I very much like Gaiman, Sandman, novels, kids’ stories, I like it all. Different pieces for different reasons, though. Arty the risk of being tossed out of the thread, I have never really gotten into Moore. I have not read very much (really only Watchmen) and I understand he is a ground-breaker, etc but I just haven’t gotten it as far as he goes.
I don’t think Stephenson has yet figured how to end a book. *Cryptnomicon *and the Baroque Cycle are exactly the same: fascinating characters, cool plot, hilarious digressions and dialogues, enticing ideas and compelling outlook on things, you wanna know how all of these threads coalesce together and…oh. Oh OK. I… guess that’s an ending ? Cause there’s no more words after it ?
Don’t get me wrong, he’s one of my favorite writers. But he does really need to puzzle out a way to end his books properly. Which is weird because he’s probably got some of the best beginnings I’ve ever read, and those are much harder to pull off IME.
Really? American Gods had a couple of doozies for me. So did Neverwhere. Stardust, not so much, but that’s fairy tales for you.
I think his Poison Ivy story in Secret Origins, while quite revisionist, was well done. I’ve read a little of the Sandman stuff, & find “Dream of a Thousand Cats” works well, & some of his other stuff is passable.
Probably 3/4 of what I’ve read of his ranges from mediocre to how-are-you-wasting-my-time-with-this-dishwater, with the other fourth being clever. But I really don’t seek him out.
Then again, Alan Moore can be very clever but often pisses me off, so I don’t tend to follow his imitators.
Have you read much Pratchett? Because what you describe as the strong points of *Good Omens *is pretty typical of his novels.
As for the OP, I’m not very familiar with Alan Moore’s work so I don’t compare/contrast Neil Gaiman with Alan Moore at all. I’m not sure why one would feel it necessary to do so. I can understand liking one better than the other, but if you’re looking for someone to be the next Alan Moore (or any other author) then you’re probably going to wind up disappointed because Alan Moore is almost certainly better at being Alan Moore than anyone else.
Something I don’t think anyone else has mentioned yet about Neil Gaiman fandom is that it is to some extent about Neil Gaiman as a personality and not just Neil Gaiman’s work. Gaiman was blogging before blogging was cool, and this has helped make his fans feel like they know him. He also does a lot of public appearances – readings and signings to promote his new books, charity events, book festivals, library conferences, etc. – and comes across as very charming and likable. It probably doesn’t hurt that Gaiman is, while no movie star, not bad looking for a writer. If people didn’t like his work then none of this would matter, but there are reasons why Gaiman is more beloved than other writers who one might consider just as good.
Only because of what I laid out in my OP: he took over a title from Alan Moore - Miracle/Marvelman (which I would include in the top few of great comics, as good as Watchmen, V, Dark Knight - just less available in the U.S.), was “anointed” as Moore’s protege and then kicked off a comics series held up as another entry in the Pantheon of the Greats, Sandman. So, absolutely, I stepped into Gaiman with some expectations, for better or worse.
I do think a key distinction is hard sci-fi vs. Fantasy. Gaiman really is a Fantasy Guy at heart, and Moore is the comics equivalent of hard sci-fi. I am, again, for better or worse, a hard sci-fi guy, so it makes sense that I would align Moore…
I read Gaiman first and only read Moore because he was so recommended for those who like Gaiman, and was very disappointed. I read From Hell, V for Vendetta and the first book of Promethea and none of them grabbed me at all.
Interesting. Any correlation with the Fantasy/Sci-Fi differences between the two I hypothesize above?
I’ve only glanced at Sandman or other comics, but for his novels, I consider him almost a slightly more interesting, outsider-ier, Stephen King. His strength isn’t in wild creativity or deep insight into human actions; it’s in taking something slightly inventive, and putting it on the page in a way that feels right to lots and lots of people. I mean, there’s nothing particularly trail-blazing about Stardust, but it walks the well-worn path really really well.
I just finished American Gods a few weeks ago. It is the only exposure I’ve had to Gaiman. I read it for two reasons: I like Pratchett and a librarian suggested Gaiman, and I’ve been reading Hugo award winners.
Meh. The novel isn’t very good. It took me a while to slog through it, and about halfway through I almost stopped reading. For one thing the main character was perhaps the most flat, uninteresting character I’ve ever encountered. The book rambled on and suffered a considerable lack of focus.
Maybe the worst part was that the central conceit had such potential. The book really could have explored mysticism, belief, the meaning of faith, etc. There was so much material to mine that he didn’t even touch. And it doesn’t have to be complicated either. Compare it to Pratchett’s Nation: a straightforward narrative that nevertheless manages to explore with great depth and understanding the meaning of tradition and ancestor-worship.
I’m not willing to say Gaiman is a bad writer on the basis of American Gods. It wasn’t terrible, but I’m a bit surprised that it won both the Hugo and Nebula for best novel. It reminded me of Clive Barker’s work more than anything else: cool ideas that never got developed to their potential, but lots of “freaky shit” happening as distraction.
