|
Jedit posted:I lost a lot of respect for Gaiman's creativity when I found that the Silver Age Sandman and Prez Rickard appear in Cancelled Comics Cavalcade #2. The title for Neverwhere was also lifted from a Roger McKenzie series that was stillborn due to DC's collapse in the late 70s. It didn't matter too much in the long run because The Sandman was always about retelling stories, but Gaiman didn't look too far to find them. And the Sandman complaint makes even less sense, honestly. I don't see why the characters showing up in that weird CCC printing that happened, has to do with anything, tbh. Gaiman even had the sandman meet the silver age sandman at one point, if I recall correctly? And wasn't the original sandman killed because nobody cared?
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
coyo7e posted:President Rickard was a thing in the '70s. Did Gaiman claim that it was his character that he created? Hell, The entire premise was lifted directly from a film/novella originally, anyway. Say I'd been comparing and contrasting stories by two dozen authors and you thought I was extremely well read. Then you find out all the stories I've been talking about have been collected in a single volume. How would you feel about me then? I'm not complaining that the things in Sandman aren't original. I'm saying that because Gaiman got them from a narrow set of sources, he is much less erudite than people make him out to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:In what way? Your complaint doesn't make sense because the entire purpose of the series was to take something old and put a new spin on it. The Battlestar Galactica reboot didn't make me lose respect for Ronald D. Moore because he took the characters created by Glen A. Larson, changed them significantly and told an engaging story with them. That's the point you're missing. The characters that Gaiman used bear about as much resemblance to their originals as the characters on the reimagining of Battlestar Galactica bear to the characters of the same name in the 1978 series. Jedit posted:Say I'd been comparing and contrasting stories by two dozen authors and you thought I was extremely well read. Then you find out all the stories I've been talking about have been collected in a single volume. How would you feel about me then? Azathoth fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Say I'd been comparing and contrasting stories by two dozen authors and you thought I was extremely well read. Then you find out all the stories I've been talking about have been collected in a single volume. How would you feel about me then? I guess I'm glad I never preened myself as extremely well-read in front of others, and I don't really grok the two dozen authors thing. And two examples has nothing to do with his erudition regarding a broad range of mythologies and lore from a ton of cultures. I have trouble even researching some of the stuff he drops in American Gods and Anansi Boys..
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
I recently read American Gods and I really did not enjoy it. I thought the idea was pretty ridiculous and it always seemed like Gaiman included so much violence and sex to hide the fact that the characters are shallow and nothing really happens that I could care about. I think there were interesting philosophical ideas concerning the nature of spirituality and religion in contemporary America but these ideas were never really fleshed out. I could really only see it being an interesting read if you are really interested in mythology, which I'm not. Now Im kind of afraid to read any China Mieville because of all the comparisons to Gaimain, is this concern justified?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
I've only read one of Mieville's books so far (Perdido Street Station), but I would say not really. If I squint hard enough I can see some stylistic similarities, but he was very much into creating his own world rather than recasting existing mythology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:I've only read one of Mieville's books so far (Perdido Street Station), but I would say not really. If I squint hard enough I can see some stylistic similarities, but he was very much into creating his own world rather than recasting existing mythology. Mieville and Gaiman are nothing alike, give him a try. Jedit posted:Say I'd been comparing and contrasting stories by two dozen authors and you thought I was extremely well read. Then you find out all the stories I've been talking about have been collected in a single volume. How would you feel about me then? ...why does this matter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Good to hear I'm not the only one who didn't like American Gods. I usually really like Gaiman but it didn't really click for me at all. Shadow is far too passive. I never got much idea of what he wanted other than to get a job I guess and leave his old life behind. He just follows Wednesday from place to place and watches him do things, and even then not much. Though I thought the most annoying thing was that we never learn anything about the American gods. The modern ones rarely have anything more insightful to say about America than 'I'm the Internet and I'm a goony motherfucker', and as cool as they are the old gods usually feel like a disjointed showcase for Gaiman's research. The whole thing is tied together with a vague well the real god is the land, which could have been interesting but never goes anywhere. Maybe I'm just British and don't understand the significance, but Gaiman defends himself against exactly that in the author's note and as far as I can see he avoids the issue by not writing anything really about America at all. The Egyptian pantheon are still awesome though 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
