fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4555 ]

[ SECRET POST #4555 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4555 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 12 secrets from Secret Submission Post #652.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

01. https://i.imgur.com/EFkaugT.png

I could have written this secret. Gaiman is overrated. He has fantastic ideas but his execution is always weak. The only solo book of his that I've really liked is Stardust.

Funnily enough, Stardust is the only one of Gaiman's novels I didn't like at all.

Neverwhere is one of my favourite books of all time... but nobody ever likes that one. :C

NAYRT

I liked Neverwhere!

I mean, I haven't read it in 10 years or so, and I don't really remember why I liked it. But I did like it.

I loved Neverwhere!!

I also love Neverwhere!

Another anon that likes Neverwhere.

Me too. I like most of Gaiman's work but Stardust was the exception

I liked the movie Stardust but not the book. I liked the story, I just don't like Gaiman's writing style.

The movie had a better ending, as well.

Stardust was the first Gaiman book I read, and I didn't hate it. I didn't like it either. It made so little impression on me that I literally couldn't tell you a thing that happened in that book, even right after I finished it I felt like I didn't even remember the plot. My experience with Gaiman's works has only gone downhill from there.

I agree in the sense that it's hard to think of a Gaiman character who's interesting as a character, rather than as some kind of assemblage of abstract ideas or cultural reference-points. And I agree that he is overrated.

Still Sandman is a work of fucking genius

I enjoy Gaiman's work, but yeah, I rarely feel like his characters have much heart or warmth to them. Great concepts, hit or miss execution, but it's mostly coasting on the back of the great concepts.

Love the promo art for this series, BTW.

Man and I was just thinking earlier today how I much prefer watching adaptations of or watching scripts Gaiman has written to reading it. I haven't really enjoyed his books (plots: good. writing: eh) but I like watching adaptations of the books.

My reasoning to myself was "it's like how reading Shakespeare in 10th grade English class is boring and dumb, but watching it performed is better"

Same here, anon.

Yeah, I think Gaiman+collaborator is fantastic - so Sandman, Good Omens and adaptations of his work are always miles better than his original writing.

I thought David Tennant and Michael Sheen did a brilliant job of giving Crowley and Aziraphale character. Sorry you didn't like it, OP.

I’m not the OP, but for the most part I loved how Sheen and Tennant acted their roles and the additional material Gaiman wrote for them, while still thinking that some of the changes, omissions, and additions to/of other characters’ storylines (not the actors themselves or that some of them weren’t white or cis or male or whatever, that was cool) and spoken lines were stupid and/or unnecessary.

The parts I liked I really liked, the parts I disliked... almost ruined the stuff I loved.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-06-27 00:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-06-27 01:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-06-27 02:41 (UTC) - Expand

I liked their expanded bits so much too. It just added a bit more life to something I already liked.

I made the original comment that this secret was made from and actually I liked Aziraphale and Crowley, I thought they were great. It's the entire rest of the cast I thought Gaiman did a huge disservice to. I basically forgot Newt and Anathema existed halfway through the story and the Them were pretty much cardboard cutouts. The latter in particular I think just gutted the show, because it felt like the Them were afterthoughts and all their great moments fell flat to me. If this show was 'The Gay Adventures of Aziraphale and Crowley' I would have loved it, but as Good Omens I thought it lost almost all the heart that made me love the book and I wish someone else had written the script (or that Pratchett was still alive to rein in Gaiman's bad habits).

(And if I'm feeling particularly uncharitable, part of me also feels like Gaiman gave in to 'what the fans want' and basically made it the Gay Adventures of Aziraphale and Crowley, not caring that doing so meant everyone not Azirapale and Crowley would get the shaft but hey, who cares, the fangirls are happy.)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-06-27 04:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-06-27 06:34 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-06-27 09:40 (UTC) - Expand

I haven't watched GO, so I can't speak to the adaptation, but in regards to the books it's been similar for me. I adore Pratchett's work, but Gaiman's standalone stuff (though chock full of awesome concepts) does almost nothing for me.

Where did this amazing art come from?

From the BBC companion book, The Nice and Accurate Good Omens TV Companion by Matt Whyman. Isn't it gorgeous?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-06-28 04:09 (UTC) - Expand

I'm one of those people who like Neil Gaiman's writing style, but he's also one of those writers who've done all sorts of things. His novels are weaker I think because he works more with ideas and plot than strong characterisations. It's hard to finish a long novel if you don't connect with any of the characters, which makes him a stronger short story writer than a novelist imo.

He's a better comics writer than a novelist

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only