It seems most of the very negative criticisms of "American Gods" reveal a lack of knowledge of mythology on the critic's part. I have always been fascinated by mythology, particularly Norse Mythology. I am also very familiar with the Midwest, especially Wisconsin, where much of the story is set. Needless to say, I was completely fascinated by this book. It was an expert melding of mythology into a modern day road trip novel. I could go into further detail, but there are supposed to be no spoilers here.
My point is that I am trying to understand how someone might not like this book, and my theory is that people who don't like this book are likely to be woefully ignorant of mythology. If you don't understand who Odin is supposed to be, the idea of him as a grifter pulling con jobs to get by might not strike you as exceedingly ironic. Because Odin appears to be a shadow of his former self, it is especially gratifying to see him remain true to his real nature later on.
For the people without much interest in mythology, this book might be the equivalent of beginning one's math studies with trigonometry instead of addition and subtraction. Some very clever people might be able to start with trig, but if you are not one of those people you will probably resent your teacher for not explaining the basics better. If you don't like this book, don't blame Mr. Gaiman, blame yourself for not being able to appreciate the depths of what he wildly succeeded in doing here. I would highly reccomend familiarizing yourself with some of the basics of Norse mythology and re-reading this book with better background knowledge because IT IS A FREAKING MASTERPEICE.

right, thats an old argument. If you dont like it, that means you dont understand it.

Well a mainstream author, like gaiman, his job is to write something that appeals to a large audience. Not something that only appeals to Norse mythology experts from wisconsin.

Sandman was brilliant because although it touched on many myths and history and what not, it was always about people, about human emotion. I didnt need to keep a dictionary of greek mythology to enjoy the retelling of orpheus going to hades.

When I read a book, I dont want to keep ten other books about related subjects nearby—most people dont. American gods is too esoteric.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the BEAR:
Well a mainstream author, like gaiman, his job is to write something that appeals to a large audience.

---

I think he just writes what he wants to write and hopes an audience finds it.

Who would want to read a book written for the masses instead of written because the author had a story they wanted to tell?

I don't think you have to know much about the ancient Gods to understand the book. You'll get much more out of it if you do, but it isn't necessary. I'd know next to nothing about Odin, had never heard of Chernabog (I know I mutilated that name, sorry, it's what I get for doing a book on tape), but... it still worked as a story

Agree with GMZoe on this -and I add, no authro's job is to write this or that, but to just write. Whether the result pleases one or other audience is another matter entirely.
However, a good author like Neil can write about Norse mythology and Wisconsin and be understood and enjoyed by people like me, to whom either Norse mythology and Wisconsin are alien concepts... almost.

There MIGHT be some people who didn't like the book coz they didn't understand it (like I remember some people disliked Season of Mists coz they didn't like the Thor Neil wrote, having been used to thro the Superhero from Marvel)... but I don't think it's as simple as that.

To me, it felt disconnected. There were very good parts in it, but they don't seem to merge entirely...
It was like Sandman to me: a great major story arch, with small stories now and then, minor plots and sub-plots, all coming in into the scene... But unlike Sandman, all this didn't quite form a whole.
Also, it felt in that sense so much like Sandman that I couldn't enjoy the story as an original one, I kept thinking he was just repeating a succesful format for a new story instead of trying a new one, and that annoyed me coz what I REALLY REALLY like about Neil is his approach to a story, sometimes more than the story itself...

I see your point about the disconnected feel of the book, and I think it works rather well. It goes along with the disconnectedness Shadow feels.
The point "THE BEAR" makes about not wanting to have ten books lying around seems shallow to me. I obviously concede that it should not be necessary. I guess I was trying to say how much more I enjoyed reading about the gods I am familiar with like Odin and Loki than the others I know less about like Czernobog. I was extrapolating that someone with no background on Odin or Loki might feel left out and dislike the book.
Reading a book like this should be fun and it certainly was for me.
The idea that Mr. Gaiman is always writing for a mass audience and should somehow dumb it down a notch or two is quite terrifying. It not only stomps on art, it belies an astounding lack of effort on the reader's part. James Joyce this is not.
I think Mr. Gaiman mentioned somewhere on the blog that there was an illustrated key of some kind included with the Turkish or Hungarian version of this book. How about including this in future printings in America? Just thinking out loud.
-Later

I personally found american gods to be a quite wonderful read. Although sometimes I was felt left hanging in the wind, I could relate to the road side attractions, and the wonders of Cairo, Illinois, (as I leave near a Cairo Missouri) I had also lived for 8 years in wisconsin earlier in my life and I though for Neal Gaimon did a wonderful job of portraying the mid-west and wisconsin. Wisconsin is really that way, the smaller towns are being eaten up by suberbia and the ways of modern life, leaving only a few scattered towns across the wisconsin countryside thriving. Sorry if my grammar is bad, but I am currently residing in germany and have forgotten a bit of english in my time here.

The people who say the book is inconsistent, there were many things explained to you in the book, you just have to read through it. Mad Sweeney gave Shadow the coin because Wednesday told him to... Wednesday also knew it would be this coin, and probably also that he would give it to Laura. The dead wife served the purpose of the roll quite well.... The only thing I found a bit disturbing in the book was Neal's sense of perverse intercourse with gods, that sometimes was not really needed, or needed simply for a comment made by wednesday that was something to the effect of once you were a god, and now you sell your body for money..... Everyone will have some quirks with the book... the point is the plot. I find the story, although fantasy, very realistic. America is not a place for gods, it is a place for the christian church and technology... to me the church has also started turning into a marketing product. Also now we see a new branch of religeon... scientology.... who needs gods when there is science, technology, wealth and greed.... I'm actually writing a paper on the roll of Religeon in America based on neil's book... if anybody has any input they'd like to give, feel free to drop me an email.

