This is my first post on any of these fora, I've been an erratic lurker and occassional fan of Neil Gaiman.

Obviously, this post concerns 'American Gods' - being in the forum named after it and all - but I should make it clear first that I enjoyed this book, from beginning to the near end, I loved the concept, I loved the modernisation of Norse mythology and the characters of Wednesday, Low Key and Whiskey Jack; it was with the end and my feelings about Shadow as a character that my problems lie.

Shall I explain?

This will quite obviously contain spoilers.

Instantly, I had a problem with Shadow. I mean, why make the protagonist someone with no past and no concept of where the future might take them?

Sure, Shadow goes through the motions, but hardly ever an emotion, Shadows reacts, but hardly ever contemplates, Shadow lived, but doesn't really live.

Now, I can understand that if Neil were trying to write a metaphorical fable concerning a character which is no more than his name, a shadow, a shadow of a God, in the shadow of Gods, then he has succeeded. But I expected, and still expect (dammit!), more from this story.

In fact, I don't think it is too much to expect that you have a character who at least has a sense of purpose, or lacking that, a decent personality. But Shadow has no definable personality, he has no feelings, and no convictions, thusly, we - as the readers - must find it difficult to relate to this man.

I know that some could be intentional, since the man is a demi-God and so must be different from everyone else, but if that is the case, then perhaps this story was told from the wrong perspective.

I also know that Shadow doesn't claim to be very smart, which is why we aren't treated to many witticisms or observations on his part, instead enlightened by various characters popping up throughout the story who expunge elements.

I guess that is what bugs me about the character of Shadow, complete and utter lack of perspective. This man goes from his wife dying, with no real emotion ever (I understand that at first he is supposed to be in shock, but come on, this woman was the entire reason he: a) was in prison, and b) had any hope left for life on the outside; a reaction more than just shock was needed), to accepting a job from a mystery man on a plane, getting in random fights for this man, and living out a pointless existence at times (like at the icy lake), without asking questions, or the reader knowing where it's going.

Now, this is where I should say that I guessed as soon as we met Wednesday that Shadow was a God. I hope that was not the intention, since it practically seems to be the entire twist of the tale, alongside from the Loki and Odin pact to drain the world of Godly power.
It seemed painfully obvious, the man with no past, dead parents, seemingly able in matters that he should not, immediately buddies up with a latter day Norse God. It just screamed out at me. So, to discover that he was the son of Wednesday was no real surprise to me - in fact, I was waiting to be told, which I suppose is where I have my problem.

There was no real suspense for me with the character of Shadow, only expectation, and that expectation was rarely altered or surprised. It was very much straight down the line.

What I'm wondering is, if this wasn't intended as a twist, then what the hell was it about? He certainly doesn't use his demi-Godliness to any real objective, and that leads me to the conclusion.

I think Neil had expertly handled updating the Norse Gods into present day, I thought the subtle nature of Wednesday and Low Key, as well as Mr Ibis and co, was superb. I really couldn't have loved this more. But then, at the end, he leaps into mythos in such a deep way that is left entirely unexplained, with the spear and the tree of life and suchlike - that the casual reader with no real understanding of the Norse myths might find not only confusing, but rather anti-climatic and pointless.

I understand that authors cannot aim to get everyone in an audience, it's sheer insanity to even contemplate, but I felt this was a bit much.

And that leads me to the conclusion, especially the Reykjavik section. Where is Shadow now, as a person and as a demi-God? Is he over his wife, what will he do with the rest of his days, how is such an experience going to affect his life? The postscript seemed awfully nice in keeping context with the mythos, but totally out of place with the character(?) of Shadow and the setting of the book.

Regardless, I'm not sure how many questions I've asked here, but I'm keen to hear other opinions.

I suppose in some ways, I'm more intrigued about Shadow than I am of most characters in novels, because we are told so much about them, but at the same time, I disliked - throughout the book - the lack of emotion and observation that makes a character truly and live and breath, which ultimately makes us care about the ending of a tale, which is why I was dissatisfied with the conclusion.

It's hard to believe after this huge splurge that I actually did like this book, but I did. It was a great ride, until the end where I felt like the kid who'd been told it was the best rollercoaster ride in the world and I only thought it was okay. Such was my disappointment for focusing on Shadow, since he had been little more than a background character brought to the fore of a complicated story - which perhaps makes little sense to others, but it does to me.

I still recommend that people read this book, heck, the first thing I did was hand it to my fiancee and told her to read it since it was the first book I've found that I feel can be used in comparison with my own modernised mythology novel.

I hope Neil can lend some words of wisdom to my lament. I did enjoy this book, but could it perhaps have been told better through someone's eyes?

