Im listening to the American Gods audiobook for the first time and I am looking all over reddit and the internet to see why we think Neil is talking about tits non stop in this book? Im listening to the extended version or the authors preferred text and most commentary I have seen about this book so far has dismissed the boob stuff as not that extreme but it seems like every woman is being described by her breasts first thing. Not once- but twice he has described mannequins and their sexless breasts. So not even just women are being described by the quality of their tatas.
Women in the midwest have pale breasts with veins like cheese, one guy doesnt prefer asses he prefers high perky breasts, the moon woman has nipples so insanely rock hard you can see the pores and bumps on her areoles through her nightgown.
Ill even give a pass to the goddess who sucked a man in through her cooter in chapter 1.
Will someone tell me that this is an intentional commentary or if this is pointless and consistent through the whole book?
Is this supposed to be a post-prison veil of pavlovian impulse to stare at tits whenever there’s a chance to? Id argue not, because Shadow isn’t the only one who loves a god set of knockers so far…
Is this what his editors made him take out of the original run and thats why most comments on similar posts dont think its too bad?
I usually read female authors but I love fantasy and was just reading the wrath of the gods which is written by a man and has two female main characters and I dont think it got this specific once. (Its a work in progress so I might be wrong)
I’m not exactly opposed to something being spoiled but don’t go too crazy here. I love the writing and I’m into this premise.
by tinydragon_420
7 Comments
Start this conversation on Tumblr and wait five minutes for Neil himself to swoop in
>Will someone tell me that this is an intentional commentary or if this is pointless and consistent through the whole book?
For my part, I think that no breast is pointless that is appreciated.
(trying to stick with non spoiler talk) the characters obsessed with tits are obsessed with tits in the versions of them we know too.
“Wednesday” has always been filthy
I’ve not personally read this one of Gaiman’s because of things I’ve heard about it like this, but I have heard that Neil himself has spoken about the fact he regretted the way women were written within this novel, including a specific mention that the only fleshed out woman character doesn’t actually have her own agencies.
I’m also aware there are suggestions his style was altered in some ways for this book in an attempt to break through to pop culture (which, I suppose worked) but whether that was by Neil or his editors, I think it’s clear this was not the right way to do it.
Neil Gaiman is my all time favorite author and this somehow manages to be my least favorite of his books. He tends to have a whimsical writing style that I love every minute of, but much of that is replaced with what could only be described as Hot Topic Neil
I do t recall that, but I do love most books by this author.
It definitely bothered me too. Not just the breasts, but the way women are portrayed in general. I feel like most first impressions/descriptions we get of female characters are very much based around their looks, and (correct me if I’m wrong) all of them are quite flat characters. So they’re mostly plot devices for the men’s story.
I love the plot and all the lore, but it was quite a disappointing read for me in that regard.
ETA: and to answer your question (oops!): Of course you can tell sexism/misogyny traditionally has a place within a lot of these mythological and religious stories and their characters, but I don’t know how intentional it was. If it was, it didn’t feel intentional *enough* to me. If that makes sense?
I also watched the series and I feel like there was a serious effort to combat this, and I’m sure Gaiman was part of that.