Okay, granted, that was a hyperbolic subject line. But nevertheless I hope my point will resonate. Neil Gaiman is a great writer. And I'm not talking about geek great like Tolkien or Lovecraft. I'm talking really great, like Pynchon and Delillo. And you can go on all you like about how genre writers have a greater claim to literary righteousness in the second half of the twentieth century than 'mainstream' writers. I, however, will not buy it because it simply is not true, however much one would like to think it is.

Neil Gaiman appears to have spent 90% of his working hours the last 10 years writing nonsense on airplanes in-between readings. Endless Nights was wonderful. Stardust was okay. So was Neverwhere and Good Omens. Just okay. The man, I believe, needs to stop marketing himself and start writing second and third and fourth drafts. I've just read the first 100 pages of Fragile things and it reads as if he'd just emailed his unedited hardrive to his editor. Which is a fine thing for your friends to do after you're dead. But good lord. Neil Gaiman is a great writer. Sandman is one of the greatest works of literature of the past 20 years.

Currently he's not selling his work, only his image.

Neil Gaiman, I am sorry, but you need to get your ass in gear.

Hi Annie1981 - welcome to the board! Yes, I guess your subject line is a little OTT (but I'm sure many of us have wanted to write the phrase 'ass in gear' on the board ). I actually like Stardust and Neverwhere and I do believe Neil Gaiman has the capacity to be great writer. That said, I do not like Fragile Things and I would have given away my copy by now if it was by any other author (and if it was n't signed). I don't know how accurate your description of Neil's writing process, you 're probably being a bit harsh. However, I do think that by taking on a dual role of writer/film director, he may be trying to do too much at once. I mean he'll still do everything quite well, but it may not be as good as if he'd just concentrated on the one aspect of his talents.
I don't have a problem with the way he uses his image -I think most people would be doing this if they looked like him. Also, they had 'rock star/goth' type pictures of Neil on his work from quite early on, I think.At least judging from how young he looks in some of them!

True waspfearer (I too am a fearer of wasps) the goth image is old. But since that book on conversations with the dream king or some such crap came out a few years ago, I think we can safely say that the poor man has sold his soul. Granted, Alan Moore does much the same thing, but in addition to the America's Best fan gush that gets published, he also is an eccentric, isolated gothic troll, and doesn't just dres like one. And he publishes more work of a higher quality more consistently.

Also, about Gaiman's writing process, of course I can't know what it is. But I've worked in publishing with writers for long enough to know what a rough draft looks like, no matter who's written it.

And while I do not know what OTT means (although I can't imagine anything good) I have to say that I agree he has stretched himself too thin. But this is also by choice. Writers need peace and quiet and solitude to write. Not comicons and dinners and interviews. I wonder if maybe Gaiman is pursuing these vast projects and world tours because he is afraid to step back into writer mode and start another major project. But it's been so long now it seems he's written his best work already and is just going to float for the rest of his life. I don't think he is as prolific as he believes himself to be. He's a brilliant comic book writer. This skill on rare occasions lends itself to short fiction. But that's really it. He's not a novelist or a children's book writer or a film director.

First of all, Sandman may will be his best work ever, but it was written at a unique time and in a unique way that he'll likely never see again.

Secondly, Neil's never been content to just sit on his laurels. Even when he was penning Sandman he had a half-dozen other projects on the burners, they were just obscure enough and unnoticeable enough that they didn't warrant comment. He's no more a multitasker than ever before, he's just a more public one.

So far as the writing process goes, it seems pretty clear from the time he spends in his writing cabin that he does indeed spend a considerable amount of time in isolation, just writing. Airplanes and cons are a fine time for rough drafts and the like, but it's always in those alone times that we get the posts about how he's wrestling with his stories and such-like.

So far as Fragile Things goes, have you been in the publishing industry long enough to know that most of those stories were already published once? If they weren't the greatest short stories, that's fine, but I honestly thought the weakest ones were the oldest ones anyway.

Honestly, I don't know that I could even say that his work's of a lesser quality now. Everyone talks about this steady downwards trend, but I loved Anansia Boys, Coraline and Wolves in the Walls. Mirrormask had a fairly predictable plot, but the dialogue was good and Neil's input on the visuals made for a very nice-looking movie.

See, I came to Neil Gaiman's work fairly late, and Smoke and Mirrors was actually my first Gaiman book. I loved it and I've re-read it several times.

I went back and practically inhaled the Sandman series, and pretty much everything else he's published. Honestly, I like the later stuff even better than the first - I feel like its meatier.

I don't know, I'm not in publishing but I read a ton, and constantly.

Maybe its the humor you object to? The sometimes casual and offhandedness of it?

I sure wouldn't say he sold his soul, because that implies that you know what he is capeable of and that he's doing something lesser for fame or fortune. I don't really think he's all that famous. Also, I get the sense that he is doing things his own way, and maybe thats why it doesn't make sense to you - especially if you are judging him against your personal experience of other writers.

Oh, and I really do categorize him as a novelist - a really inventive and genius novelist. But once again - I am only a reader and not in the business.

I mostly agree with Dweller. Anansi Boys was not one of my favorite Gaiman novels, but I certainly enjoyed it.

I was hooked to Neil the moment my best friend put the first trade paperback issue of Sandman into my hands and said "Read it." Since then I have gone on to read as much of his work as possible. I've got Fragile Things sitting under my bed to read now. :3 I don't claim to be a veteran fan of Gaiman since I only discovered him about five years ago, nor do I care how long anyone else has been reading and tracking his progress. As a present and accounted for fan of his work, and having read a decent amount of it, I am content with my opinion that his work is not bringing him any foundation of shame lately. Every reader is particular and has their perspective of what is a good book. I have yet to read a Neil Gaiman piece be it novel, script, or short fiction that I dislike. So it is really just a matter of opinion. You are not satisfied with his work as of late, while others think he's fine or even doing better.

I also do not think that Neil is selling himself out. He is still himself in every way he can possibly be with increasing notoriety. The only difference is that now he's not so much "underground" and he is being recognized by a larger social circle. Usually people would compliment someone who was getting more attention and increasing the potential of their career. I always wonder why authors/musicians/etc. going "mainstream" are suddenly bad. I thought success was generally a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by annie1981:
True waspfearer (I too am a fearer of wasps) the goth image is old. But since that book on conversations with the dream king or some such crap came out a few years ago, I think we can safely say that the poor man has sold his soul. Granted, Alan Moore does much the same thing, but in addition to the America's Best fan gush that gets published, he also is an eccentric, isolated gothic troll, and doesn't just dres like one. And he publishes more work of a higher quality more consistently.

Also, about Gaiman's writing process, of course I can't know what it is. But I've worked in publishing with writers for long enough to know what a rough draft looks like, no matter who's written it.

And while I do not know what OTT means (although I can't imagine anything good) I have to say that I agree he has stretched himself too thin. But this is also by choice. Writers need peace and quiet and solitude to write. Not comicons and dinners and interviews. I wonder if maybe Gaiman is pursuing these vast projects and world tours because he is afraid to step back into writer mode and start another major project. But it's been so long now it seems he's written his best work already and is just going to float for the rest of his life. I don't think he is as prolific as he believes himself to be. He's a brilliant comic book writer. This skill on rare occasions lends itself to short fiction. But that's really it. He's not a novelist or a children's book writer or a film director.

Oh my God, you're a . . . Uhmm, I'll suffice to say you're wrong. Flat out wrong, with no redeeming qualities to the wrongness. Tolkien isn't a great geek writer. He's a great writer, period, no other adjectives necessary. Back to Gaiman, Sandman is not his best work ever. Parts of it, especially the beginning, aren't that great at all. It doesn't really get great until "The Kindly Ones." And why would he want to spend another seven years with a monthly deadline? He couldn't do much else while he was working on Sandman. And "American Gods" is really seriously truly good. He sure as hell didn't write it flying back and forth on planes and writing in airport departure lounges.

"Fragile Things" has some unbelievably good stories. Some aren't nearly as well done. But others are fantastic. As Dweller pointed out, they aren't rough drafts; they've already been published elsewhere. "Coraline" is amazing and original and very good and "Goldfish" is a really good kids book.

Get off his ass? He apparently does more in a month that most people do in a whole year. And I don't care what you may think you know about publishing, you don't have your facts straight and are merely being a provactive trolling uninformed jerk.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: the madness of queen monk,

Just to clarify, 'OTT' is short for over-the-top, which means something similar to hyperbolic. Well at least for me it does .

