The Four Color Media Monitor

The Washington Post reports that cartoonist Darrin Bell, who's drawn for their paper and has 2 daily comic strips to his credits, was arrested for possession of child porn:

Pulitzer-winning editorial cartoonist Darrin Bell was arrested Wednesday in California on charges of possession of child pornography, some of which was allegedly generated by artificial intelligence, police said.

Bell, 49, was arrested at his home and booked into Sacramento County jail after police discovered more than 100 videos related to child sex abuse connected to an account that Bell owned and controlled.

According to the Sacramento County sheriff’s office, detectives from the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program previously received a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about someone who had uploaded 18 files containing child sex abuse material, or child pornography. After an investigation into the tip, the detectives discovered 134 videos of that material uploaded by an account owned and controlled by Bell.

On Wednesday, police issued a residential search warrant at Bell’s home, where they discovered evidence related to the case, including “computer-generated/AI” child pornography, according to the sheriff’s office.

[...] This was the first arrest by the Sacramento Valley’s Internet Crimes Against Children detectives unit related to possession of AI-generated content since a new California law ordered possession of AI-generated content to be deemed a criminal offense, according to the sheriff’s office.

Whatever one thinks of even AI, that Mr. Bell would wallow in such abominable smut is horrific and offensive. His possession of illegal videos definitely warrants an arrest and prosecution, and let's hope he goes to prison for a long time.

One of Bell’s more notable works is “Candorville,” a daily comic strip that features young Black and Latino characters living in a city. Collections of the nationally syndicated comic strip, which often offers social and political commentary, have been published as books. He also cocreated “Rudy Park,” a syndicated comic strip no longer in production that focused on current events.

“Candorville,” which appears on The Post’s website and in its daily and Sunday editions and is syndicated by King Features, has been suspended from the comics lineup for the time being. The strip will appear in the Jan. 19 Sunday comics section because of production deadlines.

Counterpoint Media said in a statement Thursday that Bell has been suspended from contributing to its daily newsletter. But reruns of “Rudy Park” would continue to be distributed for now.

They should cancel further publication of his daily strips, and nobody should buy the reprints. We must hope his publishers are dropping his work from reprints already. And now, here's clues to his politics:

Bell got his start at the University of California at Berkeley, where he drew cartoons for the school’s newspaper, the Daily Californian.

He became the first Black journalist to win the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning in 2019. His winning cartoons that year “took on issues affecting disenfranchised communities, calling out lies, hypocrisy and fraud in the political turmoil surrounding the Trump administration,” according to the Pulitzer Prizes.

In 2023, Bell created a visual memoir, called “The Talk,” which focused on how racial injustice and public moments in childhood can help shape adulthood. The book’s publisher, Macmillan, said in a statement Thursday it is “aware of the arrest of Darrin Bell. These are disturbing allegations, and we take this matter extremely seriously. At this time, we are allowing due process to take its course and will take appropriate action as we get more confirmed information.”

The Sacramento Bee also notes:

Pulitzer judges remarked on his “beautiful and daring editorial cartoons” that tackled the issues that affect the nation’s disenfranchised communities and took on the political turmoil that surrounded the first Trump administration.

And the Washington Free Beacon says:

In 2023, Bell published The Talk, a graphic memoir on "police brutality and anti-Blackness in twenty-first-century Amerikkka [sic]." Bell said the book was inspired by George Floyd’s death in 2020, telling ABC News that parents should "take away some innocence" from children by discussing racial issues in America.

And so, it turns out Mr. Bell's quite a leftist ideologue, who studied at a terrible institute with a far-left bent, and it won't be surprising if his comics and cartoons build on only so much leftist ideology, as his use of an allusion to anti-American ideology hints. Now, his career looks to be over, and he's only tarnished leftism so much more with his offenses. It's quite telling he wasted so much energy attacking Trump. The NY Post also notes that:

One troubling cartoon that Bell created was posted to his X account in 2022 and resurfaced on the social media platform after his arrest. Titled “The Groomer,” it shows an elephant-like person flashing a group of children in front of a mirrored storefront, which reflect the word “BIGOTRY” tattooed on the subject’s chest.

And the U.S. Sun has more:

Darrin Bell, 49, who amassed a mainstream audience for his drawings depicting Donald Trump as Hitler, has been accused of sharing over 100 disgusting AI-generated images of child sexual abuse.

[...] Bell was active on social media and spent most of his time posting his political work on his Substack, Darrin Bell's Disobey in Advance.

In one drawing he shared several times on Instagram, he depicted Trump as an Adolph Hitler-type figure standing at a podium for a speech.

On the podium, he drew an image that resembles the Nazi Party symbol, but instead of a swastika, there's a T turned to an angle.

In another illustration, Bell drew Trump having a meltdown over the poor performance of MAGA-endorsed politicians in the 2022 midterm elections.

In that cartoon, the artist depicted the so-called "Red Wave" as an exploded bottle of ketchup that painted a wall behind the screaming president.

At the time, fans couldn't get enough of Bell's drawings. One follower commented, "This is good. I laughed right out loud," on the comic of the president's childish tantrum.

However, now, Bell's arrest and smug attitude have earned him a wave of backlash, as outraged users flood his comments with calls for justice.

"Prison is so fitting for this guy. Don't mess with children," commented one furious user on a post.

Another person wrote, "It's staggering how you spent the past years calling Trump and his supporters rapists, groomers, and Nazis.

"Meanwhile, you were just arrested for creating and distributing child pornography."

And other users blasted Bell for "tarnishing" his work and his disturbing alleged crimes.

"Somebody needs to have a talk to their kids about perverts like you," wrote another furious follower.

Wow...the hypocrisy knows no bounds. He accused conservatives in his cartoons of being "groomers", yet saw nothing wrong with being a groomer himself? Sadly, there's only so many Orwellianists like him around, and they've really brought down morality to a deep abyss. Now, Bell's career is over, and he'll hopefully be facing prison for his atrocities that hurt children.

Labels: comic strips, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, msm propaganda, politics, technology, violence

The company that once had a monopoly on comics distribution and seemed to be against competition, has released a Businesswire press announcement they're going bankrupt, and filing for Chapter 11:

Diamond Comic Distributors (“Diamond” or “the Company”), today announced that it has filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland to facilitate the restructuring of its business. As part of the restructuring process, Diamond has received a $39 million stalking horse bid from an affiliate of Universal Distribution (“Universal”) for Alliance Game Distributors.

The Company has received commitments for up to $41 million in debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing from JP Morgan Chase that will be used to fund post-petition operating expenses and ensure adequate working capital to meet its obligations to associates and suppliers.

In addition to securing DIP financing, and a stalking horse bid for Alliance Game Distributors, Diamond has received strong interest in its specialized business divisions, having also entered into a Non-Binding Letter of Intent (LOI) with Universal to acquire Diamond UK. Diamond is actively pursuing offers for, and has received interest from potential purchasers for, its other business units, including Diamond Book Distributors, Collectible Grading Authority, and Diamond Select Toys, as well as its main comic, toy, and collectible distribution lines.

Given how pretentious their business was, and how quite a few insular ideologues acted as though the industry should solely rely upon them, they're really no loss, and something tells me they've been no help to the independent scene either. For all we know, what money they've received for restructuring probably won't avail in the end.

