Some past supporters of the discredited author Gaiman have displayed unusual affection for popular culture, as reported in an article from Rolling Stone on Yahoo. It seems that a few are now regretting their decision to get tattoos based on Gaiman’s works following his fall from grace.
…for countless fans, it may prove challenging to view Neil Gaiman in the same light as before; and this transformation might be particularly difficult for those who publicly declared their appreciation by getting a tattoo.
A tattoo artist penned on X, “To be honest, I’ve never delved into Gaiman’s work personally, but I’ve inked numerous designs inspired by it for clients. It serves as a cautionary tale that any fandom tattoo you choose might be tainted by creators engaging in questionable behavior, regardless of your initial assumptions. The recent accusations against Gaiman have been particularly damaging to his fan base, especially given the perceived feminist undertones in his literature.
As a film enthusiast, I found it intriguing that the 50th issue of The Sandman seemed to pay tribute to Islam. However, this could potentially challenge the feminist ideals I admire. Yet, it’s not surprising that many on the left might overlook these complexities and focus solely on what aligns with their beliefs.
My tattoo is of Delirium from The Sandman comic series. Immediately after getting it, I sent a message to a friend saying, ‘I hope Neil Gaiman never turns out to be inappropriate,’ with a chuckle.
— Still alive, so that’s progress (@fumangoo) August 30, 2023
As someone with both a Harry Potter tattoo and a Marilyn Manson tattoo… I know this all too well
— 🍂 Dear Ed 🍂 (@ajemtattoo) January 13, 2025
This article, however dampens the impact when it brings up J.K. Rowling:
Thomas O’Mahony, co-host of the podcast Beneath the Skin, notes that tattooing has often been tied to fan culture throughout history. For instance, 17th-century pilgrims would get tattoos of religious symbols like the Coptic cross from Jerusalem as a testament to their journey, which he likens to modern-day fandom of figures such as Jesus. Moreover, O’Mahony highlights that even in the 1920s, tattoo artists were adapting designs from popular culture, such as Disney cartoons like Steamboat Willie, to cater to consumer preferences.
In essence, Gaiman is a person who appears to resonate strongly with tattoo culture, according to O’Mahony. He suggests that this might be due to the level of connection readers feel towards Gaiman, which he refers to as parasociality. Unlike traditional authors such as Stephen King, fans often choose to get tattoos not just of Gaiman’s works, but of him himself, given his significant presence within those works. In a way, O’Mahony compares Gaiman to a rock star or musician, whose influence has led to many questionable tattoos over the years. However, J.K. Rowling might serve as a more relevant literary comparison. Due to her recent transphobic comments, many fans have chosen to remove or cover up their once meaningful Harry Potter tattoos.
This article in The Times of India discusses the inconsistency on the political left regarding LGBT ideologies. It seems odd that this topic is considered more significant than women’s safety. Moreover, the piece overlooks J.K. Rowling’s past experiences with sexual assault, which suggests some flaws in its argumentation. If Neil Gaiman were to identify as transgender, it’s likely that leftists would show less concern about any potential scandals surrounding him compared to their current stance, and they might not even cover the case at all.
Regardless of any controversies surrounding certain public figures or artists, tattoo enthusiasts persistently seek designs inspired by them, as O’Mahony explains. “Many beloved figures from the 60s, 70s, and 80s have questionable pasts,” he notes. “People often associate with the concept these figures embody rather than the individual.” Similarly, even though Neil Gaiman’s media adaptations are being cancelled and some bookstores contemplate removing his books, his most dedicated fans can’t completely erase him from their lives since he significantly impacted them. After all, “he made a difference in their lives,” a fact that is clearly evident to anyone observing.
In a less than favorable manner, he critiques modern storytelling, particularly pointing out the excessive use of darkness as a common trend, which he views as problematic. Furthermore, he criticizes Gaiman for not expressing regret over allegedly tarnishing the entertainment industry with what he perceives as overrated narratives. Interestingly enough, this article suggests that one of Gaiman’s most significant fan bases was the punk subculture, and this is just one of many aspects about his career that some find irritating.
It’s not just RS who has shown a biased approach by involving J.K. Rowling in the controversy. Chris Arrant from Popverse also followed suit when discussing the issue.
“I never saw that side of Neil.”
As a movie enthusiast, I can’t help but feel a deep connection to this situation we’re all facing. Although our levels of familiarity with Neil Gaiman may vary, the recent sexual assault allegations have taken on an even more chilling dimension when it was reported that some of these incidents occurred in the presence of one of his children. This unsettling detail amplifies the dread and revulsion for parents, and even for those like me who don’t share that role, but can still empathize with their feelings.
Neil Gaiman was the second author I interacted with on a professional level as a journalist. At the time, I was investigating a piece about a supposed rumor (later discovered to be fan speculation) concerning a new project he was developing with Marvel Comics. Through some detective work, I managed to get his direct contact details and sent him an email. To my surprise, he replied on the same day. A string of emails followed, and these exchanges provided me with the information necessary to construct the story’s foundation.
