Neil Gaiman: Badly Overated?

[nikolai]

Hi all;

The thread title overstates things a little. I keep on hearing great things about Neil Gaiman, as author of prose fiction. He's certainly a very important figure within the fantasy genre. I've bought and read Smoke and Mirrors, his short story collection, and to be honest it seems pretty poor. There are one or two stories that were okay, but nothing exceptional, and a lot of bad ones.

Is his status a myth, derived from his success in other media? What are your thoughts? I having trouble reconciling what I'm hearing about him and my own experiences.

P.S. I've also read Good Omens, which I enjoyed, but I'm unsure how much of it was Gaiman, and how much was Pratchett. The stuff I liked seemed very Pratchettesque.

 

[Fast Learner]

I haven't read Smoke and Mirrors, so I can't comment on that, but will say that while I didn't find the Sandman comics to be terribly impressive (fine, even sometimes good, but not great), I found American Gods to be a masterpiece, and have great respect for the author now.

 

[Pielorinho]

Fast Learner, I'm just the opposite. American Gods had some good moments in it, but the climactic scene left me completely flat, and it had enough flaws that I can't really recommend it to people. And I've had the same response to all his other adult non-illustrated fiction I've read.

Coraline, his "children's" book, is fantastic, though. And Sandman was nothing short of a revelation for me: I've never enjoyed a comic before or since as much as I enjoyed Sandman, which at one point moved me to tears.

Daniel

 

[takyris]

I've only read American Gods, Sandman, and Neverwhere -- and Good Omens, but I read that before I knew who Gaiman was.

I enjoyed American Gods a lot, although I thought of it more as a journey book -- the journey was, for me, more interesting than the destination. That's not a knock -- Neal Stephenson traditionally gives me the worst endings I've read in a long time, but I still read his stuff.

Neverwhere would have been more interesting had I had a better working knowledge of London. As it was, I was interested in the new fantastical tropes he used and had a good time, but I wasn't moved to tears.

And I deeply enjoyed Sandman, although I had to be in the right mood for it. I suppose that's true for anything, but very much more so in this one.

I found that I personally enjoyed Gaiman more when he didn't take himself too seriously. His ability to go from brooding barely comprehensible menace to deadpan ironic humor in the blink of an eye is what always made him worth reading for me. That and his interplay between traditional fantasy and new fantasy. Not to hijack, but the biggest problem I have with China Mieville is that he seems so bent on creating new and original fantasy tropes that he doesn't stop to check whether they're any good. Completely and totally just my own opinion, of course. I would read his stuff and go, "Cool, wonderful, neat, stupid, stupid, saw it on Doctor Who, and okay, another cool one, and hey, I hope you're trying to be funny with that one there, because if not, you've unfortunately drifted into camp..."

I feel like Gaiman does a better job of taking the cool parts of traditional fantasy and blending in his own unique new fantasy concepts at the same time. He's not trying to fight several thousand years of history and culture, and several decades of established fantasy tropes. For me, it's the difference between paddling against the current with all your might and letting the current take you while you smoothly guide your craft across the river to a new place.

 

[RichCsigs]

I have to give a "ditto" to Coraline. That was a great story.

He also wrote the best episode of season 5 of Babylon 5 (Day of the Dead).

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I thought 'Neverwhere' was excellent, and 'American Gods' one of the best books I read the year it came out. (I'd consider it the best, but 'Declare' by Tim Powers was absolutely brilliant, and is on my all-time best list.) 'Smoke and Mirros' was Ok, but I'm not a big fan of fantasy short fiction.

Kinda hard to say someone is over-rated who's largely unknown in mainstream literary circles, although 'American Gods' was well reviewed outside of the genre press. It's unfortunate the his comics -err graphic novels - have such a fanboy following, because I think that's where a lot of the hype comes from.

 

[nikolai]

Thanks for the responses. So far there's been (mixed) praise, and the only person who's read Smoke & Mirrors has an opinion similar to mine. I won't give up on him just yet.

Kinda hard to say someone is over-rated who's largely unknown in mainstream literary circles

The praise that I had heard was mostly coming from within the genre. But...

I think the relationship between literary circles and the fantasy genre is facinating, though. Gaiman's not a "literary" writer. But I think he is, along with Mieville, one of the fantasy writers who do touch upon the outer limits of literary circles. He gets kudos in places where solidly genre writers like George R. R. Martin and Robin Hobb wouldn't even get in the door. For example: Jonathon Strange & Mr. Norrel a fantasy book targeted directly at the mainstream, and with literary aspirations (Booker nominated), had its advertising based around a blurb by Gaiman. That said, he's not Borges or Angela Carter.

 

[Wombat]

Personally, I love Gaiman's material. No, I would not name him as one of the Literary Giants Of Our Day, but his work goes far beyond the limitations of most genre fiction.

Sandman was, for me, revelatory -- a comic book I could read that I actually enjoyed and never got bored with! Then again, I love mythology and every time I read an issue I felt the tug of many strands of differing mythologies. OTOH, I did not enjoy his other ventures as much in that direction, such as Mr. Punch. Different strokes, I suppose. With his books, I enjoyed several (but not all) of the stories in Smoke & Mirrors (some of which I already had in other collections). Stardust was only so-so for me. I felt it tried too hard. Good Omens is whopping great fun, as is Neverwhere, but neither of them is a "great" read for me -- nothing bad at all, but nothing utterly amazing either. I will, however, always have a soft spot in my heart for The Four Other Riders of the Apocalypse and The Fop Without A Name. American Gods was, for me, a classic; I hear rumours that he is working on a follow-up and, if so, I will grab it up immediately. Coraline is nearly perfection -- it is the closest thing to a modern Alice's Adventures in Wonderland that I have ever read, and, given how close that book is to my heart, that is high praise, indeed.

So, overall, Gaiman has ranged from so-so to truly amazing in my eyes, depending on what in particular he is writing, but the works that are truly amazing so eclipse the others in my eyes that I tend to sing his praises. Besides, he is a member of the Mutant Rabbit of the Month Club!

 

[Particle_Man]

I luv Neil Gaiman.

In addition to what was listed above, you could check out the marvel comic miniseries "1602", now collected in one volume. It places many of the early marvel characters (including the original X-Men, baby!) in Elizabethan England. Frankly, I like Gaiman's Dr. Doom and Reed Richards better than any other interpretation I have seen!

I have a friend with mental issues that is afraid to read Gaiman because in her opinion he writes what is in her head when she is having an episode!

Gaiman also is the only comic writer to win a World Fantasy Award for best short story. And because after him they changed the rules, he is the only comic writer who will ever have won a World Fantasy Award for best short story.

Gaiman is all that and a bag of chips, man!

 

[barsoomcore]

Overrated? Yes, but then pretty much any successful writer is overrated.

Badly overrated? Well, that kind of implies he's actually not any good, which is certainly not the case. I think Gaiman's PRETTY good. I don't think he's GREAT, but I think he's pretty good.

Neverwhere was a yawner, but American Gods was pretty good. Less good -- significantly less good -- than Douglas Adams' The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul, or even the best of Steven King (who Gaiman deeply reminds me of), but still, I wasn't angry I'd read it. And I LOVE Good Omens -- it's far and away my favourite book by either author.

So Gaiman -- a good, solid writer. Not Steven Brust, not Douglas Adams, not Steven King, but a good writer.

Note that when I say "Steven King" I mean "the guy who wrote The Stand, Salem's Lot and Different Seasons," NOT "the guy who wrote The Tommyknockers or Needful Things."