot. But there is only so much time, and there's stuff I buy to read I never get time to settle down with...


It is good blurb etiquette, as an author, to say, if you cannot give a blurb, "I am sorry, I am too busy." This could mean that you are too busy to look at it, or that you looked at it and wish you hadn't.


It is not good blurb etiquette to do as an unnamed comics genius -- oh, what the hell, it was R. Crumb -- did when sent a reading copy of GOOD OMENS, over a decade ago, which is to write a several page letter to the publisher telling them not only how much you hated it but also imploring them not to publish it. (Or so my editor said. She didn't send me the letter, which I thought a pity, nor did she run it on the back cover, which I thought might have been fun.)


It is good blurb etiquette if you're hoping someone will blurb your book to send it to them (or have your editor send it to them) and then not to bug them, unless you're heading for the deadline and you want to politely point out to them that unless you get a blurb from them soon it won't be used even if they did like it.


It's lousy blurb etiquette to bug an author. Saying things like "Well, why don't you read a chapter and if that's okay write something nice -- one chapter, one lousy solitary chapter, is that asking so much?," and "Hey, no problem, if you're that busy I'll write the blurb, you can just put your name to it" are not usually ways to endear yourself to an author. (And yes, I've had both of them, and yes, I said no thank you.)


Because you're asking for two things -- you're asking for time, and you're asking for some kind of endorsement. Mostly in an attempt to try and tell people what kind of book something is, in a kind of abbreviated word of mouth -- "Gee. Maurice X. Boggs thinks this is an amazing book and Maurice X. Boggs is my favourite author, I should pick it up". This works best, I think, as a kind of positioning -- Stephen King tends mostly to give blurbs to things that adjectives like "Gripping. Relentless" can be applied to. He might enjoy reading a heartwarming novel about a funny skunk named Zonko and how he melts the heart of a crusty old widower... but publishers are unlikely to send him that book with a begging letter asking him to read it and to say something nice about it.


Some authors stop giving blurbs. Every now and again, I stop doing blurbs, and every now and again I stop writing introductions. (And last year I was extremely unimpressed when a blurb I had written was actually printed by someone as an introduction.) The hiatus lasts for a year or two, and then I feel guilty or someone asks me at the right time, and I relent.


Some authors don't relent. Harlan Ellison stopped doing blurbs years ago. If publishers start dunning him for blurbs he lets them know how much he charges by the hour as a readers fee to read the books, and makes sure they understand that there is no guarantee at the end of the reading he will feel moved to say anything at all, and in fact, he probably won't. I don't think any publishers have taken him up on this, which means that Harlan, as he takes great pleasure in telling people, doesn't give blurbs.


There are other problems with the whole blurb thing....


Once I was given a book by an editor I liked, by an author I liked. it was the editor's first major book. It was the author's first book in some years. It was a big deal for both of them. I didn't like the book. I wanted to, but I didn't. But I didn't want to let them down. So I wrote "When Thaddeus Q. Bliggins (not his real name) is writing at his best there's no-one in the field that can touch him" and felt that honour was satisfied.


My favourite how to blurb a book you don't like story was one my agent told me, about a writer she had at the start of her career, who was a good friend of A Famous Author, and was confident of his ability to get a blurb for his book -- and certain that with a blurb from a famous author his manuscript would immediately be snapped up by a publisher after a franzied auction. He handed over the manuscript to his friend, and the blurb came in. It was short, effective, enthusiastic... and entirely unusable, this being the early 80s, and the blurb being entirely composed of profanities, as enthusiastic as they were obscene. The book was never published.


For AMERICAN GODS, the books for blurbs went out to a fairly select band. Authors I thought would like it or respond to it who somehow seemed to map onto parts of the book.


For some of them I wrote personal notes to go with them. Partly because I know I respond well to notes from the author, and partly because it was fun to say some hellos. (In a couple of cases I even got to cheat and write a fan letter, or an "I've not seen you for ten years -- howthefuckareyou?" letter). For some I didn't. For a few people I sent e-mails. The others went out from Jennifer Hershey, my editor, or Jack Womack, the book's publicist at harpercollins (and a wonderful author in his own right).


And, as you've already seen if you're reading this journal, blurbs came in -- most of them accompanied by letters saying that they really really liked the book (just in case I was worried that they were only saying nice things about it from a sense of duty).


As the deadline for the book jacket to be finalised approached, we made a few calls to remind people. (I phoned Terry Gilliam, mostly because I like talking to Terry Gilliam, to discover that he was on holiday for two weeks somewhere far away from a telephone. So no luck there.)


(A minor anecdotal interruption here: in 1989 Gollancz sent Terry Gilliam a copy of Good Omens for a blurb. Somewhere the letter and the book got separated and Terry read the book assuming it was something he'd been sent as a possible movie... and now, twelve years later, he's gone on holiday having just finished the second draft of the Good Omens movie script. Proving that the world is an odd place, but not unpleasant.)


