Hi all. I've just joined and I'm sorry that my first message is a big negative! Don't get me wrong, I adore Neil Gaiman's works. I've read.. possibly four-ish of his books and am currently reading another one, but I am seeing a certain pattern in all of the books I have read. I'm talking about the thorough descriptions of how beautiful the female characters are and the lack of equal descriptions of male characters (for the ladies!!). I do remember a few tidbits of male descriptions scattered here and there, but they don't even come close when it comes to HER beautiful long hair and HER piercing eyes, blah blah blah. Has anyone else noticed this? For me, this sort of thing has put a bit of a damper on his otherwise terrific stories. I just keep thinking how painfully obvious it is that this author is a (straight) male.

Is this making sense?

Hmmm . . . not sure if I agree with you here (and yet, sincere welcome to the board -- check out the World's End section and get a real welcome!). I seem to remember physical description of males as well as physical description of females. What have you read? And I'm also unclear why this gets on your nerves. Maybe I didn't read your post closely enough. I'll try again, but meanwhile please feel free to go in depth. I love talking about literature.

Hi.

While I didnt notice, I think maybe its because his charecters arent really that great looking. They are mostly average men thrown into unaverage situations - cept spider - but all the women are enchanted in some way and the men usually love them, so their beauty is exceptional.

Thanks for the replies!

Monkgrr, I guess it gets on my nerves because it makes it so obvious that the writer is a male. And well when you're reading a book you want to be focusing just on the story and not these other things. It also gets on my nerves because I'm female and I'm a little tired of reading about all these drop dead gorgeous women who practically infest some of the novels.

I've read Stardust (the guy in there was supposed to be good looking right?) and Neverwhere (there too I remember a tidbit about the male character being good looking) and Coraline (no problems with that book) and.. something else.. and Good Omens (this one too is like Neverwhere and Stardust in that respect. Main male character supposed to be good looking but only a slight mention of that, and there are a bunch of beautiful females).

Okay so this whole thing isn't a big deal or anything but aghh it's just a bit frustrating to me when I've seen it repeated so many times. I wonder if male authors are just too homophobic. What about the angels Aziraphale and Crowley?? Only one *tiny* mention of Crowley's appearance, leaving most of it to the imagination.. which is fine.. but then there's that red headed beauty and the pleasing face of Anathema.. gaaah. (This is from Good Omens by the way.)

I'm getting wordy. In conclusion: it bothers me because it's everywhere, makes the author seem homophobic, and I'm female and would like to see some equality between men and women in his books in this respect.

Again, hmmm. Drop dead gorgeous women? In which novels? I can't think of any whom I would say are unusually lovely, except for maybe Jess in "Neverwhere" but she's portrayed as a controlling shrew and in that way her looks are seen as a way of manipulating others so I wouldn't say that her looks are a good thing. Richard seemed pretty darn cute to me but maybe that's just my own brain supplying the looks. And again in "Stardust," the drop dead gorgeous girl is, well, not very nice at all and once again uses her looks as a way to manipulate others. I remember Tristan being quite a dish. Also, I thought Adam was the main male character in "Good Omens." He's described quite well *and* he's a child so any implication of his sexual allure would be kind of icckk. What male character are you thinking of as being the main? Crowley? It's only been about 3-4 years since I last read the book, but I could be forgetting someone. And I don't remember any women of any serious signifigance being particularly beautiful.

You didn't mention "American Gods." Far more males than females in that book and the descriptions of all are just that -- descriptions, not necessarily judgments. And in "Anansi Boys" the two young women described are at best pleasingly attractive, cute maybe but not gorgeous. While Spider is described as something very special.

In real life, some people are physically lovely, some aren't and it would be bizarre to not represent that reality. However, Mr. Gaiman has made it very clear in all his works that looks aren't what makes a character worthwhile. (Desire of the Endless, anyone?)

Neil Gaiman is about the last straight male author on this planet that I would ever, ever describe as being in any way homophobic. Just a personal opinion based on careful reading of his works.

quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
What about the angels Aziraphale and Crowley?? Only one *tiny* mention of Crowley's appearance, leaving most of it to the imagination.. which is fine.. but then there's that red headed beauty and the pleasing face of Anathema.. gaaah. (This is from Good Omens by the way.)

