Not quite right.
OK, that probably is what I’m misremembering; and she didn’t actually go back to Dream. Still a really unpleasant story, though; and one in which Dream doesn’t seem to really understand what they did wrong.
Although it’s true that Dream, the character, is also the giver of nightmares.
It’s been awhile, but my memory is that she did not forgive him. She had no power to have an affect on him in any way, beyond making him feel bad. And she chose not to spend more thought on him. But she was more than willing to tell him that he had been wrong and still did not understand how he had been wrong.
She chose to walk away.
Here’s a link to a Reddit post with the 1983 advertisement
https://www.reddit.com/r/Temple/comments/x2sxij/temple_1983_commercial_featuring_bill_cosby_found/
On top of the mentioned video adaptations, there is currently an ongoing Anazi Boys comic adaptation by Dark Horse. Issue 7 has just come out.
Some of the things that article says strike me as something of a non-sequitur.
That seems to imply that there is, or should be, some correlation between how many of an author’s works get adapted and how good or innocent a human being that author is. I don’t see it that way. You don’t adapt an author’s works because of the author, but because of the works.
That only makes sense if “money spent on further adaptations on his work” is money paid to Gaiman. A lot of the money spent on adaptations goes to all sorts of people and places involved in making the adaptation. And, I don’t know whether it would work legally, but morally, what if they continue to adapt his work and pay the money that would have gone to him to his victims instead?
That depends on whether they can separate the story from its creator. And if they can, I don’t have a problem with that.
Personally, I don’t know yet. But I read (or otherwise consume) a creator’s works for my benefit, not for theirs. If I deprive myself of the enjoyment or other benefit I might get from them, I’m not punishing him; I’m punishing myself. I don’t want to be mad at him for making me unable to enjoy his works; I want to be mad at him for what he did to the people he abused (and whoever else suffered collateral damage).
Thanks. Yeah, it’s bad no matter what the full truth is.
I really enjoyed following Gaiman on Twitter. I’m pretty sure we even interacted/communicated once or twice.
When I thought about these type of “me too” or “open secret” type situations, Gaiman was not on my list.
The man was friends with Terry Pratchett! Pratchett! I have to believe Terry had zero clue.
And sometimes you don’t work with people because they’re horrible no matter how good they are at their job.
I don’t see how it would work legally unless Gaiman signed all the rights away. Morally, I’m not even sure where that stands. If people continue to adapt his work he’s benefitting from that, right? It’s going to mean his work is in demand and he can profit from that.
I enjoy reading HP Lovecraft stories. But he’s dead, I’m not lining his pockets. I’m not going to watch season 2 of Sandman. Yeah, I know it’s already been made, but that means the crew has already been paid too. When Gaiman dies, maybe I can enjoy his work again.
Hypothetically, there could be a lawsuit that required it, or a large enough payment that it felt near to that.
Yeah, we had that discussion upthread; and concluded, to the extent that it’s possible to conclude anything from the information we’ve got, that it’s quite plausible to believe that Pratchett (along with probably most of Gaiman’s other friends) had zero clue.
I haven’t seen anything so far implicating anybody other than Palmer as being complicit.
No one fully separates the art from its creator. We all just have varying levels of balance between how bad the creator is and how good the art is.
I’m guessing you wouldn’t hang a painting by Hitler on your wall, even if it was a really nice painting. At some point, something is so awful that you can no longer support the artist no matter what.
When people say they separate the art from the artist, they’re really saying that what the artist did isn’t quite bad enough to outweigh their love of the art. The art and artist are still always linked.
I would have no qualms about hanging a painting on my wall by an artist I didn’t know, if I liked the painting. So there, the art would be fully separate from its creator.
If I did that, and later learned that the painting was in fact by Hitler (or someone similarly reprehensible), would I feel compelled to take it down? I don’t know—but I can’t say for sure that I would.
But I don’t see hanging a painting on my wall, or reading a book, or whatever, as inherently “supporting the artist.”
How do you know? To me this reads like you claiming to understand how other people think and see the world better than they do.
I’ve been reading up on Palmer a bit in the last day prompted in part by MrDibble’s comment. I was only slightly aware of her before as a cult-favorite musician - I liked a couple of novelty tunes I’ve listened to, but I never dug deep into her catalogue or the Dresden Dolls. I also was aware of her as Gaiman’s somewhat unconventional partner and second wife.
She didn’t come off great in that Vulture article, but yeah reading further she’s definitely seems to be a sometimes somewhat problematic person in her own right. Manipulative, exploitive and selfish. Certainly can’t blame Gaiman’s alleged abuses on her, but the extent to which she may have enabled some of them (unwittingly or not) over and over is troubling. At the very least it speaks to a certain detached or indifferent self-centeredness.
She apparently knew, at a minimum, that Gaiman was having sex with his much younger and impoverished babysitter. As Scalzi says: there’s just no way that’s right.
Absolutely. Rape or not, it was still a grossly abusive power imbalance.
Would you think or feel something different when looking at it, knowing who created it and what they were?
I strongly suspect that if you didn’t you would be a very exceptional person. You may be.
There is for me at least also a difference between something that is basically decorative and actual art? Art to me is a communication between what was in the mind of the artist and what I as a person experiencing the art bring to it. Distanced as it may be, even fictive as it may be, there is a sense of relationship. An unknown artist is ideal as it allows me to imagine whatever I want about the artist unencumbered by reality!
I’m with @TroutMan: there is a balance and I can look away from some of the ugliness of some humans focusing on the parts that created what I enjoy, rationalizing with how complicated we humans are. Crap art gets less effort to rationalize. Gaiman’s work is great and I am pissed that this reality of what he is is bad enough to ruin it for me going forward.
I do not think Gaiman need be told that “fucking your employees” is unethical. But the reason it is so could naturally fit into the power games and Master stuff that he was into, and if the latter is OK one needs to have the self-awareness and impulse control to draw the line.
Yeah. Some people apparently are able to play such things as a game – the existence of proper safe words and prior negotiations doesn’t ruin it for them. Other people only really want the real dominance; and may use the game as a cover for it. Some might even succeed in using the game as a cover for it in their own minds.
This is exactly correct. I’ve dabbled in that scene a bit. Some of the most intelligent and thoughtful people you’d ever want to meet. As a group they’re very good about vetting and getting rid of the (always male) predators. They are probably particularly furious about Gaimon.
I was familiar with a few of Palmer’s songs when she was part of the Dresden Dolls. A friend of mine was a huge Palmer fan, and we disagreed vehemently when Palmer decided to use unpaid musician volunteers on her tour. While on tour, instead of paying all of the musicians, Palmer was relying on local volunteers to fill some of the gaps. I argued this was exploitative, but some of my friends defended her saying it was voluntary and just part of the community vibe at Palmer concerts. It kind of soured me on Palmer.