AMERICAN GODS
Elisabeth Riba
>>Has anyone read Gaiman's new book? From what reviews I've read, it's sounds
>>like it would make a better comic.
> cn...@aol.com (CNSMR) digitally declared:
> What about the prose, tone and structure make you think that it
> would have been better executed as a comic, and illustrated by whom?
> Oh, sorry.
> What interpretations of other peoples' hearsay make you think etc
Well, I *have* read the book, and I think it would be better as a comic.
I felt that American Gods needed at a minimum a set of endnotes for all
the references to dieties and other allusions that I didn't have the
background to look up -- or even an inkling of where to START looking for
more info on particular myths. Yes, Neil is brilliant, but give the
readers some hints here. Even an afterward with "for more information on
these pantheons, try these books"
I was reading Sandman and rac at the same time. As each issue was
released, there would be a massive outporing of posts in the newsgroup
which resulted in the annotations -- explanations of some of the subtler
myths and allusions which not all readers would pick up. This was possible
in part because the Sandman story was released in a serial format, so
everybody was reading the same "chapter" at the same time, and the
collective fen could generally compile a decent background before the
next issue came out. I have a feeling that AG will inspire a similar set
of fan annotations, but the fact that it NEEDS such annotations is a bit
of a weakness, because a large novel is different from a serialized
format, that it will take more time to produce and readers will gain less
benefit.
More importantly, though, there were NUMEROUS times while reading the book
that I felt a need to go back to reread previous passages. And in a solid
prose book, that's much harder than it is in a comic, where every page
looks more-or-less the same. It's much easier to look for the page with a
picture of X than it is to flip through pages to find a reference to X's
name and then seeif that contains the text you were seeking. Even if it
were merely an illustrated novel, like Stardust, that would've helped.
Don't get me wrong; I enjoyed the book tremendously, but it wasn't an easy
read in ways that would've been easier in a format Neil has already shown
proficiency.
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Maggie
> Mute at 33 1/3 <mu...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> >>Has anyone read Gaiman's new book? From what reviews I've read, it's sounds
> >>like it would make a better comic.
>
> > cn...@aol.com (CNSMR) digitally declared:
> > What about the prose, tone and structure make you think that it
> > would have been better executed as a comic, and illustrated by whom?
> > Oh, sorry.
> > What interpretations of other peoples' hearsay make you think etc
>
> Well, I *have* read the book, and I think it would be better as a comic.
Bleah. It's a wonderful novel that lends itself well to re-reading.
Now that you know how it all turns out, go back and read it again.
You'll see everything you missed the first time 'round.
> I felt that American Gods needed at a minimum a set of endnotes for all
> the references to dieties and other allusions that I didn't have the
> background to look up -- or even an inkling of where to START looking for
> more info on particular myths. Yes, Neil is brilliant, but give the
> readers some hints here. Even an afterward with "for more information on
> these pantheons, try these books"
Oh, come *on*.
You'd think that in this digital age, the person with the time and means
to grouse on Usenet that they didn't understand could take some of that
time and stick the unknown names into Google.
"I don't know where to start" is a sorry excuse coming from someone
obviously plugged into the largest repository of information in the
known universe.
--
Maggie - who likes the fact that Neil doesn't spoon feed us.
Elisabeth Riba
> Oh, come *on*.
> You'd think that in this digital age, the person with the time and means
> to grouse on Usenet that they didn't understand could take some of that
> time and stick the unknown names into Google.
> "I don't know where to start" is a sorry excuse coming from someone
> obviously plugged into the largest repository of information in the
> known universe.
I enjoy research. But not when I take this along for vacation reading
UNplugged to the net. [Coincidentally, on a trip to Chicago and Wisconsin]
It may make a great REread, but it was an incredibly difficult initial
read. I don't LIKE having to interrupt the flow of reading every few pages.
Mute at 33 1/3
>Mute at 33 1/3 <mu...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>>Has anyone read Gaiman's new book? From what reviews I've read, it's sounds
>>>like it would make a better comic.
>> cn...@aol.com (CNSMR) digitally declared:
>> What about the prose, tone and structure make you think that it
>> would have been better executed as a comic, and illustrated by whom?
>> Oh, sorry.
>> What interpretations of other peoples' hearsay make you think etc
>Well, I *have* read the book, and I think it would be better as a comic.
Since you can't even get your attributions right in this post -a
task which the software should take care of for you- you'll pardon me
if I treat your complaints of having to do your own research if you
want to expand your knowledge as pathetic whining.
-Chris
__________________________
np: The Wonder Stuff, Live in Manchester
Planet of the Brandons
Thomas Galloway
In article <3b52...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Mute at 33 1/3 <mu...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> digitally declared:
>>Mute at 33 1/3 <mu...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>Well, I *have* read the book, and I think it would be better as a comic.
> Since you can't even get your attributions right in this post -a
>task which the software should take care of for you- you'll pardon me
>if I treat your complaints of having to do your own research if you
>want to expand your knowledge as pathetic whining.
And, knowing that Lis has been on Usenet since circa 1990, is studying
to be a librarian, and has an excellent rep on groups such as
rec.arts.comics.* and ne.general for, among other things, doing extensive
research, you'll pardon me Mute if I think you're full of it here.
Probably everyone who posts extensively to Usenet has had the occasional
experience of getting attributions mixed up, particularly around the 3-4
deep level. I include myself, who probably has as much Usenet experience
as everyone else in this thread combined.
As Lis expanded on her original comments, she had first read the book while
on vacation, away from her usual research sources. And while I disagree with
her on this particular book being an exemplar of it, there are certainly
books that I consider to be unreadable for pleasure due to the amount of
research needed to understand 'em. And I consider that a reasonable criticism
of a work on an individual basis.
Me, I felt that there was enough info given about the various gods to enjoy
the book even if I wasn't extensively familiar with all of 'em, or able to
identify some of 'em (and I say this as probably one of a very few number
of people aware of one particular god used...and that only because it happens
to be the name of the company I work for). Other people's mileage may vary.
In my opinion, nothing Lis posted in this thread justifies jumping on her as
Maggie and Mute did.
tyg t...@panix.com
Maggie
> > Oh, come *on*.
> > You'd think that in this digital age, the person with the time and means
> > to grouse on Usenet that they didn't understand could take some of that
> > time and stick the unknown names into Google.
> > "I don't know where to start" is a sorry excuse coming from someone
> > obviously plugged into the largest repository of information in the
> > known universe.
>
> I enjoy research. But not when I take this along for vacation reading
> UNplugged to the net. [Coincidentally, on a trip to Chicago and Wisconsin]
> It may make a great REread, but it was an incredibly difficult initial
> read. I don't LIKE having to interrupt the flow of reading every few pages.
I must say, I really don't get what you're on about. You didn't need to
know or understand who each and every deity was to enjoy the book the
first time 'round. You certainly didn't need to look them up as you
went to enjoy the book, either.
It looks frightfully like a case of lazy reading, not poor writing.
The book was never meant to give up all of its treats the first read-
through. Neil himself has said so. You should consider reading for the
enjoyment of the story, rather than the details.
--
Maggie UIN 10248195 http://www.chocolatefiends.com
"Shadow found himself thinking about a garage in San Clemente with box
after box of rare, strange and beautiful books in it rotting away, all
of them browning and wilting and being eaten by mold and insects in the
darkness, waiting for someone who would never come to set them free."
- Neil Gaiman, cut from _American Gods_
Maure
>You should consider reading for the
>enjoyment of the story, rather than the details.
