Just to point out that i) Gaiman isn't 'London-bred' - he was born in a small town in Hampshire and raised (and lived as a young adult) in a village in East Sussex - and ii) the blogger claiming lurid similarities between Sandman and Tanith Lee's novels has been summarily debunked, to the extent that he is now deleting comments that challenge his narrative. This is the one I've noted, which goes through those allegations almost line by line:
I add this last, not to support Gaiman, but to point out that sharing misinformation without critical thinking only feeds bad actors.
Regardless of this, this scenario is no different than any other that's reared its ugly head over the last few years: we all make decisions about what we are and are not comfortable with when we consume popular media, from comics to television to prose to plays to films to art of any kind. Those decisions are taken for a wide variety of reasons, with a wide variety of criteria considered, not least of which is the relationship the individual decision-maker has with the work and with the artist under discussion.
For everyone who's misquoted the Barthesian 'death of the author' theory as their text for making decisions like this, or who bleats about 'separating the art from the artist', there's another who's binned or charity shopped everything they own that comes from the artist's desk, as though they risk becoming infected by their darkness. People seem to be under the impression that it's one or the other: you either make allowances for the work so that you can carry on consuming it, or you surgically excise it from your life so that you can't be held accountable for supporting the artist.
The only thing each extreme has in common with the other - and of course there are plenty of other points of view that range wildly between the two - is that they articulate a level of comfort with the idea of continuing to appreciate/own the dubious artist's work. They express what the decision-maker can and cannot live with, and they seek to justify it. That's fine. It's not for anyone else to judge, just like it's not for anyone else to judge whether you have excised every Miramax film from your shelves, or every Bowie album, or every Dickens novel.
Myself? I think Gaiman's an abuser, and deeply, horribly damaged. I don't think he sees himself as that, and I think that he lies to himself as much as he does everyone else. The Ocean At The End Of The Lane is about child abuse and it's semi-autobiographical, dedicated "For Amanda, who wanted to know." Like everything else we thought we knew about him, the idea that he's this together, reconstructed progressive author is a fiction, a story he seems to tell himself as much as anyone else. I don't believe whatever happened to him as part of the Church of Scientology as a kid excuses his acts as an adult. I have a tremendous amount of empathy for that kid, but in the five decades since then, the man has done reprehensible things.
This is an insightful and well-formed response. I am going to edit part of the blog to reflect the details you shared in the link at the beginning (I read a lot of it, but not all, as it was quite long, but also convincing in its detail). I am going to direct people to your post, if that's alright. If it's not, let me know and I'll remove the link.
And thank you for pointing out the London-bred error. Embarrassingly on my part, I had that in there as a placeholder during the first draft and simply failed to update it prior to publishing. This will be adjusted as well.
I recently read a post from David Tennant saying that a way had been found to proceed with Season 2 of Good Omens without Gaiman benefiting from it financially. That seems to me like a good way forward. As you said, nothing in this very sad business is the fault of the other people who would be employed in making the show. And no one who has lost their taste for works partly created by Gaiman need watch it if they don’t want to. I have been a fan of NG’s writing for a long time. I couldn’t tell you how many times I have read American Gods or listened to the BBC adaptation of Neverwhere. I don’t think it’s now incumbent on me to stop loving the Marquess of Carabas or the Angel Islington. NG’s characters are not him. I am sad, viscerally sad that NG has turned out to be a scumbag. I naively projected the values portrayed in his art onto the artist. I don’t want to put any more of my money into his pocket but I hope to be able to continue enjoying his art - nobody benefits from me cutting myself off from things I have already bought and paid for. Continuing to enjoy his art doesn’t imply I disrespect Gaiman’s victims or condone his actions. However, it remains to be seen whether I will be able to enjoy it. I suspect that enjoyment will always be tainted by disappointment (at him, at my own naivety) and disgust.
I have no desire to interact with any of Gaiman’s works past, present or future. I have also removed from my personal library an unread copy of the Anansi Boys. Which is very sad because I have loved Sandman and many of his fantasy novels some of which I consider classics. Stardust and Ocean at the End of the Lane come to mind.
This is because of my disgust and distaste of Gaiman’s alleged behaviour and my inability to separate the artist from the artists work. But I consider this to be a personal choice and I will not judge others if they continue to interact with Gaiman’s work.
Same. I loved what I read, but will no longer. I removed unread copies and deleted the kindle titles. But that is the extent of it. With JK, who is also reprehensible, I have chosen to separate her and what I think of her from the HP franchise in my mind. I still enjoy the HP world, and my son does too. I can’t do that to his young mind, to take that joy away.
The only things I've consumed by Neil Gaiman have either sucked in one way or another or profoundly disturbed me. I'm not saying this retrospectively. I don't think he's the 'artist' that others seem to think he is. His main knack is to capture your deepest discomforts and make them seem somehow just a little bit warmer than you want them to be. It's as if he studied Roald Dahl, but left out the important lessons.
So it's easy for me to say I will not be interacting with his work in any way anymore.
What he has done is pretty heinous, and his ex-wife (procurer and groomer) should be held culpable too.
If I may set aside Gaiman’s guilt or not for a moment and worry about something else: the age difference between n-g and the women accusing him being rewritten as pedophilia.
The age difference that is not necessarily problematic but is presented as irrevocably so; it is implied that these women unable to make their own sexual choices due to their age. Not due to his age, due to their age. Including their age as part of who they are is normal, usual even, to include, but how it is included creates an assumption that age difference in sex partners is wrong and that they are too young to make sexual choices. Whatever else may have happened these are adult women and age is not a factor in making their own sexual choices.
Social media has throughout translated “young women”, girls, to pedophilia. N-G has been called a “pedo” since the initial allegations. Since the Kendrick Lamar call out of Drake, the accusations of n-g being a pedophile have reached an hysterical pitch. His actions are being equated to those of P.Diddy (who is being tried for prostituting minors), this leaves us with the uncomfortable equation of white women being as sexually innocent as black girls.
Why would we care?
Women, white women, are being culturally rewritten as girls by the magazines and parts of social media are reveling in it. Girls should be protected by the state. And girls are not old enough to consent to sex. But also girls are not old enough to consent to a medical procedures and girls are not old enough to consent to marriage and girls are not old enough to co sent to vote. It sounds line a leap, but so many things that sounded like a leap a year ago are happening now.
Whatever the intrinsic truths of the story are the age difference is writing in a story of how white women are fragile and need state protection, and with that protection comes a loss of rights for all women.
I'm not going to lie, I do think he should suffer. While I appreciate your position, it relies on him being a different person than he's been shown to be. And I just don't think Justice for these women should be dependent on him changing. I think he should suffer now exactly as he is and an ideal world that suffering would lead to him being a better person.
Thank you so much for sharing about the blatant plagiarism. I had no idea and I will now be reading her work.
This is a completely understandable position, and you raise a good clarification that I neglected. I did not mean to imply that justice for the victims should be dependent on him seeing any redemption. I will tweak the content to hopefully better align with that sentiment.
However. I cannot be certain of any allegations. Until it's not proven. I've read his statement, though, and it doesn't look fake to me. I might be one of several people standing by this point of view. Neil has always been and will be my comfort read. And a teacher in many writing ways. His books were there when none could provide solace or the necessary depth of seeing the world. We're much alike in style I'm told, and I have the fondest feelings for him. I don't have these for Amanda, who disgusts me. And his books will remain here. My kids love them, and I'm not gonna deprive them of quality reading.
Please remember that N G and Amanda were going through a divorce during the events of the Vulture article (they still are). She was not being supported by him while she was in New Zealand, and was not living in any sort of luxury. Keep their son out of this, the author of the article was ridiculously irresponsible in their description of events they knew nothing about, and realize that there is a lot that can not be said for legal reasons.
Oddly enough, I had a brief conversation with N in 2022 before the comeback Dresden Dolls concert while we watched their son entertain the advance crowd waiting (it was a pretty small show). We were talking about parenting, of all things. And then Amanda performed an amazing show including songs and statements that were not at all kind to N. Go figure. Our paths have crossed in multiple ways over the past 30 years, so I mostly feel for friends and mutual acquaintances who are coping with the dichotomy.
Thank you. Unless one has lived with a narcissistic abuser, one has zero idea the mental and emotional gymnastics involved in believing they won’t do [insert undesirable behavior here] again.
I’ve always had a deep connection to Neil Gaiman’s work, and for a long time, he was my favorite author. The Graveyard Book became a staple in my Year 6 classes, and I immersed myself in all his writing, attending his readings, following his social media—everything. Learning about what we all know now on the Tortoise podcast made me sad for days. I couldn’t bring myself to believe it at first, hoping it was some kind of joke. I admit it was childish, but when the author you hold in such high esteem—one whose work has shaped so much of your own—turns out to be someone you can no longer respect, it feels like a personal loss.
