Part four of the study of troubling and offensive panels from Neil Gaiman's comics

So now, we turn to the 4th post I'm writing about the fishy and offensive elements from Neil Gaiman's comics resume. Now, I guess we'll continue with a look at some Batman-related material he wrote for Secret Origins Special in 1989, featuring the following from a framing sequence he wrote for at least a few stories inside the issue:

How interesting this story has the effect of making it sound like Batman's allowed to break laws against trespassing and illegal infiltration of property without any legal opposition. Wonder if this was a hint of contempt for Bob Kane and Bill Finger's creation coming from Gaiman at the time?

And here, it runs the gauntlet of making Batman sound like he's a perverted voyeur, in addition to a line implying there's been infidelity at play, which was of course the case with Gaiman, yet on its own, that's still nothing compared to the sexual assaults he was accused of. Now, for some panels involving the Riddler, in a segment Gaiman wrote:

Hmm, this could probably describe Gaiman's whole career. It's nothing more than a myth that he's a "legend" of a writer, especially at this point.

Well if everything's different now, it's because men like Gaiman made it so, yet in his case, without adding any sustainable substance to make age well.

We also don't know anything about Gaiman coming from his own side of the spectrum, that's for sure. Wonder if the way he wrote this was meant to be a riddle about himself?

And at the end of this segment, wow, those TV producers sure lack a moral backbone, don't they. Give a horrid criminal like the Riddler his own show? Time to change the channel, or turn the set off completely. Now, here's 2 panels from Secret Origins 36:

Apparently, this was Gaiman's attempt to retcon the origins of both Jason Woodrue, who I think debuted first in the Silver Age Atom's stories, while Poison Ivy debuted at least a few years later in Batman's stories. Well I think it's worth disregarding Gaiman's premise here, since most of what he wrote way back when isn't a good fit for DC/Marvel anyway. Interesting he depicts Pamela Isley reading a book with a title like "Feminist Trash", since he himself has long claimed to be a male feminist. The story may be another one written with an unwise tilt in favor of the villains, and that's not good either.

Now, here's some panels from Books of Magic, where Gaiman introduced the teen Tim Hunter, who's supposedly a precursor to Harry Potter, though Gaiman's tale sure looked quite boring. It was originally published in a 4-part prestige format miniseries. From the 1st part:

Wow, just what we need, regardless of whether the story was aimed at adult audiences. References to perverts, by a pervert. Not good. And tragically, a certain pervert was able to catch defenseless women in his obnoxious grasp. It should be noted Gaiman once worked with the disgraced DragonCon co-founder Ed Kramer, who was charged with child molestation, and notoriously delayed his trial, denying his victims justice for over a decade. He also later got in trouble for helping a crooked judge illegally access a court database. And after what's been discovered about Gaiman, well, he sure didn't do anything to prove himself better.

And this reeks of fishy allusions to bad fanfiction, where a woman is weakened in a Mary Sue-style script. But that's no surprise at this point, is it? Next, from the 2nd issue:

It's just like Gaiman to put in forced queries like the above, about whether the guy known as the Spectre is homosexual. Because that's supposedly what makes this "mature" and "adult". To ask that about an original cast member is one thing, but asking these things about an established creation is entirely another.

And then we have to read about the young star wanting to get drunk on alcohol, is that it? By the way, any particular reason Boston Brand, aka Deadman, possessed a man who looks dressed as an Islamic cleric with a Turkish hat, to communicate aboard the plane? Something tells me that today, Gaiman wouldn't put the two subjects on the same page, since as previously mentioned, Islam abhors alcohol.

Now here, it is surprising to see Gaiman wrote a scene where it looks like an Islamic jihadist tried to attack the Phantom Stranger. But it's important to remember that ever since, Gaiman's made a joke out of even those kind of scenes based on his modern ignorance of the Religion of Peace, and highly unlikely he'd write scenes like that today. Political correctness certainly did have some effect on various leftist authors as time went by. In the next scene, when John Constantine takes Tim to stay with Zatanna:

I've seen a few panels over the years in some comics from leftist writers who must think vegetarianism is preferable to being a meat-eater. But considering what the world is like today, that's why it's hypocritical to take such an approach.

