We've had several posters who haven't been entirely happy with all of Gaiman's works (to be nice about it). This isn't a place to flame his works, or a place to convince people that they're wrong for not liking something (though there's bound to be discussion about points). It is a place to put your finger on what you don't like and share it.

-GMZoe
(it's also a place I can point to when new posters suggest we're all biased here)

Well, I am most definetly not one of those people complaining about Gaiman or his writing style, but since this is here, I'm going to get out just the one or two little things that bother me.

The first thing is really not his fault, just a result of how I got into his writing. I feel a little disappointed with Neil's novels, (Stardust, Neverwhere, and to a much lesser degree, American Gods), but a lot of that is that I read what I think were his best works first, (Sandman and Good Omens), and, as impossible as it is, I expected the level of writing to continue on at that level or get even higher, and I just didn't get that same thing with his other stuff. Like I said, more a case of my expectations than something with him.

Now, the only thing that really does bother me about Neil is how so many of his themes and idea gets repeated throughout his different stories. It's not hard at all to find the same theme transposed over and over again through his different stories. (Just some quick examples; the nature of the gods and the power of blief, you can find the same idea in Sandman, American Gods, and even a little in Stardust. Then there's the nature of the land of Faiere, which again gets repeated in Sandman, Stardust, the Books of Magic, and even a little in Neverwhere, with the market). This can get a little irritating, because sometimes when reading sections of a story, you can feel almost like you're re-reading a part from another story all over again.

That's my only complaint about Neil. Otherwise, he is a fantastic and enchanting writer, a master of the written word, and he still blows my mind away when I pick up new stories from him, or even when I'm going back over an old one.

~
James

Larger than life is the perfect size

I don't have too many complaints about his writing, although i would like to see him do something (novel-wise) that doesn't have the silly humor that parts of Neverwhere and AG do. Something more serious, on the order of The Doll's House, but in novel form.

With regard to the "goodness/badness" of his writing, i think he's still learning the art of the novel. I've definitely enjoyed his shorter works more, but i think there's a strong spark in his novels that is still developing and that could potentially be excellent.

As they stand now, his novels seem to read more like Stephen King or Tom Clancy (stylistically, not content-wise or character-wise). It's a very popular and accessible writing style, one that i hope he'll slowly walk away from so that he can explore less mainstream literary styles.

I think the best suggestion i've heard in a while came from a friend on another comic board:

Neil goes to Marvel. Neil is given an anthology series. He gets whatever artists, inkers, etc that will work for him. He writes stories. He can do whatever he wants. The only condition? The magazine is called either "Amazing Fantasy" or "Amazing Adult Fantasy."

