screenshot of a social media post, one user says "It's impressive how Niel Gaiman vanished from the internet. Wish Rowling would do the same." Another user responds, "Also impressive how quickly and thoroughly people who previously loved his work have disowned it, stopped buying it, and stopped discussing it. Wish Rowling's fans would do the same."

top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 230 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Notice how a lot of folks aren't aware of the disgusting things Gaiman did, specifically BECAUSE he went quiet. Rowling doesn't want to go quiet because she's a crusader: discriminating against trans people is a goal for her.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Also I actually have less of an issue with other people buying Gaiman's work. I have no love for the man and won't buy anything myself again, but if you buy something of his, the money goes to him, and stops there. Rowling directly funds bigotry; the money people spend on Harry Potter is in a direct pipeline to funding the suffering of innocent people.

    At the very least, before everything happened with Gaiman, he was known for having positive philanthropic ventures. Even if you gave him money, a sizable portion went to him, another portion went on to better the world. I'd presume he still supports these trusts and charities too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah its a deliberate strategy by Gaiman, while in the background he goes after his victims that settled previously for breaching NDAs. Even if he doesn't win its money well spent to stop more accusations from coming out. He's going to wait this out and try to rehabilitate himself in a few years.

    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/neil-gaiman-claim-accuser-caroline-wallner-nda-1235321848/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Am I going to get rid of his works that I own? No, probably not. I love them. Which is why it sucks so much to never recommend them again, but that's the reality.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] 36 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Death of the author

    People here keep using the term as basically a synonym of "separating art from artist" but I always thought death of the author was a different thing. Analyzing the meaning of a book while ignoring what the author says they meant.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    My 2c tho, the Harry Potter novels legitimately suck. This has been my opinion of them since I was in 8th grade when the first one came out. At the time I described Sorcerer's / Philosopher's Stone as a failed attempt at ripping off Roald Dahl (British author who wrote mean-spirited children's books that stereotyped characters with funny-sounding names based on their physical descriptions). I was frequently urged to and attempted to give the books a second chance, never got more than 20 pages back into any of them before I put them down in exasperation because to me they always felt very petty and derivative. I was not very surprised when JK started to peel off her mask to the public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Older guy told me he read Dahl (Matilda?) to his grandkid & passed the lesson that you gotta be careful who you trust… are his works viewed negatively?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I don't think universally. Similar to Rowling, his stuff is beloved and can certainly still be enjoyed but contains some totally wack bits. Even as a kid I picked up on how mean-spirited his writing was. But I think that's also what makes it interesting to some people, it's got this macabe Grimm's quality to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Why do you think they're so popular then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Children have less reading comprehension, wizards and magic are cool to kids, and nostalgia appears to be my generation's (millennials) lead poisoning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Okay, so why specifically that series among the many other wizards and magic series? I think Rowling is a piece of shit as any sane person should, but let's not warp reality. The books may not be your cup of tea and of course they're not perfect, but they're definitely good books, otherwise they wouldn't have gained the popularity they did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Because they became a cultural phenomenon and were lots of kids first novels. If youve never read anything else youre not going to see the massive flaws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Well, you just replied to the question "why are they popular?" with "because they became popular". Okay, so why did they become popular? Because despite the flaws they definitely have, they're simply good stories with good world building that suck people in (not just kids btw, plenty of people got into them as adults).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I get what you're saying, but why not recommend them with the caveat that the other person should pirate them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 22 points 1 year ago

    This is a good moral compromise in that it allows you to enjoy the art without the moral complications of commercially supporting a rapist, but I think some people might argue that it doesn't go far enough and that we should essentially culturally boycott the art as well, that an artist's reputation rests partially on how their art is perceived, and by continuing to enjoy that art and share it with others, you continue to support the artist in some sense.

    Not sure I know how I feel about that argument, but I think it's an intuition some folks have or an argument they make.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    That's fair. I think because in Gaiman's case it's still fresh for me, and really came out of nowhere, so I don't like to talk about them much.

    With JK, it's so evident in her writing that she had some prejudice that it really didn't surprise me much, so I internalized that quickly and moved on.

    I don't provide either with my money, and pirate them whenever I want something.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago

    I think my cognitive dissonance was too strong, I got rid of my Gaiman. :-(

    But I feel you - his works were important in my life before, I've just been downsizing and even though it wasn't the best, I decided to get rid of mine (not because it's "right" but just because I don't like being reminded of him).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I love HP and they were a big part of my life, made me enjoy reading and helped me a lot with English (and British) vocabulary. I still enjoy the books and movies that I already own from time to time but I cannot see myself consuming anything new knowing that it will give money directly to Rowling's pockets to fund his trans hating organizations

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 51 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I’d only heard about Gaiman on tumblr, and they’re fairly socially conscious over there. Frankly, I’d be surprised if he had any staying power with the crowd that previously endorsed him.