Having been a fan of his work since the ’90s, that experience was particularly influential for me. Subsequent encounters as a journalist didn’t change my initial impression. However, as Tori Amos suggested, I never knew Neil entirely – and I can say with confidence that I knew far less than she did. As a fan, one can never fully comprehend all aspects of someone; this also applies to journalists.
In essence, it’s all about faith: faith he earned from his friends, family, colleagues, and admirers of his work, including those like me who interacted with him professionally while still cherishing his artistry. Even if this faith wasn’t explicitly handed to me by Gaiman, I had placed it in him unknowingly, only for it to be betrayed later on.
It might seem extreme to say we should never trust celebrities again, but what I’m discovering is that the feelings we harbor towards famous figures often extend beyond mere trust. It’s essential to remember that while they may inspire us, our heroes are still human and capable of making mistakes or falling short of expectations.
Just to clarify, liking someone’s work doesn’t automatically qualify them as a cat-sitter for me. It’s not that their trustworthiness is questioned, but rather, trust must be established over time.
Despite the potential for enjoying Gaiman’s work independently from his personal life, I personally have found it difficult. The recent allegations against Warren Ellis, the controversy surrounding J.K. Rowling, the controversial actions of Mel Gibson, and going back to the actions of Woody Allen, have led me to care less about their works. Although I still regard these works as ‘good’ in my mind, their questionable behavior makes it challenging for me to appreciate them or even find them appealing anymore.
It appears that Mr. Arrant is the second individual I’m aware of who involves an actual victim in this whole predicament, alongside veteran actor/director Allen. In the 90s, he was cleared of wrongdoing related to sexual assault charges by courts, and no further accusations have been substantiated against him since then. Some artists have expressed remorse for attempting to blacklist him previously. If there’s no solid proof to back up allegations against Allen, continuing this facade is simply an empty display of virtue-signaling. Mr. Arrant then queries:
How should I handle my Neil Gaiman books and future works or adaptations by him? The simple response might be to discard them and forget about them. However, for me, it’s essential to discover a balanced approach to engaging with his work – not ignoring the challenging aspects but finding a way to articulate thoughts and perspectives on various aspects of it.
At least he’s not endorsing book burnings since such an act doesn’t make the situation any better than Gaiman’s atrocities. It’s also disturbing that Arrant is willing to accept the idea that Gaiman could perform such heinous acts in the presence of his young son. And it’s worth mentioning that one of his daughters was named after a drag queen, which is quite surprising.
Additionally, it appears that Glen Weldon from NPR is expressing his thoughts on the current controversy. He discusses possible future actions, but seems uncertain in this role of a “supporter,” rather than with strong conviction.
Despite being uncertain if the troubling accusations are valid, their revelation raises a profound and complex issue that affects us all on a personal level: How should we handle claims about artists whose work we greatly appreciate or even idolize?
I’d like to point out: This question tends to confound many people. However, for some quick-to-post social media users who are eager to disavow the artist’s work, it’s not perplexing at all. They claim they never truly appreciated the creator’s artistry in the first place, or they have always harbored suspicions about them. For these individuals, the only reaction for everyone, following the revelation of the allegations against the artist, is to abandon the cherished work that they once adored deeply before learning about the accusations.
I, too, believe that a creator’s personal life should not dictate our interpretation of their work. After all, art history is filled with complex figures who have left behind masterpieces, timeless and untouchable in their brilliance.
It seems he’s more concerned with deciding whether to keep or discard Gaiman’s work, rather than questioning its initial quality. What made Gaiman’s work so enchanting? For instance, the 14th and 17th issues of Sandman were far from charming, as I mentioned earlier, they were written in a disheartening manner. There was a scene early in the series where a character urinated on a wall. How can that be considered appealing? Such instances come off as awkwardly crass.
His Marvel tales contained distasteful aspects as well. By the way, who’s using “we” here? Given that Weldon identifies as a male feminist, one might wonder if he supports the notion of “believing all women.” Is he questioning how multiple women, unknown to each other, have come forward and the situation has escalated? Hmm, quite intriguing. I faintly recall the first issue having the phrase “listen” repeated several times. Regrettably, Gaiman did not seem to follow his own advice when it came to listening to any victim who accused him of inappropriate actions.
Assumptions:
– “We” refers to people who support the feminist movement or believe women’s stories.
– Weldon is a male and identifies as a feminist.
– The situation being referred to is about allegations against Gaiman regarding his behavior towards women.
As a movie enthusiast, I’d say many of us find ourselves stuck in the middle, grappling with the dilemma of choosing what to watch. We pick movies here and there, selecting pieces that appeal to us at the moment, much like picking fruits from an orchard. In hindsight, we might look back on our viewing history and feel a pang of guilt for not having appreciated more of the artist’s entire collection, as if we’ve only picked at the edges of a delicious salad bar.
