• 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"?

You're the one throwing out scarcely veiled imputations. If you had any courage of your convictions, you'd explain why. Who has that author been accused of raping or trafficking, or any comparable offence?
 
Rolfe said:
He's not talking about Gaiman. He's talking about "a certain author" who has given a great deal of money to charity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm bringing it back around to the topic of the thread. Who cares about which author committed the sin of science-based biological essentialism?

Neil Gaiman repeatedly raped the babysitter, while masquerading as a Prestige Ally.
 
According to the article I read, Gaiman is being sued civilly for these offenses. Are criminal charges forthcoming, or were they already considered and rejected?
 
I was responding to this, using an example from my own experience. It was relevant then, going on about it now is not.

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...
 
arthwollipot said:
I was responding to this, using an example from my own experience. It was relevant then, going on about it now is not.
Click to expand...
It just seems like you're minimizing the extent of Gaiman's scumbaggery.

"I'm struggling, because one of my favorite authors raped some people."

"I feel your pain, an author I know about is a biological essentialist."

If you've canceled Rowling, you must have turbo canceled Gaiman. And if you've turbo canceled Gaiman, there's no reason to bring Rowling into the conversation. You can just tell us about your struggles with letting go of Gaiman.
 
theprestige said:
If you've canceled Rowling, you must have turbo canceled Gaiman. And if you've turbo canceled Gaiman, there's no reason to bring Rowling into the conversation. You can just tell us about your struggles with letting go of Gaiman.
Click to expand...
Well, I have turbo cancelled Gaiman, but that doesn't mean much because I was never a great fan of his work anyway. I've liked a few things he's done, but in general his writing style has always been not to my taste.
 
TragicMonkey said:
According to the article I read, Gaiman is being sued civilly for these offenses. Are criminal charges forthcoming, or were they already considered and rejected?
Click to expand...
As far as I understand it, he would have to return to the country of the crime (e.g. NZ) to be tried for rape, which he wouldn't do.

Though I'm unclear, and especially unclear about how they try Human Traffficking charges.
 
arthwollipot said:
Well, I have turbo cancelled Gaiman, but that doesn't mean much because I was never a great fan of his work anyway. I've liked a few things he's done, but in general his writing style has always been not to my taste.
Click to expand...
I've only read one book of his (Stardust) years ago from the library and was not impressed. I watched two episodes of Good Omens under sufferance about a year ago (a friend screened it), and didn't like it. I thought from all his fans' adoration his stories would be more original, not using such familiar mythologies and tropes. But I am also not into fantasy anyway.

I guess I could feel smug about not giving him money but that would kind of be being smug indirectly because women were abused. Instead, I'm just disgusted.
 
TragicMonkey said:
According to the article I read, Gaiman is being sued civilly for these offenses. Are criminal charges forthcoming, or were they already considered and rejected?
Click to expand...
It is a civil complaint, i.e., a lawsuit. I haven't heard anything (yet) about possible criminal charges.
 
Orphia Nay said:
As far as I understand it, he would have to return to the country of the crime (e.g. NZ) to be tried for rape, which he wouldn't do.

Though I'm unclear, and especially unclear about how they try Human Traffficking charges.
Click to expand...
In theory, he could be extradited to New Zealand to stand trial, just as New Zealand extradited Kim Dotcom to the US.

But, that would be a very long legal process I would imagine (it took years to extradite Dotcom), and first, criminal charges would need to be brought in New Zealand.

A lawsuit also has a lower standard of evidence, and even in the worst case there might be damages awarded to the plaintiff, but no prison time or other criminal punishment.

I see it as unlikely to go that far, but who knows.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I've only read one book of his (Stardust) years ago from the library and was not impressed. I watched two episodes of Good Omens under sufferance about a year ago (a friend screened it), and didn't like it. I thought from all his fans' adoration his stories would be more original, not using such familiar mythologies and tropes. But I am also not into fantasy anyway.
Click to expand...
I read a fair bit of the original Sandman comics way back on my iPad, when it still worked. The latest thing I bought from him was his Norse Mythology, pretty much right before the original allegations came out. I couldn't get into it. Stephen Fry is a much better teller of mythological stories.
 
theprestige said:
Rape charges filed against Gaiman and Palmer:


WARNING: There is some very graphic information in this complaint document. I do, however, recommend it to anyone who still suspects the arrangement between Gaiman and Scarlett may have been one of consensual quid pro quo - sex for housing.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to listen to the podcast, and noticing some subtle(?) differences between this account and the one she gave to the interviewer of the podcast.
This is from the complaint:
55. After dinner, Gaiman suggested that Scarlett bathe in the bathtub in the garden.
56. Scarlett was initially unwilling to do so.
57. Gaiman persisted in his suggestions and grew more insistent.
58. Scarlett eventually agreed after Gaiman told her that he had to make a work call.
Click to expand...
And here is the transcript of the podcast: (automatically generated by software, but it has convenient timestamps if you want to listen to it)
we still had like time to kill apparently so he said do
19:56
you want to have a bath and I was like oh yeah sure he said okay cool I I'll BR you a
20:04
barath and I thought nothing on Rachel I know it sounds crazy but I I truly
20:09
thought nothing of it so he runs me a bath the bath is outside um down at the
20:15
bottom of the garden under this what we call a Pahoa Kawa tree which is a big tree with red flowers and he gives me a
20:24
towel and says um just you know feel free you know come out you know when you're ready so I got in and I you know
Click to expand...
 
