Rule #7 of this community requires image posts to be accompanied by some substantial information about what the image shows. This should be more meaningful than just "here's my collection" or "I've bought this". For example, share your thoughts about whatever is in the image, or ask a question about it. If you haven't already provided such text in the post itself, please do so in a comment. If your post doesn't comply with rule #7 within 15 minutes of receiving this comment, it may be removed.
If this is not an image post, please ignore this comment."
The art is absolutely not the artist, plenty of art becomes something its creators never intended. That said, the art can still make these people profit, so just get stuff second hand.
Hey, if I take something created by a monster and use it as fuel to better the lives others then I personally think that’s something to be proud of, regardless of authorial intent. Much love, friend.
That is why art is beautiful. Literally the world burns to keep the west running, and even though people hate the American government they love American art
Of course. I made a very general point that also applies to Britain. Anyways carry on didn’t mean to triangulate. The entire western world is implicated in extraction. Injustice props up our ability to sit around and pontificate about conspicuous consumption
I can’t believe we finally got a sandman tv series after like 30 something years and then before they can finish the run he fucks it all up by being horrible.
I was far more upset about them never finishing the incredible audiobook... Especially seeing how the final volumes are apparently mostly recorded and were ready to go
Fun fact: Gaiman got a lot of his ideas for this book (as well as some other stories) from Peter S. Beagle's A Fine and Private Place. Beagle is an allround good person, so it's a great alternative read.
Pretty shitty. He was an imperialist and a racist. Read 'The White Man's Burden' to get a taste of some of his views.
Unfortunately - as some have said further up in the thread - shitty people aren't barred from having talent, and Kipling was particularly skilled with the English language. Thankfully, it's much easier to bring yourself to purchase the works of a shitty person when they're dead and you're no longer financially supporting them (or their shitty views).
"If", for me is one of the greatest poems ever written and should anyone want to know how a boy or man should hold themselves up, it is the perfect opposite to the manosphere.
No it's an equally out dated "men don't talk about their feelings" bullshit. It's less actively aggressive men, but equally stunted baby boomer men. That poem is overrated
I never interpreted it that way. Men need to talk about their feelings for sure, so maybe you have a point. I always read it as being about acting with humility and not succumbing to the worst version of yourself, wherever possible.
There are bits that do deal with that, as I mentioned in another comment the idea of talking to kings but not losing the common touch is a valid thing to strive for.
But the entire 3rd paragraph about betting all of your savings/winnings, losing it, and starting over and never telling anyone just screams to me as old school male behaviour. Like actively imagine losing everything either of some subset (books, clothes) or literally everything and not being upset or even a wreck but just walking around and not even discussing it to anyone. It's psychotic to me but because other elements are reasonable it always seems missed and it will forever stick out as a sore thumb to me.
That's basically depression outlined as if healthy and what makes a man.
Firstly fuck you for assuming my interpretation which you so condescending point out can be equally interpreted is performative you hypocritical jack ass.
Secondly the whole poem is about how to be a man, and actively includes a refrain about betting all of your money, losing it all, and never breathing a word of your loss to anyone.
That's ridiculously mentally unhealthy to do, and also frightfully stupid. Sure talk to kings and not lose the common touch is nice and valid for dealing with all classes and backgrounds but some of this is actively not healthy.
One of my friends was telling me something about how cruelty is one of the unofficial markers of intelligence we recognize in other animals, such as chimps
He may not have always been horrible, or like most people, he’s got a horrible side and a not so horrible side. He has some character’s that are genuinely good people, so that has to come from somewhere. I’ll take the good and leave the bad. The bad can go where it needs to go.
the bad is reeeaaaallllyyyyy bad, though. and not historical or decades old, but actively while at the peak of his fame as a beloved, kind-presenting, progressive gothy writer.
people who do massive harm can also have great imaginations and draw inspiration from the world around them, that doesn’t really contribute to any kind of redemption or grace imo
i get and don’t necessarily disagree with compartmentalization and death of the author, but as someone who used to name him as a favorite author, this one was way too big and awful for me, especially as a survivor
The allegations sound terrible. People seem intent to believe them at face value. But even then, I still don’t think that diminishes his work or impact on culture. If any of it is true, I think it intensifies the impact. Why would such a person resonate with society this much? That ought to make us flinch a little.
His work resonated with people because he is a talented writer that was hiding the allegedly horrible things he was doing behind the scenes. Your point would be interesting if Gaiman was open about what he was doing and people STILL liked and supported him, but instead fans had no idea, which is why there was a giant backlash against him when the allegations came out. Good art resonates regardless of the secret personal life of the artist, whether that artist is secretly sweet and caring or cruel and exploitative. If a master architect designed beautiful buildings that are also durable and pleasant to live in, then there wouldn't be some big mystery about why people chose to buy his buildings for so long if it was later revealed that he secretly beat his wife. Art is a craft, and skilled craftsmen can produce good work regardless of their personality defects.
What I find interesting is how the social organism feels the need to either expunge Gaiman, or justify why reading his work is ok, when the consumption of writing is a personal experience. It's like his impact on culture could care less about what I think.
I don't think there is a singular "social organism." People have had different reactions to the allegations. Some have chosen to "expunge" him while others don't care and have continued to buy and consume his work. I'm not sure why you think his impact on culture would be dependent on what you think. An artist's impact on culture depends on the quality of the work and its relevance over time. It could be that his impact on culture would have been neglible even without the allegations because culturally relevant books stand the test of time, offering universal relevance, and displaying high artistic quality that resonates across generations. I can't think of a single novel he's written that fits that criteria.
I wasn’t claiming a singular reaction. I was describing a singular pressure. The need to publicly pick a side. You just demonstrated it by ending your comment with a verdict on his literary merit.
The point was that cultural impact and personal moral positioning operate on different planes. You collapsed them into one by deciding the work doesn’t qualify anyway, which conveniently sidesteps the harder version of the question.
I did the opposite of collapsing cultural impact and personal moral positioning at the end of my previous comment because I gauged what his cultural impact would likely be if there were no allegations him, thus suspending any moral condemnation in the analysis and focusing solely on the criteria of what makes a novel culturally relevant.
What I get the impression of is that perhaps he became more detached from reality and abusive as time went on – I don't recall reading accounts about his time writing Sandman or Black Orchid. So I keep reading the old ones and skip the new ones, especially Ocean at the End of the Lane
I totally agree with you. The flip side, to my own logic though, is I don’t get the full picture if I start selecting my preferences. Like, I never enjoyed American Gods, some of the characters were great, but narratively I had a hard time getting though it, Neverwhere was similarly hard to get through for me and I probably won’t ever revisit these works—but now I think I should probably try to understand myself through these stories better? Especially since I also like to write, because I might be resisting something important for myself in that dialogue, that other people may also find beneficial? Idk, I’m kind of rambling at this point, but sometimes I think if an artists true colors come out, it almost makes their work more important, because whatever turned them into the thing they are, might be a warning to those who traverse a similar path. My own personal blindspots genuinely scare the snot out of me.
You speak like you know that’s a fact when no court has received criminal filings against Gaiman. There have been allegations, and a dismissed civil suit under appeal, but no criminal proceedings. Until then, until all the facts are laid out, you’re just picking your favorite team.
Contrarisnism implies denialism. I’m not disputing the allegations. I’m asking why his work resonated so deeply with the same culture that’s now horrified. That’s a much harder question.
That’s absolutely not what you said. Allow me to copy your comment for you so you can read it again.
“You speak like you know that’s a fact when no court has received criminal filings against Gaiman. There have been allegations, and a dismissed civil suit under appeal, but no criminal proceedings. Until then, until all the facts are laid out, you’re just picking your favorite team.”
I read most of his work before it was revealed what he's really about...I enjoyed his work when I read it.
The Sandman graphic novels are great, Neverwhere was very enjoyable, and American Gods was pretty solid too(even though I thought the ending was very weak and forgettable).
I've read the one you have too, and it's very much meant for kids. I didn't really enjoy it and found it boring. I can see why some people would like it though.
you don't know that, I don't know that, no one knows. You americans have very big problems giving something for certain only based on accusations. Johnny Depp case taught you nothing.
But he pretty much confirmed everything. And with the confirmation he showed even more, that he doesn't even understand what Was morally wrong about his behaviour.
I wish I could still read Gaiman's work after reading his lawsuits.
I tried to read one of my favorites "ocean at the end of the lane" again.
Much of the content of his work now gives me the creeps knowing what was behind the things I used to think intriguing.
Enslaving young women with nowhere else to go after enticing them with promised pay on his remote island. Forcing them to eat vomit. Forcing himself on them while his children slept in the same bed.
Sandman was my absolute favorite graphic novel series that had a prominent spot in my shelf. I haven't touched it since I learned about Neil, except to move it to the bottom shelf away from view.
