As someone who has read neither Sandman nor noticed much hype around the book, I might not be the ideal person to respond. However, I think that the book certainly isn't overhyped - at least not in England where I bought it. On the other hand the "if you did not find it at least as good as Stephen King you get your money back" offer is a bit eyecatching....

I liked the book. But if I am honest, I liked Stardust a lot better, and Smoke and Mirrors was also great. But in tone, American Gods is too similar to Neverwhere - both books are very surreal and just too Roald Dahl for my personal taste. And to be quite honest, the "gods walking on earth" theme sounded a bit familiar (having read "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul" by Douglas Adams and "Odds and Gods" by Tom Holt)

Still, a good book. I'd recommend it to anyone with a taste for the surreal and twisted...

Regards

Ikarus

I'd tend to agree. American Gods is a good book, a decent read, but I don't like it as well as I did Neverwhere or Smoke and Mirrors, and certainly not as much as Sandman. But you can't expect every mountain to be an Everest. If you get a pretty good read out of a book, consider yourself lucky. And AG is a pretty good read.

I have not yet finished the book, but I really think that it's a much more mature work than Stardust and Neverwhere (not to mention that it's much scarier...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lord of Nothings:
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

---

I think American Gods is better than Neverwhere and Stardust, but thats not saying much. An exchange between me and one of my fellow Sandfans last night:
Me (as Neil): "I've just written on of the greatest comic series ever, considered a masterpiece of modern literature. So what do I do next? Write crappy fantasy novels!
Me (as me): He went from being great literature to becoming a second-rate Steven King.
Friend: And that's an insult to Steven King.

Look, I know it sounds insulting, and I know I have no right to critisize because I'm not yet a published writer. But it annoys me that something as awesomely wonderful as Sandman gets followed up by halfway-competant fantasy novels. The only bright spots are Smoke and Mirrors (which I love) and American Gods (its kinda Steven King, but I like Steven King).
I am now in a school where many people discuss this regurally, and most reach the same conclusion as me. They all like Good Omens, though.

The (rambles on) Floyd

I haven't read American Gods yet. But, having just finished Neverwhere I've become intrigued by Mr. Gaiman's characters and am anxious to travel along with a few more.

I picked up Neverwhere at a bookstore while visiting Chicago last weekend. The reason I bought it was because of a "blurb". I originally had chosen "The Lion the witch and the wardrobe" for some light afternoon reading at Navy Pier. However, as I was walking past the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section I noticed a small note taped to the shelf in front of "Neverwhere". The note was in fact a brief review of the book by an employee of the book shop. While I certainly understand that hype sells, I generally tend to prefer the opinions of "real" people when deciding which book I want to buy. So who cares if it's overhyped? I think it's as much fun trying to figure out why these other authors might write such overblown things about each others books... :-)

Blinn

I never know how to respond to your vehemence against all Neil's work since Sandman Floyd. The thing is, I wind up doing things that aren't fair to you like factoring in your age, and I don't mean that in an insulting way, because I'm not impuning your intelligence (although I do think at times you seem a bit too concerned with making sure that everyone beleives you are intelligent, and you are, but that's understandable at your age... eventually you'll learn that intelligence, well, I don't want to say its not all its cracked up to be, but I'm starting to realize at this point in my life, just 8 or so years beyond you, that it's not the be-all-end-all I think I tended to think it was), but I can't help but feel, perhaps unfairly to you, that some of your reactionism (my view) against Neil's stuff since Sandman is a result of working too hard to avoid any sentimental attachment to him because of the esteem we hold him in after Sandman... and, in that way, perhaps also a way to try to prove your intelligence. Now, I recognise that sitting here, reading your posts about this and thinking this way isn't 100% fair to you, because despite posting back and forth and talking a few times on AIM, I don't really know you, and it might be unfair or unwise to try to bring my view of your psychology into play. I'm not a trained psychology major, let alone a psychologist, and if I were, a purely textual relationship would be insufficient for diagnosis, and I don't mean to sound like I'm attempting that. In fact, quite the opposite, I'm getting these thoughts off my chest to admit my biases in my concern for the basis of your feelings about this stuff.
Having said all that, let's dive into why I think you're wrong... Stardust was not an epic work. It was a charming work. It was a fairy tale for grown ups. Neverwhere was, in many respects, the director's cut of a miniseries that went badly awry, and Neil wanted to set it right. So, neither of these pieces was strictly intended as a novel. However, in my view, both still work as masterful stories, and successful novels, because of their success in completing what Neil set out to do in each case. When it comes to American Gods, I can't help but feel you and other people are damning Neil for what he does, and damning him for what he doesn't do. I hear some people criticizing Stardust and Neverwhere for not being serious enough, not being epic enough, whatever, and the same or different people criticizing American Gods for returning to the grounds that he developed in Sandman. Well, they're different. They both use mythology though, and mythology almost by definition is unoriginal, and is going to cross its own paths. It's Neil's genius that he does so in a creative and original, non-derivative way. I havent gotten around to reading Nabakov yet (he's on my shelf, I'll get to it soon I promise) but from what I understand, much of his genius was how he managed to reference so many different sources at once while remaining original.