arthwollipot said:
I read a fair bit of the original Sandman comics way back on my iPad, when it still worked. The latest thing I bought from him was his Norse Mythology, pretty much right before the original allegations came out. I couldn't get into it. Stephen Fry is a much better teller of mythological stories.
Click to expand...

I thought Norse Mythology was extremely disappointing. Unimaginative, pedestrian retellings of stories that are much better read in a good translation of the original. Quite lacking in the power and immersive writing of his original work.
 
I actually have a first-hand example of the dilemma created by the cancelling of Neil Gaiman.

I'm writing something about Wagner's Ring, and in the chapter dealing with act 1 of Die Walküre I'm discussing the identity of a new character who has just been introduced, real name "Siegmund", but he is going by the alias of "Wehwalt". The audience is being given progressive hints that this fugitive young man is in fact the son of Wotan (Odin), chief of the gods. There is one more hint than is generally recognised, and may well not have been intentional on the part of the composer.

1738844579571.png

I was quite pleased with myself for being able to bring in the Gaiman reference, as it brought the word "Wednesday" right into play as an actual name applied to the character. Now I'm wondering if I should delete that bolded sentence, even though the relevance is completely unaffected by any of Gaiman's transgressions. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
That's true. I suppose this is in the category of "kill your darlings". But then I also feel resentful that his scumbag behaviour should lead to me feeling I should change a paragraph I was very happy with and which has been praised as an original insight.
 
Rolfe said:
I actually have a first-hand example of the dilemma created by the cancelling of Neil Gaiman.

I'm writing something about Wagner's Ring, and in the chapter dealing with act 1 of Die Walküre I'm dealing with the identity of a new character who has just been introduced, real name "Siegmund", but he is going by the alias of "Wehwalt". The audience is being given progressive hints that this fugitive young man is in fact the son of Wotan (Odin), chief of the gods. There is one more hint than is generally recognised, and may well not have been intentional on the part of the composer.

View attachment 58869

I was quite pleased with myself for being able to bring in the Gaiman reference, as it brought the word "Wednesday" right into play as an actual name applied to the character. Now I'm wondering if I should delete that bolded sentence, even though the relevance is completely unaffected by any of Gaiman's transgressions. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'd keep it, it's an interesting point, ties the subject to the present & it's not as if you're endorsing anything about Gaiman. Not buying, recommending, stocking or adapting his work is one thing, pretending it doesn't exist seems silly.
 
That's what I thought, but when I read over the passage I just felt a visceral revulsion when I read Gaiman's name. It's quite likely that will pass as the whole affair becomes yesterday's chip wrappers though. And there's the parallel point that Wagner himself has been the subject of many attempted (but unsuccessful) cancellation attempts for being a bit of a scumbag himself at times.
 
So Gaiman now joins Joss Whedon as an artist I liked who had turned out to be despicible.
 
Rolfe said:
I actually have a first-hand example of the dilemma created by the cancelling of Neil Gaiman.

I'm writing something about Wagner's Ring, and in the chapter dealing with act 1 of Die Walküre I'm discussing the identity of a new character who has just been introduced, real name "Siegmund", but he is going by the alias of "Wehwalt". The audience is being given progressive hints that this fugitive young man is in fact the son of Wotan (Odin), chief of the gods. There is one more hint than is generally recognised, and may well not have been intentional on the part of the composer.

View attachment 58869

I was quite pleased with myself for being able to bring in the Gaiman reference, as it brought the word "Wednesday" right into play as an actual name applied to the character. Now I'm wondering if I should delete that bolded sentence, even though the relevance is completely unaffected by any of Gaiman's transgressions. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I feel like the Gaiman reference just gets you further away from the topic you're actually talking about.

If the discussion is about what Wagner knew, then the linguistic flourishes of a novelist writing a hundred years later are kind of a distraction.
 
theprestige said:
There was plenty of foresight at the time the thread started. No need to preemptively imply that the incipient cancellation was somehow fake.
Click to expand...
I didn't know anything about it. Unlike you, I don't know everything about everything that happens.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I didn't know anything about it. Unlike you, I don't know everything about everything that happens.
Click to expand...
I mean, "reddit Gaiman scandal" is a valid search string.

Or you could have simply asked, rather than implying you didn't believe the cancellation was real, a priori.

