I understand people that don’t want to provide income for someone they despise. But separate from that concern (you already own the media, the creator sold the copyright, the creator is dead, etc) I think it's usually best to separate art from the artist. If someone has truly caused suffering in their life, why destroy the one thing they did that brought joy to people?
Agreed. If the book or dvd or LP or whatever is already in your possession, I don't think you're supporting the creator just by continuing to own it. I don't have any good feelings left for JK Rowling, and I'm not going to buy any new books of hers and I don't feel any joy in HP merch, but I still love those book and the memories of them and I won't let her ruin that. On the other hand, I get no joy out of watching Kevin Spacey anymore, because I have to see his face in order to enjoy his art, and I don't have to think of JK Rowling when I'm reading about Harry Potter. It's a case to case thing. I don't know how I'll feel about this one yet, it has to settle down first.
@@QueenMegaera True. I also think there's a difference between personally not being able to enjoy someone's art (like your Kevin Spacey example), and saying that it's immoral for anyone to enjoy someone's art. If you had House of Cards on DVD and want to get rid of it, there's nothing wrong with that. But telling someone else they're "supporting sexual abuse" or something for not throwing theirs out is where I draw the line and find it unreasonable.
You are right. But this is not the whole truth. I love the books for 25 years and I will not stop to love them. They did not change. But ... I don't care if what he did was somehow legal. The whole thing - that he himself does not deny - is dark, wayyyy darker than the image I developed from his work and his persona AND from what others, who know him, say about him. And this persona is so vastly different that I feel seriously betrayed. I'm not a naive teenager, I know from experience what characters like the Corinthian, Morpheus himself and many, many others mean. There is a deep understanding of a very dark side in this mind. And understanding comes from experience, in one way or another. Imagination can only do so much. There is an abyss, and he lets us peek inside. But an abyss does not mean that the monsters inside walk the earth. People like that are not necessary evil. And I don't want to judge people's preferences. Strange habits are not evil. They are simply strange. To me. But there are so many issues with the whole thing and for me the real issue is that his persona and his work hide this. Maybe I'm blind, but then most of us are. Most people are shocked by this. We don't want this to be true because we love his work. And many "love" him for his talent, for his gifts to us, his stories. What makes me sad, more than angry, is that I already know that this revelation will change the way I will read and understand his work. He himself tainted those wonderful stories. Because he hides this side so perfectly that I personally count this as a lie. A big lie. If there was any hint I would not have a problem now, because it's she says he says. But the thing is, it's not about this. It does not matter if it is a grey zone. The lie is there, it happened already. There are relationships happening in a very dark area and with a dynamic I did not see coming. Not at all. And this hurts. He is so much not the guy he actively pretends to be. There are boundaries, and those are definitely crossed. Period. This is my opinion, you are allowed to have a different one. I have a very strong opinion when it comes to abuse, and in my world this is abuse. It's not the age gap, or the wealth, or the grey area. It's all of it plus the matter of manipulation. The ability and the knowledge. He has both. And he used that, it's in the data we already have. This is impossible to proof, but to me it is plain to see. Not what is said but what happened and is acknowledged by NG himself. I don't judge the crime at the table. That had to be proven. But I do judge the crime of smoke and mirrors. He comitted that beyond doubt. If this is no crime for you so be it. To me it is. This is an abuse of immense power in so many ways I claim the right to judge because I am affected. I feel deeply betrayed.
"It is equally important to investigate the allegations before labelling someone a criminal" It's very refreshing to hear such a reasonable and mature response, and I hope you don't get too much hate for saying it.
So, definitely agree that these are allegations and nothing can be said yet until proven, which is still unfortunate. Ultimately I do see some issues there, like supposedly hiring a fan as a nanny - this is a bone head move even IF it works out well - you never hire a fan, your gf, wife in a job role, fans especially. Where this is the exact outcome that can happen - seen it many times at work places where a boss hires his wife, husband, gf, etc. Ultimately, it is rather mentally healthy and totally approbriate to seperate art from the artist. IF you didn't, well buckle up...throw away everything you like and love and even believe in - people are flawed and are human, and do bad and sometimes terrible things. I don't think I can think of any poltical, historical, artististic person who hasn't believed, said, and done bad things. I understand the reason for not wanting to "support bad people who do bad things", but you are likely doing this everyday in some way without knowing it. The key is, people can make great art, say profound things, and inspire you through that art - even if they are a bad person, or maybe a person who did a bad thing. The only thing I can say in the end, is it is tragic, and no one should idolize a person for their art or work even. Take what good they have given, and make it into something better - even if that's just enjoying a world and story that makes you find an escape. There's nothing wrong with that.
Great comment, thank you for this. I have to admit some guilt, because in his case I did not separate the art completely. The Sandman was some kind of revelation for me, and I did some research about the author and became attached over time. Not like a fangirl, but still. I am hurting. But there is one thing I disagree with you. Yes, people are flawed, and that is okay, I can deal with that. Especially in this case. I always saw a dark side in him, but everything I learned about him - and I did not seek him out, but sometimes I watched some videos of speeches and such - made me think: yes, there is darkness, but it is under control, it is not hidden, you can see it clearly in his work and the message overall is good. A good sign. Another good sign is the way others talk about him. I never heard anything that rang an alarm. This really took me by surprise. The Corinthian is one of the worst psychopaths ever for me. As soon as he enters a scene he makes my blood freeze. Immediately. And I have no problem at all with Silence of the Lambs, I'm fascinated by H. Lector. We desire what we see daily - so true. Yes, he is extremely dangerous, and not only a killer, but he has another face. A face I admire, no matter what the other side does. I can separate this. And he is no psychopath by the way. Not in my book. He has feelings and a moral compass. It's just very different. And he can mutate into a psychopath. Two sides of a coin. Imagine he would not do what he does and write books instead. That was somehow what I thought. Yes, there is a Corinthian in there, somewhere, but he does not roam free. He just writes books. Together with a whole bunch of other faces. The Corinthian is not nearly what happened, but now I ask myself ... what else is he capable of? What else does he hide so perfectly that I could not see it? I do not judge the desire to test boundaries, that's okay with me. I also test my boundaries in safe spaces like books and films and games. But the problem is that in real life the boundaries are on both sides, and the circumstances are so bad that there is no doubt in my mind that there was clearly abuse happening. And to take advantage because I can ... reminds me of Calliope. And Morpheus' reaction. If somebody takes advantage of somebody he is attached to and maybe sees as his property, there is the most cruel revenge. But what about Morpheus himself? Hurt his precious feelings and he sentences you to hell for eternity. A little bit of overkill. I never believed that the character has nothing to do with him. He denied it too vehemently. We don't talk about a connection. There is none. He just looks like me, he just says my words, he does what I want him to do. And he is unable to change. He prefers to die. And steals a Daniel for a new shot at life. Did I mention that I love the Sandman? And the protagonist drives me crazy, he makes me really mad. I adore the scene when Death tells him what a prick he is. Best speech ever. I immediately fell in love with her. Strange things happen in this world. And we should talk about them. We have to, or they happen again and again and again. Silence is not gold. Silence enables perpetrators and hurts victims again and again. We are not the law, we don't have the right to sentence. But we have the right to have an opinion. Celebrities have special rules, they are partly public because they are rolemodels. And if they hurt people they know the risk. He is not stupid. Just a coward as it turns out. And we should not judge the books. They did nothing wrong. They tell the truth, in some way, somewhere. They don't hide it. He managed that all by himself. I will read the Sandman for the 8th time soon. I am too curious. And too worried about that blind spot of mine. Here comes a candle ... Let's bring some light into the dark places.
