Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

zooterkin said:
Good Omens has been changed from a complete third series to a one-off 90 minute conclusion, and Gaiman will not be involved in production, beyond the writing he had already contributed.

All the proceeds from a kickstarter to produce a comic book version of Good Omens are now going to the Pratchett Foundation, none to Gaiman.
bleedingcool.com

Terry Pratchett Estate Removes Neil Gaiman From Good Omens Kickstarter

Terry Pratchett Estate has removed any payment to Neil Gaiman from the Good Omens Kickstarter, as well as offering refunds.
bleedingcool.com
Click to expand...


I'm guessing the audiobook adaptation of Sandman is dead. That's a shame as it was really, really good with some amazing voice talent (James McAvoy & Kat Dennings in particular) and sixty something episodes in the audience investment, ok MY audience investment, was really high and I was hoping against hope that they'd make it through to the end.

I feel selfish for feeling this way, it's a trivial thing and the accusations against him are anything but, but I've been a fan of the story since it's original release and so the art is emotionally linked to my memories in a way the artist isn't
 
Orphia Nay said:
Human Trafficking? I don't recall anything about that in all the podcasts that broke the story.

(I'm wary of clicking your link as the site is unknown to me.) Do you have more info?
Click to expand...
Look at my link to the complaint filing itself. It explains that the human trafficking statutes are being invoked because:
  1. The allegations fit the elements of this crime.
  2. The statutes grant jurisdiction over the defendants in their current places of residence.
The essence of the complaint is that Gaiman and Palmer trafficked the complainant for the purpose of sexual exploitation, that this exploitation was harmful to the complainant, and that therefore the complainant is entitled to substantial compensation if the complaint is proven at trial.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Human Trafficking? I don't recall anything about that in all the podcasts that broke the story.

(I'm wary of clicking your link as the site is unknown to me.) Do you have more info?
Click to expand...
Human trafficking is not always what we think is meant by the term. In this case I think it refers to the procurement of a babysitter by Palmer for the actual purpose of Gainan having sex with her.

The website is fine.
 
I think a big part of the reason they went with Human Trafficking is that those statutes grant jurisdiction over Gaiman and Palmer in their current places of residence. Trying to charge them with rape directly would likely involve bringing charges in New Zealand, where neither defendant resides, and to which jurisdiction neither defendant would have any incentive to return.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm not at all sure how I feel about the cancellation and suppression of art on the grounds that the artist is a scumbag.
Click to expand...
I completely understand. If it helps, in my case the decision is made easier by the question of financially supporting the artist. A certain author has all of my money that she will ever get. I won't go into details because I would be risking another suspension.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Human Trafficking? I don't recall anything about that in all the podcasts that broke the story.

(I'm wary of clicking your link as the site is unknown to me.) Do you have more info?
Click to expand...
The website is Deadline.com, which is a mid-tier news website that mostly focuses on Entertainment news. I don't think that there is anything particularly unsafe about the site.

Here's how they turn the act of hiring a babysitter into human trafficking:
“This claim arises out of Defendant Neil Gaiman’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff, and his wife Amanda Palmer’s role in procuring and presenting Plaintiff to Gaiman for such abuse,” states a rape and human trafficking complaint filed in federal court Monday in Wisconsin by Scarlett Pavlovich.
Click to expand...
They are alleging that she wasn't in her own mind simply hiring a baby-sitter, she was "procuring and presenting" a victim to Gaiman. I believe she even told Gaiman to leave her alone, but of course he ignored this instruction. I am inclined to think that she probably actually did want (need) someone to babysit her kids, and that her motive, at least, was just that. Although she knew him well enough to feel the need to tell him to keep his hands off the hired help. I don't have much sympathy for Palmer here, but I think that, if all of this is true, that Gaiman was the primary culprit.
 
arthwollipot said:
I completely understand. If it helps, in my case the decision is made easier by the question of financially supporting the artist. A certain author has all of my money that she will ever get. I won't go into details because I would be risking another suspension.
Click to expand...
100% agree about not financially supporting the artist although I suspect I would disagree about the author you have in mind. There are plenty of musical artists who have ticked me off with their positions, but I'm not going to stop listening to Born to Run, for example.
 
Brainster said:
100% agree about not financially supporting the artist although I suspect I would disagree about the author you have in mind. There are plenty of musical artists who have ticked me off with their positions, but I'm not going to stop listening to Born to Run,for example.
Click to expand...
Yep, despite his mad advice about barefoot running, and shaky evolutionary claims, it's quite the page turner.
 
I don't want to derail this thread with general discussion about cancelling artists.

This thread would be better for that stuff:

A

Cont: Thread 'Cancel culture IRL Part 2'

Back on topic, cancel culture isn't really a problem for the rich and powerful, its the folks that aren't and that you haven't heard that get screwed by it. Folks like the security guard that got fired for being a racist for telling a Black student at smith college she wasn't allowed in a cafeteria where students weren't allowed. #blanking while working class
 
arthwollipot said:
I completely understand. If it helps, in my case the decision is made easier by the question of financially supporting the artist. A certain author has all of my money that she will ever get. I won't go into details because I would be risking another suspension.
Click to expand...

What if they gave that money to charity?
 
Manger Douse said:
What if they gave that money to charity?
Click to expand...
In Gaiman's case? As more details have come to light, I think the safest bet for retailers (booksellers, streaming services, etc.) is to simply discontinue their product lines and sever all business ties as soon as possible. If some retailers simply cannot avoid realizing profits from product still on the shelves, donating those to a charity is probably a wise PR move.
 
He's not talking about Gaiman. He's talking about "a certain author" who has given a great deal of money to charity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom