Review: American Gods, by Neil Gaiman (2001)
Richard Horton
a review by Rich Horton
American Gods is Neil Gaiman's big 2001 "American" fantasy. The
central idea is an old chestnut -- that gods only live as long as they
are believed in. Gaiman modifies this by tying gods to the land, in a
sense, such that gods, or a version of them, move to America when
people move there. But most of these old gods are near death -- few
people believe in them anymore. They live on in rather diminished
circumstances.
The central character is a man named Shadow. The book opens as he is
about to be released after three years in prison. Just days before
his release, he learns that his wife has died in an automobile
accident, and the prison authorities let him go early. On his way
home, he meets a strange man called Mr. Wednesday (the significance of
the name, and the man's glass eye, won't escape many people, I trust),
who offers him a job. Shadow thinks he has a job waiting, but he soon
finds out that his prospective employer has died as well -- in the
same car crash as his wife. Worse, the two were having an affair.
Shadow finds himself more or less pushed to taking Wednesday's job
offer. Mostly this job consists of driving around while Wednesday
tries to recruit other old gods to join him. It seems a battle for
control of America is coming, between the old gods and the "new gods":
the media, the internet, and suchlike. So we meet a number of nicely
depicted gods from the various old countries: Anansi from Africa, Bast
and Osiris and Anubis from Egypt, Czernobog from Russia; and so on.
Some join in, some decline. Meanwhile, some of the new gods begin to
harass Wednesday and his associates, managing to capture Shadow a
couple of times. And Shadow meets his dead wife as well, in the
corrupting flesh, and she begs him to find a way to bring her back to
life. We also get some interludes depicting the lives of some of the
immigrants to America, as they bring their gods with them.
A long middle section finds Shadow hanging out in an idyllic Wisconsin
town, in the dead of winter. Though even there a dark mystery may lie
behind the town's peacefulness. Finally the battle nears, and Shadow
finds himself pushed to test his loyalty to Wednesday to the utmost,
even into the land of the dead. He learns some important truths about
his own identity, and he learns the real secret behind the coming
battle.
The story is resolved both cleverly and movingly. Shadow is both a
character who grows during the action, and a character who pays a
great price for his knowledge. The end manages to surprise, as well.
I think this is one of the best books of the year. There may be a few
structural loose ends, and also Gaiman pretty much entirely avoids
confronting any of the Abrahamic faiths, which seems to me to leave a
conceptual hole, but the book is still powerful and involving.
(One of the side pleasures of this book for me was that a couple of
the settings were very familiar to me. Early on Wednesday and Shadow
visit the House on the Rock, in Wisconsin. I've never been there, but
my wife's aunts were, and they showed us pictures. Even more
interesting was that the climactic battle is at Rock City, near
Chattanooga, Tennessee. We visited Rock City last year, and it was
neat reading Gaiman's descriptions of the various rock formations and
kitschy tourist displays, which I recalled quite clearly.)
%A Neil Gaiman
%T American Gods
%I William Morrow
%C New York, NY
%D June 2001
%P 480 pp.
%G 0380973650
%O Hardcover, US$26
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Eric Walker
>American Gods, by Neil Gaiman
[Substantial and pretty much on-point review snipped
here--check the original]
A few comments: This, read recently, was my third Gaiman novel.
There seems to be a pattern--a lot of activity; interesting,
richly imagined settings; quirky, fascinating, also richly
imagined characters; strong descriptions and plausible
dialogue. Also, though, rather commonly, hugely gaping plot
holes--though, for the reader, of the sort often called
"staircase thoughts" (that is, they don't occur to you at the
time, only afterward).
Moreover, while the books were each immense fun to read, and
thoroughly literate, I didn't find myself whistling the music
as I left the theater. By that, I mean that there are no
issues present larger than resolving the immediate plot needs
of the characters--no major insights into Life, the Universe
and Everything, nothing that will leave a reader changed for
having read the book.
All in all, then, I'd give Gaiman--based on three novels so
far--a rating of pretty good but not excellent. But with that
much sheer writerly talent and his obvious intelligence (and
relative youth), there's plenty of scope for growth.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://owlcroft.com/sfandf
Andrew Ducker
news:enfsjbjypebsgpbz...@news.cis.dfn.de:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:44:51 GMT, Richard Horton wrote:
>
>>American Gods, by Neil Gaiman
>
> [Substantial and pretty much on-point review snipped
> here--check the original]
>
> A few comments: This, read recently, was my third Gaiman novel.
> There seems to be a pattern--a lot of activity; interesting,
> richly imagined settings; quirky, fascinating, also richly
> imagined characters; strong descriptions and plausible
> dialogue. Also, though, rather commonly, hugely gaping plot
> holes--though, for the reader, of the sort often called
> "staircase thoughts" (that is, they don't occur to you at the
> time, only afterward).
Can I ask which ones?
I'd happily recommend Stardust to anyone at all, and Sandman and Signal to
Noise to those people who can take pictures with their words.
Andy D
--
http://www.notzen.com/andrew http://andrewducker.livejournal.com
Joe Slater
>Moreover, while the books were each immense fun to read, and
>thoroughly literate, I didn't find myself whistling the music
>as I left the theater. By that, I mean that there are no
>issues present larger than resolving the immediate plot needs
>of the characters--no major insights into Life, the Universe
>and Everything, nothing that will leave a reader changed for
>having read the book.
The only book of his that did have this effect on me was _The Tragical
Comedy or Comical Tragedy of Mr Punch_.
It's sort-of a graphic novel, written in biographical form, about a
lonely young boy and his encounter with a darker world. Is there magic
involved? Yes, but I'm not sure whether there's any conjuring.
jds
--
Joe Slater was but a low-grade paranoiac, whose fantastic notions must
have come from the crude hereditary folk-tales which circulated in even
the most decadent of communities.
_Beyond the Wall of Sleep_ by H P Lovecraft
Andrew Ducker
news:9vps5ugp4q3k6449m...@4ax.com:
> "Eric Walker" <ra...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>>Moreover, while the books were each immense fun to read, and
>>thoroughly literate, I didn't find myself whistling the music
>>as I left the theater. By that, I mean that there are no
>>issues present larger than resolving the immediate plot needs
>>of the characters--no major insights into Life, the Universe
>>and Everything, nothing that will leave a reader changed for having
>>read the book.
>
> The only book of his that did have this effect on me was _The Tragical
> Comedy or Comical Tragedy of Mr Punch_.
OTOH, Mr Punch left me cold, while I adore Signal To Noise (a film director,
dying of cancer, directs his last film in his head)
Rich Clark
"Andrew Ducker" <And...@Ducker.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns91AB683EC7F76...@62.253.162.107...
> I'd happily recommend Stardust to anyone at all, and Sandman and Signal to
> Noise to those people who can take pictures with their words.
There's also a quite lovely illustrated edition of Stardust, sold as a
softcover graphic novel, but containing the complete text.
RichC
Kate Nepveu
immeasurably to the charm of the story.
Kate
--
http://www.steelypips.org/elsewhere.html -- kate....@yale.edu
Paired Reading Page; Book Reviews; Outside of a Dog: A Book Log
"I awoke this morning with devout thanksgiving for my friends."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Karen Lofstrom
Richard Horton wrote:
> American Gods is Neil Gaiman's big 2001 "American" fantasy.
As I read the first few chapters of this book, I simmered in authorial
jealousy. He writes so well! As the book progressed, however, it became
more and more of an effort to read it. Things just happened, arbitrarily,
until they stopped. I was constantly making models of the way the world
"worked", only to have them invalidated or tremendously complicated by the
next twist of the plot. It is NO FUN reading about magic if it means that
anything can happen, any time. One might as well assemble a novel from
magnetic refrigerator words. Assemble them this way, that way, any way;
it's all nonsensical.
The climax did not strike me as climactic.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I may not be the president, I may not be the pope
But as long as I have Gritty Kitty, I shall never mope
bandersnatch
>In article <nbi78.1003$bB.177...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
>Richard Horton wrote:
>
>> American Gods is Neil Gaiman's big 2001 "American" fantasy.
>
>As I read the first few chapters of this book, I simmered in authorial
>jealousy. He writes so well! As the book progressed, however, it became
>more and more of an effort to read it.
> Things just happened, arbitrarily,
>until they stopped.
Sort of like reality.
You are the only person I have heard of that didn't love this book.
> I was constantly making models of the way the world
>"worked", only to have them invalidated or tremendously complicated by the
>next twist of the plot. It is NO FUN reading about magic if it means that
>anything can happen, any time. One might as well assemble a novel from
>magnetic refrigerator words. Assemble them this way, that way, any way;
>it's all nonsensical.
>
>The climax did not strike me as climactic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Solve two of the world's biggest problems:
Feed the homeless to the hungry.
