/lit/ - Literature

>>5871995

stardust and coraline were cool, I liked his short story collection "smoke and mirrors"

sort of reading the graveyard book, it's neat. wish I could write 20% as well as he does.

>>5871995
>I never see him discussed here.
>Granted I've only been here a couple of hours
>Bump

>Is it always so slow?

Good for beginner readers, but someone they should eventually outgrow

>>5871995
Writes the better YA stuff today.

Sandman is fantastic, but his non-comics stuff is bad.

>>5872038
What would you say makes Sandman fantastic?

I've tried it and I don't get why people praise it like they do

i've never seen his name included in lists of books that weren't generally contemptible

He's great. Style is simple but extremely effective, never really grows dull.

>>5872023
The elitist in me agrees, but there's no real reason to designate simple books as being exclusively for beginners.

>>5871995
his books are fun. that's it.

>>5872023
>>5873622

can confirm, i liked him when i was beginning to read but i eventually outgrew him

>>5871995
Gaiman doesn't get discussed here largely because many /lit/-goers have this sort of inferiority complex where, if they admit they enjoyed or found some sort of meaning in what's perceived as a "low-brow work", it means they're not part of the patrician elite. So discussion of any author - regardless of quality of prose, story, themes, etc. - whose work gets too close to the realm of science fiction or fantasy, is frowned upon.

On one hand, this mentality helps to keep /lit/ clean of constant topics on Hunger Games and Twilight and Song of Ice and Fire (which tend to drown out other literature boards elsewhere purely because they're so popular the attention paid to them obscures everything else); but on the other, it leads to the neglecting of potentially worthwhile authors that might exist just outside of /lit/'s typical comfort zone, like Gaiman.

>>5873672
> So discussion of any author - regardless of quality of prose, story, themes, etc. - whose work gets too close to the realm of science fiction or fantasy
Let's take a moment to remember that /lit/'s favorite book is about entropy, conspiracies, and Pavlovian conditioning. I mean, I'm with you on the "/lit/ is elitist" thing, of course, but this specific characterization just isn't true.

>>5873672
Ooooor maybe Gaiman is just one of those YA authors that aren't bad, but not outstanding to the point where anyone here would feel like discussing his work?

>>5873672

he is really 'cool' but he lacks depth
i appreciate his cool but i don't read for the cool

his wife is disgusting and a shitty musician

I think he is great, is the person who got me in to "serious" literature. It seems like most people here share a similar sentiment for him.

>>5871995
He's an imaginative dude. He writes fun books that follow the same general formula. He's kind of like Chuck Palahniuk hooked up to an IV full of whimsy.

Sandman was the absolute tits tho

i've only read that issue of Hellblazer he wrote but i was impressed.

from a thread on /tv/ about his work with Dr Who:

>What was Neil Gaiman thinking when he was writing the episode?

oh, the usual stuff. motes of dust twinkling in the afternoon sun. the laughter of children playing a game with sinister overtones from the distant past. young girls saving the universe with the power of dreams, unicorn farts and pixie giggles. what he thinks of most of the time when he isn't down in his cellar violating the corpse of Enid Blyton.

>>5871995
He's a hack. They're all hacks. Only I, the One True Novelist, can lead us through this kerfuffle.

>>5871995
i enjoyed coraline. never read anything else by him, though. he reminds me of david almond.

>>5872014
>hey! why don't I post some snarky bullshit that adds absolutely nothing to anything?

Can you finally take your cutesy tripcode and leave forever?

>>5874788
>As an identifiable human being you are not allowed to make snarky comments.
>ONLY ANONYMOUS IS ALLOWED TO BE ON EDGE AND MEAN SPIRITED.

>>5874925
Yeah, because people can't trace our latest dickery back to us to identify a long personal history of dickery.

>>5874948
That's must be what makes 4chan such a super terrific place, hu?

>Bumping
ah geez

He writes some really neat short stories. Good Omens was fantastic (though that was probably due to Pratchett at least as much as it was due to him) and I enjoyed both American Gods and Anansi boys though I didn't think they were anything special.

Ocean at the End of the Lane resonated with me a lot so I really liked it.

He also wrote my favorite single issue of Batman in recent memory.

>>5874980
I'm not defending it - I'm just explaining why people get mad at you for being unconstructive when at least ten others have probably done worse in the last few hours. You have a consistent identity that people can attach their dislike to, so it grows over time.

>>5875037
I did take into account that you might not be the same anon with a bug up his butt, so the barb is not aimed specifically at you.
It felt really good to type it.
Still, sage.

>>5871995

People praise him like he's some kind of genius, but I failed to enjoy any of his books I read. I don't know, something about his narrative just disgusts me.

>>5871995
He is almost the definition of ok-ish. His books are creative and competently written. It is like i'm reading the well written plot of a engaging TV show. He uses some surrealism to make his fantasy elements more interesting. He also uses very well urban legends.

Still, I feel they're too much commercial. Too focused in amazement and entertainment. Too enclosed in the wishes of his public (YA). His social critique is very shy and never supress his "thriller" elements. They never get in front of the action. I don't feel spirituality in his (call it inspiration/love if you want) work, his charcters are very "troppy", following stereotypes and commom expected behavior (the exceptions are probably the protagonists). They're neither real, nor excellent. There's little ambition, no search for beauty of for perfection, everything feels so mediocre.

>>5874982
Man, why do people like What Ever Happened so much? It really is just the Funeral volume of Sandman rewritten with Batman and some Morrison-ish meta commentary thrown in.

>>5875879
this was my nebulous feeling about gaiman
thanks for expressing it clearly and thoughtfully (so i can act superior with a good fall-back critique)

Sandman series changed my life. I enjoyed Good Omens and Stardust. They are teen-lit but that's okay, not everything has to be for adults.

>>5874788
>>5874948
>>5875037
>replying to tripfags
One seriously wonders whether anons are this impossibly stupid, or tripfags samefagging for attention.

>>5871995
I loved Neverwhere and American Gods was interesting enough, but I will always see him as a cute-ified clive barker.

Who else thinks that the Graveyard Book is like the best children book ever?

>>5877241
>The Shit posters Defense!

>>5878888
I never see it mentioned when we have threads for Children's books.

>>5875859
underrated post

>>5875037
If anything it makes me angrier when I see a tripfag's shitpost because the very concept of wanting to be identified as a special snowflake on a board where the point is everyone is anonymous implies unusually incredible arrogance.

>>5874980
you are free to leave whore

>>5879593
kek she wont.

sandman is great, i didn't read his literaty works, but his graphic novels are awesome