I'm not complaining about you not knowing and being curious. I'm complaining about the scare quotes. Why the scare quotes?
 
theprestige said:
I mean, "reddit Gaiman scandal" is a valid search string.

Or you could have simply asked, rather than implying you didn't believe the cancellation was real, a priori.

I'm not complaining about you not knowing and being curious. I'm complaining about the scare quotes. Why the scare quotes?
Click to expand...
Jeez, prestige, sometimes quotes are just quotes.

At the beginning of this there was much more “fog of war” so people were talking of “pausing” various projects as a result of allegations. Was this it really just a “pause”? Or was it being “cancelled”? Now some are saying that the story is wrapping up in a “thrilling conclusion”. Others have said it is an obvious “rush job”, etc… etc…
 
theprestige said:
There was plenty of foresight at the time the thread started. No need to preemptively imply that the incipient cancellation was somehow fake.
Click to expand...
The article Orphia linked merely stated that the production on the Good Omens show had been halted, not cancelled. Hence quotes that are not necessarily scare quotes.
 
Puppycow said:
Shock sexual assault allegations against author Neil Gaiman could unravel as texts reveal 'consensual' bath time with nanny (The Daily Mail)

If these texts are genuine, they put it in a different light. These have been submitted as evidence by Gaiman's legal team in response to the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

That is interesting, Puppycow.

Also, I note that you had seen some discrepencies in the story as related in the podcast and the article:

Puppycow said:
I'm starting to listen to the podcast, and noticing some subtle(?) differences between this account and the one she gave to the interviewer of the podcast.
This is from the complaint:

And here is the transcript of the podcast: (automatically generated by software, but it has convenient timestamps if you want to listen to it)
Click to expand...

Hmmm... what are we to make of this?

I guess that hers is not the only complaint, although as far as I understand, she is the only one to take legal/civil action....
 
Puppycow said:
Shock sexual assault allegations against author Neil Gaiman could unravel as texts reveal 'consensual' bath time with nanny (The Daily Mail)

If these texts are genuine, they put it in a different light. These have been submitted as evidence by Gaiman's legal team in response to the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
For me, it's about the power imbalance. She's homeless, destitute, and trapped on an island with her patrons. If the texts were exchanged during the period of the events in question, then I think we need to seriously consider whether she's making nice as a survival tactic.

In general, I think that any time there's a significant power imbalance, we cannot really assert consent on the part of the subservient party.
 
In the podcast, it was pretty clear she felt pressured to do and say what Gaiman wanted.

It was a survival instinct. She had no job, no money, and was being offered security from a stranger in exchange for what happened. When it turned nasty, compliance seemed the path of least resistance and safest, not knowing what else he might do.
 
Orphia Nay said:
In the podcast, it was pretty clear she felt pressured to do and say what Gaiman wanted.

It was a survival instinct. She had no job, no money, and was being offered security from a stranger in exchange for what happened. When it turned nasty, compliance seemed the path of least resistance and safest, not knowing what else he might do.
Click to expand...
Come on going back to the abuser proves that there was never any abuse in the first place to most people.
 
theprestige said:
In general, I think that any time there's a significant power imbalance, we cannot really assert consent on the part of the subservient party.
Click to expand...
OK, that's a philosophical position similar to positions held by certain radical feminists. But there is a more immediate question of whether she is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as they say. She stands to gain $7 million (minus lawyers' fees) if this lawsuit is successful, so there might be an incentive to exaggerate.
 
Puppycow said:
OK, that's a philosophical position similar to positions held by certain radical feminists. But there is a more immediate question of whether she is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as they say. She stands to gain $7 million (minus lawyers' fees) if this lawsuit is successful, so there might be an incentive to exaggerate.
Click to expand...
She didn't stand to win anything when she did the podcast interviews. It was seen as unprosecutable. The court case is just a natural extension of the others also coming out and her story getting heard and legal minds hearing.
 
Rolfe said:
I actually have a first-hand example of the dilemma created by the cancelling of Neil Gaiman.

I'm writing something about Wagner's Ring, and in the chapter dealing with act 1 of Die Walküre I'm discussing the identity of a new character who has just been introduced, real name "Siegmund", but he is going by the alias of "Wehwalt". The audience is being given progressive hints that this fugitive young man is in fact the son of Wotan (Odin), chief of the gods. There is one more hint than is generally recognised, and may well not have been intentional on the part of the composer.

View attachment 58869

I was quite pleased with myself for being able to bring in the Gaiman reference, as it brought the word "Wednesday" right into play as an actual name applied to the character. Now I'm wondering if I should delete that bolded sentence, even though the relevance is completely unaffected by any of Gaiman's transgressions. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
You could go for a Viking reference if you want?
Disputed which norse god, but you could easily draw a parallel with Wehwalt, particularly given the outcome of his visit.
 
That's a bit niche! Supposed to be Loki, but Loki is in the room too in the scene I'm referring to, trying to get Siegmund to pay attention to what is stuck in the trunk of the ash tree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom