The Four Color Media Monitor

So here, we continue our look at anything that could be considered fishy after what the disgraced Neil Gaiman was accused of doing back in July 2024. Let's continue to the middle third of the Sandman run, beginning with this eyebrow-raising scene from 26: The way Gaiman portrayed his take on Thor sure makes the Norse deity seem like a sexual harasser, even off-panel. I suppose that's how Gaiman thought he could get away with it at the time? Something tells me he doesn't have much respect for Sif either. Then, from 28: In Australia, the word "pom" is short for "pomegrante", and may be a slur used against people of English descent. Which suggests Gaiman doesn't really have much respect for Oz citizens, and was trying to make them look bad. And again, if he committed sexual offenses, that's why even this can take on a whole new meaning. Next, from 29: Oh dear, more implied sexual misconduct, in a scene set during the French revolution era of the late 18th century, and I think the women here is supposed to be an ancestor of John Constantine? The part about liberty being the B-word is also offensive. Aside from the allustion to cross-dressing, curious they don't specify who exactly was doing the witch-hunting in Egypt. Was it Islamofascists, or did Gaiman want people to think it was Copts he was talking about? Nothing's made clear here. And here's what looks like another forced allusion to homosexuality, all for the sake of "adult art". Next comes 30: Another pseudo-Shakespearean tale, set in Rome, and another that alludes to homosexuality, though here, if they're alluding to lesbianism, they may do it in a way that derides women; with men it'd probably be a different story. And the part talking about genitals is, quite honestly, disgusting. This reeked of a subtle insult to Israel. It may be one thing to say the coast of ancient western France was "stormy", but to say Judea - which was one of the ancient Roman names for Israel - was "stinking" is ludicrous and nasty. What's wrong with "sandy" and "windy"? This sounds like another stealth insult against the people Gaiman's descended from. The part about "grooming" also sounded fishy, if only because it's a figure of speech today that's used to describe perverts who try to prepare underaged youngsters for sexually assaulting. Now here's something from 31: Reading this, it sounded like a casual allusion to drugs devoid of any actual negativity. Even if that's not as bad as the casual depiction of racial prejudice seen in 13, it's still very troubling. And at the end: He used to be a Jew? What is this, some kind of identity rejection? It certainly doesn't impress me. Now for 32: This storyline ("A Game Of You") was one of the most boring, focused as it was upon some women in NYC who're dealing with bizarre stuff, including a male transsexual who's written making a very offensive statement what he might do if the girl named Barbie says anything about his actual background. Seriously, that's not nice or polite to talk to people that way. It reminds me of a time in 2015 when Ben Shapiro was threatened by a LGBT activist, who warned him he'd "go home in an ambulance". (Shapiro filed a police report afterwards.) Why, such behavior is something a man would more likely do, and only proves Shapiro's points for one. Then, from 33: Something about this is so bizarre and unreal. A lesbian might've been impregnated by a gay guy? If it was meant to be funny, I don't find it so. It just sounds like a lot of leftist word salad, is all, right down to the assault on menfolk. Yet that's nothing compared to how chilling the following is: Spooky how something like this echoes what a certain wacko from Britain ended up doing to several women years before. So here, the transsexual guy has a bewildering nightmare involving a variation on Bizarro from Superman, and the weirdest part of this is that Gaiman was actually disrespecting his own character more than helping. If anything, this is the kind of moment that for all we know, wouldn't be considered acceptable by the PC crowd today. That's probably the biggest irony in this whole mishmash. Now here's 34: If Gaiman's been taking up any of that "trans women are women" distortion in recent years, it would contradict this scene, where, amazingly enough, he wrote one character stating facts. Bet that wouldn't fly with today's Orwellian crowd. If they've abandoned him after the sexual assault scandal, one could wonder if the above panel explains why. Now for 36: No kidding. He "didn't go all way"? Is that right? Well again, we make a most intriguing discovery, of a time when some people like Gaiman were ironically actually willing at the time to state facts even within a surreal context, though in the past decade, they likely changed their tune considerably. Next is 37: When the transsexual man passes away at the end of this story, Barbie attends his funeral in a rural township, and paints a veil on her face. As seen here, 2 boys in the diner mock her as she passes by, and it all seems to stink of "toxic masculinity". And then, when she meets the man's aunt, the latter for one is made to look like she's in the wrong. It's just so ludicrous. And this predictably extends to the whispers between the relatives at the guy's funeral, which has the effect of making it look like Christians are just jerks. All because for Gaiman, LGBT ideology is so much more important, along with mentalities that could be considered a form of self-hatred. And then: So Barbie went to buy a copy of a comic at a specialty store, where the clerk is depicted as a ghastly looking fellow who even makes a sleazy comment to somebody who's actually paying him dough! This really stunk of crude stereotypes about comics fandom and the marketers. As I'd once noted years ago, there have been women who've bought and read comics in past decades, including New Teen Titans, and all that aside, do store proprietors past and present typically act insulting and embarrass lady customers as happens in this scene? In Gaiman's self-important world, sadly, they do. This is an early example of "creators" insulting pop culture fans in-story, and while I don't know if Gaiman began such problems, he certainly precipitated them. Let's be clear. Every pop culture fandom has its rotten apples. But failure to distinguish between anybody does not improve a situation that's since become very awful.