See, I think the problem sometimes is that most of my enjoyment, at least,
comes from the details. The details make the story. I enjoyed the book, I
certainly wouldn't call it my favorite book, but I did like it. I completely
understand, however, how *lacking* in story the book would seem, if you weren't
aware of the nuance each particular god brings to the soup. In fact, the more I
learn about these gods, the more interesting the book becomes - the details
really make the book here.
I am sure you really loved this book, and aren't just defending it so
voraciously because Neil wrote it, but I do believe that Ms. Riba has a point.
And I really don't think there's any need to be so derisive about her opinion.
Maure.
http://www.eurydiceunderground.com
send email here: ma...@eurydiceunderground.com
(if you want me to reply)
Mute at 33 1/3
>okoeydokey!
Borrowing Damon's fingers again?
-Chris
__________________________
np: Steinski/Jon More/Plus One, Breezeblock
Elisabeth Riba
First of all, I do love Neil Gaiman's writings. I read, owned & loved
"Don't Panic" before I ever even heard of Sandman; was reading Sandman
early enough to contribute to the annotations, consider "Good Omens" to be
my all-time-favorite book (for the last 10 years or so) because it never
fails to make me laugh, also own & enjoy Neverwhere and Stardust. I even
own his "Duran Duran" book, and because of AG, we nearly changed our travel
plans to visit "House on the Rock" and may go to MadCon in Wisconsin to
hear a more local take on the book. I don't dislike Neil Gaiman's
writings. Look at my wedding cake: http://jadetek.com/wedding/li_wed54.jpg
Second, I do think that American Gods is a good book, and I did enjoy it.
That given, and back to the original question, American Gods had some
flaws that wouldn't have so problematic had the book been released as a
comic instead of solid prose. There are two advantages to comics:
visuals and the serial nature -- both of which Gaiman clearly demonstrated
mastery of in Sandman -- that might've helped AG. [Again, it wasn't a BAD
book, but I could tell by reading that it could've been a GREAT book.]
As I mentioned before, there were numerous times while reading the book
that I felt the need to reread certain passages.
For example, at one point W spends a page and a half enumerating his powers.
Close to a half-dozen times after that in the book, I wanted to check that
list to see what he could do. And each time, it took me a while of paging
through to find the thing.
As in Sandman, dreams in AG are significant. Frequently a character would
describe a dream and then chapters later uncover the meaning. At those
times, I wanted to go back and reread the entire original dream in context
to see how the revealed meaning fit. Again, I had a devil of a time
finding those dreams back in the text.
Or when a character reappeared and made reference to previous events in
the book, again I wanted to look back and find them.
Now, I've done similar things in Sandman and had little problem. You look
for the page with a large head of W surrounded by lots of Todd Klein
calligraphy (or lots of smaller panels of W uninterrupted in a row).
You look for the page with the particular dream imagery. You look for the
page where the character previously appeared. In comics, it's not that
difficult because there are visual clues.
But when there's page after page of solid prose, undifferentiated by
graphics or typographic elements, it gets to be much more difficult to
find a particular passage while thumbing back through the text.
Does that make more sense? In comics, it's very easy to flip back a few
pages to check some detail. With Sandman, I could find passages that were
ISSUES back, because of that added visual memory. Through writing comics,
Gaiman has gotten used to that ability and expecting that from his fans.
But prose does not hold up to that as well. I finished reading the book
barely one week ago, and still had trouble paging through to find passages
I wanted to mention here.
I trust my ability to find scenes in my comics (most which I read only
once and put in a pile) more than to find them in American Gods -- even
the scenes in AG which I looked up multiple times.
It's not a bad book, but it has weaknesses that wouldn't exist had it been
written in an illustrated format.
Regarding the research question, which was actually a secondary problem:
When I read, I prefer to just lose myself in the book and go with the
flow. This need for references kept pulling me out. Yes, I could go on
and get much of the gist on first reading without, but there was a
constant feeling that I was missing something.
Taking a non-plot point, there was a simple aside:
"[Kali] greeted them as she would have greeted her own children"
Now, I know more-or-less who Kali is. I also know, however, that in many
pantheons, the gods relations with their children are less than harmonious
and oftentimes murderous. So, should that statement make me envision a
warm and enthusiastic welcome or something terribly chilling?
It wasn't a terribly important point, but things like this kept pulling me
out of the story at inconvenient times. [I don't know why, but the phrase
"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" keeps coming to mind as I try to describe
the frustration.]
In some respects, this book reminds me of Silverlock. For that book,
another reference-heavy fantasy, fen have published a separate book "The
Silverlock Companion." For Sandman, the denizens of rac produced the
"Sandman Annotations" (which have led to annotations of other comics).
American Gods would definitely benefit from something like that. NG is
clearly aware of that need, because he has already created a bibliography
page on his own website (although it's still blank). I'm sure there will
be a fan-created companion/annotation as well. Having worked on the
Sandman annotations, I can say emphatically that such a task is easier for
serialized works than novels, because everyone can hash out and agree on
one (shorter) segment at the same time before going onto the next.
The original question somebody asked (and got flamed over) was:
>>Has anyone read Gaiman's new book? From what reviews I've read, it's sounds
>>like it would make a better comic.
I've read the book. While I believe it's a very good book, I also thought
while reading it that it would've worked better in a comic format.
I'm not asking anyone to agree, but can you at least understand where I'm
coming from?
Gene Ha
I think the ideal Neil usually aspires to (don't know him personally) is something
fun to read the first time, that yields surprises the second time ("didn't notice
that before!"), and still provides meaning the 10th time.
So, with Elisabeth's postings as a warning, I'll do my first reading carefully.
Gene.
--
"Whoever said, 'Brevity is the soul of wit'
wasn't being paid by the word." Kyle Baker
Mengmeng Zhang
[snip]
> As I mentioned before, there were numerous times while reading the book
> that I felt the need to reread certain passages.
Speaking only personally and in no way meaning that your preference is wrong, I
find that I sometimes (not all the time) highly enjoy a book which makes me
work a little harder. I have a few books which are full of post-it notes where
I've marked important passages that I feel will be referenced later. Some books
aren't meant to be fully comprehended on the first read, and AG is one of those
IMO. An example in another medium is how your perception of the first scenes
between Ilsa and Rick in Casablanca is changed upon second viewing because you
know their history in Paris.
> But prose does not hold up to that as well. I finished reading the book
> barely one week ago, and still had trouble paging through to find passages
> I wanted to mention here.
> I trust my ability to find scenes in my comics (most which I read only
> once and put in a pile) more than to find them in American Gods -- even
> the scenes in AG which I looked up multiple times.
Well, different people have different learning modes. I find that I can
usually find scenes in most books I've read recently fairly easily, even
without the post-its (which are often blank; they're just a marker). But I had
quite a bit of trouble remembering lots of scenes from Sandman when I first
read them. Reading the Sandman Companion helped a lot with that.
> It's not a bad book, but it has weaknesses that wouldn't exist had it been
> written in an illustrated format.
To me, it seems that these complaints are, for the lack of a better word,
"practical" as opposed to artistic. Nothing wrong with that, I just personally
feel artistic concerns should take precedence. There are many many
considerations you must make when you choose a medium. Things describable by
prose cannot always be imitated by graphic art, and vice versa.
[snip]
> American Gods would definitely benefit from something like that. NG is
> clearly aware of that need, because he has already created a bibliography
> page on his own website (although it's still blank). I'm sure there will
> be a fan-created companion/annotation as well. Having worked on the
> Sandman annotations, I can say emphatically that such a task is easier for
> serialized works than novels, because everyone can hash out and agree on
> one (shorter) segment at the same time before going onto the next.
While it may indeed be easier for a serialized work, from what I've seen it's
not terribly more difficult for a novel. The Annotated Pratchett Files do a
pretty successful (if not the fastest) job on Terry Pratchett's works, which
have references to just about everything under the sun (and sometimes beyond
that). For the myth and religion parts in AG, at least, I should think it
wouldn't be that difficult to make straightforward annotations of most things.
