quote:

---

Originally posted by brodybanks:
I don't think that he would "cop" out on an ending to meet a deadline, he doesn't seem like the type.

---

I'll just pop in to say I agree about deadlines. He follows a tradition of missed ones, following Douglas Adams footsteps

quote:

---

Originally posted by brodybanks:
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.

---

Exactly. Thank you so much for mentioning storytelling. I get so tried from people wanting to change a story, saying an author should have done this or that. People seem to have forgotten that authors are at the mercy of the story, not the other way around. I sincerly doubt he could have changed it if he tried.

Gotta jump in here in response to:

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.

---

When I first read AG, this piqued me, too. "What the hell do you mean *grumble grumble*?" and the sort. That is, until I started researching the American tradition of fantasy for a project, and found out that this is actually very true.

It seems that anything--myths, legends, stories, creatures--that came to America became a source of comedy. Those grand, old tales of Europe became tavern songs and burlesques. The noble and cruel sidhe of the Celtic lands became the Tom Thumb fairies that most people now think of when they think of American fey.

This is the country that gave the world the philosophy of pragmatism. This is the country of the Puritan, founded on Locke and the tenants of rationality, with the Declaration and Constituition shining emblems of Enlightenment ideals.

Magic does not thrive here because it is silly for it too, essentially. So it is made silly.

The weird thing is, this doesn't exist in Canada or Mexico, in Alaska or Hawaii, in the Caribbean. Neil tapped something unique in pointing this out to us, something that has been established in scholarship (Brian Attebery being the example I read.)

It doesn't relate to what we are now, however vibrant and crazy this country can be. It's what we were that stunted our gods.

Howdy Folks.

I finished AG a bit ago, and I was also a bit confused the ending. I discussed it with a friend of mine who has similarly read the book.

We agreed that the ending actually made a great deal of sense, and was appropriate.

Considering that Gaiman used the entire novel elaborating on deception and grifting, it made sense that the whole thing was a giant scam. For those that have read the Old Norse Eddas, Odin and Loki were remarkably in character in AG. The old gods, and new, were used to trusting no one and lying to everyone. It was the way of the old world, and shamefully, it still is today. Both sides had been decieved into a war through a giant set-up that took the whole friggin' book to do. I was wondering why nothing was happening through the whole thing.

Anyhow, Shadow, the newest of the new gods, concieved by the old, does something no one has thought of up to this point. He is honest, and speaks the truth. With that one action, the giant grift of Odin and Loki fails. If you all remember, Shadow asked Wednesday, when discussing the violin grift, what would happen if the shopkeep has been an honest man. "We would be out the cost of two dinners". Odin and Loki lost thier dinner via Shadow's honesty. Gaiman set it up early that this woul go down.

And then, Shadow leaves the US. He's had enough of what that place holds. When Odin (not Wednesday) wishes to see his magic, Shadow refuses. He's had enough of the game of the gods. Fitting.

Masterly summation there...

*picking up a ball and passing it back*
Stardust = fairy tale.
For those that cannot remember back to the time, or even not(hopefully not but has occurred) being read to.
Yes, most people typing are 'grown ups' - pah! - but get a good trusted friend and get them to read stardust to you - or read it to them - silly at first, as is magic in the USA, thanks for that mention, but when it is fully harnessed, the story becomes alive.
AG is an exploration into that fact as well - with media and computers doing the storytelling now, we are losing the oratory level of the fireside, the harnessing power of dreams as shown so powerful in Sandman (esp World's End and most recently read by myself a book called Starchild, can't remember author but got a character called Little Neil that is blatantly a ref to gaiman!)
whitney - glad dream country helps, but don't fell hard done by in aG - read the nordic myths and THEN try to visualise another ending - yes the battle would have been good, but in its non occuring it becomes something even better, like books found in Lucien's library...

Maybe it's just me, but I'm 18 and I still love fairy tales. But I could be a fluke.

Like someone earlier in this thread, i am just jumping in without really saying hi...*grin*

skimp on an ending to meet a deadline...? i'm not sure who posted that, but AG missed its publication deadline by better than a year, and became twice as long as gaiman thought it would be. the whole thing IS done for a reason, and when i hit the end, i rememder laughing out loud, and even putting the book down to do a little dance and clap my hands.

"no-war" wasn't a copout, it was the only ending that could be (as summarised brilliantly by someone else earlier, so i won't try to surpass them) given the entire premise of the rest of the book.

and really, there are elements of shakespear and epic fantasy here, with the journey, and heroic flaw, and tragedy (and a kind of joy) comming from characters only ever being what they are, and nothing more.

and a side note...authors (and musicians, and other artists) change and grow the same as the rest of us. what they write, and their style of writing it, will naturally change and mature with them. i love seeing authors make a departure from their previous work, because it means they are challenging themselves, that they aren't content with money-making monotony (coffPRATCHETTcoff), that they want to explore different aspects of themselves and their art. i think it's fun to be in on that process as it's happening...

heeheehee..please excuse me "e.e.cummings-esque" use of capitalisation...

I have to disagree with your analysis of Pratchett. Granted, I don't really know the man in any way other than through his writing, but I don't think he's trying to bilk a franchise for money. Neil Gaiman seems to be a wide writer; he has a lot of different ideas, he wants to write them all, and they generally take different forms.

Terry Pratchett seems to be a deep writer; he starts off with a world he's created, and he wants to make that world as vibrant and alive as anything. He also wants to analyze changes in character over a long range of time (a longitudinal character development methodology), which is tricky to do in a single book.