Also notice how it's implied the clerk would rather she bought something with value on the speculator market, which would make it sound as though specialty store managers are nothing but greedy guzzlers taking advantage of everybody. Was there any outrage at the time over something this embarrassing, and did anybody try to counter the claim this tale could make? If not, then you know what went wrong over the years. Personally, I've been to a few specialty stores in Tel Aviv, and most of the people there, on both sides of the counter, were far from punkish, even by today's standards. And surely most notable is that there were women on both sides of the clerk's counter too. Mothers and younger girls alike. So where does Gaiman get off building a tale upon crude stereotypes with no solid evidence to prove such mentality has ever been widespread? Looking at the crude character design the comics clerk has, I even wondered if he was meant as an atrocious swipe at Jack Kirby. And according to the script, other men and boys in the store laughed when he body shamed her? I hesitate to think if the girl were drawn with a bigger bust, the clerk would be written propositioning her? Either way, stories like these most likely had some responsibility for damaging the reputation of comicdom.

Ironically, as I recall, Gaiman was chummy in past years with Brad Meltzer, who penned the repulsive Identity Crisis miniseries 2 decades back, and how strange somebody making it sound like comic specialty stores are filled with nothing but sexist/misogynist jerks suddenly stops his criticisms when it comes to real life authors who pen stories offensive to women. An author who was responsible wouldn't associate with another one who wrote something offensive under any circumstances. Gaiman's associations with Meltzer certainly contradict his alleged positions on feminism too. So I guess she's supposed to think it's okay for Alvin to hate being born a man? And to vandalize a gravesite, in a way? Wow. What bleeding-heart liberal nonsense they had going there alright. One can only wonder if Gaiman thinks it's okay to hate being born Jewish and female too, for that matter. And now look where he's wound up in the past few months, facing a police complaint in New Zealand for sexual abuse and losing book, film and TV deals. He must've used this kind of advocacy as a shield for obscuring the really bad things he did in the past, and that's the problem, though as recent times make clear, even that tactic's beginning to fray. As far as I know, Harvey Weinstein had a similar approach, but that's another story. Next comes 38: Well look what past musical figure turns up in mention here - Michael Jackson, who himself was later accused of child molestation. But it's unlikely the teen girl is channelling Gaiman's opinion of Jackson. Here's another page where Jews - and Romanis (here called Gypsies) - are given mention, and this too appears written in a rather casual, half-hearted way. As a result, one could wonder why this scene even appears at all, since it didn't look to me like it was in there for making a statement about fighting racism. And then, as if things couldn't get more absurd in light of Gaiman's offenses: The girl's written complaining of sexism, when here, Gaiman was discovered doing even worse? So of course, what's the whole point of this scene either? The next panel, from 40, which will be provided via external link because it's too suggestive for here, features a bizarre story that reimagines the Story of Creation from the Bible's Genesis chapter, and says that, "during sex, she insisted on climbing on top. A position of equality. Superiority, perhaps." What's weird is that, if Gaiman claims to be a male feminist, the way this is handled is anything but feminist or respectable to women, since as told, "Lilith" (depicted as the 1st wife of Adam before Eve) is expelled from Eden, plants her own garden, and then it's said she "copulated with demons". Is that wise? I'm sorry, but based on that, this is exactly why to say she may have done the same with "sons of God" doesn't work out. It even stinks of moral equivalence in some ways. Next, from 41: So here, we see a scene involving a subject Gaiman has disqualified himself from discussing, mainly because it also reeked of a bizarre lenience and it otherwise fails to make clear that the pedophilia spoken about is an obscene crime. We're supposed to care about a monster who violated his infant niece? Sickening. This is even worse than a scene a few pages prior involving a nightclub where transsexual performers work, though it was sure bizarre how, after one possible transsexual attendant shouts about wanting his/her sister, and after he/she faints, another says "I think she's ill." What about the monster in the later panel? There's also a clip available of the letters page from this issue, written in response to Gaiman's propaganda: I'm not sure if the writer[s] handled this the right way back in the day. There is a good point made that can apply to the 14th issue, in that it took a lenient approach to violent crime, and points about anti-Christian sentiment in Gaiman's writings are also valid. But why say they'll buy his comics again after he supposedly agrees to clean up his outlook? Doesn't that kind of undermine the boycott, and ignore how pretentious his Sandman series is regardless? I don't think this letter presents the best example in that sense. From 45: Here, it looks as though drug addiction is being downplayed, and the only issue the guest character seems to have is with where to inject the horrible trash. If anything, this came off as quite a weak allusion to a serious issue that's only gotten worse over time. And here, what business does Gaiman have writing about sexism, when he exemplified it in real life? It goes without saying Gaiman regulated sexuality all for his own interests, and what really makes the above limp is that Gaiman's never convincingly discussed Islam's hysterical approach to female sexuality at the expense of the fairer sex. Next comes the Sandman Special: So in the former example, we have what may be Pan of Greek mythology attempting to sexually assault a lady who, even after she bunts him away on the next page, runs off and over a snake that poisons her to death. Disgusting. As is the latter example; how ironic that the sexual violence spoken about does have truth to it, in real life. There's also the following example from the letter page (a rarity for annuals and specials at the time, IIRC), which raises problems with issue 41: Well I'm sorry to say, but based on the terrible revelations about Gaiman since July 2024, that's why the claim he wasn't trying to insult residents of Oz any more than anybody else is completely disputable. After all, he did even worse than that by humiliating women's honor and dignity, sexually and otherwise, in past years. And then, since Islam was mentioned, look what the 50th issue was about: Yikes...Gaiman was paying tribute not only to Islam, but to the holiday of Ramadan? Predictably, no mention of any verses in the Koran, nor Ramadan's own embrace of antisemitism during such an occasion, which makes this all the more disturbing in its whitewashed stealthiness for the time. Another disgusting thing about the issue is how it simultaneously attacks Christians (and looks like it's also whitewashing Islamic antisemitism). If there's anything else one could conclude from this propaganda, it's that it also puts the lie to the whole notion Gaiman supports LGBT ideology, when the Religion of Peace seemingly abhors it, even though Islam and its followers do have double-standards on homosexuality. (Also note the 50th story doesn't seem to have any references to homosexuality in it, presumably Gaiman's "show of respect" for the Religion of Peace, which he likely wouldn't do for Judeo-Christianity, or even Buddhism and Hinduism.) I also don't recall Gaiman offering his condolences to any LGBT practitioners who were murdered on October 7, 2023. What really makes this ironic is that Ramadan ostensibly calls for refraining from sexual relations during the time, even though there's horrifying incidents contradicting that (and if the Hamas thought they could attack southern Israel during Ramadan, and before October 7, 2023, it's entirely possible they would've done it on Ramadan) yet Gaiman himself had no qualms about hurting the women he did. As seen here, there's at least a few instances where wine is brought up. And even alcohol that isn't so intoxicating is considered haram (taboo) under Islam. Wine may have had some presence in Islam in the past, but while this comic may have been meant to serve as propaganda in the Religion of Peace's favor, that doesn't mean every Moslem from a modern perspective will appreciate what Gaiman did here. And considering what the Religion of Peace is built upon, that's why this issue is an embarrassment in any event. Making matters worse: Let's see if I can understand what's going on here. The Moslem king in this tale murdered people, and this tale is taking a lenient approach to that as well? Shudder. Hmm, maybe this is a clue that, despite any suggestions to the contrary in this specific issue, Gaiman's not respectable towards Jews even here. Sounds almost like it was wrong for king Solomon, whom it says caged the demons in that globe, to have done so. And here, another example of the citation of wine, when again, Islam abhors even that kind of alcohol. On which note, this is how Morpheus responds: Hmm, and is this implying Morpheus is secretly of the Islamic faith himself? Just when you thought this couldn't get any more insulting to the intellect. To make matters even more bewildering, Dream is the one to imply he doesn't think drinking wine is suited for Ramadan. Despite that, it wouldn't be surprising if many Muslims would shun Gaiman, even as he goes out of his way to pander to them, because of the way he depicted the caliph. Of course, one could wonder if today, Gaiman would apologize for any offense allegedly caused, in the wokest of ways common today. That said, the Sandman comic he wrote was pretty woke for its time in any event.