I tried reading Fortunately, The Milk to my kids after that, but the sick feeling in my stomach made it impossible to continue. His contributions to literature are valuable, but unfortunately, the truth is undeniable. It’s a shame.
No. I reas both sandman and the flat earth series. They have nothing to do with each other. Gaiman was using the established DC Canon and had vastly different gods running the show than tanith Lee. Also stylistically, character, etc are vastly different. It's a nice way to promote tanith lee but saying that sandman is a plagiarized version 8f flat earth is bullshit.
I can't even call it superficial. It's just a bad take all around.
I agree. Tanith Lee does write lovely, lyrical prose, but “Tales From The Flat Earth” is not “Sandman”, and the King of Demons is not Dream. The King enjoys torturing humankind for his own amusement, while Dream’s feelings are a lot more complicated. He’s friends with at least one of them (Hob) and falls in love with a few of them, yet he seems to regard most people as annoyances. I don’t think Gaiman stole Lee’s water; they were just drawing from the same well.
This one, about Gaiman, hit me really hard. The podcast series that went through each victim’s story hurt me deeply - I have invested quite a lot of time in Gaiman’s writing and storytelling and live shows. Between him & Warren Ellis, another comics guy with similar horrific acts, I’ve lost two of my all time favorite writers because of their trash humanity.
My wonderful wife forwarded me a prayer from Jessica Kantrowitz:
“Peace to those whose heroes have fallen from our pedestals, our hope, our grace
Peace to those who don’t live up to their art, who taught us something vital they themselves cannot understand
Peace to those who mourn as if a real world was lost
I rate The Sandman as the finest comic book series ever, but I don't enjoy Gaiman's prose novels. You're right that the Endless concept is very close to Tanith Lee's Tales from the Flat Earth (which are enjoyable prose, if very rich) but Gaiman's treatment of the stories is very different from Lee's. I am hoping that if the studios are now going to shun Gaiman's work that they might give us a Tanith Lee TV series instead.
Just to point out that i) Gaiman isn't 'London-bred' - he was born in a small town in Hampshire and raised (and lived as a young adult) in a village in East Sussex - and ii) the blogger claiming lurid similarities between Sandman and Tanith Lee's novels has been summarily debunked, to the extent that he is now deleting comments that challenge his narrative. This is the one I've noted, which goes through those allegations almost line by line:
https://writing-for-life.tumblr.com/post/773593938299912192/tales-from-the-flat-earth-by-tanith-lee
I add this last, not to support Gaiman, but to point out that sharing misinformation without critical thinking only feeds bad actors.
Regardless of this, this scenario is no different than any other that's reared its ugly head over the last few years: we all make decisions about what we are and are not comfortable with when we consume popular media, from comics to television to prose to plays to films to art of any kind. Those decisions are taken for a wide variety of reasons, with a wide variety of criteria considered, not least of which is the relationship the individual decision-maker has with the work and with the artist under discussion.
For everyone who's misquoted the Barthesian 'death of the author' theory as their text for making decisions like this, or who bleats about 'separating the art from the artist', there's another who's binned or charity shopped everything they own that comes from the artist's desk, as though they risk becoming infected by their darkness. People seem to be under the impression that it's one or the other: you either make allowances for the work so that you can carry on consuming it, or you surgically excise it from your life so that you can't be held accountable for supporting the artist.
The only thing each extreme has in common with the other - and of course there are plenty of other points of view that range wildly between the two - is that they articulate a level of comfort with the idea of continuing to appreciate/own the dubious artist's work. They express what the decision-maker can and cannot live with, and they seek to justify it. That's fine. It's not for anyone else to judge, just like it's not for anyone else to judge whether you have excised every Miramax film from your shelves, or every Bowie album, or every Dickens novel.
Myself? I think Gaiman's an abuser, and deeply, horribly damaged. I don't think he sees himself as that, and I think that he lies to himself as much as he does everyone else. The Ocean At The End Of The Lane is about child abuse and it's semi-autobiographical, dedicated "For Amanda, who wanted to know." Like everything else we thought we knew about him, the idea that he's this together, reconstructed progressive author is a fiction, a story he seems to tell himself as much as anyone else. I don't believe whatever happened to him as part of the Church of Scientology as a kid excuses his acts as an adult. I have a tremendous amount of empathy for that kid, but in the five decades since then, the man has done reprehensible things.
This is an insightful and well-formed response. I am going to edit part of the blog to reflect the details you shared in the link at the beginning (I read a lot of it, but not all, as it was quite long, but also convincing in its detail). I am going to direct people to your post, if that's alright. If it's not, let me know and I'll remove the link.
