_

quote:

---

The new gods are powerful not because of their intrinsic nature, but because they are new._

---

Ahh.... There we go... clarity as to what the "old Gods" could not even begin to grasp. While the continent is as old as the rocks, the very assumption about the traditions that bind other cultures to their lands, quickly fall to pieces as those who populate America not only refuse to cling to any roots... but actually attempt to sever them... all in the spirit of individuality and independance...

Absolutely a bona fide genius. And he's one of the few authors since Shakespeare to have coined a phrase as useful as "Catch-22".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Whitney:
You think Heller was a genius?

Weird.

---

On the subject of Pratchett, while he HAS been writing book after book of discworld, each one has been different and new in some way. While he does re-use characters, in every book he also introduces likable new characters, and a good part of the joy of reading them comes (in my opinion) from seeing the interaction of characters you know and like with new and intriguing characters, and how both parties are changed by their interaction.

This is a forum for Neil, though, so I'll stop now

Sorry to revive an ancient thread, but this is one of the most interesting things on the board.

My (not particularly unique) take on this is that a war makes Shadow a pawn, and not an especially important one at that. It negates him, something you can’t easily get away with when you’ve just written 700 pages with him as the main focus of attention.

With all due respect to the initiator of this thread, if he still participates on the board, how would you resolve that problem? How far back did you want to unravel the story? Did you want Shadow to recognize the con, and the futility of his dying on the tree, but let the war go on regardless? Or for him to try to stop it, unsuccessfully, and either disassociate himself from Wednesday, or extract some kind of retribution?

If Shadow sits back and watches Odin and Loki get their sacrifice, he’s transformed into the selfish jailbird, the driver and bodyguard who takes the cash, and does what he's told.

The only way I can see it working and letting him retain any power or sympathy is the revenge scenario.

But that book’s already been written once or twice, hasn’t it?

quote:

---

You think Heller was a genius?

Weird.

---

You were disappointed by American Gods?

Weird.

quote:

---

Originally posted by drethelin:
On the subject of Pratchett, while he HAS been writing book after book of discworld, each one has been different and new in some way.

---

Compare and contrast to the Xanth series. The Discworld books are great, original, and are always going off in a new and interesting direction.

quote:

---

This is a forum for Neil, though, so I'll stop now

---

Hey, they've worked together, and they will work together again. <looks sidelong at Neil> Won't They?

You say you would like to see the modern gods defeated, and you also say you like the hard truths. Honestly, I think one of the hard truths is that the ancient gods are not intrinsically heros and good guys, they do bad tings too, and frankly they would probably lose in actual war. As hard as it is to face when you get to like the characters in the book, they are outdated and just don't fit in America (correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive someone in that book points out that America is a bad place for gods), so what is more likely is that a lot of people would have gotten killed, and ultimately the ancient gods would be left with the consolation prize of a dramatic exit. A lust for violence against the modern gods is a tad contradictory too, considering this discussion in on an online forum. The older gods weren't the perfect protagonists, and the ending doesn't try to glorify them, it make you remember that they are not perfect and they are not bigger and better than the modern day. The ending was actually my favorite part, becausse it made the book different from your standard fantasy with big romantic wars and noble victories, it made American Gods real.

I'm surprised no one seems to get the ending.. yes, the whole war was a grift. but it's not just because wednesday's a con man. it's because he needed prayer and belief.

and now some background.

odin was a god of war. the berzerkers were odinists. his was a warrior cult. all the legends about people dying in battle going to valhalla is because it was odin's personal hall. if you died in battle you died in prayer to odin. therefore the best/easiest way for odin to gain belief was to cause a battle, and to have it be dedicated to him (hence the whole thing with the spear).

so you see, it wasn't a weak plot twist or a cop out. it makes perfect sense in connection with who odin was according to the eddas, as well as with who odin is in the story. a grifter, a con man, and the god of war. and loki was his blood brother. hence his involvement in the whole shenannigan. when shadows asks wednesday if he had a partner, odin is referring to loki in his reply.
and thus the mystery of that fantastic ending is debunked! huzzah!

I loved the ending. And I thought it worked well with the “America is not a place for gods.” There is a skeptical edge in America, always has been. That . . . ability to walk away from devotion, the tendency to get really irate when our gods let us down . . . all strong with us. We are quick to call BS on authority figures. I imagine that makes it hard to be a god. And Shadow essentially called BS on Odin and Loki when he walks into the middle of the battlefield.

Hi!
I promised myself I would not do this, but here I go...
I like AG very much and am currently rereading it for, oh, about the fifth time, I guess. And I have to say I like the ending because there is no war. I think, with a war between old and new gods there would have been a few problems:
1) How should it end? Old gods winning? Not very likely, is it? Then the new gods? Grrgh, who would want that?
2) What would Shadow do? I mean, he doesn't want to fight, he says that to Easter and I think it fits, I mean, that he doesn't want to. So, what would he do? Just leave and say "To hell with it"? Not such a great ending either.
3) So there is a war. Great. Just like in any other fantasy novel. And the good ones win. Question: Who are they?

No, I think I like the ending just the way it is. I like the whole book just the way it is.
But of course you can disagree. I actually think that is a good thing because otherwise there would not be a whole lot to talk about.
Rereading my post, I guess that this has all already been said, one way or the other, but I just had to write it. Excuse my English, I know it isn't good.

"what would Shadow do?" I love it! I may have found my new bumper sticker.

What would Shadow do? For most of his life, be passive. Post ressurection? Challenge the hypothetical. Find a new way. Make peace with the monster.

quote:

How could Tolkein have found another LOTR?

Well, first off, Tolkien did many brilliant things, not just LOTR. Sure, The Hobbit is 'just' a kids book, but it is a brilliant little kids book. And his translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is stellar. Not to mention Pearl and Sir Orpheo.

But LOTR was the work of a lifetime. It's not a book so much as it is one small fraction of the mythology of Middle Earth that he created and, sadly, never finished.

And don't even start on that poncey Christopher and what he's done to it.

Hey I sure dug American Gods. I think it was swell.

There is a reason stories are called stories. They are works of fiction that someone was nice enough to share with you. A vision. Like a painting with words. American Gods made good points about our society that I have not seen come along since. It's expressed in a simplistic enough way so that those of us who may not be able to comprehend the complexity of how our world really works could at least be entertained by it. Neil is playing off our culture, and I applaud him for having the courage to do so.

I was almost hoping to be disappointed by something Gaiman has written, just because that seems normal. But I have not been. I didn't really dig AG at first but then, 200 pages in, something clicked and I fell in love. I think I just didn't like that it was set in the US maybe? But I came to love that too, and as I think more about this book, I think it is more deep and complex than the others. Stardust was shiny and happy, in a tongue in cheek way that I loved and Neverwhere was just FUN. My favorite. But AG is...something to chew on for a while.
I, personally, loved the ending. It knocked my socks off, so to speak. I was dreading the war...I like the fact that it was prevented.

I also like that, unlike The Mists of Avalon, which dealt with some similar themes, I didn't leave the book feeling somewhat depressed about the atrophy of the old religions--their was hope there, somehow, because of Shadow. I thought Mists tried to do that, a bit, but the ending was so...i dunno, suicidal, almost--like The Awakening or something. Sorry, tired English teacher ramblings