Part one of a look at some troubling and offensive panels from Neil Gaiman's comics

We're now a few months past the scandal of Neil Gaiman being accused of sexual assault by at least 5 women (and there was word of a 6th victim too), and now, I recently thought of doing some research into his comics writing, to see if there were any fishy lines, panels and other details that could use some pondering. So, I looked around, found and gathered some pages and panels from his past writings of nearly 4 decades, including - but not limited to - the Sandman series, and made quite a few interesting discoveries, maybe even more than what the disgraced Gerard Jones stuffed into his writings.

On which note, when I researched Jones' writings a few years ago, I did it in one whole, big long post, but here, I may try to do it in a few separate posts, because there was so much and I made an effort to find and record a lot of stuff for examination. That said, I want to make clear here that the Sandman series, if anything, had a number of moments that were so obscenely violent and nauseating, that, if there's certain panels I haven't posted here, it's decidedly just as well. What I read there was like a combination of grime and a skunk dressed in a suit, and IMO, it's mystifying how Gaiman's writings could ever be considered classics of literature. Also, for comics of their times, not only was the material graphic, it was some of the earliest to contain stuff like the S-word, and later, when Sandman moved to the Vertigo imprint, the F-word. Nudity was also more noticable and/or implied. But does that alone make it art? The short answer is "no", and after what's been discovered about him to date, his writings haven't aged well. Simultaneously and unsurprisingly, there's also some parts that could be considered un-politically correct by today's leftist crowd, and also political stuff, perhaps also quite unsurprisingly. We'll take a look at that too in time. One more thing I'd like to note as we proceed is that, for a comic that appears to be about a deity named Morpheus, it's odd how in several storylines, he's all but reduced to a bit player in his own book, all for the sake of pseudo-Shakespearean tales and such. If he even appears at all (he also only seemed to use his enchanted sand 2 or 3 times).

I first tried to look for any stories Gaiman might've written for 2000AD in the UK, knowing he did first do some work on British science fiction tales, including Judge Dredd, but couldn't seem to find anything from there, so, we'll begin with what may be the first USA comic he wrote, Black Orchid, focusing on a character who first appeared in the early 1970s in Adventure Comics #428, created by Sheldon Mayer. First, here's the intro to the paperback collection:

I was shaking my head in disbelief at how the writer, whom it says worked for leftist Rolling Stone, says this story is a critique of the uses of violence, if only because however it was done, it was still very underwhelming, and viewed in light of Gaiman's offenses, could've been written as it was to serve as something like a cover for his dark side in real life. Anyway, here's another panel (and I'm honestly not impressed with the "photo-realistic" art here, by Dave McKean):

Let's see, in this one, a woman talks about what to do with her tongue. This sounds almost like it might be an allusion to Gaiman's earliest known sexual assault so far, where he was accused of trying to tongue-kiss Julia Hobsbawm.

Now here, I was admittedly surprised to notice Gaiman appeared to allude negatively to the PLO, one of the most horrific terror organizations around, and there were at least a few comics back in those days that did, recalling an issue of Marvel's 1984-91 Transformers series that did such a thing, though based on Gaiman's otherwise favorable positions towards Islam, the ideology the PLO built on and goes by, that's why this part rings quite hollow. Besides, when somebody does the things Gaiman did, that's another reason why it doesn't work.

So here again, we have mention of the PLO and even Iran (though nothing about Islam, unsurprisingly), and also, one of the baddies claiming he doesn't comprehend anything about women. Wonder if the latter part is a stealth insult on Gaiman's part? And then, in the middle of the trade collection, there's the following quote appearing:

I looked up info about Khayyam, and he was an Islamic "scholar" of the 11th to 12th centuries. That Gaiman considered him somebody worth quoting in the pages of this pretentious GN has got to be telling. There's doubtless plenty of Buddhist and Shintoist scholars who could offer up perceptive viewpoints, and all Gaiman cares about is people with a background in the Religion of Peace?

And here, we see Poison Ivy implying that the guards at Arkham are so corrupt, they'll commit sexual offenses. Because under writers like Gaiman, the storytelling must be that surreal, that we have to hear about gross stuff like what he's accused of. This came even before the 17th issue of the Sandman, and it comes off as pretty forced.