Brenda W. Clough
> On 4 Feb 2002 16:44:49 GMT, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
>
> >In article <nbi78.1003$bB.177...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
> >Richard Horton wrote:
> >
> >> American Gods is Neil Gaiman's big 2001 "American" fantasy.
> >
> >As I read the first few chapters of this book, I simmered in authorial
> >jealousy. He writes so well! As the book progressed, however, it became
> >more and more of an effort to read it.
> > Things just happened, arbitrarily,
> >until they stopped.
>
> Sort of like reality.
> You are the only person I have heard of that didn't love this book.
I'm another. I read it, and finished it, but will never re-read it. His
SANDMAN stuff is far better.
For me the basic premise was so out of kilter that it destroyed any suspension
of disbelief. Uh, America is an infertile soil for religions? Excuse me?
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at www.analogsf.com
My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Eric Walker
[... re "hugely gaping plot holes" that don't occur to you at
the time, only afterward]
>
>Can I ask which ones?
Yes, but I can't answer articulately because I'm not one who
keeps book logs. But as someone else has noted, every time you
turn a page, it seems that the ground rules are different. An
awful lot of stuff has no logical ground laid, and a lot more
changes as it goes.
_American Gods_ was probably a little more like this than
_Neverwhere_, but in both there is a definite lack of any sense
that there's a ground-zero logic, even allowing for it all
being magical.
I repeat that those lacks are not major flaws, because each
book is the sort that rather compels the reader along by the
style and pace of the action. The defect is that it makes it
hard to leave one with any enduring sense of the importance of
who did what beyond that personal to the chief characters.
There is a definite "Alice in Wonderland" flavor as each page
is turned of wondering what the rules will be on _this_ square.
TMW
"Brenda W. Clough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
> I'm another. I read it, and finished it, but will never re-read it. His
> SANDMAN stuff is far better.
>
> For me the basic premise was so out of kilter that it destroyed any suspension
> of disbelief. Uh, America is an infertile soil for religions? Excuse me?
I'm another who thought "AG" was good but far from great. It felt much
more like Clive Barker in spots than Gaiman. My review can be found at
my site (URL below).
I think one of Gaiman's points wasn't that America was infertile soil
for religion, but that it had simply replaced the religions of old with
its own shallow new ones. (TV, consumerism, etc.)
TM Wagner
http://www.sfreviews.net/
Andrew Ducker
> Yes, but I can't answer articulately because I'm not one who
> keeps book logs. But as someone else has noted, every time you
> turn a page, it seems that the ground rules are different. An
> awful lot of stuff has no logical ground laid, and a lot more
> changes as it goes.
>
> _American Gods_ was probably a little more like this than
> _Neverwhere_, but in both there is a definite lack of any sense
> that there's a ground-zero logic, even allowing for it all
> being magical.
Ooh, I completely forgot about Neverwhere (probably because I managed one
episode of the tv series before turning it off in disgust)
Andy D
Chad R. Orzel
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>bandersnatch wrote:
>> You are the only person I have heard of that didn't love this book.
>
>I'm another. I read it, and finished it, but will never re-read it. His
>SANDMAN stuff is far better.
>For me the basic premise was so out of kilter that it destroyed any suspension
>of disbelief. Uh, America is an infertile soil for religions? Excuse me?
I don't think he's far wrong, actually, though his point is slightly
different than what you say (IMAO, naturally).
It's not so much that America is inherently hostile to religion, as it
is that this is a bad land for the kind of blood-and-fire religion and
religious devotion the gods in the book need. That's a key part of our
national mythology after all-- the "melting pot" where new arrivals
are blended together with everyone who's already here, giving up most
of their original culture in the process.
Religion plays an important role in our society, but it's a bland sort
of civic religion, more window dressing than bone-deep faith. It's the
religion of "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America" and vague
"thanks for the grub" blessings before banquets, not the rock-solid
kill-or-die-for religion of earlier days or other parts of the world.
We've got our share of fundamentalist nutjobs, but the average
American public official is religious only to the degree that will
help him keep his position-- were the Elder Gods to return and set up
shop, the US Congress would be yelling "Ia! Shub-Niggurath! louder
than anyone else. We're too busy making money and buying stuff to
spare much energy for religion in a really meaningful sense.
He does avoid dealing with the Big Four (Christianity, Islam, Judaism,
and Buddhism) in the book, but I think that's a conscious and
justifiable choice. For one thing, attempting to put Jesus or Moses or
Muhammed into the book (particualrly the latter) is just asking for
trouble of an extra-literary sort. More importantly, it's not their
story-- _American Gods_ is the story of the small-time grifter gods,
who have to make their way on the scraps of belief left over by the
big guys (who are doing all right, though not so well in America as
elsewhere).
(Actually, Gaiman has said in interviews that there was a Jesus scene
in the book originally, but he could never quite make it work, and
decided to take it out in the end...)
--
Chad Orzel
Book Log: http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/booklog.html
Reviews: http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/Reviews.html
Rich Clark
> Ooh, I completely forgot about Neverwhere (probably because I managed one
> episode of the tv series before turning it off in disgust)
::blink::
TV series?
--
RichC
Wide Awake on the Edge of the World
Jim Cambias
<t...@nospamatall.com> wrote:
Which is what makes the absence of the (roaringly successful) Abrahamic
religions all the more glaring. I can understand Gaiman not wanting to
bring them into the story, because unlike many Pagan divinities, the One
(or triple) God of Christianity-Judaism-Islam doesn't admit the
_existence_ of others. There's Him or nothing. So writing a "Gods among
us" story either has to take an explicity Christian/Islamic/Jewish view,
or else you just dodge the question completely. Dodging the question also
means you don't sell copies to book-burners, don't have fatwas pronounced
against you, and don't get carped at by the family for betraying your
people in a story.
At times this verges on the religious philosophy all too common among
educated people hungering for spiritual truth: "All religions are equally
true -- except the one Mom and Dad tried to teach me. That one's wrong."
I can think of a couple of ways to deal with it: maybe there are a whole
bunch of Jehovas, Jesuses, Holy Spirits, Allahs and YHVH-es wandering
about in the American Gods world, one for each subtype and splinter group
of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They're not involved in the big
battle because they refuse to believe any other gods exist and spend all
their time wrangling among themselves. Or maybe there is a big bearded
Old Testament God, and he stays out of the affairs of lesser gods because,
frankly, all of them are pissants compared to Him and his three billion
worshippers. Or maybe just being the head of a thriving active religion
(or religions) with billions of adherents takes up so much of His time he
can't get away -- you notice the most active divinities in AG are all kind
of semi-retired, with no official duties and lots of spare time.
Jehovah's got a job and hasn't taken a vacation since the Cretaceous.
Cambias
Andrew Ducker
news:UUR78.26836$X64.8...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com:
> "Andrew Ducker" <And...@Ducker.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns91AC614586E0B...@62.253.162.107...
>
>> Ooh, I completely forgot about Neverwhere (probably because I managed
>> one episode of the tv series before turning it off in disgust)
>
>::blink::
>
> TV series?
Neverwhere was originally written to be a BBC TV series (by Neil Gaiman).
He was so shocked by the quality of the finished product (shot on video, for
goodness' sake) that he felt compelled to rewrite it as a novel to say
"Nooo, this is what I meant".
More info here: http://us.imdb.com/Details?0115288
Andrew Plotkin
> "Andrew Ducker" <And...@Ducker.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:Xns91AC614586E0B...@62.253.162.107...
>> Ooh, I completely forgot about Neverwhere (probably because I managed one
>> episode of the tv series before turning it off in disgust)
> ::blink::
> TV series?
It was originally a TV series. I've seen it on videotape.
Very eerie, very memorable. (For me. Andrew Ducker's milage seems to
have varied. :) I think Gaiman was able to exploit the visual skills
and talents he developed working on Sandman[*] and make a very
effective television production. The novel of _Neverwhere_, while
good, didn't work nearly as well as a book as the TV series did as
television.
[* Yes, I know he wasn't the artist. My statement stands.]
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Jo Walton
orz...@earthlink.net "Chad R. Orzel" writes:
> He does avoid dealing with the Big Four (Christianity, Islam, Judaism,
> and Buddhism) in the book, but I think that's a conscious and
> justifiable choice. For one thing, attempting to put Jesus or Moses or
> Muhammed into the book (particualrly the latter) is just asking for
> trouble of an extra-literary sort. More importantly, it's not their
> story-- _American Gods_ is the story of the small-time grifter gods,
> who have to make their way on the scraps of belief left over by the
> big guys (who are doing all right, though not so well in America as
> elsewhere).
>
> (Actually, Gaiman has said in interviews that there was a Jesus scene
> in the book originally, but he could never quite make it work, and
> decided to take it out in the end...)
And there is the comment about Jesus being big in America but recently
seen hitch-hiking through Afghanistan, down on his luck.
