Maybe our takeaway here shouldn't be "we'll just root out the good ones and worship them instead." Instead, it could be "it's bad to worship people in the first place; it rots their humanity." Or "Celebrities will not hesitate to abuse their status as 'the good ones.'"
To an extent, I think it's hard not to. It's like how Gandalf was terrified of being given the one ring. It doesn't matter how they'd start out. It's how they'd wind up. Not to say Gaiman didn't start with the seeds of this in him. But maybe it wasn't foretold for him to end up rotten.
There's a reason I support policies like "never build statues of people who aren't dead yet". I mean obviously dead people can disappoint you too, it's just that at least the adulation can't make them worse at this point.
I mean, Clinton directly declined to get involved in the Rwandan Genocide. Bush started a war under false pretenses. And Obama continue the war in Afghanistan despite propping up people that were driving the public into the arms of the Taliban.
I cant think of a president now that could be accused of trying to destroy an entire population (maybe AJ?). He was one of the few politicians who even spoke against it publicly. I don't understand how many people have virtually no idea how our government works, especially the ones who are citizens.
people like to pretend that one person did something rather than admit that a team of people made their work suitable for publication. once you tell yourself that lie; any lie which supports the original lie becomes easy. how many famous people do you need to be betrayed by?
the lies people told themselves about gaimen are not his fault. the betrayal of his fans is their own personal problem. the only people he actually hurt are the actual people he hurt.
Told someone at a job interview that I don't read best sellers. They were shocked. I told them usually the books are junk and I don't find them interesting.
Being a bad writer is not remotely the same as someone who is a bad person who writes. Gaiman is by all accounts a good writer. He is a horrendous human being
I'd love to have lists about books that are good that aren't on the same ten lists every time as well. Author's that for whatever reason, aren't as popular.
I just try to not support bad actors (authors, actors, actresses) so when I learn somebody is shitty, I stop buying they stuff new and either get it used, or from say the library.
Agreed but the majority of victims don’t come forward and a lot of who do are dismissed or ignored. Yes we can identify the bad but that doesn’t mean the rest is good unfortunately.
Right, there’s never a guarantee that someone is good just because you might not have heard about their misdeeds. Most people didn’t know Gaiman was bad until that article dropped, but this had been going on for a very long time. Prior to, he likely would’ve been included on a “good” list.
Alice Munro would’ve been on the list before her death and we now know she let her daughter get sexually abused. We couldn’t have known this and we cannot know this about anyone currently writing unless it’s revealed
Having said that, I can separate the art from the artist. Joss Whedon is a shit but the first EP of THE NEVERS is gorgeous. The man can touch souls when he tries.
2. which is why all the longer SANDMAN arcs ended so abruptly and unsatisfactorily. Like Claremont, he lives cosmic characters with vague, undefined abilities who are always powerful enough to advance the plot but never enough to detail it. He has 7 plots he constantly recycled, and
1. Gaiman's never been all that. SANDMAN cruised on being completely unlike anything else anyone had seen in comics. Gaiman was a quarter assed Moore at best and he shamelessly stole ideas even more often than Moore does. He also has a tiny attention span,
I mean a lot of us used to think the world of Rowling because we grew up with her books. There will always be vile people with skills we appreciate at the time among us. Everyone just should always be vigilant, beware parasocial attachment, and fight for victims to be heard.
She became or stopped pretending not to be a massive dick about trans people and put a lot of money behind conservative, transphobic, and homophobic groups. Sure, she hasn't personally hurt as many people as Gaiman has, but you could make a pretty good case for the harm she's done systemically.
I was never really a fan of hers, but I know that a decade ago the sci-fi and fantasy community was really reeling with that news about Marion Zimmer Bradley, who was considered a big figure in this genre and in feminism. And now... it is not unlike what has happened with Neil Gaiman and JK Rowling.
I’m not a sealioning. She defends women’s rights against predatory men. The Trans ideology is falling in the UK, and we are getting back to reality. People suffer with gender dysphoria and they deserve the best treatment for it and to be accepted, but they don’t deserve to be put on a pedestal!!
Yeah, but on the other hand, I don't think someone wants to be talking about this book they really like and then have someone else come out of the blue to yell "SO YOU SUPPORT TURBO RAPE?!" at them because they didn't know the author did that.
All this list nonsense does is help fans feel less threatened when their favorite author turns out to be a rapist. It doesn’t help said author’s victims in any way, shape or form.
I think we just need to stop designating various powerful men as “too wholesome to be rapists”.
Huh? What’s true? That anyone can share a subjective list of authors they think are good? What do you think NYT Book Review is? It might not help everyone, but it helps some. What’s your point?
Huh? I was clarifying what OP’s post was getting at? They are specifically talking about not “good” as in skilled, but “good” as in morally good. B/c people are makings lists of “good authors” with works that are “acceptable” to consume. Idk why you’re coming at me that hard.
Everyone's taste is different, from books to music and art etc. What's bad to you might be great to someone else. I don't think lists are a good thing.
I don’t think this is what the lists going around today are about. Many people are lamenting that they won’t be able to find what they found in Gaiman’s work elsewhere, and people are refuting that with lists of authors who write fantastic fantasy horror. No one is saying idolize them.
Also I am sure all of us have read that book (maybe a number of them) that friends or the media tells us is brilliant and we simply cannot see what all the fuss is about.
Comedians, too. I love the art form, but I never assume a comedian has no skeletons in their closet. You just can't know. Ditto for musicians.
This goes for anyone brilliant and talented, I suppose—appreciate their work, but realize they may be the biggest scumbag you just don't know about yet.
The problem isn't us putting people on pedestals, in this case it's that the author himself did so, and that was part of what made the author's work compelling, the fantasy around the art & the artist, meanwhile the author was a raping piece of trash.
truly think that the way we talk about the art/artist relationship and how to ethically enjoy art has been totally poisoned by the way capitalism turns everything we buy into an identity marker so we need everything we like to be made by perfect people
If he'd just been having a consensual affair, or was hiring prostitutes, I'd just kinda shrug and find it a bit disappointing, but whatever, humans are flawed.
But no, Gaiman had to be a serial rapist. Jeez . . .
this is not to say that like, we should let jkr or neil off the hook, it's to say what you did, in many cases we cannot know and cannot be expected to know the morals of the people who make the art we love
Which is precisely why modern popular art is such a dangerous platform. So many people have been able to come up as paragons of virtue for years, while being abusive in the background. The only morally acceptable art is, unfortunately, from the 18th century backwards because of this.
We also need to accept that people are NOT perfect. No one is. Heck, I used to think people from far-east countries were "whiter than white", all muslims were evil, and trans people were just crossdressers. Why? Because I was raised in a bigoted household. Wasn't until college I shed that skin.
I've made a lot of progress, but I'm nowhere close to "perfect". I doubt I ever will be. All I can do is learn and grow. I can't fix the past, but I can still pour wisdom into my future's foundation.
Escapism is like the carbohydrates of a healthy literary diet. Nothing wrong with a sizable helping of them when appropriate, not a great idea to eat nothing but.
People should read whatever they like. I didn't read any fiction for most of my 20s and 30s because I didn't click with litfic and I was ashamed of my tastes due to literary snobbery. Much happier now reading whatever I prefer.
Yeah, that’s fine. I’m not saying don’t read what you like—I like fantasy too. (I have a LOTR tattoo, lol). I’m saying that a healthy reading diet should occasionally challenge you.
The best people are capable of great evil just like the worst people can be responsible for great works. Their crimes didn't make that art that you enjoy, the good parts of them did. 1/
By all means, stop supporting them but remember that no one creates anything in a vacuum and some who don't deserve the hate will inevitably be affected as well. It's never as simple as we would like it to be 2/
An author’s public persona is, by necessity, performative. Presenting a certain face to readers impacts sales. So yes, you’re absolutely correct- there’s no way to know. And unfortunately, power often reveals the worst parts of a person. Literary and financial success is a kind of power.
Many people keep trying to gatekeep what books others should read by extolling the virtues of their preferred 'good' authors. Stop it! Your 'good' author is someone elses 'dead boring, couldn't get through the first 2 pages' author. Personal taste and personal choice is what makes a 'good' author.
They meant good like morally good, not in a literary analysis way. Gaiman was seen as a progressive feminist ally before all this came out, which goes to show that you never know whether a writer is a good person or not
'morally good'? Please... you know what happens when people decide their morals are superior to others? The Moral Majority the Republicans kissed up to in the 80s morphs into the MAGA movement. Lot's of shitty people write good fiction and lots of moral people couldn't write an engaging paragraph.
Even if the people that are being recommended are 100% good it doesn’t benefit them to be associated with a point of trauma if people only bring them up in times like these. Other and better times to rep somebody other than as replacement media
Interesting... Just because I'm far more likely to recommend books, rather than authors.
That said, I've learned some disturbing stuff about authors of some of my favourite books - but I've read/re-read many, without knowing anything about their authors.
Can the books stand on their own?
Even some of the more popular lists rn of "read this author instead!" have people on them who publicly took part in the Twitter shitstorm that forced Isabel Fall back in the closet. Not the same as being abusers like Gaiman, but can we just not put anybody on a pedestal right now please?
I tend to operate on an "innocent until proven guilty" mentality when it comes to this sorta thing. You're not a douchebag until you're exposed as one. Makes things a lot easier.
No, I can agree with you on that. But if you know what the person making the list likes and dislikes, you will have an idea if you will agree/disagree with those choices.
When picking an unknown writer, knowing what they read can also give you an idea of whether they are worth reading, or not.
Yeah, but if you've ever read a terribly written book, you instantly know within a page or two. Not necessarily boring or engaging subject, but very poorly written. Comes off worse than a Vogon poem... drip. Drip. Drip.
Yeah pretty much. Already I see people recommending authors who had hand in situations like what happened to Isabel Fall and never even gave a thoughtful apology.
You are right recommending authors or books can be subjective, and personal tastes may vary greatly. What resonates with one person might not with another
This doesn't apply to me, but I have to assume it would be at best extremely uncomfortable to see people praising my (hypothetical) abuser for not being abusive, or worse, saying how devastated they would be if they did find out
The only reason all our favorite 60s and 70s musicians aren't caught up in this vortex is because most of them retired from the public sphere before the age of social media.
If they write a book and I like it they’re a good author. If they write a book and I don’t like it but someone else does like it, they’re a good author.
If they write a book and nobody ever likes it, maybe they’re not a good author. But I don’t think that happens very often.
It helps the person making the list remember which authors they like best.
All lists of favorites are each list makers opinions and preferences.
I thought that was obvious?
Some of the most prized modern works of fiction are inspired by some of the most awful people and circumstances.
See: Lovecraft and his impact on modern horror
See: Lord Byron and his impact on contemporary writers around him
See: Uncle Tom's Cabin and other slave-era literature
Just a few examples.
I was wondering if you meant talented but I assumed you meant morally pure. We'd definitely need a number of lists. I'd love to read vegan radical feminist authors, but I don't know if I've ever come across a single one, let alone one who could write a decent sentence.
That said I've never liked Gaiman's writing, mostly because he's always come across as a creepy misogynist to me. I never understood why any self respecting woman liked him, so I don't have to give anything up. I probably would stop reading/supporting an author I loved if a similar story came out.
Somehow, my brain mixed up Gaiman and Chuck Tingle, and I was like, "the guy who wrote a book about trans wizard Harriet Porber falling in love with a dinosaur man because it would piss off Rowling??"
Right! I don't really know exactly what the OP meant, but it's easy to come up with a "bad" list (hopefully specifying and if necessary explaining what "bad" means) but not so much with a "good" list. Gaiman would have been on the "good"= "not JK Rowling" list until this, for example.