I'm a little lukewarm on American Gods too. The book for a long time feels like its an epic but the climax really lets it down. I'd love to see the idea expanded in the planned TV series. I really like Gaiman though, and his recent book has done a lot to remind me that hes an exceptionally charming and imaginative storyteller when he hits the right notes. I think Sandman is easily his best work with his shorter books (particularly the ones aimed at younger readers) being a close second.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
To interrupt the "I didn't like it"-train, I really do like American Gods and can't wait to see it on TV, but the best Shadow story/story in the setting is still the short story The Monarch of the Glen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
KingAsmo posted:I recently read American Gods and I really did not enjoy it. I thought the idea was pretty ridiculous and it always seemed like Gaiman included so much violence and sex to hide the fact that the characters are shallow and nothing really happens that I could care about. I think there were interesting philosophical ideas concerning the nature of spirituality and religion in contemporary America but these ideas were never really fleshed out. I could really only see it being an interesting read if you are really interested in mythology, which I'm not. Now Im kind of afraid to read any China Mieville because of all the comparisons to Gaimain, is this concern justified? I thought American Gods was okay, but I like pretty much all of his other work more. Sandman is his best poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
Decius posted:To interrupt the "I didn't like it"-train, I really do like American Gods and can't wait to see it on TV, but the best Shadow story/story in the setting is still the short story The Monarch of the Glen. Yeah, I love American Gods like crazy (mainly because I got into it as a teenager who was just starting to delve into mythology outside of the Greek/Norse/Egyptian sets, so the rose tinted goggles are in full effect) and it was like a scavenger hunt of awesome little details Gaiman had worked in, but The Monarch of the Glen blows it completely out of the water. I haven't really met a Gaiman story I disliked but I would definitely say that he really works best in the comic, short story and novella settings more than he does the full length novels. He has some of the coolest ideas out there but he has trouble stretching them for more than a hundred pages of narrative prose without losing steam in character development and overall pacing. Past a certain point they stop being stories and start being "here's a stroll through Neil Gaiman's brain, check out what obscure folklore he researched this month" (which can be fun in and of itself, I think). The Ocean at the End of the Lane is probably my favorite of his longer books and it's only 200 pages, but if he made it any longer than that I don't think it would have worked. His strongest work outside of the Sandman comics is probably the Smoke and Mirrors anthology. It's got great twists on established fairy tales, turning Lovecraft's work on its head, a bit of nonfiction, one of the finest Michael Moorcock tributes I've ever read, just a wonderful collection of tidbit stories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
Mandragora posted:I haven't really met a Gaiman story I disliked but I would definitely say that he really works best in the comic, short story and novella settings more than he does the full length novels. He has some of the coolest ideas out there but he has trouble stretching them for more than a hundred pages of narrative prose without losing steam in character development and overall pacing. Past a certain point they stop being stories and start being "here's a stroll through Neil Gaiman's brain, check out what obscure folklore he researched this month" (which can be fun in and of itself, I think). Yes, EXACTLY. I like Neil Gaiman a lot, and have just about all of his books. And while it's gotten better, it seemed to me that a lot of his early stuff read more like a synopsis of a story rather than a story because it really seemed short on the fleshing-out. At the time, I attributed it to his being more accustomed to working in a visual medium and needing practice in describing what he used to simply show in a picture. I still think that's true to an extent, but I also agree with your point, and I think it's because those formats prevent him from rambling. He has to tell a story and only has so much space to do it in, so he stays on-point and really works to get all the information into the smaller space, and it really does make a difference!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
I think Gaiman's best novel is Stardust, although Sandman holds up well and Mr Punch was good too.Darth Walrus posted:On another subject, I've heard Daniel Abraham's name mentioned a lot, and was thinking of giving his work a go. Problem is, I have no idea what I'm in for or the quality thereof. Can the goon hivemind deliver its wisdom unto me? I'v only read the first two Long Price books; they struck me as being much more influenced by non-fantastic fiction than most fantasy - their limited scale, scope, and POVs. The magic is neat (it's all done by ideas reified by poems, and the poet who writes the poem controls the resulting creature) and pleasingly central without being overpowering. The characters are good and there are interesting details, like the gesture language (albeit unsuccessful) or how the second book was a rewrite of Macbeth. They're four self-contained novel-length novels. But though I enjoyed them, there's something that held me back from thoroughly enjoying them, probably his prose - they weren't quite brilliant, but better than nine of ten fantasy books, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
House Louse posted:I'v only read the first two Long Price books; they struck me as being much more influenced by non-fantastic fiction than most fantasy - their limited scale, scope, and POVs. The magic is neat (it's all done by ideas reified by poems, and the poet who writes the poem controls the resulting creature) and pleasingly central without being overpowering. The characters are good and there are interesting details, like the gesture language (albeit unsuccessful) or how the second book was a rewrite of Macbeth. They're four self-contained novel-length novels. But though I enjoyed them, there's something that held me back from thoroughly enjoying them, probably his prose - they weren't quite brilliant, but better than nine of ten fantasy books, for sure. Daniel Abraham is a protege of George RR Martin. He's done quite a bit of work on Wild Cards, including sole authorship of the most recent comic miniseries. And like Martin, it takes him a while to get where he's going sometimes. The third and fourth Long Price novels are where the real meat is; they're dark and pretty drat good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Everyone disappointed by American Gods can try The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. A similar setup, except by Douglas Adams, so it's great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Blog Free or Die posted:Everyone disappointed by American Gods can try The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. A similar setup, except by Douglas Adams, so it's great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Blog Free or Die posted:Everyone disappointed by American Gods can try The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. A similar setup, except by Douglas Adams, so it's great. I've just read Long Dark, and it did feel very similar to American Gods in some points, but I have to admit I was also disappointed with it. I felt that the first book was much stronger when Dirk wasn't the main character, but instead interacted with McDuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Daniel Abraham is a protege of George RR Martin. He's done quite a bit of work on Wild Cards, including sole authorship of the most recent comic miniseries. And like Martin, it takes him a while to get where he's going sometimes. The third and fourth Long Price novels are where the real meat is; they're dark and pretty drat good. If I didn't know this I wouldn't have guessed; their styles are very dissimilar. Speaking of Martin his historical horror-adventure novel based on the 19th century Mississippi, Fevre Dream, is much more impressive than ASOIAF, particularly the twon main characters' relationship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
Blog Free or Die posted:Everyone disappointed by American Gods can try The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. A similar setup, except by Douglas Adams, so it's great. I can completely agree with this, that book is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
House Louse posted:If I didn't know this I wouldn't have guessed; their styles are very dissimilar. Try the Tuf stories and really see him get creative. Tuf Voyaging is the collection of those stories. I was lucky enough to be an Analog subscriber when those first appeared.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
02-6611-0142-1 posted:Mieville and Gaiman are nothing alike, give him a try. Well, Un Lun Dun is basically Mieville's take on writing a children story like Gaiman. And Kraken is the grown-up version of Gaiman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Try the Tuf stories and really see him get creative. Tuf Voyaging is the collection of those stories. I was lucky enough to be an Analog subscriber when those first appeared. And here I thought I was the only one who read the book. I second the rec, it's a good read, if a trifle disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
I hope it is more impressive than Dying of the Light. That was pretty mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
Welp. Dunno why I never got around to it until now, been kinda binging on other series and sci-fi stuff, but I finally cracked Lies of Locke Lamora, and at only 10% in, I can tell this is going to be a REAL god damned treat. Whew. I'm stoked 
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Welp. The first ten per cent of that book is awful compared to how it gets when it really gets going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Is locke lamora a one-off, a finished series, or an unfinished series?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Is locke lamora a one-off, a finished series, or an unfinished series? Unfinished, two books so far and a third one comes out later this year. I can't remember how many there were supposed to be or if hes just stopping with the trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Is locke lamora a one-off, a finished series, or an unfinished series?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Unfinished series of 7 planned books. Book two is Red Seas Under Red Skies and while still good, isn't quite as tight as Lies. Book 3, The Republic of Thieves is slated for October of this year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