And what's this here? Is Gaiman insulting Murphy Anderson's original costume design for Zee? Won't be surprising either if he was, considering how cynical his view of DC/Marvel has actually been. That a point is made about Halloween coming about does nothing to alleviate the dismay a scene like the above can make one feel either. Such a scene was undoubtably how male feminists like Gaiman try to conceal what they're really like. And towards the end, the following comes off as pretty weak:

So Constantine saves the day, but Zatanna doesn't? Well that's not doing much to give anybody a chance to root for Zee. I'm sorry, but even this is very defeatist and underwhelming. Now for part 3:

My my, in this panel, Mister E. is suggesting the Phantom Stranger's some kind of variation on an antisemitic stereotype, "the wandering Jew", and this is casually spoken about with no form of opposition or protest in-story. Once again, Gaiman slipped in something potentially hurtful to the community he came from, but it's uncertain he actually cares about.

This sounds strangely like allusions to transsexuality. No surprise Gaiman could exploit opportunities to shoehorn something like that in, of course.

Now what have we here? A man singing about Germany ruling the world? Most likely, this alludes to WW2, and that's why this comes off as very disturbing and offensive. It's the kind of moment that makes one wonder what Gaiman really thinks about...well, you get the idea.

This reeks of sexist/misogynist stereotypes, and is just as bad as say, a fairy tale like Hansel and Gretel.

And here, looks like we have confirmation of the prior scene featuring the woman in the red suit having once been a man. How tasteless and embarrassing. Finally, from part 4:

Seriously, I don't like how Constantine is written talking to Tim in this panel. I know Constantine was written in the past as quite a cynic at times, but this is still very appalling.

Fishy allusions to a woman's body parts in the above panels, and that decidedly doesn't bode well for this book either. Not to mention that, in light of the discoveries about Gaiman's dark side, they take on a whole new meaning.

Now, here's some panels from a comic published at Marvel, apparently based on stories developed by the Alice Cooper band, founded by a man with a woman's name (originally Vincent Damon Furnier). The 3-part book is titled Last Temptation, and from the 1st part, quite a telling panel we have here:

I'm sure I don't need to point out how skin-crawlingly offensive this is in light of Gaiman's own violations. And then:

I think the reference to prostitution here is also troubling, based on what Gaiman did in real life. The reference to suicide is just as reprehensible. And next:

Hmm, now this has got to be quite telling and eyebrow raising too, considering how little respect Gaiman turned out to have for the fairer sex. Mainly because he still retained disdain for women's dignity, if anything. Reminds me of a time the Jerusalem Post columnist Ruthie Blum noted a dozen years ago that nobody's teaching kids to defend a woman's honor and dignity. Gaiman's certainly a product of the resulting moral bankruptcy. Now, here's the 2nd part:

Now claims in the past that insane people were poisoning Halloween food may have been hugely exaggerated, but what business does Gaiman have addressing stuff like this? Especially considering he attacked the Comicsgate campaign without any solid evidence as to whether it was all the "fascist" movement leftists like him regrettably wanted it to be. Here's more:

Well maybe the phantom spoken about here never stole children, but Gaiman certainly demeaned women via sexual assault. So what was his whole point putting in a scene that stinks of minimization of serious issues like kidnapping, and is further destroyed by his real life antics?

And what's this about traps? That, tragically, is what Gaiman set for the women he violated in real life.

Here we go with yet more sickness, which gives an even sicker feeling after the revelations about Gaiman's dark side.

Based on Gaiman's leftist politics, this could take on a whole new meaning too, suggesting he shoehorned contempt for the USA into his script.

