Neil Gaiman: love or hate? (and why)

I love Neil Gaiman.  I love his easy prose, much the same way that I love JK Rowling prose.  It has an uncomplicated grace.  But Gaiman's characterizations are the best.  The worlds he creates come alive through the people he populates them with.  

What is it about him ppl don't like?  I'm curious.  

Comments

  • Love him. Not entirely sure I love his fandom.

    I came to his work through Terry Pratchett, and I love the way they explore often similar themes but in very different ways.
  • I'm generally on the "love him" side, though I've found that I like his short stories and graphic novels better than his novels. I enjoy his ideas, characters, and mood-setting - and I really enjoy reading his own comments on writing.

    Some of my book reviews of his work, via my BookCrossing entries:

    Smoke and Mirrors, short stories, including one of his Lovecraftian-influenced tales.

    Fragile Things, another anthology, containing the marvelous "Study in Emerald" (another Lovecraftian crossover, this one featuring characters from the Sherlock Holmes stories).

    The Graveyard Book, an interesting kid-raised-by-ghosts tale - and a deliberate homage to Kipling's Jungle Book, which delighted me.

    And then there's Good Omens, in which Gaiman and Terry Pratchett collaborated to a delightful and heart-warming degree. I love their description of the writing process almost as much as the book itself.

    I've just begun reading American Gods, thanks to the mini-series; so far I'm enjoying it, and it does seem to have been adapted to the screen quite faithfully.
  • edited May 3
    Neither love nor hate, actually.

    I did not like American Gods.  Now, it may be that so many people had raved about it that my expectations for it could not be lived up to.  It's an okay book, but it's not "all that and a bag of chips"! The concept was certainly an interesting one, but the execution was lacking.  A combination "road trip" and picaresque novel, it had what can be a common problem in such works - a sense that it's haphazard. Parts of it were a cheat, and I thought the end really sagged. I had the feeling that Gaiman found himself holding a bunch of loose ends and wasn't quite sure what to do with them.  I tried again with Neverwhere, and didn't finish that one, because I was finding the same flaws in it that I found in AG.

    I thought Smoke and Mirrors was a mixed bag (something fairly common in collections).  I liked the short stories, the poetry not so much.  It is often the case that an author who can write short stories well isn't as adept at the long form of the novel.

    Now I really loved A Walking Tour of the Shambles, though that might be the Chicago connection. The combination of the deadpan tone and the references to real Chicago sites almost made you wonder if there really was a B&B with a Terribly Strange Bed!

    Good Omens was an absolute delight, and bits of the prologue reminded me of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.  This was the first book of Gaiman's that I read, so it may also be that subsequent books suffered by comparison.

    Curiously, those last two were collaborations (with Gene Wolfe and Terry Pratchett, respectively), so I wonder if that upped the quality of the books.


  • I just picked up American Gods today, for my book club.  I'm interested to see how I like it!
  • I just picked up American Gods today, for my book club.  I'm interested to see how I like it!
    So will I!
  • I really enjoy his work  to the point that I think he's one of my favorite authors. I don't fall under the rabid part of his fandom, though. 

    The Starz version of  of American Gods is really quite good. I particularly love the casting for Wednesday & couldn't imagine anyone else in the part now. 
      
Sign In or Register to comment.