The coin tricks and Americana and other such things would be more difficult, I
acknowledge.
Anyway... I understand your points, I just don't really agree with them. I
personally can't picture AG in a comic format, but I have to admit I've only
read Sandman-related things and a few other works in the comic medium.
MZ
--
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is
invisible to the eye. - Antoine de Saint-Exupery, _The Little Prince_
The three rules of the Librarians of Time and Space are: 1) Silence; 2) Books
must be returned no later than the date last shown; and 3) Do not interfere
with the nature of causality. - Terry Pratchett, Discworld
Andrew Ducker
>This from a guy who hasn't read the book yet. So grain of salt to
>youze.
>
>I think the ideal Neil usually aspires to (don't know him personally) is
>something fun to read the first time, that yields surprises the second
>time ("didn't notice that before!"), and still provides meaning the 10th
>time.
Yeah, despite knowing Neil's fondndess for puns, one of the twists missed
me completely despite its complete obviousness.
It was even more obvious when he read the book in Edinburgh. I felt dumb.
Andy D
Andrew Ducker
<9iusf5$7dh$1...@news.panix.com>:
>When I read, I prefer to just lose myself in the book and go with the
>flow. This need for references kept pulling me out. Yes, I could go on
>and get much of the gist on first reading without, but there was a
>constant feeling that I was missing something.
I didn't have problems, but then I grew up devouring all the mythology I
could get my hands on. I think that Neil occasionally forgets that just
because you called a character Mr Nancy, people won't instantly think "oh,
he'll be a XXXXXXX then."
Andy D
Sean Ruprecht-Belt
would make a good comic page." Overall, though, I thought the novel
worked very well as a novel. It's certainly not Hemingway (and maybe
that's a_good_thing!), or Shakespeare, or Joyce. American Gods is not
going to change the landscape of literature in the English speaking
world. But I enjoyed reading it and it did set me to thinking. I
talked about it with friends and it sparked some good conversations.
What more could I want?
As far as the references to various gods & such being somewhat
obscure; I didn't have any problem with them. (Okay, maybe I'm being a
big smarty-pants here. I'll admit it.) There were a couple that didn't
spring immediately to mind, but it didn't deter my reading pleasure.
And Mr. Gaiman did provide clues along the way. So what was at first
kind of obscure was fairly clear by the end.
Best regards,
Sean Ruprecht-Belt
Maggie
> In my opinion, nothing Lis posted in this thread justifies jumping on her as
> Maggie and Mute did.
You'll have to pardon me when I say that characterizing my expressing
disbelief that someone with Internet access wouldn't know where to start
their research as "jumping on" her is, quite frankly, a load of hooey.
I'd further call it hooey after you've taken pains to point out that
she's a librarian. If a librarian doesn't know where to go for
information, who, might I ask, *does*?
Maggie
<snippage>
> It's not a bad book, but it has weaknesses that wouldn't exist had it been
> written in an illustrated format.
I really disagree. I think that spoon feeding us the whole thing would
have ruined what Neil was trying to do. There was a point...
> Regarding the research question, which was actually a secondary problem:
> When I read, I prefer to just lose myself in the book and go with the
> flow. This need for references kept pulling me out. Yes, I could go on
> and get much of the gist on first reading without, but there was a
> constant feeling that I was missing something.
...and this is it right here.
We're *supposed* to feel like we're missing something on that first read
through. We're *supposed* to have that little itch in the back of the
mind, the little "Who *is* this? I *know* who this is, don't I?" voice
whispering at the edges of our perceptions.
Why?
Because these gods are *forgotten*. Nobody worships them anymore, and
few people even remember them. What better way to demonstrate this than
leaving you with the feeling that you're missing something? It serves
to make you sympathize with them (it did for me, anyway). What an awful
thing, to be forgotten. Which is part of Wednesday's motivation - he's
tired of being forgotten.
Putting it all out there in pictures, with circles and arrows and
paragraphs on the back of each one would have muted, if not completely
obliterated, that point.
You're supposed to get the feeling that things aren't quite what they
seem, and pick up the specifics later (which, incidentally, makes an
already delightful story even more so).
<snippage>
Loz Pycock
Christ Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote the following:
>In alt.fan.neil-gaiman Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>> Oh, come *on*.
>> You'd think that in this digital age, the person with the time and means
>> to grouse on Usenet that they didn't understand could take some of that
>> time and stick the unknown names into Google.
>> "I don't know where to start" is a sorry excuse coming from someone
>> obviously plugged into the largest repository of information in the
>> known universe.
>
>I enjoy research. But not when I take this along for vacation reading
>UNplugged to the net. [Coincidentally, on a trip to Chicago and Wisconsin]
>It may make a great REread, but it was an incredibly difficult initial
>read. I don't LIKE having to interrupt the flow of reading every few pages.
>
But this sounds more like you chose the wrong context to read the book
in, not that the book is necessarily bad in itself. And I'm not
finding it particularly difficult to read either, and I am by no
stretch of the imagination smart.
Loz
'"I fear those big words," Stephen said, "which make us so
unhappy."' Ulysses, James Joyce.
"'eh... fuck that. It's prolly 'cause I've got too much
blood in my alcohol system." Saint Nightwalker.
Bryant Durrell
Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> quietly murmured:
>
><snippage>
>
>> It's not a bad book, but it has weaknesses that wouldn't exist had it been
>> written in an illustrated format.
>
>I really disagree. I think that spoon feeding us the whole thing would
>have ruined what Neil was trying to do. There was a point...
>
>> Regarding the research question, which was actually a secondary problem:
>> When I read, I prefer to just lose myself in the book and go with the
>> flow. This need for references kept pulling me out. Yes, I could go on
>> and get much of the gist on first reading without, but there was a
>> constant feeling that I was missing something.
>
>...and this is it right here.
>
>We're *supposed* to feel like we're missing something on that first read
>through. We're *supposed* to have that little itch in the back of the
>mind, the little "Who *is* this? I *know* who this is, don't I?" voice
>whispering at the edges of our perceptions.
That's kind of an interesting concept. If an educated reader picks up
on, say, 75% of the gods on the first read-through, does that mean his
or her enjoyment of the book is lessened?
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"I do not believe the expenditure of $2.50 for a book entitles the
purchaser to the personal friendship of the author." -- Evelyn Waugh
Ninave Lake
I think Maggie makes a really good point...and Neil worked so hard on it, to
make it not obvious...Coin tricks are a theme, and as we've often mentioned,
the whole book is a "Look over there" coin trick...and I'll be the first to
admit I didn't get everything, and it didn't hurt the book for me at
all...and I did look up things in my big 'ol Larosse encyclopedia...and got
sidetracked once or twice....but that's just part of the fun.
Ninave
Chip
news:MPG.15bd1b80d...@news.buckeye-express.com...
been
> > written in an illustrated format.
>
> I really disagree. I think that spoon feeding us the whole thing would
> have ruined what Neil was trying to do. There was a point...
Comics aren't spoon-feeding. Neil's were, but the better ones aren't.
-- chip
snow
> experience of getting attributions mixed up, particularly around the 3-4
> deep level. I include myself, who probably has as much Usenet experience
> as everyone else in this thread combined.
So I'm only subscribed to this newsgroup and I've only been here for a month
or so and I've only ever been on a couple newsgroups before:
What's an atribution? And where was it mixed up?
And damn you all anyways, I'm still waiting for my copy. But it'll be signed
when I get it, so I can wait.
snow
snow
"Chip" <jimi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:N%J47.423$uD5.2...@news1.iquest.net...
