2007 Book Log #78: Stardust, by Neil Gaiman

[annathepiper]

I have been horribly, horribly remiss. I have hardly read anything at all by Neil Gaiman, which I know is tantamount to blasphemy in SF/F fandom. (But hey, I've still only read the first three Harry Potters, too.) To date, the only thing of his I've enjoyed--and I did enjoy it quite a bit--was the team-up he did with Terry Pratchett, the absolutely delightful Good Omens. Having just seen the movie version of Stardust in the theaters, I felt compelled to finally correct this little problem and read the novel.

And to be honest, I think the book suffers in comparison with the movie so fresh in my brain. There are certainly moments of magic in the prose; Gaiman is after all a gifted writer, and more than once his descriptions made me grin. But there are large swaths of the movie that expand on things barely described in the story, and between that and the fact that I burned so very quickly through the book on my way home from work, the novel seemed barely substantial to me. Most importantly, the endings are very different. I can see virtue in the way the book ends it; it's a gentler ending, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But for me at least it lacks a certain emotional punch, and I am not surprised in the slightest that they changed the ending when they took it onto the big screen.

Still, though, the novel's worth a glance just on the virtue of Gaiman's prose alone. Two and a half stars, or three if you happen to get hold of the illustrated graphic novel version with the lovely art of Charles Vess, also well worth a look.

Comments

[wingedelf.livejournal.com]

Stardust is one of my favourites. Give it a go again after the movie has faded a bit.

[annathepiper]

I will. Dara has a copy, so I can read it at any time. I certainly didn't dislike the book, and as I was telling aerialscribe elsewhere on this thread, I'm beginning to rather think of both the movie and the book as different tellings of the same mythic story. Which kind of works for me. :)

[annathepiper]

And it's that overall feel of a fairy tale, indeed, that makes me shy back from being entirely dissatisfied with the ending in the book.

I have yet to see Brokeback Mountain in either form; the only Annie Proulx thing I've read is The Shipping News, since it was set in Newfoundland, and that mostly just didn't go over well with me at all. ;) So I haven't been too moved to go look for anything else she's written.

[annathepiper]

*nodnods to all that* All valid points. Considering the movie, I think they were trying to play to a lower common denominator audience than the book was, and I can't exactly fault them for that; I expect most Hollywood movie efforts kind of have to do that if they want a movie to do well at all. But it does mean that the movie comes across quite differently than the book in many respects.

I'll think more about this. As I originally posted, I do see virtue in the book, and right now the differences between the versions kind of strike me akin to the differences between various tellings of the same mythic story. Which is a good thing indeed. :)

[janne.livejournal.com]

Haven't seen the movie, but read the book a while back. Was rather underwhelmed with the ending of the book, so I'm heartened to hear the movie chose a different one. Hmm. I think Stardust is actually the Gaiman book I liked least, though the illustrated version is very pretty!

[annathepiper]

solarbird was telling me last night that she thinks Stardust is the least of Gaiman's works. I suspect I'll probably agree with her once I whip through Neverwhere and American Gods, also on her bookshelf.

And yeah, the ending in the movie is significantly different and IMHO packs a more satisfying emotional punch--and is doubtless an ending they chose because it plays a lot better in a film. The book ending is okay for a book but would have been deathly boring in a movie. You should see the movie if you get a chance, it's fun. ^_^

[lickingtoad.livejournal.com]

"American Gods." Go now, seriously. :)

[annathepiper]

Hee, yeah, that's also on solarbird's shelf. (I swiped her copy of Stardust.) I am now seriously eying American Gods for after I make another serious dent in my own unread books!

[mamishka.livejournal.com]

For me, reading the book without the art is, well, only getting half the experience. I was quite horrified when it was released as just a novel. I think it was in an effort to get Gaiman's 'writing' cred up, since he mostly was only know as a 'comic book' author. But yeah, I wouldn't have bothered to read it if there hadn't been the art.

[annathepiper]

Makes sense. Dara was telling me that she feels it's the least of Gaiman's works. Once I make more of a dent on my To Read shelves, I think I'll be swiping her copies of Neverwhere and American Gods, too.