#sorry to prev anon that I continue to fear maintagging a thing

[equalseleventhirds]

I really like and agree with your post on GO s2. I haven't finished it and don't really have any interest in finishing, bc it does feel so different from the story that I've been a fan of since I've read it when I was like, 11. I think it falls into a lot of the traps that other entertainment products have fallen into when they focus in on a sidecharacter (even if those characters have a lot of prominence in the narrative) in that the reason fans gravitate to those characters is bc of their relationship to the rest of the world. You've outlined it very well in your post that humans (not just 'humanity' as a concept, but actual fleshy people doing things) are so central to GO the book. And they are also the background to a lot of the story, it's the world that gives dimension to the characters and the world of book GO is so populated with little human anecdotes that are not plot relevant but are important for the texture, the feel of the story. I think you can really see that Neil Gaiman has no experience with being a showrunner, and without the anchor of the book he falls into a lot of pitfalls re pacing, scope, worldbuilding, that make the central characters fall flat. You can be a good writer but writing for the screen is a specific skillset and running a show even more so, and I think the lack of technical skills in those areas really shines through here and makes the product as a whole not work.

hey anon, thanks for this! I had to wake up properly to read it so it took me a minute but here I am.

i think you're right about those elements of the book missing and how the focus on popular characters to the detriment of the larger world defs does fall flat, yeah.

idk enough about gaiman's tv career to really speak to whether it's an experience problem or not; to be fair, this is very much the sort of story that studios eat up, and, clearly, that audiences LOVE, and providing that is definitely a skill. it's simplified, it's dramatic and satisfying (for nonfans of the book), it's a very consumable and marketable narrative. to be fair.

(this is not to say that it's GOOD that this happens. I think fandom can elevate a work, but there's a trend in the industry towards the easiest marketable work, and that tends to cater towards the most boring aspects of fandom. like I get it but. grumblegrumblegrumble both sides BE BETTER.)

it's that comparison to the book, which for all its flaws (1990, etc) had a very different purpose and message, that kind of makes it go meh. and I'm not sure that's a problem of inexperience; I think it may be a problem of time passing, and gaiman as writer having a different sort of story he wants to tell about it (tv!gomens s1 was a love letter to sir terry pratchett, and I suspect was more about celebrating that friendship than staying true to the book's intentions; my personal feelings abt that choice, or gaiman's obliviousness to the messages so many ppl took from the book, are....... hm.)

......also as a longtime discworld fan, I have my suspicions that the things I miss most were heavily influenced by pratchett writing them. I've read books by both authors, and I think the bits about human people living their human lives being enough to change the universe show up more in pratchett's work. a bit. like I can't say for sure but I Suspect. u kno.