I liked the first two-thirds of _American Gods_ a great deal, but I
thought it lost focus towards the end.
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
*THE KING'S NAME* out now from Tor!
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
John Johnson
> bandersnatch wrote:
>
> > On 4 Feb 2002 16:44:49 GMT, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <nbi78.1003$bB.177...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >Richard Horton wrote:
> > >
> > >> American Gods is Neil Gaiman's big 2001 "American" fantasy.
> > >
> > >As I read the first few chapters of this book, I simmered in authorial
> > >jealousy. He writes so well! As the book progressed, however, it became
> > >more and more of an effort to read it.
> > > Things just happened, arbitrarily,
> > >until they stopped.
> >
> > Sort of like reality.
> > You are the only person I have heard of that didn't love this book.
>
> I'm another. I read it, and finished it, but will never re-read it. His
> SANDMAN stuff is far better.
I'm a third. I read it, and it wasn't awful, but I have absolutely no
desire to re-read it. I enjoyed _Stardust_ and _Neverwhere_ much more
than _American Gods_. I haven't read any of his Sandman material yet.
--
John Johnson
Andrew Plotkin
> I liked the first two-thirds of _American Gods_ a great deal, but I
> thought it lost focus towards the end.
As I was reading the end, I decided it had never really had any focus.
It was fun in pieces.
I also wished Tim Powers had gotten his hands on some of the pieces
instead of Gaiman.
Brenda W. Clough
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:40:39 -0500, "Brenda W. Clough"
> <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >bandersnatch wrote:
>
> >> You are the only person I have heard of that didn't love this book.
> >
> >I'm another. I read it, and finished it, but will never re-read it. His
> >SANDMAN stuff is far better.
>
> >For me the basic premise was so out of kilter that it destroyed any suspension
> >of disbelief. Uh, America is an infertile soil for religions? Excuse me?
>
> I don't think he's far wrong, actually, though his point is slightly
> different than what you say (IMAO, naturally).
>
> It's not so much that America is inherently hostile to religion, as it
> is that this is a bad land for the kind of blood-and-fire religion and
> religious devotion the gods in the book need.
I still find this difficult to believe. A nation which invented snake-handling as
a liturgical exercise, which birthed the Reverend Jim Jones?
Doom & Gloom Dave
"bandersnatch" <****@****.***> wrote in message
news:g05v5uokapk8csu4i...@4ax.com...
> On 4 Feb 2002 16:44:49 GMT, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
>
> >In article <nbi78.1003$bB.177...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
> >Richard Horton wrote:
> >
> >> American Gods is Neil Gaiman's big 2001 "American" fantasy.
> >
> >As I read the first few chapters of this book, I simmered in authorial
> >jealousy. He writes so well! As the book progressed, however, it became
> >more and more of an effort to read it.
> > Things just happened, arbitrarily,
> >until they stopped.
>
> Sort of like reality.
> You are the only person I have heard of that didn't love this book.
>
talented, and could have written a 300 page novel of the characters
talking in the Russian god's apartment and made it enjoyable. At least
I'd have enjoyed it based on how I felt about the various scenes where
the protagonist meets the gods.
Somewhere before Rock City it went astray for me though, around
the Yggdrasil scene, and the ending revelation of the con just left me
cold. I didn't think the con was all that great an idea of the perpetrators
either. They surely could have done better. Hopefully that's vague enough
that those who've read understand, and those who haven't aren't spoiled.
Joe Slater
>I still find this difficult to believe. A nation which invented snake-handling as
>a liturgical exercise, which birthed the Reverend Jim Jones?
Surely the Americans didn't invent snake handling as a religious
exercise. Invetented it for themselves, maybe, but I know I've seen
pictures of ancient goddesses with snakes, and even modern photos of
some Hindus with then.
Rich Clark
"Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message
news:a3ouvp$agl$1...@news.panix.com...
> Very eerie, very memorable. (For me. Andrew Ducker's milage seems to
> have varied. :) I think Gaiman was able to exploit the visual skills
> and talents he developed working on Sandman[*] and make a very
> effective television production. The novel of _Neverwhere_, while
> good, didn't work nearly as well as a book as the TV series did as
> television.
>
> [* Yes, I know he wasn't the artist. My statement stands.]
As it should. The artists on Sandman were working from quite explicit
descriptions of what Gaiman wanted to see on the page.
I see that the TV version is not in distribution, so I guess I'll have to
wait for that to change.
RichC
John Johnson
Cambias says . . .
> In article <tmw-1FBD22.0...@newsr2.texas.rr.com>, TMW
> <t...@nospamatall.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <3C5F7057...@erols.com>,
> > "Brenda W. Clough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > > For me the basic premise was so out of kilter that it destroyed any
> suspension
> > > of disbelief. Uh, America is an infertile soil for religions? Excuse me?
<snip>
> > I think one of Gaiman's points wasn't that America was infertile soil
> > for religion, but that it had simply replaced the religions of old with
> > its own shallow new ones. (TV, consumerism, etc.)
> >
> Which is what makes the absence of the (roaringly successful) Abrahamic
> religions all the more glaring. I can understand Gaiman not wanting to
> bring them into the story, because unlike many Pagan divinities, the One
> (or triple) God of Christianity-Judaism-Islam doesn't admit the
> _existence_ of others. There's Him or nothing. So writing a "Gods among
> us" story either has to take an explicity Christian/Islamic/Jewish view,
> or else you just dodge the question completely. Dodging the question also
> means you don't sell copies to book-burners, don't have fatwas pronounced
> against you, and don't get carped at by the family for betraying your
> people in a story.
While leaving the Abrahamic gods (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) out
of the story does avoid any nasty publicity that would probably come his
way, it also leaves out some intereting possibilities.
> At times this verges on the religious philosophy all too common among
> educated people hungering for spiritual truth: "All religions are equally
> true -- except the one Mom and Dad tried to teach me. That one's wrong."
>
> I can think of a couple of ways to deal with it: maybe there are a whole
> bunch of Jehovas, Jesuses, Holy Spirits, Allahs and YHVH-es wandering
> about in the American Gods world, one for each subtype and splinter group
> of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They're not involved in the big
> battle because they refuse to believe any other gods exist and spend all
> their time wrangling among themselves. Or maybe there is a big bearded
> Old Testament God, and he stays out of the affairs of lesser gods because,
> frankly, all of them are pissants compared to Him and his three billion
> worshippers. Or maybe just being the head of a thriving active religion
> (or religions) with billions of adherents takes up so much of His time he
> can't get away -- you notice the most active divinities in AG are all kind
> of semi-retired, with no official duties and lots of spare time.
> Jehovah's got a job and hasn't taken a vacation since the Cretaceous.
If Gaiman had chosen to deal with this, it could've been real fun to see
how he dealt with the interaction of the lesser gods (so to speak) with
the Abrahamic ones. Imagine a meeting between Loki and Jehovah--not bound
to be a good one, but fun to read about. By choosing not to deal with
this, the story is lessened.
--
John Johnson
Lee DeRaud
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>"Brenda W. Clough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>>I still find this difficult to believe. A nation which invented snake-handling as
>>a liturgical exercise, which birthed the Reverend Jim Jones?
>
>Surely the Americans didn't invent snake handling as a religious
>exercise. Invetented it for themselves, maybe, but I know I've seen
>pictures of ancient goddesses with snakes, and even modern photos of
>some Hindus with then.
Handling of "holy" snakes by the clergy, sure. But handling of
decidedly non-holy (because they represent the devil) snakes by the
congregation? *Not* the same thing: note that they are most definitely
*not* worshipping the snakes. Snake-handling in that context is much
more akin to fire-walking - a test/demonstration of faith.
Lee
Avram Grumer
cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Jim Cambias) wrote:
> I can think of a couple of ways to deal with it: maybe there are a
> whole bunch of Jehovas, Jesuses, Holy Spirits, Allahs and YHVH-es
> wandering about in the American Gods world, one for each subtype and
> splinter group of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They're not
> involved in the big battle because they refuse to believe any other
> gods exist and spend all their time wrangling among themselves.
This is compatible with how Gaiman handled Odin/Wotan.
> Or maybe there is a big bearded Old Testament God, and he stays out
> of the affairs of lesser gods because, frankly, all of them are
> pissants compared to Him and his three billion worshippers.
That's sorta kinda how he handled it in _Sandman_ (specifically the
"Season of Mists" storyline). He had the various traditional
polytheistic deities, and he also had Lucifer and demons and Hell and
angels, but the angels reported to some power they referred to as "the
Name" (translation of "Hashem," a traditional Hebrew way of referring to
the Jewish God), who stayed off camera. But said power was powerful
enough that it could do what it wanted and the other deities couldn't
stop it.
