American Gods

[chickenfeet]

I finally made myself read Neil Gaiman's American Gods. It was OK but only OK and it certainly didn't make me want to rush out and grab the rest of his works. It has a couple of interesting ideas (though one is singularly unoriginal) and two or three plot twists but not enough to sustain 600 pages of narrative and narrative is pretty much all we get. There is little poetry and less character development so the book has to rest pretty much on plot alone, and there just isn't 600 pages worth. I guess I don't read just for plot and any novel that can't offer more is going to leave me feeling fairly unsatisfied.

What do the rest of you look for in novels? What makes you want to rush out and buy the author's other works?

Comments

[melted-snowball.livejournal.com]

Characters that are believable, and either are people I'd never meet, or are people I pass every day and have always wondered about.

[longpig.livejournal.com]

I like character development... Complex characters with depth and motivations, who are interesting to read about, whether or not I 'like' them. I like interesting stories/plots that keep me speculating after I've put the book down. I like 'pretty' writing. I'm a big fan of George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire books, which give me a lot of those. I also like what I've read of Nabokov, except for 'Ada, or Ardor' which was a lot of boring interspersed with a lot of incest.

I felt pretty much the same about 'American Gods,' by the way. It did not, as some of my friends had hoped, encourage me to read more Gaiman. ;)

[forthright.livejournal.com]

I have to admit that, as someone who has read a lot of Neil Gaiman, and who liked most of it, I don't find American Gods to be very satisfying either, certainly not anything like his best work. Personally I think he works best in short media (Sandman is a massive body of work but is compartmentalized into short comic-book-length segments, of course); his short fiction and his children's fiction is more satisfying and more poetic. But American Gods won *so many awards* ... I'm not really sure I understand that.

[(Anonymous)]

I find it incredibly difficult to theorise on this, but - and this will sound stupid - I have to believe in it. Am I walking in a different world of the author's choosing? Do the protagonists motivations become the overriding thing in my mind until I've finished to book? (Not necessarily "my" motivations - if you take a book like Julian Rathbone's Nasty, Very, I follow his neo-Thatcherite hero with enthralled disgust; and note that this book opposes most of my politics, too - but it works so well!)

The quality of the writing counts, but never writing for writing's sake; it's got to serve the arrow of the book. I know I've bought a number of John Banville's books on the srength of The Untouchable. Conversely, I can deal with barely serviceable writing (such as Colleen McCullough's in her Rome bokks, and for all I know in all of her books) because she's so damn good at laying out 80 years of crucial Roman history in, what, 6000 pages to date? I'll buy the next one in this series, and I did buy her Song of Troy (deeply disappointing; I was tempted by the subject) but I won't buy her contemporary novels.

On the other hand, the writing of Mary Renault is such that when I'd finished the 8 Greek books, I started on the contemporary ones, and by jingo, that woman couldn't write a boring sentence if she tried. Even the flawed books are interesting. I care for her characters immediately.

Plot is good but plot isn't everything. Bruce Chatwin's Utz may be his best book, and it's entirely static. (It's so accomplished, though.) Gregor von Rezzori's Memoirs of an Anti-Semite has perhaps what I like best - a portrait of an era, of a mindset of that era, through transformation; the (provocative) title only makes sense after you've put it down. Joseph Roth's Radetzky March tells you most things you need to know about the dream of the Austro-Hungarian empire, point and counterpoint, official and aspirational.

I've really answered the other meme here, haven't I?

[shezan.livejournal.com]

That was me, shezan above, BTW.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I'd already guessed!

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I hear you. I think I'm similar to you in motivation. Character is critical. It may be a character I identify with (if not always in a positive way) like aspects of both Brunet and Delarue in Roads to Freedom or someone I can't identify with but recognise only too well like Widmerpool. The path of my life has been richly strewn with Widmerpools. OTOH I can't get into Dickens because all his characters need a good boot up the arse. I liked your point about evocation too. It's a lot of why I can enjoy Zola and Austen (and not Dickens I suspect).