And for all we know, this could just as well have been a stealth insult to the X-Men. Gaiman's antics make clear he doesn't respect Stan Lee's creations regardless. Now, one more panel from the 3rd part:

This looks like a subtle insult to Christians, and certainly monotheistic religion in general, when it comes to Halloween. From what I know, even today, plenty of Christians still celebrate the holiday, are okay with adopting what began as a pagan ritual as something for monotheists to celebrate as well, and it serves as a lead-in to All-Saints Day. So it sure is strange Gaiman would put in such a peculiar comment as that. And all in a macabre-themed comic that hasn't aged well, and would be best forgotten. It's not a treat so much as it is an atrocious trick. Next up, here's a few panels from 1602, a comic Gaiman wrote in the early 2000s, featuring variations on Marvel heroes set in the middle ages (and it's later revealed they may be time-displaced):

The use of a vulgar word in this panel, put in the mouth of Scotland's king James, is such a turnoff. This comic may not be the most profane Gaiman ever wrote, but it's still one of the most forced, contrived and downright pointless.

The "she" in question appears to be this miniseries' take on Jean Grey, and she doesn't seem particularly respected as a character here (the part where she's called a "whore" is disgusting), any more than in countless other takes on the X-Men to come down the lane over the years. Interesting how Archangel's variation is scolded for being half-undressed here. There was something potentially hypocritical here, and I guess that's why I highlighted this scene. But the following is even more eyebrow raising:

Wow, this looks like a nod to the premise of the Watchmen, not to mention another cliched stealth attack on conservatives. Even if George W. Bush wasn't a good president, the problem with stories like this is that they're not altruistic, fail to make clear what grounds they're built on, and just seem written up out of obsession with conservative-bashing. At worst, it perpetuated the destruction of Capt. America that began with the Marvel Knights series published in 2002, initially written by Jon Ney Rieber.

And here, we have insult added to injury when Archangel is made to sound like he's homosexual, in addition to Jean Grey being disguised at one point as a man, is that it? And this was before Iceman suffered even worse abuse that'll likely never be mended. Wow, this too is pretty insulting to the intellect. Gaiman sure knew how to employ his leftist influence for the worse. This is also one of the reasons a scene in the 1st issue ostensibly alluding to antisemitic persecution by medieval Spain falls flat too.

Now here's some panels from Batman in Black & White 2 from 1996:

So on the one hand, looks like there's a subtle insult to Ronald Reagan, and on the other hand, a bizarre stealth assault on France. Yes, seriously, I wouldn't be shocked if Gaiman did have it in for France, since the Joker appears to be speaking ironically when referending a country that's been victim of some of the most terrible cases of Islamofascism in history.

Next are some pages from Superman/Green Lantern: Legend of the Green Flame, a story that was originally written in the late 80s, but only published around the turn of the century, and apparently draws from the disastrous premise employed for GL in Action Comics Weekly. Meaning, of course, the time when Superman's primary title was turned weekly for about 41 issues before being shifted back to monthly (and while there was some decent stuff, like Nightwing and Black Canary entries, the GL stories were rock bottom). Let's begin with the introduction by Gaiman:

It sure is strange why anybody who claims to love GL would want to build off the premises employed in ACW, since that saw one of the most offensive moments in GL writing history, starting with Katma Tui being slaughtered by Carol Ferris in Star Sapphire mode. On which note, that direction with Carol was something that should've been abandoned by the time that grimy story was published, yet the editors at the time prolonged the humiliation, and kept things up, and Christopher Priest, who scripted it, made things worse by even agreeing to write it. Editorial mandates are no excuse either. What's fascinating is that Priest had fallouts with the editors, and ultimately left by the time Action Comics left the weekly format. Yet Gaiman thinks this makes a perfect premise to build on? Please.

