I couldn't continue with the Vulture article on Gaiman. I've never been a Gaiman fan. Only work of his I've read is "Good Omens" and that was due to the collaboration with PTerry.

But he's a monster. And it surprises me still how well people hide their vileness.

#Reflections

@f

Yeah I found this one sad. I've not read much of his work either, so maybe I missed clues, but he always seemed like a decent guy. But I guess you never really know.

@crcollins Based on bits I read on the Vulture article, he apparently has scenes of women being tortured and assaulted in his books and this was taken as a sign of his empathy towards women. Not sure how they arrived at that conclusion, but people seem to always see what they want to see ...

I was horrified by what I read, put the article down, then went back again but was even further horrified by what I read later and put it down again.

Not going back. It's just horrible. At least for me.

@f

Eep. 😳

@f I am a fan of his work and I couldn’t finish the article either.

@f Yeah, this is the first time someone I really liked and respected has turned out to be something totally different from the image he has projected. Not sure how or if I can separate the person from the art in the future.

@purplelorikeet This is my personal opinions, but equating someone to their work has never worked for me.

Like with actors in movies, the works of writers are not an extension of themsevels. If the writer themselves sounds good based in their interactions with people and their stance on things, then maybe. But even then, you can't really tell.

The one writer I know based on personal interactions and how they generally behaved was PTerry. I liked him and from all I can tell, he was always true to the projected personna.

I know nothing of Gaiman except for reading some of his writing. But he gave me Clive Barker vibes in his writing and that's a style that I don't really like. So I've never bothered to read more.

I think (and again, just my opinion) you should take the art as is. If you like the art, enjoy it. But if the creator turns out to be a bad human being, never give them your money ever again. That's all you can do.

@f I agree with you that a person doesn't equate to their work. I will admit that many of NGs work is too intense for me. I did read American Gods but found it a bit intense. I preferred more benign works like Neverwhere and, of course, Good Omens. :)

Time will tell if I reread any of NGs work. I definitely won't be spending any more money and whether I keep the few books I own is up in the air.

I will admit I have stopped watching works with some actors due to various negative associations. There have been a few that I've been able to overlook the person but not too many. It doesn't help I have the visual reinforcement...perhaps rereading won't be as much of an issue.

Thank you for all the thoughts in your response. :)

@purplelorikeet We, the wife and I, liked "Stardust" when we originally saw it as a movie and we were talking of re-watching it.

Haven't read the book, but now, reflecting back upon it, I can see at least one troubling issue there that I hadn't considered originally. So I can totally understand how you must feel.

In the end, my personal opinion is that life is very short. You enjoy what you do and don't harm others or enable others who might be destructive/harmful. Beyond that, who really cares?

But that's just me 🙂