/lit/ - Literature

is today the pleb day

American Gods is terrible

Thanks for visiting

>>3183143
What do you think about Sandman?
>>3183141
>>>/mu/

>>3183141
Instead of just typing out the first demeaning sentence you can think of while sageing, how about actually contributing why you don't like his work.

Solid mediocre to terrible writer

>>3183190
Why? Have you read Sandman at all? I think he might be a significantly better graphic novelist than author.

>>3183200

Sandman was solidly mediocre, bruh

>>3183204
Blasphemy of the highest sort.

>>3183204
I disagree in the extreme. Not all of the issues were great, but the best ones rivaled the best graphic novels. Particularly 2 and 5.

>>3183217
Thank god someone else showed up to make sure I wasn't crazy.

>>3183217
>>3183219
>>3183224

Even for graphic novels, which is a low bar as it is, solid 6.8/10

>>3183245
Nah bro, you crazy. A lot of the medium is garbage, but the best stuff is high above it all. Sandman is right up there with The Watchmen.

>>3183254

It's not even on the same plane as Watchmen, if we're gonna go there, man.

>>3183258
OH, WE GONNA GO THERE BROSKI!

You're right, it's a plane below. That's not much of a criticism though.

>>3183185
not the guy you're replying to, but what you don't understand is my own personal exhaustion in typing up the same criticism for every 8 neil gaiman threads /lit/ has per week

i'm sick of it

basically american gods is a pulpy thriller with a cookie cutter plot lacquered for mall goths of the closeted or recovering variety

>its always overcast or raining
>lets smoke cigarettes and drink black coffee and look out windows and be sad and shit
>character names: wednesday, shadow, easter, etc

cringeworthy

people like you think it competes with literature proper like faulkner or kafka but youd probably get more use out of the book by tearing the pages out to line a hamster cage

>>3183258
It's better than Watchmen. It touches on the whole fucking UNIVERSE in a way that makes it understandable from a mortal perspective. Sandman is one of the great artistic works of our time, period.

>>3183329

>touches on the whole fucking UNIVERSE in a way that makes it understandable from a mortal perspective.

So art is about how much physical space you touch on and make understandable to humans?

What the hell has Sandman done, artistically, that you can make such a claim as to its merit? What does it say and why is it interesting that it says it?

>>3183320
I don't think it compares to proper literature at all. I enjoyed it while reading it, but that's about it. I just wanted some more input on the matter.

Thank you.

>>3183329
Ehhhh, I may be OP, but I disagree somewhat. Watchmen has so much to say about humanity and morality that I get more every time I read it.

Hell, it gets MORE powerful the more I read it. The same can only be said of a couple of issues of Sandman.....and even then it isn't quite on the same level.

Except for maybe 5. Fucking 5 makes me bawl like an infant.

>>3183336
The way it uses immortal personifications of abstract concepts to illustrate how they interact in the real world ends up being surprisingly profound. Notably the necessity of change/destruction.

I've never read his stuff, but find it really funny that he married a fan. Good job getting someone who'll suck your dick in more ways than one.

>>3183351

Profound in what way?

What does it say and why is it interesting that it says it?

Why is change/destruction necessary and how does Sandman demonstrate this in a unique way?

>>3183336

It allows human beings to experience vaster tracts of space-time and existence than are mortally possible, and to see things from the viewpoints of a family of gods and immortal beings. It's incredible.

Not badmouthing Watchmen in any way, mind you, it's a solid second or third on my list.

>>3183359
Can I continue this conversation when I have physical copies with me? I'll be in a much better position to defend my claims if I do. I haven't analyzed it much up till right now.

>>3183362

What about seeing things from the vantage point of a family of gods and immortals is interesting artistically?

>>3183362
Or I'll let this guy do it, even if I disagree on some points.

>>3183346
im impressed with your humility, i was pretty scathing

>>3183364

You haven't thought about it much, you've just assumed it had all kinds of merit because you liked the story or something?

>>3183373
I try hard not to take offense at things on 4chan and see it from someone else's perspective.

I also realize I need to be better informed on many things regarding literature in general. Disregarding someone else's opinion because it is scathing would be a poor decision.

>>3183365

If you have to ask that question, you clearly have a hollowed-out gourd where your imagination should be.

What's artistically interesting about witnessing immortal beings from a viewpoint that lets you sympathize and feel what they feel? Besides, you know, exactly what I just typed?

>>3183376
No, I like to be able to review and cite. It has been a fair amount of time since I've read it as well.

>>3183382
Hey man, no ad-hominems . They add nothing.

You're making me look like a moron!

I hate it when people defend your position poorly.

>>3183365

Reading Sandman gave me the ability to experience existence as something vastly more powerful and expansive than a human being, without being a Superman-styled wank fantasy. It allowed me to examined my own humanity with a vastly larger lens than I could have otherwise.

>>3183137 /lit/ doesn't like popular accessible things
Sandman is an amazing graphic novel
American Gods is a really great read, not groundbreaking and it does keep with Gaimans theme of mall goth , moody rainy shit like a post above mentioned.

He's a good writer. Amazing at making money and finding his niche market though.

>>3183382

So, you thought it was kinda cool to feel what it might be like to be Neil Gaiman's idea of what immortal beings might be like? Neat-o. Not exactly coming off as the greatest defense of the work, gotta say.

>>3183391

Why is this interesting?

>>3183410

>/lit/ doesn't like popular accessible things

Is it your first day here?

>>3183412
I'm OP, I'd like to thank you for challenging these statements and asking these sorts of questions. I'm not answering them right now, but it's got me thinking. Now I've got to go re-read Sandman and really examine it in depth.

email address is gamemeister27@gmail.com (made that username at age 11, used it for a lot since then, I know it's terrible). Please, email me so we can continue this discussion after this thread is long gone. I'm loving it.

>>3183412

Because the human capacity to imagine what infinity and immortality would be like is one of the apexes of our creativity, and Gaiman is both inventing a new mythology (the Endless) and modernizing old mythology (the deities and historical figures sprinkled throughout). And he does so from the viewpoints not of the mortals interacting with infinity, but from infinity itself. That is brilliant, and I'm curious whether you're actually interesting in my viewpoint on it or just trolling me repeatedly.

>>3183439
I think he's trying to get you to really think. We don't question ourselves enough.

>>3183412
Being given a near-religious experience by a piece of art is the same as finding it kind of cool? Shit, I need to rethink all of the art I've experienced over the years. Clearly I haven't been cynical or reductionist enough.

>>3183439

I think that's a very dim view of what art can and should do - I recognize that the scale for quality as far as graphic novels is concerned is a far cry from the rubrics we use to assess the quality of literature proper - but I don't think anything you've said is enough qualification to label something as a 'great' work of art

>>3183455
OP again, I would agree with you at this point, the arguments thus far have been poor.

Lots of resorting to demeaning phrases and such going on.

Cut that shit out guys.

Also, please email me, seriously, I want to keep talking to you outside of this thread.

>>3183455

Then what would it need to be labeled as such? Why is an incredible level of yet-unexperienced emotion and experience not sufficient criteria? Enlighten me, if you're not trolling.

>>3183473
It's less about your personal experience and more what it as to say about humanity in general. What did it do through it's narrative that really sets it apart as a great work of art?

>>3183478

What modern work has more to say about humanity? Gaiman examines it from the viewpoint of contemporary immortal beings and human beings alike, and gives a view of us from the universal down to the personal. The scale alone, done in the believable fashion that he accomplished, is worthy of the title of great art. When you examine the questions that it asks- great human questions, like 'what is fate, if anything?' and 'what are even the greatest of us in comparison to the universe', or the greatest one of all that he asks, 'What if all gods, all immortals, all magic, ultimately serves fragile, mortal kind, not the other way around?', and then see the emotional human answers given to those questions, I fail to see how one could read Sandman and NOT include it in the realms of great art, if 'speaking to the human condition' is the criteria to be used.

>>3183492
That's a much better answer than the previous ones, in my opinion at least.

I wasn't the guy questioning you though.

I also find some of the answers to be surprisingly satisfactory.

Wow. /co/mrade here and...

I think I might have just found my new favorite board.

I'd speak in defense of Gaiman (even if only as devil's advocate) but I can't say I'm overly familiar with the material. Just popping in to say that you all are great. Great, great people.

Carry on.

>>3183528
>He thinks /lit/ is a good board.

>>3183553
This thread is a lot better than most of the ones I've seen. Bad way to introduce someone to the board.

>>3183528
> /co
> hasn't read Sandman

I envy the mind-blowing you're gonna have when you pick them up.

>>3183528
.
.
.
so who wants to talk about feminism?

>>3183568
/thread

>>3183561
>His face when

>>3183568
Feminism back when women were legitimately discriminated against, or feminism now?

>>3183137
If you haven't read the sandman yet, do it.

>>3183628
I most certainly have.

>>3183137
>What do you think of Neil Gaiman's work?

Death is my waifu.

>>3183627
subversive

>>3183568
You want /v/, all the shit on /co/ is just /v/ and /r9k/ trolling.

>>3183635
For once, I can't blame someone for having a waifu.

>>3183528
>Liking this board
>Being on /co/ without reading Sandman

What do you guys think of Lucifer?
I enjoyed it more than Sandman both story and theme-wise.

Is American Gods even worth reading?

>>3184100
I enjoyed Lucifer but it didn't cover near as much ground as Sandman so I find them hard to compare.

He should stick to graphic novels. His work when in novel medium is average to below average.

>>3184141
I think it covered it's ground much better though.
Better character writing too.

So what does /lit/ think of Garth Ennis?

>>3184163
Fuck, *its.
It's late.

>>3184100
The exchange he has with yaweh at the end is fucking brilliant.

Neil Gaiman's work is entertaining in a way that makes me feel like I can pretend to be intelligent for reading it, if I'm talking to a really dumb person.

Since I'm surrounded by really dumb people, this works out well. It's placed at eye level on my shelf.

>Why is change/destruction necessary and how does Sandman demonstrate this in a unique way?

I'm working on an answer to this, will post later.

>>3185091
>Why is change/destruction necessary and how does Sandman demonstrate this in a unique way?

I'll try to answer.

>Destruction: They are using reason as a tool. >Reason.. It is no more reliable a tool than instinct, myth or dream. But it has the >potential to be far more dangerous, for them.

>Dream: Reason is a flawed tool at best, my brother.

>Destruction: I have been here before. After a while certain ideas become inevitable.

>Dream: So they begin to reorganize their lives >on principles of reason. Well, what of that? >It will do little that will not change once more.

>Destruction: And for how much longer?

>Dream: As long as they need us.

>>3185338
Later on, Delirium gets angry at Destiny, because Destiny hurt Dream.

>Delirium: Do you know why I stopped being >Delight, my brother? Coins have two sides. >Destruction told us that, when he told us he >was leaving. But I knew it already. You did >too.

Much later on, Delirium comes to visit Dream to ask if he will help her, but Dream refuses.

>Delirium: So. Can you come with me?

>Dream: Sister, I have responsibilities. I >cannot leave the Dreaming at this time

>Delirium: You use that word so much. >Responsibilities. Don't you ever think about >what it means? I mean, what does it mean to >you? In your head?

>Dream: Well, I use it to refer to that area of >existence over which I exert a certain amount >of control and influence. In my case, the >realm and action of dreaming.

>Delirium: Hump. It's more than that. The >things we do make echoes. Our existence >deforms the universe. That's responsibility.

A realization I had that came to me last night in my sleep:

There is nothing that American Gods does that Gunnerkrigg Court does not do better-- and Gunnerkrigg Court is a) still not finished and b) also has several other interesting storylines to follow.

>>3185344
Now to the climax of Brief Lives, where everything changes and the heart of the text is exposed.

Dream and Delirium have located Destruction, who left his domain for reasons he will explain.

>Dream: My brother? How could you leave?

>Destruction: Because there is no such thing >as a one-sided coin. Because there are two >sides to every sky. Destruction did not cease >with my abandonment of my realm, no more >than people would cease to dream should you >abandon yours. Perhaps it's more >uncontrolled, wilder. Perhaps not. But it's no >longer anyone's responsibility.

>Dream: My brother? Why did you leave?

>Delirium: He told you already, Dream. >Because there's no such thing as a one-sided >coin.

>Dream: Will you return? Will you reassume >your role once more?

>Destruction: Of course not.

>Delirium: I thought you would.

>Dream: But you are of the Endless. We... >We have responsibilities. You are the >embodiment of Destruction. You are of the >Endless.

>Destruction: The Endless? The Endless are >merely patterns. The Endless are ideas. The >Endless are wave functions. The Endless are >repeating motifs.

>Destruction: The Endless are echoes of >darkness, and nothing more. We have no >right to play with their lives, to order their >dreams and their desires. And even our >existences are brief and bounded. None of us >will last longer than this version of the >universe. I filled my role more than >adequately for over ten billion years. A two >sided coin: Destruction is needed. Nothing >new can exist without destroying the old.

>>3185356
>(Destruction causes a lamp which is lighting >their conversation to flare up violently)

>Destruction: Things are created. They last for >some little while, and then they are gone. >Empires, cities, poems and people. Atoms >and worlds. One cannot begin a new dream >without abandoning the last, eh, brother?

>(The lamp is burning at a height equal to the >top of Dream's head as he sits)

>Destruction: Our sister Death defines life, >just as Despair defines hope, or Desire >defines hatred, or as Destiny defines freedom.

>Dream: And what do I define, by this theory of >yours?

>(the lamp is dimming fast, and is now a thin >stream of fire which leaps up to Dream's >shoulders as he sits)

>Destruction: Reality, perhaps?

>(the lamp goes out with a puff of smoke which >reaches up to Destruction's head and a little >way beyond. Both characters are in >silhouette.)

>>3185338
>>3185344
>>3185356
>>3185361
Abridged.

All of the Endless begin with a D because Neil could have chosen any concepts at all and made a character out of them. The number of characters which can turn up in anthropomorphic metaphor is infinite.

Best Sandman Character?
I vote Lucifer or Hob.