Closing the door on an artist’s future work
When allegations surface about an artist whose work I highly value: I view the moment I become aware of these allegations as a turning point. From that moment on, it’s up to me to decide how their past works may impact me moving forward. If I revisit those works in the future, the knowledge of the allegations will certainly color my perception. However, it won’t alter the feelings those works evoked when I first experienced them. Instead, my growing understanding of the claims can and will influence how those works affect me now and in the future.
If I possess any old works by them, I can freely enjoy revisiting those, but the recent accusations may influence my views. However, when it comes to their future work, I’m ready to close that chapter and not consider it.
I’ve delved deeply into discussing Gaiman’s The Sandman, as it stirred a deep affection for grand narrative storytelling within me – stories with epic mythic themes, characters that feel tangible despite their otherworldly nature, and an ability to find magic in the ordinary. Rereading this series would remind me of my younger self, awestruck by how a comic initially dark and horror-esque, even seeming to owe so much to Stephen King’s works, could morph into an epic saga. It used anthropomorphic representations of abstract ideas like Dream, Death, and Desire to explore human themes such as family, loneliness, guilt, and responsibility. Reading it felt like observing an artist breaking free from his youthful influences and discovering his unique, confident voice.
As a passionate movie enthusiast, I’ve always believed that certain things are unalterable. However, given the current allegations, my decision to withhold thought, attention, and most importantly, financial support – and potentially future engagement – from the individual involved or his upcoming projects is not set in stone. It’s a change I find myself compelled to make.
The prospect of another season of Netflix’s The Sandman adaptation excites me immensely, as I adored almost everything about the first installment. Yet, due to these recent developments, I have decided to take a step back.
Admittedly, it’s a subjective decision. However, I opt to consider the time when I first heard about the accusations against Gaiman as the boundary between interacting with him and avoiding him. This choice, in essence, carries a symbolic impact, even if it’s just a tiny signal. It’s like planting a small flag, asserting my stance.
If he’s eager to reread Neil Gaiman’s old works, it doesn’t indicate a change of mind or evaluation. Instead, his actions seem more like a display of support or adherence to certain values (virtue-signaling).
In simpler terms,
Originally, I wasn’t as attached to J.K. Rowling’s work compared to Neil Gaiman’s, but when she started strongly advocating against the idea that trans women are women on Twitter, I felt it was inappropriate for me to support her further. The Harry Potter game and theme park look interesting, especially the clips I see on TikTok. However, spending money on these products might mean giving more funds to Rowling and endorsing her controversial views. For me, abstaining from playing the game or visiting the theme park is not a significant sacrifice; in fact, it’s almost like the least I can do considering my feelings towards her stance.
This situation is reminiscent of the saying “three times and you’re out.” It appears that this individual, who has been criticized for his leftist views, seems unbothered by the fact that J.K. Rowling was a survivor of sexual assault. He also shows disregard for scientific facts regarding biology. His analysis of Neil Gaiman’s works, particularly the Sandman series, lacks clarity and depth. I find it questionable if Weldon’s intentions are altruistic. If he had genuine concerns about Gaiman, as he claims to have, I believe he could have pointed out any inconsistencies or issues. However, this individual has a history of criticizing moral values, often acting like a real-life J. Jonah Jameson, and his writing skills are not impressive. Weldon’s criticism of Rowling once again shows that he lacks the ability to defend women’s dignity and raise important questions about what is right or wrong in his actions.
Regarding “regret,” there’s no hint of it in him when it comes to Neil Gaiman’s Sandman series, and I’m certain that won’t change in the future. Also, it’s quite interesting to observe his casual approach towards using a social media platform owned by Chinese communists, which might be restricted in the US. Moreover, given that Gaiman’s career seems to have reached its end with no new books or adaptations on the horizon, Weldon’s claim of keeping older works while shunning future ones is rather amusing. In my opinion, Weldon could serve as a remedy for insomnia, and he owes J.K. Rowling an apology.
Inverse argues that adapting Neil Gaiman’s works effectively has become a challenge, yet they seem to commit the same errors initially.
In certain situations, the phrase “fans, not artists” has been used as a motto when creators face backlash. This perspective holds merit, considering that fan creations can continue to shape and evolve stories long after their original release. Nevertheless, exceptions do arise, such as in the case of HBO’s plans to adapt J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books into a series. By pursuing this project, HBO would be providing her with financial support and, in a sense, endorsing her controversial views on transgender issues.
As a movie enthusiast, I’m finding it wearisome to continually see J.K. Rowling being dragged into this ongoing debacle. The constant mentioning of her name by columnists casts a shadow over their genuine intentions. However, I can’t help but ponder the points they make later on…
Although there are potential drawbacks, Gaiman continues to be involved in numerous upcoming ventures. The second season of Sandman is slated for release on Netflix later this year, while his 2005 novel Anansi Boys is being transformed into a miniseries for Prime Video. Both productions have finished filming, but at this juncture, it might be wiser to call off the projects and break ties with Gaiman, possibly leading to their indefinite postponement.
After New York Magazine’s investigation, it’s unlikely they’ll get good reviews, and their network might let them go quietly without much attention. Again, the question about why we focus on grim tales with grotesque aspects is baffling. It seems nobody is interested in grappling with this complex issue.
A writer at Vox also commented, and comments on how another male feminist has been unmasked:
Once upon a time, during the wave of the Me Too movement sweeping through Hollywood, men previously admired for their liberal views such as Louis C.K. and Joss Whedon faced the re-evaluation of their entire reputations following allegations of sexual misconduct (Louis C.K.) and bullying (Joss Whedon). Now, two more prominent figures who were known for advocating feminism have been accused of inappropriate behavior towards women. However, it seems that our society is currently less inclined to engage in a thorough examination of these allegations compared to before.
The most significant recent news involves allegations against Neil Gaiman, a well-known and adored figure in the fantasy and comic book industry. Despite his reputation as a champion for women, he’s been accused of physical, emotional abuse, and sexual assault last year by a UK podcast (Tortoise Media). Now, these accusations have gained more attention with a thorough article in New York Magazine, which claims that Gaiman abused several young, vulnerable women who were under his influence. On his website, Gaiman has stated that his relationships with these women were consensual.
Essentially, Gaiman took Whedon’s approach, but with a significantly darker twist; as a result, he is at risk of losing everything, which some might argue is fitting.
The allegations against Gaiman are far more severe and aggressive than those against Baldoni. However, both individuals find themselves in a familiar position, reminiscent of other self-proclaimed feminists who turned out to be false. They constructed their public personas by portraying themselves as “the good ones” in a world dominated by misogyny: men who recognized that other men were dangerous and untrustworthy, and who appeared dedicated to avoiding the same pitfalls. Now, they are being accused of employing these carefully cultivated images as protective barriers for their private misconduct.
It seems that the focus here is on criticizing an argument which appears to be unfairly targeting all men, rather than discussing whether education regarding proper behavior is lacking for both genders, specifically in promoting civility. Such unclear language is often criticized as problematic within feminism from a leftist perspective.
The question that still needs answering is: How will men who identify as feminists fare during the Me Too backlash, given they may be losing their perceived feminist standing? Was the initial value of their feminist beliefs significant?
Was it even altruistic to begin with? That’s a query nobody seems interested in figuring out.
In his fictional works, Gaiman seemed to not just talk the talk but also demonstrate it through action. His stories featured strong women who had no patience for the ignorant, and he addressed sensitive topics such as sexual violence, which were then considered somewhat taboo.
In my humble opinion as a movie reviewer, even the ardent fans of Neil Gaiman might concede that, despite his best intentions, he often fell short when it came to writing female characters. They were seldom the main focus in his stories, and there was an unusual emphasis on detailed descriptions of their physical attributes. However, it’s important to note that his writings were generally well-meaning.
Contrary to popular belief, it appears that the character portrayed soft on crime in his stories, as indicated by both the 14th and 17th issues of Sandman. However, few seem inclined to examine this more closely. For instance, when Morpheus prevented an obese rapist/killer from assaulting a girl in one story, Dream said she belonged to no one, “except perhaps to herself.” The use of the word “perhaps” seems to hint at a contradiction, suggesting that he may not have fully respected the woman’s personal agency. This could explain why the story has become dated over time.
In this retelling, I’m no longer portrayed as the dedicated female ally who occasionally stumbles, but rather, there are allegations suggesting that I involve my own son in reprehensible acts of sexual misconduct. Instead of using my male feminist identity as a tool for progress, it seems that I am now employing it not just to protect myself, but also to lure others into questionable behavior.
1. It’s crucial that he remains distant from children for some time ahead. Palmer will certainly face questioning over this. The actions of Gaiman towards his child were incredibly inappropriate and disgraceful to all parents. This incident should be taken to court. (98 characters)
2. Keeping him apart from kids is necessary in the near term. Palmer has a lot to explain himself about this. What Gaiman did to his son was extremely offensive, bringing shame upon parenting. This case needs to go before a judge. (107 characters)
3. It’s important that he stays separated from children for now. Palmer will have questions to answer regarding this. The actions of Gaiman towards his child were highly inappropriate and embarrassing to all parents. This matter should be brought before the court. (109 characters)
Subsequently, we have a writer from The New Statesman, someone who previously knew Gaiman, expressing concern following the disclosures.
