Spinning a tale - Anansi Boys review
Aug. 6th, 2005 05:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
threemonkeysHere is how Neil Gaiman describes his new book Anansi Boys - "it's probably a magical-horror-thriller-ghost-romantic comedy-family-epic although that leaves out the detective bits and much of the food". Well that is fine as far as it goes. It covers the story elements and since storytelling is so important to this book then that is good. But I'm searching for the spirit of the book. So I will run some stuff past you to see if it makes any kind of sense.
One thought I had was "Neil Gaiman unplugged". The thing is, Neil is this charming witty charismatic guy who tells stories. Those stores are woven in darkness. In whatever he writes the evil, the malice or the horror is just hiding around the corner. It may not actually make an appearance up front, but you always know that the darkness is there. It is his canvas. The charm, charisma and wit are there too - darkness without contrast is no story. But this time, Neil has unplugged the darkness - he has pulled it back from the core of the work and woven something lighter. There are just a few tendrils of dark left here and there to add a bit of depth. So we are left with a story with charm, charisma and wit - not only with them but about them. In some ways, this book isn't just by Neil Gaiman - it *is* Neil Gaiman.
The story concerns Fat Charlie, who it turns out is the son of the god Anansi. As we join the story, not only is Fat Charlie finding out that his father was a god, (a recently deceased god) but that he has a brother that he never knew he had. The brother turns out to be a bit of a handful - not very responsible and possessing a gods powers as well. Inevitably fat Charlie's life is turned completely about. Things go wrong in the sort of way a god can arrange. His brother steals his fiancé, messes up his workplace and gets him in trouble with the police - a whole sitcom of troubles. Various capers ensue, a ghost gets involved and four old witches lend a hand until the big exciting climax. Oh and there are birds - nasty birds.
Painted like that, the story sounds a bit naff. But you have to remember that Anansi is the trickster spider god and the god of all the stories. The plot may be a little silly but its a meaningful silliness. That the characters are undergoing a story is actually relevant to the story. It sounds convoluted but it isn't - like all the stories of Anansi, it is very simple. As the characters travel through their story they transform and become something else.
As for the characters, they are vivid and real. And they are also like cartoon characters. Part of the genius that is Neil Gaiman is his ability to define one of the players in his work by just a few words. It must be the discipline of the comics writer where you have so few words to work with. The few words can only give you an outline of the character but if well done they provide the framework for you to fill in the details in depth. Just how you can find out all you need to know about an old witch by her inability to buy the right black candles is just skill beyond reckoning.
This book is a light easy immensely fun read. Neil has removed the darkness and left himself and his storytelling on show in a clear engaging manner. This might be dangerous for him as his fans like the darkness. What remains is something that just forces me to make Terry Pratchett comparisons. They are not the same, but there are elements of storytelling tone and lightness which suggest that the audience is going to be similar. There is also the ability to turn a phrase which leaves you laughing out loud because you have never thought that something could be explained that way.
I have deliberately used "light" a few times above because it is at the core of something that nags me about Anansi Boys. It is a great bit of fun and that is no bad thing as Pratchett or Janet Evanovich can attest. But fun does not get the critical regard and the "classic" tags. And just possibly, that might be appropriate in this case. I am not convinced that this is a major work - enjoyable certainly but not enough to draw me back the way Sandman or even Neverwhere does. However I will read it again when the final published version comes out. If it can draw me in again and show depths that I didn't see this time then perhaps it is a classic after all. I wouldn't bet against that - it is Neil after all.
One thought I had was "Neil Gaiman unplugged". The thing is, Neil is this charming witty charismatic guy who tells stories. Those stores are woven in darkness. In whatever he writes the evil, the malice or the horror is just hiding around the corner. It may not actually make an appearance up front, but you always know that the darkness is there. It is his canvas. The charm, charisma and wit are there too - darkness without contrast is no story. But this time, Neil has unplugged the darkness - he has pulled it back from the core of the work and woven something lighter. There are just a few tendrils of dark left here and there to add a bit of depth. So we are left with a story with charm, charisma and wit - not only with them but about them. In some ways, this book isn't just by Neil Gaiman - it *is* Neil Gaiman.
The story concerns Fat Charlie, who it turns out is the son of the god Anansi. As we join the story, not only is Fat Charlie finding out that his father was a god, (a recently deceased god) but that he has a brother that he never knew he had. The brother turns out to be a bit of a handful - not very responsible and possessing a gods powers as well. Inevitably fat Charlie's life is turned completely about. Things go wrong in the sort of way a god can arrange. His brother steals his fiancé, messes up his workplace and gets him in trouble with the police - a whole sitcom of troubles. Various capers ensue, a ghost gets involved and four old witches lend a hand until the big exciting climax. Oh and there are birds - nasty birds.
Painted like that, the story sounds a bit naff. But you have to remember that Anansi is the trickster spider god and the god of all the stories. The plot may be a little silly but its a meaningful silliness. That the characters are undergoing a story is actually relevant to the story. It sounds convoluted but it isn't - like all the stories of Anansi, it is very simple. As the characters travel through their story they transform and become something else.
As for the characters, they are vivid and real. And they are also like cartoon characters. Part of the genius that is Neil Gaiman is his ability to define one of the players in his work by just a few words. It must be the discipline of the comics writer where you have so few words to work with. The few words can only give you an outline of the character but if well done they provide the framework for you to fill in the details in depth. Just how you can find out all you need to know about an old witch by her inability to buy the right black candles is just skill beyond reckoning.
This book is a light easy immensely fun read. Neil has removed the darkness and left himself and his storytelling on show in a clear engaging manner. This might be dangerous for him as his fans like the darkness. What remains is something that just forces me to make Terry Pratchett comparisons. They are not the same, but there are elements of storytelling tone and lightness which suggest that the audience is going to be similar. There is also the ability to turn a phrase which leaves you laughing out loud because you have never thought that something could be explained that way.
I have deliberately used "light" a few times above because it is at the core of something that nags me about Anansi Boys. It is a great bit of fun and that is no bad thing as Pratchett or Janet Evanovich can attest. But fun does not get the critical regard and the "classic" tags. And just possibly, that might be appropriate in this case. I am not convinced that this is a major work - enjoyable certainly but not enough to draw me back the way Sandman or even Neverwhere does. However I will read it again when the final published version comes out. If it can draw me in again and show depths that I didn't see this time then perhaps it is a classic after all. I wouldn't bet against that - it is Neil after all.