If we intertwine the art and the artist, we'll have no art left. EVERY artist: a painter, a novelist, a musician, etc., has sins to confess. To blindly toss off the art in the process is more akin to fascism than it is real discerning intellectualism.
I never expect authors or artists to be good people. I may stop buying their works if it's bad enough, but I won't throw away books that I already have.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I love Neil Gaimans work, and he definitely played some influence in my own writing and I definitely have some evaluating to do. It brings to mind one of my favorite broadway soundtracks growing up 'Jane Eyre the musical'. Unfortunately 7 years after it debuted the leading man pled guilty to molesting one of his young fans. He was 35, she was 15. YUCK! So In the end, while I will not completely discard their works influence they play on me artistically, I make sure to avoid supporting future work. And if I reccomend them as a study for other aspiring artists in a research sense, I just lend them my copy or tell them to try and find it in their local library. Praise be to local libraries, keeping royalties out of the hands of creeps since forever.
Thank you for your comment. I think donating books to libraries is a wonderful idea. I do that all the time whenever I want to make more place for new books - donate the ones I've read to the library.
Richard Wagner. That is my rejoinder to anyone who cannot separate artist from art. We've been having this discussion for friggin' centuries at this point. It's a sterile debate.
It's not just allegations, Gaiman himself ADMITTED to having relationships with fans that are 20 years younger than him.He had slept with the nanny of his children who is 20 years younger than him. For example, you have a husband, he is 42 then you hired a nanny for your children who is 22. Then you find out your husband is sleeping with her on her first day in the job, how would you feel?
Just because we may find it distasteful to sleep with someone who is that much younger than us, doesn't make it wrong. Both the women in question were adults. Yes, they were much younger than him, but they were adults. So I don't believe that is relevant to this debate here.
@@EnchantingTalesYTyou’re entirely ignoring the power dynamics in play between a fan-idol and especially between an employer-employee. That’s just wilfully ignoring blatantly obvious indication of exploitation
Gaiman admitted he has had relationships with youg girls 20 years younger than him, So that statement in itself is pretty shady. Yes, you can separate art from artist but I dont want to support financially support Gaiman anymore. He sleeps with his underage fans. Thats a big no no.
@@EnchantingTalesYT So you would be open to having a relationship with...let's say a 60 year old man? Do you have a niece? What if your niece turns twenty then you find out she has been sleeping with a 45 year old man that has a wife? That's okay with you???? I am already 43 and married. So it's okay for me to have a girflriend sidechick who's twenty years old? Also, one of the girls Gaiman slept with was the nanny of his children.
@@DanQR5 you say you're 43, how old is your wife? Is she within an acceptable range of having been alive to the same span as you? What is that span? And what/who determines it's appropriateness? Maybe you being married to someone as close in age as your wife is "weird" or "gross" or is cause for strangers on youtube to judge you and your freaky "sameness" to her. I have a niece, and who she fancies is none of my business. My relationship isn't with who she sleeps with, it's with her. It's be a bit awakward if it were to involve who she chooses to love outside of a familial type of love. Stop postulating there's some attached moral high ground equated with proximity to age; there isn't. People like who they like, love who they love, have secrets (of all manner of sorts and inherent weight) are fallible, and people of all ages, of all genders, nationalities, religious or philosophical beliefs, of height, weight and even cultural backgrounds and educational levels make connections with other people, sometimes without an intent to do so, and sometimes it's not some weird creppy sexual luggage you're carrying on about. 🤦🏻♂.
I appreciate your thoughtful approach, but I think you were unnecessarily dismissive and belittling of the podcast and, while there are absolutely issues with online mobs, I don't think it's a positive thing to start using alt right terminology like cancel culture, which ignores the original meaning of cancel in AAVE and tacitly supports the appropriative use. I also don't think that someone being found guilty or innocent isn't a 100% an indication of wrong doing or not. That's something everyone needs to decide for themselves individually. A friend of mine put it well when they said, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle of two contrasting stories and the middle of these stories is still disgusting and unacceptable. I would never presume to tell people what to do, but I felt a lot better giving my stack of Gaiman books to others who would get use out of them as I no longer wish to read his work. Honestly, shortly before the allegations came out, I read The Ocean at the End of the Lane and I was struck by the uncomfortable dichotomy in how he writes women. That book really gave me bad vibes.
