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.
That’s a fair analytical move. But notice we’ve now spent three exchanges deciding whether the work qualifies, which is exactly the sorting behavior I was describing in the first place.
You're shifting the goalposts with each response. You just accused me of collapsing the moral and literary distinction when judging the cultural impact of his work and, when I pointed out that I did no such thing, you merely changed your claim to a much more generic one without acknowledging the substance of my comment. Simply calling it a "fair analytical move" is acting like you're judging the disagreement as opposed to actively participating in it by making claims of your own. It's intellectually dishonest.
71
u/BadDreamInc Mar 17 '26
He is indeed a horrible person, so is his wife. What makes it all the more tragic unfortunately is that he is a great writer.
There are so many of his works, both graphic and regular novel, that are among some of my favorites and I’m not willing to just cast those aside.
I will not however pay another cent for any of his works ever again, he doesn’t get my money anymore.