Anansi Boys

[hwango]

Meh. I was pretty disappointed. The second half was better than the first, but it still didn't do much for me. Not up to Mr. Gaiman's usual standards at all. Very predictable at times, which was really a shame - I thought for certain that he'd throw more twists into the story. I did like all of the stuff about the lime, though.

The thing that bugs me the most? Spider and Rosie. I'm sorry, but when he uses his god powers to make her think that he's Charlie so he can have sex with her...it's like drugging someone to make them accept advances that they would otherwise reject, and that makes it rape. She's certainly upset at first, but then she gets over it because she decides she loves Spider? That's just creepy. Daisy and Charlie's relationship isn't creepy, but it seemed way too underdeveloped to be believable, so it just seemed like everyone turning out happily ever after was incredibly forced.

I know it's nice to keep the how and why of some things mysterious, but I still felt that some things weren't adequately explained. The book just didn't feel like a finished product to me.

Comments

Definitely a "Meh" rating from me as well.

[lconover.livejournal.com]

The whole thing felt kind of half-hearted compared to his last book - and much of the ground he covered in Anansi Boys, he'd covered far better in American Gods. He only seemed to be hitting his stride when the bit with the lime came up. At times, there were hints of a tribute to Douglas Adams as well, but the whole thing didn't have all the earmarks of Neil Gaiman's typical style. It almost felt like a short story stretched to the breaking point.

On the whole, I didn't find the Daisy-Spider relationship to be -that- creepy; it was more tacky than anything else. I think it just echoed the underdeveloped emotional relationship she had with Fat Charlie to begin with -- they were simply cast members in one another's life. She knew so little of Charlie's true self that she wanted to be caught up in the appealing illusion Spider presented, despite the fact that she at times suspected it to be false. Some other characters were able to resist the lure of Spider's trickery to some extent - if they wanted to. I realize it's a little too much like the Gypsy-theft-rationale* but I really didn't feel as if it were akin to assault.

I can't shake the feeling that it was just a quick book to pay the bills while waiting for another project to percolate. *shrug* But, it hasn't been since Stardust that I felt quite so 'meh' about a Gaiman novel.

--
* According to some stereotypes, Gypsies feel no guilt about robbing or cheating people if their target left themselves open to the crime. If you really were so greedy as to think you were getting something for next to nothing, clearly you deserved to be tricked.

Re: Definitely a "Meh" rating from me as well.

[hwango.livejournal.com]

Did you only read the text version of Stardust, or did you read the original graphic novel with the Charles Vess illustrations? I loved Stardust, but I read the graphic novel, and I always thought it would lose a lot without the illustrations to back it up.