Neil Gaiman,

The premise of American Gods is delicious. The prose is perfect, the characters are real...this is why the ending broke my heart. I have admired you and your work since my brother forced me to read The Sandman. I was a creative writing major at the time (wince) and had been trained to read nothing but Nobel Prize winners, so I had to be forced. What I found, of course, was honest and beautiful, not to mention the best example of mythography I'd ever seen...but you know all this and don't need to hear it from yet another source.
After using "Dream Country" to lead my first classroom of high school students into Shakespeare, and thus becoming the coolest teacher EVER to bang erasers in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, I felt that I would follow you to the moon, Neil Gaiman. And, given the premise, old gods versus new, spiritual warfare and all that, I had the highest hopes that this new novel would be, as the book jacket describes, a "map back to dawn."
We need a book like American Gods. And we need it, frankly, from someone like you, not crusty old Gunther Grass or, worse, one of Oprah's minions. You, Neil, are hip enough to pull off hard truths. In case you haven't noticed, most people like looking through rose-colored glasses. Most folks would much rather sink into the forgiving cushions of their couches with Chee Tos and beer than stand on the edge of the roiling canyon of banality that our world is becoming. But they'd listen to you, because you are beautiful and cool and your characters are profoundly real.
Why, then, did you back away from all this with the ending? Did you think people would tag you as another Unabomber? Start circling your house in unmarked vans, searching for explosives? I was so excited about the war, Neil. I was ready for it. I wanted to see old fight new, I wanted to see Media sprawled on her face in the dirt. I wanted to see the Technical Boy report An Error of Type 2092, and fall in a spray of silver sparks. I at least wanted something more than a clever, but hollow, plot twist.
This said (and I am sure that hundreds of people will immediately draw their swords and leap to your defense as soon as they read this), I do think you do wonderful work. I am a writer, too, and you have inspired me more than I could ever say in a forum like this. I thank you for that most sincerely. Just had to get this off my chest.


[This message has been edited by Whitney (edited 01-16-2002).]

This isn't exactly me leaping to his defense, but just something to consider: The con-man bit was clearly foreshadowed. It was a huge, telegraphing, neon-sign that I didn't really catch until it actually happened. I had noticed when it was foreshadowed, but I didn't know what the foreshadowing was specifically talking about, and he quickly diverted attention elsewhere as has been discussed in other posts, much like the coin tricks.

The thing is, the con-game was so intrinsic to the characters driving it, that it would have been very odd not to do resolve it the way it was. After all, a war between the gods would have given lots of action sequences, but the current ending gave us a bit of insight.

Okay, maybe I am leaping to his defense.

=Brian

Brian,

Thanks for responding. I've never done the whole online-talking thing before. It feels kind of strange.

I agree with what you said about foreshadowing...and actually, I saw the end coming and hoped it wouldn't. English teacher, see. Predicting outcomes is chronic.

I think you missed my point, though. I was not disappointed with the ending because I wanted "action scenes." I was disappointed because I think the metaphor of the entire book suffered when the "war" turned out to be a con. I agree that the ending was clever. I just don't think it was as profound as the rest of the novel promised it would be. I disagree that the con-game ending provides us with insight...I think seeing what happens when ancient, timeworn spirituality wars with supercapitalism would have given us an insight.

That's what I meant. I hate action scenes.

whitney

[This message has been edited by Whitney (edited 01-16-2002).]

Fair enough. And I don't know if I'm ready to reply adequately, as I've not gotten to the stage of analyzing the deeper meaning of the book as of yet. However, let's see what I can do with my rusty 'in-class essay' skills.

Alright, one of the big ideas behind the book is that gods do not work in the traditional way while in America. In the old countries, they'd go and live on belief and have wars and the like. They've moved to America, and they tried to do what they did before, and it didn't work. They barely scrape by.

The new gods think they're different, but they aren't. America is a 'land of dreams and fire', and the power of belief is great and temporary. Continuing this way, they will end up just like the old gods.

Wednesday knows this, but convinces all of the other gods that it's not so, and that it's the new gods that are going to be the ultimate problem for them. In reality, Wednesday's trying to gain new power in old ways, and it's doomed to fail.

Shadow is the the first of the imported gods to start to figure it out. You need to work in a new way in order to thrive. The native mythological figures, like whisky jack, know this.

Now I'm going to abandon the threads of thought and just go with random thoughts. Shadow's the only of the gods to leave the country. He's no longer tied to the old ways. The old gods wouldn't listen to/can't hear the buffalo spirit, so they need to learn in a different way. And shadow is the messenger.

The symbolism of the final battle is that the old ways won't work, and that the new ways are not just to adapt the old ways to the new situation (such as the new forms of worship personified by the new gods). There is Another Way. And the gods start to learn, even if it's slowly.

All right, not all the pieces are there in my mind yet, and it rambles something fierce, but that's the basic gist of it. Thoughts?

=Brian

Nice analysis...were you an English major?

Anyway, I hear what you're saying. I get all this. I still think the ending copped out. I don't believe that what Odin and Loki did was designed to benefit all the old gods...I think it was designed to benefit Odin and Loki. I think they did it for fun, for one last hurrah. Let's not confuse Odin with Yoda...I don't think he's a teacher at heart.

Also, I have a problem with the idea that America is a dead zone for gods. It's easy to say that America has no soul, that we are so glutted with stuff we can barely move, and that we worship money and technology because they allow us to have more stuff. These things are true in part, but to say them is certainly no bold stance.

America sucks in many ways, but it's also vibrant and changing. I live here, and so do all of my friends, who are all brilliant and ecstatic people who are working hard to change things. Every day I teach roomfuls of students who want to see change. I also see students who drive their SUVS to school every day and will climb over any and everyone to get as much stuff as possible before they die, but you see what I'm saying.

Anyway, I have trouble with the idea that gods other than Media and The Technical Boy could not prosper here. What I'd like to see is an even battleground, and a real examination of what happens when the two ideas mix.

w.

American Gods was the first time Neil disappointed you? I was disappointed when I read Stardust. And Neverwhere. And Death: High Cost of Living.
I did think the ending to AG was somewhat silly. Its so... nice. Or happy. Or something. I really can't remember it.
Welcome to the boards. I feel a preasure to write better now that I've got a teacher lookin on.

the (still random) floyd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Whitney:
Nice analysis...were you an English major?

---

Thank you. No, I wasn't (Comp. Sci. and Psych.), but I've always enjoyed the whole writing/reading thing. The analysis would have been much better with supporting details from side items, rather than sticking with the main theme, but my grade's not dependant on it, so I skimped. Heh.

quote:

---

Anyway, I hear what you're saying. I get all this. I still think the ending copped out.

---

It's probably important to point out that I'm in no way trying to change your mind, since it determines the tone of the discussion. And if you're disappointed, you're disappointed.

quote:

---

I don't believe that what Odin and Loki did was designed to benefit all the old gods...I think it was designed to benefit Odin and Loki. I think they did it for fun, for one last hurrah. Let's not confuse Odin with Yoda...I don't think he's a teacher at heart.

---

Oh, definitely not. That's why, from a symbolic standpoint, Wednesday had to fail. He was acting selfishly and in the old way, so it couldn't work. Shadow, on the other hand, was the prophet of the buffalo spirit.

quote:

---

Also, I have a problem with the idea that America is a dead zone for gods. It's easy to say that America has no soul, that we are so glutted with stuff we can barely move, and that we worship money and technology because they allow us to have more stuff. These things are true in part, but to say them is certainly no bold stance.

America sucks in many ways, but it's also vibrant and changing.

---

Actually, I would say that this is one of the biggest themes for the book. It's not that gods can't survive here, it's that the magic is different. The new gods are powerful not because of their intrinsic nature, but because they are new. Americans like new things, and grab onto new ideas quickly and fiercely. After time passes, the idea fades. It can be a selfish idea, or it can be selfless, but it's not usually going to last forever.

quote:

---

What I'd like to see is an even battleground, and a real examination of what happens when the two ideas mix.

---

Hmmm. How do you mean, more specifically? After all, Norse Religion and the Internet don't really mix, except in the obvious ways.

=Brian

To the "Lord of Nothings:"

I am embarassingly happy that someone agrees with me.

That's kind of pathetic, isn't it?

I was disappointed in Stardust, too. Damn this thing, I can't underline stuff. But yeah, I was. Same reason...I thought the ending was lame. I imagine he had a deadline and rushed it.

Of course, I am not yet in a position to HAVE deadlines, so I should shut up. I will count myself lucky if I one day have to rush to meet one.

The reason why I'm so hard on Neil (if you're listening, you leather-jacketed lovely) is this: People expect that "genre" writers, like Neil or Harlan Ellison, for example, will write fluff. Sometimes really cool fluff, but fluff. Those of us who have overcome literary snobbery know this isn't true. But the literary world is a rocky one for folks like Neil, in that they will never believe he could be another Italo Calvino, or Garcia-Marquez (dammit! no accent marks!). I think he could. And will. If he stops fucking copping out on the endings.

Or maybe I'll just do it instead.

Nice to meet you, Lord of Nothings. What are nothings?

Hey
I dont think its that suprising that American Gods, and indeed, all of Neils books post sandman should be slightly disappointing.
Sandman was truly masterful, and so dense with ideas and inspiration that I would be astounded if he could just turn around and churn out another idea which was just as strong but different.
And this is not just a problem for writers in his genre - Catch 22 was a masterpiece, but did Heller ever truly follow on it? I dont think so; could Emily Bronte have followed on Wuthering Heights? Could Mervyn Peake have bettered Titus Groan and Gormenghast? How could Tolkein have found another LOTR? I think that we have to question how many masterpieces one writer can produce - and many never produce even one. So we should be thankful that Neil did such a good job with Sandman and wait to see what subsequent years will bring.

You think Heller was a genius?

Weird.

Good point about Bronte though.

But I do think Tolkien would have upped LOTR. He was an English-wielding god.

Alan Moore did that in a short time.
Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison did, too.
In the world of music, Dylan produced something like two incredible albums a year when he was starting out. As did the Beatles.
And Shakespere.
So yea, you can follow genius with genius. Not sure if Neil can, but its possible.

the (can i?) floyd

Ok, i wasn't saying that Heller was a genius, I was pointing out that he only had one really really good book in him.
But I am not saying that people are only EVER capable of producing one masterpiece, simply that SOMETIMES that is the case, and other times, it can take a while before the next masterpiece is produced.
As for Tolkein, I'm not convinced that he could have imagined another quite so detailed and perfect world as Middle Earth. Or he'd have needed another lifetime to do it in.
I do think Neil is capable of other fantastic works, but all I'm saying is, Sandman was a hell of a piece of literatue, and it would suprise me if he had been able to just turn round and produce something equally as good.

Hmmph. I've never been disappointed by ANYTHING Neil has written. I love Stardust; it's happy and shiny and fuzzy. And I adore twist endings. Nyeh. ::goes and sulks in the corner::
Um. Sorry, my medication's worn off.

I posit that your disappointment in Gaiman's tales (or really anything at all) comes from an expectation of a personal nature, and thus, when that expectation is not delivered, you feel let down by what is actually there.

Just because an ending to a story is not something you feel it should have been, or didn't live up to whatever expectation you held for it, does not by any means stand to reason that Mr Gaiman, or anyone else, has "dropped the ball".

And, with all due respect, if you didn't like the way he went about telling a story, write one of your own.

There are books and stories by Gaiman, and many writers, which I personally feel are better than others they have written, and some that I personally enjoy more than others. But in the particular case of "Stardust" and "AG", the endings are exactely what were lead to through the course of the telling.

Having just read "AG" again, I found it to be even more credible and incredible than when I first read it in pre-release about a year ago. It was not a perfect novel (but what is a perfect novel?), but in many respects, it was his first; "Neverwhere" having been originally a script, "Stardust" an illustrated faerie-tale, and "Good Omens" being guided mostly by Mr Prachett.

Hi, just thought I'd jump in here. I'm new here but have been reading Neil Gaiman for awhile... started with Death.
I thought Neverwhere was amazing. I absolutly loved that book. Good Omens was great too.
I started reading Stardust, but it wasn't fast moving enough for me at the time... will pick it up again though.
I'm now reading Smoke and Mirrors. So far so good.

I was a little disappointed with the ending of American Gods as well. It was building up momentum, then nothing. Just ended with a twist. All in all good book, but the ending was a little flat.

I haven't gotten into analyzing it yet . I will do that second time around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trixiebix:
I was a little disappointed with the ending of American Gods as well. It was building up momentum, then nothing. Just ended with a twist. All in all good book, but the ending was a little flat.

---

Hi, Trixie...

I agree with you about the ending. But then, I'm a Lokean, and was sorely disappointed at the exit of the Flame Trickster. I was hoping he'd show up again at the end. Or maybe that Shadow left Odin a double-headed coin of something...

"Shadow's the only of the gods to leave the country. He's no longer tied to the old ways."

Sorry to jump in like this, my first post. Hi and all that. My theory on this, having just finished AG: names have tremendous value in Gaiman's world. The importance on Shadow's real name being part of this. Shadow loses his real name when he dies. Not because he dies, but as part of it. So presumably this isn't part of every god's death. Shadow assumed it wasn't a big deal, which means it probly was I think losing his real name enabled him to leave the USA. If he is considered a god in some shape or form this lets him go, reduces his ties to the US. The other gods are still tied to these, maybe sentimentally, they feel they need them, Shadow had no such illusions

OK I've just written all that and realised that Shadow as a kid left the USA many times...lol...ignore me

Heh. Other than the last bit, I thought it was a very good theory.

In reality, it's not unsalvagable. The name didn't necessarily have as much power until he started being godly, as it were. It's not as clean as the original theory, but it's something to consider, and possibly it's worth looking for potential supporting evidence.

=Brian

I'm sort of saying stuff others have said already, but some of this is getting to me.
# You can't be disappointed in stardust unless you failed entirely to note the 'this is a fairytale' warning all over the covers and reviews. if you don't like reading fairy stories avoid it like the plague - otherwise its like reading Dickens and expecting fluffy kittens....
# As far as the 'con' stuff goes, this is the old norse gods, they were not nice people. Odin and Loki - there has to be a con. thats the only way it works. Trophes and archetypes, no?
# And being a rather rebellious eng lit student -the Brontes are awful! so is Austen for that matter. I would much prefer to be studying anything of Neil Gaiman's than the aforementioned authors. Also,if you find AG and stardust's endings cop-outs, what about Jane Eyre or Mansfield Park? at least if its a copout (which i would dispute) Gaiman does it with style.

Mary
(and I know my typing is bad. I'm sorry. Feel free to edit.)

Guys,

Neil is a storyteller. He tells the stories he sees in his head. I don't think that he would "cop" out on an ending to meet a deadline, he doesn't seem like the type. I'm a writer and if someone was pissed at me for a bad ending then they can go screw themselves. He was telling HIS story, and if that's not the one that you wanted then the only person who really has a problem is you. Not to be a jerk or anything, but just because a story doesn't live up to your expectations doesn't mean it's not good.