Is it my imagination, or has Gaiman just not been as good as he used to be?
AMERICAN GODS was a good read, but it was the only time Gaiman was ever...well, predictable: the moment they mention Wednesday's aspect as a god of death, you got the feeling they were setting you up for something. I actually "called" the plot of a Gaiman book the way one would a formula romantic comedy.
I have not yet read ANANSI BOYS, as I have yet to get on an airplane since that book came out.
And here we have more of Gaiman:
First, the title, "The Myth of Superman" is so infuriatingly pretentious it makes me want to throat punch whoever came up with it. Can this really be the same guy that years ago, said "I hate it now that comic books are serious and called 'Graphic Novels' and there was something slightly disreputable about the job" ?
Schwartz quit writing Superman because his bosses were telling him to put in things that he thought were out of character. That was admirable, but really, the specific stories we tell about Superman – the what-happened and what-he-did – don’t matter that much.
Did Gaiman just ask Grant Morrison to ghost-write this article for him?
Wrong, Neil. The specific stories DO matter. Because Superman is nothing like a folktale character; he is three dimensional in the sense that he can remember his past, and the past can be used to influence his characterization. Thus, his characterization is entirely dependent on his past and what happened to him, his "previous" and "specific" stories.
And speaking as someone that read the Karl Kesel and Byrne stories that followed Schwartz's departure...Julie had a pretty darn good reason for thinking they were doing out of character things contrary to the spirit of the character.