I didn't sign up for this.

well, personally, I didnt find any fault in Shadows character. In fact, I can relate better to someone who has no major motivation in life!
But, on a slightly more debateable note...I think maybe that was part of Gaimans plan for the book. Shadow was just a "shadow" of a real person. Even his wife commented on that, how she didnt realize he was there a lot of the times, how he was never really "alive".

It's always been my understanding that Shadow is Baldur. I loaned the book to a good friend and one week with it he could tell me who he was as a god and exactly which references spoke it loud and clear.

We are writing the Future in Letters of Fire

I agree with a lot of what cosmo said, and also think it's worth noting that Shadow is in shock through much of the book. First off, the book starts him off with the news of his wife's death, (and Laura was really the main thing that attached him to the real world, the center he built everything else around), and then the next thing the guy knows, all kinds of gods and beings he thought were just myths are reaching out and screwing with his life. I know that would mess with anyone's head a little.

Plus, how much time for ruminations about the future or the past do you have when things like this, (your wife dying and being revealed to be unfaithful, gods messing with your life, etc.), are going on?

Although I think that by the end, after getting off the World Tree and stopping the battle, Shadow begins to realize his own depth and starts growing a bit, something which would be going on after the end of the book.

Larger than life is the perfect size

Another quick thought which just hit me: shoadow or shade was a term often used for ghosts or spirits in bygone days.

Shadow is usually believed to be Baldur reborn. Could it be that just like Wendesday and Low Key are formed from memories of old religions/beliefs that Shadow is a ghostly memory of Baldur.

Or that perhaps he lives his life like a ghost until he sees the truth about himself and his past while hanging in the World Tree? Or a combination of the two?

Larger than life is the perfect size

posted by Ronin:

quote:

---

Or that perhaps he lives his life like a ghost until he sees the truth about himself and his past while hanging in the World Tree?

---

This is how I interpeted it. Shadow up until realizing who he is lacked any sense of history, of where he came from. As a result, he had no clear sense of identity, and therefore no real idea about what he wanted in the future.

I think one of the most important passages with regards to this interpretation is the stuff in Shadow's dreams about finding his tribe.

To me, it would seem that one of the main reasons Neil told the story in through such a character is that Shadow's lack of a past and an identity was supposed to be a comment on spirituality in America in general. So in a sense there was a bit of the story's form following its theme. However, I could see why some would not like this from the standpoint of storytelling mechanics, such as seems to be the case with you, CM. I guess it's just a question of aesthetic tastes, there's no real right or wrong about it. I personally didn't really feel it detracted from the storytelling greatly, and I had no trouble empathisizing with Shadow as a character. But I definitely see where you're coming from.

Ok, first off, though I was intertested in mythology as a child, I know next to nothing about it, and I'm not gonna comment about all that. I read the book knowing full well it was packed with metaphors and references I wasn't comprehending. As a wannabe writer, I tend to focus on human characterization, and I have to defend Shadow's character,regardless of what god he is or isn't, or what ideas he may or may not represent.
Shadow was an awkward kid, with next to no social skills, right? He later became an athlete, got sort of a 'character' (or reputation)...he became 'that big dude', you know? But he still maintains that awkwardness. He went from being the kid no one pays any attention to at all, to a real, definable person, but he still doesn't feel comfortable in the role. He accepted and loved Laura, not realizing how truly bad for him she would be, because he didn't know or understand other people. He maintained this quiet, 'shadowy' personality through his prison stay, and later dealing with the gods. He's just the kind of guy who keeps his head down and deals with things as they happen to him. I know plenty of people who are like this. In conversation,they mostly smile and nod rather than offering any actual input. I can't put into words what I'm trying to express exactly, I'm not a sliver of the writer Neil Gaiman is, but I think if you reread the book and look at it from a more human, character-driven perspective, you'll see what I mean. Shadow's godly status may explain the cause of his personality, but he's still a very human character. I think it's a genius move to make him so different...I ,for one, get tired of protagonists who are just 'Joe Average'...it gets predictable, and they all start melting together.

Though some may argue that Shadow's characterization is unbelievable in it's simplicity, I would say it's perfect.

When you read a book, whether it's fantasy, or SF, or realistic fiction, whatever, the protagonist is quite often a larger-than-life character that always makes the right decisions (or at least wrong ones that will end up well anyway) and they always have very large reactions to everything going on around them. But at this point, one asks themselves, 'if anyone, just some random person were to have this happen to them, would they really be this righteous, this good? Would they know exactly what to do with the help of a few side characters to save the world?' I don't think that's realistic at all.

Shadow is realistic. He was pulled straight out of the world when he learned of Laura's death, and no, he never really mourned, but a lot of people don't do that, including myself. Just a few months ago one of the people that practically raised me at her daycare center died, and while I was devastated, I never really dealt with it like everyone else around me. It doesn't always work that way for some people. I think Shadow's dealing with Laura's death in the way that he did was fine for him, and he became a bystander to his own life.

