<brief hi-jack>

Imajica is being rereleased in a "revised and illustrated" paperback version (kinda... the illustrations are in the back of the book with a new appendix) by Harper/Perennial.

Street date is August 6th.

______________________
-=- Saint NightWalker -=-
I have the heart of a child.
I keep it in a jar on my desk.

I have just finished American Gods and I went to www.neilgaiman.com as soon as I was done. You see I am a new fan of Mr. Gaimans and I have recently been buying his work as often and as quickly I can afford to do so. I have read (in order) Stardust, The Sandman series, and now American Gods. My response to whether American Gods is overrated is this:

Newspapers will always make sensational quotes for books (especially when they are as good of a book as AG) but when authors such as Stephen King and Peter Straub lend their praise you must know that there is a very strong likelyhood that it is, genuinely, a gift of a book.

In short all I'll say is that AG has left me with a different glace at the world through Gaiman's pen that is lingering. I hope it continues to do so. Because Mr. Gaimans worlds are so fantastical that I am disapointed when I wake in the morning and find the world the same.

I just realized something - who cares about the newspapers or the attention AG gets? Look at all the fans! We speak louder than reviews...

I just finished AG as well and I agree with LoN. It is a good, well-written book, but not something that would be considered a "classic" for years to come. It is not really a work of genius. Just a good book.

I had the same impression of Neverwhere. However, I think Mr. Punch is a classic and I'm sure the Sandman comics are ($200 for all ten paperbacks! *screams*), but I have never read them.

Going right back to the first post, While I agree that maybe the whole thing with American Gods is getting out of hand (though it did win a HUgo), its not gettin half a over rated as One THousand Years of Solitude. I've started it six times and each time come away with only the feeling that if I could have some of the stuff theat Garcia Marquez was on when he wrote it, I might manage to finish it. At least AG isn't getting praise for unreadability...

------------------------------
'I'm insane. What's his excuse?'

"100 Years of Solitude" is completly readable... and maybe its just my chronic insomnia, but the book made sense. Sorta. And even when it didn't, it was so beautiful that it didn't matter...

You know, I've read Flann O'Brien and James Joyce and still didn't get half as confused as with 100 Years of Solitude. And Flann O'Brien is extremely weird.

------------------------------
'I'm insane. What's his excuse?'

I don't know where in the firy pits of the neitherworld this book gets all this enormous praise. I have found that many think this is the best thing sense flavored potatoeships.
In order to be a jest critic one must understand the genre, and in what medium the genre is rendered. It has been rendered in novel form, and to this I must say there lacks eliments to the writer/reader relationship. Now, don't get me wrong -- I know that there seems to be a lack in this area with most, if not all books, yet I descovered American Gods to contain one of the basic no-nos, which is to fluff. What I mean by this is to add things in with little to no rime or reason, things that don't really lead anywhere exsept as a latter patchwork in events that require aid of one type or the other. As a rule of thumb with good story telling these aids should not be basicly pulled out from the ass (so to speak). And these aids should have multipul designs, perhapes one substantaly important. The trunk thing in this book was a prime exsample of pulling it off good and proper - the rest sheer fluff.
I'm not trying to confuse these aids which are desguised as oddities as charcter quarks, or things that add continues life to the story.
It was as though little things were blown up to a big whoptodo. Like the hammer to the skull. I fail to see why Giaman felt compelled to take it to the extent in signifigance he did. This is repeated through out the book
And then...there is the ending...like a reflection of what proceeded : a big build up to nothing. It's as though Gaiman was saying : I don't really know how to pull it off so I'm going to make it as painless as possiable with one quick jerk.

Anyway.....there must be one nay sayer in the crowd, and I'll take the stance. Fourtnatly this work of muck did'nt converte me into a Giaman nay sayer. He redemed his self with Coraline. And he softened the blow with Neverwhere, both of which are sublime masterworks (favoring Corline).

Um, I think maybe you need to go into the mythology of the gods involved - anything you do or promise to the gods, you get held to. What is a simple game of chequers with Czernoborg becomes a debt to be paid. Same for most of the rest of the book. Theres a reason to everything in the story if you look back to the sources. Like Sandman, subtle things can be significant. There is very very little fluff in the novel if you know the mythologies involved.

------------------------------
'I'm insane. What's his excuse?'

Yes, it is a book that requires you to research what you're reading.

“This library has something offensive to everyone. If you are not offended by something we own, please complain.” - Dorothy Broderick

I pefer not to read reviews about books. there was this one novel, but I can't remember who it was written bye or anything, but on the back there was a quote from Earnest Hemmingway, which is amazing because it's Hemmingway, saying that, "This is a thought provoking novel. . ." but the REAL quote was something like, "This is a thought provoking nove, but it lacks in all character and metaphorical development. . ."

So basically what I'm trying to say is this: Just read the book! Don't worry about silly reviews.

Thoth - what you read then was a blurb, not a review. Very different things. Yes, I always ignore blurbs (well, I'll notice if Neil wrote it, but I won't buy it just for that)

I'm wondering vaguely what happened to Comrade Eldritch. It seems to me that he signed on for the pure purpose of making derogatory remarks about American Gods, and then left. Anyway, this strikes me as a forum with no end. "Was the book good?" Is this a question that can ever be answered? Or is it based entirely on personal opinion? For my part, I loved American Gods, and I do think that upon rereading it one will discover that all of the seemingly unimportant things are vital to the story, but I did find certain parts of it to be tedious. It is not a perfect book, but then, what is? Even the Sandman has its occasional overly pretentious moments and needlessly long passages(As Iduck to avoid weapons and fruit thrown at me).

quote:

---

Originally posted by phool2056:
I'm wondering vaguely what happened to Comrade Eldritch. It seems to me that he signed on for the pure purpose of making derogatory remarks about American Gods, and then left. ...(As Iduck to avoid weapons and fruit thrown at me).

---

Eldritch last posted April 4th. There have been several people who came here specifically to complain about the book, and that's valid. I started a thread in the Thoughts About Gaiman forum specifically for complaints. (LON and the BEAR are two more posters who aren't fond of his recent novels)
You really shouldn't have to worry about having weapons thrown at you for saying something isn't perfect

I find his opinion entirely valid, it's just that, as far as I have seen, he hasn't ever really given valid reasons for his dislike of the book. What's more, I vaguely miss having someone on the forum who disagrees so strongly with me and isn't too polite to use sarcasm against me.