Hi all,

I am the moderator for this book this month. I've already finished the book and will be interested in finding out what you think of it and how it differs from his other books.

I expected so much more from this. Gaiman had a great idea, and it was laced with loads of fascinating characters, but he failed to take it to any step that might make this a classic. Because so much of this is centered around death, and the afterlife, it really needed a strong belief in...something. As a Christian, I would have liked to see something that gave this meaning and pointed towards God. But that wasn't necessary. He could have given it any spiritual meaning and it would have helped. Instead, it fell flat, and was simply a cute, odd, yet soulless story that will easily be forgotten.

Hi M.d.

Jason wrote: "Because so much of this is centered around death, and the afterlife, it really needed a strong belief in...something."

It seems to me that a spiritual message would have contradicted what Gaiman seemed to say with the book's ending, that we should be focused on the life ahead of us, rather than the death ahead of us (or behind us).

Jason wrote: "Because so much of this is centered around death, and the afterlife, it really needed a strong belief in...something

Jason - I'm sorry the book didn't meet your expectations but I came away with a very different analysis. I love this book and consider it an instant classic because of its powerful story and themes. I felt the story had a lot of depth and "soul". While Gaiman did not promote any specific spiritual view that was not the intention of the book; in fact, I think he did a nice job of allowing each reader to maintain their own vision or belief regarding the afterlife while still being able to enjoy this story. To me, the book was about what makes life worth living - friendship, love, faithfulness, loyalty, humor etc. This was the message, embrace life's good and bad, believe in yourself and live it. These themes were powerfully enhanced by the perspectives of those who have finished living their lives. Bod was able to learn from people with 20/20 hindsight, for good or bad - what a unique gift. I think the actual focus on the book is on life, not death.

Greyweather wrote: "It seems to me that a spiritual message would have contradicted what Gaiman seemed to say with the book's ending, that we should be focused on the life ahead of us, rather than the death ahead of us (or behind us)."

I think you make a very good point there.

I found the murder-mystery plot rather distracting when compared to Bod's other adventures in and around the graveyard, growing up among ghosts. As a result, I enjoyed the first half of the book more than the last part. Just the very concept of a boy being raised in a graveyard is so interesting--and I think Gaiman did quite a bit with the concept, but he did it so well that now I'm left wanting more ... more ... brains. Braiiiins.

Yes, that's right. I've become a The Graveyard Book zombie. Brains.

That is all.

I pretty much agree, Ben. I thought the part with the Jacks was the weakest part - partially because they were kinda lame as villians, and partially because it seemed sort of out of wack with the rest of the story. Granted I suppose it's necessary in that the murders is what set-up the situation in the first place, and that needed to be resolved. I mean, you could just make it a random burglary gone wrong or something, but there had to be a reason to keep Bod in the graveyard, and the fact that he was only really safe there played into that, and so on and so forth.

I was also really upset with Scarlett sort of turning on Bod, and being upset with him for, essentially, saving their lives. Ok, yes, he did use her as bait, and I'd probably be upset with him for that, too, but calling him a monster because he took care of people who were trying to kill him? I agree with Silas - I think she did him a diservice.

But, then, I was also a bit annooyed with Gaiman because, damnit, I wasn't prepared for a sad ending. *sniffs*

Libby,
Point taken, and you might be right, as well as Greyweather. He probably gains more readers this way, being vague. And if that is his goal, he did a great job. But the current culture is so focused on not saying anything concrete that it drives me a little mad.
But as a story goes, this was a fun read. And as I said, great characters.
And just a note to blackrose, shouldn't a book entitled "The Graveyard Book" have a sad ending? I'd have been mortified if it had ended with a Disney ending. :)

In Gaiman's own words, the moral of the story is that life is worth living... the book isn't about death, it's about life.

And I misspoke when I said it was a sad ending - it was more a bitter sweet ending. Kind of like high school graduation - sweet because of what you've accomplished and because there's your whole life ahead of you, but bitter because of all the friends you'll generally leave behind.

Not really sure why it would have to have a sad ending, though, just because of the name. It wasn't the graveyard part of the book that was sad, afterall - it was the leaving it part. It's the living part that's scary, and hard, and sad. It would've been a happy ending, in some ways, if Bod had died and got to stay in the graveyard with his friends.