He really had no reason to keep going, so he took a job with the crazy old man from the plane, not really knowing what he was getting into, but not really caring either. Shadow went with the flow of his life through the book because he really didn't know what he was doing or where he was going.

The idea that he got the nickname 'Shadow' when he was a child from following adults around is a direct metaphor for how he lives his life. Shadow doesn't know what he's doing, so he follows those that he feels are wiser and more fit to lead than he is, like Laura and Wednesday.In a way, Shadow is like an eternal high school student, he's at a point in his life where he really has no direction, and he doesn't know what he wants to do, so he follows along with what he's told, even though he doesn't necessarily want to.

In my opinion, Shadow has a way of reacting to his situation that would be just like a lot of other people. It's just that no one notices in the flood of uber-protagonists we're all used to.

"Does the walker choose the path or the path choose the walker?"

My opinion on Shadow's non-personality is that it is self-imposed. He is not stupid. Early on in his life he found that it was far easier not to think about things, to just be a dumb strong man (and honestly, who among us has not at one time or another wished for the simplicity of ignorance?). By the time of American Gods, he had played that role throughout his life for so long, he could not easily slide out of it. And when he did, he had no role to slide into. He did not know what he was. So he remained nothing, a Shadow, until near the end of the book.

I would have to agree with those who admit that Shadow's character is not as one-dimensional as CM feels, at least not to me. While I do see the comparison his name has to his personality, I also see it in light of the old phrase "shadow of a man." In at least this usage, "shadow" means, as pointed out earlier, "not alive". But it does not mean merely life-less, inasmuch as betrayed, abandoned... in other words, life-less, yes, but life-less because of what has happened.

I do not see Shadow as emotionless. There is one seen in which he cannot talk to Laura. His awkward lifelessness is his remorse. Indeed, he is a dead person, and perhaps he was lifeless before Laura, but if he was an effigy while he lived with Laura, he is merely a shadow without her.

It is mentioned that Shadow is a shadow of a god... I think he is also a shadow of a man. He mopes and follows and, at times, reacts indifferently partially out of stoicism, partially out of lack of emotion, but also partly because of emotion. If someone you knew betrayed you in as vile a manner as Laura, would you be able to cry in front of them? Or, for that matter, would you be able to beg them to return? Shadow knows that if he shows remorse, it will be a waste of time. Not because he does not feel remorse, or pain, or any sense of loss, but because he feels that Laura has ceased to be the person to which he can show these emotions.

The reason I am so adament that he feels emotion is that many times in the narrative, it is commented that before Laura's betrayal, she was the only woman he had ever wanted to be with. But there is a severe sense of loneliness around him, a will toward the sexuality of the females around him (for evil or good), but one that he always manages to repress. It is only after she betrays him that he feels desire for another woman, and even then, he feels guilty for having this desire, and this desire also is a further source of pain for him. He awkwardly contemplates watching a pornographic film in his loneliness, but concludes that he cannot handle it, knowing that he has been hurt by sexuality and quite possibly being afraid to embrace his enemy.

I admit, his character is a slight bit lacking, but I feel this is the case only in terms of his inability to refuse the wishes of the gods he deems as "good". While he is not a stupid man, he blindly follows the gods to the point where he promises one of them the chance to kill him. While I see this as a further testimony of how destroyed he is by his loneliness, I also see it as a weakness which I sometimes have an issue with, but on the other hand, it also focuses strongly on his character as an ascetic. I'm not sure how ascetic the figure of Balder proves in mythology, but the character of Shadow is decidedly ascetic-- he refuses flesh in terms of sexuality many times, and even in terms of life at others, willingly putting himself on Wednesday's vigil.

Asceticism is always a difficult philosophy to discuss, because it has at once its intense pros (like the ability to transcend the flesh, to be beyond the merely physical, to, even in philosophy, be MORE than human) but also, it is a philosophy which is inherently problematic due to its possible extremes, like self-mutilation or deprevation.

While that which doesn't kill you can only make you stronger, does that mean you should flaggelate yourself in order to be stronger? Obviously, the answer is... depends. Exercise is itself pain, and it is a pain that is used to strengthen the body. So at what point does something become an "ill"? The answer is obvious at least to some degree that it becomes an ill when it cannot be said to strengthen the body, but what of the mind? While I must be careful to say that I do not promote the self-mutilation and self-deprication of the ascetic mystics, I also, at the same time, admire their discipline, their ability to abandon the flesh for a more transcendental, pure-reality (the really-real, the platonic sun, whatever you may call it).

My point? Well, I just see any attempt to fully display asceticism in belief and practice is problematic because of the conflicting messages inherent within the philosophy itself. So, my comment is less a comment on Shadow inasmuch as a comment on the philosophy his character propounds.

So yeah, he is a very emotional character, a very human character, and at the same time, a very confusingly transcendental (as transcendence always proves) character.