So once again I'm confused, and since I'm not usualy so slow I'm chalking it
up to being tired: How were Neil's comics spoon feeding? (I'm not being
sarcastic or anything. Just don't get it: they make me thing about a lot of
things, and I don't feel patronized. I notice new things each time. But
then, I'm being slow today...)
slow snow
Ninave Lake
wouldn't be annotations...or awards for being such a good comic....
But then, I am not the world's closest reader when I'm just reading for fun.
Ninave
Maggie
> In article <MPG.15bd1b80d...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> >We're *supposed* to feel like we're missing something on that first read
> >through. We're *supposed* to have that little itch in the back of the
> >mind, the little "Who *is* this? I *know* who this is, don't I?" voice
> >whispering at the edges of our perceptions.
>
> That's kind of an interesting concept. If an educated reader picks up
> on, say, 75% of the gods on the first read-through, does that mean his
> or her enjoyment of the book is lessened?
Where would you get that idea? Heavens, no.
I got many of the deity references, having a pretty solid interest and
background in mythology. It did nothing to lessen the enjoyment of the
book at all.
In fact, it strengthened my opinion that you don't *need* to know who
they all are to enjoy and understand the story.
Bryant Durrell
Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>Bryant Durrell <dur...@innocence.com> quietly murmured:
>> In article <MPG.15bd1b80d...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
>> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>
>> >We're *supposed* to feel like we're missing something on that first read
>> >through. We're *supposed* to have that little itch in the back of the
>> >mind, the little "Who *is* this? I *know* who this is, don't I?" voice
>> >whispering at the edges of our perceptions.
>>
>> That's kind of an interesting concept. If an educated reader picks up
>> on, say, 75% of the gods on the first read-through, does that mean his
>> or her enjoyment of the book is lessened?
>
>Where would you get that idea? Heavens, no.
>
>I got many of the deity references, having a pretty solid interest and
>background in mythology. It did nothing to lessen the enjoyment of the
>book at all.
Well, my thought is that someone like you (or I) who got most if not
all of the references wouldn't have gotten that little itch in the
back of the mind. "Mr. Nancy, ah, I know who that is, on to the next."
So I am thinking perhaps I didn't get what I was supposed to get out
of the book.
Mad Mouse Beyond Thunderdome
Bryant Durrell wrote in message ...
>In article <MPG.15bd48ec1...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
>Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>>
>>I got many of the deity references, having a pretty solid interest and
>>background in mythology. It did nothing to lessen the enjoyment of the
>>book at all.
>
>Well, my thought is that someone like you (or I) who got most if not
>all of the references wouldn't have gotten that little itch in the
>back of the mind. "Mr. Nancy, ah, I know who that is, on to the next."
>
>So I am thinking perhaps I didn't get what I was supposed to get out
>of the book.
Speaking as someone who thought she knew a little bit about mythology until
she picked up this book...
Personally, I missed *A LOT* on the first read. I knew there were things I
should be understanding that would add something to the story, but knowing I
could re-read the story, I read it through and made mental notes to do some
research.
On it's own, with no explanation other than what's in the book, it's a very
good story.
Next I took those mental notes and did a little researching and asked a few
questions.
The second read was just as good, and just as new, since I was getting at a
whole new layer of story. And there were other things that I wanted to look
over and check out, that I had missed the first time round.
I dunno, I prefer to have a story I can re-read over and over again and find
something new in every time. And maybe it would work as a comic, but I
prefer it as it is, where I have to make more guesses.
Neil has mentioned something about when it is better to write books and when
it is better to write comics. With comics, the writer is giving you exactly
what he wants you to see of a situation ("how does Dream dress?", or "oh,
we're supposed to be focused on that lighter in the second frame"). With
prose, the writer only gives away so much of what you *could* be seeing
("What does Shadow look like to you?" or "When did you figure out who XXX
was?"). I think some of that surprise and figuring would be lost in a comic.
Neil wrote it as a book, and wanted us to keep guessing at things. I respect
that. And while it might make a great comic someday (who knows?), I think
it's just fine the way it is... 'cept maybe for that missing apostrophe...
-MM & the ME
end of opinion no one wanted to hear any way
o..o o..o o..o
>\/< >\/< >\/<
"Reach and you won't lose me. Destroy the objective but still survive"
Maggie
> In article <MPG.15bd48ec1...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> >Bryant Durrell <dur...@innocence.com> quietly murmured:
> >> In article <MPG.15bd1b80d...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
> >> Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >We're *supposed* to feel like we're missing something on that first read
> >> >through. We're *supposed* to have that little itch in the back of the
> >> >mind, the little "Who *is* this? I *know* who this is, don't I?" voice
> >> >whispering at the edges of our perceptions.
> >>
> >> That's kind of an interesting concept. If an educated reader picks up
> >> on, say, 75% of the gods on the first read-through, does that mean his
> >> or her enjoyment of the book is lessened?
> >
> >Where would you get that idea? Heavens, no.
> >
> >I got many of the deity references, having a pretty solid interest and
> >background in mythology. It did nothing to lessen the enjoyment of the
> >book at all.
>
> Well, my thought is that someone like you (or I) who got most if not
> all of the references wouldn't have gotten that little itch in the
> back of the mind. "Mr. Nancy, ah, I know who that is, on to the next."
I don't know about you, but I had to really think about some of them.
Wednesday was really obvious, of course. But Czernobog? The Zorya?
The boxy guy with the low humming and the forgettable name?
Did you get them right off the bat? I didn't. I really had to think
about them later - not because their exact identities were vital to the
story (they weren't), but because it was driving me crazy that I
couldn't place them. And I'm still of two minds about Mr. Humming Guy,
still not sure.
Hinzelmann, who apparently many people didn't recognize, I got right
away. I likely wouldn't have, though, if I hadn't lived in Germany for
a year and a half and spent much time in and around the Lueneburge
Heide. He's not exactly a household name.
Shadow's true name? That took a little thought, too.
> So I am thinking perhaps I didn't get what I was supposed to get out
> of the book.
If you enjoyed it, I'd say you got what you were supposed to.
Steven Dumont
Maggie wrote:
>
> Bryant Durrell <dur...@innocence.com> quietly murmured:
> > In article <MPG.15bd1b80d...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
> > Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>
> > >We're *supposed* to feel like we're missing something on that first read
> > >through. We're *supposed* to have that little itch in the back of the
> > >mind, the little "Who *is* this? I *know* who this is, don't I?" voice
> > >whispering at the edges of our perceptions.
> >
> > That's kind of an interesting concept. If an educated reader picks up
> > on, say, 75% of the gods on the first read-through, does that mean his
> > or her enjoyment of the book is lessened?
>
> Where would you get that idea? Heavens, no.
>
> I got many of the deity references, having a pretty solid interest and
> background in mythology. It did nothing to lessen the enjoyment of the
> book at all.
>
> In fact, it strengthened my opinion that you don't *need* to know who
> they all are to enjoy and understand the story.
I rented "O Brother, Where Art Thou" recently. I have never actually
read "The Odyssey" but I had a good enough grasp of mythology that I
could pick up on a number of things in the movie. I'm sure I missed
some but it didn't bother me in the slightest.
Steve
Steven Dumont
Elisabeth Riba wrote:
>
> I've read the book. While I believe it's a very good book, I also thought
> while reading it that it would've worked better in a comic format.
> I'm not asking anyone to agree, but can you at least understand where I'm
> coming from?
I think this is a bit unfair to Neil. If he had never written comic
books would you still think this? I would hazard a guess and say,
"no". I haven't read AG yet but how does it come across as a novel. I
could definitely see the movie "Seven" being a Vertigo mini-series but
it doesn't take away from the fact that I enjoyed the movie as it was.
