• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

For writing advice, I've always heard "Write what you know." That made me worry about Stephen King for a while.
Yep, Ernest Hemingway would say, if you're stuck, write the truest sentence you know, and the rest will follow.

Which of Gaiman's sentences ring true? I've only read one of his books, Stardust (borrowed from a library).
 
Yep, Ernest Hemingway would say, if you're stuck, write the truest sentence you know, and the rest will follow.

Which of Gaiman's sentences ring true? I've only read one of his books, Stardust (borrowed from a library).
That bit in Sandman where artists gain inspiration by kidnapping a Muse and raping her seems a little on the nose these days.

I think this is less a case of "write what you know" and more a case of "the artist informs their art".
 
For writing advice, I've always heard "Write what you know." That made me worry about Stephen King for a while.
I think what Stephen King knows best is the human condition. It's what allows him to write such engaging characters, and such compelling visions of the mundane and familiar of our daily lives. It's also what allows him to imagine the most horrific scenarios, and tell us how they would play out in a way that is as relatably human as it is absolutely terrifying.

I would say that for all Gaiman's knack for the fantastical, King is by far the better writer. Not least because King seems to have been born with an innate empathy that Gaiman apparently lacks.

Tragically, it seems probable to me that a lot of Gaiman's natal empathy was burned away by the Church of Scientology. As a result, his fantasies are not as grounded in his essential humanity as they might have been.
 
For writing advice, I've always heard "Write what you know." That made me worry about Stephen King for a while.
Well, plenty of his characters are writers and alcoholics, and the stories are often set in Maine. He absolutely does write about what he knows.
 
I would say that for all Gaiman's knack for the fantastical, King is by far the better writer. Not least because King seems to have been born with an innate empathy that Gaiman apparently lacks.
Indeed. His withdrawl from sale of his 1977 book "Rage", about a school shooting, pretty much demonstrates that. I can't see Gaiman doing something like this under similar circumstances.
 
Well, plenty of his characters are writers and alcoholics, and the stories are often set in Maine. He absolutely does write about what he knows.
Stephen King is kind of Exhibit A for why that advice is facile. He also writes about haunted hotels, murderous ghost twins, ruthless killers, cynical bible salesmen, vengeful gypsies, reluctant psychics, soulless killers, and comically evil space aliens.
 
Indeed. His withdrawl from sale of his 1977 book "Rage", about a school shooting, pretty much demonstrates that. I can't see Gaiman doing something like this under similar circumstances.
And Stanley Kubrick withdrew the movie, A Clockwork Orange, after some incidents in which people emulated the droogs (which makes a nice call-back to what we were talking about earlier).

But now I am confused.

Weren't you the one insisting that Neil Gaiman has committed no crime but is himself a victim of a gold-digger who is probably guilty of even greater crimes?

I could have sworn it was you, and yet here you are saying now that you don't think Gaiman would do anything so noble as Stephen King if there were a hypothetical case of .... something... something... which is not at all clear.
 
Stephen King is kind of Exhibit A for why that advice is facile. He also writes about haunted hotels, murderous ghost twins, ruthless killers, cynical bible salesmen, vengeful gypsies, reluctant psychics, soulless killers, and comically evil space aliens.
Hence alfaniner's earlier joke.
 
@Rolfe, yes, it makes a difference if we think that the art is an actual reflection of some kind of odious behaviour. There has recently been a case of a hip hop artist whose own lyrics were used as evidence of murder as apparently the artist was specifically bragging about committing it.
I'm not sure exactly who that was, but I think I have heard of it. I do remember a Key & Peele skit about something like that. I don't want to derail, but here it is.
 
That bit in Sandman where artists gain inspiration by kidnapping a Muse and raping her seems a little on the nose these days.

I think this is less a case of "write what you know" and more a case of "the artist informs their art".

I was harking back to what Silly Green Monkey said, yes.:

It does make that Sandman plotline where authors are getting their prize-winning stories by raping a captive Muse hit a little differently though.
 
Update:


"A Wisconsin judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Scarlett Pavlovich against Neil Gaiman and his estranged spouse Amanda Palmer [...] on procedural grounds."

He says:

"The only connection that Wisconsin or the United States has with this lawsuit is that Gaiman has a residence in this state and he may live here currently. […] Under these circumstances, it is clear that New Zealand is the more appropriate forum for resolving this dispute, so the court will dismiss the case without prejudice. If Pavlovich sues Gaiman in New Zealand, and he refuses to accept service there, Pavlovich may move to reopen this case."
 
Update:


"A Wisconsin judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Scarlett Pavlovich against Neil Gaiman and his estranged spouse Amanda Palmer [...] on procedural grounds."

He says:

"The only connection that Wisconsin or the United States has with this lawsuit is that Gaiman has a residence in this state and he may live here currently. […] Under these circumstances, it is clear that New Zealand is the more appropriate forum for resolving this dispute, so the court will dismiss the case without prejudice. If Pavlovich sues Gaiman in New Zealand, and he refuses to accept service there, Pavlovich may move to reopen this case."
Will be much more difficult to win any lawsuit here in NZ. Pavlovich would have to prove her allegations were true "both in substance and in fact"
Since the CPO already decided Gaimen had no case to answer, Pavlovich really has little or no hope.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom