But if you take a copy of a Gaiman book from a Little Free Library (or some equivalent which is a put-a-used-book-in-take-a-used-book-out–for-free thing), Gaiman gets nothing from it.
Sure he does. It’s increasing his visibility and gaining him new fans, which will translate to other book sales, interest in TV adaptations of his work, etc.
This discussion made me think of that exact clip.
Yeah, I think there’s more leeway after the artist has died. Especially if there’s no current movement trying to do more of the horrible things the artist has done. There’d be a lot less problem with Hitler’s paintings, IMO, if there weren’t still Nazis. As there are, buying and/or displaying his work is likely to be taken as encouraging them, and may in fact do so.
Might also be an issue that AIUI Hitler’s paintings weren’t anything much. Gaiman’s work is arguably worth keeping – but buying more of it during his lifetime seems to me another matter.
Taking it from a Little Free Library seems to me to actually do the reverse of that; at least, if the person who takes it then keeps it quietly to themselves instead of handing it on. Leaving it in the box increases the possibility that it’ll be picked up by somebody who doesn’t know or doesn’t care what he’s been up to and who will publicize his work to others, and/or go buy more of it themselves. It’s not as if Gaiman, or his publishers, were running around the place stocking Little Free Library boxes.
Buying it cheaply at a yard sale seems to me to come into the same category – as long as it’s the kind of yard sale being held by somebody who’s just trying to get rid of stuff and/or keep the bills paid by getting rid of stuff, and not the kind held by somebody who makes a business out of it and will go hunting for more of whatever sold.
At a certain point, I’m not going to tie myself into knots trying to figure out the ethics of taking a book from a little free library or whatnot. The harm–or harm reduction–of such an act is infinitesimal, and if instead of fretting over it I donated a dime to an anti-abuse organization, I’d be doing a lot more good than my fretting was doing.
Absent massive changes to this story, Gaiman’s not getting my money directly, though. In small part because I don’t want him to get the like 0.2 cents of residuals from my watching S2 of Sandman, but in larger part because the joy of it is tainted for me in a way that would make a sad and regrettable experience.
That’s what crosses the line with me. I am cognizant of the stupidity of punishing myself by refusing to watch something I want to see and would think I would enjoy in order to “punish” the creator by depriving them of whatever penny or so my viewership may translate to. But the knowledge that the stuff I am watching, which in part is good because of its representation of relationships, is created by someone with a take on human relationships that I find … wrong … that makes it less enjoyable. Insights on the human condition from someone who is whatever is the least poor take on this? No thank you.
If you throw it away, no one sees it. If you give it to a stranger, maybe they become huge fans and buy the rest of his works and tell lots of people to buy them. But that’s a stretch.
At this point, he’s independently wealthy and won’t be hurting financially no matter what happens (save some massive civil judgment and even then, he can afford the sort of lawyers who will minimize any potential payouts).
It’s really about each person and how they want to see themselves in light of their decisions. If it would make you feel guilty to put one of his books in a Little Free Library, certainly don’t do it. It it wouldn’t bother you, nobody is really stopping you.
For my own part, while I’m not going to put any of his books that I already own out there for people to read, I’m also not going to throw them in the trash. Though I’m not planning on reading them for the foreseeable future, either. I can look at myself in the mirror at that level.
I forget if anybody has mentioned this- I have not read all that many issues of Sandman. I did read an issue (some spoilers) in which Morpheus’ former lover, and the mother of Orpheus, a muse ends up trapped by a mortal writer who keeps her prisoner and forces her to give him inspiration. He then decides to rape her. He does all this for quite a while before Morpheus finally learns about it. Dream punishes the mortal in a horrible, poetic way.
That whole issue very strongly portrayed as bad, evil and wrong. Apparently quite the opposite of the way Neil Gaiman actually views.
If you keep it, maybe you outlive Gaiman and by the time anybody else gets it it doesn’t matter much.
Ditto if you only give/lend it to people of similar opinions who won’t buy his stuff.
I don’t think, if you’ve already got something of Gaiman’s, that you’re required to throw it out if you don’t want to. Opinions vary, of course.
An article about fan reactions to this.
(This thread didn’t make the cut.)
Earlier today, I saw a post from the official Facebook Sandman group. One of the posters quoted a writer who said that he knew Gaiman was evil by reading his work. The poster ranted about how Steven King wrote about much worse stuff but was a good person, and you should never judge a writer that way. The poster failed to comment on the much stronger argument that Gaiman was evil based on the multiple highly plausible allegations against him, recordings, and NDA’s.
I decided it would be best not to read the comments.
I have a friend who has been a big Neil Gaiman fan. She had loaned me a graphic novel and told me to keep it, as she had bought the anthology.
