InsaneJournal

Review: Stardust, by Neil Gaiman
I wrote this during my scintillating job at the Pacific Science Center info desk, so if I suddenly start talking about Amazing Liquid Nitrogen And Hey, Let's Freeze A Rubber Glove, that's why.



I. The Book

The point of this book isn't the plot. Events happen more stacked on top of each other than they do interweaving--that is, there is no prevailing question of what'll appen next or who done it. Events are more random; anything can happen, contained within the umbrella of a man's overall journey (solely physical, not spiritual).

Which I mention because the point is not the characters, either. The main character, Tristran, is someone who experiences some slight growth over the course of the noevel, but we really don't have much investment in him. The star also seems to grow a bit into her humanity, but her conflicts between human and star nature only seem tangentially explored, like something incidental rather than consquential. We don't really seem to get to know any other characters besides the witch, and like other characters we don't know, the witch is static and 2d.

The point of the book, it seemed to me, was an exercise in style. The writing is lyrical, rhythmic, and full of imagery (particularly vivid imagination of color, which I noticed especially because it seems a sudden trend. Or does it just pop out at me recently because I'm only just now realizing how frightened I am of writing color? This bears further navel gazing in another post). I caught my breath many times over the beauty of this writing.

But this exercise was not only in beauty. I believe that the 2d-ness of the characters, the headlong, one thing after another nature of the plot, were purposeful choices meant to recall the style of a fairytale. Everything is so flat and archetypal in this novel, and yet so beautiful and steeped in a wondrous imagination and talent.

I'm not convinced, however, that this style entirely succeeds. There are elements of Grimm in it--in the constant death, the gore, the slavery and betrayal. There are also elements of modern in it--in the comical use of the word "fuck", the independence of the star (not the fact of said independence, but the nature of it), etc. Perhaps Gaiman is working to construct a new kind of fairytale, one that doesn't just follow the patterns of the past, but combines elements of them and fits our modern sentiment.

Again, I'm just not sure this experiment is effective. It felt like genre-bending in the way that is hodgepodgey and unfocussed rather than something innovative with its own kind of invented integrity. What made me particularly uncomfrtable with it is the question of who is this for? Not for me, since my kink is characters and there was little exploration of them here. Not for kids, considering the violence, though I suppose it could be YA. If it was an intellectual pursuit in the interest of said fairytale style, it certainly wasn't an intensive experiment (like Tolkien's). If it was just a romp--why wasn't it more fun?

(I'm interested in "who is it for?" mostly because I'm trying to understand why this book got made into a movie. It's an interest in the market/business side of literature, not a demand of art. As for art: it's not that I require art to have some over-reaching purpose, or any purpose at all. People can write for fun or to decorate toilet paper, for all I care. But with many books I don't like, I still understand why the author wrote it. When I don't understand that, I begin to wonder if there was something in the book I missed--some point or purpose that might make me enjoy it more. Because the author doesn't have to have any specific intentions in creating art, but I--personally, me, tkp--really have to get something from art, or else I don't appreciate. What I get might be just pleasure in beauty or the meaning of life, but it has to feel worth it to me. This book...didn't really. But it made me want to think it did.)

II. The Movie

The movie, in turn, is easily accountable as just a romp--which begs the question I've been asking in this post, and which is my primary reaction to both this book and movie: why? What's the point? Because the movie necessarily cuts out the most innovative, brilliant, and defining part of the book: the style in which it is written. Said style, however, is replaced with mitigating factors more traditional to "good" narrative: characters I'm far more interested in, and a plot with an actual climax, resolution, all that structure stuff.

A. Movie Characters Vs Book Characters

Yvaine - her fiestiness was shown in the movie, as opposed to it just being "told" in the book. Along with Claire Danes interpreting, this made Yvaine a much stronger and more likeable character.
Witch - in the book she was one among three and never distinguished. She worked completely in subservience to her goal; it defined her instead of she it. Pfeiffer, OTOH, was far more goofy and kind of clichely OTT, but at least she had a personality, and that made her far more entertaining.
Captain of the Airship - nonentity in the book, while he was the best part of the movie. Everything pertaining to Robert DeNiro was magical, creative, and funny. I was glad because DeNiro has not been impressive in a long time, and not had a good role in even longer.
Funny - not a character, but the movie was, and the book wasn't. This cinematic choice seems in line with expanding the plot and characters at the sacrifice of style--the movie made up for leaving out the magnificent writing by appealing to audience through a more assured method. Best example of this is the dead Stormwind brothers. They were funny in the movie, though a few times a little too OTT or silly. In the book, they weren't comical at all, but their voices were always described as winds or waves or the caws of birds, painting this surreal, almost magical realist atmosphere. I actually prefer the funny ones in the movie, though, due to the haphazard genre-mixy thing going on in the book.
Furry Little Man - nonentity in the movie, and good riddance.

III. In Conclusion

So overall I enjoyed the movie. It was some mindless magic and fun that did its job of entertaining me for a few hours, except for a couple of parts where I was bored. Now that I've read the book, though, I'm left wondering why this book, whose strength is style and not those more traditional narrative elements, got made into a movie as opposed to other fanciful-romp novels out there. Then again, as I've said, I don't quite get the point of the book in the first place.

There must be a funnier and more entertaining way to review. Info desk: You fail!