> Or maybe just being the head of a thriving active religion (or
> religions) with billions of adherents takes up so much of His time he
> can't get away -- you notice the most active divinities in AG are all
> kind of semi-retired, with no official duties and lots of spare time.
> Jehovah's got a job and hasn't taken a vacation since the Cretaceous.
Or I can see a bunch of gods hanging out, and there in the corner
there's a bearded old patriarch. Loki or somebody walks over to say
howdy, and Jehova adamantly refuses to so much as look at him, staring
straight ahead and grumbling about "...no other gods...."
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
In the country of the assless, the half-assed man is king.
Brenda W. Clough
Yes. American snake-handling denominations are as close to blood-sacrifice as you can
legally get in this country.
And I haven't even mentioned Joseph Smith. How could Gaiman miss Joseph Smith and the
Mormons, a home-grown American religion if there ever was one? So the entire book was
sort of lame for me.
John Johnson
says . . .
Although we may not have much Old Testament style, "blood-and-fire"
religion, the fervor is still there. Just take a look at some of the
comments made after 9/11 by some of the leading religious figures.
As far as the U.S. not being deeply religios, I'd have to disagree. In my
experience there is a great deal of deep felt emotions, by almost
everyone I know. Granted, my experience is biased because I'm a religious
person, in a religious community, so my associations are of that sort.
> He does avoid dealing with the Big Four (Christianity, Islam, Judaism,
> and Buddhism) in the book, but I think that's a conscious and
> justifiable choice. For one thing, attempting to put Jesus or Moses or
> Muhammed into the book (particualrly the latter) is just asking for
> trouble of an extra-literary sort. More importantly, it's not their
> story-- _American Gods_ is the story of the small-time grifter gods,
> who have to make their way on the scraps of belief left over by the
> big guys (who are doing all right, though not so well in America as
> elsewhere).
But just think of the interesting possibilities had Gaiman included
scenes of the Big Four . . .
--
John Johnson
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Yes. American snake-handling denominations are as close to blood-sacrifice as you can
>legally get in this country.
What?
Brenda, Santeria is legal, and its devotees sacrifice goats and
chickens. There was a court case about it in Florida a few years ago,
where the neighbors tried to get it outlawed and discovered that as
long as it's legal to kill chickens (and Frank Perdue will make sure
it always is), it's legal to perform blood sacrifices. Protected by
the First Amendment.
Or did you mean _human_ blood sacrifices?
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 11/17/01
My latest novel is THE DRAGON SOCIETY, just published by Tor.
Brenda W. Clough
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:07:34 -0500, "Brenda W. Clough"
> <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes. American snake-handling denominations are as close to blood-sacrifice as you can
> >legally get in this country.
>
> What?
>
> Brenda, Santeria is legal, and its devotees sacrifice goats and
> chickens. There was a court case about it in Florida a few years ago,
> where the neighbors tried to get it outlawed and discovered that as
> long as it's legal to kill chickens (and Frank Perdue will make sure
> it always is), it's legal to perform blood sacrifices. Protected by
> the First Amendment.
>
> Or did you mean _human_ blood sacrifices?
>
Yup.
Mark Jeffcoat
>
> Or I can see a bunch of gods hanging out, and there in the corner
> there's a bearded old patriarch. Loki or somebody walks over to say
> howdy, and Jehova adamantly refuses to so much as look at him, staring
> straight ahead and grumbling about "...no other gods...."
This happens, at least by proxy. There's a bit in the middle
of the book where a Catholic priest wanders by, resolutely
ignoring all of them.
--
Mark Jeffcoat
Mike Kozlowski
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I liked the first two-thirds of _American Gods_ a great deal, but I
>> thought it lost focus towards the end.
>
>As I was reading the end, I decided it had never really had any focus.
My reaction was basically the opposite -- the more the book went on, the
more I was convinced that there were major holes in the basic premise, and
that it was superficially plausible, but ultimately didn't make any sense
at all when you thought about it deeply.
Then... um, spoilers.
I was entirely pleased to see that the whole "clash of the old and new
gods" thing didn't make sense, _because it wasn't true_, it was all part
of Wednesday's con, and only needed to seem plausible to the targets of
the con.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Ian McDowell
Ducker <And...@Ducker.org.uk> wrote:
>Neverwhere was originally written to be a BBC TV series (by Neil Gaiman).
>He was so shocked by the quality of the finished product (shot on video, for
>goodness' sake) that he felt compelled to rewrite it as a novel to say
>"Nooo, this is what I meant".
This isn't quite true. I remember Neil's Genie postings when he was
writing it, which made it pretty clear that he had a novel intended before
the series was even shot. Indeed, I believe there was some financial
connection between the BBC deal and the one with his original British
publisher.
Tad
>> for religion, but that it had simply replaced the religions of old with
>> its own shallow new ones. (TV, consumerism, etc.)
>Which is what makes the absence of the (roaringly successful) Abrahamic
religions all the more glaring.
>Jehovah's got a job and hasn't taken a vacation since the Cretaceous.
These three quoted statements touch on a thought that I had while reading this
book: that the Judeo-Christian God has BECOME the God of TV/consumerism, etc.
The novel's premise wasn't that America is unfertile soil for religion, but
rather that every religion imaginable has been disolved into our big ol' stew
pot. As people came here, they drifted away from their old ways (losing their
cultures and identities when they assimilated), and you'll notice the main
characters - Odin, Anansi, et al - were all gods who fell on hard times as
their followers began drifting away. God wasn't a main character because His
religions - mostly Protestant denominations that resemble big corporations -
are going strong.
Mormonism, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other similar
denominations all have a distinctly American flavor to them. They all operate
on a pyramid scheme of some sort, and they thrive on drumming up new business,
aka "marketing" in the corporate world. They all approach people from the same
angle, too; that of "your life is empty because of your shallow pursuit of
earthly goods - here, try OUR product!" God ends up being a CEO figure more
than a Father figure, with a lot of middle managers pushing the flock to go out
and "witness" - the church-word for marketing.
There is a perfectly good reason for leaving this kind of God out of this
story, aside from the fact that a lot of people would find that description of
their religion offensive. In Gaiman's world, the conflict is between Nature
and Technology; God's followers have always been firmly against both.
Whichever way American Gods turned out would be fine by God, because He and his
people would still be fighting the same enemy either way.
So why mention Him at all?
T+
AOL: a necessary evil for the MP3 addict
Mike Kozlowski
>I think one of Gaiman's points wasn't that America was infertile soil
>for religion, but that it had simply replaced the religions of old with
>its own shallow new ones. (TV, consumerism, etc.)
Spoilers.
No, that wasn't Gaiman's point -- that's what Wednesday tried to con
people into believing. It didn't make sense if you thought about it, and
it wasn't supposed to. That whole conflict was trumped-up, not real.
Ryan Klippenstine
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>And I haven't even mentioned Joseph Smith. How could Gaiman miss Joseph Smith and the
>Mormons, a home-grown American religion if there ever was one? So the entire book was
>sort of lame for me.
But I don't think Gaiman ever says that America is a bad land for
religions, he says America is a bad land for _Gods_. Not exactly the
same thing.
Brenda W. Clough
The God of the Mormon church seems to be thriving.
Ryan Klippenstine
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Ryan Klippenstine wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:07:34 -0500, "Brenda W. Clough"
>> <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >And I haven't even mentioned Joseph Smith. How could Gaiman miss Joseph Smith and the
>> >Mormons, a home-grown American religion if there ever was one? So the entire book was
>> >sort of lame for me.
>>
>> But I don't think Gaiman ever says that America is a bad land for
>> religions, he says America is a bad land for _Gods_. Not exactly the
>> same thing.
>
>The God of the Mormon church seems to be thriving.
But in Gaiman's universe, He's not necessarily the same God as the
traditional Christian trinity. And if I were the latter deity, I'd
have been rather pissed about all those perfectly good worshippers
fecking off to Utah.
This, I think, is what was meant by the "America is a bad land for
Gods" line. It's not that Americans don't worship, it's that they are
fickle in their worship, constantly haring off after the newest,
latest thing, and leaving their old gods to fade away.
David Silberstein
Brenda W. Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:07:34 -0500, "Brenda W. Clough"
>> <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes. American snake-handling denominations are as close to
>> >blood-sacrifice as you can legally get in this country.
>>
>> What?
>>
[snip 1st amendment protecting animal sacrifice]
>> Or did you mean _human_ blood sacrifices?
>>
>
>Yup.
>
Indeed, the preacher who first started it died because of it:
-------------------------------------------
A hallmark of Christian fundamentalism is taking the Bible literally.
Snake handlers take it really literally. They point to Mark 16:17-18, in
which the risen Jesus tells his disciples, "And these signs shall follow
them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak
with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any
deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick,
and they shall recover." For 19 centuries most Christians understood these
signs as mere possibilities. Then in 1909 Tennessee preacher George
Hensley pointed out that it didn't say may, brothers and sisters, it said
shall. He challenged his congregation to handle poisonous snakes or be
condemned to hell.
[...]
Do snake handlers get bitten? All the time. At one point this was
considered a mark of sin, but the current take on it is that God moves in
mysterious ways. Bitten believers refuse treatment on the theory that the
saved will survive. If so, things don't look good for George Hensley. In
1955 he was bitten by a snake, refused treatment, and died.
-------------------------------------------
Del Cotter
David Silberstein <dav...@Kithrup.COM> said:
>A hallmark of Christian fundamentalism is taking the Bible literally.
>Snake handlers take it really literally. They point to Mark 16:17-18, in
>which the risen Jesus tells his disciples, "And these signs shall follow
>them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak
>with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any
>deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick,
>and they shall recover." For 19 centuries most Christians understood these
>signs as mere possibilities. Then in 1909 Tennessee preacher George
>Hensley pointed out that it didn't say may, brothers and sisters, it said
>shall. He challenged his congregation to handle poisonous snakes or be
>condemned to hell.
Did he make a habit of drinking prussic acid?
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:ansOfEternity:TerryPratchettTheFifthElephant:KenMacLeodCosmonau
tKeep:JRRTolkienTheFellowshipOfTheRing:ChinaMievillePerdidoStreetStation
ToRead:KatherineBlakeTheInteriorLife:MichaelMarshallSmithOnlyForward:Wil
TMW
>
> A hallmark of Christian fundamentalism is taking the Bible literally.
> Snake handlers take it really literally. They point to Mark 16:17-18, in
> which the risen Jesus tells his disciples, "And these signs shall follow
> them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak
> with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any
> deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick,
> and they shall recover." For 19 centuries most Christians understood these
> signs as mere possibilities. Then in 1909 Tennessee preacher George
> Hensley pointed out that it didn't say may, brothers and sisters, it said
> shall. He challenged his congregation to handle poisonous snakes or be
> condemned to hell.
I remember seeing a documentary on TV about one of these snake-handling
fundie cults, in which it was shown that one of the preachers had been
building up a tolerance to the venom by injecting himself for years with
diluted doses of it. I couldn't help thinking, "Hey, that isn't faith,
he's cheating!" :-)
TM Wagner
http://www.sfreviews.net/
Eric Walker
[...]
>Did he make a habit of drinking prussic acid?
Hah. We should be so lucky.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://owlcroft.com/sfandf
Phil Fraering
>Do snake handlers get bitten? All the time. At one point this was
>considered a mark of sin, but the current take on it is that God moves in
>mysterious ways. Bitten believers refuse treatment on the theory that the
>saved will survive. If so, things don't look good for George Hensley. In
>1955 he was bitten by a snake, refused treatment, and died.
How old was he at the time, and how often was he bitten?
Phil
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
Chad R. Orzel
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>"Chad R. Orzel" wrote:
>> It's not so much that America is inherently hostile to religion, as it
>> is that this is a bad land for the kind of blood-and-fire religion and
>> religious devotion the gods in the book need.
>I still find this difficult to believe. A nation which invented snake-handling as
>a liturgical exercise, which birthed the Reverend Jim Jones?
Neither of which can exactly be called mainstream.
And I think the basic concepts of snake-handling and suicide cults
pre-date the US. They've been given a little twist here, that's all.
The later mention of the Mormons as a native and successful cult comes
closer to the mark, in that devout Mormons seem to be more numerous
than devout members of any other sect (in my limited experience). But
again, I've never gotten a real martyr-for-the-faith vibe from any of
the Mormons I know-- after an exciting early history, they've settled
into bland respectability as thoroughly as the Presbyterians and
Lutherans have.
It's easy to be fooled by the vociferousness of the more whacked-out
segments of the American religious community, but the snake-handlers
and faith-healers are a tiny, tiny minority. Most Americans are too
busy to be really religious, by the standards used elsewhere in the
world. And by Gaiman's grifter Gods.
--
Chad Orzel
Book Log: http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/booklog.html
Reviews: http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/Reviews.html
TMW
wrote:
> On 5-Feb-2002, Andrew Ducker <And...@Ducker.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ooh, I completely forgot about Neverwhere (probably because I managed one
> > episode of the tv series before turning it off in disgust)
>
> TV? Wow, it would really take a top director to make this into a decent TV
> series. I take it that this didn't happen.
I spoke to Neil in 1997 about it, after it had just been shot, and he
indicated he wasn't thrilled with it, particularly the fact it was shot
on DV and not film.
TM Wagner
http://www.sfreviews.net/
Avram Grumer
> On 5-Feb-2002, Andrew Ducker <And...@Ducker.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ooh, I completely forgot about Neverwhere (probably because I
> > managed one episode of the tv series before turning it off in
> > disgust)
>
> TV? Wow, it would really take a top director to make this into a
> decent TV series. I take it that this didn't happen.
I haven't seen the _Neverwhere_ TV series myself, but I have friends who
have, and they liked it quite a bit.
Eric Walker
[...]
>It's easy to be fooled by the vociferousness of the more whacked-out
>segments of the American religious community, but the snake-handlers
>and faith-healers are a tiny, tiny minority. Most Americans are too
>busy to be really religious, by the standards used elsewhere in the
>world. And by Gaiman's grifter Gods.
I would say that a major point of the book is that the
"religion" of modern-day America is pretty much what Sinclair
Lewis and his tribe said some while ago (as in _Babbitt_): the
"worship," almost literally, of non-theological concepts, or
social devices--progress, wealth, technology, status, and that
lovely lot. The polite nods to nominal religion are subsumed
in the real beliefs--that's why the "gods" can't get any
traction here.
Nyrath the nearly wise
> I would say that a major point of the book is that the
> "religion" of modern-day America is pretty much what Sinclair
> Lewis and his tribe said some while ago (as in _Babbitt_): the
> "worship," almost literally, of non-theological concepts, or
> social devices--progress, wealth, technology, status, and that
> lovely lot. The polite nods to nominal religion are subsumed
> in the real beliefs--that's why the "gods" can't get any
> traction here.
For what it's worth, Robert Anton Wilson
spoke about this as well in PROMETHEUS RISING.
He says imagine how you'd feel if you were suddenly
broke, and had no way of getting any money.
Fear, panic, one's survival is threatened.
This is *exactly* the way a member of a primitive
tribal culture would feel if they were thrown
out of the tribe. No tribe = you die.
But in our modern society, we have transfered that
allegiance from "the tribe" onto little pieces of
paper called "money" (or "bio-survival tickets".
If you have enough tickets, you survive)
Many of our current problems with societal
anxiety stem from the fact that money is
an inanimate object, incapable of giving one
the love and emotional support that a
tribe member can supply.
Andrew Plotkin
I liked it greatly (more than the book, as I said) but I certainly
agree that the video quality was a disappointment.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Omri Schwarz
> I remember seeing a documentary on TV about one of these snake-handling
> fundie cults, in which it was shown that one of the preachers had been
> building up a tolerance to the venom by injecting himself for years with
> diluted doses of it. I couldn't help thinking, "Hey, that isn't faith,
> he's cheating!" :-)
And the moral of the story: never make a bet
with an Appalachian when life is on the line!
--
Omri Schwarz --- ocs...@mit.edu ('h' before war)
Timeless wisdom of biomedical engineering: "Noise is principally
due to the presence of the patient." -- R.F. Farr
Steinn Sigurdsson
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, in rec.arts.sf.written,
> David Silberstein <dav...@Kithrup.COM> said:
> >A hallmark of Christian fundamentalism is taking the Bible literally.
> >Snake handlers take it really literally. They point to Mark 16:17-18, in
> >which the risen Jesus tells his disciples, "And these signs shall follow
> >them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak
> >with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any
> >deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick,
> >and they shall recover." For 19 centuries most Christians understood these
> >signs as mere possibilities. Then in 1909 Tennessee preacher George
> >Hensley pointed out that it didn't say may, brothers and sisters, it said
> >shall. He challenged his congregation to handle poisonous snakes or be
> >condemned to hell.
> Did he make a habit of drinking prussic acid?
ObSF: The Tom Sharpe book with a character who made
good use of prosthetics to start a career in preaching
in the Deep South - was it "the Great Pursuit"?
Jeff Lanam
Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, in rec.arts.sf.written,
>David Silberstein <dav...@Kithrup.COM> said:
>>Then in 1909 Tennessee preacher George
>>Hensley pointed out that it didn't say may, brothers and sisters, it said
>>shall. He challenged his congregation to handle poisonous snakes or be
>>condemned to hell.
>
>Did he make a habit of drinking prussic acid?
>
>--
I googled for this; Hensley and his followers drank poison,
but I never found a mention of the specific one. Hensley
died in 1955 of snakebite.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/58h/58h025.html
bandersnatch
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>bandersnatch wrote:
>
>> On 4 Feb 2002 16:44:49 GMT, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <nbi78.1003$bB.177...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >Richard Horton wrote:
>> >
>> >> American Gods is Neil Gaiman's big 2001 "American" fantasy.
>> >
>> >As I read the first few chapters of this book, I simmered in authorial
>> >jealousy. He writes so well! As the book progressed, however, it became
>> >more and more of an effort to read it.
>> > Things just happened, arbitrarily,
>> >until they stopped.
>>
>> Sort of like reality.
>> You are the only person I have heard of that didn't love this book.
>
>I'm another. I read it, and finished it, but will never re-read it. His
>SANDMAN stuff is far better.
>
>For me the basic premise was so out of kilter that it destroyed any suspension
>of disbelief. Uh, America is an infertile soil for religions? Excuse me?
>
>Brenda
wow! did you read the book? The fat kid with glasses? The two suits?
His points were american gods -the internet, the credit card, the
computer against old immigrant gods.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Solve two of the world's biggest problems:
Feed the homeless to the hungry.
bandersnatch
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Lee DeRaud wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2002 06:53:28 +1100, Joe Slater
>> <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> >"Brenda W. Clough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >>I still find this difficult to believe. A nation which invented snake-handling as
>> >>a liturgical exercise, which birthed the Reverend Jim Jones?
>> >
>> >Surely the Americans didn't invent snake handling as a religious
>> >exercise. Invetented it for themselves, maybe, but I know I've seen
>> >pictures of ancient goddesses with snakes, and even modern photos of
>> >some Hindus with then.
>>
>> Handling of "holy" snakes by the clergy, sure. But handling of
>> decidedly non-holy (because they represent the devil) snakes by the
>> congregation? *Not* the same thing: note that they are most definitely
>> *not* worshipping the snakes. Snake-handling in that context is much
>> more akin to fire-walking - a test/demonstration of faith.
>>
>
>Yes. American snake-handling denominations are as close to blood-sacrifice as you can
>legally get in this country.
>
>And I haven't even mentioned Joseph Smith. How could Gaiman miss Joseph Smith and the
>Mormons, a home-grown American religion if there ever was one? So the entire book was
>sort of lame for me.
>
>Brenda
You seem to have missed the books' points in their entirety. Try
rereading it. Gaiman is talking about america's NEW, INDIGENOUS
gods -credit cards, electronics etc. It's a work of fiction, not a
freaking documentary.
David T. Bilek
>On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:40:39 -0500, "Brenda W. Clough"
><clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>bandersnatch wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Feb 2002 16:44:49 GMT, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <nbi78.1003$bB.177...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> >Richard Horton wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> American Gods is Neil Gaiman's big 2001 "American" fantasy.
>>> >
>>> >As I read the first few chapters of this book, I simmered in authorial
>>> >jealousy. He writes so well! As the book progressed, however, it became
>>> >more and more of an effort to read it.
>>> > Things just happened, arbitrarily,
>>> >until they stopped.
>>>
>>> Sort of like reality.
>>> You are the only person I have heard of that didn't love this book.
>>
>>I'm another. I read it, and finished it, but will never re-read it. His
>>SANDMAN stuff is far better.
>>
>>For me the basic premise was so out of kilter that it destroyed any suspension
>>of disbelief. Uh, America is an infertile soil for religions? Excuse me?
>>
>
>wow! did you read the book? The fat kid with glasses? The two suits?
>His points were american gods -the internet, the credit card, the
>computer against old immigrant gods.
Ah, no. If that's what you think, you misread the book badly.
Exactly how you've misread the book is, of course, a major spoiler.
-David
Kate Nepveu
> bandersnatch wrote:
> > On 4 Feb 2002 16:44:49 GMT, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
> > > Things just happened, arbitrarily,
> > >until they stopped.
> > Sort of like reality.
> > You are the only person I have heard of that didn't love this book.
> I'm another. I read it, and finished it, but will never re-read it. His
> SANDMAN stuff is far better.
I appear not to have posted "me too" to this when it came along the first
time. So, here's a "me too" at length, from the book log, as I've just
finished re-reading it:
***
I found Neil Gaiman's latest novel, _American Gods_, extremely
frustrating the first time I read it. I thought perhaps I would like it
better upon re-reading: perhaps my high expectations, or my narrative
expectations, got in the way unfairly. I regret to report that I do not,
in fact, like it any better now that I've re-read it.
Why is it frustrating? Oh, lots of reasons. I *did* have high
expectations for this book, and justifiably so, I think. Since the
amazing _Sandman_ comic series concluded its 75-issue run, Gaiman's
novels had been enjoyable but slight, lacking the kind of power and depth
_Sandman_ displayed. The tale of a war between the old and new gods of
America was just the kind of project I'd hoped to see Gaiman take on.
It may be unjust to compare _American Gods_ to _Sandman_, since a
ten-year monthly epic and a 400+ page novel are quite different formats.
But too much of _American Gods_ invites me to do so, to the book's
detriment. There are, of course, the gods, whose incarnations in America
are quite different from the ones who dealt with Dream, which is somewhat
disorienting, at least at first. (The other disorienting thing about the
gods in this book is that Bast's feline form is *exactly* what I've
always pictured myself as in the "If you were an animal, what would you
be?" game.) There's the very basic theme of belief and story, painted
over a broad canvas with stories embedded inside the larger tale.
More importantly, there's the main characters. It's been observed that
Gaiman apparently has a thing for passive protagonists; Dream was
passive, but for interesting and ultimately tragic reasons. Shadow just
is. He is, in fact, one of the major sources of my frustration; it's very
annoying to be mad on behalf of someone who doesn't appear to care.
The other main (and related, in spoilery ways) source of frustration is
the plot. I don't object to violating narrative expectations, but I want
there to be a payoff for it. Here, I ended up saying, "That's it? So
what?" which is not what you want to do after 400 pages. To be sure,
those 400 pages were a very smooth and easy read, with some great
stories, characters, and lines (of which my favorite is probably, "Media.
I think I have heard of her. Isn't she the one who killed her children?"
"Different woman. Same deal."). But they don't, to me, _add up_ to
anything: the plot's resolution, its effect on Shadow--they just leave me
frustrated.
A lot of people seem to really like this book, and it's received quite a
lot of critical attention. That's great; Gaiman has an impressive body of
work and deserves the attention. But whatever it is that people are
seeing in this, I'm missing it.
Kate
--
http://www.steelypips.org/elsewhere.html -- kate....@yale.edu
Paired Reading Page; Book Reviews; Outside of a Dog: A Book Log
"I awoke this morning with devout thanksgiving for my friends."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Jonathan Hendry
"Jeff Lanam" <jeff.lana...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:3c6473cd....@news.compaq.com...
"Praise the Lord And Pass The Snakes"
(Song by I forget their name, but one of the members
is/was Jorma Kaukonen. Heard on a Mountain Stage collection
CD.)
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<j_he...@whamo.netcom.com> wrote:
>"Praise the Lord And Pass The Snakes"
>
>(Song by I forget their name, but one of the members
>is/was Jorma Kaukonen.
Hot Tuna, maybe?
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 11/17/01
My latest novel is THE DRAGON SOCIETY, just published by Tor.
Jonathan Hendry
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Rvj98.22943$Hb6.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:44:42 -0600, "Jonathan Hendry"
> <j_he...@whamo.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >"Praise the Lord And Pass The Snakes"
> >
> >(Song by I forget their name, but one of the members
> >is/was Jorma Kaukonen.
>
> Hot Tuna, maybe?
Sounds right... Thanks!
Brenda W. Clough
> The other main (and related, in spoilery ways) source of frustration is
> the plot. I don't object to violating narrative expectations, but I want
> there to be a payoff for it. Here, I ended up saying, "That's it? So
> what?" which is not what you want to do after 400 pages.
Shadow's encounters in Sweden or wherever it was in Scandinavia essentially cut
the guts out of all the previous angst. Like the way the final conclusion of
the book of Job is just so not right.
P. Korda
Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
>I found Neil Gaiman's latest novel, _American Gods_, extremely
>frustrating the first time I read it. I thought perhaps I would like it
>better upon re-reading: perhaps my high expectations, or my narrative
>expectations, got in the way unfairly. I regret to report that I do not,
>in fact, like it any better now that I've re-read it.
Hm, reading the rest of your post, I think that your narrative
expectations still "got in the way" on your second reading. It sounds
like, for the most part, you didn't like the book because you really,
really wanted it to be a completely different book. I can sympathise;
that's happenned to me on several occasions. I think this is why I was
disappointed with Bujold's _A Civil Campaign_. It's a perfectly
well-written book, and lots of folks like it, but I didn't want it to
be a romantic comedy with slapstick elements, I wanted something more
serious.
Objectively, I guess that sort of thing is unfair to the author in
question; it's not their fault a reader wants them to have written a
different book from the one they wrote, but what can you do?
>It may be unjust to compare _American Gods_ to _Sandman_, since a
>ten-year monthly epic and a 400+ page novel are quite different formats.
>But too much of _American Gods_ invites me to do so, to the book's
>detriment. There are, of course, the gods, whose incarnations in America
>are quite different from the ones who dealt with Dream, which is somewhat
>disorienting, at least at first.
Well, that's kind of one of the points of the book, isn't it? I really
enjoyed the depictions of shabby down-on-their-luck gods, trying to
survive in a world in which they're increasingly irrelevant.
>More importantly, there's the main characters. It's been observed that
>Gaiman apparently has a thing for passive protagonists; Dream was
>passive, but for interesting and ultimately tragic reasons. Shadow just
>is. He is, in fact, one of the major sources of my frustration; it's very
>annoying to be mad on behalf of someone who doesn't appear to care.
I also prefer more proactive heroes; apart from one particular bit,
Shadow functions as more of a stand-in for the reader than as a
protagonist. As somebody points out in the book, it's like he's an
observer in his own life. Now, Gaiman had a reason for writing him
that way, but I think that aspect of the plot kind of got lost in all
the excitement.
>The other main (and related, in spoilery ways) source of frustration is
>the plot. I don't object to violating narrative expectations, but I want
>there to be a payoff for it. Here, I ended up saying, "That's it? So
>what?" which is not what you want to do after 400 pages. To be sure,
I had the completely opposite reaction.
SPOILERS (I'll try to be vague, but there's no way I can talk about
this without at least minor spoilage):
Like Koz, I was really bothered by how various aspects of the plot
didn't fit together right, and how it all didn't make sense. I was so
happy when I realized that it wasn't _supposed_ to make sense, because
what I thought was going on wasn't actually what was going on.
Now, I did not think the book was perfect, and I liked it less than
_Neverwhere_ and _Stardust_, but my problems with the book are
completely different from yours.
The biggest flaw in _American Gods_, I think, is that it's too
crowded. It's clear that Gaiman had a lot of really good story ideas
with the general theme of "small gods in America," and tried to fit
them all into one novel.
Hm, more in-depth spoilers follow:
Just off the top of my head, there's the main plot involving Odin and
his schemes. Then there's the connected story of Shadow, his seemingly
unformed life, and his... I guess you could call it his
apotheosis. Each of the gods has his own story. There's the side-trip
involving the Perfect Town in frozen Northern Minnesota, and the dark
reason for its seeming perfectness. On top of it all, there's a slew
of minor plot threads and side stories. All of these plot threads are
interesting, but I'm not sure it was a good idea to try to fit them
all into one novel.
--
Pam Korda
kor2 @ midway.uchicago.edu
Home Page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~kor2/
Book Log: http://home.uchicago.edu/~kor2/booklog/
Kate Nepveu
> In article <ekab6u8l3qd3shmvp...@4ax.com>,
> Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
> >I found Neil Gaiman's latest novel, _American Gods_, extremely
> >frustrating the first time I read it. I thought perhaps I would like it
> >better upon re-reading: perhaps my high expectations, or my narrative
> >expectations, got in the way unfairly. I regret to report that I do not,
> >in fact, like it any better now that I've re-read it.
> Hm, reading the rest of your post, I think that your narrative
> expectations still "got in the way" on your second reading. It sounds
> like, for the most part, you didn't like the book because you really,
> really wanted it to be a completely different book.
I was trying to keep it out of my way, and indeed, on re-reading I can
see that the kind of book it was got set up pretty carefully. I just
didn't find the kind of book it actually was very interesting. I do
think that these are separable, because of spoilery stuff that will be
discussed below.
[...]
> >It may be unjust to compare _American Gods_ to _Sandman_, since a
> >ten-year monthly epic and a 400+ page novel are quite different formats.
> >But too much of _American Gods_ invites me to do so, to the book's
> >detriment. There are, of course, the gods, whose incarnations in America
> >are quite different from the ones who dealt with Dream, which is somewhat
> >disorienting, at least at first.
> Well, that's kind of one of the points of the book, isn't it? I really
> enjoyed the depictions of shabby down-on-their-luck gods, trying to
> survive in a world in which they're increasingly irrelevant.
I did too. I'm reading a book of folktales before bed now and I really
enjoyed the insertion of Mr. Nancy's stories, for instance.
> >More importantly, there's the main characters. It's been observed that
> >Gaiman apparently has a thing for passive protagonists; Dream was
> >passive, but for interesting and ultimately tragic reasons. Shadow just
> >is. He is, in fact, one of the major sources of my frustration; it's very
> >annoying to be mad on behalf of someone who doesn't appear to care.
> I also prefer more proactive heroes; apart from one particular bit,
> Shadow functions as more of a stand-in for the reader than as a
> protagonist. As somebody points out in the book, it's like he's an
> observer in his own life. Now, Gaiman had a reason for writing him
> that way, but I think that aspect of the plot kind of got lost in all
> the excitement.
I caught the life history-based reasons, if that's what you mean, and
that's fine and all, but I still wanted to yell at him.
> >The other main (and related, in spoilery ways) source of frustration is
> >the plot. I don't object to violating narrative expectations, but I want
> >there to be a payoff for it. Here, I ended up saying, "That's it? So
> >what?" which is not what you want to do after 400 pages. To be sure,
> I had the completely opposite reaction.
> SPOILERS (I'll try to be vague, but there's no way I can talk about
> this without at least minor spoilage):
I'm going to have to do big spoilage, below.
[...]
> The biggest flaw in _American Gods_, I think, is that it's too
> crowded. It's clear that Gaiman had a lot of really good story ideas
> with the general theme of "small gods in America," and tried to fit
> them all into one novel.
I feel like this was a problem, too, but for me it was more a symptom of
the main problem: they all didn't add up to anything.
Here's how I see it:
Shadow needs to learn to live. (As an aside, I thought Laura was a
*fabulous* character.) He becomes alive by deciding to do Wednesday's
vigil. Which, in the first place, was the end goal of a big con to just
get him to sacrifice himself. So, first I'm pissed off at Wednesday for
killing his own damn son for his power games. And then Shadow seems to
think it's enough that he's done his one big thing: he wants oblivion
now. Which is understandable, but kind of annoying too; I don't really
think that's what Laura had in mind, or that it's a really wise way to
proceed. So that's mildly annoying. And then, when Shadow finds out
about the plot--he doesn't seem to care! Here I am, furious on his
behalf, and it apparently rolls right over him. He tells everyone to go
home, and that's it, the end.
1) It doesn't seem to me that Shadow gets much in the way of lasting
growth. It's hard to say, because he's such a difficult person to get
ahold of; but I can't say that he seems much different in the Epilogue.
2) The whole scam seems to mean nothing--both to Shadow and to the
greater world. Okay, people are being a little happier because Wednesday
and Loki have stopped stirring up trouble--but the old gods are going to
continue to die, the new gods are going to continue to be nervous, and
the world remains the same.
I'm not putting this well. I guess that to me, the book boils down, "It
was all a scam, which gets stopped, and the protagonist is basically the
same (except that he was really annoying along the way), the end." Which
I find just a completely unsatisfying story.
My wrist hurts now, so I'm going to stop ranting. YMMV and all that.
Richard Horton
<clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Kate Nepveu wrote:
>
>> The other main (and related, in spoilery ways) source of frustration is
>> the plot. I don't object to violating narrative expectations, but I want
>> there to be a payoff for it. Here, I ended up saying, "That's it? So
>> what?" which is not what you want to do after 400 pages.
>
>Shadow's encounters in Sweden or wherever it was in Scandinavia
Iceland, wasn't it?
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
bandersnatch
wrote:
Well thanks for telling me how I misread the book.
You need exlax.
neil
wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 07:15:49 GMT, bandersnatch <****@****.***> wrote:
It would seem that he has taken what was written on the book's dust
jacket, condensed it and posted it. That is most likely why you
accuse him of misreading the book 'badly'. One question -
is English your primary language?
David T. Bilek
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 07:23:12 GMT, dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek)
>wrote:
>
>It would seem that he has taken what was written on the book's dust
>jacket, condensed it and posted it. That is most likely why you
>accuse him of misreading the book 'badly'. One question -
>is English your primary language?
'Badly' is an adverb. As such, there is nothing improper with using
it in that context.
-David
neil
wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 07:15:49 GMT, bandersnatch <****@****.***> wrote:
You know, just to be sure, I checked out Publishers weekly:
"From Publishers Weekly
Titans clash, but with more fuss than fury in this fantasy demi-epic
from the author of Neverwhere. The intriguing premise of Gaiman's tale
is that the gods of European yore, who came to North America with
their immigrant believers, are squaring off for a rumble with new
indigenous deities: "gods of credit card and freeway, of Internet and
telephone, of radio and hospital and television, gods of plastic and
of beeper and of neon."
Mr.Bilek, I guess everybody but special little you missed the point of
this book, including Publisher's Weekly. Try doubling your Prozac
or adding Biloba to your diet.
Brenda W. Clough
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:01:14 -0500, "Brenda W. Clough"
> <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Kate Nepveu wrote:
> >
> >> The other main (and related, in spoilery ways) source of frustration is
> >> the plot. I don't object to violating narrative expectations, but I want
> >> there to be a payoff for it. Here, I ended up saying, "That's it? So
> >> what?" which is not what you want to do after 400 pages.
> >
> >Shadow's encounters in Sweden or wherever it was in Scandinavia
>
> Iceland, wasn't it?
Could be -- but as I said way upthread, I'm not going to reread it, and so will never know.
Ian McDowell
with his Sandman work, I think a couple of the stories in SMOKE AND
MIRRORS rank with MR. PUNCH and THE DAY I SWAPPED MY DAD FOR TWO GOLDFISH
as some of the best things he's done so far. And his children's book
CORALINE, which is being published without illustrations in Britain but
will have ones by Dave McKean in America, is imho spookily brilliant. I
believe that Henry Selig has expressed an interest in a film adaptation
(me, I'd rather see it done by Hayao Miyazaki -- indeed, it has some
thematic similarities with Miyazaki's latest film, SPIRITED AWAY).
Joe Slater
>>>wow! did you read the book? The fat kid with glasses? The two suits?
>>>His points were american gods -the internet, the credit card, the
>>>computer against old immigrant gods.
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 07:23:12 GMT, dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek)
>wrote:
>>Ah, no. If that's what you think, you misread the book badly.
>>
>>Exactly how you've misread the book is, of course, a major spoiler.
neil <ne...@upton.com> wrote:
>You know, just to be sure, I checked out Publishers weekly:
>
>"From Publishers Weekly
>Titans clash, but with more fuss than fury in this fantasy demi-epic
>from the author of Neverwhere. The intriguing premise of Gaiman's tale
>is that the gods of European yore, who came to North America with
>their immigrant believers, are squaring off for a rumble with new
>indigenous deities: "gods of credit card and freeway, of Internet and
>telephone, of radio and hospital and television, gods of plastic and
>of beeper and of neon."
>
>Mr.Bilek, I guess everybody but special little you missed the point of
>this book, including Publisher's Weekly. Try doubling your Prozac
>or adding Biloba to your diet.
David's right; you're wrong. The point and the premise are distinct
things. Odin and Loki are indeed collecting troops for a battle of old
gods against new ones, but that is scarcely the point of the book. If
you want to prove David and myself to be wrong, would you mind telling
us what happens at the end of the story?
jds
--
Joe Slater was but a low-grade paranoiac, whose fantastic notions must
have come from the crude hereditary folk-tales which circulated in even
the most decadent of communities.
_Beyond the Wall of Sleep_ by H P Lovecraft
William T. Hyde
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:14:27 +0000, someone calling themselves Del
> Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> is alleged to have written:
>
> >On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, in rec.arts.sf.written,
> >David Silberstein <dav...@Kithrup.COM> said:
> >>Then in 1909 Tennessee preacher George
> >>Hensley pointed out that it didn't say may, brothers and sisters, it said
> >>shall. He challenged his congregation to handle poisonous snakes or be
> >>condemned to hell.
> >
> >Did he make a habit of drinking prussic acid?
> >
> >--
>
> I googled for this; Hensley and his followers drank poison,
> but I never found a mention of the specific one.
It is not cyanide, but rather something I suspect
tw which you can build a tolerance (I am of course an
expert on this because I saw a documentary once that
I half remember). Nor are the snakes among the most
deadly. The cult would be a lot smaller if they
used Australian snakes.
The documentary makers confirmed that the worshippers
were drinking poison, but did not mention the concentration.
Or maybe I can't recall it owing to the raw opium in
my lunchtime poppyseed bread.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Damien Raphael
>Shadow's encounters in Sweden or wherever it was in Scandinavia essentially cut
>the guts out of all the previous angst. Like the way the final conclusion of
>the book of Job is just so not right.
I thought it was logically compelled by the whole backstory of the book. I
mean, he didn't have to go to Iceland, and we didn't have to see him go to
Iceland, but there had to be someone to meet there if he went. Gods are tied
to the land. New land, new gods. Jesus hitchhiking in Afghanistan.
-xx- Damien X-)
Damien Raphael
>On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:07:34 -0500, "Brenda W. Clough"
><clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>And I haven't even mentioned Joseph Smith. How could Gaiman miss Joseph
>>Smith and the Mormons, a home-grown American religion if there ever was one?
>>So the entire book was sort of lame for me.
>You seem to have missed the books' points in their entirety. Try
>rereading it. Gaiman is talking about america's NEW, INDIGENOUS
>gods -credit cards, electronics etc. It's a work of fiction, not a
>freaking documentary.
No, you've both missed the point. The book was about the survival of the
small gods, the dead and dying gods and the new infant gods. Whether we look
at the surface plot or the deep plot, the book is about the survival of small
gods.
The Abrahamic religions are not small. The entire action of the book was
beneath their God (or Gods). They wouldn't have been interested in the
surface plot and no one sane would have involved them in the deep plot,
because then it wouldn't have worked.
I suppose one could say the Mormons contradict the claim about American being
infertile soil for gods. Of course, we're told that by a dead god. Who just
might be trying to comfort himself. It's nicer to think you suck because your
worshippers brought a copy of you to a hostile land than to think you suck
because you, well, suck.
-xx- Damien X-)
Micole Sudberg
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
In article <ekab6u8l3qd3shmvp...@4ax.com>, kate....@yale.edu
wrote:
>It may be unjust to compare _American Gods_ to _Sandman_, since a
>ten-year monthly epic and a 400+ page novel are quite different formats.
>But too much of _American Gods_ invites me to do so, to the book's
>detriment. There are, of course, the gods, whose incarnations in America
>are quite different from the ones who dealt with Dream, which is somewhat
>disorienting, at least at first. (The other disorienting thing about the
>gods in this book is that Bast's feline form is *exactly* what I've
>always pictured myself as in the "If you were an animal, what would you
>be?" game.) There's the very basic theme of belief and story, painted
>over a broad canvas with stories embedded inside the larger tale.
>
>More importantly, there's the main characters. It's been observed that
>Gaiman apparently has a thing for passive protagonists; Dream was
>passive, but for interesting and ultimately tragic reasons. Shadow just
>is. He is, in fact, one of the major sources of my frustration; it's very
>annoying to be mad on behalf of someone who doesn't appear to care.
Shadow was a big, big problem for me. The book seemed basically to criticize
Americans for lack of belief, fickleness, a desire to trade their history for
their dreams, and I don't object to that, or think there couldn't be a
brilliant novel written around that; but as an argument, this doesn't work in
a novel *without significant humans in it*, let alone Americans. The whole
thing felt false because Shadow wasn't human and mostly interacted with other
people who were not or were no longer human, either. We got a lot of gods; we
didn't get a lot of the people who created them.
And I was much more interested in the young gods than the old gods who got
most of the wordage.
--m.
Damien Raphael
>Spoilers for *American Gods*
>
>
>
>
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>
>
>
>Americans for lack of belief, fickleness, a desire to trade their history for
>their dreams, and I don't object to that, or think there couldn't be a
>brilliant novel written around that; but as an argument, this doesn't work in
I didn't think Americans were being criticized. It was just an observation.
-xx- Damien X-)
Micole Iris Sudberg
I didn't think it was offensive, but it was being presented as an
observation of a negative trait, i.e., a criticism.
John DiFool
> Spoilers for *American Gods*
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
>
> >More importantly, there's the main characters. It's been observed that
> >Gaiman apparently has a thing for passive protagonists; Dream was
> >passive, but for interesting and ultimately tragic reasons. Shadow just
> >is. He is, in fact, one of the major sources of my frustration; it's very
> >annoying to be mad on behalf of someone who doesn't appear to care.
>
> Shadow was a big, big problem for me. The book seemed basically to criticize
> Americans for lack of belief, fickleness, a desire to trade their history for
> their dreams, and I don't object to that, or think there couldn't be a
> brilliant novel written around that; but as an argument, this doesn't work in
> a novel *without significant humans in it*, let alone Americans. The whole
> thing felt false because Shadow wasn't human and mostly interacted with other
> people who were not or were no longer human, either. We got a lot of gods; we
> didn't get a lot of the people who created them.
Such as the girl-she was probably the most interesting character, but she
doesn't get much 'screen' time...
John DiFool