Or,
Later on, there’s an author at The New Statesman, someone who used to be acquainted with Gaiman, now troubled by the new information:
To acquire this photo, I willingly assisted with the event’s organization. My aim was that spending hours guiding the multitude of people eager for Gaiman to sign their books might eventually offer me a brief moment at the end to express my admiration for his work, explaining how significant they were in shaping my teenage identity, and how there were times as a troubled adolescent when his words seemed to be the only thing keeping me together. It worked out. I received my photo, and snatched two minutes of nervous conversation with him. I shared with him that I often doubted myself and wondered if I’d ever find my way. In my well-read copy of American Gods, now almost falling apart from multiple re-readings, he scribbled in red ink “Rachel, Trust!
It’s hard for me to align that memory or image I have with Lila Shapiro’s troubling article about Neil Gaiman, which was published in the most recent issue of New York Magazine. In her over 10,000-word piece, she accuses Gaiman of abusing multiple women across several decades, suggesting he exploited vulnerable young women by coercing them into non-consensual and violent sexual encounters. However, Gaiman has refuted these allegations, maintaining that the events described were consensual BDSM experiences between adults.
The investigation also questions if a situation can be genuinely consensual when the dominant figure is an influential author in his sixties, while the subordinate is a financially struggling babysitter in her twenties. This matter has been addressed by Neil Gaiman himself, who stated that parts of the New York Magazine article depict incidents that he vaguely recognizes but also contains descriptions of events that did not occur. Although he acknowledges his imperfections, Gaiman maintains that he has never participated in any non-consensual sexual activity throughout his life.
The accusations against Gaiman have stirred up shock and a feeling of being let down within his fan community – an unexpected development. Notably, Neil Gaiman is renowned for creating the comic-book series “The Sandman” and novels such as “Good Omens”, “American Gods”, and “The Ocean at the End of the Lane”, which won Book of the Year at the 2013 British National Book Awards. In 2015, he guest-edited an issue of New Statesman magazine. He frequently advocated for refugee rights, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ issues on social media, earning him admiration as a feminist icon among many of his readers due to his fiction’s portrayal of vulnerable women.
However, it seems no one has previously pointed out the merciful stance he adopted towards the villainous characters in the 14th and 17th Sandman tales, which is surprising given that this observation might have been made earlier.
He was wedded to Amanda Palmer, a renowned punk cabaret artist who is known for her candid, autobiographical music and close relationship with her fans. She openly discussed her own encounters with sexual assault in her talks and songs. The community she fostered online served as a sanctuary for survivors healing from their trauma, finding solace in her lyrics. One of her most famous tracks, “Oasis”, narrates a woman seeking an abortion following a date rape at a party. When they tied the knot in 2011, their fanbases combined, giving rise to an atmosphere of unconventional bohemian romance. For over a decade, the duo enjoyed a sort of cult status among angst-ridden, intellectual misfits – both young and old, including myself. There’s even a photograph of me at 22 years old with Palmer: it was taken following a concert, when she played spontaneous ukulele songs on the theatre steps just moments after I shared how her music had provided comfort to me.
Before I was introduced to her music, it was his words that captured my heart. I encountered Neil Gaiman’s books when I was particularly receptive. I would wander around London tracing the footsteps of Neverwhere; the first explicit scenes I read were from American Gods. It’s worth mentioning that many others shared the admiration they had for him. In fact, Neil Gaiman held a near iconic status among readers during the 2000s and 2010s – something quite rare for an author, especially one specializing in sci-fi and fantasy. A woman even traveled from the United States to attend his book signing at Cambridge. She wasn’t a student but simply a fan, eager to meet him in person.
It’s important to clarify that while there might have been numerous women willing to engage in consensual BDSM activities with Neil Gaiman, the allegations made in Shapiro’s piece are not about such consensual affairs. Instead, they describe instances of misuse of power and degradation, where the pleasure is derived not from the acts themselves but from coercing someone who didn’t consent willingly, yet couldn’t refuse, and then manipulating them into later perceiving their reluctance as enjoyment. It’s crucial to understand that in the BDSM community, any doubt or ambiguity about consent transforms boundary-pushing play into outright abuse.
In a way that resonated deeply with me, as a teenager who felt misunderstood and isolated, Neil Gaiman’s writing provided an unexpected sense of security. This is peculiar because his works are brimming with unsettling scenes of violence, particularly instances of sexual violence towards women. Men in his stories are often portrayed as dehumanizing and abusive, fetishizing young girls, and their inner darkness has twisted them into monstrous figures. However, these disturbing elements never felt gratuitous or senseless, unlike in works such as Game of Thrones. Shapiro notes that Gaiman’s books were filled with stories of men inflicting harm on women, but she suggests this was more than just empathy. Instead, it seemed like he understood and supported those who had experienced pain.