Personally, I appreciate them both, but the writer I would want to be would be a Pratchett style writer rather than a Gaiman style. I like creating worlds, and building huge and reasonably consistent structures that work together as if they were real.

Now, if the characters didn't develop in any significant way over the course of the series (coughSIMPSONScough), then I would agree with you. But look at Vimes, who is arguably one of his favorite characters to write from a development standpoint. He has changed significantly in the books that he's appeared.

=Brian

Slightly related note: on the Dungeons and Dragons website, you can find something called "Legends and Lore." It's got stats for a ton of gods (from different cultures) and their avatars. Someday, if i get some friends, i'll use that to roll up the ending to AG... the one with the war...
And i'm not saying I lost the magic in Stardust. I'm saying i have no memory. It might have been the greatest thing ever, but it has no sticking power. Still, Endless Nights (and the unnamed Marvel project) give me tons of hope...

the (just imagine) floyd

When I read a novel, I do it for mind candy. Not to pick it apart and search for flaws. I enjoyed American Gods, as a person who has collected myths all my life. His charactors came to life for me and I did expect a different ending but I wasn't disappointed in how it ended. I feel I got my money's worth. If you think you could do better, than write your best seller, for us to read.
As for Stardust, It was one of my favorites and it's all a matter of what tastes you have.
Actually I thought he would end "American Gods" like the Welsh Prophesy " Twilight Of The Gods." Where it was predicted that; "the Gods would have one final battle that would end the world."


[This message has been edited by Gayle DeLeon (edited 05-30-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Gayle DeLeon (edited 05-30-2002).]

That was a WELSH prophecy? I thought it was Norse or German or something. Though that's not to say that it wasn't Welsh originally, of course.

I could be wrong. It's just in a section about Welsh myths in a book I have but it says nothing of where it originated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lord of Nothings:
(and the unnamed Marvel project)

---

1607. Been named for awhile.

Gayle: some people like to look at every single detail, some like the big wide picture. Much of the spoilers forum is about looking at details while I get the sense you're a big picture person

I look at details as well as the big picture, to get an idea of how to put a good novel together. I just don't pick apart the details and am only just learning about these forums. Sometimes it feels to me that publishing companies and English teachers focus more on the formula of how a story is written and to me it sets limitations on my imagination (if I try to write a novel that is publishable.)
Sometimes it feels like the same plots get rehashed over and over again. So I'd pick apart the market before I'd pick apart a good authors work.
Then again, as I said before, My education is Limited and I have much to learn.

I've never really been disappointed in anything neil's written either, some books are better than others, definitely, but they never failed to meet my expectations, and then go a little further.
The ending of AG was a bit hard to swallow but only because the new gods were so obnoxious. in my opinion it was quite obvious that the book couldn't end with the victory of old, often conflicting, Ideals. Wanting this book to end with an epic battle and a glorious victory laced with remorse is (in my oh so humble and barely literate opinion) extremely small-minded and near-sighted. But this point has already been made.
I hope you find your disappointment easier to handle now that it's been discussed, it seems misdirected to my eyes.

I think American Gods ended a lot like Roald Dahl's short story "Poison" did. That's the one where the guy thinks a snake is on his stomach so he doesn't move for hours. Then at the end we discover the snake isn't there. In both the stories, i admit I was a little peeved at being cheated, as I saw it. But, once I put the pieces together in my mind I found that I liked the unexpected ending better. I liked AG when I read it, but it didn't really stand out Neil's other novels. Just like in "Poison", I liked the story better once I read the ending, even though I wasn't expecting it and was annoyed at first. Hope this helps.

So I guess I'm reviving a long forgotten thread - sorry, but being new to Gaiman and this particular board I just had to!

I read thru the responses and I'm surprised no one picked up on the American Christianity angle.

The "no war" ending is almost a reflection of American Religion today. Take the volitility of Christianity 30ad-about 1550ad, mix it with a healthy dose of Democracy and you get this massive stick of dynamite which is constantly being lit and snuffed out over and over.

Yes, I too wanted to see the war just as much as the original poster - there are so many things that could have been said/inferred on so many levels. But a war ending would not have been true to the silent character in the story - that being the United States, or "America".

There was also something very Magdalene-esque about Laura's role at the end that seemed to peter out, but then I think if it were followed it would have been a completely different story.

But back on thread - America does something to beliefs, magic and religion. Even the Christianity of yore has been watered down and made Democratic in this country - hense, the reference to Jesus walking the roads in Afghanistan, unable to even hitch a ride. I read that as, even in America, Jesus would never be recognized and given a ride, because despite Christianity being the predominate "religion" of America, it has been watered down and mutated so much, it has become something all together different.

The collective consciousness of America has been conditioned to such an extent that no one religion, no one spirituality, no one belief can take dominion for longer than a 30-second commercial spot. And don't get me wrong, I count myself as guilty along with my fellow Americans.

Therefore, what could you (collective you) expect as an outcome of a "war"? It would be a rather hollow victory, because which ever faction "won" would soon be replaced with something NEW, BRIGHT and SHINEY.

All right, I'm done rambling, thank you for listening! (*grin*)

At the end of American Gods, Laura is told she isn't really alive, or at least she won't be for long. My question is, how do we know this? How do we know this proclamation isn't yet another lie from Loki? Why believe it, given the source, and would she?

She was given a drink from Urd's Well, it gave her some of the past, not the future. It seems that she didn't come alive - Mr Town says about her being cold which would add weight to the idea of her not actually being alive, and also when she stabs herself and Loki she doesn't feel it - he does. Occasionally, Loki tells the truth. If it'll hurt someone.

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