American Gods...How is this good?

[hermes]

Yes, the show has a lot of extra stuff, and there are characters that are obviously getting a lot more protagonism, but I am fine with that. Mostly because my opinion of the book was that it had a pretty good premise and a masterful execution of said premise, but not much in terms of story. Much like in the book, I found those "coming to America" segments, or how they establish the gods living in the modern world a lot more interesting than the adventures of Shadow and Wednesday.

As an example, I know Bilquis is a lot more prominent in the series that she was in the books, even when they didn't established almost anything we couldn't infer from her mentions in the book. They didn't really changed the character, which is why I am fine with the changes. If I am going to be honest, I am more disappointed at the focus they put on Sweeney and Laura, because that is almost all new and in the book they both amount to very little, except for being "the eagles" of American Gods. But I guess they are fine, because sex and BLM is the new boogeyman everyone have to complain about...

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

I don't agree that the series is following the book. I pointed out earlier that after the first episode, the other seven episodes have used about 70 pages of content. The rest is added stuff. And I think the changes are there for political reasons, in making the story politically correct and politically relevant, rather than for entertainment.

Yeah, how dare those artists have opinions! Their job isn't to make artistic statements, damn it! Their job is to provide us with mindless escapism and distraction to fill the time between cradle and grave.
/sarcasm

Your sarcasm failed and was actually pretty accurate. If people want political art they'll seek it out. Most people just don't want to think about how shit life is for 40 minutes.

 

[happyninja42]

Yes, the show has a lot of extra stuff, and there are characters that are obviously getting a lot more protagonism, but I am fine with that. Mostly because my opinion of the book was that it had a pretty good premise and a masterful execution of said premise, but not much in terms of story. Much like in the book, I found those "coming to America" segments, or how they establish the gods living in the modern world a lot more interesting than the adventures of Shadow and Wednesday.

As an example, I know Bilquis is a lot more prominent in the series that she was in the books, even when they didn't established almost anything we couldn't infer from her mentions in the book. They didn't really changed the character, which is why I am fine with the changes. If I am going to be honest, I am more disappointed at the focus they put on Sweeney and Laura, because that is almost all new and in the book they both amount to very little, except for being "the eagles" of American Gods. But I guess they are fine, because sex and BLM is the new boogeyman everyone have to complain about...

They have to expand really, the book itself, if you stick just to Shadow and Wednesday's story, is pretty fucking dull to be honest. They drive to X location, see weird shit that makes Shadow go "WTF?" and Wednesday go "Lulz, lots of stuff you don't understand about the world! And no, I'm totes not going to tell you, now come along to the next weird place" to which Shadow responds "This shit is weird." Wash, rinse, repeat.

You liked the book's execution, I personally found the book really dull. Like you, I thought the premise was solid (being a fan of the game Scion made me really enjoy it), but the book was just...boring in a lot of parts. The protagonist was lifeless (yes I know on purpose, still makes him dull), the plot was very linear, and very little in the way of surprises happened.

So I'm 100% fine with the show expanding on what was a very bare bones story, that had a great premise, to make it more interesting and engaging.

 

[hermes]

Yes, the show has a lot of extra stuff, and there are characters that are obviously getting a lot more protagonism, but I am fine with that. Mostly because my opinion of the book was that it had a pretty good premise and a masterful execution of said premise, but not much in terms of story. Much like in the book, I found those "coming to America" segments, or how they establish the gods living in the modern world a lot more interesting than the adventures of Shadow and Wednesday.

As an example, I know Bilquis is a lot more prominent in the series that she was in the books, even when they didn't established almost anything we couldn't infer from her mentions in the book. They didn't really changed the character, which is why I am fine with the changes. If I am going to be honest, I am more disappointed at the focus they put on Sweeney and Laura, because that is almost all new and in the book they both amount to very little, except for being "the eagles" of American Gods. But I guess they are fine, because sex and BLM is the new boogeyman everyone have to complain about...

They have to expand really, the book itself, if you stick just to Shadow and Wednesday's story, is pretty fucking dull to be honest. They drive to X location, see weird shit that makes Shadow go "WTF?" and Wednesday go "Lulz, lots of stuff you don't understand about the world! And no, I'm totes not going to tell you, now come along to the next weird place" to which Shadow responds "This shit is weird." Wash, rinse, repeat.