And thank you for pointing out the London-bred error. Embarrassingly on my part, I had that in there as a placeholder during the first draft and simply failed to update it prior to publishing. This will be adjusted as well.
I recently read a post from David Tennant saying that a way had been found to proceed with Season 2 of Good Omens without Gaiman benefiting from it financially. That seems to me like a good way forward. As you said, nothing in this very sad business is the fault of the other people who would be employed in making the show. And no one who has lost their taste for works partly created by Gaiman need watch it if they don’t want to. I have been a fan of NG’s writing for a long time. I couldn’t tell you how many times I have read American Gods or listened to the BBC adaptation of Neverwhere. I don’t think it’s now incumbent on me to stop loving the Marquess of Carabas or the Angel Islington. NG’s characters are not him. I am sad, viscerally sad that NG has turned out to be a scumbag. I naively projected the values portrayed in his art onto the artist. I don’t want to put any more of my money into his pocket but I hope to be able to continue enjoying his art - nobody benefits from me cutting myself off from things I have already bought and paid for. Continuing to enjoy his art doesn’t imply I disrespect Gaiman’s victims or condone his actions. However, it remains to be seen whether I will be able to enjoy it. I suspect that enjoyment will always be tainted by disappointment (at him, at my own naivety) and disgust.
I have no desire to interact with any of Gaiman’s works past, present or future. I have also removed from my personal library an unread copy of the Anansi Boys. Which is very sad because I have loved Sandman and many of his fantasy novels some of which I consider classics. Stardust and Ocean at the End of the Lane come to mind.
This is because of my disgust and distaste of Gaiman’s alleged behaviour and my inability to separate the artist from the artists work. But I consider this to be a personal choice and I will not judge others if they continue to interact with Gaiman’s work.
Same. I loved what I read, but will no longer. I removed unread copies and deleted the kindle titles. But that is the extent of it. With JK, who is also reprehensible, I have chosen to separate her and what I think of her from the HP franchise in my mind. I still enjoy the HP world, and my son does too. I can’t do that to his young mind, to take that joy away.
The only things I've consumed by Neil Gaiman have either sucked in one way or another or profoundly disturbed me. I'm not saying this retrospectively. I don't think he's the 'artist' that others seem to think he is. His main knack is to capture your deepest discomforts and make them seem somehow just a little bit warmer than you want them to be. It's as if he studied Roald Dahl, but left out the important lessons.
So it's easy for me to say I will not be interacting with his work in any way anymore.
What he has done is pretty heinous, and his ex-wife (procurer and groomer) should be held culpable too.
If I may set aside Gaiman’s guilt or not for a moment and worry about something else: the age difference between n-g and the women accusing him being rewritten as pedophilia.
The age difference that is not necessarily problematic but is presented as irrevocably so; it is implied that these women unable to make their own sexual choices due to their age. Not due to his age, due to their age. Including their age as part of who they are is normal, usual even, to include, but how it is included creates an assumption that age difference in sex partners is wrong and that they are too young to make sexual choices. Whatever else may have happened these are adult women and age is not a factor in making their own sexual choices.
Social media has throughout translated “young women”, girls, to pedophilia. N-G has been called a “pedo” since the initial allegations. Since the Kendrick Lamar call out of Drake, the accusations of n-g being a pedophile have reached an hysterical pitch. His actions are being equated to those of P.Diddy (who is being tried for prostituting minors), this leaves us with the uncomfortable equation of white women being as sexually innocent as black girls.
Why would we care?
Women, white women, are being culturally rewritten as girls by the magazines and parts of social media are reveling in it. Girls should be protected by the state. And girls are not old enough to consent to sex. But also girls are not old enough to consent to a medical procedures and girls are not old enough to consent to marriage and girls are not old enough to co sent to vote. It sounds line a leap, but so many things that sounded like a leap a year ago are happening now.
Whatever the intrinsic truths of the story are the age difference is writing in a story of how white women are fragile and need state protection, and with that protection comes a loss of rights for all women.
I'm not going to lie, I do think he should suffer. While I appreciate your position, it relies on him being a different person than he's been shown to be. And I just don't think Justice for these women should be dependent on him changing. I think he should suffer now exactly as he is and an ideal world that suffering would lead to him being a better person.
Thank you so much for sharing about the blatant plagiarism. I had no idea and I will now be reading her work.
This is a completely understandable position, and you raise a good clarification that I neglected. I did not mean to imply that justice for the victims should be dependent on him seeing any redemption. I will tweak the content to hopefully better align with that sentiment.
Thank you for reading
I believe Norse Gods was his last book. However, IMO, Ocean is better.
Omg, you're totally right. I swear I checked that, but nope, you're correct. This has been updated. Thank you for reading
Thank you.
However. I cannot be certain of any allegations. Until it's not proven. I've read his statement, though, and it doesn't look fake to me. I might be one of several people standing by this point of view. Neil has always been and will be my comfort read. And a teacher in many writing ways. His books were there when none could provide solace or the necessary depth of seeing the world. We're much alike in style I'm told, and I have the fondest feelings for him. I don't have these for Amanda, who disgusts me. And his books will remain here. My kids love them, and I'm not gonna deprive them of quality reading.
Not for debate;)
Please remember that N G and Amanda were going through a divorce during the events of the Vulture article (they still are). She was not being supported by him while she was in New Zealand, and was not living in any sort of luxury. Keep their son out of this, the author of the article was ridiculously irresponsible in their description of events they knew nothing about, and realize that there is a lot that can not be said for legal reasons.
Oddly enough, I had a brief conversation with N in 2022 before the comeback Dresden Dolls concert while we watched their son entertain the advance crowd waiting (it was a pretty small show). We were talking about parenting, of all things. And then Amanda performed an amazing show including songs and statements that were not at all kind to N. Go figure. Our paths have crossed in multiple ways over the past 30 years, so I mostly feel for friends and mutual acquaintances who are coping with the dichotomy.
Thank you. Unless one has lived with a narcissistic abuser, one has zero idea the mental and emotional gymnastics involved in believing they won’t do [insert undesirable behavior here] again.
I’ve always had a deep connection to Neil Gaiman’s work, and for a long time, he was my favorite author. The Graveyard Book became a staple in my Year 6 classes, and I immersed myself in all his writing, attending his readings, following his social media—everything. Learning about what we all know now on the Tortoise podcast made me sad for days. I couldn’t bring myself to believe it at first, hoping it was some kind of joke. I admit it was childish, but when the author you hold in such high esteem—one whose work has shaped so much of your own—turns out to be someone you can no longer respect, it feels like a personal loss.
I tried reading Fortunately, The Milk to my kids after that, but the sick feeling in my stomach made it impossible to continue. His contributions to literature are valuable, but unfortunately, the truth is undeniable. It’s a shame.
No. I reas both sandman and the flat earth series. They have nothing to do with each other. Gaiman was using the established DC Canon and had vastly different gods running the show than tanith Lee. Also stylistically, character, etc are vastly different. It's a nice way to promote tanith lee but saying that sandman is a plagiarized version 8f flat earth is bullshit.
I can't even call it superficial. It's just a bad take all around.
https://open.substack.com/pub/marlowe1/p/job-chapter-25?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=sllf3
I agree. Tanith Lee does write lovely, lyrical prose, but “Tales From The Flat Earth” is not “Sandman”, and the King of Demons is not Dream. The King enjoys torturing humankind for his own amusement, while Dream’s feelings are a lot more complicated. He’s friends with at least one of them (Hob) and falls in love with a few of them, yet he seems to regard most people as annoyances. I don’t think Gaiman stole Lee’s water; they were just drawing from the same well.
This one, about Gaiman, hit me really hard. The podcast series that went through each victim’s story hurt me deeply - I have invested quite a lot of time in Gaiman’s writing and storytelling and live shows. Between him & Warren Ellis, another comics guy with similar horrific acts, I’ve lost two of my all time favorite writers because of their trash humanity.
My wonderful wife forwarded me a prayer from Jessica Kantrowitz:
“Peace to those whose heroes have fallen from our pedestals, our hope, our grace
Peace to those who don’t live up to their art, who taught us something vital they themselves cannot understand
Peace to those who mourn as if a real world was lost
Your love is real”
Damn.
Neil Gaiman is my cousin and he owes me five dollars and I want my five dollars back.
This is the oddest, most "out there" comment here. Which considering the subject matter, I did not except. Kudos to you!
This was a thoughtful and illuminating article on an upsetting topic. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing this. A really wonderful essay to read
I rate The Sandman as the finest comic book series ever, but I don't enjoy Gaiman's prose novels. You're right that the Endless concept is very close to Tanith Lee's Tales from the Flat Earth (which are enjoyable prose, if very rich) but Gaiman's treatment of the stories is very different from Lee's. I am hoping that if the studios are now going to shun Gaiman's work that they might give us a Tanith Lee TV series instead.