(monkgrr, we don't call people "fucking idiots" around here unless we know them well enough to call them "fucking idiots." For example, with the level of interaction we've had, I might be able to get away with calling you a "fucking idiot" if you did something that warranted it. Not so with newbies. Read the FAQ.)

quote:

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
(monkgrr, we don't call people "fucking idiots" around here unless we know them well enough to call them "fucking idiots." For example, with the level of interaction we've had, I might be able to get away with calling you a "fucking idiot" if you did something that warranted it. Not so with newbies. Read the FAQ.)

You are correct and I was wrong.

Ooh, this is great fun. I get to come home and see how many people became indignant throughout the course of six hours on account of my splenetic mood. I love the internet.

In large part I made my comments because this website seems to be a place of gush and admiration, so I thought I'd add in a dissonant note.

And FYI, Tolkien was awesome for a lot of reasons, but he's not a great writer. As much as the 13-year-old within us wishes him to be. 97% of his characters are paper dolls and his pleasant picaresques go on and on and on ad infinitum. Influential, yes, genius, no.

Apologies Monkgrr if I offended your fragile sentimentality about the author in question. I'm afraid I lost the faith after American Gods.

The overarching novelistic plotline appears, in my opinion, to go against Gaiman's abilities. Which is unfortunate, because, apart from Alan Moore, he was the most literary of comic book writers. Now he's among the more bathetic popular fantasists. Sucks, to be sure. And I'd rather not have that opinion because reading Sandman was one of the most profound literary experiences of my life, along with reading Anna Karenina and Howard's End. But alas, I am not uninformed. I've read everything. Provacative and trolling jerk... well I'll leave that to you.

quote:

Originally posted by annie1981:
Ooh, this is great fun. I get to come home and see how many people became indignant throughout the course of six hours on account of my splenetic mood. I love the internet.

This describes the essence of your post. You don't have anything to communicate, you just want to annoy (and I'm using a clean term because you're a noob).

quote:

I've read everything. Provacative and trolling jerk... well I'll leave that to you.

Wow, the arrogance... and you might want to check your spelling while making such claims.

quote:

Originally posted by annie1981:
Ooh, this is great fun. I get to come home and see how many people became indignant throughout the course of six hours on account of my splenetic mood. I love the internet.

In large part I made my comments because this website seems to be a place of gush and admiration, so I thought I'd add in a dissonant note.

And FYI, Tolkien was awesome for a lot of reasons, but he's not a great writer. As much as the 13-year-old within us wishes him to be. 97% of his characters are paper dolls and his pleasant picaresques go on and on and on ad infinitum. Influential, yes, genius, no.

Apologies Monkgrr if I offended your fragile sentimentality about the author in question. I'm afraid I lost the faith after American Gods.

The overarching novelistic plotline appears, in my opinion, to go against Gaiman's abilities. Which is unfortunate, because, apart from Alan Moore, he was the most literary of comic book writers. Now he's among the more bathetic popular fantasists. Sucks, to be sure. And I'd rather not have that opinion because reading Sandman was one of the most profound literary experiences of my life, along with reading Anna Karenina and Howard's End. But alas, I am not uninformed. I've read everything. Provacative and trolling jerk... well I'll leave that to you.

Wow, you pissed off one person. What an amazing accomplishment!

You wrote, “In large part I made my comments because this website seems to be a place of gush and admiration, so I thought I'd add in a dissonant note.” Thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining what provocative and trolling jerk means – you’ve done an excellent job of proving it with this statement alone. You didn’t come to discuss intelligently, you came to poke. And by the bye, most of the traffic on this gushing and admiration filled website is actually in the World’s End section, which has almost nothing to do with Gaiman’s works. The activity in that section dwarfs the comments on his works.

You equate reading Sandman with Anna Karenina and Howard’s End? Oh sweet mercy. As much as my fragile sentimentality about Neil Gaiman compels me to worship every word that flows from his fountain pen, Sandman can’t even touch the toenails of Anna Karenina. (It can maybe touch the kneecaps – the mid-shin is more likely though -- of Howard’s End. Much as I love E.M. Forster, he’s no Tolstoy.) Sandman is an overall good piece of work, but with an internally inconsistent story that includes a number of holes and some major flaws, saved by the great ending installments (and Marc Hempel’s kickass work).

Wow, you’ve read everything? Please, stick around and enlighten me. Anyone who equates Sandman with Anna Karenina must have loads to teach me on, say, for starters, “Dirty Work” and “The Odd Women” and “Unicorn Mountain” and “The Penelopiad” and “Nine Stories” and “The Power and The Glory” and “Notes from Underground” and “A Canticle for Leibowitz” and “On Beauty and Being Just” – ‘cause you know, little ol’ me just hasn’t read a thing and has no basis for judging the written word.

Your ignorance concerning Tolkien doesn’t deserve a response. Suffice to say you have no idea what you’re typing about.

Troll indeed. The warning “don’t feed the trolls” is wrong because the trolling comes from the idea of spreading chum on the water to attract the fish. So more appropriately, I’ll not add any more chum to the water.

Think whatever you like about Gaiman’s work. Feel free to display your thoughts here. As you can see, it’s a huge audience and lots of people care passionately.

Alright, honestly now let's not need to move this thread to the Flame Wars forum, okay?

Interesting Monkgrr. You demonstrate my ignorance of the website. Good for you.

And when I wrote that reading Gaiman was as wonderful a literary experience as reading Tolstoy, I did not mean that he was of the same quality. There have been moments in reading in my life that have elevated and elated me in some profound way. They were 'happenings' in my life. Reading Sandman and reading Anna Karenina had in common this ability to completely enmesh me in their worlds, to bind me to them until I'd read every last word. Is, I suppose, what I meant when I equated the two writers.

Additionally, I don't really understand the list of works you've put down. Are you attempting to show me that you've been to a bookstore?

And Howard's End deserves a place in the English Canon at the very least, I think.

And what is it that I'm missing in Tolkien? I'd really like to know. I've never been able to understand the appeal frankly.

I suppose I've overstepped the delicate emotional boundaries of the site. So very sorry.

Although I suppose this argument has dissolved into a chummy hateship and should probably be taken elsewhere or ended.

I love a bit of chum in the morning. It's been a lovely bitch fest. Good night!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: annie1981,

Frankly, when it comes to appreciating all things Gaiman, I find myself agreeing somewhat with Annie, although I would qualify my thoughts on the issue a lot. I've read a number of posts that praise NG's later works with superlatives that have also left me thinking, "Have these people read anything else than Gaiman? And if so, what?" While I got the impression that Annie also wanted to provoke to some extent, I do think that there's a fairly strong defensive fanboy/fangirl element on the boards. Which isn't much of a surprise, seeing as it's neilgaimanboard.com, but I've been surprised at times at how little critical discussion of NG you get here. (Having said that, you did get it on much of the older work, and you do get it even now, as the discussion of Fragile Things shows.)


Edit: I'd add that I don't see Tolkien as a literary genius either. He's a genius worldbuilder, and he has many literary strengths, but there are also fairly hefty weaknesses in his writing. They don't matter that much because they're not what his books are about, but I don't agree with Tolkien worship based on his literary qualities.

I dunno, in my case I just tend to talk about what I like in a book. I have to get fairly far into even a FTF discussion before I get into what I didn't like.

And if I really don't like a book, I just try to forget about it!

I worshipped JRRT when I was 13, but I'm rawther older than that now ... and writing several FRP supplements based in Middle Earth (for which I had to read Unfinished Tales as background) pretty much killed that notion anyway. Now I only re-read LOTR every few years. Hmmmm .... maybe I'm about ready for a re-read now.

For me, the Gaiman bit is complicated by the fact that I've come to like him very much, almost as a character himself, via the blog. So it's even less likely that I'd want to rag about something he'd done. Silly, but there it is.

(That said - although Anansi Boys was cute, and I'm glad to have a Gaiman book to recommend to mainstream-reading friends, it really didn't grab me with the ... grandeur, I guess - the way that both "Sandman" and American Gods did. I'd love him to write something with a big scale to it again.)

- Cho

I didn't see the first post as trollish, I took it to be humorous. Like the bit about stories reading like first drafts, she just said 'it reads as if.... Which, as I wrote in the Fragile Things thread, I mostly agree.

And ditto on what Thirith said (I'm almost getting bored of saying that, Thirith, although it's handy and saves me time )

Howdy, Annie1981. Welcome to the boards. If there's anything you need help with, please feel free to let me or Dweller of Darkness know what it is.