Most odd about this news, however, is the way some retailers are going about this, like Brian Hibbs of Comix Experience, who said: Now DC under Dan DiDio did some very bad things from an artistic perspective, but that's why to say they're guilty of where things are allegedly leading to in terms of the marketplace is awfully cheap, and besides, didn't Marvel originally precipitate this situation after they tried getting into the distribution business 3 decades before? Not to mention that, if Diamond was monopolizing the business and making it almost impossible to rely on more distribution services, that's wrong. So where does Mr. Hibbs get off scapegoating DC?

I suspect he's also unconcerned about the continued use of the pamphlet format as opposed to paperbacks and hardcovers, and if variant covers are still only so common, that's another issue the industry's not considering. There's a whole potential market for wall paintings out there, and instead of taking advantage of it, publishers continue to rely upon a format that's not being viewed publicly, apart from maybe online samples. But even that's farcical. If artists who care about the medium are serious, they'll start plying their trade for illustrated wall paintings of fantaasy figures, something I'm sure artists like Frank Frazetta did years before. As for Diamond, I think it'd do a lot of good if anybody complaining about their detractors would just consider even Diamond makes mistakes. And the comics medium has to stop relying on pamphlets and actually address that subject - specifically, whether they want pamphlets retired as a format or not.

Labels: dc comics, history, licensed products, marvel comics, msm propaganda, sales

Bay Today reported about a Canadian professor in Sudbury who's read comics in his youth, but now seems to think even characters like Wolverine are nothing more than vessels for "toxic masculinity":

Cambrian College professor Neil Shyminsky, a self-described “littlest kid in class” became obsessed in his youth with Wolverine, a reluctant hero in the X-men comic book series.

But it wasn’t until he went to university he decided that, perhaps, the mighty X-man he looked up to was not quite the role model he thought.

“There's no greater empowerment fantasy than the little guy with claws who can't be killed,” said Shyminsky with a laugh. “It wasn't until I reached university and took classes on feminism and gender studies that I realized that, in fact, might be feeding me something a little toxic.”

How exactly? Wolverine was far from violent towards innocent and defenseless women, gave coaching to ladies like Storm and Shadowcat, and he cared for a Japanese woman named Mariko Yashida, who wound up in an abusive marriage to a scummy husband in Japan, pushed into the marriage by her yakuza overlord father. I currently own a reprint paperback of the 4-part Wolverine miniseries from 1982 where this story was told, one of the earliest Marvel published back in the day, written by Chris Claremont and drawn by Frank Miller. I'm not sure what Mr. Shyminsky means if we're talking about Logan. The article continues, sans any objective view or queries:

It’s that idea of toxic masculinity that drove Shyminsky to begin studying and researching masculinity, and in particular, through the lens of comic books and graphic novels. Now, after taking these ideas to social media, the professor has almost one million followers across three platforms, with the most followers on TikTok: 400,000.

A Cambrian faculty member at the School of Justice, Community Services and General Studies, you can read some of his academic publications here, which include topics such as “Mutation, Racialization, Decimation: The X-Men as White Men,” and “Unmasking ‘Gay’ Sidekicks: Queer Anxiety and the Narrative Straightening of the Superhero.”

But it’s the idea of toxic masculinity that has gained Shyminsky the most traction with his followers.

‘Toxic masculinity’ is a relatively new phrase. While the concept has become controversial, with some believing it has connotations that reject all masculinity, the definition includes a masculinity that hurts others, including the man himself.

The term highlights a specific form of masculinity and a specific set of social expectations that could be seen as unhealthy or dangerous. For example, the idea that one should “man up” rather than show weakness.

And what does that mean? That when violent crime is around, you should show weakness and cowardice in the face of it? What are they thinking? This is certainly not promising so far, and that he makes use of a social media site that looks to have its circulation shut down in the USA because of its ties with China's communists speaks volumes.

According to an article in The Conversation, Queensland University professor Michael Flood states toxic masculinity is represented by qualities such as violence, dominance, emotional illiteracy, sexual entitlement, and hostility to femininity.

The limited studies available have shown that stereotypical masculine norms are bad for women, but especially, bad for men and boys.

As it so happens, yes of course violence is bad, but it's the aggressive and hostile type related to barbarism, racism, misogny and savagery that is, and the article is ambiguous on that part. Is acting in self-defense and to defend innocent women and children against violence wrong? Of course not. And yes, dominance is also bad, as is sexual entitlement of the kind Neil Gaiman wallowed in, along with hostility to femininity. But, does it literally make any sense that heterosexual men would be hostile to femininity? A big problem here is that Shyminsky most likely ignores the serious problem that sprung up in the past decade with transsexual ideology, which is hostile to femininity. And it's unlikely he has any worries about the Islamic religion's hostility to femininity either, unless we're referring to one of the examples cited below, yet at the same time, what's cites indicates he only considers allegedly right-wing figures a concern:

But rather than explore masculinity in all its forms, including the toxic kind, some have moved further into what they say are traditional gender roles, leading to the rise of what’s called “the Manosphere, said Flood, in another piece for The Conversation. With leaders like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson and, primarily, Joe Rogan. According to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, the "manosphere" refers to a wide variety of men’s groups operating on the internet and offline. Many describe themselves as fighting against progressive (or "woke") ideas about gender equality. Manosphere influencers often assert the unfounded idea that men are naturally dominant. They can even distort biology and evolution to argue that restrictive gender norms are natural.

A play on the pro-abortion motto, “my body, my choice,” the use of the slogan "your body, my choice," (popularized in part by podcaster, Nick Fuentes) jumped 4,600 per cent in 24 hours in the days following the Nov. 5, 2024, American presidential election, though some of that was due to people speaking out against it.

One of those was Neil Shyminsky.

[...] What began as a chance to discuss graphic novels and comics in an academic framework has turned from education to activism, he told Sudbury.com.

And regrettably, of the left-wing kind. From what I can tell, the men cited above are the kind of people who've been perceived on the surface as "right-wing", even though Tate is far from it. In fact, speaking of Islam, it's actually surprising Shyminsky would bring up Tate, because something tells me Mr. Shyminsky's not clearly aware Tate is an Islamic convert who's made abominable comments praising Hamas. Even Ben Shapiro says right-wingers should stay away from Tate, and it's clear he's far from being a conservative in any way by serious western standards. Even Rogan, unfortunately, has been lenient on antisemitism, which dampens the impact of any complaints he might have about what's wrong with leftism. Or does he? And Fuentes isn't an admirable figure either, but a most shameful one. As for Peterson, I'm sure he has flaws, but so far, he hasn't proven as poor an example as the others have, and has spoken in Israel's defense. Let's just say that those who have weak positions on Islamofascism and antisemitism/misogyny do not represent serious conservative values, and there are right-wingers who've made clear why they should be avoided. So I guess it's just a question of, what beef does Mr. Shyminsky have with Peterson, who's a Canadian citizen himself? Jealousy, perhaps? And how come he and the newspaper didn't mention Gaiman? He makes a far better example for citation of toxic masculinity.

It's a shame Mr. Shyminsky appears to be the kind of woke advocate who's rejected the best comics from childhood, for the sake of a confusing, distorted position on characters like Wolverine, whose support for ladies like Mariko and at least a few X-Women goes unmentioned here. It won't be shocking if he's also rejected Superman, and even Lois Lane, as though Siegel and Shuster's hard work was worthless to begin with. On which note, there was an early story in the Golden Age where the Big Blue Boy Scout came to the rescue of a woman who's husband committed spousal abuse. Those kind of history examples go bewilderingly unmentioned here, in what amounts to little more than a contrived diatribe against "toxic masculinity" wherein the whole meaning of masculinity is distorted for the sake of the woke agenda. And all ignores how being selfless and caring for the innocent is something both men and women can support and promote, yet this article fails to make a clear case on anything like that. Maybe the worst part of the puff piece though, is that somebody going out of his way to complain absurdly about masculinity may not have much respect for femininity either.

Labels: golden calf of LGBT, history, islam and jihad, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, violence, X-Men

Marvel's turned out yet another line-wide crossover tale that, if they wanted to, I'm sure they could very easily have published as a stand-alone story, called One World Under Doom. Polygon spoke with writer Ryan North about where they're going with this latest farce in marketing:

Fantastic Four writer (and Squirrel Girl writer, and Dinosaur Comics writer) Ryan North knows why Doctor Doom is the Cadillac of supervillains.

“He’s got all the powers of science, he’s got all the powers of magic. And he dresses like a robot in a cape,” he told Polygon via video chat. “Everything is ‘peak.’ [laughs] And, most impressively of all, he can speak in the third person and have it read as cool, and not ridiculous.”

Comparing a villain to a fine car brand like Cadillac is bad enough. But what's really angering is how a villain once again is spoken about in loving terms, even though there were times Doom was depicted in past years killing people, and I even recall a Fantastic Four issue from the early 90s where he warned one of his military officials that if he failed to retrieve an energy source that landed around Latveria, "death is not a luxury my torturers are known to provide!" Fates worse than death are just as chilling, and this was all but part of Doom's character too. He may have been written as honorable up to a point, but there were writers who could still portray the Latverian despot as potentially lethal. By the way, if memory serves, Doom's practice of magic came during the time Mark Waid was writing FF in 2003, so wouldn't the premise have come awfully late? When North's asked about how to portray Doom in film, he said:

“I’m not an actor,” North answered, “but it seems to me that Doom is probably the hardest character to play in all of the Marvel universe. Because he does have this depth, but also this breadth to him. He can send you back in time for Blackbeard’s gold” — the very outlandish scheme in which Doom entrapped the Fantastic Four in his first appearance — “and he can also trade someone’s soul in Hell and do horrible, horrible things.”

“That’s a huge range for a character,” North continued, “especially for an actor in an hour- or two-hour movie to hit [...] I mean, I’ve spent the past couple of years thinking about Doom, writing speeches for Doom, capturing that voice. And I had the advantage that my output was 20 pages a month, and that gives me time to go for long walks and try to nail down what Doom says on this one page in a few words. I can’t imagine the challenge of trying to do that full time for the year, or whatever it takes, to make a movie.”

But if he had to sum it all up? “I guess it boils down, don’t forget his depth,” North concluded. “He can do anything.”

Umm, a fictional character, both the good and the bad, can only go as far as the writer does. Including in terms of personality, and that's something North didn't address here, apparently because when it comes to villains, only a corrupt personality matters, not whether family relations do. So, what "depth" are we talking about? And say, does the page count indicate they've reduced it by at least two pages? There was a time when there could be more than 20 during the 80s, but it's no surprise that, in an era where superhero comics have turned into a farce, they could reduce the page count because not enough people are reading, and ads clearly take up more importance now. And if memory serves, that part about souls in Hell came up in Waid's decidedly overrated take on the FF from 2003, which may have had questionable political metaphors too.

ComicBook also interviewed North, and a form of political reference that's probably not surprising at this point comes up:

On the surface it appears that Doom means well. He’s in favor of universal healthcare and things of that nature. But there’s always a catch with Doom, and we see that come into play with Baron Zemo and Hydra. How will this game of chess between Doom and our heroes escalate as the series continues?

That’s a great question. Doom is someone who is not just smart but knows he’s smart, and likes to outsmart people. In the first issue, he outmaneuvers the heroes from the moment go by just thinking ahead and being smarter. The story of “One World Under Doom,” for the most part, is seeing these heroes react to Doom being in charge and trying to figure out “How do we stop him? How do we fix this? How do we go against someone who is doing his best to try and get people to like him?”

He’s Doctor Doom, he dresses like a scary robot but he’s trying to get people to like him. If you’ve seen the first issue, that woman he saves at the end repeats his slogan back to him. She’s on board.

I wouldn't be surprised if Doom's the latest comics villain to serve as a metaphor for Donald Trump and other right-wing politicians, and if the following article is correct, Trump might support "universal" health care. Also note the part in the interview about Doom winning over a woman he rescues. One can wonder if the green cape Doom wears is serving here as a variation on the description of Trump as "orange", and the villain himself as a variation on how Trump's been winning over people in the USA and elsewhere. And if that speculation's correct, it's only all the more insulting to the intellect how a classic character's being exploited for more political metaphors. Besides, it's not the first time Doom was ever depicted expressing bizarre "love" and "friendship" for his foes. I recall he tried doing that in the FF during the early 90s too when he captured the Thing at one point (at the time Ben Grimm's face was damaged).

This is your first big Marvel event as the head writer, so what’s it been like collaborating with the different editorial teams, and writers and artists on all the tie-ins and one-shots?

It’s been really fun. I’ve never been in this position before. I’m usually the guy doing the tie-ins, which is also fun. One of the things I wanted to do was have the full event written well in advance so that when people do a tie-in it’s not me saying, “Oh, I think this is what’s going to be happening.” Instead it’s, “Here’s the script, here’s what’s going on this month, you can play with that.”

There’s stuff coming up in Avengers and Iron Man that I’m so excited and honestly impressed, like, “Man, I wish I came up with that. That’s a really cool thing [laughs].” I’m very excited for how this is going to go across. It should feel tied together and organic and really, really cool.

Look how he takes such a casual perspective of universe-wide crossovers, as though there's nothing damaging in the long run about them, artistically or otherwise. Chuck Dixon once pointed out how this has only turned mainstream superhero fare into a joke with less sales, and North's just the latest to normalize crossovers despite the high cost in dollars it now takes up even with just a handful of issues from different series.

Looking at the bigger picture, how has it been to work on the Fantastic Four and Doctor Doom when all eyeballs will be on them later in the year with The Fantastic Four: First Steps and Doom joining the MCU?

It’s been fun and gratifiying. I feel like there are people that think of the Fantastic Four as your grandparents’ superheroes. Like they’re old, they’re not that interesting. But they’re great. They’re really great characters and there’s a reason they’ve stuck around for so long.

I think the fact we’re getting this movie with an exciting, relevant cast will help people realize these are some cool people, with a cool world and cool villains and everything. And bring more eyes to the comics, which is always great.

This is where anybody who's a realist can only laugh. For years now, many moviegoers have shown little interest in the comics, and a crossover hardly makes a good jumping-on point, though what's really irritating is how even modern writers won't recommend beginning with the Silver Age FF adventures, even though they've long been available in reprint archives, and could make an excellent pastime for many. The part about some people viewing the FF as the heroes of their grandparents is interesting though, because if this were so, it would confirm the huge problem comicdom has with people disinterested in merit-based entertainment. I wouldn't be shocked if Doctor Strange were viewed the same way, if only because he too can be considered one of the "older" characters in the MCU. If all a certain audience cares about is whether the heroes are young enough, that's ludicrous and makes clear what's wrong with how modern generations are brought up.

Also note how he talks about "cool villains", but not about cool heroes and even co-stars (Willie Lumpkin, anyone?). That's pretty all one needs to know North doesn't have his standards down straight. And doesn't this new FF movie co-star a certain Pedro Pascal, whose political bent is alienating? Some "relevant" cast there alright.

To wrap up, what will be the state of the Marvel Universe once “One World Under Doom” concludes?

How can I answer this one without spoiling? I guess I can say that where this story ends is not where it begins. There are things that come out of this story that are going to have to be dealt with by everyone else.

Everyone always says, “This story is going to have consequences.” There’s stuff beyond this story that I think, “Wow, I’m glad I don’t have to write the next event because this is a big thing to pick up on.”

Oh, does this mean it's not going to be self-contained? Actually, that this is a universe-spanning crossover already makes that part clear enough. If serious writers really wanted to tell a good tale with almost all possible members of a shared universe, they'd do it in a single, stand-alone miniseries, not something where only so many individual series are connected to a wheel hub like spokes on a bicycle. Crossovers today have almost nothing to pick up on that's creative or inspiring, and when it's only written for the sake of serving as a basis for yet another crossover, that makes clear they don't understand why in the long run, crossovers can hurt creativity along with self-contained storytelling. Boy, Jim Shooter sure left quite a mess after he left Marvel that none of his successors want to clean up. And it's to be hoped he'll address it honestly, if ever asked if he believes it crossovers did any good for mainstream superhero stories. Because where everything's led now, even for DC, has become nothing short of a disaster in many ways.

Labels: bad editors, crossoverloading, dreadful writers, Fantastic Four, golden calf of villainy, marvel comics, msm propaganda

I looked for more observations about the Neil Gaiman sexual assault scandal, and found, most interestingly, a site called The Wild Hunt, dedicated to news and other items about paganism, who have what to say about Gaiman's offenses, and how writers like him influenced their viewpoint:

Gaiman is a strange figure for contemporary Paganism; he has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be one of us, but his work has been incredibly influential on the movement. My own story is hardly unique – many, many Pagans I know have described how American Gods or, even more likely, The Sandman shaped their perceptions of the gods. It’s not that Gaiman’s work introduced us to Paganism per se, much less to mythology in general – we came to his work because we liked those things already. But he introduced us to a new sort of theology, a conception of gods that we could imagine walking on shattered glass in dirty alleyways as easily as through the halls of Mount Olympus, and it was irresistible. If you have ever seen a DeviantArt drawing of Loki grinning in a hoodie, you have seen an artist only a few links removed from Gaiman.

[...] A recurring theme in descriptions of Gaiman’s assaults is his insistence on being called “Master” and inflicting various kinds of humiliating, degrading, or violent sexual acts on his victims. As the Vulture piece notes, these acts can be done consensually, and indeed, many in the kink community may enjoy them. Gaiman’s representatives played on this in their response to the allegations: “Sexual degradation, bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism may not be to everyone’s taste, but between consenting adults, BDSM is lawful.” (Gaiman himself has remained silent since the accusations first came to light last year.)

As Shapiro explains, however, BDSM has a long-established code of community conduct to make sure consent and safety are maintained. If just one party consents, that isn’t kink – it’s abuse and potentially rape.

Even so, BDSM sounds very distasteful, and shouldn't be encouraged as a practice, since it only gives relations a bad name.

There are a couple things I am sitting with, that I have been sitting with since July, and are at the front of my mind today.

First, there will be two competing instinctive responses to today’s article. The first is to burn all Gaiman’s books and damn his name to oblivion; the second will be to declare our love for the art, if not the artist, and attempt to separate them. Neither of these are especially productive approaches in my mind. I don’t think it’s a worthy idea to spend money on new Gaiman projects or promote him as a cool author for new Pagans to read. But as I said at the beginning, he has had a profound influence on modern Pagan culture, and that influence will still be there even if we try to ignore it. We have to grapple with our heritage, even the awful parts of it, and figure out how to grow and evolve beyond it. That can’t happen unless we acknowledge our influences and understand the context in which they arose.

And secondly, and most importantly, is this: Pavlovich, Caroline, and the other women Gaiman has assaulted – and there are surely more than even the eight women documented by Vulture – are real people who have suffered real harm. I think there is a tendency to dismiss this point in favor of focusing on what was going on in the abuser’s head, or the reaction of fans to a fallen creator’s work. I don’t want to say those things should be completely silenced; I opened this editorial by engaging in a few paragraphs of the latter, after all. But as we discuss this news and move forward from it, we should remember their humanity, their reality as human beings, first and foremost. It matters more than our love for a novel or a comic book. Or even for a theology.

We may not see eye to eye on subjects like theology, but glad to see they recognize the gravity of the issue at hand. And yes, there's quite likely more than the number of victims known so far, and we must hope they'll have the courage to come forward as well. But a tale as crude as the Sandman series was serves as "inspiration" for anybody? I'll just never understand that. I don't consider book burning a good example, but I do think it would be good if anybody reevaluates the material and asks whether it was even worth all the trees cut down to print it up. It all felt so hollow, and again, like a leftist propaganda rag. Not to mention that, if the story around issue 40 or so was meant as a metaphor for drug addiction with no objectivity on whether it's a bad influence, that's a serious problem, and Gaiman will have a lot of explaining to do, but alas, likely won't.

Here's also an op-ed from the Indian Express, and it says:

What happens when a literary hero turns out to be a man with feet of clay? When all that he has spoken for — women and underdogs, the power of art to heal, of stories that offer hope and redemption — have been built on an edifice of lies? Gaiman is hardly the first writer with a character flaw. From Pulitzer Prize-winning Junot Diaz and Thirteen Reasons Why author Jay Asher, accused of sexual harassment, to the problematic politics of Ezra Pound, T S Eliot or V S Naipaul, or most recently, Alice Munro’s silence over her daughter’s abuse by her second husband, history is replete with writers with intractable blemishes. It is the fact of the power that they command, that can reduce or silence others into submission, that makes the difference. It also makes a man like Gaiman, with his vociferous support for women’s rights, the perfect perpetrator. When the first allegations came up, a barrage of friends spoke up for Gaiman as if his talent could explain away his occasional, perhaps consensual, profligacies.

[...] Gaiman’s story, or Munro’s, makes for uncomfortable truths, especially because of the integrity they bring to their work, the hope they infuse in it that holds so many of their readers steady, like a friend. But perhaps, that is the purpose of fiction — to offer a neat causality to explain away chaos. In life, people contain multitudes — outrageously talented and ridiculously vain, good and petty; generous yet mean. Life rarely conforms to patterns. Perhaps, that’s why fiction tends to.

Unfortunately, there's fiction stories out there that don't always explain away anything. Badly written stories, of course. And as far as I'm concerned, Gaiman's stories, if anything, are overrated tripe, elevated as they were by "progressives" who apparently know a leftist propaganda item when they see one, and actully think that alone makes it worth the while. Nope. What I read, again, seemed like such hollow tripe with unsatisfying conclusions that don't make them worth the bother. I'll never forgive Gaiman for the Eternals miniseries he wrote in the late 2000s circa the Civil War crossover, which made Sprite look like a scumbag, and ran the gauntlet of making youngsters who claim to have been sexually abused look like liars, and as though such lies are routine (Update: this Time article about one of the disgraced Bill Cosby's children's books makes a similar observation). That was even worse than the moment where Sersi told one the co-stars a gay man liked her because he thought she looked like a transvestite, which was basically saying she looked like a man instead of a woman. Instead of saying she's beautiful, we have to be hit over the head with that insult. It was so forced and contrived, and whatever one thinks of John Romita Jr. as an artist, to think he'd waste his talents on that desecration of Jack Kirby's legacy! A real sad head-shaker. One must wonder if Romita will have anything to say about Gaiman's scandal going forward too.

Next, here's an op-ed from Winter is Coming, where the writer takes issue with Gaiman's non-apology in the first public statement he's made in several months:

There's a little bit more in Gaiman's blog, but what's written above is the bulk of it. Now, I am obviously not positioned to weigh in too heavily on this, but I do want to point a few things out. One is that the timing of this post, which he titles "Breaking the Silence," feels a little transparent. These allegations were first made more than half a year ago, and Gaiman — who used to be notoriously chatty with fans on the internet — has gone radio silent. I suspect that the opening paragraph of his post, which mentions that he didn't want to "draw even more attention" to what he claims is misinformation, explains that.

According to The Bookseller, Gaiman hired crisis management firm Edendale Strategies and lawyer Andrew Brettler to handle his PR in relation to this story. If you're keeping track, that's the same firm hired by That '70s Show star Danny Masterson after he was accused (and later convicted) of rape, as well as Marilyn Manson following sexual misconduct allegations from multiple women. It seems to me that, obviously, Gaiman didn't want this sort of negative press, and was hoping it would go away. I don't think it's too surprising that he's only now responding once this news has reached huge outlets where it can't be swept under the rug as easily. This thing is going to be on news stands now:

Another thing I feel the need to point out is that Gaiman's response is pretty pale in comparison to the sheer breadth and depth of the allegations reported in Vulture, from multiple women with similar accounts, none of whom had ever met each other before their stories became headline news last year. A large news organization like Vulture/New York Magazine is also going to do a fair amount of legal vetting before running a story with such sensitive material, accusing one of the entertainment industry's most recognizable figures (with a lot of money for lawyers) of this sort of gross misconduct. I do not think they did so lightly, or without doing their due diligence.

I'll also add one last thing: reading the accounts of those women, perception and imbalanced power dynamics were a consistent theme that kept occurring in their stories. They often described Gaiman pushing boundaries, and themselves as going along with it for various reasons only to later have to grapple with the reality of their situations. So while I do not doubt that the text messages Gaiman has in his phone read a certain way to him, I also don't really get how that dismisses the first-hand accounts of these women and their lived experiences. Or the NDAs that he had several of them sign to keep their affairs quiet.

"I was caught up in my own story and I ignored other people's," Gaiman wrote in his response. And from the tenor of this post, and the way it centers him while spending very little time reflecting on the harm done to the women caught in his path, it sounds like that's still the case.

Well he hasn't really apologized, and certainly didn't do so convincingly. That he employed the same PR agency the now incarcerated Masterson did suggests Gaiman hasn't strayed very far from Scientology, which he was part of in his youth, and Masterson too was a Scientology member.

Also of interest is the following info from Richard Corcoran, a former Florida state representative:

https://t.co/XuzEtDuf5O
In May 2023, this guy spoke at the "alternative graduation" of the 2023 New College class, which was backed by those opposing New College's transformation under @GovRonDeSantis. Many faculty and students attending that "alternative graduation" applauded…

— Richard Corcoran (@richardcorcoran) January 14, 2025

Wow, so Gaiman attended a convention organized by liberals opposed to a conservative politician, is that it? Guess that says all you need to know what more is wrong with Gaiman's political conduct, which found its way into his writings years before too, as noted earlier.

And then, the Hindustan Times asks if the Simpsons episode where Gaiman made an animated appearance at least 2 decades ago will see a phasing out from circulation:

Neil Gaiman's sexual misconduct allegations have reignited discussions about his cameo in The Simpsons episode ‘The Book Job.’ [...]

While these allegations can hardly be deemed unimportant or unrelated to actual concern, they have also energised quite a debate regarding Gaiman’s previous participation in media, including his cameo on The Simpsons. Especially all fans are pinning Season 23 of the show, which is focused on the story of the episode ‘The Book Job’, including Gaiman.

‘The Book Job’ is a heist theme, fleshed out by Ocean’s 11, in which Homer becomes a part of a team responsible for writing a best-selling, yet worthless, fictional young adult novel. Here, the primary characters of the cartoon are Bart Simpson and Patty, Moe, Principal Skinner, and others. Gaiman is actually an uninvited man who tries to become the author’s consultant and takes the manuscript from them, pretending to be their friend. As a final punch line, he claims he cannot even read.

Gaiman denies any sexual harassment allegations

A similar precedent exists in the case of ‘Stark Raving Dad,’ the Season 3 episode featuring Michael Jackson. That episode was removed from circulation after allegations against Jackson gained renewed attention. Al Jean, a longtime Simpsons showrunner, explained to The Daily Beast in 2019 that Jackson’s episode was particularly problematic due to rumours that the singer used his guest role to “groom boys.”

However, there are notable differences between the two cases. Jackson’s alleged actions were directly tied to his appearance on the show, as his guest role was central to the plot. In contrast, Gaiman’s role in ‘The Book Job’, while substantial for a guest star, is secondary to the episode’s main story.

Well of course it's not a good example to just censor, but after all these years, I've been reevaluating the Simpsons, and wondering if it was really worth all the celluloid put into its making, based on what politics were brought to the table there, or how woke it's become even before Apu was dropped from the main cast several years ago because some would-be entertainer didn't like the idea Apu would be portrayed as a buffoon with an accent. So was it really funny? Well after 10 seasons or so, far less, and I eventually lost interest, and can't get into it anymore. So what's the point in watching it again? That the producers even hired Gaiman to begin with was bad enough. But the show hasn't aged as well as it could've, and having run far too long at more than 35 years, it's long past the time to retire it. And the saddest part of the TV stories featuring Jackson and Gaiman is that, what we know about the real life figures now will drain much of the humor from the episodes.

It looks like Popverse has finally published something about the affair, if they hadn't before, and it's written by none other than Graeme McMillan, who says:

During all of the above, Gaiman had been notably silent, even as Prime Video essentially cancelled his series Good Omens, replacing the announced third season with one final episode without Gaiman’s involvement, while Disney similarly put its planned adaptation of Gaiman’s novel The Graveyard Book on hold. With the Vulture story prompting new discussion of his disturbing and repeated misbehavior, however, that finally changed — although the author is surprisingly unrepentant. [...]

While this attitude is unusual from abusers newly outed — traditionally, statements about being imperfect and wishing to grow to be a better person are paired with apologies to those they have hurt; notably, Gaiman does not once actually apologize to his victims, instead choosing to outright deny their experience — it’ll be curious to see how Gaiman’s collaborators, in terms of both artistic and business enterprises, respond to such a blanket refusal to engage with the many very serious accusations against him in the weeks and months ahead… and whether Gaiman will find himself re-addressing the situation in a more serious, and ideally more humble, manner in the near future.

Considering McMillan's been an apologist for leftism in his own way, it's pretty amazing he admits Gaiman's response is flaccid and unconvincing. But if this is only the first time they actually reported on the affair, it's pretty late in coming, though certainly better late than never. Upon further searching, I also discovered Comics Beat finally covered the case as well, and say at the end:

None of Gaiman’s publishers, comics and prose, have commented on the accusations, or announced any actions, but with many fans publicly pledging to never read a Gaiman book again, this will obviously impact that side of things as well.

And until now, Comics Beat didn't comment on this either. Oh, and this specific article wasn't written by the credibility-lacking Heidi MacDonald, who, IIRC, worked for DC as an editor at the time Gaiman was there. Some of the commentors noted the lateness of their coverage. For example:

So now that the mainstream media is reporting on this, The Beat feels obliged to do so as well? We need an explanation as to why you have been silent on this for the last six months.

And:

Kind of funny how you guys were prompt to publish stories about Piskor and Ellis but waited like 6 or 7 months for this turd. And only after he issues a public denial lol

The writer himself answered:

I can’t speak to what happened several months ago as I wasn’t with The Beat at the time. For the record though, a version of this article was pending review before we saw Gaiman had finally written a statement, delaying it further: the original title was ‘More Neil Gaiman allegations emerge in New York magazine exposé.’

Well if they were that cowering, what's the use of taking a job with them? This failure to be prompt as possible with the news speaks volumes, and just goes to show why they're so irrelevant, and have been for a long time.

The Times of India points out the double-standard the woke crowd has when it comes to J.K Rowling, as opposed to Gaiman:

Social media has erupted with accusations of hypocrisy directed at liberals who have remained relatively silent about allegations of sexual misconduct against Neil Gaiman while continuing to vilify J.K. Rowling for her views on gender. Critics argue that Rowling has faced disproportionate backlash for her stance on biological sex, while Gaiman, a celebrated author with progressive credentials, has been met with tepid criticism despite facing serious allegations.

[...] Gaiman’s progressive credentials, including his feminist-leaning rhetoric and support for trans activism, have likely shielded him from the same level of backlash faced by Rowling. Critics argue this discrepancy highlights a trend where liberal figures are excused for their actions if they align with the "right" ideological causes, while dissenters like Rowling are relentlessly targeted for their views.

Accusations of hypocrisy have also been directed at the broader feminist and trans activist communities, with many questioning why safeguarding women’s rights, as championed by Rowling, is met with hostility while allegations of abuse by a celebrated male ally provoke muted responses.

See, this is one of the most disturbing parts of the whole scandal. Harvey Weinstein supported similar causes, yet in contrast to Weinstein, whose downfall came even more quickly, the downfall of Gaiman's career was slower, even though some sources were distancing themselves from him soon after the Tortoise Media coverage. This should make clear how dangerous it is when the world is turned upside down.

Book Riot says the silence from the publishing industry on this case is deafening:

On Monday, New York Magazine revealed this week’s cover story: Lila Shapiro’s deeply reported investigation into sexual assault allegations against Neil Gaiman. It’s a piece months in the making—news first broke of the allegations last July—and which many of us in publishing had been waiting for. Gaiman issued a response on his blog yesterday, which several of his accusers described as, “the same non-apology that women in this situation have seen so many times before.” This morning, the NYT‘s Elisabeth Egan and Alexandra Alter reported on the allegations and Gaiman’s response and noted that, “While some of Gaiman’s television and film projects were dropped following the initial allegations, the responses from his publishers, agents and professional collaborators have been far more subdued.”

“Subdued” is a generous description. Mainstream publications including The Washington Post, The Guardian, and NPR have all covered the story, but responses have been almost entirely absent from within the publishing industry and publishing media, with the exception of a paywalled piece at Publishers Lunch. Gaiman’s agents declined to comment for the Times piece, as did DC Comics. Norton did not respond to inquiries. And HarperCollins and Marvel, two of Gaiman’s most frequent publishers, noted only that they do not have new books coming from him. As for book media’s main players? Nothing from Publishers Weekly. Nothing from Shelf Awareness. Nothing from Lit Hub or the LA Times. I can’t presume to know what my peers at these publications are thinking or why they’ve chosen to stay silent. I’d like to believe they have their reasons. What’s hard to believe is that any of them are good. Readers deserve better.

Well that's certainly saying something, coming as it does from a left-wing feminist site.

STV reports St. Andrews University is backing the student who was victimized by Gaiman, but it's unclear if they'll revoke his degrees:

St Andrews University is supporting a student who has made a number of allegations of sexual assault against the best-selling author Neil Gaiman.

[...] The woman began studying an English literature degree at St Andrews University last year, where Gaiman was awarded an honorary degree in 2016.

The accuser claims to have asked the University to strip the writer of his award due to her experience, however, the honorary degree remains in place.

St Andrews University has confirmed it is providing counselling to the student following the allegations and is monitoring the case “with concern and close interest”.

However, the university did not confirm whether it was considering rescinding Gaiman’s honorary degree.

A spokesperson for the University said: “We applaud the courage of all survivors of sexual abuse, and especially those who have felt able to speak out about it.

“Our priority is the welfare of our student, to whom we are providing support and counselling. We will continue to monitor this case with concern and close interest.”

If they really want to prove they're serious, the university and all other sources who showered Gaiman with undeserved awards will revoke them. Hopefully, we'll never see a statue dedicated to him now.

Now here's an item from The Conversation, which makes an interesting note about the YA genre, but also bizarrely alludes to the 17th issue of the Sandman series as "romance":

Gaiman’s writing has also been criticised for the way it depicts romantic relationships. Shapiro cites the protagonist of Sandman, Madoc, a man who sexually assaults his muse (and, it should be acknowledged, is punished for it). The genre of fantasy more broadly is often criticised for the way it minimises abuse in romantic relationships.

Young adult fantasy literature has been criticised for its depiction of coercive control and how this may influence readers.

Wow, I knew the YA industry itself was rife with wokeness, and only now, somebody has the audacity to let us know it can be that bad? All that aside, the Madoc character may have been punished (but I don't think the Erasmus Fry character was), but the problem is that it still let the Madoc character off very lightly considering the severity of his offenses against Calliope, because he didn't get imprisoned by a court for his crimes. That this was a fantasy story is no excuse. But what's this they're saying? "Romantic"? There's nothing romantic in sexual violence where a man forces himself upon a woman without her consent and causes her only so much terrible pain. Rape is NOT "romance". Nor is sex slavery. As I said before, I saw little that could be considered romantic in what material I read from Gaiman's resume, and after what was told about him by New York Magazine/Vulture, one can wonder if the scandal explains why.

One more item I'll point to here is that Brooklyn Vegan announced Amanda Palmer issued a brief statement, noting that she's currently working on legal proceedings regarding her divorce from Gaiman and custody proceedings, and let's hope she recognizes that he can't be allowed near her son anymore if that's how he was going to behave in the little guy's presence. Their son will surely need psychological aid, considering what he was bound to have witnessed his disgusting dad doing. That a child was present during the sexual abuse Gaiman committed is what makes the incidents alarmingly scandalous, and Gaiman should be charged by police with child abuse for that. We can only hope a legal case is being filed against him now.

Labels: animation, dc comics, dreadful writers, golden calf of LGBT, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, violence

The disgraced comics, book and screen writer Gaiman is back in the news again, as NY Vulture published a whole article (there's also an archive link here) detailing more of Gaiman's terrible deeds, and it reveals his acts were a lot more graphic and perverse than previously reported. Several parts of what's described is too repulsive to post here, but I'll do my best to highlight some of this. The news now seems to indicate there's 8-9 known victims now. And one of the most chilling parts of the main report has to be the revelation Gaiman committed some of his most perverse acts on his victims while his infant son was in the same room! That's what really makes this whole affair that much more horrifying.

The reporter also tells the following about the 17th issue of the Sandman series and the Erasmus Fry/Richard Madoc story where a female deity named Calliope is kept as a sex slave:

In The Sandman, the DC comic-book series that ran from 1989 to 1996 and made Gaiman famous, he tells a story about a writer named Richard Madoc. After Madoc’s first book proves a success, he sits down to write his second and finds that he can’t come up with a single decent idea. This difficulty recedes after he accepts an unusual gift from an older author: a naked woman, of a kind, who has been kept locked in a room in his house for 60 years. She is Calliope, the youngest of the Nine Muses. Madoc rapes her, again and again, and his career blossoms in the most extraordinary way. A stylish young beauty tells him how much she loved his characterization of a strong female character, prompting him to remark, “Actually, I do tend to regard myself as a feminist writer.” His downfall comes only when the titular hero, the Sandman, also known as the Prince of Stories, frees Calliope from bondage. A being of boundless charisma and creativity, the Sandman rules the Dreaming, the realm we visit in our sleep, where “stories are spun.” Older and more powerful than the most powerful gods, he can reward us with exquisite delights or punish us with unending nightmares, depending on what he feels we deserve. To punish the rapist, the Sandman floods Madoc’s mind with such a wild torrent of ideas that he’s powerless to write them down, let alone profit from them.