Ah, and look here, they're alluding, in example, to the Hal Jordan/Arisia Raab affair. Which in fairness was dealt with using a specific awareness of how questionable it could be by writer Steve Englehart when he scripted GL's 2nd volume in its last years. Arisia was aged up via a subconscious wish on her GL ring, but an awareness was kept as to what age she could've been when she first debuted. Based on what offensive behavior Gaiman committed, however, that's why he decidedly had no business addressing it himself, even if the honeymoon was over by the time this story was meant to occur. Interestingly enough, I think it already was over by the time the 2nd volume ended, because, while the New Guardians may have been a mediocre short-lived series (originally part of the "New Format" imprint of the late 80s), it appeared that Arisia was already becoming a companion of sorts to Kilowog in the pages of that series, which wisely didn't mention the horror-fest in ACW. I think the allusion to GL's partnership with Green Arrow also falls flat. Also note the following panel towards the end:

There's decidedly something wrong with the allusion to Michael Douglas and Glenn Close's psycho-thriller of 1987, Fatal Attraction, probably because it's like Gaiman was indirectly endorsing a film where a woman was the mental case, in order to inject a stealth insult to the women he wronged. Or, he was virtue-signaling, which is very bad too. I also decided to add the book's afterword here:

Wonder what Waid thinks now that Gaiman's been exposed as a bad lot? It's annoying how Waid refers to ACW as something where lives were destroyed, because it did it in very bad taste, very offensively, and the damage may never be mended.

Now here's some pages from an Eternals miniseries Gaiman wrote at the time the Civil War crossover was occurring, where Sprite somehow erases the memories his fellow Eternals have of who exactly they are, and there is an allusion or two to that awful item in the pages of what happens to be another pointless story Gaiman brewed up. For example:

Oh my god. Almost immediately out of the gate, Gaiman writes in an insult to Kirby's creation, Sersi, where she tells the other lady that a gay man likes her because she reminds him of a drag queen?!? Meaning, of course, a man dressing as a woman. Double the insult and offense to women right there. Such practices are offensive to women, and then Gaiman makes things worse by shoehorning in a statement where a lady is insulted by being told she looks like a man?!? Wha-huh? It's just plain stupefying, especially in light of what Gaiman was discovered doing behind the scenes. Here's some more:

So in the former panel, Sprite says it's not like he wants to grow up like singer Michael Jackson, who was accused of child molestation, though Gaiman sure turned out to be quite a fiend in his own way when it came to women. Such hypocrisy right there. And in the latter panel, it looks like there's a stealth insult to Christianity again. Along with a superficial allusion to the subject of terrorism, which Gaiman only trivializes in any event. Because, in issues 2-3:

Now isn't that odd how Chechnya turns up in passing reference here, because they're a country where Islamic terrorism has been organized, but the subject remains minimized here, even in the 3rd part, and it makes little difference whether what terrorists appear in this tale have sci-fi structures or not; it's still minimizing a serious issue from real life. Also notice in the ballroom, there's peculiar allusions to potentially underaged attendants and alcohol. Again, viewed in context of Gaiman's offenses, that's why there's something fishy about that too. It gets worse with what's in the 4th part:

This is embarrassingly bad. No doubt, Gaiman was making Sersi sound like a prostitute in a most negative sense, but what's really ghastly is how it sounds like Sprite wanted to have sexual relations with her, but couldn't based on his looking like an underaged child. Let's be clear. Based on the revelations about Gaiman in real life, that's why this scene is monumentally offensive. Next, in the 5th part:

And if this was an attempt to allude to communist Russia's discriminations, this doesn't work either. Mainly because it somehow seems more like a subtle attack on conservatives in the west. And then, in part 6:

Yup. Just like that, Yellowjacket insists registration required for the sake of Civil War. Do tell us about it. Finally, in 7, this is most disturbing:

Well, well, well. Another allusion to sexual abuse, written by somebody who's disqualified himself from addressing the issue. On the following page, Zuras breaks Sprite's neck, and IIRC, a number of years after this lethargic miniseries, Sprite was resurrected in the body of a woman. As if the groan-inducing moments weren't enough. This has to be one of the worst insults to Kirby's creations, at least a dozen years before the failed live action movie came about. Now, here's a few pages from the Batman story "Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?", from around 15 years ago:

On the surface, the presumed pimp may sound like he wants to coerce Catwoman/Selina Kyle into becoming a prostitute, which she actually was depicted as having once done in Frank Miller's writings in the late 80s, so depending how you view this, it can be considered strange if she's got an issue, outside of a pimp trying to force her to do his bidding. But the worse implication is that he may be threatening to sexually abuse her, and while she does take him down on the following page, it still collapses into the dust, based again, on what Gaiman did in real life.