I haven't decided, really, if I think Gaiman achieve the "life is worth living" moral of the story - for me, at least. Perhaps if there is a sequel and we see that Bod was able to make something of his life, maybe then.

Oh, btw, this does have a Disney ending - at least it does if you count Bridge to Terabithia which has a similar moral, in many ways, and was also depressing as hell.

I, too, felt the Jacks part was the weakest part of the book, a sort of rationalization at the end for the killing of Bod's family.

I agree, though, that the book is about celebrating life, but also about the value of family -- they're not necessarily perfect but they are there when you need them most. It's also a message that family isn't necessarily blood, but whoever you feel kinship with.

M.d. - I like that and I think that, in a lot of ways, the thing you said about family is much clearer and stronger in that book than the other. I like it - and so I'll happily steal it from here on out as to my chosen moral for the story. :)

Jason wrote: "Libby,
Point taken, and you might be right, as well as Greyweather. He probably gains more readers this way, being vague. And if that is his goal, he did a great job. But the current culture is so focused on not saying anything concrete that it drives me a little mad. "

I think more people are just more comfortable admitting that they don't know about the afterlife than they were, say, thirty years ago. That tends to reflect in popular culture, including the literature. Of course, I certainly don't know enough about Gaiman to make any absolute statements about his personal beliefs (or lack thereof).

Gaiman has quite an impressive amount of knowledge when it comes to beliefs of various cultures. You should check out the Sandman series, if you haven't already.

Jason wrote: "But the current culture is so focused on not saying anything concrete that it drives me a little mad.."

I can certainly understand this frustration. We have become a culture where people fear any absolute. This can run dangerously close to apathy which I believe is the most dangerous state of mind. But I also agree with Jill that "people are just more comfortable admitting that they don't know about the afterlife than they were, say, thirty years ago". Faith is more open to discussion now that it has ever been.

Like Jason, I am a Christian and have firm beliefs regarding the afterlife. However, I often shy from books that spell out what to believe unless I am looking for a faith-based read, and if that is the case I prefer non-fiction. In this work, I welcome Gaiman’s approach because I think it is thought-provoking which I prefer above all else. IMO it is much more beneficial for people to feel free to admit that they don’t know what they believe instead of just going along with the masses for fear of persecution. Freedom to question faith, any faith, creates a good atmosphere for discussion and personal exploration.

M.d. wrote: "I, too, felt the Jacks part was the weakest part of the book, a sort of rationalization at the end for the killing of Bod's family..."

Agreed - the Jacks weren't fully developed and their plot line was not as well knit to the story as it could of been. It seemed thrown in out of necessity.

I should preface my opinion of this book with the fact that I have never "got" Gaiman. His books are perfectly readable but I just don't seem to get the warm fuzzies that most people seem to get when reading Gaiman's work.

I read this book at the start of this year and enjoyed the "Jungle Book" parallels and Gaiman's refreshing prose. On the other hand though I was never truly engaged by the story, I never felt the compulsion to pick the book back up.

Definantly I miss for me. Pity I really want to like Gaiman.

Cicero wrote: "I should preface my opinion of this book with the fact that I have never "got" Gaiman. His books are perfectly readable but I just don't seem to get the warm fuzzies that most people seem to get wh..."

S'okay. I feel the same way about Stephen King and everyone thinks I'm a crazy person. And I work in an English department of a major college campus.

Not to highjack the thread but I've learned that author/book preference is completely personal. It's like love - sometimes it lacks rhyme or reason but it is what it is

I liked the book, but it felt too short to me. I would have liked more content. Not necessarily a different ending, because it made sense. But just more altogether. My primary feeling on finishing it was frustration, i.e. "...that's all?!?"

I put that down to it being 'for' children, but in looking back, I usually feel a little bit that way about all of his books. Maybe that's a compliment? I'm not sure. There is an incomplete vibe that I pick up, like he was tired of them and wanted to move on to the next project.

And for all you Gaiman fans out there, I'm NOT dissing him...really! He's good. (I think so too.)

I think Gaiman often leaves a lot to the imagination. He will give you part of the picture and then sort of let you fill it in the rest of the way for yourself. Which is often very okay with me.

