Diversionary Tactics in Reading (Spoilers Ahead)

[Labrys]

Holiday weekends, even of the non-celebratory sort like Memorial Day, should include some pleasures.  Thus on the only sunny day, Saturday, we went for a motorcycle ride instead of doing yard work.

And I put aside the Comanche histories and picked up a used paperback copy of Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" to divert myself.

Anyone else (likely everyone!) read this?  I am enjoying it greatly so far, and here is where a lot of mythology and pagan reading comes in handy.....because I knew from the backcover tease onward that Mr. Wednesday was Odin.

Do you think the average American non-pagan reader knew it then?  Am I patting myself on the back too soon?

[Arx]

Ah, I loved that book.

I personally love it when authors use assumed knowledge in books. It's like a reward system for having that extra bit of knowledged. For the average person, the book is simply an entertaining read, but for someone with a bit of mythological know-how, the book opens up hidden layers. I don't want to go into any plot spoilers but you'll find yourself pleasantly surprised with other allusions throughout the book.

I'm also a bit of an anime fan and found the same thing with Neon Genesis: Evangelion. For the average person, the action captures their attention and the character drama draws them in. But there are hidden layers of themes and underpinning messages that require two sets of knowledge: One one hand you have judicious use of Freudian and Jungian psychology, thus rewarding those responders with knowledge on psychology and Freudian complexes. On the other hand, you have an overwhelming use of Judo-Christian symbology. The series practically bombards you with Qaballistic references, Gnosticism and Judaic symbolism such as references to the Tree of Sephiroth, the Dead Sea Scrolls and even the Room of Gauf. In short, it's a symbolist's braingasm.

I'm a sucker for any piece of fiction that requires the reader to have a specific set of assumed knowledge to more fully grasp the story. It makes for a more rewarding reading/viewing experience in my opinion. And heck, we could use more entertainment that requires the responder to use their brains.

[Labrys]

Ah, I loved that book.



I'm a sucker for any piece of fiction that requires the reader to have a specific set of assumed knowledge to more fully grasp the story. It makes for a more rewarding reading/viewing experience in my opinion. And heck, we could use more entertainment that requires the responder to use their brains.

I am enjoying the many references and giggling over inside jokes!  I, too, like a reading experience that counts on you knowing SOMEthing.  On a light level of this, we had a ball watching "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" because we had READ all the books its characters were taken from; but it was depressing to hear acquaintances saying stuff like "I don't get it, it wasn't entertaining and I don't 'get' the people." 

And I have not kept up with anime, though what I saw as my kids were teens fascinated me.  Now, I feel like a dinosaur and need a guide to take me through it, lol.  But the piece you speak of sounds intriguing!

[Ara]

A dear friend of mine has forced Gaiman on me.  I haven't read that one yet, but what I've read, I love.

ARX.  Oh goodness.  I loved every second of Evangelion.  Another friend forced that one on me, and I devoured it.  Several times.

<3

[Lark]

I love Neil Gaiman.  My first foray into his books was "Neverwhere".  We read it shortly after returning from London and I'll never ride the tube and hear that line "Mind the gap!" again.

But "American Gods" is in a class by itself.  For most it is simply a good story.  But for anyone who understands how mythology works it hits home on a whole different set of levels.

-Lark-

[Labrys]

I sat up till after midnight finishing the book last night; alas, today I must return to Comanche history, the weekend is over.

It will have to percolate a few days I think, maybe I was just tired, but I just felt a bit shell-shocked at the end of the story.  I don't know why exactly yet. 

I was surprised to have the story end in Iceland. And I wondered why Iceland would be more amenable to transplanted gods than America.

[Labrys]

Just a fast copy and paste from my LJ before I fall asleep again.  Drowsy from antibiotics for sinus crud....yuk.
As I said, I finished American Gods, and it was a good story, but it leaves me with questions.

If the main postulated idea of the novel seemed to be that America is a bad continent for gods, why didn't Gaiman take on the biggest "transplanted" god of all---Jehovah?

And WHY isn't America a good place for gods....all the ones in the story being grafted into the country with the immigrant population. I am presuming his idea is that even in the homelands of the emigrants and their divinities, that deities are maintained only by worship---and in homelands, it has soaked into the very ground? And since the Americas HAD no real first peoples---only immigrants of various eras, not enough belief has soaked "in" on our grounds?

It doesn't answer why Americans don't "believe" enough to nourish the gods, unless you speak only of the "old gods" that Gaiman peoples his tale with, start to finish. Nor does it answer why, when his protagonist goes to Iceland, he find a more hale and hearty and psychologically 'right' Odin there. Why would Iceland have a better version? Odin was likewise a transplanted god there, too.

Also, Gaiman picks his solitary example of a neo-pagan as one of the stupider types who is all fluff and goddess-in-veils-ish who knows nothing of ancient paganism. Even in a novel, can't one be dinged for playing 'burn the straw man'---he doesn't even mention or deal with reconstructionists. Odd, and maybe even a bit chicken if he has to leave out numbers to make his story equation work.

I know there is a novella out there, "Monarch of the Glen" that supposedly continues Shadow/Balder's story. I will get around to finding it; though just the concept of Shadow as Balder (yes, yes, I 'got' that "I'll so stick mistletoe in his eye" bit in AG) makes my mind boggle even more. 

I guess I am not grasping where he is going with it all.  For me, the way the story went, and yes, you could pretty much see Loki coming and how that whole 'us vs. them' thing would go coming, it reduced Odin and his crew to a particularly vampirish bunch.  Is Gaiman taking a night class in Marxism? Is this all just one more "opiate of the people" statement? Cause if that is what he is about, then he really DOES need to take on the Jehovah carrying crowd.
I don't see any of the pagan gods, even in the most orthopractic modes of former being, as near approaching the voracious nature of the monotheist modeled religions.

But then, I am still percolating here; its been a long hard winter with a lot of sick crummy bits. My mind might just not be working too well yet. Needs more sun.

[Brijrian]

Thank you so much for posting this thread--I don't have any good answers for you about AG (you raise a very good point about Jehovah, and the only reason I can think if is just "author's choice").

But I was feeling rather stagnant in the "reading" department (can you say 'broken record'?) and Neil Gaiman is an outstanding author. I've never read anyone who uses mythology like he does. It's really refreshing.

Have you read "Good Omens" by any chance?

[Labrys]

But I was feeling rather stagnant in the "reading" department (can you say 'broken record'?) and Neil Gaiman is an outstanding author. I've never read anyone who uses mythology like he does. It's really refreshing.

Have you read "Good Omens" by any chance?

I dont' think I have, but I did just finish "Neverwhere" and really enjoyed it even more than American Gods.  It was such a romp and the images in the book made me see a stage developed by Guillermo del Toro. 

I have to have fiction breaks now and then, or my brain begins to choke!

[Lark]

I dont' think I have, but I did just finish "Neverwhere" and really enjoyed it even more than American Gods.  It was such a romp and the images in the book made me see a stage developed by Guillermo del Toro. 

I have to have fiction breaks now and then, or my brain begins to choke!

Yup, that book put a whole new face on riding the London Underground for me.  "Mind the gap" indeed!

-Lark-

[Labrys]

Yup, that book put a whole new face on riding the London Underground for me.  "Mind the gap" indeed!

-Lark-

LOL...and the funniest bit was with the name of the "Marquis de Carabis" (sp??) all I could do was leap like a hyperactive bird brain from that to Puss in Boots, to the Shrek Puss in Boots with the Antonio Banderes voice!  So, that character was Antonio in my mind's eye!