If someone other than Neil's name was on this the idea of AG being
better as a comic book would most likely not have come up. I realize
that you said that you enjoyed the book as it was but to say it would
work better as a comic book seems a little out of left field to me.
Steve - who means no offense by any of this
Mute at 33 1/3
>Well, so much for the friendly rep of afn-g...
I was replying in racdcv, actually. Where I'd already set a harsh
tone (and my mindset in relation to the thread) in my reply to the
original poster- who, if you hadn't seen it, was postulating that some
*reviews he'd read* proved that Gaiman should have done the book
-which he *hadn't* read- as a comic.
>In article <3b52...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
>Mute at 33 1/3 <mu...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> digitally declared:
>>>Mute at 33 1/3 <mu...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>>Well, I *have* read the book, and I think it would be better as a comic.
>> Since you can't even get your attributions right in this post -a
>>task which the software should take care of for you- you'll pardon me
>>if I treat your complaints of having to do your own research if you
>>want to expand your knowledge as pathetic whining.
>And, knowing that Lis has been on Usenet since circa 1990, is studying
>to be a librarian, and has an excellent rep on groups such as
>rec.arts.comics.* and ne.general for, among other things, doing extensive
>research, you'll pardon me Mute if I think you're full of it here.
Of course. I did consider making the same argument as others here,
that the book functions perfectly well if you don't get all the
references (as I don't), doesn't expect you to catch them all, and is
designed to reward future readings, with or without research in the
interim. (I also thought that her complaints that Neil *should have*
done it as a comic, because she personally finds it easy to flip back
a few pages in a comic but annoying and difficult in a prose book, to
be profoundly silly.)
But being credited with the opinions that I was arguing against, and
indeed being placed in opposition to my own words, strangely put my
back up. And I was therefore terse and dismissive in my response.
-Chris
__________________________
np: TISM, Machines Against The Rage
Jake Wildstrom
Steven Dumont <stev...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>I rented "O Brother, Where Art Thou" recently. I have never actually
>read "The Odyssey"
Neither, according to an interview I saw, had the Coen brothers. That
probably helps.
+--First Church of Briantology--Order of the Holy Quaternion--+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Paul Erdos |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Thomas Galloway
snow <snow...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
>> Probably everyone who posts extensively to Usenet has had the occasional
>> experience of getting attributions mixed up, particularly around the 3-4
>> deep level. I include myself, who probably has as much Usenet experience
>> as everyone else in this thread combined.
An attribution is what you see just above this; the line before the lines
with the >s at the start gives an id (sometimes edited down to just a
name or the address, sometimes longer). The lines following it with one
more > at the front than are in front of the attribution line were originally
written by that person.
So in the above, since the line that ids "snow" has no >s, snow is supposed
to be the author of the lines with 1 >. Since snow didn't put in a specific
attribution for the text he quoted (which now has 2 >s at the start), we
don't know who wrote it if all we have to go on is this msg, just that it
was text being replied to by snow. Now, I happen to know that I'm the one
who originally wrote the >>ed lines, but if by mistake in editing you
put in a line of the form:
>f...@bar.com wrote:
above the lines with >>s, it'd appear that foo had originally written those
lines. And thus be a bad attribution.
tyg t...@panix.com
Bryant Durrell
Jake Wildstrom <wil...@mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <3B53CC03...@mnsi.net>,
>Steven Dumont <stev...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>>I rented "O Brother, Where Art Thou" recently. I have never actually
>>read "The Odyssey"
>
>Neither, according to an interview I saw, had the Coen brothers. That
>probably helps.
They also claimed that Fargo was based on a true story. ;)
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"Against the Word the unstilled world still whirled
About the center of the silent Word." -- T.S. Eliot
Michael Alan Chary
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>
>For example, at one point W spends a page and a half enumerating his powers.
>Close to a half-dozen times after that in the book, I wanted to check that
>list to see what he could do. And each time, it took me a while of paging
>through to find the thing.
Okay, *that* could have been solved by a bookmark. Also, that page and a
half would have made one lousy five page stretch of comics. I can see
myself now, reading the American Gods comicbook, and wondering why
Claremont was ghosting it. (Claremont form 1994, not from 1978.)
>As in Sandman, dreams in AG are significant. Frequently a character would
>describe a dream and then chapters later uncover the meaning. At those
>times, I wanted to go back and reread the entire original dream in context
>to see how the revealed meaning fit. Again, I had a devil of a time
>finding those dreams back in the text.
May I suggest a bookmark? (I dogear, myself.)
>Or when a character reappeared and made reference to previous events in
>the book, again I wanted to look back and find them.
Less easily solved via bookmark, but still I've wanted to check back
through descriptions in Lord of the Rings or Catch-22 or Mr. Sammler's
Planet, and those books would make lousy comics.
>difficult because there are visual clues.
>But when there's page after page of solid prose, undifferentiated by
>graphics or typographic elements, it gets to be much more difficult to
>find a particular passage while thumbing back through the text.
UNless American Gods was extremely unusual, the pages were differentiated
by Arabic numerals.
--
"There are only two kinds of food: good and bad. Also, all of life's big
problems include the words "indictment" or "inoperable." Everything else is
small stuff." - Alton C. Brown
In Memoriam Douglas Adams, 1952-2001 "Belgium, man, Belgium!"
Josh Brandt
>And damn you all anyways, I'm still waiting for my copy. But it'll be signed
>when I get it, so I can wait.
Gee, my local bookstore has signed copies. 8)
Josh
brag brag
--
J. Brandt / m...@solipsism.net / mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
Josh Brandt
Bryant Durrell <dur...@innocence.com> wrote:
>That's kind of an interesting concept. If an educated reader picks up
>on, say, 75% of the gods on the first read-through, does that mean his
>or her enjoyment of the book is lessened?
Nope. I got 'em all (although it took me a few pages before I figured out
who Mr. Nancy was, and you know, he does tell you who Bilquis is toward the
end, so it's not like he just leaves it hanging), and I loved it.
I spend a lot of time thinking about forgotten gods, though.
Josh
where are the bulls and the flowers?
where are the shrines to the local gods?
- Shriekback
Josh Brandt
Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>I don't know about you, but I had to really think about some of them.
>Wednesday was really obvious, of course. But Czernobog? The Zorya?
>The boxy guy with the low humming and the forgettable name?
Okay. Maybe I was too smug earlier... I don't know a lot of Russian stuff--
before Christianity hit there, though, they had a _load_ of scary old pagan
deities. It's a harsh land, and harsh lands spawn harsh gods.
>couldn't place them. And I'm still of two minds about Mr. Humming Guy,
>still not sure.
Who do you think that was? Send me mail if you don't want to post spoilers.
8)
>Shadow's true name? That took a little thought, too.
Well, considering his family...
Josh
Lance Squiddie Smith
>In article <MPG.15bd6d19a...@news.buckeye-express.com>,
>Maggie <princ...@accesstoledo.com> wrote:
>>And I'm still of two minds about Mr. Humming Guy,
>>still not sure.
>Who do you think that was? Send me mail if you don't want to post spoilers.
>8)
The humming man shows up later in Minneapolis and his name is given
there. It's the other man that no one can remember who is the big
mystery. I've yet to see a convincing answer over on the message boards
on who he is meant to be.
Lance Smith
squi...@visi.com
Josh Brandt
Lance "Squiddie" Smith <squi...@visi.com> wrote:
>The humming man shows up later in Minneapolis and his name is given
>there. It's the other man that no one can remember who is the big
>mystery. I've yet to see a convincing answer over on the message boards
>on who he is meant to be.
Okay, I probably forgot. I read too fast, and I got seriously sucked into
this one.