The blurb deadline has pretty much, I think, come and gone on American Gods -- if people say nice things about it now we can use it in the advertising, but they may have to wait for the paperback until people know that they liked it. However, one that I'll really try to get onto the hardback cover arrived out of the blue today, entirely unsolicited. Not just unsolicited but accompanied by a phone call reminding me that the party in question does not give blurbs.


"Gaiman's new novel walked in the door on Friday afternoon. By Saturday
evening I had eaten it in one gulp. AMERICAN GODS: alarming, charming,
even winsome; Gaiman: serially inventive, surprising, purely remarkable.
And, oh, is it well-written."

Harlan Ellison
16 April 2001"

Guess u all r right. Everyone got his own unique opinion. I just wanted to add, that I think this book isn't that great. It's not Gaimanesk enough. I liked Neverwhere much more as it comes up with newer ideas. The godswalktheearth-thing is nothing new in Neils books, so I guess the praise it received is to much. I loved the book, but on the other hand, I kinda enjoyed "the day I swapped my dad for 2 goldfish" more, cause it was more inventive (bit short though :-) )


In the end: Who cares anyway, Neil is the best fantasy-author around these days, and we all can call ourselves lucky, that we are able to read his works. Praise be to Neil and not to a specific piece of work from his hands.

Oh, and yes, the Sandman still keeps my mind rocking...

a good book or a great book?
i suppose you can take an entirely personal view " this book moved me, changed me, excited and challenged me, took my thoughts and feelings to other/better/richer places" or a world view - this story is unique in scope and writing, established a genre, and has near universal appeal; AG i think is not either of these, for me it's a good book, not great; the sandman stories are greater by far

I know not from good or great books. All I can say is that I enjoyed it very much. It made me laugh and mourne, and I cared about the characters (at least the main ones). Learned a few new things too.

I don't think that it's quite fair to say that AG has been over hyped up. The trick about is that Neil himself said that he sent AG to authors who he thought would like the book and to friends, so it's not like they were going to call it a piece of crap.

Plus, how many times, have you heard a movie hyped as "the funniest comedy of the year" and think to yourself wow, it must really be funny, and then look at the calendar and realize it's January 12.

The whole blurb thing is a mutual stroke fest, and I can't really say that there's anything worng with that, except when people say that "This book changed my life."

Exactly how? Did you quit your job as a Wall Street junk bond trader and sell all of your possessions and turn all of your assets to cahs and donate it all to fight AIDS or cancer and then moved to Africa to help fight AIDS?

Somehow I doubt it.

I understand how blurbs get written and I have nothing wrong with praise. But reading some of the reviews you get the sense that American Gods is a life changing Pulitzer Prize deserving masterpiece, up there with the classics of mankind. I apologize to all the fans, but I really don't think it deserves that. I've seen it compared to "The Stand," which fits the best. A nice, entertaining read with more depth than most fantasy/horror. Its good, its fun, its quotable, it is not up there with Twain or Maraquez or whoever.
Of course, it isn't as bad as many critics have said, either, but thats a different discussion.

The (yea, I like Steven King, okay?) Floyd

I don't really think that AG can be compared to the Sandman. Totally different medium. That aside, although I did enjoy AG, Gaiman's other novels are much more enjoyable. I never really related to Shadow as a real character, or felt for him for that matter.
Just my opinion, but I'm with the overrated side...

Personally, it isn't the best book ever. Nowhere near. Neverwhere is easily Gaiman's greatest novel. Sandman is his best work, easily up there with Shakespeare and G.K. Chesterton's "The Man Who Was Thursday". The plot was slightly stretched, whilst the ending was cliched and indeed anticlimatic, which I personally dislike. At times it dragged on, whereas Neverwhere and Sandman never let up.

I had heard such great praise for AG that I pre-ordered my copy on Amazon. My initial reaction to the book was...I like Stardust and Smoke and Mirrors more. However, I finally decided that AG was really entertaining and simply great reading. I liked it because it tought me about legends without boring me with dry facts. I also could identify with the story since I had been to some of the places he wrote about. In the end, I loved it because Shadow goes to Iceland, a country I was just in and adored. Too much hype for AG, probably. I may have enjoyed it more if I just impulsively bought it at the store. But in the end, as I said, most of the hype was well deserved.

IMO - Whether or not American Gods is a "great work" is something that will not be able to be judged for a long time - a lot of classic novels that are considered as such because of the impact they had on later writers, or the new developments they represented - not because they're necessarily enjoyable to read!
As for comparing AG to Sandman - It's a lot easier to stand out in comics as a "great" work - the medium is far younger, and the volume printed is less than with novels. I think that AG is by far the better work; it's both more polished & better developed. Sandman, taken as a whole, has its rough patches.
At the same time, I'm not sure that it's fair to compare the two. For me at least, I don't think AG *can* have the same impact on me that Sandman did. I was only 16 when I met it, and a lot more malleable, so AG is never going to have the same place in my heart that Sandman does.
IÂ’d be interested in what someone who had never read any Gaiman before thought of AG, thoughÂ…

Evie