All that aside, it's head-shaking how all those years before, Gaiman could've written a tribute to religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and Shintoism, for example, if he'd wanted to. Countries like Japan, China, Korea and Thailand probably have more than enough Lunar Holidays to fill a galaxy, and all Gaiman cares about is a religion whose specific contents many on the left today won't be honest about. I vaguely recall reading that when Gaiman and his artists were developing outfits for Morpheus, they thought of a design based on a Japanese kimono. But that appears to be as far as it goes when it comes to far-eastern culture, since leftists like Gaiman continue to stick with the worst cliches possible, at the expense of other cultures that could offer a lot more. At the end of the tale, it looks like the story was being told in modern times in an allusion to the Iraq war, and quite likely in a sense that's negative towards the USA. Which means what, then? That Gaiman was against bringing down a tyrant like Saddam? In that case, he sure would be speaking with a forked tongue then, eh? Next, here's also 2 pages from Clive Barker's Hellraiser #20, one of the first books Gaiman worked on published by Marvel (under their Epic imprint in its final years, if memory serves), and these too, are pretty fishy for a short story segment that appears to be mainly text, even as Dave McKean is credited as artist: In the former panel, he writes about "violating sweet innocence", which, in a way, is what happened in real life, and in the latter, he writes fishy stuff about a child being violated for a but word, and one can only wonder if the stuff about a mistress was meant as a stealth insult to any women he philandered with/violated too. Let's hope Barker, if he's still around, has distanced himself from Gaiman after the whole debacle.

This concludes the 2nd part of this special research into Gaiman's writings, and I'll try to continue with another part soon as possible.

Labels: dc comics, golden calf of death, golden calf of LGBT, golden calf of villainy, history, islam and jihad, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, politics, violence