You liked the book's execution, I personally found the book really dull. Like you, I thought the premise was solid (being a fan of the game Scion made me really enjoy it), but the book was just...boring in a lot of parts. The protagonist was lifeless (yes I know on purpose, still makes him dull), the plot was very linear, and very little in the way of surprises happened.

So I'm 100% fine with the show expanding on what was a very bare bones story, that had a great premise, to make it more interesting and engaging.

For the record: I liked the book's execution of the premise, not of the story. Shadow is an uninteresting character until half way into the book, and even then he is more of a connecting excuse for the weird shit... That is why I found a lot of those little segues about ancient gods and personifications (a topic for which Gaiman is second to none) a lot more interesting than "the main plot".

 

[Breakdown]

I don't agree that the series is following the book. I pointed out earlier that after the first episode, the other seven episodes have used about 70 pages of content. The rest is added stuff. And I think the changes are there for political reasons, in making the story politically correct and politically relevant, rather than for entertainment.

Yeah, how dare those artists have opinions! Their job isn't to make artistic statements, damn it! Their job is to provide us with mindless escapism and distraction to fill the time between cradle and grave.
/sarcasm

So a more faithful adaptation of the Hugo and Nebula award winning novel American Gods would just be mindless escapism and distraction, but the addition of some really blunt and awkward political subtexts is an artistic statement?

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I'm not really feeling the shows characterization for Anansi. In the book he was a little old man with a dirty sense of humor and a mischievous streak. Making him more like civil rights activist misses the point a bit, to be honest.

 

[Breakdown]

Your sarcasm failed and was actually pretty accurate. If people want political art they'll seek it out. Most people just don't want to think about how shit life is for 40 minutes.

All art has an inherent political dimension to it because it's made by human beings. It's a question of degrees, not absence or presence.

So a more faithful adaptation of the Hugo and Nebula award winning novel American Gods would just be mindless escapism and distraction, but the addition of some really blunt and awkward political subtexts is an artistic statement?

Just my usual response to people bitching about politics in art. Not saying you have to like the show, just put a little more thought into how you present your arguments.

By your own admission you posted a generic sarcastic reply to my post, but you expect me to put more effort into my arguments?

 

[hermes]

I don't agree that the series is following the book. I pointed out earlier that after the first episode, the other seven episodes have used about 70 pages of content. The rest is added stuff. And I think the changes are there for political reasons, in making the story politically correct and politically relevant, rather than for entertainment.

Yeah, how dare those artists have opinions! Their job isn't to make artistic statements, damn it! Their job is to provide us with mindless escapism and distraction to fill the time between cradle and grave.
/sarcasm

Your sarcasm failed and was actually pretty accurate. If people want political art they'll seek it out. Most people just don't want to think about how shit life is for 40 minutes.

Wait... you are telling me a show that in the first episode had a woman eating a man through her vagina, and a black man getting lynched and hanged got political and visually controversial on the following episode?
Who could have seen it coming?

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I'm not really feeling the shows characterization for Anansi. In the book he was a little old man with a dirty sense of humor and a mischievous streak. Making him more like civil rights activist misses the point a bit, to be honest.

I have similar feelings. Mr. Nancy was one of my favorite characters in the book and one of the more sympathetic gods. I'm not surprised Gaiman decided to wrote another novel with him.
I'm not really liking the changes they made to his character, and his "Coming to America" story - that part was better handled in the book.

 

[Tanis]

I've enjoyed it, but, yeah...I could do with a bit less TnA.

 

[happyninja42]

Random thought I just remembered, what is with the buffalo with the flaming eyes that Shadow sees in his dream/visions?

I don't remember the details of the book, but it LOOKS like it's a representation of White Buffalo Woman from Native American mythology, but every time I've seen it, it's standing in front of the sacrificial tree that is very much a Norse/Odin thing.

Is that supposed to be his mother's side of the god debate trying to get his attention? Or is there some connection between Odin and buffalo with flaming eyes that I've never recalled before?

 

[Breakdown]

Random thought I just remembered, what is with the buffalo with the flaming eyes that Shadow sees in his dream/visions?

I don't remember the details of the book, but it LOOKS like it's a representation of White Buffalo Woman from Native American mythology, but every time I've seen it, it's standing in front of the sacrificial tree that is very much a Norse/Odin thing.

In the book it's a man with the head of a buffalo, so probably not.

 

[happyninja42]

Random thought I just remembered, what is with the buffalo with the flaming eyes that Shadow sees in his dream/visions?

I don't remember the details of the book, but it LOOKS like it's a representation of White Buffalo Woman from Native American mythology, but every time I've seen it, it's standing in front of the sacrificial tree that is very much a Norse/Odin thing.

In the book it's a man with the head of a buffalo, so probably not.

Was that a representation of Odin at some point in mythology? Him being a beast-headed person? I'm just curious if that is something that is actual mythology for Odin, or something Gaiman made whole-cloth for his book. Implying that Odin is older than even the name Odin, and that's some prehistoric representation of him or something.

 

[Breakdown]

Random thought I just remembered, what is with the buffalo with the flaming eyes that Shadow sees in his dream/visions?

I don't remember the details of the book, but it LOOKS like it's a representation of White Buffalo Woman from Native American mythology, but every time I've seen it, it's standing in front of the sacrificial tree that is very much a Norse/Odin thing.

In the book it's a man with the head of a buffalo, so probably not.

Was that a representation of Odin at some point in mythology? Him being a beast-headed person? I'm just curious if that is something that is actual mythology for Odin, or something Gaiman made whole-cloth for his book. Implying that Odin is older than even the name Odin, and that's some prehistoric representation of him or something.

I'm not sure, I'm about half way through reading it again but I can't remember much of what happens at the end.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Random thought I just remembered, what is with the buffalo with the flaming eyes that Shadow sees in his dream/visions?

I don't remember the details of the book, but it LOOKS like it's a representation of White Buffalo Woman from Native American mythology, but every time I've seen it, it's standing in front of the sacrificial tree that is very much a Norse/Odin thing.

Is that supposed to be his mother's side of the god debate trying to get his attention? Or is there some connection between Odin and buffalo with flaming eyes that I've never recalled before?

In the book the buffalo-man was a personification of America, iirc. Litteraly the land of America(s). I think at one point he says (paraphrasing, from memory)"I am this soil." And to make things more complicated, book implies he's not quite a god, but something different.
The tree is a thing from norse mythology. And at one point it will become very important to both Wednesday and Shadow, without spoiling too much.

 

[happyninja42]

Random thought I just remembered, what is with the buffalo with the flaming eyes that Shadow sees in his dream/visions?

I don't remember the details of the book, but it LOOKS like it's a representation of White Buffalo Woman from Native American mythology, but every time I've seen it, it's standing in front of the sacrificial tree that is very much a Norse/Odin thing.

Is that supposed to be his mother's side of the god debate trying to get his attention? Or is there some connection between Odin and buffalo with flaming eyes that I've never recalled before?

In the book the buffalo-man was a personification of America, iirc. Litteraly the land of America(s). I think at one point he says (paraphrasing, from memory)"I am this soil." And to make things more complicated, book implies he's not quite a god, but something different.
The tree is a thing from norse mythology. And at one point it will become very important to both Wednesday and Shadow, without spoiling too much.

Oh I'm aware of the tree, and it's context in the story, and norse mythology. My confusion was the addition of the buffalo to the tree sequences. I wasn't sure if it was something Norsish that I'd just never seen, or something else. Apparently it's something else.

 

[RedRockRun]

Has anyone else noticed that Norsemen in America are usually portrayed as evil (Pathfinder) or hapless fodder (Valhalla Rising)?

 

[Cowabungaa]

TV Mr Nancy is a BLM preacher who thrives on death and destruction and keeps telling people to get angry to get shit done. His character has obviously been changed for political reasons.

Mr. Nancy basically made his believers commit suicide by sinking that slave ship. Just think about that.

Also, the entire idea of American Gods is how the gods adapted with their believers to new circumstances, all in various ways. A West-African trickster god getting infused with the new anger of his followers makes perfect sense.

And get that 'politically correct' bullshit out of here. That term has pretty much no goddamn meaning any more and it's just used to slam down on anything that taps into the zeitgeist of the not-conservative part of today's Western culture. It's empty, reactionary nonsense against something certain people find threatening. Change is scary, isn't it?

I'm not really feeling the shows characterization for Anansi. In the book he was a little old man with a dirty sense of humor and a mischievous streak. Making him more like civil rights activist misses the point a bit, to be honest.

Well, they updated the story to today's culture, didn't they? The book, published in 2001, is basically a depiction of late-90's culture. Things were a little different back then so it's unreasonable to make certain gods a little different as they adapt to their people's current situation. I mean, they updated Technical Boy as well and included that little thing about extremist fighters destroying that fertility temple.

 

[Breakdown]

TV Mr Nancy is a BLM preacher who thrives on death and destruction and keeps telling people to get angry to get shit done. His character has obviously been changed for political reasons.

Mr. Nancy basically made his believers commit suicide by sinking that slave ship. Just think about that.

Also, the entire idea of American Gods is how the gods adapted with their believers to new circumstances, all in various ways. A West-African trickster god getting infused with the new anger of his followers makes perfect sense.

And get that 'politically correct' bullshit out of here. That term has pretty much no goddamn meaning any more and it's just used to slam down on anything that taps into the zeitgeist of the not-conservative part of today's Western culture. It's empty, reactionary nonsense against something certain people find threatening. Change is scary, isn't it?

I'm not really feeling the shows characterization for Anansi. In the book he was a little old man with a dirty sense of humor and a mischievous streak. Making him more like civil rights activist misses the point a bit, to be honest.

Well, they updated the story to today's culture, didn't they? The book, published in 2001, is basically a depiction of late-90's culture. Things were a little different back then so it's unreasonable to make certain gods a little different as they adapt to their people's current situation. I mean, they updated Technical Boy as well and included that little thing about extremist fighters destroying that fertility temple.

I wasn't that familiar with Anansi, but wikipedia states that he was a symbol of slave survival and resistance, turning the table on oppressors through cunning and trickery. That would have been a more authentic approach to take, rather than a god who just gets his followers to kill themselves and then feeds on their death.

The term politically correct is more relevant than ever. It's particularly relevant in American Gods, where you have multiple examples of political correctness interfering in storytelling, structure and characterisation. I guess you don't feel comfortable talking about politics in popular culture, which is fine, I'm not judging.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I wasn't that familiar with Anansi, but wikipedia states that he was a symbol of slave survival and resistance, turning the table on oppressors through cunning and trickery. That would have been a more authentic approach to take, rather than a god who just gets his followers to kill themselves and then feeds on their death.

The term politically correct is more relevant than ever. It's particularly relevant in American Gods, where you have multiple examples of political correctness interfering in storytelling, structure and characterisation. I guess you don't feel comfortable talking about politics in popular culture, which is fine, I'm not judging.

Except that the whole point of American Gods is how authenticity is abandoned, gods had to adapt living in a new world with new believes. The fertility goddess spreading her 'religion' through Tinder, Vulcan harnessing the power of fire in guns, all that jazz. The Anansi in the show knows about how his people was suppressed. And believe me, even in the real world slavery resistance was often quite violent, so if Anansi was a symbol for that he was often a symbol for violence as he is in the show.

The term politically correct is more relevant than ever. It's particularly relevant in American Gods, where you have multiple examples of political correctness interfering in storytelling, structure and characterisation. I guess you don't feel comfortable talking about politics in popular culture, which is fine, I'm not judging.

I'm so not comfortable with it that I mentioned it thoroughly, I wonder how that works? I never mentioned relevance, I mentioned meaning. It's a hollow term, meaning whatever the fuck scared reactionaries want it to mean. If it ever had any inherent meaning it lost it all in the past couple years. You too throw it around but what are you really saying, hm?

For crying out out conservatism is dominating politics and the public debate all throughout the West. You know what's being 'politically correct'? Shouting that things are politically correct and that that's bad. That's the new normal. Congratulations, you're the devil you seem to loathe. See how that goes? Two can play that game. Throwing around 'political correct' as if it's some kind of twitchy reflex has no point other than labeling something as bad. It doesn't bring anything to a conversation regarding politics and culture. Calling something 'politically correct' is a conversation stopper, if anything.