Today, it seems he wasn’t the person many thought he was. However, the comics he authored weren’t excessively violent? That’s a topic up for debate, given that there were numerous intense and graphic scenes that left some readers uncomfortable and tarnished the image of mature entertainment. Now, let’s discuss J.K. Rowling – The Times of India reports her response to Neil Gaiman’s non-apology:
On Wednesday, I found myself once again expressing my thoughts in response to a statement from Neil Gaiman, who has recently faced accusations of sexual harassment by eight women. JK Rowling, like many others, has weighed in on this matter, taking another stand against the allegations he’s facing.
Request: Demonstrate an instance of DARVO as Rowling did, by citing an example from Gaiman’s statement about the rape allegations, which she shared on platform X.
What is DARVO?
The strategy known as DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) is a cunning tactic that some individuals who engage in harmful behavior may use to evade accountability for their actions and disparage their victims. This method consists of denying any misconduct, belittling the survivor’s character or accusations, and turning the tables to make themselves appear as the true victim instead of the offender.
In situations where someone employs DARVO tactics, they might deny any wrongdoing and instead present themselves as the one who’s been mistreated. This switch in roles can lead to perplexity, making it difficult for others to discern what truly happened.
Using this method, abusers often try to divert responsibility onto the victim, thereby escaping the repercussions of their actions. The DARVO strategy can be a potent weapon of manipulation, as it may lead victims to question their own experiences and make it harder for them to seek help or pursue justice.
It’s disgraceful behavior that Alice Munro’s second spouse, Gerald Fremlin, reportedly exhibited towards his stepdaughter Andrea Robin Skinner, and Neil Gaiman’s similar actions are equally unacceptable.
Currently, Yahoo Life is discussing the topic of celebrities breaching their fans’ trust. The article concludes by questioning if it’s possible to distinguish between the art and the creator in such situations.
Many followers often find themselves pondering if they can still appreciate the output of an artist or celebrity they once admired, while not endorsing or excusing their actions.
According to Beedon, the act of distinguishing between the artwork and its creator is a highly individual matter, not subject to rules or guidelines.
She suggests considering what aspects of the artist’s work speak to you – be it the topics they explore, the characters they create, or the morals they convey. By concentrating on these features, you may discover a more independent way to admire the art, separate from the artist themselves.
However, several individuals grapple with the decision of continuing to support an artist’s work, especially when they may benefit financially from it. In such situations, as suggested by Beedon, it’s important to establish personal limits.
It’s up to you whether you want to appreciate their work without providing financial support, or if you prefer to not engage at all. In any case, make sure your decision resonates with your personal values and feels right for you.
In essence, handling this predicament calls for empathy – not just for your own emotions, but also for those facing similar struggles, and acknowledging the intricate nature of human fallibility.
Instead of asking if the art improved over time, one could wonder if the initial work was of high quality to begin with. Some comic book writers who’ve faced allegations of misconduct, such as Gerard Jones, seemed more focused on promoting their personal agendas and subtly inappropriate themes, rather than producing intelligent content. Many of these stories lacked creativity, and Gaiman’s works are not much different. A writer for USA Today brought up the issue, acknowledging that she might find it difficult to enjoy Coraline again.
This isn’t the first time a beloved celebrity has been accused of sexual misconduct, and it can be tough for fans to accept that someone they admire might not meet their expectations. After processing this news, I couldn’t help but wonder, “Can I still watch ‘Coraline’?
The article was meant to be uncomfortable. Why?
Graphic recounts of sexual abuse grab — and hold onto — readers’ attention.
Nicole Bedera, the author of “On the Wrong Side: How Universities Protect Perpetrators and Betray Survivors of Sexual Violence,” finds that many readers are reflecting along similar lines, such as pondering, “Is what I’ve read about this man so reprehensible that I must abandon my fandom?
In my opinion, indeed, it’s quite terrible. Even without recent revelations about Neil Gaiman, I haven’t found anything particularly extraordinary about his comics or novels that warranted such a big deal.
She clarifies, “One reason many journalists create such vivid pieces is because otherwise, people tend to distinguish the work from the creator and continue their support for that individual.
The primary issue arises when the wrongdoer receives additional compensation based on product sales, which is why it might not be wise to keep buying items that could potentially benefit him financially.
bedara advises that vivid accounts may exaggerate the nature of sexual violence, causing people to demand a higher threshold of violence before they decide to stop supporting something.
In her study of college students involved in sexual violence, she discovered that school administrators tended to be less proactive when the violence appeared to be routine rather than extraordinary. As she puts it, they often made comments like, “He’s not like Harvey Weinstein.
Furthermore, certain individuals who harbor misogynistic views might form intense, cult-like fan bases around celebrities who face accusations of extreme violence.
In Bedera’s words, if some people react with repulsion, it’s because there are individuals who are amazed, and this dynamic could potentially foster a new fan base.
Can you separate art from the artist?
The short and clear answer is no, Bedera says.
Without a doubt, when the task was overly pretentious and gruesome from the start, it’s highly unlikely. As for universities that seem lenient, oh my, could they be the ones where anti-Israel actions are often tolerated? Naturally, if prejudice can dominate one sphere, then sexism can do so as well, and the reverse is true too.
