Two times I dissed Neil Gaiman (and one time I praised him)

[trinityvixen]

No, that's not a fanfic prompt, that has been my life this week. In convincing moonlightalice to read some Discworld this week and trying to explain Terry Pratchett's sense of humor and the way he has adapted his worldbuilding as it's started to have continuity, I told her that it was, in effect, much like Good Omens minus all that Neil Gaiman-y stuff. I could not, for the life of me, explain it better than that. Although Pratchett's work can be meaningful and sincere, it is, at the same time, irreverent. He has a sense of humor about everything, even things he and his characters believe in--if you love it, you should be able to laugh at it. Neil Gaiman, in my limited exposure to him, is very not that person. His work Has Meaning. The difference is perhaps most stark in the two writers' Deaths: Pratchett's Death is the ultimate straight man who may just be in on a joke you'll never get (but that's okay, you're privy to one he'll never know either); Gaiman's Death is personable and relatable and all the more tragic for it, however cute and playful she may be. I really felt like all the funny from Good Omens comes from Pratchett lightening Gaiman the fuck up.

Last night, while pulling out movies I own to suggest that moonlightalice watch with her sister and mother this weekend, I pulled Stardust, which is adapted from a Gaiman work. I find the movie, though completely ludicrous, entirely charming. It's silly, it's fun, it's an adventure story with a happy ending. The book it's based on...is none of those things. It's very Gaiman-y. Things are Serious Business, Usually Involving Magic. The ending is the one that The Story Deserves, Not The Ones That Coddle The Reader. It gets credit for being different, but for something so insubstantial, book or movie, I prefer the confectioner's sugar. He is very much a fantascist who believes in the old school Grimm's fairy tale.

Given my assessment of him so far, you might be surprised to learn that I found the episode of Doctor Who, "The Doctor's Wife," written by Gaiman, to be utterly endearing and really heart-warming. Though there is some of the pervasive, persistent melancholy about it that I associate with all of Gaiman's works, "The Doctor's Wife" threw in a lot of screwball romance that was genuine and sweet and funny. It helped that the episode confirmed some of my own opinions about the relationship between two characters that had, heretofore, never been able to be voiced on the show itself. (Though fanfiction, in what little I've read in Who-fandom, has covered.) So I was predisposed to like it as it agreed with the way I see things, but what I really loved was the setting placing the Doctor at the center of the story. New-Who, more than classic-Who, focuses on the companions, which is fine since that's the audience entry into the fantastic journey. The Doctor moves through most episodes on the periphery of the plot (despite always being in front of the actual action), showing up to poke at things and deliver exposition about why he can/cannot defeat whatever the monsters are. "The Doctor's Wife," on the other hand, manages to get rather close to the Doctor himself, his life, his choices, while simultaneously revealing nothing about him. (This is also a very good summary of the season as a whole.) The episode flirts with exposing secrets without really ever doing so, and it is one of the best teases ever because you really don't care. What matters is the relationship at the center, and it's adorable. Gaiman. Wrote. Something. A. Goddamned. Dorable. I tell you, the world, she is topsy-turvy!


it was one of the most charming episodes of Doctor Who I've seen in a good long while. It was an episode that managed to focus on the Doctor versus his companions. Instead of his moving through a story and mucking about in it, he was the story.  Well, he and someone else.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Interesting. I like most of Gaiman's work, and I enjoyed "The Doctor's Wife" but I didn't think it was all that--it was fun, it was enjoyable, it wasn't brilliant.

I do definitely agree about Stardust, however--the book is good but the movie is far more entertaining.

[ecmyers.livejournal.com]

Someone dissed Stardust this weekend and I explained that I loved the movie and hadn't read the book yet, which seemed to be all the explanation she needed.

I rather like Gaiman's dark humor, but it doesn't always work, especially for longer works--I much prefer the shorter, sharper bite of his short fiction and books like Coraline, which can be moody and meaningful but demonstrate wicked fun along the way. I suspect this is one of the reasons why his Doctor Who script was such a hit, though oddly, it might have been a better fit for broody, tragic Ten, for which it was originally intended.

I intend to read more Pratchett solely because I enjoyed Good Omens so much, but I'd always attributed the best bits to Gaiman... perhaps incorrectly :P

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

You should absolutely read Pratchett! I thought the same thing about Good Omens because all I'd read of Pratchett was The Color of Magic, which I didn't enjoy at all. Read the Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg books. And, esp. given your interest in YA, read the Tiffany Aching books, starting with Wee Free Men. They're fantastic.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Ooh, that's a good idea. I need to read his YA, too.

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

I heartily recommend the Tiffany Aching books to everyone. They're not as off-the-wall as his other Discworld books--they actually have more coherent storylines, fewer digressions--but they're sweet and fun and thrilling and still very funny.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I like some of Gaiman's stuff, but I like more his wild imagination than the tenor of his work. Coraline is a good example of something wildly inventive that doesn't go through paces I enjoy overmuch. Still pretty fun though.

Good Omens is a good blend of both of them, but coming from a Pratchett-fan background, I can feel (if not really specify) the parts that pull away from his influence. I would say the partnership is pretty equal, with the absurdity being mostly Pratchett's (he's better at it, certainly) and the plot being more Gaiman's. Which, I guess, is still absurd, but it's more darkly comic.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

A nit: the Grimm's fairy tales were actually the sanitized, cleaned-up versions. They had a scary name but were famous for actually desexualizing and toning down some of the most gruesome stories. (Interestingly, while they toned down the sex, they tended to up the violence re: women.)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

See, the violence I remember from reading Grimm's. I knew they were themselves cleaned up somewhat, I should have attributed that more properly.

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

Weird--I thought I'd replied to this over the weekend. Anyway, I agree with you about Stardust the movie vs. Stardust the book. I've always enjoyed Gaiman's work, though. And I thought the Doctor's Wife was good, solid, enjoyable, sweet in places--but not brilliant, as a lot of people seemed to expect and a few even claimed after seeing it. :)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I should really read more Gaiman before I declare one way or another. I've read all of Sandman, which I will not deny is brilliant; Neverwhere which doesn't really work; Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader? which works but is, like I get from all Gaiman, very melancholic; and Stardust. That's a healthy smattering, but it's not enough to make grand statements against the whole. I just have an impression. It's not even negative, it's just not glowing.

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

I've read most of his work, though there are a few stories I've missed. Check out the Graveyard Book, which is quite nice. But I'm not a raving fan either--I do like his work, but there are a few other writers I like more (Zelazny, Powers, Wilson, Pratchett).