Kathy Li
> ... It's the other man that no one can remember who is the big
> mystery. I've yet to see a convincing answer over on the message boards
> on who he is meant to be.
Funny. I assume that I know him and his name quite well...
I just forgot.
:^)
Hi, Lance! [wave-wave]
--Kathy Li (who actually believes Neil made him up. He once said
ages ago at Comic-Con that if he couldn't have been a writer
he'd have liked to have been a Freelance Religion Designer.
Neil Gaiman is perfectly capable of making up gods.)
Loz Pycock
clone a new Christ "Chip" <jimi...@hotmail.com> wrote the following:
Which comics were these because I'm presuming you aren't including 'A
Game of You' and 'Kindly Ones' in that statement.
Jinx213
<snips bulk of post>
>Taking a non-plot point, there was a simple aside:
Elisabeth, don't take this as a flame, but please remember that spoilers are
spoliers no matter what the intent, and we do have several people on the ng
unable to get a copy of the book for another few weeks.
Jinxie who thinks opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and not many
what to hear someone else's.
ICQ 24553097
AIM Jinxy0213
Yahoo jinx213
"Love is a promise already broken"
Steve Martin
Pamela Basham
wrote in message news:9j0bj9$olq$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
(Note: removed crossposting to racdv, racm, since I don't read or respond to
them.)
> Neil has mentioned something about when it is better to write books and
when
> it is better to write comics. With comics, the writer is giving you
exactly
> what he wants you to see of a situation ("how does Dream dress?", or "oh,
> we're supposed to be focused on that lighter in the second frame"). With
> prose, the writer only gives away so much of what you *could* be seeing
> ("What does Shadow look like to you?" or "When did you figure out who XXX
> was?"). I think some of that surprise and figuring would be lost in a
comic.
I think this is interesting, because Neil's statement also works really well
if you substitute "film" for "comics." I confess that I never thought of
comics that way before, but it makes a lot of sense. I think it's
particularly interesting in light of Neil's contract to direct _Death:
THCOL_. Not that I really had any doubts, but it encourages me that he'll
do a great job. Now, if only the studio doesn't start trying to think too
hard (which they are _not_ qualified to do), and buys out his contract to
get someone else to direct...
-Pam
Who can't be the only one who thinks it would be very exciting to take a
really extended movieland trip into the visual areas of Mr. Gaiman's brain
Mute at 33 1/3
>In article <3b53bd3a$0$1911$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
>Jake Wildstrom <wil...@mit.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3B53CC03...@mnsi.net>,
>>Steven Dumont <stev...@mnsi.net> wrote:
>>>I rented "O Brother, Where Art Thou" recently. I have never actually
>>>read "The Odyssey"
>>
>>Neither, according to an interview I saw, had the Coen brothers. That
>>probably helps.
>They also claimed that Fargo was based on a true story. ;)
And that Ethan doesn't direct the films. And that Roderick Jaynes
edits them.
Lance Squiddie Smith
>Lance Squiddie Smith wrote:
>> ... It's the other man that no one can remember who is the big
>> mystery. I've yet to see a convincing answer over on the message boards
>> on who he is meant to be.
>Funny. I assume that I know him and his name quite well...
>I just forgot.
>:^)
Smile or no smile, I like the idea that there is a god that no one can
pinpoint because one of his powers/traits is that no one can remember
him. I'm just curious if this is the idea or that somehow his true
identity has just been missed by everyone.
>Hi, Lance! [wave-wave]
Did I miss that this was rec.arts.comics reunion week? Dani? Moriarity?
LJC? Scowlin' Jim?
>--Kathy Li (who actually believes Neil made him up. He once said
>ages ago at Comic-Con that if he couldn't have been a writer
>he'd have liked to have been a Freelance Religion Designer.
>Neil Gaiman is perfectly capable of making up gods.)
If Douglas Adams can be World Designer, Neil Gaiman can certainly be a
Religion Designer.
---------------------------
Lance "Cr2O3.2H2O" Smith | "We saw him once again years later. He was slumped
(squi...@visi.com) | down at a bar in some now cheap dive that had once
Unprinted epilogue from | been popular with the Hollywood crowd. The monocle
_The Last Peanut_ | was long gone, but he still wore a faded top hat."
Thomas Galloway
In article <8a557.19616$B7.31...@ruti.visi.com>,
Lance "Squiddie" Smith <squi...@visi.com> wrote:
>Kathy Li <k...@qualcomm.com> writes:
>>> ... It's the other man that no one can remember who is the big
>>> mystery. I've yet to see a convincing answer over on the message boards
>>> on who he is meant to be.
>>Funny. I assume that I know him and his name quite well...
>>I just forgot. :^)
>Smile or no smile, I like the idea that there is a god that no one can
>pinpoint because one of his powers/traits is that no one can remember
>him. I'm just curious if this is the idea or that somehow his true
>identity has just been missed by everyone.
Given that when Neil was asked about this particular god, he claimed to
have forgotten himself, I'm strongly suspecting the former is the concept.
>>Hi, Lance! [wave-wave]
>Did I miss that this was rec.arts.comics reunion week? Dani? Moriarity?
>LJC? Scowlin' Jim?
LJC has been posting on the www.neilgaiman.com message boards. I'm expecting
to see Dani in a month or so at Worldcon as he's in the staff listings.
Heck, the Colonel posted on rac in the last month or so.
Member, Coalition for Traditional Usenet Values
tyg t...@panix.com
Saint NightWalker
> Very minor spoiler for one of the very minor gods in AG:
> Given that when Neil was asked about this particular god, he claimed to
> have forgotten himself, I'm strongly suspecting the former is the concept.
Well, when I asked him, he was just purposely fucking with me.
Dammit.
--
* You've given your life to Jesus, I've rented mine to Cthulhu.
-=- Saint NightWalker -=-
Patron Saint of Sinners
Winamp: VNV Nation || Firstlight
Daniel Reid, Osmosisch
chucked the remains in the air, producing :
[snip Neil writes cool stuff; AG]
| As I mentioned before, there were numerous times while reading the book
| that I felt the need to reread certain passages.
|
| As in Sandman, dreams in AG are significant. Frequently a character would
| describe a dream and then chapters later uncover the meaning. At those
| times, I wanted to go back and reread the entire original dream in context
| to see how the revealed meaning fit. Again, I had a devil of a time
| finding those dreams back in the text.
| Or when a character reappeared and made reference to previous events in
| the book, again I wanted to look back and find them.
OT :
You musy just *love* the Wheel of Time series, then. <g>
As for the rest : I haven't read AG yet, so don't have an opinion, but I must
say that people have been snippier in replying to you than they usually are,
and for no reason that I could tell. So, um, chill, folks.
Daniel Reid, Osmosisch
(who can still be amazed at the way tempers tend to flare on the 'net)
Sally Walker
"Daniel Reid, Osmosisch" wrote in message
> As for the rest : I haven't read AG yet, so don't have an opinion, but I
must
> say that people have been snippier in replying to you than they usually
are,
> and for no reason that I could tell. So, um, chill, folks.
>
> Daniel Reid, Osmosisch
> (who can still be amazed at the way tempers tend to flare on the 'net)
I thought that as well, and I think it might have something to do with the
fact that the message was cross-posted to several groups. Now I don't know
how afn-g feels about cross-posting, but I know that it is frowned upon in a
lot of groups because this sort of thing tends to happen. Some people don't
notice that the message is cross-posted and think that a 'newbie' is coming
into the group and mouthing off in a way that isn't generally accepted in
that group, but obviously is in the person's 'home group' (so to speak).