It's made fairly clear that Aziraphale and Crowley have some control over how people see them. No one wants to be ugly, so they're fairly handsome, but giving physical descriptions of creatures that don't have a set physical form would be less-than-useful.

quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
I'm getting wordy. In conclusion: it bothers me because it's everywhere, makes the author seem homophobic, and I'm female and would like to see some equality between men and women in his books in this respect.

If the source of your frustration is a suspicion of homophobia, no worries. Continue onto the Sandman series, and you'll find a good quantity of extraordinarily well-written homosexual characters (Hazel and Foxglove, Wanda (well, wait.... was Wanda transsexual? It's been a while since I read the series...)

As far as the descriptions.... huh. I never noticed that before. I might have to do a re-reading...

quote:

Originally posted by monkgrr:
Again, hmmm. Drop dead gorgeous women? In which novels? I can't think of any whom I would say are unusually lovely, except for maybe Jess in "Neverwhere" but she's portrayed as a controlling shrew and in that way her looks are seen as a way of manipulating others so I wouldn't say that her looks are a good thing. Richard seemed pretty darn cute to me but maybe that's just my own brain supplying the looks. And again in "Stardust," the drop dead gorgeous girl is, well, not very nice at all and once again uses her looks as a way to manipulate others. I remember Tristan being quite a dish. Also, I thought Adam was the main male character in "Good Omens." He's described quite well *and* he's a child so any implication of his sexual allure would be kind of icckk. What male character are you thinking of as being the main? Crowley? It's only been about 3-4 years since I last read the book, but I could be forgetting someone. And I don't remember any women of any serious signifigance being particularly beautiful.

You didn't mention "American Gods." Far more males than females in that book and the descriptions of all are just that -- descriptions, not necessarily judgments. And in "Anansi Boys" the two young women described are at best pleasingly attractive, cute maybe but not gorgeous. While Spider is described as something very special.

In real life, some people are physically lovely, some aren't and it would be bizarre to not represent that reality. However, Mr. Gaiman has made it very clear in all his works that looks aren't what makes a character worthwhile. (Desire of the Endless, anyone?)

Neil Gaiman is about the last straight male author on this planet that I would ever, ever describe as being in any way homophobic. Just a personal opinion based on careful reading of his works.

Tristans mom sounds amazingly beautiful in stardust.

quote:

Originally posted by aitapata:

quote:

Originally posted by mestarrant:
I'm getting wordy. In conclusion: it bothers me because it's everywhere, makes the author seem homophobic, and I'm female and would like to see some equality between men and women in his books in this respect.

If the source of your frustration is a suspicion of homophobia, no worries. Continue onto the Sandman series, and you'll find a good quantity of extraordinarily well-written homosexual characters (Hazel and Foxglove, Wanda (well, wait.... was Wanda transsexual? It's been a while since I read the series...)

As far as the descriptions.... huh. I never noticed that before. I might have to do a re-reading...

wanda was preoperative transsexual who was afraid of having surgery.

to completely hijack this topic, have we all take to calling him Tristan now? I always thought his name had two R's - Tristran. But even the movie news usually call him Tristan.

So, has it been changed then?


To veer back to the actual topic. Anathema was described as being "pretty over the ages" or something like that. She wasn't drop dead gorgeous, as I remember. Granted, s'been a while since I read the book.

Door in Neverwhere was rather scruffy looking, wasn't she?

Wow. I always. Wow. I thought his name was Tristan. I dont know why I never once noticed the second R in his name. That is very, very odd. I am amazed at myself. I went and double checked adn there is a second r in his name. Weird.

Door wasnt described as being beautiful but that other chick was, the one who stole his warmth. I think hunter was also.

quote:

Originally posted by Maeve:
to completely hijack this topic, have we all take to calling him Tristan now? I always thought his name had two R's - Tristran. But even the movie news usually call him Tristan.

So, has it been changed then?


To veer back to the actual topic. Anathema was described as being "pretty over the ages" or something like that. She wasn't drop dead gorgeous, as I remember. Granted, s'been a while since I read the book.

Door in Neverwhere was rather scruffy looking, wasn't she?

Thanks for catching my mistake, Maeve. I know that it has two Rs, I just spaced out and didn't type it correctly. You are right, of course. And his mom had cat ears, if I remember correctly, and was quite lovely. But still . . . cat ears!

