Insightful, but I'm not sure Ananzi Boys is the right example. Tiger was clearly shown as dangerous all through the book, and I still wouldn't want to get in his reach. Meanwhile it was mischievous fun to take something intimidating about that bully and make it ridiculous.
Ironically, Gaiman touched on the theme of your post in his novel Coraline, where the girl from our world goes into what she at first thinks is a fantasy world of harmless fun, only to find out it's flat-out demonic and the domain of a creature that plans to suck out her soul.
I watched a vid recently - it gets kind of spicy, so I won't post it - that talked about how for all it's proto-Wokeness, a lot of Gaiman's early stuff was pretty un-PC, like the Sandman comic where a witch kicks would-be student out of her magic shop because the would-be student is trans and so can't use the magic of the feminine.
The vid makes some interesting points. In the 90s and early 2000s there were a lot of fantasists - Gaiman, Whedon, King, etc - who seemed to be honestly exploring ideas in their stories, and even hinting that there's something deep and true beneath the much of postmodernism.
Then they realized their stories were going places that wouldn't be approved of by All the Best People, and to a man, they sold out.
Now? Gaiman is just fine with adaptions erasing his early work. Heck, the guy considered Chesterton as an influence, and to show his gratitude Gaiman reduced Chesterton to brand with no more depth than a picture on a lunchbox, while promoting things that would disgust the real inspiration.
I should add...as an analogy, where Tiger represents a bully, it's a great story. That is how to deal with bullies.
It's only when I think of it as an actual Tiger that I think it runs into trouble. For my purposes in this article , I was looking at it that way. For Gaiman's, he was looking at it the other way. It worked well for his story the way he framed it.
Interesting insights on Gaiman, though. There's a lot I like in Gaiman, even though at times I think he's gone down the wrong path. I actually rather liked Anansi Boys, but I didn't care for American Gods.
Do you think he has sold out? I I haven't read that much of his more recent stuff.
I was just talking about that one fairytale, not the whole story. That fairytale has stuck with me, and I've thought about it a lot. This wasn't meant to be a comment on the book. ;-)
Defanging evil has a secondary effect, that I suspect they quite like. It also defangs good.
If the forces of evil aren't anywhere near as dangerous as they should be, then the forces of good don't need to be that powerful either. There's no longer any need for a majestic, powerful, dangerous good being when a mediocre almost-good character will do the job just as well.
In the Chronicles of Narnia, one of the Pevensies asks if Aslan is safe. "Of course he's not safe! But he's good," is Mr Beaver's response. "He's not a tame lion," is the standard saying all the way through the series. Aslan is needed because the White Witch cannot be defeated by anyone else.
If the White Witch is defanged, then the Narnians could have overthrown her themselves, and Aslan is removed from the board. And this effect takes away from the realm of fiction that which evil fears most of all: a force of good that is powerful and dangerous and can defeat any evil that opposes it.
This was sort of what I was trying to achieve with my novella Anemia. A reaction to the "sexy, sympathetic vampire" cliche.
It's bad to make something dangerous look harmless. But it's even worse to make it look desirable.
Great title for a vampire novel!
Yes! I've thought that about the whole sexy vampire thing for years.
Insightful, but I'm not sure Ananzi Boys is the right example. Tiger was clearly shown as dangerous all through the book, and I still wouldn't want to get in his reach. Meanwhile it was mischievous fun to take something intimidating about that bully and make it ridiculous.
Ironically, Gaiman touched on the theme of your post in his novel Coraline, where the girl from our world goes into what she at first thinks is a fantasy world of harmless fun, only to find out it's flat-out demonic and the domain of a creature that plans to suck out her soul.
I watched a vid recently - it gets kind of spicy, so I won't post it - that talked about how for all it's proto-Wokeness, a lot of Gaiman's early stuff was pretty un-PC, like the Sandman comic where a witch kicks would-be student out of her magic shop because the would-be student is trans and so can't use the magic of the feminine.
The vid makes some interesting points. In the 90s and early 2000s there were a lot of fantasists - Gaiman, Whedon, King, etc - who seemed to be honestly exploring ideas in their stories, and even hinting that there's something deep and true beneath the much of postmodernism.
Then they realized their stories were going places that wouldn't be approved of by All the Best People, and to a man, they sold out.
Now? Gaiman is just fine with adaptions erasing his early work. Heck, the guy considered Chesterton as an influence, and to show his gratitude Gaiman reduced Chesterton to brand with no more depth than a picture on a lunchbox, while promoting things that would disgust the real inspiration.
I should add...as an analogy, where Tiger represents a bully, it's a great story. That is how to deal with bullies.
It's only when I think of it as an actual Tiger that I think it runs into trouble. For my purposes in this article , I was looking at it that way. For Gaiman's, he was looking at it the other way. It worked well for his story the way he framed it.
Interesting insights on Gaiman, though. There's a lot I like in Gaiman, even though at times I think he's gone down the wrong path. I actually rather liked Anansi Boys, but I didn't care for American Gods.
Do you think he has sold out? I I haven't read that much of his more recent stuff.
I was just talking about that one fairytale, not the whole story. That fairytale has stuck with me, and I've thought about it a lot. This wasn't meant to be a comment on the book. ;-)
Defanging evil has a secondary effect, that I suspect they quite like. It also defangs good.
If the forces of evil aren't anywhere near as dangerous as they should be, then the forces of good don't need to be that powerful either. There's no longer any need for a majestic, powerful, dangerous good being when a mediocre almost-good character will do the job just as well.
In the Chronicles of Narnia, one of the Pevensies asks if Aslan is safe. "Of course he's not safe! But he's good," is Mr Beaver's response. "He's not a tame lion," is the standard saying all the way through the series. Aslan is needed because the White Witch cannot be defeated by anyone else.
If the White Witch is defanged, then the Narnians could have overthrown her themselves, and Aslan is removed from the board. And this effect takes away from the realm of fiction that which evil fears most of all: a force of good that is powerful and dangerous and can defeat any evil that opposes it.
Would you mind if I quoted your comment...with attribution, of course...if it fits in my article on this topic? You put this so well.
Of course! Quote whichever part you like.
Thanks!
Not the next article, but the one after it, will be on this exactl topic.
Love these articles!