There is a sad little game we play which is, “Let’s expand the short list of even moderately powerful men we’d be shocked about, if they were accused of rape.”
The definition of what a "good" author looks like differs from person to person. So you are right, there is no general list, just individual preferences. :-)
Everybody has individual likes and dislikes ESPECIALLY when it comes to authors/books. And it could come down to very specific things (I hate too many details about scenary in a fictional world, and prefer more dialog, but might really like the setting and plot)
The most anyone can do is be vigilant about bad behavior and call it out when it becomes known. We don't know who has skeletons in their closet and I think too many people are beating themselves up about being fans of Gaimen before this came out. If you are a fan moving forward that's the red flag.
The weird thing- this came out months ago. Months. I guess a new article dropped? But honestly the more you learn about authors/artists/musicians - they turn out to be people who behave in various ways…
Thank you—I thought I had seen this before, months ago. And was questioning my sanity because people are speaking of it as if it's a brand new revelation. (Not that that really matters, but I'm glad you mentioned that.)
When it first came out middle of last year a lot of news outlets weren't talking about it at all but I am glad that in the past few months that seems to have changed drastically.
I remember a few years ago that I was tasked to put together a list of the best game developers or something. Had to explain "yeah that can go wrong really quickly."
My 2022 list of authors that I find to be “good” would have included Neil Gaiman right at or near the top. Sometimes people are very, very good at hiding the disturbing parts of themselves. Sucks what people are capable of.
Reading the details of this case and a few others, I'm not sure they are good at hiding so much as, at a certain level of wealth and fame, society just stops looking for the disturbing parts.
Ahh, that’s a good point. We see it with the orange walnut on repeat. Even when evidence abounds people are willing to do anything from not looking at all, covering their eyes and ears, or simply turn away to ignore it.
Bill Cosby was another I was thinking of specifically, where their reputation is so positive that people reflexively deny the red flags even when seen in person.
Granted, I'm sure it's the same with Trump too. I just have a harder time understanding why anyone viewed him favorably at any point.
Anybody paying attention knew about Cosby, Roseanne Barr, or Louie CK well in advance… and definitely in their industry. Wonder how many people knew about Gaiman, do the more recent stuff
I mean, Bill Cosby literally had a comedy routine on one of his early albums about how he wanted to slip drugs into women's drinks in order to have sex with them.
As someone with trumper relatives it's... it's really eye opening. Their minds CANNOT comprehend how bad he is and all the accusations are just "lies", "false news", etc. It reminds of those suicide cults.
I agree, though I do think a master spreadsheet of authors with fields like "date updated", "controversy (Yes/No)", "Sources:, etc, is useful. While it still has the same fundamental issue, it is at least data driven and can be updated as anything is proven.
The only authors you can know are good have been dead for at least a century. Enough time for their skeletons to finally get out of their closet, if any.
Not “before yesterday.” There were a few accusations last summer that made a lot of show business people refuse to work with him again, and some of his former friends get really upset b/c they had been fooled. (Charming is a verb.)
It's exactly how you end up with a situation like this, in the article it's clear that Gaiman got away with it because he and Palmer had a stellar feminist reputation
You also get a situation like this because he was a cis het white man. We afford the combination of those identities more grace and "boys will be boys" and sweeping it under the rug. I don't (usually) read books by cis het white men for exactly this reason.
Are people shite or is it good for the powerless to feel empowered? If the powerless are shite, why do you give a shit how they feel? If you're going to be a misanthrope, come correct.
Also, while I get it, people shouldn't be made to feel guilty if they separate art from an artist
Personally, I think it's perfectly fine to like an artist's creation while also outwardly condemning their actions. Especially with books, there are tons of ways to buy them used
like jkr has the fuckin banker goblins, werewolf AIDS, the house elves who "love" being enslaved, Harry becoming a cop upholding the same status quo that created voldemort, that one bad guy in that movie who was gonna prevent the holocaust...
