sundries

[rm]

No major re-writes! Also my editor is awesome and thoughtful and willing to take the material as seriously as I do. It's great.

On the other hand, the Internet at home is broken and may not be fixed until Sunday. I've finally stopped freaking out about it, but Not Cool.

SAG got money out of Enchanted for me. How satisfying. That whole thing was so ugly.

I've applied for two Guide positions at About.com, which as many of you know was my employer back in the previous millenium. I don't know how they feel about an ex-employee being a guide, or even if they got my guide apps as the confirmation emails never came (and weren't even in my spam box), but it would be a good step towards yet more freedom for me. I've applied in both the dance and celiac areas, but I suspect I am more qualified for the dance one.

Comments

...

[keith418.livejournal.com]

I started reading Sandman when it started and have read all of Gaiman's work in comics. I don't think he's a bad writer, but his chief flaw is his sentimentality which usually serves to ruin most of what he attempts. This kind of sentimentality, however, is what his fans respond to. When people rave about him I usually think it's because they haven't been very much exposed to other, better writers.

Re: ...

[rm.livejournal.com]

I think you're right that it's the sentimentality which people respond to (and it's also what turns me off), but most of the devotees I know are exceptionally well-read, so I actually have no idea what it does for them (although I suspect it is that they romanticize childhood far more than I do).

...

[keith418.livejournal.com]

When i first responded to your post, I thought of asking whether you'd read his work on Miracleman. Then I recalled that I was thinking about Alan Moore's work on that ill-fated title. Gaiman's work on it wasn't nearly as interesting.

Before Gaiman came along, other writers had tried to do his kind of "cutesy" and failed. I'm thinking of J.M. DeMatteis's Moonshadow in particular - a work that could send anyone into a diabetic coma. I think Gaiman's appeal is also broader, gender-wise. DeMatteis's appealed more to sentimental men. Gaiman hooked everyone. You know my rant thinking about bourgeois sentimentality, so I'll stop here...

Re: ...

[00goddess.livejournal.com]

I found "Stardust" to be weak because it was so very cutesy. On the other hand, I really enjoy "American Gods"- I think people who dislike it take it far too seriously. A (rather cranky) friend of mine panned it partially on the grounds that "it sucks when authors try to write books 'about America,'" but I don't think it's really a book "about America." I found it to be quite sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek and amusing and literary.

It's also the best I've ever seen out of him. "Anansi Boys" was disappointing. The Sandman books are okay but not amazing.