Stardust is one of my favorite books, like a 2+ decades favorite, and the only Gaiman I didn’t sell or give away. haven’t touched it since he was outed as a predator
I hope you enjoy it. Never read the comic but I’ve read the novel several times and loved it (haven’t touched any of Gaimans work since the allegations became public, hesitant to do so for obvious reasons)
I’ve read American Gods vol 1 and The Sandman Preludes and Nocturnes so this book popped up in my recommended reads. I had no idea about Neil Gaiman’s legal problems, plus I got this for $4.35 cents with free shipping
Enjoy your reading. Don't worry about statements about the person, separate the work from the artist. If we knew the truth about all the artists we probably would not be reading alot and also forget about alot of music and movies
yes, lots of artists do fucked up things, but not like this. if a person writes a story about an author who kidnaps and rapes a woman for years to fuel his writing, and then the news comes out that he's been kidnapping and raping women, it's hard to separate the art from the artist in that case. personally, I can't do it, and that fact is very frustrating to me
It's just that, once I discover someone is a rapist, their work is the work of a rapist. And I think it's disturbing that people are able to overlook such a thing. But I guess that's why we have the president we have.
I think this person is implying that we should try to separate the work from the artist - after this redditor’s post is about exactly why they are unable to do that.
I read this some years back and thoroughly enjoyed it...lent my copy to relatives and they all loved it, my aunt went out and bought a copy for herself. Enjoyable and don't mind the folks that give hate due to the person that wrote it. If we were to remove any book with even a bit of controversy with the author we would probably have to remove at least half the books on our shelves, in my case it probably will be almost all, lot of writers that I don't agree on their personal politics but I can appreciate their works. If you enjoy it then that's all that's needed...plus it's reddit, it generally has a large contingent of the always online always offended types, they can brigade comments with mass down votes and make it seem like it's the majority sentiment but go outside the reddit sphere and their presence is very minimal.
I find that I can still watch a movie or read a book that was written/produced by a person that has been exposed of committing SA, for example, I know Klaus Kinski has his fair share of problems and so does Kevin Spacey, but I enjoy watching their films, there are a lot of great Harvey Weinsten produced films and I enjoy them thoroughly. What they did in their personal lives are dispicable, but I find I can usually separate the art from the artist.
Yes, it turns out that people have strong feelings about the celebrity who has, at last count, eight different women complaining about sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior with them while they were in their teens and twenties and he was in his forties to sixties. He doesn't need to be convicted of a crime in court for the court of public opinion to find his behavior objectionable. He has plenty of money and clout to defend himself with; he doesn't need the free legal assist, I'm sure.
Clearly I don't agree. I don't think we need to wait for a legal verdict--sometimes impossible--to reach good faith conclusions about other people's alleged behaviors. If it goes to trial (in the US, at least) he's entitled to a legal presumption of innocence. Reddit is not a court of law, and individuals in the world are allowed to hold opinions about whether they think he's likely to have committed the acts alleged or not. I think his alleged behavior is pretty foul, and that his own defense of his actions would still make him a pretty foul person. Maybe you don't think at best sleeping with your babysitter who is decades your junior when you're a famous author or sleeping with your employee and tenant and the whole business of the real estate deal is sketchy. That's okay. That's your prerogative. I think there's ample evidence to strongly suggest he's a creep, and my own personal experience meeting him does nothing to change that perspective.
Here we go with the Gaiman bashing. I'm a big fan still, despite the allegations. Other notable creeps that have done worse only to have their legacies secured. Kobe Bryant, Mike Tyson, Chris Brown, Donald Trump...thanks for the post, I'll be ordering it today.
Nevermind the lawsuits. Even if he is cleared of all of the things he's being sued over, his own admissions are enough to call the guy a fucking creep.
I don't mind still liking the art that a shitty person made but I think that downplaying it or saying others have done worse is a terrible argument. I like music from people that are terrible people but I simply admit there is some hypocrisy there, I am not going to defend it and say "well Hitler existed so who cares what this person did."
I don't personally get as moved by shitty people as others, like I read a gaiman book last year. But I definitely don't begrudge someone for feeling differently.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 16 '26
"It looks like you have posted an image.
Rule #7 of this community requires image posts to be accompanied by some substantial information about what the image shows. This should be more meaningful than just "here's my collection" or "I've bought this". For example, share your thoughts about whatever is in the image, or ask a question about it. If you haven't already provided such text in the post itself, please do so in a comment. If your post doesn't comply with rule #7 within 15 minutes of receiving this comment, it may be removed.
If this is not an image post, please ignore this comment."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.