It's always the opposite in my experience: people try to shame you for refusing to separate the art from the artist, as if that's some high intellectual virtue.
I'm disappointed in the author of one of my favorite manga, but I'm not gonna throw away my volumes, tear down my posters, and destroy the figures I got in yhe past because he turned out to be a creep. I finished my collection by getting it used, simple.
The more material point is to not buy more of their stuff. Appreciating the work of an abuser is one thing; giving them money (esp since their behaviour has impacted the capacity of their survivors to do so) is another.
What? Do you mean suggestions of reading material from historically recognized, award-winning authors is questionable? It's not forced reading of the Bible, dude, you still have choices (for another week).
Agreed. There’s no way to know until people start speaking out publicly. Related note: after reading that article I want to pour bleach directly into my brain’s memory center.
Agree. Your personal taste enters into your decision. And then there are authors who turn turtle on what you perceived as moral standards (cough) J.K. Rowling (cough)
Innocent until proven guilty is not just a motto for law, but a decent way to approach media consumption.
Just asume everyone creating media is a decent human being, and abandon them if it comes out they do something aweful.
There's a difference between not having a perfect life and being a sex pest abuser. If being creative means you have to be an abusive piece of shit then I'd rather no one was creative.
I say this as a writer; At the basic level, a writer is a bullshit artist. One must always keep that in mind. Not that every author is untrustworthy, but knowing that their primary trade is bullshit can soften the blow for times like this.
I'm just keenly aware that the ability to pick the right words to shape and craft a story the way you wish it to be presented to the world is, inherently, being a bullshit artist. It has a negative slant as a description, yeah. But that doesn't remove the honesty of it, imo. Milage may vary.
There's a key difference between the intent to deceive and the intent to entertain.
I'd even argue that viewing writing fiction as the former (the crux of what you're saying) is part of the mindset that led to Gaiman doing what he did in the first place.
there are people who put a lot of effort into finding the correct words to portray their honest feelings, or to teach in a way that will resonate with individuals, classes, audiences, etc. some are writers. your reading is individual but you're applying it systematically and that's problematic.
Some authors and books have passed the generational influence and had become staple, such as Dostoevsky or Sartre. Hard to argue, it is not about like them it is about understanding them.
As a society, we need to stop putting people on pedestals. Talent in one area =/= wisdom in any other area. Admire the work. In interviews, ask about the work, not a celebrity's opinion on climate change or toothpaste, unless they particularly have knowledge in that area.
And to be fair, some of them have really studied it. Celebrities often have time on their hands on a set. Some of them are very well read. Others, there's no excuse for!
True, but the pedestal in question can be a tool for abusers to gain access to future victims. People thought Gaiman was one of the "good guys" and let their guard down.
Absolutely, and perps gravitate to where they can get access. Coaches, actors, rock musicians, athletes. How many starry-eyed fans were molested by people who abused their power?
Can you be a fan and not be molested? Of course. But ignoring red flags can happen when you give someone more credit than they're due. Make no mistake, though. The crime is still on the perpetrator, no matter how anyone else behaves.
But on a lesser level, why are we buying products just because an actor recommended them? Why do we vote the way a celebrity votes without even hearing their reasoning? We are so easily lead.
Perhaps what constitutes good--even great--is the book that has stood the test of time. I recently reread Dreiser and Wharton. Their novels remain painfully relevant.
I tend not to think of authors in terms of 'good' or 'bad' morality unless it is brought to my attention directly.
If you're looking for saints in your books, music, or films, prepare to be mightily disappointed. You probably can't read, listen to, or watch most anything, really.
Our relationship with their work is NOT a relationship with them, no matter how good or even how confessional it is. The stuff people put out for public consumption can only tell you so much.
Comments
(AKA the "Joe Paterno Rule".)
As they say, there probably hasn't been a president who couldn't be rightfully arrested for crimes against humanity perpetrated on somebody.
https://marlowe1.substack.com/p/the-wrysons-the-stories-of-john-cheever
No one really ever knows
You know what they want you to know about them and what they can’t hide.