I like that he will make references to things that are not fully explained, because you know in my real life when I walk past a couple arguing in the parking lot I may never find out why they are arguing. So for me it gives Gaiman's work this feeling of strange realism.

American Gods and Anansi Boys felt most complete to me. And I wouldn't mind a sequel...(hint, hint).

I just read a short story out there set after American Gods and it looks like there's still plenty of room to build that world. So we'll see...

Anansi Boys for me.

MB wrote: "I liked the book, but it felt too short to me. I would have liked more content. Not necessarily a different ending, because it made sense. But just more altogether. My primary feeling on finish..."

I also felt it was a bit thin, and I also mostly put it down to it being a kids book. I wanted to learn more about the other characters, but then realized that characters only exist inasmuch as they serve a function for the protagonist. This was Bod's story, afterall, as opposed to a story about the graveyard we see through Bod's eyes, which is what a lot of his adult books are like. (it's like how we think of our parents as children. We don't think of them as people with pasts and lives outside of us so much. We think of them in terms of function and what they mean to us.)

Of course telling myself this didn't stop me wishing for more.

I'm really curious if anyone here has kids they read it to/with and what their reaction and thoughts were.

blackrose wrote: "M.d. - I like that and I think that, in a lot of ways, the thing you said about family is much clearer and stronger in that book than the other. I like it - and so I'll happily steal it from here ..."

LOL. Be my guest.

In a way TGB reminds me a bit of Zelazny's A Night in the Lonesome October where he's used fantasy and horror archetypes to flesh out the story. It's derivative, so Gaiman had to leave his characters sort of vague, otherwise it would have felt like cheating-- unless he'd used it as a satire like Zelazny did, which Gaiman obviously didn't.

Gaiman has discussed possibly writing a sequel to The Graveyard Book. Check out his interview with Stephen Colbert -- his intention was to focus on that life is worth living. And I think he expressed that wonderfully through a setting in a graveyard. As kids weren't you fascinated with a graveyard? We had a game of tag called Ghost in the Graveyard. Oooh creepy (really was a hide n' seek-tag game). His characters were charming and an all together different family (not by blood but by bonds).

I expected the ending to be bittersweet so there was no shocker when I reached the end. It seemed fitting to end there - the beginning of a new chapter.

I cannot wait until this becomes a movie. We'll see how Hollywood may spin the novel (as they did with Stardust).

Tanja wrote: "Gaiman has discussed possibly writing a sequel to The Graveyard Book. Check out his interview with Stephen Colbert -- his intention was to focus on that life is worth living. And I think he express..."

I shudder at the thought of this being set into a movie. Why can't a book stand alone on its own magic? Why does it need to be validated by being made into a movie?

I don't think having a movie validates the book.

The movie is another layer of magic that the book alone has. This is why I am excited for the movie. I ADORE the book and will read multiple times. And now it'll become a feature film to watch multiple times.

M.d. wrote: "I shudder at the thought of this being set into a movie. Why can't a book stand alone on its own magic? Why does it need to be validated by being made into a movie?"

Because movies make more money?

Forgive my lack of cynicism for a moment, but I don't see adaptations into film as validation; I see them as veneration. It's not "your book is good enough to get the rubber stamp of Hollywood" but "we see something in your book, some spark of the imagination, that inspires us [and will hopefully make us lots of money:]."

Returning to the world of cynics, I'll also add that if I had a choice between an adaptation of a book I enjoyed and an original script, I'd probably choose the adaptation over the sort of "original" trash that Hollywood's been churning out....

I actually think that this book can potentially translate very well into a movie, considering the way it's written. Now, I do shudder at the thought of them trying to film 'American Gods' or 'Sandman' - both of which I've heard rumors off and on of them wanting to do. Those things are just so large in scope, I can't imagine the dessication that'll take place in the adaptation.

I think this book could be easily adapted, though, without really loosing much. I actually find myself wondering, lately, if Gaiman doesn't almost write things with the intent of having them adapted, anymore, since he does seem rather fond of the cross-over.

To compare this book to a piece of knitting: marvellous materials, gorgeous patterns, loose and sloppy tension.

blackrose wrote: "I actually find myself wondering, lately, if Gaiman doesn't almost write things with the intent of having them adapted, anymore, since he does seem rather fond of the cross-over."

