<i>American Gods</i> by Neil Gaiman

I liked the plot (well, except for the end) and the ideas, but the writing was horrible. Gaiman is the complete opposite of Vonnegut in style---he described in detail the character's apperaence, mind-set and actions. He provides details for the most mundane activities that a few words could easily convey. I felt myself wanting to pick up a pen and start editing the paragraphs. I did rewrite a few sentences in my head.

I was considering that Gaiman provided the detail to slow the reader down or to draw a distinction between Shadow's life and those of the gods. There is, though, much better methods for slowing down a story rather than giving intrecate stage directions. He also described the actions of the gods and their details in a simliar manner as he did those of Shadow's.

I did like the interludes---sort of background stories of the gods---that Gaiman added. Those were much crisper and better constructed in terms of detail than the rest of the rest of the book. I would have liked to read more of them.

The story, though, was good. I like the idea of gods floating around in modern times, trying, much like the rest of us, to find a place to fit in an always changing world. I had trouble, though, identifying many of the characters mythology. Gaiman was drawing from so many traditions, it was hard to keep track. I guess that is partly the point---that so many gods were brought to the US, that it is hard to keep track of them.

Overall, reasonably paced, poorly written, but a good story. Maybe a good book for a long plane flight where you can do little more than sit and read.

4/10

<i>Galapagos</i> by Kurt Vonnegut

I think this book typifies what I like about Vonnegut beyond his cynical nature. It took me reading part of a Wikipedia entry (warning, spoilers) on this book to realize that the big things that get me---why I keep coming back to his books---are his non-linear plots which tend to imply events rather than state them directly and his character descriptions, which are mostly done through the actions of the characters themselves rather than through formal descriptions. I guess I like to have room for my imagination to fill in the details of both the plot and character descriptions. I feel more invested in the book this way.

In this book, the narrator is a ghost explaining how the human race ends and, more importantly, how it is saved by a group shipwrecked on the Galapagos Islands. The ghost follows the group and their descendants for 1,000,000 years (not much of the middle is described, more the before and the after). The humans end up evolving much like their animal counterparts on the Galapagos, to a stasis point. Humans no longer have big brains. They live only to eat fish and lay in the sun and procreate. They still laugh when some one farts.

Definitely Vonnegut is questioning our modern society (the main portion of the book is set around 1986), showing us that so much of it is there merely to occupy our big brains, which have little to do since we are regularly safe from danger, hunger and cold. The resulting humanoids are safe, full and warm as well, but have lost what we consider a fundamental human quality: curiosity. The curious ones get eaten by sharks. They have reached a point where evolution stops (much like with the animals currently on the Galapagos), maybe similar to our current time with our big brains. But, the humanoids of Vonnegut's future have no charge to make things better. They have become a perfect fit for their geographic location. They are in their heaven and could imagine nothing further.

9/10

<i>The General and His Labyrinth</i> by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

This is a historical novel set in 1830 in South America as the Spanish are being ousted and the countries we currently know are being formed. Marquez handles the material well, balancing the historical fact with extrapolation of the characters' thoughts and actions. I didn't get the feeling that any part was patently untrue---his interpretation of the events were quite believable. In both the balancing and believability, I think Marques comes quite close to matching Shaara in The Killer Angles---one of the best pieces of historical fiction I have read.

Marquez's style here was as engaging as in 100 Years of Solitude, despite the historical setting. I like how the General was portrayed: as a man dedicated to an ideal even through sickness and lack of support. Most of the supporting characters---other than Jose Palacios and Manuela---tended to blend into each other and I was often forgetting who was who.

One of the best aspects of this book was the descriptions of the countryside and people. The General is moving about northern South America for much of the book and it is interesting how the reaction to him changes as he travels and how the description of the countryside tends to mirror those reactions: poor reactions in a swamp area, great reactions in the mountains. I really got a sense of the variety of political and environmental landscapes that existed during that time.

I was loaned this book by my thesis advisor. I'm not quite sure if he was trying to say anything with it. The General's labyrinth is his life's work: freeing and uniting all of South America. It seemed that as hard as he tried he was not able to find the way through to the ending he wanted. I hope my advisor isn't trying to say the same about my research---this method, though, seems a bit too subtle for him.