Personally I foudn all of the filler pages, although sometimes monatenous very entertaining, and well thought through.... they lead somewhere... even with the story of the sunken car, or the neighbor... and even chad... everything that seemed pointless or trivial fell into shape at the end of the book.... I loved it.

Eldritch, maybe I am trying to provoke you, on some level, because of what you have posted here. I find your opinions to be most similar to those of a small child who has picked up an adult book and not paid enough attention to it to be able to comment coherently on it. All of the so-called coincidences in the book were orchestrated by Wednesday in order to further his cause. I am surprised by your lack of understanding for such an ingenious book. I think you should try reading it again. You might catch more of it, which would make you appreciate the book more.

Fine. I was an idoit because I diliked this book, and those who did are genuis and awsome beyond compare.
I reread it and I found these truths to be evident. How could I have been so blind?
Please if there is anything else that you hold the truth on than let me know so I can formate my opinions and belifes to acomidate the proper reality.
I smack myself hard now and again when I think about how I had once disliked this book. What reason could I have ever had? Being that most everyone thinks so fervently the opposite I must have been wrong - totally out of my mind.
I will be sure to spread the gospel - not only of American Gods but in all things contrary to this new system of thought. Soon we will all be on the right track
Thanks for reforming me

*hit by sarcasm shrapnel*
Arg! Ack! I've been hit!
*falls down, face in mud*

-GMZoe, who always had a problem staying serious

quote:

---

Originally posted by GMZoe:
Who would want to read a book written for the masses instead of written because the author had a story they wanted to tell?

---

You've obviously never met one of Danielle Steel's readers.

**************************
ARTHUR: By what name are you known?
AMY: There are some who call me... 'Amy'?
ARTHUR: Greetings, Amy of Doom.
****************************
All Hail the Might and Power of the Amii!!

yer right, I haven't.

To Eldritch:
Well. Good. I hope so. Um, ... I'm Awesome!

(It's a good thing I've got this awesome WWI era English helmet to protect me from sarcasm shrapnel!)

I hate translations but I was forced to read the portuguese edition (cause I live in Brazil and couldn't find the english one) and I know that sometimes there are great diferences, I found that this book was very diferent from Neil Gaiman's other works. This book is more opened to diferent myths them any other work of his, so it demands the reader to be more "open-minded". Consequently, the book leaves a greater margin to possible negative critics. (and I did like it just for the record...)

PS: I am aware that my english is not that great... sorry I'm just 16 and english is not my native language...

Your english is just fine, and we have several english as a second language posters, including from Spain, France, and Chile, so don't worry about that

Wow. I haven't yet read American Gods but am planning on buying a copy this weekend. After perusing this thread I'm fairly unsure as of what I'm going to make of it but hey - it's Gaiman so it must be at least mildly enjoyable! I'm pretty interested in mythology so it may be that it's easier for me to "understand" so to speak, but not knowing much about the plot I can't verify that theory as of yet. o.O;; I'll post here once I've read a bit of AG and can form my own opinions.

<b><i><font face="verdana" color="purple" size="2">Just another one of the people who fell through the cracks...</i></b>

Oops. Bad siggy. -.-;

I am impressed with the quality if writing on this forum. While I was also buffeted by spelling and grammatical errors in the early posts, I could help but giggle at the great exchange of ideas.

I also found it amusing that my twin brother, Xanthos, living in germany posted. I took the book to him when I traveled over for a visit over my spring break.

I also know the midwest as Xanthos does, and I know very little about Norse mythology. I suppose I could be considered your an example contrary to the belief that you "need to know about mythology to enjoy this book" argument, that some people are attempting to use, though it's not being used in a negative connotation.

I loved American Gods, it is sad when you figure out Lowkey Lyesmith's identity in the first chapter, and kind of hurts the rest of the book, but I loved it none the less. The opinion that you need to understand mythology is false. You can enjoy this book, just accepting all the characters for the well thought out and very deep personalities that we've come to expect from Neil. Even in Neverwhere, which I just finished last night since I had to lend it out to about six people before I finally got a chance to read my copy, had very developed characters. He has a way of not just telling you about them, but showing you, through their actions and decisions.

I loved this book from cover to cover, and it appears that I'm not alone.

I'm sorry I waited until the book came out in paperback. Now having read it last year, I wished I spent the extra bucks so I could have read it sooner. I want to wait at least another year before I read it again. I would be reading it again right now.

I guess I'll just have to start buying Gaiman's book in the hardcover editions as soon as possible.

Marymac

Got any excamples of this kind of story?


(BTW) I know of a river that goes by your screen name -sort of- do know the one?)

"I keep a sketch pad so that I can draw my own conclusions..."
Metamorpheus

Sorry, never saw this... (been slightly a vagrant this summer)

Can't really give you an example as such, its the style of speech and atmosphere as much as a story. There aren't that many real sheanachies left either, which is sad. Its usually older people who tell local legends in a round about way - like adding in the directions to the landmarks mentioned and other events that occured in the area. If you ever get the chance to go to/see a production of Siamsa or the Boru-Boru in Cashel, you might get a better idea. And there's some Louis MacNeice poetry that takes the same sort of tack, but I forget the title...

------------------------------
Look, when we said 'Beside the t-shirt stand, we meant beside the t-shirt stand. Not 100 yards away among 5,000 people...'