It's worth noting that the first book is a perfectly good standalone. It doesn't end on a cliffhanger and it's not immediately apparent that it's the beginning of some massive sprawling fantasy epic... so if you're concerned about starting something that's not fully written yet, I wouldn't worry about it! EDIT: I also just want to say that Lies of Locke Lamora is probably my favorite fantasy novel of the last 10-15 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
That's the thing. If it's that good, I'll want to read the whole series right then, and I have enough running series as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's the thing. If it's that good, I'll want to read the whole series right then, and I have enough running series as it is. It is going to take him a long time to finish the series at his current pace so if you think this will really be a problem for you I would find something else and revisit it later. I'm of the opinion that the second book wasn't very good anyway but that's neither here nor there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
The point I was trying to make is that the first book alone is a completely satisfying read, and you can just pretend the rest of the (unfinished) series doesn't exist, if you chose to. The book is good enough that I'd recommend doing just that. This is in contrast to most other series that spring to mind (Jordan, Martin, Sanderson, Erikson, etc. etc.) the first book isn't very conclusive and you have to keep going with the series to get the most enjoyment out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Hey, I'm in the middle of Mote in God's Eye and I was hoping someone could clear something up for me. There's a whole bunch of weird stuff where the only female character talks about human gender relations and how she thinks very little of women who take birth control pills or whatever. Is this poo poo supposed to be just the way the culture of the Empire is, or are Pournelle and Niven just kinda weird old dudes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Recently read a book that gets a lot of buzz in here - The Rook, by Daniel O'Malley. For anyone who isn't familiar with it, it's London urban fantasy that reads like a somewhat less goony cross between X-Men and Charles Stross's The Laundry Files. Overall, very good. It was a first novel, so you could see the author improving as he wrote it, but even the pre-improvement baseline was by no means bad. In particular, the story picked up a few more comedic elements as it progressed (without dropping the serious bits, mind you), which I thought worked to its favour. One thing I would say was that I didn't think Myfanwy, our protagonist, was quite as sympathetic as she was supposed to be, particularly early on, but fortunately that wasn't really relevant to the book's overall quality or enjoyability. TL;DR: I liked it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
muike posted:Hey, I'm in the middle of Mote in God's Eye and I was hoping someone could clear something up for me. There's a whole bunch of weird stuff where the only female character talks about human gender relations and how she thinks very little of women who take birth control pills or whatever. Is this poo poo supposed to be just the way the culture of the Empire is, or are Pournelle and Niven just kinda weird old dudes? Niven and Pournelle are exactly weird old dudes, with a side order of trust-fund libertarianism. Niven inherited oil money. Niven is one of the best at aliens, however writing in Pournelle's boring-rear end universe with both of their one dimensional characters makes for a lot of dullness. Seriously don't bother with the sequel. For my money, Niven's solo-effort at smarter-than-you ancient aliens in "Protector" had a lot more interesting ideas. Wasn't written well either, but it is blessedly short and idea-dense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Yeah I might try that, but at this point I don't think I'm going to be any kind of big fan of these guys. It helps to keep in mind this book is nearly 50 years old, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
What are the general thoughts on the Revelation series? I recently finished up The Commonwealth which I really enjoyed and was struggling to find a new series to get into. I got about 100 pages into the first Lost Fleet book, but it was half interesting and half irritating with the near retarded behavior of all the officers in the fleet. When they described the battle in the first system they jumped into, it reminded me of playing random WoW battlegrounds where everyone just runs around picking fights rather than focusing on objectives. I hope that type of thing gets resolved soon in the book and they can focus on the main plot, but for now I decided to give it a break. I had previously tried to get into Revelation Space a while back, and only got 50 or so pages into it before just generally being confused. Gave it another shot today, and I think it's sort of intentional you don't know much of what's going on at first. The more I read, the more I understand it and the story seems to be pretty compelling. I suppose I'll stick with this series for now and maybe reconsider Lost Fleet once I finish.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
You've pretty much described the entire Lost Fleet series. The battles and tactics are pretty interesting, but the single minded stupidity of the officers in the fleet never really goes away, and was a constant frustration for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 02:28
|
|