And you are right again, Door is scruffy and slightly in need of a bath because of all her running and hiding. I imagine her as being attractive in a odd, off-kilter way -- very unconventional looks. I seem to also remember a fair amount of description of the men in the books, but then in my mind, they often end up looking vaguely like Mr. Gaiman himself.

Hi all! Thanks for all the discussion!

In reply to someone's question, no I have not read American Gods.. well actually I've read some of it a few years ago but never finished it. I don't remember much from that one.

And in reply to another question, okay here is the list of drop dead gorgeous females from his books that I can remember off the top of my head:

1. the star-woman from stardust
2. tristran's mother from stardust
3. that girl that sent tristran on his quest from stardust
4. the three witch sisters from stardust
5. door from neverwhere (she had great hair and amazing-colored eyes. i think her scruffy-ness was supposed to make her more beautiful, in a romantic if-you-just-wash-the-dirt-off-she'll-blow-your-mind kind of way.)
6. hunter from neverwhere
7. the woman who sucked out your warmth from neverwhere
8. anathema device from good omens (although i do appreciate that even though all of her features were perfect by themselves, they looked a bit funny when put together. )
9. that red haired evil woman from good omens

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.. oh right, and Jess from Neverwhere.

Mongrr, you make very good points. Yeah there are female characters who use their looks to manipulate others.. but there aren't any male ones who do that. And yeah the reality is that some people are lovely and others aren't and that looks don't really matter, but then why are there at least four females from a single novel (Stardust) who are extremely beautiful? That doesn't seem too realistic to me, at least not when the author has a limited number of characters to use and the majority of them turn out to be like that.

If Neil Gaiman upholds that looks aren't what makes a character worthwhile, then maybe he'd give as little attention to physical detail as he does to Tristran or that guy from Neverwhere (forgot his name).

I'm a little surprised that most people aren't seeing my point because this is something that really stands out to me in his books (in the ones I've read, anyway). I keep comparing him to C.S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy, where she has about 2-3 great looking characters per novel, and it is always a mixture of male and female, and there is an equal amount of description of both sexes.

The red haired woman is War and her beauty just like most of the other women who are beautiful in Neil's books seem to be stunning visiually and not so good insides. War is beautiful because she is representing a idea war is tempting and seems so good or we wouldn't have it. Famine is described as handsome in some detail but the charecter who's looks are mentioned the most of this group is Pollution though not attractive his looks are described in detail and often.

I believe that many of the rest are again described in detail because with out their beauty (most of your list) they wouldn't have set the major charecter off on some important task. In fact the whole reasoning behind the witches in Stardust is to gain that beauty at any cost.

Many of the men are described but most of them are plain. The reason behind that is because they are average and this is the reason when a good looking woman gives them a chance they fall all over themselves to comply. A fairly common thing in our society.

In other books you will see this less without searching for it. Shadow in American Gods has his looks described often. Though he is not particularly handsome he is good looking as I took it. The only women I really remember are a few of the Goddesses but the Gods get the same time.

I know how hard it is to let something go once it catches your eye. This is something that you are noticing heavily because you are looking for it. I have done similar with other things in books. I hope this doesn't discourage your reading Neil he has some great works.

Great points, Tankgirl. The only thing I could quibble with is the male characters being plain and so overwhelmed by the beautiful women. I see the male characters as being nice looking but unsure of themselves and so willing to comply with the wishes of someone who is more confident -- sometimes an attractive women, sometimes a con man like Low Key Lyesmith and Mr. Wednesday, sometimes frightening old women like Mrs. Dunnwiddy. But cat ears, people! Cat ears. How is that attractive?

I remember the descriptions of the gods in "American Gods" far more than I remember the goddesses, of which there seem to be less in quantity. And Wednesday's voice echoes in my head at the most frightening of moments!

One thing I'm not quite understanding -- how one can go from seeing lots of literary descriptions of beautiful women (personally, I'm not conceeding that point because many of the listed examples are not stunningly lovely, Door for example, and most of the others are evil and conniving, therefore they don't bear out that beauty = good -- in fact, quite the opposite) to seeing homophobia. That makes no logical sense. Mr. Gaiman may imagine beautiful women and love to describe them. That doesn't make him homophobic. *Or* a bad writer.

quote:

Originally posted by monkgrr:
One thing I'm not quite understanding -- how one can go from seeing lots of literary descriptions of beautiful women (personally, I'm not conceeding that point because many of the listed examples are not stunningly lovely, Door for example, and most of the others are evil and conniving, therefore they don't bear out that beauty = good -- in fact, quite the opposite) to seeing homophobia. That makes no logical sense. Mr. Gaiman may imagine beautiful women and love to describe them. That doesn't make him homophobic. *Or* a bad writer.