@@peacemaster8117 Cancel like Woke came from AAVE and appropriated and misappropiated by the alt right and then became common online vernacular. It first came up in a the film New Jack City from which it became AAVE to determine people who couldn't be trusted because they were racist or otherwise abusive. Saying it's just internet talk is like saying all the AAVE that Rupaul launders as Queer Vernacular is just Internet speak. Etymology is a thing.
Thank you for your comment. I have, at no point, belittled the podcast. However, if you listen to it carefully, you will likely come to the same conclusion as I did - the podcast was rather sensationalist. It didn't have to be. But it was. The purpose was to shock and entertain, rather than report the news as they claimed to have been doing. That was my only issue with it.
@@EnchantingTalesYTI agree, the podcast has a clear agenda. But the podcast is not the case in question. There is a statement of Neil Gaiman himself. That is the baseline. The opinions what this means differ profoundly, but there are stated facts apart from the podcast. If you excuse his behavior because what he acknowledges is legal is up to you. Nobody here is the law, this is just about opinions. To others what happened is a form of abuse and unacceptable inside the whole picture. It's a matter of personal moral convictions, and those are vastly different. Victims understandably tend to see things from another point of view as perpetrators, and the law allows a lot that's not acceptable for a lot of victims and even other people who are not personally affected. And I mean this generally, not only in this case. To me an age gap of 40 years plus the power dynamic is way over the line of moral integrity. Not a crime, but nonetheless inacceptable for a person in my virtual or real inner circle. So I keep the books and throw out the person. And believe me, this is not easy for me. I am a fan for 25 years. But this is not the person I was a fan of.
I got my Coraline books signed by him when I was 13, which was 16 years ago! He came to my town for a book signing and I was a big fan of him for a long time. Anyways I’m putting my signed books up on eBay…hope they’re still worth something after his freak behaviour
Nonsense. They entered relationship with this guy after they submitted to some of these sexual acts. And now after 20 years "Oh well he wasn't always nice and gentle so I decided I dont' like it now". Now. "I don't like it NOW."
.... so bc a woman says "i do" her husband cannot possibly be abusive. that's what ure saying. being in a relationship is not automatic consent to anything he wants to do to you.
@@blah914 No, but we have no proof that any non-consensual acts occurred. Only one of them makes a specific allegation of non-consensual acts, which Gaiman refutes. The rest of the allegations focus simply on "rough and degrading" sex acts, which are not morally wrong in themselves so long as they're consensual. Having rough consensual sex with a celebrity is a very strange thing to complain about decades later.
@peacemaster8117 he literally broke covid-lockdown and left the country where he lived with his wife and child, and hadn't been back since, there is an open case w the police and they can't get a hold of him (bc he wont return to the country), and his wife divorced him that same year. and it wasn't decades ago, the last one was during covid and the police case is still open.
@@blah914 :D What does him breaking stupid covid lockdowns and being a shitty father and worse husband has to do with any of this? Nothing. I am surprised you didn't pull out of your as$ his drinking habits, his awful use of punctuation and him killing that squirrel in the park once when he was 7. Anything to smear, right?
@@blah914The divorce made me think twice as soon as I read about it all. This can mean everything, but my damned gut ... And she was involved in at least one case. I always had the impression that they were the perfect couple when I saw them together. But I also had the impression that the author of the Sandman is one of the good guys. He is not, that is for sure. Nothing to do with strange practices. Everything to do with the moral values I find in his books. With this new information I reevaluate those values and I clearly see that there is a too clever hidden side I did not see. My problem, but a problem nonetheless. Smoke and mirrors ...
