[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 21 KB, 300x400, neil-gaiman_l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1131511 No.1131511 [Reply] [Original]

Opinions on Neil Gaiman?

(Anansi Boys, Stardust, Coraline, etc)

>> No.1131517

Picked up American Gods and Neverwhere a few weeks ago.

American Gods bored me to tears. Neverwhere is too full of British whimsy for my liking.

Also, everyone's read Coraline, herp derp

>> No.1131519

I read Coraline when I was a teenager and really liked it. So I started reading American Gods, I was enjoying it, but then I lost the book somehow and never finished. I'd like to start reading his works again, though.

>> No.1131520

kissed his cheek at a signing and he only grimaced slightly :3

>> No.1131523

Never actually read Coraline, but i very much enjoyed Stardust, just bought Anasi Boys today though, so we"ll see how that goes.

>> No.1131528

Stardust is a guilty pleasure of mine.

>> No.1131531

I think he's a little overrated. Something Awful hit the nail on the head when they called him "fat girl escapism." That said, I really do like almost everything that he has written, especially his comic stuff. Sandman is absolutely some of the greatest stuff I have ever read, regardless of medium. It's a shame that all of his prose pales in comparison (though he prose is still pretty good).

>> No.1131532

I absolutely love his work. Especially his short fiction. His novels usually have miserable endings, but the interesting worlds he comes up with are just astounding

>> No.1131537

I think he writes well, but unfortunately the stories themselves are quite patchy and meandering.

I think he gets a lot of his notoriety from the Sandman series, which I have it on good authority is pretty decent.

>> No.1131548

I would tell you what I think of him. I would point out that he is, basically, a rip-off artist. I would list specific examples in support of this thesis. I would provide quotes from the man himself about how he "stole" his various projects from better writers. I would point out that virtually everything he writes is "a version" of another story, by some better writer, that already existed. I would lament that so many people have been scammed by this con-artist of a writer. I would give you the names of the writers he clearly worships, and tell you to read them instead, arguing that, to read the originators of Neil Gaiman's style and ideas and stories provides for much better and more potent experiences than reading the work of the thief. I would kill this thread by demonstrating my points irrefutably, at which point the Neil Gaiman fans would sourly say, "Well fuck you. I love him. Originality isn't everything." (To which I would reply, "Maybe not. So if it doesn't matter to you, that's fine. But don't think for a second that means it doesn't matter.")

I would do all this. I've done it before. But I'm tired of repeating myself. And I'm about to watch Gilmore Girls, episode 12 -- "Double Date" -- which will surely be better written than anything Gaiman has ever had his name on. And if not -- at least the characters will not be stolen from other sources, and the story will be original (at least to itself).

Good night, /lit/; enjoy your Neil Gaiman thread.

>> No.1131557

>>1131548
so wait

coraline is a rip off of what?

>> No.1131559

>>1131548
u mad?
You're sorta right, though. I feel he writes in the style of various authors because he has a vast array of influences, but...whatever floats your boat.
Enjoy...Gilmore Girls.

>> No.1131562

>>1131548
Gossip Girl >> Gilmore Girls

>> No.1131565

>>1131548
gg is on tv right now?!

>> No.1131566

I really liked American Gods but it was very easy to put down.
Absolutely loved Coraline, have not gotten a chance to read any of his other works, not even his comic books.

>> No.1131583

>>1131548
If this is true tell me about other stories involving mythology in the present day like American Gods. I like this idea but I haven't heard about any other books.

>> No.1131586

I really wanted to like American Gods, but that time he just got lost in the weeds doing things that he normally does well. So maybe a year ago I got around to reading Anansi Boys, a book I've had shoved in my face on numerous occasions. As a spin off of American Gods, with a premise I thought was one of the most trite and uninteresting I've heard him come up with, I avoided it for a very long time. Anyway I'll just say that in my opinion it is his best work. I also think it is his funniest by an long, looooong way.

>> No.1131589

>>1131548
>I would list specific examples in support of this thesis. I would provide quotes from the man himself about how he "stole" his various projects from better writer.