Now, you mention Stephen King, and Stephen King is a tough spot for me... I have such mixed feelings about his work... I have loved the Dark Tower since I discovered it 10 years ago, and have reread the first three books 2 or 3 times (read the fourth when it came out, loaned it to a g/f who kept it for a while, read it, then disapeared for 2 years, and I'm not asking for it back now)... I read the Stand shortly thereafter, and at the time I liked it a great deal. Since then, I think I only read two other books, Needful things, a few years later, and Insomnia, about 2 years ago... The thing about King is this... he's a really good writer, one of the only such in the top selling ranks as far as I can tell (of those I've read, etc). But I don't think he's a great writer necessarily, mostly because of the structure of his writing. He gravitates towards these simplistic worlds, with simplistic evils, polar magnets that take the nuance and subtlety out of the world, and in my opinion, thats one of the things that most weakens his books. The Dark Tower is both the ultimate example and the ultimate exception... the man in black, the wizard, they're more or less cartoonish evils (well, maybe not the man in black, he was better, more mysterious), but the gunslinger, hes a complex hero, not a nice man, a downright asshole fixated on his goal at any cost... a bit like morpheus actually, in some respects.... willing to let jake fall to pursue walter. He has an edge to him that I can't think of appearing in any of King's other protagonists, or even his other villains (again, of the ones I've read... I still want to read eyes of the dragon, as i've heard its good, and theres probably others). I don't really think American Gods is at all like Stephen King, at least not like any i've read, because it has interplay between characters and plots, ideas and histories, a complexity and nuance that, while only time will tell if it is relevant and timeless literature, I think we can all enjoy as one of the best books of the year, and maybe as one of the best in a few years... It's hard to get at my feelings for this, and we could probably sit down and pore over every page of the book going back and forth, and I don't know if it would be easier or harder to find the words to convey these thoughts when grounded in the concrete rather than the general, but I want you to think hard Floyd, not just thinking critically about what you read, but also thinking hard about the basis for your criticism.... It's easy to get caught up in a point of view and defend it to the end of the earth, and we all will and do do that sometimes, but it can be very hard to honestly and without prejudice evaluate things freshly... it's probably impossible, and even if you do you might still feel the same, but its something to remind yourself to at least try...

quote:

---

but I can't help but feel, perhaps unfairly to you, that some of your reactionism (my view) against Neil's stuff since Sandman is a result of working too hard to avoid any sentimental attachment to him because of the esteem we hold him in after Sandman... and, in that way, perhaps also a way to try to prove your intelligence.

---

I agree. I am not a fan of hero worship, and the obession I have with Sandman scares me in many ways. I do want to avoid any sentimental attachment, which is hard. And yes, often I do try to prove my intelligence. However, that dosen't change how I felt about Stardust and Neverwhere. I did not enjoy Stardust. I don't remember enjoying it at all- not even on a silly level. I honestly felt cheated. Same for Neverwhere- i like parts of it, but after I read it I said "thats it?"
Part of my vehemence is in response to the praise both books get- praise that I feel comes partly because of Sandman. I did not like those books, and I feel the need to defend my position. Some of it is adolescent pettiness- feeling good because I am different. I will admit that. It still dosen't change the disappointment I and others feel.
Oh, and I don't hate all his post-Sandman works. I enjoyed AG. Read it in two days and really liked it. I think its overrated simply because it does not deserve its overblown praise. I also love Smoke and Mirrors. I don't think I've made that clear, but its one of my favorite short story collections. Classic stuff.
I've been jumping around, so i guess i'll tie this together somehow. Basically, I was disapointed by Neverwhere and Stardust because of how attached I am to Sandman. My age does have a bit to do with how I express it, but that does not change how I felt about the books. I should be less vehemant in my critism, but I have always been outspoken with my opinions- especailly when i feel let down or when i feel people are succumbing to hero worship.
This does not mean i wouldn't get tounge-tied if I met Neil. It just means i'm excersing critical judgement. I'm also defending myself too much, so I'll stop.