In afn-g, most people are pretty careful about what they say and take care
not to offend others. I don't read racdcv or racm, but I think it's quite
safe to assume that the dynamic there is quite different. I'm not saying
it's better or worse, just different. As much as it might be nice to include
other people from other groups in these discussions, I'm personally of the
opinion that each discussion is best confined to a single group. Obviously,
people from one group are quite welcome to post in another, in which case
they should lurk and get a feel for the general tone of the group
beforehand. But we all know that, of course. All of this is just my opinion,
of course, and if I don't like the tone of a particular discussion, I'll
simply choose not to get involved in it.
Gosh, I think this might just about be my longest post ever. :)
Sally, who thinks Thingies are the bestest.
Elisabeth Riba
>>Taking a non-plot point, there was a simple aside:
Jinx213 <jinx...@aol.comcenter> wrote:
> Elisabeth, don't take this as a flame, but please remember that spoilers are
> spoliers no matter what the intent, and we do have several people on the ng
> unable to get a copy of the book for another few weeks.
I'm not taking it as a flam, but I am curious whether you are sending
similar notices to all the posters who mentioned names of characters in
the book, or just me? I very carefully chose a phrase that spoiled
nothing but the name of one diety.
Requoting what you objected to (minus the character name):
"[X] greeted them as [zie] would have greeted [zir] own children"
All that says is that X exists in the book and at some point greets other
people and how. I didn't indicate who zie greets, when or where. Just
the comment that without knowing X's relationship to zir children, the
above statement is more ambiguous than NG probably intended it to appear.
Frankly, I thought some of the other posts in this thread may have gone
further in spoiling which character names are potentially significant --
revealing things that WERE intended as surprises in the book.
[BTW, were you okay with the paragraph of serious spoilers I rot-13'd? Is
that an acceptable manner in this group for dealing with such?]
> Jinxie who thinks opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and not many
> what to hear someone else's.
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Katie Schwarz
>"Sandman Annotations" (which have led to annotations of other comics).
>American Gods would definitely benefit from something like that. NG is
>clearly aware of that need, because he has already created a bibliography
>page on his own website (although it's still blank).
Maybe your browser flaked out (this happened to me when I tried to
look at it over a medium-slow connection). There's a set of links
to "sites Neil used to research American Gods" at
http://www.neilgaiman.com/links/links.asp
It includes sites with all the Slavic stuff.
I'm sure there will
>be a fan-created companion/annotation as well. Having worked on the
>Sandman annotations, I can say emphatically that such a task is easier for
>serialized works than novels, because everyone can hash out and agree on
>one (shorter) segment at the same time before going onto the next.
As you might expect, there's a section for annotations on the message
board at the website.
I was a little underwhelmed by American Gods, myself -- it was okay,
but it seemed like just more of the same old stuff Gaiman's been doing
for years. More importantly, this is a road trip novel but it just
didn't quite bring the places on the road to life for me.
--
Katie Schwarz
"There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs."
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass"
DJ Millington
<k...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> writes
>
>I was a little underwhelmed by American Gods, myself -- it was okay,
>but it seemed like just more of the same old stuff Gaiman's been doing
>for years. More importantly, this is a road trip novel but it just
>didn't quite bring the places on the road to life for me.
>
I have to agree with you there. I didn't get much of a sense of real
places, or real people.
<Spoilers>
The Lakeside stuff was just straight Steven King - OK but lacking
originality although King would have stretched the idea out to about 400
pages. It didn't really fit in the book either - it could have been
dropped or developed more - like why the 'perfect town' could really be
a conformist nightmare.
Shadow was a character I just didn't believe in - I didn't get a feeling
I knew where he was from, his context. Consequently his move through a
strange alternative world lacked contrast with a more mundane reality
and it was hard to care about him. His relationship with Laura didn't
convince me - again it was hard to see them as a romantic couple at all.
The plot has really been done before - Pratchett's Small Gods covers
similar ground. Nothing new was really added. Neverwhere was a much
stronger idea for me.
All the 'god cameos' seemed a bit pointless too - good for crossing them
off in a spotters jotter but to have deity's, ancient and modern, from
all cultures and then just wheel them on for a few scene's without
really looking at the forces and beliefs that shaped them was IMHO a
little lazy.
Stuff I did like? All the little asides, the small stories were great.
Visually some of the images were fantastic (The world's largest merry-
go-round for example) - I think the book would make a superb TV series -
American Gothic style - it's visual coolness and the increased pace of a
TV show would get past some of the lack of depth that I think there was.
I did enjoy the book - really - but I was perhaps expect more. It lacked
some of Steven King's nasty and contemporary edge or Clive Barker's 'out
there' weirdness (at least that he showed earlier in his career).
I remain a huge fan of NG but I don't feel this is his best work.
Thanks,
--
DJ Millington
Jinx213
>I wrote:
>> Elisabeth, don't take this as a flame, but please remember that spoilers
>are
>> spoliers no matter what the intent, and we do have several people on the ng
>> unable to get a copy of the book for another few weeks.
>
>I'm not taking it as a flam, but I am curious whether you are sending
>similar notices to all the posters who mentioned names of characters in
>the book, or just me? I very carefully chose a phrase that spoiled
>nothing but the name of one diety.
Nope actually, yours was just the first one I read, my newsreader doesn't
thread properly.
Jinxie who is not a fan of spoilers of any sort
Mad Mouse Beyond Thunderdome
Lance "Squiddie" Smith wrote in message ...
You know, I knew the answer to this one earlier, but I'm really sleep
deprived and forgot just now. Maybe Walker knows the answer.
-MM & the ME
who knows this isn't really funny to anyone but Walker, but I'm sleepy, for
real, so there.
o..o o..o o..o
>\/< >\/< >\/<
"Reach and you won't lose me. Destroy the objective but still survive"
Mad Mouse Beyond Thunderdome
Daniel Reid, Osmosisch wrote in message
>
>As for the rest : I haven't read AG yet, so don't have an opinion, but I
must
>say that people have been snippier in replying to you than they usually
are,
>and for no reason that I could tell. So, um, chill, folks.
To paraphrase something Tom and Mute hinted at earlier, this was originally
cross-posted to several groups, and certain thingies' attitudes on other
groups vary from their attitudes on this one. People who are bouncy and
lively and silly here may take on a more serious tone with others from
different groups, particularly people with very serious opinions on
opinionated groups.
Not that opinions are bad or wrong, but they do tend to cause a ruckus when
they're different from yours.
-MM & the ME
who doesn't have time to play den mother just now.
Lady Miss Tree
<bastet(removetoreply)@snafu.org> =====
>Lance "Squiddie" Smith wrote in message ...
>You know, I knew the answer to this one earlier, but I'm really sleep
>deprived and forgot just now. Maybe Walker knows the answer.
>
>-MM & the ME
>who knows this isn't really funny to anyone but Walker, but I'm sleepy, for
>real, so there.
Are you not playing fair, young lady?
Lady Miss Tree
:----:----:----:----:
Whose computer is not playing fair either. Pooh.
Scott Conner
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote in message
news:9iusf5$7dh$1...@news.panix.com...
>
> In some respects, this book reminds me of Silverlock. For that book,
> another reference-heavy fantasy, fen have published a separate book "The
> Silverlock Companion."
Going off on a complete tangent here....a copy of Silverlock has adorned
my shelf for a few years now. Is it worth reading? I haven't gotten around
to it yet.
--Scott--
Michael Alan Chary
I had several friends die of deja vu during attempts to read _Silverlock_.
Loz Pycock
clone a new Christ "Mad Mouse Beyond Thunderdome"
<favourite_stalker(removetoreply)@snafu.org> wrote the following:
>
>-MM & the ME
>who doesn't have time to play den mother just now.
I was thinking more of "in prison you'd be my bitches!"