Yes, I want Neil back in the medium he does best...

~~~~~~~~~

"Shared pain is lessened, shared joy is increased, and thus do we refute entropy."-- Spider Robinson

http://lon.blogspot.com -- Its a slightly less eloquent me.

Now, the only thing that really does bother me about Neil is how so many of his themes and idea gets repeated throughout his different stories. It's not hard at all to find the same theme transposed over and over again through his different stories. (Just some quick examples; the nature of the gods and the power of blief, you can find the same idea in Sandman, American Gods, and even a little in Stardust. Then there's the nature of the land of Faiere, which again gets repeated in Sandman, Stardust, the Books of Magic, and even a little in Neverwhere, with the market). This can get a little irritating, because sometimes when reading sections of a story, you can feel almost like you're re-reading a part from another story all over again.


[/QUOTE]


I whole-heartedly agree. Ever noticed it was nearly the same ending in one of the Death comics and Good Omens? Neil is wonderfully talented, but his themes are like... a motif that has been overly stated. I also think that some readers could get a little left out if they arn't well versed in mythology-- I think that limits his audience.
I think the best example of this was the ENDING of American Gods. Good book, hated the ending. I felt it got pretty lost...

Neil also seems to have trouble with description. His paragraphs are too short, too filled with action and not enough exposition -- this might be the result of his years writing comics, where the script requires only the bare bones of description.

I guess im somewhat of a instigator of this topic. Anyway, I recently read a short story called closing time.

And...uh. Again the same feelings. The beginning starts off promising, an interesting social club, a tale to tell. Im there; especially in neils hands. Then I get a story of abstracts. To me the ending didnt work. I wont go into it, you must read it.

The story was just not meaty enough, and this is my complaint with a lot of his stuff. You should feel like you had a whole meal after a story and with some of neils work I dont feel satisfied. I feel like he’s not throwing everything at me that he can. Every story should push you righ to the edge, and i just think he suffers from a bit of a big head sometimes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the BEAR:
I guess im somewhat of a instigator of this topic...

---

inspired by you, eldritch, and lord of nothings. And I think it's only fair to have a place for complaints

my basic complaint with neil and this website is the constant over hyping of his own work. American gods won this award, coraline is nominated for that award, etc.

And dont say the guy is just clueing us in on it because of fan interest. Its a clue that smells like a boast. Its like saying wow, i wish everyone wouldnt lust after me in this thong bikini. From a truly great writer who gives 100% everytime here is what kevin smith says about this subject:

"I'm glad folks have liked what I've done in comics in the past, but anything I write tends to suffer from over-hype before it hits the stands, even though I'm not the one out there talking my shit up. I like to talk about trying to get the book into the top ten, and sales, and shit like that, because shit like that's got nothing to do with the story or the writing. And for me, the sales stuff is part of the challenge of writing comics that I feel free to discuss, prior to the streeting of whatever I'm writing. I don't like talking about the contents of the story, or how it's going to rock the reader's world or some such shit. If it rocks readers' worlds, let the READERS talk about it, not me. The story and the writing should always speak for itself, not be trumpeted by the writer."

I don't agree with you. Neil's blog is obviously not meant to be a journal of his feelings and opinions in general, but something about what being a writer really is, with its nice and its boring moments. So why not talk about awards ? I don't think that writers should try and make you believe they are humble. I wouldn't be, had I won Hugos or Nebulas. Actually, I wouldn't be, having anything I wrote being published :-) So... I don't read Neil's blogs about awards as boasting, but as a way to share pride.

-Anne-

"Here lies one whose name was writ in water"

I'd think it'd be very disingenuous for an author to not be excited about being nominated and winning awards. Sure, it's not the purpose of writing, but it is part of the fun of being successful at it.

"You think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people. But some of them are on different sides."
- Lord Vetinari

Anne & Dweller, the topic has actually been thouroughly discussed here with Bear.

Oh, thanks !

"Here lies one whose name was writ in water" (Keats)

My biggest problem with Gaiman's writing has to do with the fact that post-sandman, there's really not a lot of outward growth. Look at Alan Moore, he returns to the same themes frequently but with a new eye each time, giving you something new to think about. His ideas develop over time and you can see the man's thoughts growing. American Gods, and Stardust (haven't read neverwhere, probably won't)read like inferior compatriots of the sandman story arcs. In both cases, I think it's because comic writing (having to think about a story in terms of someone else's rules--the artists) and short stories (the language, not necessarily the writer gets the last word) both have built-in editing elements. If AG had some highly critical, demanding editor to keep Neil in line, we may have been spared the horror of Shadow's stay in Wisconsin ( admit it, you know it lagged) and one of the most ineffectaul (not to mention unsurprsing) plot twists in recent memory. Whether or not you want to admit it, Gaiman is self-important (not that that's a bad thing inherently--Joyce once said of Finnegan's Wake "I spent 17 years writing it, why shouldn't someone expect to spend 17 years reading it," but he was a genius)but Neil's not a genius. He returns to the same topics without developing the ideas behind them, giving me same feeling other people on this thread have--that they've already read parts of new Gaiman books. Here's to the return to gaiman at his best with 1602 and endless nights

One more thing. Judging by the difference of depth when comparing say Sandman or Mr. Punch with AG or Stardust, I can only be led to believe one of two things: either Neil got lucky for 10 years while writing comics, or he's afraid of creating something better than Sandman.

Honestly, i think that the brilliance of the Sandman was the medium itself. Because he was writing it in comic book format, he had to pace things very differently, and he didn't need to spend time on description (since it's such a visual medium), so his prose is a little more sparse and meaningful.

It's hard to balance these things in a novel, especially when the writer is accustomed to relying on illustration to show rather than tell. Every time i read one of Neil's novels it occurs to me that it would be better in graphic format, and i think it's because of the visual component, and because he hasn't quite learned to balance the visual stuff with the dialogue, so it ends up sounding choppy. (I'm not knocking him--it's a really difficult thing to learn.)

Yes, but given Neil's proficiency with the language and mastery of the short story, writing a novel shouldn't be that hard for him, he's got the whole visual-dialogue equation down in his short stories, why not a novel? Not that I'm implying short stories differ from novels only in length, but seriously, this is the man who wrote Kindly Ones, and Game of You, he obviously knows how to tell a story, and have you read any of his scripts? He's good at giving the artists impressive visuals, so with a little more work, he could easily do the same for any reader. I still think he's afraid of topping sandman.

Why would he be afraid of topping SANDMAN? Maybe he's afraid that he won't be able to, and everything else will pale in comparison. To use the best example, Alan Moore consistantly writes great comics, but none of it has been as good or as well-regarded as WATCHMEN. Is Neil afraid of that happening to him?
If so, i wouldn't worry... his comics couldn't be any more medicore then his short stories or novels.

See you, space cowboy.

~~~~~~~~~
People tell me its a sin
to know and feel too much within.

Circus just summed up my thesis. the type of cuts and interweaves that the Sandman has don't translate so well into book form. And I agree Neil is still learning about writing novels - and writing a novel is vastly, vastly different with writing short stories. Sandman was the culmination of years of comics writing. He hasn't yet (and may never) come up with a novel to beat Sandman, but he deserves some time to learn his new craft before he masters the medium...

********
Accept no substitutes...
I am a bear of little brain.

the poster aka Murphy

Let me clarify that "afraid to top sandman" bit: what I meant was that Neil may be afraid to push himself as much as he would need to in order to produce something greater than sandman. Further, when you take big creative risks, you can screw something up just as easily as you can make it great(if not moreso), you can alienate your audience unintentionally, you can do all kinds of stuff, and Neil may not be willing to take that risk. I think American Gods had potential to top sandman, but Neil took a lot of wrong turns, so it didn't. As for Neil still learning, why does he have to take so long? Violent Cases and Dolls House were both written early in his career, and "a midsummer night's dream" and Season of Mists were both written within the first three years of sandman, so I see no reason why Neil isn't continuing to develop his ideas into novels and produce some kickass work . ALan Moore has. Maybe From Hell wasn't as recognized as Watchmen, it's also not even half as commercial, but it was a better, more complex and thought-stimulating piece of work than Watchmen was, though the growth plateaus continue to get closer and closer together, leaving a lot of judgment up to the reader. Let's hope Neil writes a mind-blowing novel on the level of Mr. Punch (those were the days) and kicks all of our asses into shape, just to make me look like a jackass.