Apparently not: "If you do that [i.e., write a novel so it will make a good movie:] you come up with a very broken-backed story."

Just finished -- I can say that this is easily my favorite Gaiman so far, and I consider myself a fan (though not an expert). I thought the language was simple and beautiful, with a few passages I had to go back and underline so I'll be able to find them again.

I said this in my review, but overall, it struck me as a really twisted version of Oh The Places You'll Go, if Seuss had thrown in ghosts and family-killers. I will definitely read this again.

To blackrose: I wonder if Gaiman doesn't so much write with the intention of his work becoming a movie, as with such a detailed visual image in his head and on the page that it just makes sense that it would translate to film. He came from a visual medium first, after all -- unless I'm mistaken on that?

And this just in: The Graveyard Book takes Hugo for Best Novel!

Audrarose wrote: "To blackrose: I wonder if Gaiman doesn't so much write with the intention of his work becoming a movie, as with such a detailed visual image in his head and on the page that it just makes sense that it would translate to film. He came from a visual medium first, after all -- unless I'm mistaken on that?"

I don't think you're mistaken, necessarily. He worked in journalism, and in book reviews, and wrote some short stories first, I think, but 'Sandman' is really what made him a name. And 'Neverwhere' was a screen-play before a novel, and he still does work on comics, so perhaps he just does come from a visual perspective.

blackrose wrote: "Audrarose wrote: "To blackrose: I wonder if Gaiman doesn't so much write with the intention of his work becoming a movie, as with such a detailed visual image in his head and on the page that it ju..."

I don't think he writes with an intention of making something that can translate into file - but I do think he is very visual. He likes to pair most of his work with visual intrepretation. It is an interesting aspect of his work.

For those interested you can watch Gaiman read TGB, chapter by chapter for free as he tours -

http://www.mousecircus.com/videotour.asp...

Just finished this book, and truthfully, I'm not a big fan of it. I thought it was lacking and bare. While some of you found the characters "charming", I found them really dull. The only two I really liked was the witch Liza, and 5yr old Scarlett. I don't know, I just didn't find the book too entertaining.

I don't think many writers create novels with the intention of making a movie deal.

And judging by interviews with Gaiman, he doesn't strike me as that type.

Just finished, and I enjoyed it, but felt it a touch thin, as most others seemed to. The Jacks in particular were not fleshed out at all, and Miss Lupescu's (sic) mostly off-screen death annoyed me. A character who got a whole chapter in an 8 chapter book deserves better.

On the other hand, Bod is well fleshed out and Scarlett's final actions, while disappointing, were in fitting perfectly with her character. She is not the sort to look deeper than her initial feelings and emotions, nor to analyze the reasons for them. This is a bit disappointing, but sets the stage for the excellent final chapter.

This is definitely an instant classic, and will be going on my re-read every year list. Gaiman is indeed a very visually oriented writer and I can see this book translated to a movie with ease. In my opinion, as the Jacks and Miss Lupescu aren't the focus of the story, they only necessitate a sketch or outline (almost ghostly!) compared to the more robust ghost characters who our main character of Bod needs to spend time with and learn from.

I wish I'd had this book to read as a preteen and I'll predict that I'm going to be gift-giving this for many years.

Juliezs wrote: "This is definitely an instant classic, and will be going on my re-read every year list. Gaiman is indeed a very visually oriented writer and I can see this book translated to a movie with ease. I..."

I recommend re-reading this one. I'm on my second pass and am enjoying it even more now that I know the story and can see previously unnoticed elements.

I sadly didn't love this book. I liked it, and even had intentions of loving it when I started reading (it's funny how our expectations can manipulate us sometimes). I did enjoy the book, but not overall. I enjoyed each little story separately--the dance macabre, the ghoul-world, the sleer, the Jacks. But I thought they made a very poor unified narrative. I wish the story could have been more cohesive, or more separated. A book of short stories about Bod and his adventures in the graveyard would have been really great. But instead I felt like the story was constantly trying to be both one unified narrative, and a series of independent thoughts simultaneously. I liked it, but it was disappointing.