Instead of relying solely on the artist whom allegations have been made against, Bedera advises considering collaborators or even victims (who might be artists themselves) as potential sources of support. By redirecting your attention and funds from the accused individual, you can assist in limiting their power and potentially weakening it further.
To put it simply, Coraline wasn’t a story I connected with due to Neil Gaiman as an author. Back when I initially saw the movie 15 years ago, I probably hadn’t realized it was adapted from one of his books.
It’s highly improbable that I will accidentally destroy my “Coralne” book or erase the pictures of me with the pink and yellow birthday cake – the harm has already taken place.
The following summer when “Coraline” is back in theaters, as it has been for the last two, I’ll opt to keep the $20 instead, and refrain from persuading my friends to join me.
Outlook asked the questions too:
In considering the accusations against the well-known fantasy author, a significant issue arises: How should one respond when a filmmaker or stage personality whose creative output I appreciate is implicated in sexual misconduct, leveraging their influence and celebrity status—the artist’s fame—to produce new work, while victims are still pursuing justice?
Is it appropriate for me to refrain from supporting the movie/play in this situation?
It’s crucial not to fund a criminal, and if you’re intrigued by an unusual angle regarding Coraline, check out this article at Vigilant Citizen. It discusses how the movie uses subtle references to sadism, and one commenter even wonders if the white balloons in the garden at the end symbolize victims of sexual abuse. This topic was first raised 11 years ago, yet it seems that those who studied this film stumbled upon something unexpectedly deep without initially realizing it. Finally, one might question what draws previous fans of these movies to such dark themes?
However, when Overland addressed the issue, they said at the end:
Scarlett Pavlovich’s harrowing experiences of violence and abuse aren’t due to a single man’s evilness or some inherent, excusable “human nature”. Instead, she suffered what she did because the capitalist system in New Zealand actively facilitated it. A wealthy individual may rape a poor woman in a bathtub and find a twisted pleasure from the act. Yet, all wealthy individuals benefit financially by constructing a world where poor women are forced to endure such abuse. This misogynistic violence is deeply rooted in capitalist society, and eradicating it will necessitate dismantling capitalism altogether.
As a film enthusiast, I find it frustrating to see capitalism being blamed for these issues without proper examination. This specific instance isn’t solely due to capitalism; it seems more like an excessive form of leftism. It’s unfortunate that Neil Gaiman, who is known for his strong leftist views, is often portrayed as an exception rather than a rule in this narrative. Ignoring the potential negative impact of socialism doesn’t help us find solutions. One can’t help but question the writer’s perspective on figures like George Soros, given his considerable wealth. Ross Douthat at the NY Times presents a more balanced argument.
Indeed, it’s often the case that systems crumble when crucial boundaries aren’t set or rules aren’t followed, as I’ve observed even in cases like the ones involving Gaiman. The complex narrative surrounding such allegations serves as a stark reminder of how challenging it can be to manage the actions of those who misuse power and influence, especially in realms where lines of right and wrong may not always be clearly drawn.
It seems to me that what’s crucial is enhancing our educational system, and effectively combating those religious groups that have led to such immoral disasters.
We Got This Covered says his former fans aren’t buying his shoddy defenses:
It’s deeply unfortunate for Neil Gaiman’s many dedicated followers who believed they were backing a compassionate, inclusive, and feminist advocate. For years, they admired him as an author who consistently produced creative, captivating gothic tales. From his work to his online presence to the people he associated with, he seemed like a genuinely wonderful individual.
Apart from his socially isolating social media content and the rather unimpressive nature of his fantasy stories due to their lack of depth, many overlooked these criticisms. However, it wasn’t until allegations surfaced about his inappropriate actions behind the scenes that people began to take notice.
Over the past six months, that mask of respectability has shattered: First came a string of podcasts disclosing Neale Gaiman’s dubious sexual conduct. However, this week’s in-depth article in New York Magazine, based on firsthand accounts from his accusers, has left people speechless. We won’t delve into the specifics of their tales in this discussion, but the overall sentiment has been shock, revulsion, and sheer terror.
A significant portion of Neil Gaiman’s fans, who are generally liberal and feminist-leaning, turned away from him suddenly. Many books signed by him ended up in the recycling bin, graphic novels were given to charity shops like Goodwill, and it’s unfortunate for those who have tattoos depicting his characters because they can’t easily change them.
As a devoted movie critic, I find it challenging to envision a redemptive path for Neil Gaiman after the recent allegations. The optimistic view is that his production partners at Netflix and Amazon might shrug off these events and persist in producing “The Sandman” and other adaptations of his work. Yet, given the disturbing nature of these women’s accounts, it seems plausible that some decision-makers are contemplating whether to write off the expenses already invested as a potential tax break.