I was going to ask exactly that. How do you link lack of descriptions of males to homophobia? Maybe you think he doesn't want to describe males so that he doesn't look himself as if he's gay - I don't think that's the reason, nor that it would make him homophobic even if that was the case.

One thing that always amazes me, and I've heard it over and over, is the impossibility - as they tell me themselves - of men to see the beauty or attractiveness of other men. Ask the average male why Brad Pitt is considered handsome, and they'll say they don't know. And I believe they are sincere. We women have no trouble with that.

So maybe it's simply that being a guy, Neil can't tell you how it is that another guy is handsome. He can describe some things about them, but not describe them the way he does with women. I think you'll have to forgive him for being a guy. He just is. He can't help it.

It's true that thinking about it, he describes Spider as attractive more in terms of the effect he has on people, mostly on women, but he doesn't tell you why that happens, what it is about Spider that women like other than his behavior.

And here's a suggestion - go ask Neil himself the question (see the faq at his site). Maybe he'll answer and we'll all find out.

As to the comment about plain guys I was thinking more about Richard and Newt since these are two of the books she mentioned. I always saw them as while not really handsome that with a good hair cut and the right bit of self confidence they could be.

I totally agree with you monkgrr and chimeer about all the rest. Good points, I had wanted to say similar but you worded it much better.

quote:

Originally posted by monkgrr:
I seem to also remember a fair amount of description of the men in the books, but then in my mind, they often end up looking vaguely like Mr. Gaiman himself.

Neverwhere - which I loved - made me laugh right at the beginning with the fact that Richard is an absolutely classic Mary-Sue:
"He was a fresh-faced, boyish young man, with dark, slightly curly hair and large hazel eyes; he had a rumpled, just-woken-up look to him, which made him more attractive to the opposite sex than he would ever understand or believe."

Remind you of anyone? Which helps to prove, to me at least, that one of the tests of a really good writer is that they can merrily commit as many of the awful mustn't-do cliche writing crimes as they wish and get away with it.

hives..

Chimeer, well maybe that's one of the flaws of male writers.. the inability to describe other males the same way they describe females. Maybe this just makes female writers better.

I really don't remember/haven't finished American Gods, so I can't respond to any of the things mentioned with that book..

Okay, I linked the lack of descriptions of males as homophobic because I figure no man wants to be caught writing something physically flattering about another man, not even if it might be beneficial to the book he is planning on selling to a wide range of people. I am NOT saying that Neil Gaiman is a homophobe. I know everyone here is a huge (and perhaps sensitive) fan of this guy, and I'm not here to say negative things about him. I don't know him. Who know's if he's a homophobe or not. But it just seems to me that way. Sometimes. Through his works.

And I can honestly say I'm not looking for any of these flaws. It's just that I'm more sensitive to them as they come along. It's like.. the more shots of Vodka you drink, the harder it is to get the next one down. Haha I couldn't think of another analogy. I wonder what this says about ME.

Okay and Door WAS supposed to be beautiful. That's what I got from the book, anyway. So she was a big younger and very dirty.. so what?

Some characters in Good Omens were not necessarily written/described by Neil. I always rather thought that Terry Pratchett had more to do with Anathema Device than Neil did, although it's only my opinion and I could certainly be wrong.

be buggered if I can remember his name right now, but the guy who ran The Seventh Magpie (Mr Meterios?) was described as being very handsome, wasn't he?

Obviously for me at least his descriptions work very well, I'm totally able to have "a movie in my head". Perhaps I'm just unconsciously filling in whatever characteristics that I find attractive?

Back to Stardust: I thought it was Victoria's mother who was described as being the prettiest pot-girl for ages. That Tristran's (actually Louisa's) mother was pretty, but not gorgeous, except to Tristran's father. So, of course Victoria would be beautiful.

I still don't see the homophobe connection. Sorry, I just don't get it.