The (needs to explore the Roland/Morpheus connection further) Floyd

Lord of Nothings, here's something that you may want to consider in your opinion of Neil's writing: he started out writing comics, and is now writing novels. They are two VERY DIFFERENT kinds of writing. Is it any surprise that people like his short stories better than his novels? Short stories are quicker, easier to write than novels. I think he is learning to get the hang of writing a novel. AG shows great progress from Stardust and Neverwhere, I think. I believe that at some future date, he will write a novel that is the equal of Sandman.

A few things to contribute, some of which have already been mentioned in pieces at least.

First, in defense of Stephen King, read Storm of the Century. Yeah, it's a screenplay and so it's kind of like only listening to a movie, but it has a great deal of depth to it. Also, his latest book, "Dreamcatcher," and his latest collection of short stories, "Nightmares and Dreamscapes," play around a lot with a lot of moral themes, leading one to question just who the good guy is and what makes a villain villainous.

Secondly, I was priveleged to get a galley of American Gods, so not ready for print that the epilogue consisted of five sheets of paper and the last paragraph was hand-written. Also included was a rather long letter by Neil describing the journey that lead him to make the book. In any personal writing of his I've seen, he seems humble. Of course, until I read this letter, I'd never read something relatively exclusive. Only a few hundred of these letters were ever made and I received my copy rather by accident, so if there was a time for bravado, this was it. He basically just said that he'd had this idea for a long time and that he was pleased with it. That was the most glorious word he used, "pleased."

In my humble opinion, if the author is pleased with his work, I am pleased for him. Whatever clunkiness may have infected the book, I'm glad he enjoyed writing it and I, for the most part, enjoyed reading it.

I agree with what was said- that he's just starting out novels. However, jsut because an author is pleased with his work does not make it good.
In defense of Steven King: The Dark Tower. Simple as that. No other defense needed.

The (when will he finish it?) Floyd

Wait, LoN, are you saying that Dark Tower is the only King work you like? well, I know you said you liekd the stand... and I thought you liked the green mile (which i havent read, but I saw the movie and though I found it enjoyable, and well made, I still don't like the nature of its portrayal and stuff.... ) plus, as spike lee said when he spoke at my school, there's all htese new movies now that depict black men of somehow supernatural power, and yet, tis a power they seem to use only to help white men... they also "nobly choose to sacrifice themselves in benefit of the white man" or something, which really hearkens back to the ideas of the loyal house slave and stuff... Obviously its dressed up differently, but Lee mentioned in particular Green Mile and Bagger Vance, which I haven't seen, and I had to admit he had a point... Anyway, sidetracked here, but I dont get how the dark tower's mere existence is "defense" or stephen king's career. I mean, I like it too, but we all like Sandman, and you still express woeful disappointment with Neil, and seem to feel that Neil doesn't hold up favorably to King... I don't think referencing the existence of something is much of a defense LoN :-) How about responding to the points I made, I'm curious to hear what you have to say, as I think its an interesting topic and I'd like to hear counterpoints...(and, yet, I guess I'll have to check out Dreamcatcher and N & DS, but I have a lot on my plate first, and I'm looking more for discussion and defence of work I know... oh, I've also read Different Seasons, which I liked a lot, and didn't suffer from the problems I talked about, possibly because the storues wasnt supernatural in subject matter... I wonder if i've read any other king I'm forgetting? hmm....

I didn't say I didn't like any of King's other work. I'm simply saying that if someone percieves him as just a "silly horror author" than the Dark Tower will change that perception. I shall respond to the rest of your points later in the day.

The(i will) Floyd

I dont believe in blurbs.
I trust in what my friends like, and go on from there. If I like it the author sticks in my head. I also like to try someone else out too.
Way way too many books out there!

Though sometimes I find it annoying when the author of a blurb sticks in my head.