Go on then...

>> No.1131591

>>1131583
Neil Gaiman himself will tell you that American Gods is based on/inspired by the (great) book Deathbird Stories by Harlan Ellison. If you haven't read it, you should.

Additionally, the subject matter in general is a common theme of Roger Zelazny, who is one of the writers Neil Gaiman repeatedly writes pastiches of.

>> No.1131595

the simpsons have already done everything before. nothing is original. i still like what i like, regardless of who creates it. good is good regardless of who had the original idea.

also, fuck gaiman, read gene wolfe for some real literary masterpieces.

>> No.1131606

>>1131591
I've read a lot of Roger Zelazny and I respect him. Fuck Harlan Ellison though, he's a terrible writer and an asshole.

>> No.1131619

>>1131548
Here is an example of another person that doesn't understand the difference between influenced by and ripping off. If your reductionist viewpoint were accurate, then essentially every author alive would be a rip off artist as they all include things from earlier authors. William Shakespeare would be one of the worst offenders since his entire career consisted of reworking existing and often very popular plays.

>> No.1131628

>>1131595
Um, well, yeah, I would agree with you there. Gene Wolfe is phenomenal. Incidentally, he's one of the guys Neil Gaiman is worshipfully trying to rip off on a regular basis.
>>1131606
He might be an asshole, but he's a good enough writer that Neil Gaiman blatantly steals his shit. *shrug*
>>1131589
Are you kidding? Half his stuff is just re-telling old stories and fairy-tales with a modern "hot topic" twist. Do I really have to point out to you which of his stories is a riff on the Cthulhu Mythos, which one is a re-telling of Snow White.... etc? Most of the time this shit isn't even slightly disguised. It's very up-front.

But Gaiman himself talks openly about how The Books of Magic is stolen from T.H. White; how American Gods is stolen from Deathbird Stories; how The Graveyard Book is stolen from The Jungle Book

It's not as if I'm just making shit up. His whole fucking career is based on re-telling other stories. The fact that you would even challenge this assertion is just utterly stupid and depressing.

You ought to be well-read enough to recognize these other stories when you see them in his work.

>> No.1131631

>>1131548
I remember reading an article where someone compared Gilmore Girls to Frank Capra's work. It was a little strange to feel sad while laughing so hard. Next time you want to give yourself credibility, try not mentioning that you like one of the most insipid pieces of shit to come on television in the last 20 years.

>> No.1131641

>>1131631
Gossip Girl, on the other hand, is quality television.

>> No.1131642

>>1131619
That's such utter bullshit. *You* don't understand the difference between having an influence and re-telling someone else's story. If you read something and go, "Man that was awesome. I learned a lot from the way the author provided more information at the end to add depth and meaning to the character; I might try to do something like that;" that would be fairly taking something from an influence. If you read something and go, "Man that story was awesome. I'm going to re-write the same story, covering the same events, in the style of the original author, but I'm going to change the names of the characters and, to give it a twist, I'm going to make a minor character my main character;" that is ripping off.

If you read The Jungle Book and think, "You know what I'm going to fucking do? I'm going to re-write this exact same fucking story but I'm going to give it a hip "hot topic" twist by making it about a ghost, a werewolf, and a witch," you are the worst kind of rip off artist.

That's the kind of shit Neil Gaiman does on a regular basis. Don't be a dunce.

If you like him, that's fine. Everyone is allowed to like who they like. But don't sit here trying to defend the man's originality. It's a fool's errand.

Neil Gaiman is not a good writer. Any writer who can construct good, craftsman-like paragraphs could have had Neil Gaiman's career.

The only pre-requisite was being willing to steal, wearing all black, and cultivating an image for the mall-goths to eat up.

He is not a good writer. Don't delude yourself.

>> No.1131648

>>1131631
I don't particularly like it. I wouldn't expect a Neil Gaiman fan to understand, but I was employing a kind of irony. By pointing out that something awful is better than Neil Gaiman's best work, I was insulting Neil Gaiman's writing. Try to keep up.

>> No.1131667

>>1131548

Textbook stubborn english major.

>> No.1131668

>>1131548
>>1131642
You realize Shakespeare stole the plots to some of his plays, too, right? And no one bitches about it because he did it *well*?

For the record, I've never read any Gaiman, even though I've meant to. But originality isn't an absolute requirement for Great Literature.

>> No.1131673

>>1131606
Harlan Ellison is a colossal douchebag, but he is one of the best writers to ever pen sci-fi.

Neil Gaiman is also a colossal douchebag, but he takes common fairy tales and dresses them up in goth makeup.

>> No.1131679

>>1131673
Exactly.

>> No.1131711

Having read the Sandman series, I can tell you he's one of the greatest English language writers of our time

>> No.1131735

American Gods was worth the read to me, but Neverwhere made me want to shoot myself in the face... I don't know why

>> No.1131748

For every transgression, every bad story he has written, every inspiration mistaken for theft, Sandman more than makes up for it. He is popular, therefore he must be hated by trendy hipsters.

>> No.1131759

>>1131748
Ah, the old, "anyone who doesn't like what I like is a hipster" argument. I bet you don't win too many debates amongst your friends and family.

>> No.1131769

>>1131759
Ah, the old "straw man" argument. I bet you think you win every debate.

>> No.1131785

>>1131769
Um, what? Do you not know what a straw man is? Explicitly saying, "Hey man, you're a terrible debater" based on your actual debate techniques is not a straw man. It's an insult.

A straw man is if I invented a fictional opponent and gave him preposterous views, then knocked them down while pretending those views were held by you.

I don't win every argument, but I do win every argument against retards, so this one is cake.

(If you're keeping score -- that was also not a straw man. Just another insult. Let me be crystal clear about what's happening. You don't know what a straw man argument is, so I called you a retard.)

>> No.1131874

>>1131785
You did not say, "Hey man, you're a terrible debater." You explicitly attempted to re-label his argument as something that it was not, (a "anyone who doesn't like what I like is a hipster" argument.) You then used your newly made up position in the argument to justify insulting him. That is the definition of a straw man argument, and also comically blatant one.

>> No.1131877

>>1131874
That's all very well and good, except, hold on, let me quote the gentleman. "He is popular, therefore he must be hated by trendy hipsters." THAT is a straw man. Calling him out on the stupidity of the statement is not a straw man.

>> No.1131880

>>1131874

Wait, but a straw man argument would need the offender to be using the newly made-up position as a justification in invalidating his opponeent's argument. That guy did distort the other guy's position, but he didn't use it to try to prove his statements invalid. He just followed the caricature with another insult.

Just sayin'... or am I missing something?

>> No.1131883

>>1131877

>He is popular, therefore he must be hated by trendy hipsters.

THAT has nothing whatsoever to do with a straw man. it's just complete lack of logic with no evidence to back it up.

>> No.1131888

>>1131883
Actually, it is a straw man. He is accusing "trendy hipsters" (and by extension accusing the other guy of _being_ a "trendy hipster") of possessing a view (they must hate Neil Gaiman because he is popular) that he has made up for the sole purpose of making them ("trendy hipsters"/the other guy) seem ridiculous, in an attempt to invalidate the other guy's actual argument without actually addressing it.

That is a textbook straw man.

>> No.1131889

American Gods, quite frankly, is one of the greatest novels ever written. The characters are believable, even the gods, and Gaiman doesn't hold back from delivering reality in cold hard paragraphs. Its a eyeful and a half to churn through, but for those who have, its a wonderful experience.

>> No.1131890

>>1131880
You're not missing anything. The other guy is simply wrong.

>> No.1131904

>>1131888

He did create a straw man, I know that, but the actual implied refutal of the validity of his opinions was executed through an appeal to ridicule, it would seem to me.

God, I love these arguments on /lit/. Incidentally, I have a philosophy exam in 3 hours and it's on logic and fallacies, lol

>> No.1131909

>>1131904
>the actual implied refutal of the validity of his opinions was executed through an appeal to ridicule, it would seem to me.

You're absolutely right. I was ridiculing him, and I said so. He didn't make a point worth refuting through logic. Plain and simple, I was attacking him personally, and mocking him. Hell, in my next post I called him a retard. My ridiculing of him was very clear.

>> No.1131911

>>1131909

LOL stay out of this. Think of yourself as one of the players, while the "logicians" are the sports commentators to your argument with the guy. No breaking the the fourth wall allowed.

>> No.1131912

Has anyone read the short story "A Study in Emerald" from Fragile Things? One of my favourite things he's written. Arthur Conan Doyle, H P Lovecraft and Neil Gaiman in a blender. Mmm.

Also, this whole orignality argument is pretty funny. Gaiman knows old literature, basically every mythology and the patterns and elements of dreams inside out. He uses the structures from our oldest, most resonant and cherished stories and weaves the details together into something rich and detailed, heavy with allusions that add depth for the well-read/versed.

Structurally, his books are far from nuanced, but this is not really a failing, because many of the sources he draws from are the very old fairy tales and legends structred for oral retelling and easy recall.

He's not striving to write literature, he's striving to create stories. Something magic and moving, not profound or intellectual. He's good at what he does, and that's not a bad thing.

>> No.1131916

>>1131880
Let's go through this.

1. He distorts the other person's argument to look like another argument.

2. The argument he makes it appear as is a so called "invalid argument," usually as defined by popular opinion or simple rhetorical nonsense.

3. How many more steps would you need to pretend to "invalidate" someone's argument?

Answer: None. Simply by pretending someone's argument is something it is not is an attempt to invalidate it by default.

>> No.1131923
File: 43 KB, 224x207, homer-eating-popcorn-small-c7873.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1131923

Why do I need television or movies when I've got you guys for entertainment?

>> No.1131924

>>1131916
>None. Simply by pretending someone's argument is something it is not is an attempt to invalidate it by default.

That cannot be correct, because if you distorted an argument in order to make it appear more favorable, you would not be trying to invalidate it. Therefore, simply distorting an argument is not sufficient for attempting to invalidate it. I posit that a clear attempt to invalidate must be present, rather than just the distortion and ridicule. If someone gets angry at the end of a thread, has been clearly defeated and isn't dumb enough to even try to convince anyone otherwise, he may say, "Whatever, retard. I'm outta here." This can't be construed as an attempt to prove that the guy who defeated him is wrong.

>> No.1131946

>>1131924
>"Whatever, retard. I'm outta here." This can't be construed as an attempt to prove that the guy who defeated him is wrong.

No, of course it isn't an attempt at a logical proof. But by rhetorical standards it absolutely is, and a very common one. You aren't saying that straw man only applies to people attempting a cogent logical argument? That almost seems like a contradiction.

>> No.1131954

>>1131946

I guess you're right. Whatever, retard, I'm outta here.

LOL, kidding, kidding.

>> No.1131959

I'll put it a different way, why would distortion on it's own not be enough to be a real attempt to invalidate when going to rhetorical standards of proof? If I say "OP here, im a fogggot," I am clearly implying that you are wrong simply because you are "a fogggot."

>> No.1131966

>>1131959

It just doesn't seem to me like anyone calling someone a fogggot - or a hipster or a Martian - would actually believe that this would make him sound more correct and his opponent incorrect. And if there's no belief that namecalling would make his opponent incorrect, then clearly he's not trying to invalidate the guy's opinion, merely piss him off.

>> No.1131972

>>1131966
I don't see why not. That is what an ad hominem argument is.

>> No.1131978

>>1131972

I guess you're right. Thanks for the exercise. It was fun. But I have to get ready for school. The exam's in an hour :-P

>> No.1131980

>>1131978
Thank you.

>> No.1132408

You huge fucking faggots, I was enjoying the debate about Gaiman, originaity and retelling and you had to get all nerdy and compare each other e-penises.
Jesus Christ you enormous retards, say opinions, explain opinions and let people think. You will not change anyone's mind over the Internet, in 4chan.
Damm you, I was going to screencap the thread because it was good and you two had to fuck it up !