Re: so - conversation - what's everyone watching these days?

In article <478b100f$0$31773$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"It's just me..." <Ivory@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> spake thusly:

> > Unfortunately, the first book in the 10-volume anthology ("Preludes
> > and Nocturnes") is relatively weak, up to a certain point.  So you
> > kinda have to slog through most of the first book before it really
> > becomes special.  Sorry.  The second book is consistently good, and
> > the third book is amazing.

> I disagree.  The first volume accomplished what it set out to do.
> It was a quest of sorts and the various issues/stories were meant to
> mimic different schools of horror/fantasy writing.  It's got many
> excellent stories in it even before "The Sound Of Her Wings"

<shrug>.  Sure, it accomplishes what it set out to do.  And it's even
crucial to the story -- events and characters introduced before "The
Sound of Her Wings" are referred to throughout the rest of the series,
and are crucial to its ending.  So one really should read through the
early stories rather than skipping them.  But unlike most of the rest
of the series, that first section is not particularly subtle, or
overlaid with meaning, or even very original.  The first 7 stories are
not *bad* -- they're just not particularly good.  Or as I said
earlier, "relatively weak."

I find it telling that, even though you defended early Sandman, you
knew the *exact* point at which I thought Sandman became good without
my saying so explicitly.  You are indeed correct -- the first one I
liked was "The Sound of Her Wings."  :)

Note that the point of my message was: if you don't like most of the
first book, keep going, because it picks up later.  So if someone
starts reading and *does* like the first book, then they don't need to
worry about it.  :)

[Yes, I am a Gaiman fan.  But apparently not as big of a Gaiman fan as
Tim. . .]

- Morty