Skip to main content

How is the setting of American Gods significant to the overall meaning of the story?

This novel by Neil Gaiman, currently being produced as a TV mini-series, follows number of characters who interact with people who claim to be ancient gods. These gods have decided to try and resurrect their cults of worship in the United States, where, after centuries of displacement following immigration from Europe and elsewhere, their followers have largely forgotten them. The idea is that the gods were worshipped more enthusiastically in their native regions where their origins lie. And so the American setting of this novel becomes very significant.


The novel has been called a "road trip" novel since there is a great deal of traveling that occurs and important events that take place in these locations, all serving to advance the plot. The main character Shadow is released from prison and meets a man named Wednesday who invites him to work for him, and this involves travel from the start. There are a number of iconic American cities featured in the novel, like Los Angeles or Chicago, and the features specific to the cultures of these cities affect the things characters do there. Shadow is a mortal character who is chosen to help the gods bring about a kind of final battle for dominance within their pantheon. He hails from a small town in Indiana called Eagle Point, and this centrally located rural location is also significant. Indiana is a state located in what is known as America's "heartland"--a central region known for farming and agriculture, and its flat landscapes. The novel's plot takes Shadow to other places in the midwest, including locations in Illinois, Wisconsin and Kansas. Some of these locations are real, and some fictitious; and some of them have dramatic landscape features (like large rock outcroppings or lakes) that become associated with human sacrifices to the gods.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.