    “Sexually assault your fans” wouldn’t sit well with anyone, whereas “women aren’t real women” comes out of left field.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 96 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    I mean, I still love American Gods, Good omens and Neverwhere. I just stopped recommending them to people.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    I still enjoy his writing, but I'm not sure how to engage now. I want to separate the artist from the art and let the legal system do its thing as a separate thing and I don't know what 'right' looks like as a reader

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I can't separate artist and art. I feel guilty and angry. But I also don't want to. Money to them is money to their deeds. Paying for anything Harry Potter is paying for anti-trans movements. Paying anything Gaiman goes to the "fix your image" firm he has hired. Then I start thinking that firm is probably out there with messaging convincing people to separate art from the artist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Well I haven't looked into the 8 other women. But at least one of the others was absolutely raped, and another was paid off in exchange for an NDA

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    He's not glamorous he's an ordinary creep.

    One of them was one of his tenants, when her husband left her and the kids she could no longer pay rent so he made her give him blowjobs. It's about as unimaginative and textbook as it gets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Buying used copies and pirating his stuff so he never sees a penny, and talking about what a pile of shit he is. I do the same with David and Leigh Eddings. Who locked children in cages in their basement and beat them, among other things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Holy shit, what the fuck? I think I read one edding's book and didn't think much of it, but what the fuck?! Where's my interrobang button!?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago

    tbh my feelings seem to be guiding things before anything like rational morality does - I feel cognitive dissonance about his art because of the association with him as a rapist, and that's enough for me to ditch his art without having to justify it as a moral necessity that others must do as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    The thing that really pisses me off re: Good Omens in particular is that it took Pratchett out with him. And we don't get any more of the TV show because of it, either. Even though it's only half-Gaiman, it got ruined anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Thing is Gaiman pissed off all feminists with the SA allegations so of course he has disappeared from the online world because the cross over between Neil Gaiman readers and SA-appologists is very small.

    Whereas a sect of the feminists support her gatekeeping opinion that the only thing that can describe if you're a woman is being born with a cunt. This one very vocal audience is not unified.

    On top of that Rowling is more mainstream than Gaiman is and the general public is more willing to ignore the mudslinging world of gender politics and not get involved if it means more content from a popular mediocre scribe.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    yeah, agreed - Gaiman's fans are far less willing to tolerate his SA, HP fans are more general public and transphobia is more socially acceptable than SA.

    Basically this post is essentially saying, "it's a shame transphobia is so acceptable to people"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    GERM's is a better term I've seen around lately, stands for Gender Exclusionary Radical Regressive Misogynists.

    Edit: thank you for the correction!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    oo, I didn't know about this, thank you - GERM is much better than TERF, lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago

    Harry Potter is so ubiquitous that most people who consume it do so without really knowing much about the author beyond their name and then there's a decent chunk that don't care because it doesn't affect them and they think it's culture war stuff that doesn't matter.

    Making people care about things that don't directly affect them is always the hardest task.

  • source
  • [+] 35 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The work didn't do anything wrong

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    I'm out of the loop. What happened with Neil Gaiman?

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -23 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    wait, what point are you actually trying to make about the subject at hand here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It seems pretty clear that they have a significant amount of intrusive thoughts about sexual assault and think that abusing people from a position of power isn't bad enough to merit removing Neil Gaiman from "nerd canon."

    Honestly, it's stomach-turning enough to make me think they're just trolling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [M] 5 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    I am going to need you to clarify your point here. Quickly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I cannot reply to the original comment anymore, so I will say this here: having intrusive thoughts about SA'ing people is not normal, and you can get help for such things. If you experience anything like that, please please please get therapy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's almost like I said "some level of intrusive thoughts" and you immediately jumped to me condoning sexual assault.

    Like there's an inability to process degrees of trouble, and a desire to run everything as hard as possible to the worst conclusion when you hear something you don't like.

    But I'm sure I've already been banned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    [Personal Note] I removed the comment primarily because this isn't the proper venue for that debate. Maybe we all misunderstood and maybe we didn't. Irrelevant. Please remember that this is meant to be a safe space to goof around in. Such matters of mental health are important and should be discussed honestly and openly, just not here. Debate about forgiveness for past SA transgressions is also DEFINITELY not a subject matter for this space.

    "Sir...this is a Wendy's."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    im going to need you to clarify what the fuck your trying to say? rumors are very different from accusations, and we need to take those seriously. if your suggesting that rapists should get less severe punishments, you will be banned.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 19 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Sort of off topic. I think learning new things about an author can make re-reading their works interesting.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Oh look, another barely concealed fetish!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I misread this as accusatory to the commenter lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    same, lol - I was like daaaaaamn

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've always felt that if you really subscribe to the ethos of death of the author then you should just consume all your media without learning anything about anyone who made it. And that is unbelievably dumb imo

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Is it? I've read hundreds of novels that I couldn't name the author even if I tried. I would go to the library, pick a book, read it, and go to the next one. A lot of people do the same thing with all of their entertainment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There's just so much entertainment and incredible creativity out there. I genuinely don't understand allegiances like this.

    I love Sandman but tbh fuck that dude and I'll go read one of other million alternative stories that often are just as good if not better.

    The competition in creative industry is just insane and switching is basically free compared to any other industry. Like, good luck switching from John Deere if you're a farmer but Harry Potter fans have zero barriers and still can't do it. Spineless, weak people.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›