Another List, Neil Gaiman

[Rores28]

http://www.worldbooknight.org/your-books/the-wbn-interactive-top-100-books

Another top 100. Overall I was pretty shocked that a completely reader generated list had so many classics and so few crappy titles. One thing I thought odd was how often Neil Gaiman appears on that list. I could understand J.K. Rowling or Stieg Larson or Stephanie Myer or something but I didn't realize Gaiman was that popular.

What are your thoughts on Gaiman. I know a lot of people like him but I've always thought he was overrated and I'm not sure if his multiple inclusions on the list bolsters or detracts from that position.

[Charles Darnay]

Yeah, he does how up a few times.

He has a certain style - between his witticisms, and his blending of reality and fantasy that's not quite magic realism but still - he is a very appealing author. I have tried to like him, but overall I find his books boring.

I liked Stardust. And Sandman is fantastic - but that's all.

I had to struggle to get through American Gods, and I read Anansi Boys because someone told me it was much better - it wasn't.

[Drkshadow03]

I think Gaiman is a great writer, but I mostly read his short fiction, which I found had a real philosophical and emotional depth to them.

[Scheherazade]

I have read three books by Gaiman (Stardust, American Gods and Neverwhere). I think he is one of the most engaging and entertaining writers of recent times. And I'd agree with Drk that his stories have a philosophical depth to them (especially American Gods).

I am not surprised and actually very glad that his books appear in that list.

[Lokasenna]

I've not actually read much of his stuff, though American Gods is on the pile. Good Omens, co-authored with Terry Pratchett, is one of the funniest things I have ever read.

I approve of him as a man with a great understanding of medieval literature as well - even if I have never quite forgiven him for that bloody awful Beowulf film.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I enjoyed Neverwhere, but wasn't blown away by it. It's good for a writer's first novel. I also have American Gods on my to-read shelf, and am hoping for a better read. My dad read it and hated it, but he also proclaimed Blood Meridian was one of the worst books he's ever read, so I'm thinking his disliking AG is more of a good thing (he's just not a "literary" guy--more of a Stephen King man).

[JCamilo]

But Neverwhere is really bad. Lousy. Neil Gaiman best momments are a few short stories, Good Omens (but seems like Terry Prachet helped a lot) and Sandman series. He can be good, but his hollywood ways is making him to be so repetive, that his interesting stuff is getting shakky. No problem with Coraline, Anansi brothers thou...

[Brett Cottrell]

Yeah, he does how up a few times.

He has a certain style - between his witticisms, and his blending of reality and fantasy that's not quite magic realism but still - he is a very appealing author. I have tried to like him, but overall I find his books boring.

I liked Stardust. And Sandman is fantastic - but that's all.

I had to struggle to get through American Gods, and I read Anansi Boys because someone told me it was much better - it wasn't.

American Gods was kind of "meh," especially when compared with Good Omens. American Gods took itself too seriously and didn't really wrap up the story or the plot lines of some big characters. Not a bad book, just average.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I liked American Gods, but didn't love it, just like Neverwhere. He's a good author, there's no doubt about that, but with all the praise (pages of it at the beginning) I was expecting a lot more. I'm still waiting to be "wowed" by Gaiman, and I think it'll happen; I think he has the potential.

I'm planning to read his short story collection, the Sansman series, and maybe another of his novels. If none of those really grab me, I may give up on Gaiman.

[Wayfarer32]

I personally really liked American Gods. I think that once you get through the entire cacophony of symbolism, allusions, and multiple messages, its a fun read. That being said, Gaiman tends to be one of those authors that has either really fanatic fans, or folks who are just " meh". I've yet to see anyone dislike him, but I've more found folks who are "HE IS THE BEST AUTHOR EVER" or who are just " I've seen better". I find a lot of his fans exist in the fantasy/gaming subcultures. I have another forum I post on and the reaction to me posting about reading American Gods and recommending it was fairly...enthusiastic for Gaiman: to the point I would has hesitant to post anything negative

Me Personally: I think he has a FANTASTIC imagination. Far more nuance and detailed then some writers composing today. I think really a great example of that imagination is found in the film "Mirror Mask" which is an amazing work. I also love his work on Sandman and recall he did some writing for Constantine. I don't think he is THE best author, but I think he will have standing in the Western Canon definitely.

[JuniperWoolf]

Overall I was pretty shocked that a completely reader generated list had so many classics and so few crappy titles.

Many people have a few classics under their belt that they like to whip out at parties to prove that they're "cultured," these reader-generated lists always seem to be an amalgamation of the works which people feel proud of having read.

Most of Gaiman's stuff isn't for me (fantasy is boring), but I really liked one of his short stories from Fragile Things. Actually, searching for the title just now I found the whole thing online, I thought it was longer but I guess it's only about two pages long. Other People (http://holdinghandswithhades.edublogs.org/seven-deadly-sins-part-7-the-others-by-neil-gaiman/)

[PeterL]

Gaiman is not all that bad, but I gave him a chance and he blew it. American Gods has about 300 pages that are actually part of the novel; they just take up space. That is bad writing. I also read some of his short stories, and I didn't think much of them.

[JCamilo]

Gaiman is clearly making himself mediocre by trying to follow the commercial american market. American God is Stephen King Like, some vague good idea, Gaiman fill with his references and nice touches but develop a confuse epic plot which he had no condition to solve. It still have nice lines, etc, but it is very poor overall. Gaiman descent continues in Graveyard book which is a awful Harry Potter copy.

[Calidore]

Gaiman's a great idea guy, but the execution can be iffy. I think he rates so highly among fans because he himself and his work are both very friendly--different enough without being too different.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm telling you, short stories is where Gaiman's talent lies. To the point where if I ever made a top 100 short stories list I'm almost certain a couple of his tales from Smoke and Mirrors would appear on it.

[Wayfarer32]

You know, on the thought of this list: One writer I can recommend that has ideas that fal lin line with some of Gaiman's but folks may find are executed a bit more smoothly is the books by Martin Millar. They are if nothing else, extremely entertaining reads. My favorites by him are The Lonely Werewolf Girl (don't knock it just for the title) and the sequel, Curse of the Werewolf Girl. Martin has a flair for humorous, emotional writing and setting absurdly entertaining scenes that had a tendency to make me laughing constantly.

[Helga]

I liked Coraline when I read it years ago, but American Gods is the next book on my list so we'll see..

I did like him in the Simpsons episode.

[Heteronym]

I've perused some of his books; I found the prose awful. I tried reading some short-stories but their dialogue-driven nature bored me. It's like the man is afraid of narrating; makes me think of "show, don't tell" gone mad.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think his imagination and originality are by far his strongest areas. The ideas and originality of story in Amerixan Gods was quite wonderful. He just seems to have troublemwhen it comes to actually telling the story. He just isn't that cohesive, and his editors definitely didn't help him on AG. Writing style wise, I'm rather indifferent, it isn't wonderful, but I don't see how someone can find the prose "awful." It's perfectly suited to his stories. Not everything has to be ultra poetic.

One thing I did like AG, and this was my favorite part, was the selection of small towns in America and the two tourist attractions, Rock City and The House on the Rock. The scene of them walking through The House on the Rock was my favorite part, and I'd definitely like to see all those bizarre music rooms and robot theater boxes, not to mention the worlds largest carousel. At one point even mentioned the town Red Bud, which blew me away because I live right by it. I don't think it even has more than a thousand people. I can't imagine what someone in Red Bud thought when they read that.

[Drkshadow03]

I think his imagination and originality are by far his strongest areas. The ideas and originality of story in Amerixan Gods was quite wonderful. He just seems to have troublemwhen it comes to actually telling the story. He just isn't that cohesive, and his editors definitely didn't help him on AG. Writing style wise, I'm rather indifferent, it isn't wonderful, but I don't see how someone can find the prose "awful." It's perfectly suited to his stories. Not everything has to be ultra poetic.



I haven't read AG yet, but I think Gaiman's strength is his ability to reinvent myth tropes and symbolism for a modern world, with emotionally interesting characters. Like I mentioned earlier some of his stories have some real thematic depth and pose some really interesting philosophical questions; one story that comes to mind is "The Wedding Present" (hidden in the introduction of Smoke and Mirrors), which is Gaiman's interesting take on The Picture of Dorian Gray.

His stories when successful really have a strong emotional impact such as: "The Wedding Present," "Chivalry," and "Troll Bridge."

I think the prose of his short fiction is quaint, cozy, and simple. If you look at his word choices he always goes for simple sentences with short words. Sure, a lot of writers do that (bad and good); however, he has a very distinct voice that works well with the type of stories he tells (dark modern fairy tales about the joys and disappoints of everyday people). I think it's a good meld between style and content.

On the other hand, the poetry in Smoke and Mirrors is horrendous.

[JCamilo]

I'm telling you, short stories is where Gaiman's talent lies. To the point where if I ever made a top 100 short stories list I'm almost certain a couple of his tales from Smoke and Mirrors would appear on it.

His talent is Comic books scripts, Sandman is awesome.

I like some of his short stories, good re-telling, some nice ideas. Gaiman is a good storyteller, he is not a good novelist. Even in Sandman the ending of the stories, unsually long, are abuse of Deux ex Machina- but then, he was writing about Gods and a god.

His take on modern old -old myths (present in every work, Sandman, American Gods, Short Stories, Anansi) is interesting, but all his allusions get lost when he must tell a typical best-seller format. You can sense his imagination losing integrity while reading American Gods, there is a Stephen King Feeling there.

He belong to an english tradition that is better really in short stories, but they are not going to put him in the top best-selling list...