As allegations of Gaiman’s sexual misconduct emerged this past summer, some observers noticed Gaiman and Madoc have certain things in common. Like Madoc, Gaiman has called himself a feminist. Like Madoc, Gaiman has racked up major awards (for Gaiman, awards in science fiction and fantasy as well as dozens of prizes for contemporary novels, short stories, poetry, television, and film, helping make him, according to several sources, a millionaire many times over). And like Madoc, Gaiman has come to be seen as a figure who transcended, and transformed, the genres in which he wrote: first comics, then fantasy and children’s literature. But for most of his career, readers identified him not with the rapist, who shows up in a single issue, but with the Sandman, the inexhaustible fountain of story.

As anybody familiar with more of Gaiman's resume may know, he penned a short story in the mid-2000s titled "How to Talk to Girls at Parties", later adapted to GN format by Dark Horse, in which sexual assault was implied, and one can ask similar questions about whether the character named "Vic" in the story was an allusion to Gaiman as well. Psychology can certainly be a scary thing, and Gaiman's case has got to be one for the books. The writer should've mentioned the 14th issue, which also alluded to sexual violence and minimized the issue after the giant, obese rapist/killer whom Morpheus prevented from assaulting a girl at a serial killer convention at a hotel was depicted dreaming of partying with child victims who forgive the monster for his crimes against them, and other criminals attending the convention in the story were let go without being arrested by authorities either. Even the 17th issue, by the end, otherwise minimized the subject, since Madoc never got arrested and jailed for his crimes against Calliope. It just ended with his lamenting he couldn't think of anything else to write, now that the lady deity was freed from his clutches. That Gaiman took such a bizarrely lenient approach to violent felons in the stories is disturbing, especially when viewed in light of what's known about him now.

Anyway, it's head-shaking why anybody believes people like Gaiman "revolutionized" comics and literature, but not writers like Mike Baron, Frank Miller, or even John Ostrander. To say only somebody as leftist as Gaiman could possibly be credited with reshaping is to obscure anybody else who could've had a potent tale to tell. Far as I'm concerned, Gaiman only got as far as he did based on the politics he espoused, and there were strong hints at his leftist leanings in the Sandman series, along with several other of his writings. And the Morpheus character "charismatic"? Please. The way Gaiman wrote him was more as a grim, humorless protagonist, and again, the way Hector and Lyta Hall were handled was dreadful. How come that never gets discussed by most historians?

People who flock to fantasy conventions and signings make up an “inherently vulnerable community,” one of Gaiman’s former friends, a fantasy writer, tells me. They “wrap themselves around a beloved text so it becomes their self-identity,” she says. They want to share their souls with the creators of these works. “And if you have morality around it, you say ‘no.’” It was an open secret in the late ’90s and early aughts among conventiongoers that Gaiman cheated on his first wife, Mary McGrath, a private midwestern Scientologist he’d married in his early 20s. But in my conversations with Gaiman’s old friends, collaborators, and peers, nearly all of them told me that they never imagined that Gaiman’s affairs could have been anything but enthusiastically consensual. As one prominent editor in the field puts it, “The one thing I hear again and again, largely from women, is ‘He was always nice to me. He was always a gentleman.’” The writer Kelly Link, who met Gaiman at a reading in 1997, recalls finding him charmingly goofy. “He was hapless in a way that was kind of exasperating,” she says, “but also made him seem very harmless.” Someone who had a sexual relationship with Gaiman in the aughts recalls him flipping through questions fans wrote on cards at a Q&A session. Once, a fan asked if she could be his “sex slave”: “He read it aloud and said, ‘Well, no.’ He’d be very demure.”

But there were some who saw another side of the author. One woman, Brenda (a pseudonym), met Gaiman in the ’90s at a signing for The Sandman where she was working. On signing lines, Gaiman had a knack for connecting with each individual. He would ask questions, laugh, and assure them that their inability to form sentences was fine. After the Sandman signing, at a dinner attended by those who had worked the event, Gaiman sat next to Brenda. “Everyone wanted to be near him, but he was laser focused on me,” she says. A few years later, Brenda traveled to Chicago to attend the World Horror Convention, where Gaiman received the top prize for American Gods, the book that cemented him as a best-selling novelist. The night after the awards ceremony, she and Gaiman ended up in bed together. As soon as they began to hook up, the feeling that had drawn her to him — the magical spell of his interest in her individuality — vanished. “He seemed to have a script,” she tells me. “He wanted me to call him ‘master’ immediately.” He demanded that she promise him her soul. “It was like he’d gone into this ritual that had nothing to do with me.”

Well that part of the script in the 17th Sandman issue is now going to stand out as one of the most unbearable parts, seeing how it apparently resonated with him to the point he actually believed being a woman's "master" was acceptable. To be sure, the weakness in many pop culture enthusiasts is that they're so desperate for something to "identify" with, they'll totally throw themselves at the author without taking any time to judge by character. It won't be surprising if there were at least a few victims of his perversions during the 90s as well. Though it sure is puzzling what anybody saw in a tale where a villain describes himaelf as a "feminist writer". If feminism really matters, wouldn't the Madoc character's potrayal be detrimental to the cause of devoted feminists? Hence, it's bewildering how the same people, liberal or otherwise, who backed Gaiman's writings in the past didn't see it that way back in the day.

Now, here's where I'll highlight at least one of the examples given of how offensive Gaiman was towards his victims, and it's as ugly as can be:

A week or so into Pavlovich’s time with the family, their son began to address her as “slave” and ordered Pavlovich to call him “master.” Gaiman seemed to find it amusing. Sometimes he’d say to his child, in an affable tone, “Now, now, Scarlett’s not a slave. No, you mustn’t.” One day, Pavlovich came into the living room when Gaiman and the boy were on the couch watching the children’s show Odd Squad. She joined them, sitting down next to the child. Gaiman put his arm around them both, reached into Pavlovich’s shirt, and fondled her breasts. She says he didn’t make any effort to hide what he was doing from the boy. Another time, during the day, he requested oral sex in the middle of the kitchen while the boy was awake and somewhere in the house. “He would never shut a door,” she says.

This has to be one of the worst parts of the incidents. Gaiman exposed his son to the crude behavior he was putting on display, and even influenced the boy into using the same nasty terminology he was. That's a form of child abuse right there. Considering Palmer has certain responsibilities to shoulder here, we should hope she's filed for a restraining order against Gaiman to prohibit access to the youngster. Because what if the boy grew up to be a monster in the future? Reading this article left me feeling truly awful.

The UK Mail says Palmer, as could surely have been expected, is now facing anguish from the public over how much she could've known of what he was doing while she wasn't home:

...she is facing a mounting backlash in response, with former admirers expressing disgust at the new accusations against Gaiman - and raising questions about how much she might have known.

One fan with whom Palmer had an affair has said she was then passed on to Gaiman 'like a toy' - while former family nanny Scarlett Pavlovich has accused him of raping her in a bathtub at his home in Waiheke, New Zealand.

Jusdging from the responses she got on social media, her career may well be over. Somebody else more prominent who had what to say about the reactions to Gaiman's offenses is J.K Rowling, as the Scotsman reports:

JK Rowling has hit out at fans of author Neil Gaiman in the wake of fresh sexual assault accusations against him, saying they have remained “strangely muted”, despite having “a hell of a lot to say” about Harvey Weinstein at the height of the #MeToo movement.

The Edinburgh-based author said the “literary crowd” were refusing to speak out in support of women who claim to be victims of Mr Gaiman, but had been vocal in their opinions of film producer Mr Weinstein, even before his convictions. [...]

Ms Rowling said: “The literary crowd that had a hell of a lot to say about Harvey Weinstein before he was convicted has been strangely muted in its response to multiple accusations against Neil Gaiman from young women who'd never met, yet - as with Weinstein - tell remarkably similar stories.”

Sadly enough, there's clearly lunatics out there who, despite any and all evidence, will still worship Gaiman, retain ownership of his oh-so precious writings, and the only thing they regret is he finally got caught. That's one of the worst things about the whole affair, along with the double-standard of anybody who condemned Weinstein, but won't condemn Gaiman.

According to Popverse, veteran writer Wolfman of Teen Titans fame revealed at WonderCon that the disgraced Gaiman once asked for approval to use Destiny, a character the former created in the early 70s, in the pages of the overrated 1989-96 Sandman series:

“Neil [Gaiman] very nicely – he didn’t have to – called me up and said, ‘I’m doing this new book called Sandman, and can I use Destiny as a character in that?’ He knew that I had created it, and as I said, DC owned it, and he didn’t have to ask me, but he was very polite and very nice. And he said that if I had said ‘No,’ he would come up with something else, but he really liked the visuals of Destiny. And I was thrilled to have somebody else take my characters and do something with them,” Wolfman explained.

Wolfman created Destiny as the host character of the horror series Weird Mystery Tales, which launched in 1972. The series, which was edited by Wolfman, featured existing characters from DC’s catalog like Cain and Abel. Gaiman’s decision to incorporate Destiny as one of the Endless in Sandman, making him the brother of the protagonist, Dream, is very much in the spirit of Weird Mystery Tales. Characters who may have languished in popularity could be repurposed in all-new stories. This is cemented by the fact that Gaiman also wrote Cain and Abel into Sandman, showcasing the impact of Wolfman’s Weird Mystery Tales.

I wonder how Wolfman feels about it now, after Gaiman was accused of sexual assault? If I were in Wolfman's position and discovered what Gaiman had done, I wouldn't want anything to do with him. I would've firmly told him "no". On which note, I can't tell if Popverse has ever addressed the scandal any more than Comics Beat. And this article doesn't make clear Cain and Abel first appeared in House of Mystery.

And one can only wonder, did Gaiman ever ask Roy Thomas if he was okay with how Silver Scarab and Fury were put to use in the Sandman series? Did Gaiman even ask Bob Haney if he was okay with how he made use of Metamorpho's female counterpart, Urania Blackwell, around the 20th issue? If Gaiman did, I have yet to find clear evidence of that. As I said earlier, I find Gaiman's approach to those characters distasteful in hindsight, and they're just a few in a whole seaful of characters who could use a better rendition, along with repairing any and all damage that was done to them way back when.

Polygon says Gaiman's written up a blog post on his site where, predictably, he denies the accusations. Perhaps it would be best he save the dramatics for court. I don't know if the New Zealand police are still pursuing the case, but another of his victims may have filed a report, and it's to be hoped he will have to attend trial, mainly so his victims can see some closure on the issue.

The Times of India published an editorial about the resurfacing case, and at the end says:

Neil Gaiman’s story highlights a broader reckoning within creative industries. His works remain beloved by millions, but the allegations against him have irrevocably altered public perception. For fans, reconciling admiration for his creativity with the gravity of these accusations is an emotionally fraught task. Much like Lucy in The Wolves in the Walls, the literary world must decide whether to confront these unsettling truths or retreat into silence. Gaiman’s legacy now serves as a stark reminder that no figure, no matter how celebrated, is beyond accountability.

Correct. But, is his work really that beloved? I have seen signs here and there that there are people who aren't charmed by his work, some of it laced as it was with crude violence and other questionable elements. The material I read hardly had anything romantic about it, and what did exist there looked pretty empty and directionless. When a writer puts in as many allusions to sexual misconduct in his writings as Gaiman did in his, something is wrong. That's why in years to come, chances are some people will hopefully reevaluate, and above all, ask whether the frequently dark angle he used in much of his writings is reflective of a healthly mindset.

Labels: dc comics, dreadful writers, Europe and Asia, good writers, history, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, violence

Variety reports there's a lesbian sci-fi cartoon produced in Australia headed for the Berlin Film Festival with a combined anti-male/white angle to its tale:

U.K. outfit Blue Finch Films has snagged worldwide sales rights (excluding Australia and New Zealand) to the buzzy animated feature “Lesbian Space Princess,” ahead of its world premiere in the Panorama section at next month’s Berlin Film Festival.

The debut feature from Emma Hough Hobbs and Leela Varghese follows a sheltered space princess who embarks on a galactic mission to rescue her bounty hunter ex-girlfriend from the Straight White Maliens. The film, which blends sci-fi and comedy elements, puts queer women of color front and center in its narrative.

I'm sure they'll claim it's just a satirical joke as defense, but this kind of man-hating and anti-white propaganda is no laughing matter. It's racially insulting, and if it were written the other way around (male homosexual prince "saving" boyfriend from women of whatever background), it'd be just as reprehensible, possibly worse. When they make the allusions that blatantly obvious, something is terribly wrong. It's a shame animation's become an excuse for pushing these kind of identity politics, but unfortunately, what may have been a serious problem for longer than we think is still prevalent, and become even worse now.

Labels: animation, conventions, Europe and Asia, golden calf of LGBT, moonbat artists, msm propaganda, politics

Burnaby Now reports that a local comics store is closing down and if it continues, will only be as an online store:

A longtime Burnaby comic book store is saying goodbye.

Metropolis Comics, owned by Jonny Botsch, has announced it will no longer have a physical store after the store's landlord made plans to rent out the entire building the comic book store currently resides in on Kingsway.

In a Facebook post, Bostch said the store began looking at potential new places to move the physical shop but came to the conclusion they would be closing the location instead.

He added that each space they looked at had challenges, which made it hard to find a new landing spot.

And there goes another brick-and-mortar specialty store, in an era where it looks like it's increasingly difficult to run these businesses effectively. Too bad, but let's also remember that poor quality of the mainstream plays a major part in the decline of business too.

Labels: history, sales, technology

Have there been any comics writers/artists who were hit hard by the Los Angeles wildfire disaster that obliterated several neighborhoods, particularly in areas like Pacific Palisades? As Jimmy Palmiotti announced, one example is an illustrator named Andrew Robinson:

Help us help Andrew Robinson - he lost his home- his art supplies and his art in the fires. Just heartbreaking. Every amount counts. https://t.co/3hiGGMMElc

— Jimmy Palmiotti (@jpalmiotti) January 10, 2025

Let’s show everyone that comic book people look out for their own.

— Jimmy Palmiotti (@jpalmiotti) January 10, 2025

I'm very sorry to learn of Mr. Robinson's terrible situation, and hope he'll be able to recover what he's sadly lost. Anybody who wishes to help him can donate to the crowdfunding page Palmiotti linked to.

Labels: politics, technology