Honestly, I never got into the television shows Good Omens or Sandman. But I anyway finally started reading the graphic novel, and still didn’t didn’t see the fuss.
I was going to try it again, just because she’s been such a fan of his work, but now I’m not even bothering. It’s already been placed in the recycling.
I wasn’t impressed when he broke quarantine during Covid and also didn’t understand how somebody could voluntarily leave their spouse and child behind.
Regard John Scalzi’s post in July:
I started following John Scalzi during the initial Covid confusion. He’s about the same age as me and lives in an area I’ve visited many times, so it was and is nice to read someone I can relate to. I appreciate that he’s addressed what’s going on and been very clear about his feelings.
I think this whole discussion confuses what should happen to someone in a job related to an artistic field (i.e., writer, publisher, actor, director, scriptwriter, producer, musician, songwriter, president of a record company, painter, sculptor, head of a museum, dancer, head of a dance troupe, etc.) who has been generally highly appreciated in their field when they are accused of a major crime. No, it is not remotely sufficient if no one ever pays them in the future for what they are making or doing in their field. What they do in their artistic field is not related to what they illegally did in their life.
The way some people talk about it, it’s sufficient if an artist no longer gets money for the art. If someone much poorer gets charged with the same crime, they have to go to prison for a long time, of course. What people are saying is that rich criminals should be just fined, while poor ones have to spend a long time in prison. This distinction has to end. Everyone who commits a crime should have their actions thoroughly investigated by law enforcement, charged with a crime if the evidence is sufficient, put on trial, given free defense lawyers if they are too poor to afford them, and sent to prison if they are convicted.
The notion that rich people can just pay a fine, regardless of how huge it is, and not have to ever go to prison is wrong. They should get prison sentences just as long as anyone else who committed the same crime. Furthermore, while they are in prison, their bank accounts and any other financial assets they have should be held in trust. If there are victims who sue them, those victims should receive compensation if they prove in court that they were indeed victims.
I would have no problem with a writer or other artist whose work I admired going to prison for a long time. Afterwards, if they should happen to have lost nearly all their financial assets from being sued, they should be allowed to live in a cheap apartment from which they would only be able to take public transportation since they were sued for so much they had to give up their expensive cars and houses. They should have to survive on a job that didn’t pay much. They should have a computer in their apartment (and given one if they couldn’t afford it) so they could write a brilliant new book.
Incidentally, when I talked about Little Free Libraries, I assumed that you understood I was talking about taking a copy of a book from an accused writer from it, not putting a copy of one of their books there.
Someone lent me Neverwhere and it was underwhelming but not bad. For some reason, while the aesthetics of both Sandman and Coraline are neat, I never actually tried reading the source material (having only seen the Coraline movie and individual frames of the Sandman). So for all I know he may be like Stephen King in that his works are improved by visual treatment. At least the prose of Neverwhere was slightly more captivating for me to read than King’s, which is too basic to be interesting to me.
For now, my favorite movie ever is still going to be Coraline 3-D, but I don’t know if I will admit it to others. Perhaps I will say Aliens or Fellowship of the Ring, which are close runners-up, to avoid followon questions.
Who the hell here has said that? The difficulty is proving the accusations against Gaiman in a legal context. But I’m all for investigators trying their best to pin him to the wall and get enough proof to score a conviction that tosses him in prison.
However I’m not in law enforcement and don’t get a say in how that goes down. The only thing I can do that has the remotest impact on Gaiman personally is to stop giving him any more of my money. Literally, that’s it. It’s highly probable the same goes for every other poster on this board. You can only do what you can do.
Cite, please?
Joining the pile on that yours is a very confused reading of the discussion. All here agree that if guilty a perpetrator, as Gaiman presumptively is, should be prosecuted the same famous or unknown.
The discussion is assuming the level of evidence is not such that prosecution is possible or successful (too long ago, whatever). But still enough that we as individuals believe the accusations are valid. How do we handle our relationship to the art?
I think it’s one of those where you had to be exposed back then. If not, it loses a lot of the magic.
It was an influential book in a lot of ways. If it was released now, it would seem derivative and unoriginal. But there was not a lot like it back then. The comics industry as a whole has changed vastly in the 35 years since that first issue.
I’ve seen a few people say the same thing about Lord of the Rings. And, sure, if you’ve read a lot of modern fantasy novels, there are a lot of things in LotR that don’t seem innovative or special if you’re only getting to it now. But in the context of the era it was released, it was revelatory.
I agree.
@DrDeth has been critical of opinions in this thread, but as I read his comments, he is strongly due process: that Gaiman is entitled to the presumption of innocence, just like anyone else. He’s not saying that Gaiman should be treated lightly because he’s famous; he’s saying that Gaiman should have the same legal / constitutional protections as anyone else facing those types of accusations.