Neil Gaiman: Badly Overated?

[haiiro]

Is his status a myth, derived from his success in other media? What are your thoughts?

I like Gaiman's work, but I'd say his status is definitely largely defined by his success in another media: comics, by way of Sandman.

I think some of his prose work is also excellent -- Good Omens is one of my favorite books overall -- but some of it is in the "good ideas, but not a great read" category. I'd lump Smoke & Mirrors in with that group. American Gods was entertaining, and revolves around a robust idea; Neverwhere was a lot of fun; and I haven't read Coraline.

If you like comics, definitely check out Sandman. As others have said, it's phenomenal. Give it at least two books -- the first book has the kernel of what makes the series great, but in some ways he doesn't find his stride until the second book. For instance, Sandman himself is embedded in the DC Universe in the first few issues, but Gaiman has said he didn't think that fit the character -- and went away from it shortly thereafter.

 

[Olive]

I've read sandman (all of it), neverwhere and american gods. He's overrated. I enjoyed sandman and american gods but neither grabbed me. Neverwhere was a bit 'meh'.

 

[ddvmor]

Gaimain is definitely a comics writer first and a prose writer second. Neverwhere, his first novel, is a perfect example of this - his dialogue and imagery are absolutely fantastic, but his narrative is a little amateurish. It improved somewhat in American Gods and hopefully we will see a further improvement in the sequel which is due out sometime next year, I think. That said, I really enjoyed both books. Coraline was brilliant. The Wolves in the Walls is caool. Possibly his best so far, although short, was Stardust.

Most of his Sandman stuff was fantastic. 1602 was great. His 2 earlier graphic novels, Violent Cases and Mr Punch (and I may be struck down by lightning for saying this) were a bit pants.

Smoke and Mirrors... there was some good and some not so good and some downright rubbish. I got the impression that it was only rushed out there because Neverwhere and American Gods did well and they wanted another Gaiman book on the shelves.

That said, he's a really nice bloke. I met him earlier this year at a book reading of Wolves in the Walls, where he took great glee in reading a book written for 5 year olds to an audience composed entirely of grown ups.

Come to think of it, I think he was mocking us...

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Smoke and Mirrors... there was some good and some not so good and some downright rubbish. I got the impression that it was only rushed out there because Neverwhere and American Gods did well and they wanted another Gaiman book on the shelves.

Smoke and Mirrors was published in November 1998. American Gods wasn't published until June 2001.

 

[ddvmor]

Smoke and Mirrors was published in November 1998. American Gods wasn't published until June 2001.

Oh.

 

[Old Fart]

I would say he's somewhat under rated, given the popularity of Harry Potter, which was a complete rip-off of The Books of Magic.

And while the present-day audience may or may not find Sandman revolutionary, remember that the adult-oriented graphic novels genre was not mainstream before Sandman.

So, while I don't necessarily view him as one of the GREAT writers, he does have a creative spark that inspires others to follow in his footsteps.

 

[Olorin]

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."

I think when you say "Steven King" you mean the guy who is actually Stephen King.

 

[Olive]

I would say he's somewhat under rated, given the popularity of Harry Potter, which was a complete rip-off of The Books of Magic.

No it's not. The story is substantially different. The main similarity is boy wizard.

And while the present-day audience may or may not find Sandman revolutionary, remember that the adult-oriented graphic novels genre was not mainstream before Sandman.

Sure, but I still think he's overrated as a writer. Alan Moore's work may have been slightly less popular than Sandman, but it's infinitely better written.

 

[barsoomcore]

Oops. Sorry, Steven.

And I have to say that Sandman was a little late to the "adult-oriented graphic novels" genre -- both The Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were published three years previously, to massive success and acclaim. I would say Sandman's big claim to fame was that it WASN'T a graphic novel -- it was a regular series. And finally I would contest that it was "adult-oriented" -- it was very much targetted at adolescents, in contrast to writers like Moore and Miller, who were definitely writing adult stories.

That last point isn't a criticism of Gaiman at all, just a pointless nit-pick. Pay no mind.

 

[Duncan Haldane]

Oops. Sorry, Steven.

Heheh - you stilled mis-spelled his name in your apology for mis-spelling it.

STEPHEN. Not Steven.



On to Mr Gaiman:

I read Sandman when they first came out. Loved them. I saw the Neverwhere TV series, and it was ok, but not as good as Sandman.

I've read both American Gods and Coraline. Both are excellent reads, IMO.

Oh, and I agree that Day of the Dead was probably the best B5 episode of season 5 (and the only one not written by JMS), although that is not a criticism of JMS - Season 5 was stuffed by Warner Bros not deciding if there was going to be a 5th season until WAAAAAAAAY too late, thus causing a lot of changes to both the seasons 4 and 5 storylines.

Duncan