Current Events > Fuck Neil Gaiman - he's an absolute monster (nws article)

(+) Yeah! (+)

everyone else liked Gaiman so much...

i thought he was a facile hack. american gods was kinda fun.

At the top of the pile is someone like Wagner. Disgusting anti semite, but his works are part of the canon.

whats up with these "im with her" types that end of being monsters?

who is wagner want what canon is he part of

who is wagner want what canon is he part of

thanks its a HELL of alot easier to separate the art from a artist when the artist is dead

Personally I find it easier with things like movies where a specific person may be problematic, but hundreds of other people worked on it.
With books it can be harder to ignore it when the author is a bad person, since they had complete creative control over the work.

Can I get a tldr?

Can I get a tldr?

now forever tainted

I'm a fan of H. P. Lovecraft's works, so I kinda know how you feel...

I'm a fan of H. P. Lovecraft's works, so I kinda know how you feel...

Amanda's just as much a victim of Gaiman as the other girls. Amanda knew Gaiman had lots of BDSM types of relationships with women but she wasn't aware of anybody being raped. They were both very vocal about having an open marriage and being into "hardcore" sex. Amanda didn't want Gaiman to have a consensual sexual relationship with the new nanny because she thought his type of sex would be too harsh for her. Pavlovic was the first person to come to her about it being non-consensual and that was only a while AFTER she had raised concerns about Gaiman's inappropriateness around their son. It doesn't help that she was sending mixed messages up to that point to Amanda by still seeking out a personal relationship with Gaiman--Not that that's the victim's vault, but it is why Amanda's reaction to everything seems so delayed. As even the article states, when she brought Pavlovich on to be a live-in Nanny she still had faith in Gaiman's decency not to make a pass at her because Amanda asked him.

I'm sure people will now lambast me in the responses below but this article is not a detailed breakdown on what Amanda knew and didn't know and what she facilitated. Amanda Palmer was not Neil Gaiman's Ghislaine. It's a lot more complicated than that. Just because the article makes the situation seem very obvious in hindsight to the reader that does not accurately represented what Amanda Palmer knew about the situation in the moment.

Lovecraft's racism was extreme even by the standards of the time. That was remarked upon by people who knew him. And he knew it himself.

Amanda's just as much a victim of Gaiman as the other girls. Amanda knew Gaiman had lots of BDSM types of relationships with women but she wasn't aware of anybody being raped. They were both very vocal about having an open marriage and being into "hardcore" sex. Amanda didn't want Gaiman to have a consensual sexual relationship with the new nanny because she thought his type of sex would be too harsh for her. Pavlovic was the first person to come to her about it being non-consensual and that was only a while AFTER she had raised concerns about Gaiman's inappropriateness around their son. It doesn't help that she was sending mixed messages up to that point to Amanda by still seeking out a personal relationship with Gaiman--Not that that's the victim's vault, but it is why Amanda's reaction to everything seems so delayed. As even the article states, when she brought Pavlovich on to be a live-in Nanny she still had faith in Gaiman's decency not to make a pass at her because Amanda asked him.

I'm sure people will now lambast me in the responses below but this article is not a detailed breakdown on what Amanda knew and didn't know and what she facilitated. Amanda Palmer was not Neil Gaiman's Ghislaine. It's a lot more complicated than that. Just because the article makes the situation seem very obvious in hindsight to the reader that does not accurately represented what Amanda Palmer knew about the situation in the moment.

The super sanity explanation was a Grant Morrison thing.

Honestly, depends which prejudice we're talking about. A number of other writers were considerably more prejudiced, and a number of his views were a reflection of society. Some of his views were more retrograde than others, but a number were just commonplace

Depends on what point in his life you get him at. He became less racist towards the end of his life saying something like races are equal but incompatible and can't live together in peace. Earlier on, according to him, white people weren't just a superior race but black people weren't even human. That is functionally the most extreme view possible.

She stated she was aware of numerous other complaints against him and was still bringing in vulnerable young women.

People's willingness to separate art from artist is proportional to how great they think the art is. Then they draw the line where they feel comfortable.

She never said she was aware of "numerous complaints". She said he had "done this before to 14 other women". By this point, Scarlett had not talked about being sexually assaulted by Gaiman. As the article states, she did not frame this conversation as sexual assault--She framed it as being seduced by Gaiman. The article doesn't provide additional context to this statement.

I made my post strictly because it plays very loose with how it characterizes Palmer and defines her role in this. That's... fine, to be honest. The article exists to get the victim's story out, not protect Amanda's reputation. But I read the article and it does not support the kind of statements posters have made in this topic.

Fuck that. Whether she was aware of the full extent or not, she still brought in these women without telling them why she was bringing them in. That's pretty awful at the very least.

I love Grant Morrison, but thats so stupid lol

Grant loves the over the top, silly comic ideas. Sometimes their ideas are great and other they suck.

lightsnake grant is nonbinary

You're absolutely right, I forgot their pronouns. let me edit.

She never said she was aware of "numerous complaints". She said he had "done this before to 14 other women". By this point, Scarlett had not talked about being sexually assaulted by Gaiman. As the article states, she did not frame this conversation as sexual assault--She framed it as being seduced by Gaiman. The article doesn't provide additional context to this statement.

I made my post strictly because it plays very loose with how it characterizes Palmer and defines her role in this. That's... fine, to be honest. The article exists to get the victim's story out, not protect Amanda's reputation. But I read the article and it does not support the kind of statements posters have made in this topic.

And I'm over here sweating about being a Cormac McCarthy fan boy. Sheesh

whats up with these "im with her" types that end of being monsters?

I'm sorry, but Palmer in the article passed a lover she was tired of to Gaiman. She's basically "Hey, want to come over to our remote house and babysit? My husband has a really bad dark side, but I know you need money, so whatever." Before you even address the level knowledge she might've had about his behavior she was apparently fine with them using vulnerable women as unpaid labor which is bad enough as it is

Her excuse pretty much boils down to, "I knew he had treated so many young woman like that in the past but I told him not to do that to you."