I’m a Gaiman fan that doesn’t really care about Moore’s work (though I appreciate what he did for comics by spearheading its deconstructive phase), and I can see why you make the fantasy/sci-fi distinction, but it doesn’t hold true for me, a sci-fi nerd that dislikes fantasy in general. I think that is largely due to Gaiman focusing on urban fantasy and mythology instead of the stereotypical swords and sandal or medieval settings.
Probably. Plus I’ve always loved mythology and in addition to incorporating classic (and obscure) myth into his works Gaiman’s work is mythic in and of itself. I also find Moore gratuitous in his violence and sex; I’m not a prude but I think if you’re going to include sex and violence there should be a purpose. (Example: the depictions of Hitler’s conception in From Hell- do we really need to see Alois penetrating Paula?)
For those who’ve only read American Gods, it’s actually my least favorite of his works. Anansi Boys, set in the same universe, is much better.
Speaking as a librarian (although not one who usually does reader’s advisory), a big Pratchett fan, and a moderate Gaiman fan, that’s not the Neil Gaiman book I’d have recommended to you. Good Omens would be an obvious first choice since it’s a collaboration between Pratchett and Gaiman. For Gaiman-on-his-own I’d probably suggest Neverwhere first, but really any of his other adult or YA novels would probably appeal to you more than American Gods.
I think he was that way for deliberate effect, although whether it was worth it is a matter of opinion. American Gods isn’t a favorite of mine for sure – I read it once, years ago, and have forgotten most of it. I do remember a distinct feeling of “Seriously, that’s your ending?” at the end, which has discouraged me from going back to it. Like Sampiro, I liked the sort-of sequel Anansi Boys better.
American Gods was a painfully dense book, and difficult to understand on the first run-through. I think I had forgotten what the book was about by the time I’d finished.
Loved Neverwhere, though.
I think I rather like Gaiman more as a person than as an author, really.
Ooh, yes, I like this comparison…
…although I disagree completely about the characterisation.
But I love Barker too, which may be why.
Little Nemo: I think the Hernandez Brothers are pretty good, but I don’t know if I would place them at the top of the field. Then again, I haven’t read any of their stuff in years.
I’m one of those who came from Sandman first, read Good Omens because of Gaiman, really enjoyed it, heard it was more Pratchett’s work, moved on to Pratchett and…failed utterly to get into him. I like Gaiman, but so far have developed no love for Pratchett - I think there is something wrong with me :p.
I think Gaiman’s signature graphic work ( Sandman, Death, The High Cost of Living and the original Books of Magic ) are brilliant. I think some of his shorter fiction ( Coraline, some short stories like A Study in Emerald ) are good. I find his novels mostly sub-par, if usually inventive in concept. I agree that as a novelist he often has wonderful ideas but flawed execution.
To some extent I find Moore and Gaiman to be verging on apples and oranges, but in the end, comparing comics only, I prefer Gaiman. And yes, I AM more of a fantasy guy than a hard sf guy ;). In fact though I am big sf guy as well, with a few exceptions I think hard sf tend to entertain me much less than the non-hard variety. My tastes tend to run towards space operas like Cherryh’s.
Who I’d compare more directly to Gaiman is Mike Carey. They tend to write on very similar themes. I think Carey is less inventive and original, but a tad better in a workmanlike sense at writing longer prose. From his graphic work I really enjoyed Carey’s Lucifer ( based completely on Gaiman’s creation ) and Crossing Midnight, but as good as they are they left less of an impact than Sandman. But I think Carey’s journeyman-level Felix Castor novels, while less novel than Gaiman’s novels, are more enjoyable as a quick read.
I love Neil Gaiman. He’s in the same group as Guy Gavriel Kay to me. I think there’s far better work in him than he has yet published, and I keep hoping that greater potential will one day be fulfilled. In the meantime, what he does publish ranges from the ‘enjoyable light reading’ to really quite moving work.
Interestingly for a writer, I find he does his best work in collaboration, whether that’s in comics - Sandman is a high-water mark for graphic literature that is not going to be equaled anytime soon (and am I the only one who loved Signal to Noise?), in scripts or in the aforementioned ‘Good Omens’. When he’s on his own, I think he needs to get saddled with an editor who is more demanding. It’ll never happen, I know; just like with Neil Stephenson or J. K. Rowling - no one is going to tell them to cut 150 pages and fix the fwcking ending or they won’t publish it.
Or perhaps the problem is that one of his strongest influences is G. K. Chesterton. He has caught ‘the bland’ and can’t shake it.
Anyone with that level of knowledge and interest in folklore and mythology should be capable of something truly great. I’m still waiting, but his ‘tossing it off in a few weeks’ is much better than most people’s sweating blood for a year. I’d also be very interested to see him take up from where Fraser and Joseph Campbell left off - a populariser of the current state of comparative myth; that was one of the aspects of Sandman that I loved the most.
…And while I agree that the first 7 issues were uneven, I loved the first issue! The ritual where they summon and bind dream? ‘He realizes that he couldn’t stop now, even if he wanted to…’ Chilling!
Yes, that is one of my most-favorite Gaiman stories. It blends several things I love about the fantasy-horror genre.