<runs away quickly>
pugugly
l_py...@hotmail.SPAM?OUR_SURVEY_SAYS_UHUH!.com (Loz Pycock) wrote:
>I was thinking more of "in prison you'd be my bitches!"
>
><runs away quickly>
>
>Loz
I was going to respond to her "I don't have time to play den mother
right now" with a simple and quite tacky
Spank me mommy... I've been baaaaaaad!
<insert clever comment here>
Pugugly,
pug...@hotmail.com
Reg
>Elisabeth Riba wrote:
>
><snips bulk of post>
>
>spoliers no matter what the intent, and we do have several people on the ng
>unable to get a copy of the book for another few weeks.
>
It'll be another couple of weeks before I get to read it, and I really want
to
experience it for myself.
I have been mostly away from usenet recently, but I'd hate to think that
other
geographically challenged folk like myself have had their wonderment spoiled
by people who can't read a book on their own without somewone sitting beside
them explaining what everything means.
Reg(who is alive and well and missing his internet connection.)
"Havong a wonderful time. Wish you were her."
Mad Mouse Beyond Thunderdome
Loz Pycock wrote in message <3b5942d2...@news.freeserve.net>...
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 21:36:12 -0700, whilst pausing in attempts to
>clone a new Christ "Mad Mouse Beyond Thunderdome"
><favourite_stalker(removetoreply)@snafu.org> wrote the following:
>
>>
>>-MM & the ME
>>who doesn't have time to play den mother just now.
>I was thinking more of "in prison you'd be my bitches!"
Depends... am I wearing my boots?
Cause if I am, then you're absolutely right. But if I'm not, I'm really not
much of a threat until my sharp and pointies get here.
-MM & the ME
since all of mine went bye bye recently
Mikel Midnight
> Going off on a complete tangent here....a copy of Silverlock has adorned
> my shelf for a few years now. Is it worth reading? I haven't gotten around
> to it yet.
Most, most, most definitely.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
blak...@best.com
______________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion/comics.html
Bruce Walters
55 pages - I don't want the book to end!), I would recommend next reading
Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light (which beat out Dune for the Hugo!). Oh, what
the Hell, then read Nine Princes in Amber. Both writers had an extraordinary
imagination and dealt with very similar themes - though I feel that Gaiman
is the better writer in terms of character development.
In fact, what would it take for Vertigo to develop the characters of one of
Zelazny's novels (such as the Amber books, To Die on Italbar, or Jack of
Shadows) into an ongoing series?
-Bruce
"Mikel Midnight" <blak...@best.outdamnspam.com> wrote in message
news:220720010449020589%blak...@best.outdamnspam.com...
Scott Conner
Bruce Walters <bwal...@home.com> wrote in message
news:UIO67.169620$mG4.80...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
> In fact, what would it take for Vertigo to develop the characters of one
of
> Zelazny's novels (such as the Amber books, To Die on Italbar, or Jack of
> Shadows) into an ongoing series?
>
> -Bruce
>
A licensing agreement with the Zelazny estate? ; ) I was forutnate enough
to meet Zelazny about a year or so before he died. Thinking back on it, I
could've asked some better questions. Same thing with Robert Bloch.
--Scott-- (who is happy better conversation was had with Neil and Harlan)
Killans - First And Last And Always
Scott Conner <sc...@usit.net> wrote:
>
>
>Bruce Walters <bwal...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:UIO67.169620$mG4.80...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
>
>> In fact, what would it take for Vertigo to develop the characters of one
>of
>> Zelazny's novels (such as the Amber books, To Die on Italbar, or Jack of
>> Shadows) into an ongoing series?
>>
>to meet Zelazny about a year or so before he died. Thinking back on it, I
>could've asked some better questions. Same thing with Robert Bloch.
Presumably you know this, but for the benefit of those who don't - DC
obviously do already have some kind of relationship with Zelazny's estate,
since a few years back they published adaptations of the first couple
of Amber books. Although, from the lack of any further adaptations, I
assume those didn't sell particularly well, so I doubt the business types
at DC would be interested in doing any more Amber-related stuff.
Mike
--
"... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs." --Robert Firth
Bruce Walters
> Presumably you know this, but for the benefit of those who don't - DC
> obviously do already have some kind of relationship with Zelazny's estate,
> since a few years back they published adaptations of the first couple
> of Amber books. Although, from the lack of any further adaptations, I
> assume those didn't sell particularly well, so I doubt the business types
> at DC would be interested in doing any more Amber-related stuff.
>
> Mike
I never saw the Amber adaptations (I'll look for them), so I can't comment
on them directly - but, can you recall any really good comic book adaptation
of a written book?
I would think that an adaptation would need to be very loose - reworking the
book's pacing and perhaps, key story elements (like in Kubrick's film
version of the Shining) to keep the readers of the original book involved on
the comic book.
-Bruce
Bala Menon
>
> > Presumably you know this, but for the benefit of
> > those who don't - DC obviously do already have
> > some kind of relationship with Zelazny's estate,
> > since a few years back they published adaptations
> > of the first couple of Amber books. Although, from
> > the lack of any further adaptations, I assume those
> > didn't sell particularly well,
Deservedly so.
> I never saw the Amber adaptations (I'll look for them),
No, don't ... man, I really disliked those, and I'm a
staunch Zelazny fan. It had practically all the Amberites
as muscle-bound Hulk clones on steroids, and lost much
of the subtleties of his writing. I gave my copies away
a long time back.
> can you recall any really good comic book adaptation
> of a written book?
Yeah, Trina Robbin's adaptation of Tanith Lee's
"The Silver Metal Lover". The book, which I read
later, is still much richer ... but the graphic novel
holds up very well even after. And it's great just
on its own.
Also, I like pretty much all of P. Craig Russell's
adaptations ... all his work on the Elric books,
and his "Salome" (though admittedly, the last
is an adaptation of a play, not a book)
--
Bala Menon (b.m...@worldnet.att.net)
The Final Confrontation Between Us And The Mute
>I never saw the Amber adaptations (I'll look for them), so I can't comment
>on them directly - but, can you recall any really good comic book adaptation
>of a written book?
David Mazzuchelli's adaptation of Paul Auster's 'City Of Glass' is a
great comic and a fine adaptation.
-Chris
__________________________
np: Curve, Pubic Fruit
Scott Conner
Bala Menon <b.m...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9jl1pn$otsve$2...@ID-40971.news.dfncis.de...
> Also, I like pretty much all of P. Craig Russell's
> adaptations ... all his work on the Elric books,
> and his "Salome" (though admittedly, the last
> is an adaptation of a play, not a book)
> --
Craig just won two Eisner awards for his work on the Ring adaptation. I
can't recommend these highly enough.
Jill Thompson also won two Eisners : )
--Scott--
Killans - First And Last And Always
Bruce Walters <bwal...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Presumably you know this, but for the benefit of those who don't - DC
>> obviously do already have some kind of relationship with Zelazny's estate,
>> since a few years back they published adaptations of the first couple
>> of Amber books. Although, from the lack of any further adaptations, I
>> assume those didn't sell particularly well, so I doubt the business types
>> at DC would be interested in doing any more Amber-related stuff.
>
>on them directly - but, can you recall any really good comic book adaptation
>of a written book?
I remember enjoying a few of the Harlan Ellison adaptations published by
Dark Horse. But you're right - good adaptations are few and far between.
>I would think that an adaptation would need to be very loose - reworking the
>book's pacing and perhaps, key story elements (like in Kubrick's film
>version of the Shining) to keep the readers of the original book involved on
>the comic book.
I never read any of the Amber comics, so I don't know how they did it.
I didn't enjoy the Amber books enough to shell out for a Prestige Format
adaptation of them, I'm afraid.