Having said that, I can separate the art from the artist. Joss Whedon is a shit but the first EP of THE NEVERS is gorgeous. The man can touch souls when he tries.
Because next time a woman claims that a community-endorsed “morally good author” raped her, the cycle of gaslighting and victim blaming continues.
I think we just need to stop designating various powerful men as “too wholesome to be rapists”.
No one is too wholesome to harm another person. Everyone has the ability to harm someone else, intentionally/knowingly or not.
This goes for anyone brilliant and talented, I suppose—appreciate their work, but realize they may be the biggest scumbag you just don't know about yet.
https://bsky.app/profile/scalzi.com/post/3lfmvdgu7xc26
If he'd just been having a consensual affair, or was hiring prostitutes, I'd just kinda shrug and find it a bit disappointing, but whatever, humans are flawed.
But no, Gaiman had to be a serial rapist. Jeez . . .
There should always be a path toward personal growth
Protecting other’s safety is a priority over the individual
Also the idea that reading "problematic" books morally contaminates you. It's deeply regressive.
Meanwhile I’m like
7 months ago, Gaiman was everyone's ideal of the perfect progressive male author.
lesson is: STOP PUTTING PEOPLE ON PEDESTALS, because few of them ever deserve to be on them.
humans are flawed, inherently. just how deep the rot goes is up for discussion on some, like that prick.
True & realizing it helps everyone.
You don't need to argue with me, we're saying the same thing.
https://www.kqed.org/arts/13928974/when-art-you-love-was-made-by-monsters-a-critic-lays-out-the-fans-dilemma
That said, I've learned some disturbing stuff about authors of some of my favourite books - but I've read/re-read many, without knowing anything about their authors.
Can the books stand on their own?
But once I read the story it made me question my own gender and NOTHING made me do that before. Still cis, but I understand myself better now.
It's a tragic waste of talent and perspective.
When picking an unknown writer, knowing what they read can also give you an idea of whether they are worth reading, or not.
Bell Hooks.
“The Will to Change”
Go ahead. Read it and tell me making it basic educational material for middle schoolers wouldn’t change the world.
Standards, uh?
If they write a book and nobody ever likes it, maybe they’re not a good author. But I don’t think that happens very often.
All lists of favorites are each list makers opinions and preferences.
I thought that was obvious?
See: Lovecraft and his impact on modern horror
See: Lord Byron and his impact on contemporary writers around him
See: Uncle Tom's Cabin and other slave-era literature
Just a few examples.
Also, who would be selecting writers for the good list? everyone has biases or might think some issues more ignorable than others.
had no idea about this until this latest cycle for instance.
some of us don’t browse 24/7 lol.
https://bsky.app/profile/scalzi.com/post/3lfmvdgu7xc26
Granted, I'm sure it's the same with Trump too. I just have a harder time understanding why anyone viewed him favorably at any point.
Personally, I think it's perfectly fine to like an artist's creation while also outwardly condemning their actions. Especially with books, there are tons of ways to buy them used
I'm disappointed in the author of one of my favorite manga, but I'm not gonna throw away my volumes, tear down my posters, and destroy the figures I got in yhe past because he turned out to be a creep. I finished my collection by getting it used, simple.
Just asume everyone creating media is a decent human being, and abandon them if it comes out they do something aweful.
Some people inexplicably love Horror, for example...
"adepts have their feet deep in the mud and high in the clouds"
People who bring light to others rarely have perfect lives, that is the universality of creativity.
I'd even argue that viewing writing fiction as the former (the crux of what you're saying) is part of the mindset that led to Gaiman doing what he did in the first place.
And as a writer...I'd rather avoid that.
If you're looking for saints in your books, music, or films, prepare to be mightily disappointed. You probably can't read, listen to, or watch most anything, really.
Our relationship with their work is NOT a relationship with them, no matter how good or even how confessional it is. The stuff people put out for public consumption can only tell you so much.