REVIEW: Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" (minor spoilers)
Crossfire
There are some spoilers in here, but nothing more than you'd get from
reading the flyleaf of the novel. But I'll put in some spoilers space just
to be safe.
---------------------------------------------
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
---------------------------------------------
I just finished reading Neil Gaiman's latest novel, "American Gods."
Actually, I finished it a couple of days ago. I just wanted to let it
settle in my mind before I wrote about it.
It is his finest novel to date. I've watched Gaiman's prose develop over
the last several years and just like he mastered the graphic storytelling
medium (AKA "comics") he is in the process of mastering the novel. He
still has some work to do, but boy, is he good.
"American Gods" is of a sub-genre that I like to call "revisionist mythology,"
a genre Gaiman is quite familiar with. Revisionist mythology stories
take some classic myth and put a new spin on it, often updating it for
modern times. Shaw's "Pygmalion" is a fine example. Stephen King's
"Rose Madder" is another example. (Dare I say King was influenced by
reading Gaiman? Dare I? :)
"American Gods" is about a man named Shadow. At the start of the book,
he is due to be released from a three-year sentence in prison. Shadow
is actually a pretty good guy. He's guilty of his crimes, but he's done his
time and has his wife and life waiting for him when he gets out.
Unfortunately, things are not meant to be; Shadow learns, three days before
his release, that his wife has been killed in a car accident.
On his way to the funeral, Shadow meets a man named Wednesday, who wants to
hire him to run errands, drive, and occasionally "to hurt people who need
hurting." Eventually, Shadow agrees, but only on his own terms, and only
after Wednesday demonstrates that he knows things about Shadow that he
couldn't possibly know.
So Shadow travels around the country with Wednesday, searching for and
meeting various odd people in an attempt to get them to join Wednesday's
unnamed and mysterious crusade. As the story goes on, Wednesday reveals
details as needed to keep Shadow, and subsequently the readers, interested.
Shadow slowly begins to realize that the people they are meeting are
present-day incarnations of old gods, and they are gearing up for a battle
with the newer up-and-coming gods--the American gods. Shadow also encounters
various incarnations of these American gods: Media, the Internet (or maybe
he's Information...I wasn't sure, but it's something like that), and the Men
In Black ("They only exist because everyone KNOWS they exist," says one of
the elder gods to Shadow).
Shadow and Wednesday visit various strange places as well. Places that
Gaiman intimates actually exist, though he has carefully obscured their
true locations. These are places of power: the center of the United
States; roadside attractions with giant carousels; hills that have
echoes across more than one reality.
Dogged by the American gods, appearances by his dead wife, and dreams of
Native American symbology, Shadow finds he must start making difficult
choices, and that almost nobody is telling him the truth. And by the
time Shadow discovers the true plot behind everyone's machinations, it's
almost too late.
All in all, Gaiman handles the storyline and difficulties of weaving a
good novel quite well. The best line, for me, in the book is, "Chicago
came on slowly, like a migraine," describing how the countryside gradually
shifted from rural to city as Shadow and Wednesday arrive to meet some
elderly Russian gods. The novel moves along at a good pace...fast enough
to keep you interested, but not so fast that you miss out on details.
Occasionally Gaiman falls back on some trite habits that new novelists
use. At one point, when Shadow asks him a question, Wednesday "zones out"
and answers it obliquely, but in great detail. At no other time is
Wednesday nearly as forthcoming with information, no matter how oblique.
In fact, he repeatedly tells Shadow, "I didn't hire you to ask questions."
And just why is the main character named Shadow, anyway? Why not Fred?
Yes, the name is explained, but why bother?
Aside from these stylistic points, Gaiman has made great improvements
in his novel writing. His descriptive style, previously hampered by
overjournalistic tendencies, has become more warm and open. His characters
are more believable, and his ear for dialogue has improved.
An interesting note is that his narrative voice is almost totally devoid of
an English accent: in addition to not using British spelling and punctuation,
he no longer uses British sentence structures. I'm not sure if this was
his choice or if it was on recommendation to make his writing more palatable
for Yanks--I certainly have no problem reading writing with a British
accent. I mention it because Gaiman has done a fine job, if that was his
goal.
I liked "American Gods." It was a fun read, and I liked the characters.
That being said, I'll now compare it to other Gaiman works. The only problem
with "American Gods," when stacked up against other Gaiman works, is that
it has no depth. It doesn't echo with that certain undescribable truthfulness
that many of us have come to expect from Gaiman's stories. For example,
consider comparing the screenplay of "My Fair Lady" to Shaw's "Pygmalion."
There is no question which work has more depth, more *truth.* Compare
"American Gods" with, say, Gaiman's short story "Chivalry" and the scales
will easily tip in favor of the short story.
I think this has more to do with Gaiman's ongoing mastery of the novel
than a lack of talent on his part, or an innate lack of "truth" in the story.
I fully expect Gaiman to write a great novel one day, one full of truth
and beauty. "American Gods" isn't it. It IS a great story, and a fun
read.
Yes, I recommend "American Gods." And I'm looking forward to Gaiman's next
novel. I understand he has seven of them in the offing.
--
Jon "Crossfire" Reid | jon <at> apeiros <dot> com (DeSPAM the Reply-To)
| http://www.apeiros.com/~jon
Maraud's Law: Every single post comes from a person, who believes what
they believe based on their life, their family, their experiences, their
distates, and their passions. They believe what they believe *for a
reason*.
Dan Goodman
(Crossfire) wrote:
>An interesting note is that his narrative voice is almost totally devoid of
>an English accent: in addition to not using British spelling and punctuation,
>he no longer uses British sentence structures. I'm not sure if this was
>his choice or if it was on recommendation to make his writing more palatable
>for Yanks--I certainly have no problem reading writing with a British
>accent. I mention it because Gaiman has done a fine job, if that was his
>goal.
Then he's managed something only a very, very, very few Brits have.
The only other English writers I can think of who managed to write
American dialog which sounded American and not to sound obviously
English in narrating are Rudyard Kipling and Clive Barker.
----------
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.