On the negative side, sloppy writing and lousy continuity are big turn offs. If an author chooses a historical setting they damn well ought to get it right.

[daubentonia.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed Sandman *so much* that I couldn't believe American Gods was as dull as it was, I had to read it all. It's like your favorite band releasing a crappy album. "Maybe it's me" I thought. He has some good short stories and other little things here and there but in my opinion, American Gods, and his most recent novel Anansi Boys, tanked.

I saw him at comicon last month and he gave a great preview of his upcoming movie "Stardust" which looked like a lot of fun. I'm also looking forward to the Neverwhere movie. I think a big part of his popularity has to do with his charming personality. I still read and enjoy his lj feed every day. And I think it's time to read Sandman again soon...

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

It's not any one thing, unless it's the thrill. Sometimes it's the thrill of discovery, when a book shows me something new, or a new way of looking at something. Sometimes it's the thrill of really good characters. Sometimes it's the plot, although if the characters aren't great the plot better be fabulous and the book better be short. Mostly, though, it's just the writing - the indescribable thrill of reading really interesting sentences or scenes.

I don't have a creative imagination of my own, so I look to authors to supply me with theirs. In this, Gaiman has not disappointed.

I think AG is a great book, but it could have been better. The acclaim for this book is surprising, because it violated so many rules. The MC is so passive he barely registers as a character, for one thing. But it has literally fantastic scenes, and some good hooks, and Wednesday is compelling.

Neverwhere thrilled me more than AG. Better scenery, better characters.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

"American Gods" was...ok. It reminded me of middle period Steven King, without the shocks, and he was clearly working Zelazny's side of the street, without Zelazny's knack for characterisation and dialogue. I enjoyed "Anansi Boys" more, possibly because I kept hearing it in Lenny Henry's voice. I enjoyed Sandman a lot, but never thought of that as a guarantee that Neil could make the transition to another medium.

What makes me a fan of an author, rather than of an individual book, is his voice. Roger Zelazny has a wry humour and wisdom that wants to keep me reading, Lawrence Block pulls off the unusual trick of having more than one voice, from the downbeat Matt Scudder to the jaunty Bernie Rhodenbar, George MacDonald Fraser is the irascible uncle that no one wants to talk to at parties but can find you a rocket launcher if you need one.

If they have the voice, you'll let them off with weaknesses in plotting, or for using a stock set of characters. If you don't want to spend time with them, it doesn't matter how technically good they are.

[rowanf.livejournal.com]

I agree about American Gods. I wondered what the fuss was about. *shrug* I think the books that stay with me are ones that make me think.

But for general reading I am perfectly happy with good plots with likeable characters that drive to a satisfying conclusion.

I am mostly a genre reader - science fiction and mystery (though not modern grim ones with psychopath murderers and gritty, cynical detectives). Classic SF recommendations available. *grin*

[aparecida.livejournal.com]

Although I found it entertaining while I was reading it, I felt it was ultimately forgettable.

I look for ideas, first -- by which I primarily mean social commentary -- and second, a striking writing style.

[pyroclasticgrub.livejournal.com]

This is going to sound weird, but I'm not a huge fan of novels. I tend to read alot of history books and non-fiction.

The biggest exception is historical pr0nfiction. I like Barnard Cornwell because it's not Mary-Sue like and he (at least in theory) bases his stuff on research that he's done.

[pyroclasticgrub.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that's Bernard.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I read mostly non-fiction too. You might like George Macdonald Fraser's Flashman books. They are very well researched and and really quite funny. Also much bonking.

[ceruleanblue3.livejournal.com]

When i read that, it nearly put me off the rest of his books. I don't think you would be all that impressed with any of them, though, except maybe the short stories book.

I usually like novels with characters I like - I couldn't read a book where the main character was someone I'd avoid in the street, no matter how good it was otherwise.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I'm quite fond of characters who are compellingly awful. Widmerpool in 'Dance' is like that. Fascinating but keep him away from me please.

[ceruleanblue3.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there are some where you just have to keep reading because you're so fascinated by the awfulness, but most of the ones I can't stand are just plain boring. It's impossible to care what happens to them!

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

That's the problem I have with both Dickens and Proust. I want to take every damn character, give them a big kick up the arse and then drop them down a very deep hole.

[ceruleanblue3.livejournal.com]

I've never read Proust, but I'd have to agree with you about Dickens. And I'd shake them a bit before I kicked them, I think.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

I need characters to whom I can at least vaguely relate, delivered in a style I can read. I realise the latter is very vague, but I can pick up a book, flick through it, and know in two minutes whether the style is going to suit me or not. Often, it's not.

I like to have pictures painted for me about what people and their backgrounds actually look like. Not just the visual details, but description that sets a scene. Novels that are principally dialogue and where you can never tell who's talking or what they look like when they're doing it irritate me.

A friend recommended American Gods to me a while back, but I've picked it up and thumbed through it in bookshops a couple of times and it just didn't grab at all. Which is odd, because Neil Gaiman's writing can be fab (big fan of Sandman here).

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I like angst and just a trace of black humour. Really good books do both, which of course is why I can't think of any examples. Fanfic often delivers on both counts. Yes, I know you hate it ;)

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Evelyn Waugh does a good line in black humour. It's his strongest point.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

As so often in these conversations, I haven't, but I really should.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

There's enough dark humour in Sword of Honour to cut through the neo-fascism and popolatry. Steer clear of Brideshead though. It's just an apologetic for Catholic Fascism.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

See, I would actually quite like to read Brideshead. But I shall bear your warning in mind!

[majea.livejournal.com]

I've actually been working on a post in my head on a similar topic, so I won't go into much length here. I find that I look for different things in my books, though plot has become more important to me recently. I read enough books about characters discovering important things about themselves over the course of 300 pages in the 90s. I really don't need any more of those moment-of-truth kind of things for a while. I want something to happen. I also expect the author to be capable of demonstrating character through dialogue and action, so I see plot and character as being very closely linked.

My needs change from book to book, and a talented author can still drag me in by disguising a lack of plot through excellent writing, but I find that I'm currently more interested in narrative than anything else.

This is a very simplistic explanation, which is why the post is still in my head rather than on LJ.

[a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... Characters first, narrative second. Except ... if it's interesting construction. So I liked AG, although not as much as his other books, because I really liked the idea of the gods being brought here, and then fading (although really, that's partially the premise of Pratchett's Small Gods, isn't it?). I tried to read it a while back, and couldn't, and it was only when I figured out what he was doing with the gods that I was able to get through. I'm a much bigger fan of his other stories, and Sandman is really the best -- and Good Omens, of course.

But yeah ... can't do Dickens, either. Love Austen, have liked the Zola I've read. But people. Not always likeable ones, either. I can't think of one person in Middlemarch that I really liked, but it's a truly great novel, I think.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Yeah! I wondered about Gaiman and Small Gods.

[sorcha.livejournal.com]

If I remember right, Gaiman tends to categorise his stories/novels as girl books or boy books. Not according to the sex of the main protagonist or even the target audience, but more because of the story.

"American Gods" and "Anansi boys" are definately boy books, and I didn't like them all that much. I found them boring, and with characters who I didn't really care about.

"Stardust" and "Coraline" on the other hand are definately girl books, and I loved them. So I'd suggest giving them a try.

As for what I look for in an author is the ability to write characters who I am interested in (I don't have to like them) and those characters have to change and grow over the course of the story. The plot is what makes the characters grow, so that's important too.

[ex-greythist387.livejournal.com]

How would you categorize Neverland in this scheme? I'm curious because it's the one book of his that I enjoyed properly, and I'd not place it as either a girl book or a boy book by my own lights. (I liked the idea of AG but found the implementation way too uneven, such that I've put off reading its sequel. Stardust was okay.)

[sorcha.livejournal.com]

I'd count "Neverwhere" as a girl book. Like "Stardust" the main protagonist is male, but the impetus of the story definately comes from the female characters (Door, and the Star).