While I did in fact enjoy the book, I am forced to agree that it is most deffinatly getting more hype than it's earned for itself...at least in my miniscule little opinion. (Was that a double negative....hm, no, it sounds right...but maybe because it's been said so much and it is in fact incorrect, the 'miniscule little' thing i mean....it's like saying little little)

I have to agree to a certain extent. Some authors, entertainers, artists, etc reach a level of acceptance where everyone will crown them without apprehension (Madonna anyone? ick) But this is said perhaps with the belief that the recipient is sitting back and puffing their chest, saying ‘I get It!'

AG, on its own, is entertaining and introspective, so lets enjoy it, if we do. Lets not become products of that boring, repetitive culture that states - if something is much praised, its over-praised.

IÂ’ve labored through many different novels this year - mostly out of a stubborn refusal to just quit. I didnÂ’t feel that for a second reading American Gods. I finished it in 3 days. That, to me, states its seduction. A story that finds you succumbing without effort to a tale that is undeniable, even when you try to be above it somehow.

And I donÂ’t care if you all said you hated/loved it. I wouldnÂ’t waste my time reading it, if I wasnÂ’t enthralled

OMG-someone else saw what I felt. I liked American Gods BUT it seemed so much like Stephen King that it was funny. Just the whole aspect of the guy in the prision losing his wife and then her cheating on him and coming back from the dead. The several different sex scenes that were described in perfect detail also managed to add a Stephen King feel to the book. I love Neil Gaiman though and I own all of the Sandman books PLUS dream hunters PLUS AG and Stardust PLUS a Delirium shirt (they have sandman shirts at hottopic.com) But, sorry Neil, American Gods was a bit dissapointing.

OH! and did anyone else notice the cameo by Delirium when Wendsday and Shadow were walking along in San Francisco. I don't remember the exactt quote but Shadow sees a girl with multicolored hair who had a dog on a string-Wendsday then gave her money and told her to buy dog food. Did anyone else catch that?? e-mail me DramaQueen12@aol.com also if u know any information about ways I can meet Neil Gaiman

My feelings about American Gods can be basically summed up in two sentences:
1.) As an artist and a writer, comics will always carry more power because they use both forms of expression.
2.) Neil's still getting the hang of novels.

I /liked/ American Gods very much, but it will never have pictures to spark the half of me that is creative visually, like Sandman does. And, I felt American Gods took too long, and the conclusion wasn't very satisfying. It wasn't epic enough-not that I'm particularly sure it was ever going for epic.
It wasn't a failure, nor was it bad. It just is what it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DramaQueen912:
e-mail me DramaQueen12@aol.com also if u know any information about ways I can meet Neil Gaiman

---

Go to a signing/convention/talk/appearance/etc. He's very nice, and quite gentle, even when he rebukes you for spending far too much on something.

-=- Saint NightWalker -=-
Patron Saint of the Sinning

Okay, I don't know where the rest of you are getting this "hype" thing from. All the reviews I've read and the praise for AG that I've seen has been because I've actually made an effort to look for it. It's not like the endless drone of commercials on the TV for the next "big" Stephen King book. Stephen King is overrated. 80% percent of his books SUCK. I've seen Insomnia mentioned once or twice here, you cannot even tell me you enjoyed that book. I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck I made it through the damn thing. His style is stale and it always seems to me like he's writing to an audience of thirteen-year-olds. Where as Gaiman is, well, he's everything the blurbs say.

Another strong point Gaiman has over King is his ability to move from one medium to another, his Flexability. Gaiman has been a journalist (a faily good one from what little I've been able to read.) He did Sandman with very little previous comics experiance. He's done TV (has anyone seen the Neverwhere show?) and movies (Princess Mononoke was AMAZING!) he's done short fiction and children's books and novels. And King? Do I have to bring up Maximum Overdrive? Ugg.

Stephen King is the MOST over-rated author in the history of literature (though I admit, I have found one or two of his books interesting. And yes, I've read a bunch of Stephen King books, mostly when I was a kid and actually liked them, upon later re-reading I've found that The Stand is the only one I really like.) Honestly, I can't see how anyone can make a comparison between these two authors.

"American Gods" is the first Neil Gaiman book I've read. It's also the first book I've read in a long time that I had trouble putting down. I loved it!! I don't think it is overrated at all. Neil and this book deserve the praise they've gotten.