Regarding his future literary journey, if his fans are actively damaging the novels of Gaiman they already possess, it appears doubtful they’ll be eagerly purchasing new ones. While some may desire legal consequences and reparations for his alleged victims, it might be best for him and his work to gradually disappear into anonymity. Here’s to hoping that justice prevails.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, it seems appropriate to take the matter to court. Unfortunately, these “celebrities” have enough wealth to hire lawyers who can delay cases indefinitely. While a court trial may be delayed, public opinion can serve as a powerful punishment. It’s hoped that people who are aware of the news will make a conscious decision not to purchase Gaiman’s overrated works, instead choosing to support other artists with their wallets.
And Slate’s talking about the end of male feminists, if Gaiman’s crimes signal it:
In a troubling turn of events, Gaiman has found himself part of a regrettable group of influential men. Their public actions and words seemed to support women against sexist suppression, yet they were accused of assaulting, harassing, or mistreating women privately. This pattern is unfortunately all too common now, creating a well-worn path that has turned into a cliché: the man who appears to be a feminist champion, but in reality falls disgracefully short.
During the peak of the #MeToo movement, these individuals were prevalent in various fields. Louis C.K., known for creating introspective work that examined gender dynamics and male privilege regarding sexual entitlement, found himself at the center of accusations by several women who claimed he exposed himself to them without consent or engaged in unwanted sexual advances. Similarly, Aziz Ansari was recognized for his nuanced comedy on heterosexual dating; however, reports surfaced that he persistently tried to coerce a woman into sexual activity despite her persistent refusals. Lastly, Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney General who initiated legal action against Harvey Weinstein’s company for fostering a hostile work environment, was accused by four women of physical violence during intimate encounters. (Schneiderman claimed that his actions were part of consensual BDSM practices.)
When a man who appears knowledgeable about women’s rights in public is accused of mistreating women privately, there is a feeling among his followers that they have been deceived. This revelation often leads to questions such as: “Was it part of the reason his accusers believed him initially because he claimed to be a feminist?” Regardless of how many men like Gaiman face disturbing allegations, it remains challenging for supporters of male creators who advocate for women’s rights to accept that expressing support for gender equality doesn’t necessarily mean a man is not capable of being cruel or even a serial offender.
It appears that some leftist individuals find it difficult to accept that liberal ideology might prevent certain self-proclaimed male feminists from understanding why abusive behavior is inappropriate. Moreover, these same individuals seem more focused on criticizing Donald Trump than addressing sexism within their own ranks, as suggested by the following observations:
Over the last few years, the admiration for male feminists has decreased somewhat, partly because of the escalating dangers to women’s safety during the Trump era. (It doesn’t have as much impact when a man claims that women should be treated equally.) The term “feminist” has become less popular too. Previously, there was a focus on getting famous people to declare their feminist identity. These responses could spark entire news cycles. However, this stark division between those who are feminists and those who aren’t has generally faded from mainstream discussions. Trump’s emergence revealed the flaw in viewing feminism as solely concerned with gender issues. Moreover, the term started losing its relevance when conservative opponents of abortion rights and proponents of traditional gender roles began identifying as feminists.
If they believe that conservatives pose a greater issue than liberal male feminists, it’s not surprising that resolving the issue of false male feminists remains an ongoing challenge.
According to the Milkshake Duck concept and the warning about not meeting one’s idols, it’s widely acknowledged in adult society that people, including ducks, are complex and can cause harm, some even in horrific ways. The idea of a “feminist” man, as an idealized representation of a better world, has managed to bypass the usual caution people might exercise about public figures. The fan culture surrounding this is also involved: the realm of comic cons and online fan communities that authors like Neil Gaiman inhabit fosters intense, unrealistic relationships with creators. In this setting, it’s easy to forget that a celebrity’s public persona is just a skillfully constructed mask meant for maximum profit. Regardless of what they share or how they communicate, we can’t truly claim to know them at all.
And by the end of the decade, Gaiman will likely have been reduced to but a tedious footnote.
Read More
- Who Is Returning on Days of Our Lives This Week?
- When Is the Nintendo Switch 2 Announcement Date? Reports Explained
- Black Panther 3 Producer Gives Clarity on Denzel Washington’s Marvel Role
- Dead Man’s Wire Cast Adds Colman Domingo to Gus Van Sant’s Hostage Thriller
- Solana Leaves Competition In The Dust: Blazing Speed To Fuel Price Surge?
- ‘As long as audience believes they’re husband and wife’: Pragya Jaiswal on working with Nandamuri Balakrishna despite double age gap
- Who Is Kendrick Lamar’s Fiancee? Whitney Alford’s Kids & Relationship History
- Invincible Season 3 Reviews Deliver the Best Rotten Tomatoes Score Possible
- Telegram Rolls Out ‘Stars’ for In-App Purchases
- Godzilla Minus One 2 Update Given, Will Have Bigger Budget Than First Movie
2025-01-23 17:19