Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.93 AVERAGE
3.93 AVERAGE
I was under the impression this was supposed to have new stories. So far, nothing really new so much as a slightly different version of the book and the show.
Meh.
Meh.
I love American Gods. Turning it into a graphic novel is genius. That said, this GN is pretty text heavy, mostly verbatim from the book. Which is fine. If I hadn’t read the book in a while and I wanted a quick visual read, this would be great. But I read the book pretty recently, so I pretty much skimmed and just focused on the art. Which was good. Not my favorite, but good. But the chapter covers? I’m pretty GN illiterate, but the art at the beginning of each chapter that is different that the rest of the art? Those were mind-blowingly fantastic.
Lacks the pace and development and it's poorly crafted visually.
Given I've just re-read chapter 1 of AG, this is a remarkably accurate adaptation. Some things are interesting, where P.Craig chooses to turn text into thought bubbles or speech for example. Also an odd switch where Iceman is black and Johnnie Larch is white (I only noticed having just reread the chapter, but it does stand out as strange; Iceman as described in the novel does seem to fit the comments he makes) I imagined the Minotaur to be more frightening; in this the cover art was better than the comic art. However, the Bilquis scene was fantastic. It reminded me of 80's style art, something that might be drawn in a Dr Manhatten scene from the Watchmen comic perhaps, fantastical yet literal at the same time.
I'm eager to read more, to see the chapters come to life so accurately. I'm going to just gorge myself on this story between the comic, my re-read, and the TV show.
I'm eager to read more, to see the chapters come to life so accurately. I'm going to just gorge myself on this story between the comic, my re-read, and the TV show.
I was going to wait for these to come out in a collection, but I happened to be at the comic book store in Brockport and they had the first 6 issues on the shelf, with the P. Craig Russell covers. Sorry, credit card…
I love “American Gods”: it is easily one of my top ten favorite books of all times, and P. Craig Russell knows just how to turn Neil Gaiman’s words into beautiful illustrations (just see “Murder Mysteries” ), so I definitely picked this up with a favorable prejudice. But as you may know, when you love a book, you can easily get fiercely defensive if you feel the transition to another media doesn’t quite work…
This graphic novel really can’t be referred to as a comic book because it really is an illustrated version of the first chapter of the original novel. Not quite word for word, but it keeps Neil’s beautiful prose, making it rather text-heavy for a comic book, and guides you through the story with the illustrations. Now Russell is a bit abstract as far as comic artists go: if you are used to very sharp and highly detailed illustrations, you might find this a little vague and water-color-y. I personally really enjoy his style specifically because it is so unique and so different from traditional comic art, but it really is a question of personal taste.
If there’s any nitpicking to be done, I’ll go ahead and say that my only problem is that the characters look nothing like how I pictured them in my puny brain when I read the original novel (same goes for the cast of the TV show, and I loved it passionately anyway, so obviously it’s a minor nitpicking). As I read the book, I wondered: can I really hold it against an artist that they didn’t draw those characters exactly the way I had imagined them? I could, but that would hardly be fair: the poor guy is not in my head, and that’s not his job. So what if his Mr. Wednesday is not exactly like MY Mr. Wednesday? Isn’t it perfectly appropriate that we should all see him a bit differently?
Highly recommended to curious Gaiman newbies and fans of the book.
I love “American Gods”: it is easily one of my top ten favorite books of all times, and P. Craig Russell knows just how to turn Neil Gaiman’s words into beautiful illustrations (just see “Murder Mysteries” ), so I definitely picked this up with a favorable prejudice. But as you may know, when you love a book, you can easily get fiercely defensive if you feel the transition to another media doesn’t quite work…
This graphic novel really can’t be referred to as a comic book because it really is an illustrated version of the first chapter of the original novel. Not quite word for word, but it keeps Neil’s beautiful prose, making it rather text-heavy for a comic book, and guides you through the story with the illustrations. Now Russell is a bit abstract as far as comic artists go: if you are used to very sharp and highly detailed illustrations, you might find this a little vague and water-color-y. I personally really enjoy his style specifically because it is so unique and so different from traditional comic art, but it really is a question of personal taste.
If there’s any nitpicking to be done, I’ll go ahead and say that my only problem is that the characters look nothing like how I pictured them in my puny brain when I read the original novel (same goes for the cast of the TV show, and I loved it passionately anyway, so obviously it’s a minor nitpicking). As I read the book, I wondered: can I really hold it against an artist that they didn’t draw those characters exactly the way I had imagined them? I could, but that would hardly be fair: the poor guy is not in my head, and that’s not his job. So what if his Mr. Wednesday is not exactly like MY Mr. Wednesday? Isn’t it perfectly appropriate that we should all see him a bit differently?
Highly recommended to curious Gaiman newbies and fans of the book.
Full review: https://midnightvoltage.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/american-gods-1-comic-review/
4.5/5.
I had seen a lot of negative reviews about this online, and I don't really understand why. Yes, it's a very literal adaptation, but Gaiman's prose is so good and works so well I didn't mind. I guess in that sense this is less of a comic and more of an illustrated novel, because the art doesn't really add anything new to the story, but just sort of enhances the words--which I'm fine with.
The only negative thing for me was actually the art itself...which at the beginning made me rate this 3 stars, then slowly 4, but at the end I decided to go with 4.5. No, I wasn't a huge fan of the art, but despite all that, once I got into it I loved it. Sure, this is one of my all-time favorite books, and I really, really wish it could've had amazing art by Chris Riddell or Dave McKean or Greg Capullo (oh man that would be so utterly amazing) or any number of other artists.
I'm not a huge fan of Russell in general (though he's good at adapting things text-wise), and that's definitely the biggest hurt to this book. The backgrounds were fairly bland, and I'm not a fan of the style used for the faces. There were some really innovative things done in the last scene (which, warning, it is incredibly graphic, as is the novel itself), though, and I'm hoping the future issues are more like that.
Maybe I'm blinded in my love for the book and for Gaiman. But I don't care, because at the end of the day I loved it, despite the disappointing art.
4.5/5.
I had seen a lot of negative reviews about this online, and I don't really understand why. Yes, it's a very literal adaptation, but Gaiman's prose is so good and works so well I didn't mind. I guess in that sense this is less of a comic and more of an illustrated novel, because the art doesn't really add anything new to the story, but just sort of enhances the words--which I'm fine with.
The only negative thing for me was actually the art itself...which at the beginning made me rate this 3 stars, then slowly 4, but at the end I decided to go with 4.5. No, I wasn't a huge fan of the art, but despite all that, once I got into it I loved it. Sure, this is one of my all-time favorite books, and I really, really wish it could've had amazing art by Chris Riddell or Dave McKean or Greg Capullo (oh man that would be so utterly amazing) or any number of other artists.
I'm not a huge fan of Russell in general (though he's good at adapting things text-wise), and that's definitely the biggest hurt to this book. The backgrounds were fairly bland, and I'm not a fan of the style used for the faces. There were some really innovative things done in the last scene (which, warning, it is incredibly graphic, as is the novel itself), though, and I'm hoping the future issues are more like that.
Maybe I'm blinded in my love for the book and for Gaiman. But I don't care, because at the end of the day I loved it, despite the disappointing art.
Story good, naturally. Art not so good. I'm not feeling Scott Hampton's work on this. A shame.
I picked this up on a whim* at the comic book store having not read the book (although I keep meaning to - I think iI may even have a copy on the kindle) and quite enjoyed it. The art is good, but there's not enough story in this to really get into it and work out if I'm going to like it. Equally there wasn't enough there to make me immediately search out a copy of the book. I'm still on the fence for now.
*Ok, because the comic book guy suggested it because I read Rivers of London
*Ok, because the comic book guy suggested it because I read Rivers of London
