[Closed] Have we done Neil Gaiman yet?

Looks like we (you) have.

Aye, Gaiman being a wrong 'un has been very disappointing.

Good Omens was one of my favourite books as a teenager, I have read it over and over, I'm waiting for the kickerstarter comic to be sent out after backing it many moons ago.  Whether I read it or not I'm unsure.  The publicity of that book with SirTerryP in white and Gaiman in black now looks on the nose.

I've read all his books and passed Coraline and Stardust down to my daughters. This hurts the most.

Coraline has such a huge fan base with young girls, I'm hoping Laika can own the legacy of the film and separate from the author.

Power corrupts.  No excuses for what he has been accused of and his early protestations of being neurodivigent and not understanding have pissed me off no end.

I hope his victims get the support they need and he gets justice served, along with the people who have facilitated his behaviours.

We need to be better as men (society at large?) at listening to victims and denouncing these behaviours more loudly.  We need to set better examples for young men to follow.

He won't be the last manipulative arsehole to be outed, but it must become easier for bad behaviours to be reported and heard sooner rather than later so these ****ers actions are limited and not facilitated over decades.

I think that @twistedpencil has written pretty much the comprehensive response to this news.

@twistedpencil Well said. I loved Gaiman’s books, particularly American Gods, and I hoped my daughters would too when they’re old enough. I doubt I’ll read them again, never mind encourage my daughters to do so.

It seems (if the Vulture article is half true) that this has been a long-term pattern of behaviour, and others were at least complicit in covering it up. I hope justice is done.

Isn't there a new series of Good Omens about to start? I wonder what effect this news becoming more widespread will have on that.

Assuming it's all true, which I have no reason to doubt, the thing that pisses me off the most is that Amanda Palmer was seemingly complicit. (I haven't yet read the Vulture exposé and I'm not wholly certain that I want to.)

Gaiman I can accept with gross disappointment that he was a wrong 'un. Palmer would be the dead last person I'd have thought would be involved in anything like this; I've met her, she's a force of nature.

Isn’t there a new series of Good Omens about to start?

In production, unlikely to be finished.

I think there are two distinct things here that it's probably sensible to keep separate.

There is the man (and his deeds) and there is his work.

What does one have to do with the other?

Dont get me wrong, if this is true* then I won't be buying his books again (not in any form that would enrich him anyway) but I don't see why we should be self censoring his work, it just seems like a more polite form of book burning tbh. Reading his work doesn't condone his actions any more than driving a Volkswagen is a show of support for the Nazis.

*Innocent before proven guilty. FWIW his ego and self entitlement during covid spoke volumes of his character so I'm inclined to believe the allegations are credible.

I think there are two distinct things here that it’s probably sensible to keep separate.

You could spin up a Lost Prophets album whist you're reading.

I don't know, it's tricky. Separating art from artist perhaps needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis? The poster child here is probably JK Rowling, I'd happily consume an owned Harry Potter movie or book but I'll never pay for anything she's touched ever again.

Maybe that's the line in the sand? Will I buy another Gaiman novel, no; will I set fire to my existing ones, probably not because what does that gain anyone? The damage is done.

(I'm not wholly sure whether I own any Gaiman novels even, beyond Good Omens. I think everything I've read of his was borrowed.)

Isn’t there a new series of Good Omens about to start?
In production, unlikely to be finished.

Its in production just now -there had already been decision back in October  to  reduce it from a series to a single 90 minute episode and that Gaiman himself wouldn't be involved in the production.

It's an interesting conundrum. I assume no-one's got Gary Glitter in their playlist any more, but I'm not getting ride of Michael Jackson from mine.

We need to be better as men (society at large?) at listening to victims and denouncing these behaviours more loudly. We need to set better examples for young men to follow.

Had a horrendous conversation with a mate today when he told me his daughter had had to deal with a lot of harassment at her first works Christmas do last month.

We both struggle to understand how that can still be happening in this day and age. Even more telling that she doesn't want to report it, as a new grad placement in a male dominated industry.

I’m not getting ride of Michael Jackson from mine.

I'm unconvinced of Michael Jackson's wrongdoing. I think he was a child in a man's body - he named his ranch 'Neverland' for god's sake - and preferred the company of kids to adults. Then people see the weirdo as an easy target and we're away.

Mind you, I said much the same about Savile at the time and that aged poorly.

The poster child here is probably JK Rowling, I’d happily consume an owned Harry Potter movie or book but I’ll never pay for anything she’s touched ever again.

Maybe that’s the line in the sand? Will I buy another Gaiman novel, no; will I set fire to my existing ones, probably not because what does that gain anyone? The damage is done.

That's what I was getting at.

I think it's far better to acknowledge the crime and if you feel (mildly) strongly enough cease enriching the perpetrator than 'cancel' them and allow them to fade into obscurity.

Won't be spinning up any LP as they were shite anyway but that's a fair point and I'm not sure where the line is. Maybe it's where the media is about the artist rather than apart from them?

Kinda like when an actor turns out to be a total shite but the characters they played are still likeable. See Cas Anvar vs Alex Kamal. Of course the opposite also applies, you could have a decent person play a rapist/Hitler. The character l/story isn't necessarily a reflection of their character.

For me, I’d not be comparing difficulties in art acceptance and consumption of JK Rowling with Neil Gaiman. JK Rowling has a position on trans rights and the impact of their rights on the rights of women. One may find those views abhorrent, and that’s fine, I’m not a massive fan of all of them, but some, I find acceptable and agree with. It’s not like she’s gone full Graham Linehan.

Plenty of non TERF women also find her views perfectly acceptable.

For me, if the alleged actions of Neil Gaiman did actually happen, then he’s more of a scumbag than JK Rowling. By a few orders of magnitude.

I suppose we all have to define our own moral compasses. What someone else finds acceptable is neither here nor there, plenty of "non-TERF women" find her views despicable and plenty more are likely oblivious. I suspect that of those three demographics you've got the minority there.

Comparing JKR with Glinner a bit like arguing "who was the least worst Nazi"* or "who's the most talented member of East 17" or even "why aren't you out catching real criminals?" Has anyone stopped watching Father Ted in protest?

Bad things don't stop existing or are negated because worse things also exist.

(* - Godwin!)

We both struggle to understand how that can still be happening in this day and age.

The likes of Tate, Rogan, Musk, Frisella and Peterson have much to answer for. My daughter (25) has to vet the SM of boys that she's keen on before she'll go on a date, any sniff of these sort in re-tweets or likes, and she bins them off.

It’s an interesting conundrum. I assume no-one’s got Gary Glitter in their playlist any more, but I’m not getting ride of Michael Jackson from mine.

Theres a bit played  in the Joker climax scene, it does fit the scene well but err.

“who’s the most talented member of East 17”

I think you should take that back. Troubled people, with genuine talent at their peak, even if their work is not to your/my tastes.

Anyway, twistedpencil’s post puts everything I’ve been feeling about this perfectly. I’m not going to stumble in and make a mess of trying to put them down in my own words.

Perhaps. It was literally the first shit band I thought of. I'd struggle to name a single track of theirs beyond that Christmas one, and I can't immediately name that even. Could you name any of the band members beyond the pilled-up lead singer who managed to drive over himself due to a potato overdose?

Him, and Tony Mortimer. Can’t name either of the the others (who are still touring as East 17 and were meant to switch on Rawtenstall Christmas lights)

That's another few episodes of The Big Bang Theory they won't be able to show on repeat again (NG has a guest appearance and/or is mentioned in several episodes).

As a rule, that's one series that has not aged well!

I would say that more direct comparisons would be, would you still watch Woody Allen or Roman Polanski films?

For me, the answer would be no. As they are ‘tainted’. I suppose I find the thought I might actually enjoy them as being somehow unsavoury… (and make me complicit?). Not sure that that is entirely a rational approach mind.

Whilst I did enjoy American Gods, there was something about it that ‘I could exactly put my finger on…’ And I can’t see me re-reading it ever again.

would you still watch Woody Allen or Roman Polanski films?

I can't say as I'd have run out to watch any of those prior to any scandal. I always thought Woody Allen was overrated and I couldn't name a Polanski film other than Rosemary's Baby. Wasn't he convicted of being a nonce back in the 1970s?

Ah yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

On March 10, 1977, 43-year-old film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with six offenses against Samantha Gailey (now Geimer), a 13-year-old girl: unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. At his arraignment, Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges,[4] but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of the five more serious charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, and he was placed on probation. However, upon learning that he was likely to face imprisonment and subsequent deportation, Polanski became a fugitive from justice, fleeing to England and then France in February 1978, hours before he was due to be formally sentenced. Since then, Polanski has mostly lived in France and has avoided visiting any countries likely to extradite him to the United States.

Sounds quite the charmer.

I think Scalzi's take on it sums it up. Even if (very big if) his defence is true he still seems a truly shitty human being.

It does seem he was good at portraying the badguys behaviour in his books because, well, he is one. Not sure how that got balanced with the heroines and heroes winning though.