And what's this? Some kind of variation on Miller's writing Batman saying "I'm the goddamn Batman" in his earlier stories like Dark Knight Returns? Also, who is Gaiman to write about craziness, and what's his whole fascination with the Riddler anyway?

Wow, is this supposed to be critique of violence? Because that too falls flat on its face coming from Gaiman, and so does the part about heroics, because even he played a part in dumbing it down, or ruining it altogether as time went by. Not to mention that Gaiman, by sharp contrast, is such a coward. Now, here's a few pages from Sandman: Overture, some sort of prequel to the 1989-96 series. And wouldn't you know it, more of a subject Gaiman's unfit to shine the shoes of turns up:

On the one hand, it sounds like Morpheus is being written talking to a young girl about a subject she may be too young to comprehend, which is certainly embarrassing. On the other hand, look how it's made to look like he's running the gauntlet of barging in on a woman who's changing her clothes. Quite a stealth tactic alright. And then:

Hmm, this reeks of liberal anti-war propaganda. Probably a latter day allusion to the war in Iraq from the early 2000s. Either way, such subjects are unsurprising for Gaiman, who did after all use the original 1989-96 series as a drainpipe for leftist propaganda.

This might be an allusion to the Cold War, but in light of Gaiman's real life violations of women, it also lands with a thud. A most peculiar thing about this miniseries is that the profanity was milder than the rawer stuff seen in the regular series, yet it still remains quite pretentious. Lastly, here's a few panels from Amazing Fantasy 1000, an alleged tribute to Spider-Man from about 2 years ago:

He may have felt sorry for Spidey, but clearly not for the ladies he violated, so this scene takes a nose dive.

On the matter of Peter Parker sweating underneath his mask, if that's supposed to be an allusion to how real life can be different, it crashes down under the weight of the accusations against Gaiman.

And here, the way it's set up makes it read like Gaiman was putting words in Spidey's mouth. No, Spidey didn't say Gaiman was the web-slinger's "biggest fan". It was Gaiman who did. Clearly for virtue-signaling. The way this reads out, it doesn't sound like Gaiman ever understood that Spidey's mission was to fight crime, and that can include the offensive behavior Gaiman was accused of too. I recall somebody may have said following the revelations of Gaiman's offenses that "authors create their own moral universe." Sadly, this could reflect that problem too. This is another product that's been tarnished by Gaiman's bad behavior. If Mary Jane Watson wasn't mentioned here, it's actually a fortunate thing. I hesitate to think how Gaiman would portray her if she was in this story.

In the end, I can only say that the stuff I've read written by Gaiman is some of the most pretentious leftist propaganda ever published, and even when it's not political per se, it still manages to be quite insulting to the intellect. There were a few stories where it looked like he was supposedly setting up payoffs, but never finished them. And there were others where he came off as quite the moral hypocrite alright. Some of what he wrote is even worse than what Gerard Jones did, and I don't want to read Gaiman's comics ever again, nor do I want to read any of his novels and short stories. The 3 storylines in Sandman where Morpheus was depicted being lenient on some of the grimiest criminals were some of the most insulting moments I've ever seen, ditto the parts where he forced Fury/Lyta Hall through the motions in stuff that didn't lead anywhere but down. I'm very disappointed with Gaiman as a writer, but I'm even more disappointed with him based on his vile behavior towards women in real life. I hope that someday, it'll be possible to abandon and disregard his stories as any kind of canon in the DC/Marvel universes. For now, it's fortunate he was exposed by Tortoise Media, and now, publishers and film producers are distancing themselves from him and his hypocritical works that are little more than leftist propaganda and virtue-signaling.