• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

Totally agree.

What I wasn't aware of, until comparatively recently, was that he'd been brought up by parents who were high up in Scientology, and was actively involved himself from a young age. That alone might account for some of his behaviour, all the more so when that Vulture article clearly suggests that that process involved him being mentally and physically abused as a child and he has yet to properly deal with the consequences. That doesn't excuse his actions, but may partially explain them.

I didn't know about the Scientology part either, till now. The minute I read "East Grinstead" I realised what the score was. I have a friend who was a GP in East Grinstead for many years and she said that while the Scientologists didn't present to a doctor for normal illnesses like anyone else, she was constantly in touch with them because of child safeguarding concerns.
 
I didn't know about the Scientology part either, till now. The minute I read "East Grinstead" I realised what the score was. I have a friend who was a GP in East Grinstead for many years and she said that while the Scientologists didn't present to a doctor for normal illnesses like anyone else, she was constantly in touch with them because of child safeguarding concerns.
Wait, what? I used to live not far from East Grinstead. I don't remember being aware of it being a hot-bed of Scientology...

Hmmm... then again, maybe I completely forgot about it.
 
True story. I had a friend staying with me after she separated from her husband. I saw strange post arriving for her, and other odd things, that suggested she was involved with Scientology. She spoke several times about going over to East Grinstead. (This was when I lived in Sussex.) I asked another friend in all innocence, "Is there any connection between East Grinstead and Scientology?" The answer I got back was, "Is there any connection between Salt Lake City and Mormonism?"
 
True story. I had a friend staying with me after she separated from her husband. I saw strange post arriving for her, and other odd things, that suggested she was involved with Scientology. She spoke several times about going over to East Grinstead. (This was when I lived in Sussex.) I asked another friend in all innocence, "Is there any connection between East Grinstead and Scientology?" The answer I got back was, "Is there any connection between Salt Lake City and Mormonism?"
Hmmm... interesting. I grew up in a small village, beside the Ashdown Forest, which had a Rudolph Steiner home. I had no idea what went on in there but for some reason I had always assumed it was a nice place where people looked after the mentally handicapped.
That said, I do remember a friend of mine telling me there was a Mormon temple in East Grinstead. Turns out to be true...

 
Over the last few years I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that the percentage of men who will happily abuse and take advantage of women and girls, given only the opportunity and a good chance of getting away with it, is far higher than I had previously believed. Just look at the Pelicot case: that scumbag had no difficulty finding over 70 men living within a 30 mile radius of his home who were happy to rape his unconscious wife whilst he watched and filmed them doing it.

Men who are rich and/or famous are just more likely to have both the opportunity and the good chance of getting away with it. Donald Trump even bragged about it.
 
As I mentioned, several of Gaiman's books resonated with me, and I've read Good Omens more times than any other book, and I'm still working out what I feel about the whole thing regarding his work. (Obviously the man himself has turned out to be despicable.)

Spare a thought for those who made an even bigger investment by having images from his work, or even of the man himself, tattooed on their skin.


As one reader with a tattoo inspired by Gaiman’s dark fantasy novella Coraline put it on X, formerly Twitter: “The continuous neil gaiman news is devastating to me and genuinely makes me want to cut my skin off. i got this tattoo months and months before his allegations and as a lesbian sexual assault victim having something he created on me makes me ill. why are people so evil???” The post includes a photo of the large ink work, which covers their entire forearm. In a 2023 post on the platform, another fan, showing off an arm tat of a character from Gaiman’s comic The Sandman, wrote, “First thing I did when I got it was text my friend ‘Neil Gaiman better not ever turn out to be a creep,’ lol” — as if to predict the very fallout the writer’s most devoted readers are now facing.
 
Over the last few years I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that the percentage of men who will happily abuse and take advantage of women and girls, given only the opportunity and a good chance of getting away with it, is far higher than I had previously believed. Just look at the Pelicot case: that scumbag had no difficulty finding over 70 men living within a 30 mile radius of his home who were happy to rape his unconscious wife whilst he watched and filmed them doing it.

Men who are rich and/or famous are just more likely to have both the opportunity and the good chance of getting away with it. Donald Trump even bragged about it.
Sadly I have to pretty much agree with you. I've read too many of the countless inquiry and report conclusions to come to any other conclusion, but I would modify something, and that of instead of " women and girls," I'd just say "people".
 
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.
Separating the art and the artist is an age-old conundrum. Personally I have yet to resolve it although I find time is a smoothing agent… I can appreciate say 17th century artwork even if the artist was a scumbag. More recent stuff I cannot accept, which is why for example I will have nothing to do with the work of Polanski or any of his supporters.
 
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.
Thread title notwithstanding, no one is actually cancelling or supressing Gaiman's art. Some adaptations got cancelled, but then, adaptations get cancelled or are never even considered for far more artistically bankrupt reasons -- like money.
 
Thread title notwithstanding, no one is actually cancelling or supressing Gaiman's art. Some adaptations got cancelled, but then, adaptations get cancelled or are never even considered for far more artistically bankrupt reasons -- like money.
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.
 
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.
Fair enough, but this is a similar problem. There are too many moving parts, too many people involved, too much money. And it isn't even solely his "baby". Collaborations are a tricky thing.

He can still write, he can still publish. He could probably play producer again if he really wanted to. Even now, he still has far better opportunities for artistic expression than 99% of writers out there.
 
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.


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
 
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?
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.
 
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?
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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?
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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:

 
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.

What if they gave that money to charity?
 
What if they gave that money to charity?
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.
 

Back
Top Bottom