I am not quite sure overall where I stand on the (wo)man vs work thing overall especially the further back you go in time where standards will vary but do go for a simplistic if they are alive and I think they are an arsehole I will generally not hand over money which will benefit them.

So might still read some of the books of his I have although only a somewhat fan but wont buy new or watch his stuff.

I didn't know who he was but OH informs me she always thought he was a wrong 'un.

JK Rowling has a position on trans rights and the impact of their rights on the rights of women. One may find those views abhorrent, and that’s fine, I’m not a massive fan of all of them, but some, I find acceptable and agree with. It’s not like she’s gone full Graham Linehan.

I've got the pair of them at about the same point on my personal spectrum of despicablity, but they both seem to stick mostly to expressing themselves through the written and spoken word.

Direct physical, sexual, child and indeed emotional abusers are very different IMO, your comparing apples and oranges really.

The real question is can you separate the art from the artist and is there a 'tipping point'?

I've enjoyed Linehan's work in the past, I suspect a lot of us have, similarly while aspects of 'Eton for wizards' are in retrospect a little questionable, I can't deny my youngest loved it for a while (although she now does) and a whole generation found a lot of positive affirmation in Rowling's work. I'd rather not line either of their pockets much further but I see nothing wrong with their work and related media continuing to generate them income or indeed censoring either of them, that's not the world we live in, people with terrible ideas are still within their rights to share them with the world...

Gaiman too has produced books (and some derived media) that I also enjoyed, but Rapists, especially once they've been conclusively tried and convicted, are perhaps best nudged quietly out of our collective cultural memory.

If you think you're so big and important that you can get away with that kind of behaviour to another person, if your narcissism is that entrenched, then being 'cancelled' is another (lesser) form of punishment that's perfectly suitable (IMO)...

As others have noted, the world isn't much worse off for everyone quietly agreeing to no longer use or refer to Gary Glitter's back catalogue, or indeed Rolf Harris. Gaiman should expect similar treatment in (or rather out) of the public eye if he ends up being found guilty...

I’m unconvinced of Michael Jackson’s wrongdoing

I have no doubt at all.  He drugged and molested children.  He was also clearly badly damaged himself but while that may be a reason its never an excuse.

How do you feel about Bill Wyman?

I'm currently watching a Michael Jackson tribute act and the audience aren't up in arms about him. They seem to enjoy it. I think it's pretty rubbish.

I enjoyed the film Stardust and will probably watch again if it is ever shown on telly again. I don't think I've seen any of NG other stuff or read any of his books.

Theres a bit played  in the Joker climax scene, it does fit the scene well but err.

Rock an' Roll part 2 is a different thing all together in the States, It's a track used by loads of sports teams, I'd imagine most wouldn't know who Gary Glitter is, or even the name of the track, but ask an American what the "Hey Song" is, and most would've probably heard it in a stadium. . It's even been used in Northern Exposure.

Plenty of non TERF women also find her views perfectly acceptable.

That's one of those things where support however tacit makes the supporter as culpable as the accused( in the same way a woman can't be a little bit pregnant). From today we'll be able to watch in real time how that plays out for the trans community in USA.

@nickc Wikipedia reckons the NFL asked teams not to use it in 2012?

I would say that more direct comparisons would be, would you still watch Woody Allen or Roman Polanski films?

My convenient arrangement for things like this is that I allow myself to enjoy films, music etc. which is likely to have been made before the person became a wrong un'.

Hence, MJ's music up to Bad is fine, Woody's funny films still OK, and I could probably still watch Rosemary's Baby.

Films are a tricky one though, eh? Since they are such a team effort and in the case of Stardust it's arguably more of a Matthew Vaughn film.

I have no doubt at all.  He drugged and molested children.  He was also clearly badly damaged himself but while that may be a reason its never an excuse.

Absolutely. Very succinctly and well put.

I find the separating the art from the artist hard for instance I cannot watch a Kevin Spacey film without instantly thinking he's a right dodgy character.

Completely takes me out of the film I'm watching.

You've got to separate the previous art from the artist. What he's done, assuming it's true, is despicable and I won't buy anything that will give him any further royalties or payment. I'll still re-read his books as some of them are brilliant. I'll assume the authorities and/or society will judge him accordingly in the future.

If I found out the CEO of the company or their lead designer that makes one of my bikes, beat their partner or did unspeakable things to others, I wouldn't immediately take my bike to the dump and or vow never to ride it again. I'd continue to use it but wouldn't probably purchase from that company again unless they acted appropriately.

Likening Gaiman to JK Rowling is a bit ridiculous. One has been alleged of sexual crimes against people and the other has a difference of opinion to some peoples beliefs.

Perhaps. It was literally the first shit band I thought of. I’d struggle to name a single track of theirs beyond that Christmas one, and I can’t immediately name that even. Could you name any of the band members beyond the pilled-up lead singer who managed to drive over himself due to a potato overdose?

There's a documentary (on iPlayer IIRC) covering 90's boybands.  Even if you've never been a teenage girl it's an interesting watch to make you realize just how much of your opinion on people you've never met is formed by red-top media headlines (and how much you should probably hate Simon Cowell) .

This thread is kind of a weird selection of personal equivocation.  But then that's kind of what you have to do, isn't it. We all do whatever we think, and then make up some bollocks to justify it.

It's easy to bin off people I already thought were shit (JKR, Gaiman, Lost Prophets).

But I still enjoy the work of Miles Davis (wifebeater), David Bowie and Led Zep (underage girls), Phil Spector (murderer), Picasso (****), James Brown (wifebeater), Michael Jackson (child abuse), Gaugin (****), Guns & Roses (where do you even start), and many others.

I can't really come up with any consistent moral principles that allow me to do that.  I don't think anyone can, really.  You just have some stuff that happens to push your buttons, for good or bad, and you work around that. Will the world really know or care if I put on a CD of River Deep Mountain High in my living room?  Will it make any difference if I boycott that CD from my shelf? No. But you can at least stop spending your money on their stuff.

I thought this was a good article, musing on the topic.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/06/can-i-still-listen-to-david-bowie-a-superfans-dilemma

people with terrible ideas are still within their rights to share them with the world…

Well, that's not strictly true. "Hurty words" / incitement can land you in prison.

Likening Gaiman to JK Rowling is a bit ridiculous. One has been alleged of sexual crimes against people and the other has a difference of opinion to some peoples beliefs.

Well, that's not true either. Denying people's right to exist is hardly an "opinion," certainly not one worth defending.

I have no doubt at all. He drugged and molested children.

Allegedly.

He was also clearly badly damaged himself but while that may be a reason its never an excuse.

It's certainly a factor which made him a soft target, and it's really easy to accept a narrative which we wanted to believe all along, he was a bit weird after all. Look at all the illegal immigrants coming over here taking our jobs and getting free houses, share if you think this is a disc race.

How do you feel about Bill Wyman?

I think that was creepy as all hell and aside from the age difference it was an abuse of power. (And questions must surely be raised somewhere along the way when your son marries your ex wife's mother.)

But, bagging groupies was hardly an isolated occurrence, they were all at it. What do you think of David Bowie? One could argue that there was an element of "so what first attracted you to multi-millionaire Paul Daniels?" at play here. How about wholesome national treasure Paul McCartney? The Beatles shagged their way across the planet. Allegedly. Being British is enough to get you laid in the US, let alone being an international rock star. Do we suppose they were checking for ID first?

Also, age of consent is a social construct, it's an arbitrary number which varies from country to country. In parts of Africa it's as low as 12, in some countries it's as high as 21. Meanwhile over in good old Afghanistan it's "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" as long as you're married first, I suppose Mandy Smith would probably have been considered to be getting on a bit. In the US (and Australia too I think) it varies from State to State, Cf. Prince Andrew's border-hopping antics.

We said earlier that separating art from artists is complex. Applying 21st Century 'values' to the 60s/70s/80s is also complicated. This was a time where national newspapers were running daily birthday countdowns for when underaged future Page 3 girls would be able to legally get them out for the lads. I was watching an old talk show the other day and the host had a cigarette on the go, can you imagine that today? Halfway through 8 out 10 Cats and Jimmy Carr casually lights up a fag?

Cougar, I’ve not been following the JK Rowling particularly closely but ;

Well, that’s not true either. Denying people’s right to exist is hardly an “opinion,” certainly not one worth defending.

I’ve obviously missed the bit where Rowling has called for Trans folk to be rounded up and killed.

...bagging groupies was hardly an isolated occurrence, they were all at it.

Wyman's victim was 13 when he started after her and 14 when he "bagged" her so pretty much child abuse. She also wasn't a groupie, not that that is mitigation

I’ve obviously missed the bit where Rowling has called for Trans folk to be rounded up and killed.

Ironically, that sort of behaviour is usually displayed by certain "trans rights activists". I'm not sure if those are the tolerant lefties, or the other kind though.

I’ve obviously missed the bit where Rowling has called for Trans folk to be rounded up and killed.

I've obviously missed the bit where I said that.

Wyman’s victim was 13 when he started after her and 14 when he “bagged” her so pretty much child abuse. She also wasn’t a groupie, not that that is mitigation

No arguments with any of this.