Now, let us turn to the Sandman material, beginning with a panel or two from the premiere issue:

It's interesting he alludes to - but doesn't explicitly mention - World War 1 or why it had to be fought, with one of the most horrifying tragedies being the Armenian Holocaust, perpetrated by the Islamic Ottoman empire in its last years, before they collapsed in 1920. Another weakness from Gaiman. Next:

This is the first time in the Sandman series where the subject of rape is referenced, and most chilling and eerie is how it's also told that the scandal here was hushed up, not unlike how some comics specialty news sites initially tried to avoid the subject of Gaiman's offenses, and even now, there's still a few who downplayed and obscured the specific details, or continue to avoid it altogether. As for a scene near the end of the 6th issue, while I won't be posting it directly here, but rather, on a picture host, I will say that the scene where the lesbian girl is mind-controlled by Dr. Destiny into graphically killing herself is deeply offensive, and represents a stereotype of killing lesbians in showbiz products. Would such a scene ever be concocted with a male homosexual? If not, that just compounds the chilling bias Hollywood has against lesbians as much as heterosexual women, and makes clear that no matter a woman's sexual preferences, it doesn't make them immune to misogyny amongst leftists in the entertainment world. That aside, the whole storyline in issue 6, where Destiny uses a magical ruby of Morpheus' to force several people in a diner to degrade themselves before being forced to commit suicide stunk of cheap sensationalism. Exactly why it gave nothing to think about.

This bizarre scene about tales told by an "idiot" could easily describe Gaiman himself. Even the whole notion these panels talk about a dream is inexcusably offensive, because they seem mean to obscure Gaiman's dark side. And after Morpheus exacted revenge on the son of Roderick Burgess by cursing him into "eternal waking", it sure is odd how easy Dream goes upon Dr. Destiny after what he caused at the diner, and only transports him back to Arkham Asylum, where there's a cameo with the Scarecrow, Jonathan Crane. This is an instance where the ending is a cop-out, and there's at least a few more. Next is a panel from issue 9, telling a story about an African shaman leading an affair with a lady:

There's something bizarrely unpleasant about Gaiman's use of the word "sex" here, since it sounds like he's using it as a substitute for something else much more offensive. Could it be? Well I don't want to think about it more than I already have, because this panel, too, reeks of atrocity.

Here's another offensive scene in the 10th issue, apparently a lead-in to what's emphasized in the 14th, and the use of the word "kinky" alone is all you need to know why something's wrong with this scene too. Do we need stuff like this littering the bookshelves in stores and libraries? I wonder if this was even restricted from access to childen back in the day, if and when it was sold in commercial bookstores?

This scene from 11 is one of the first instances where LGBT ideology makes an appearance in the series, and if it's supposed to be funny, I'm not laughing. Mainly because it actually invokes absurd stereotypes of drag queens acting like ludicrous drama queens to boot. And it's insulting to women, of course, since drag-dressing is a form of gender-based blackface. Up next is a most interesting case from issue 12, where a certain couple who first appeared in Roy Thomas' All-Star Squadron/Infinity Inc. turns up again, that being Fury/Lyta Hall and Silver Scarab/Hector Hall, the latter the son of Golden Age Hawkman and Hawkgirl, only you wouldn't know it clearly from what's to follow:

Now in the first panel, what's dismaying is how Hector, now in the guise of a Sandman outfit, is made to look like a loony-bin. I once owned a few back issues of Infinity Inc, and Hector wasn't depicted so absurdly there. As for Lyta, the above panel is the only place where she seems to smile, and it's in flashback to her childhood images. In the present, she never seems to smile or look happy for the duration of the rather dreary issue, and, making matters worse, this page never makes clear their exact origins, including their membership in Infinity Inc. These pages I found appear to have been scanned from the paperback/hardcover editions of the Sandman run, so I can't be sure, but if the original pamphlet run - which began under the "New Format" imprint that lasted almost 3 years - didn't do so either, then how is a brand new reader supposed to know what Lyta and Hector's origins were? That Crisis on Infinite Earths changed things is no excuse. There's no clue to how Hector's the son of the Hawks, and to obscure his parents is decidedly appalling. Lyta doesn't fare much better, since her parents even post-Crisis are kept obscure here (originally, it was the Earth-2 Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor). IIRC, Thomas later established she was the daughter of Helena Kosmatos, but that's not clear here, nor who her father was. A most irritating thing about this kind of tale is that it may have served as a precedent for how to knock off characters the editors/publishers think are inherently worthless: just depict them stupidly and otherwise unsympathetically, and the newer audience they may have catered to won't give a damn, and worst, may sadly be willing to act as apologists for such a pretentious direction.

Later, when Morpheus (who condescendingly calls Hector a "little ghost") breaks into the structure where Brute and Glob have been housing Hector and Lyta, and confronts the two monsters over their pointless mischief, what's telling here is - when Lyta and Hector come over and listen, they may look disappointed and insulted, but even so, why don't they say anything? Brute and Glob insult Hector as a "bozo", and the couple just stand there not voicing any indignation or demanding an apology for taking advantage of them for the sake of some trivial scheme? Why does only Morpheus have anything to say about it, answering that he'll mend the damage before making Brute and Glob vanish? As a result, this scene comes off as quite an insult to Thomas' creations, not allowing them to shine by portraying them as having guts, personal agency or anything. One could say they're reduced to plot devices, and Hector certainly was. Lyta only reacts - in anguish at that - after Dream causes Hector to disintegrate. She's outraged Dream seemingly killed Hector, but not that Brute and Glob pulled the wool over their eyes? Also, isn't it contradictory for Dream to say he'll do nothing to Lyta, yet soon after, he indicates he wants her child to serve the purpose of a successor? Then that's wanting to do something to her alright. It's one thing to emphasize Dream as the main lead (though again, some stories reduce him to a minor presence), but doing it at Fury and Silver Scarab's expense is another. And again, the latter isn't referred to by his original codename, nor do the Hawks receive mention here.

Since we're on the subject, has anyone ever noticed how very little of Thomas' writings for DC (All-Star Squadron, Young All-Stars, Infinity Inc, Arak: Son of Thunder and some Secret Origins issues) were ever reprinted, while Gaiman's Sandman series kept getting reprinted with startling consistency for well over 3 decades? (I recently discovered there may have been larger paperbacks coming in 5 or 6 volumes published in 2023, less than the original 10.) There was one archive for All-Star, probably in black-and-white, and a hardcover collection of Infinity Inc. back in 2011, but it's since gone out of print, and a 2nd one that may have been planned was cancelled (though the Amazon page is still available). It raises questions as to whether this was deliberate on DC's part, because they don't want to disrupt the Gaiman narrative, even though Hector was later resurrected in the overrated JSA series of 1999-2006. Put another way, it would seem as though DC, for many years, didn't want anybody to know the clear origins of Hector and Lyta, and that they wouldn't reprint much of Thomas' writings to date speaks volumes.

If Thomas' comics for DC ever do finally see complete dedicated archive collections, I sincerely hope any potential buyers won't act as though they're literally obligated to consider Gaiman's subsequent stories starring Thomas' creations canon, and won't let Gaiman's offenses sour their view of Thomas' works either. Let's be perfectly clear. These are fictional stories and characters, and if a terrible mistake is made over time even with serialized fiction, it's not impossible to fix it. As I've said before, I do not think Gaiman's Sandman series is a good fit with any DC canon from years past, and it'd do a lot of good if anybody with a better vision could buy out DC along with Marvel, and then jettison a lot of the works of the worst writers of the 90s and develop a better direction going forward. Only if somebody sensible who can afford buying out the Big Two is willing to take the challenge will it be possible to mend a bad situation. For now, let me also note that, as Walt Disney may have once said, "if you dream it, you can do it." And best of all, it can be a good dream too if fans of fantasy adventure so wish. Now, for some panels from 13:

So here we have a pseudo-Shakesperean tale where Morpheus is put in the role of a character dwelling in Victorian England, and almost straight out of the gate, there's something that looks pretty stealthy, like Dream is saying he doesn't see the purpose of drafting laws that could protect against sexual assault? Well, considering what Gaiman later wound up accused of, maybe the possibility he snuck something hurtful in there isn't so farfetched, sadly enough. And then, here's another something very grating:

What's offensive about these parts involving racism and antisemitism is that it looks depicted very casually, with no opposing viewpoint in sight. Although such prejudices were quite prevalent in England across past centuries, that doesn't mean a comic like this should be written depicting it as though it isn't serious and doesn't require addressing in its own way. Also notice how the guy facing Dream says, "and I'm not Jewish", as though that's a bad thing, and no effort is made to make clear ethnicity is not what you judge upon, but rather, personal character. Nor is any distinction made between Jew and devil. As a result, this tale comes off little different from the writings of authors like Ernest Hemingway, T.S Eliot and Agatha Christie, where casual racism/antisemitism appeared in the original manuscripts, though after World War 2, Christie's novels had such atrocities airbrushed out of the succeeding editions. (As for Eliot, surprisingly enough, he may have later apologized in some ways for his behavior.) Now, how did such embarrassment find its way into this Sandman story in 1990, without any serious opposition? We could assume Gaiman used his own Jewish ethnicity as a weapon to get around what might've caused controversy if a non-Jew had written such a script, though let's not think prejudice didn't exist among DC/Marvel staffers of those times in any way. That would be foolish. Of course, if the former assumption is the answer, then Gaiman may not be all that different from the film director Jonathan Glazer, who caused considerable embarrassment at the Oscars earlier this year. Now, here's some items from 14, where the story is about a serial killers convention(!), which also involves at least a few rapists:

This is most repulsive dialogue, and one can also argue it relies on a stereotype of a villain depicted as obese. And maybe because of PC advocates in the past, nobody cared.

So here, there's some irritating stuff involving religion, and if the story is meant to complain LGBT ideology's victim of the monsters featured here, it sure is strange no concerns are raised about whether Blacks and Jews are also victims of such criminals. But hey, lest we forget the previous issue where antisemitism and racism were depicted casually. Of course, based on how sensationalized this issue looks, that's why for all we know, it was probably written more as a shoddy excuse to depict even LGBT perishing at the hands of sensationalism, as a possible figure in the bottom panel did (I didn't include it here because it involved implied nudity and looked crude enough in any event).

There's at least a few parts here in the upper quarter that one could wonder if they wound up serving as descriptions of Gaiman too. Either way, another problem with this story is that we're being hammered with viewpoints of villains, and is that healthy? No. How come the viewpoints of innocents don't count? Next, here's a part that's really insulting to the intellect:

When Morpheus stops the giant-looking creep from raping the girl, he merely knocks him senseless with more magic sand, but what's really defeatist is how the vile monster is then depicted dreaming of celebrating with a bunch of children who forgive him for his crimes against them?!? Ugh. This seems like a subtle form of lenience, considering what a heinous crime child rape is, and it's probably the 2nd time in this series something disturbingly lenient comes up, considering that again, Dream handed Burgess an "eternal waking curse" on his way out, yet when it came to other, worse offenders like those in the 14th issue, he doesn't seem as stern. On which note:

Morpheus may have disintegrated the Corinthian, but when dealing with the more earthbound criminals at the convention, he just lets them slink away into the night? Not even calling the police or anything? Now this is quite a cop-out. Such dangerous criminals belong in prison, yet here they're let off with barely a slap on the wrist? We decidedly are missing something here. Because there's no unambiguous confirmation of what actually happens with the criminals, we can't be sure the story actually subjects them to serious penalties. I once owned a copy of the first compilation of this overrated series 15 years or so ago, and thankfully, was able to sell it off some time later. But if I still owned it today, I'd throw it in the garbage, especially after reading about the sexual offenses Gaiman was later accused of. Next, from the 16th issue:

Even though the girl's grandma takes her place in a manner of speaking, it was insulting to the intellect how Morpheus implies he's willing to kill a girl who'd almost experienced a horror story 2 issues prior at the hands of a rapist. This too was distasteful. Now for the notorious 17th issue. For example, in the following panel, the next victim of sexual violence in the comic is told "do not put trust in princes...":

Stunning how this scene could easily allude to Gaiman to boot. Here's also an external link to the atrocious moment in the 17th issue, where the Erasmus Fry character rapes the woman, who's name is Calliope. It's one of those offensive parts that's decidedly unsuited for direct viewing. However, I will post here the following head-shaker:

Oh my god. The creep's written describing himself as a "feminist"! And this was possibly years before male feminists came about identifying as such, including Gaiman himself, if memory serves. Note that here, Fry doesn't actually say he's a "male feminist", but the irony is how, if Gaiman was trying to depict this character as a hypocrite, he sure didn't do much to prove he was any better in real life, as has since been discovered. (As for "strong women in fiction", Gaiman didn't exactly depict Lyta that way, and her physical strength was downplayed, seen only 3 times in use. So what's the point?) When Morpheus confronts Fry later, it sure is strange how the latter's the one who threatens to call the cops, but Dream doesn't. And then, when Fry appears to end up with some kind of scratch on his face as a way to shame him into freeing Calliope, it later vanishes after he finally does. And he suffers no serious consequence for his crimes, other than that. Another cop-out. Does he get off easy because Calliope, like Morpheus, is some kind of deity? I'm sorry, that's no excuse; this was very poor and disappointing. Not to mention that Morpheus should've been the one to free her on the spot, and IMO, relying on some kind of "fantasy hurdle" does not make this story any more acceptable. Now some items from 19:

Here's another tale where allusions to drag-dressing take place, with pretty creepy dialogue to boot, though the biggest irony has to be that the anthropomorph seen here is actually willing to acknowledge that a man in drag is just that, unlike today's leftist crowd that makes it mandatory to pretend men claiming to be women are literally women. Would this sit well with some of the SJWs of today? Who knows? Now, some material from the 20th:

This tale seemed like another insulting excuse to bring back a previously created character - here being Element Girl, who appeared in the 10th of Metamorpho's original Silver Age stories by Bob Haney - who'd been in limbo for some time, and only for the sake of terminating them as though it were a criminal offense to have ever created them in the first place. But what's really disgusting is how Dream's sister Death is depicted as though she loves leading to this disgust, and even smirks about it? Ugh. I don't see what's so charming or funny about a pointless direction like this. So Urania Blackwell's not good enough for trying to build newer stories around? Well it's insulting to the intellect, and what was done in the above panel only precipitated a terrible problem whose effects we're still trying to shake off. Then, from 21:

A sect in what's now Afghanistan, you say? In later centuries, the Moslem invasion of such countries destroyed positive cultures that once dwelled there. But no objective view coming from Gaiman regarding that particular history, unfortunately. Next is 22:

And here, there's a valid query to be asked: since when does Morpheus have the authority to name Lyta's son (Daniel)? Even if Dream didn't kill Hector Hall, that still doesn't give him free license to tell Lyta what the little guy's name should be. That's her choice, not his. Next, from 24:

What's insulting to the intellect about this scene is that it appears to be an insult to Stan Lee's take on the Norse deity over at Marvel. And this comic's take on Loki is also atrocious, as the take on Odin is just plain dreary. Now, here's one more issue for now, 25:

Pretty surprising the Iraq war of 1991 is mentioned here, ditto the since-deposed Saddam Hussein, but I get this strange feeling that here, they're being alluded to in a wrong way that's otherwise favorable to the despot.

Here's another odd moment where sexual abuse is alluded to, and Gaiman's real life offenses, again, nullify any point this was allegedly supposed to make. Though oddly enough, this sounds eerily reminiscent of what Gaiman did to the nanny working for him and his now ex-wife Amanda Palmer in New Zealand.

Here, it's interesting how back in the day, Gaiman made use of the word "oriental" as an allusion to Asian countries like China. Today, there's liberal PC advocates who think that's literally offensive, even though "oriental" itself is far from a vulgar word, and the following writer once noted it's not the worst thing to ever be heard in any era. But, don't be surprised if some day, liberal PC advocates will take issue with Gaiman over use of such words regardless.

Finally, there's this offensive, loathsome scene where some nasty students at the school assault and torture another student, in another moment that reeks of sensationalism at this point, to say nothing of shock value, something that doesn't always work out well. I can't stand this either, because in light of Gaiman's offenses, this too only takes on a different meaning.

Anyway, that's the first third of the Sandman run, and I'll continue the observations in another post as soon as possible.