Well, this was a dense read ... not a difficult one, just longer than I eyeballed. I hope it wasn't too unwieldy to wade through. My paperback version was a mere 588 pages, and I believe at least kc had the author's preferred text, which adds 12,000 words. An author on another blog post reports there isn't much change, plotwise, so I think discussion can be consistent, although I'm interested if you detect any differences.
In any case, I hope this wasn't too much "pop" and not enough "lit," as we usually go. What did you think, and would you read anything else by Neil Gaiman?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I totally would! I liked it a lot. I thought Gaiman's writing was smart and playful and a little dark. And I didn't think it was light on substance. I really enjoyed all the references to obscure (and not so obscure) gods of old.
It was long, to be sure. But it read relatively fast, as you say. I also had the "author's preferred text," and I wondered as I read whether the story might have been tighter and stronger without whatever sections Gaiman felt his editor had wrongly removed.
(Sorry so long in getting to this)
I didn't think it lacked in "lit." I thought it was smart and well-paced. I'm not sure it could have been much shorter and still have had the same impact. So much build-up is necessary to the story and what it reveals. It never felt long to me.
I would read more Gaiman. I'm particularly interested in reading "the Sandman," his graphic novel. "American Gods" often had a graphic feel to me, perhaps because it was so easy to visualize the scenes.
I have been to House on the Rock, by the way! (when I was a kid; I don't remember much about it, though).
Oh, I loved the vivid description! I'd love to see it.
Post a Comment