Hewwo

Just a sideblog don’t mind me. She

[currentlycryingaboutlancelot]

it is so funny that raskolnikov’s whole family believes the dunya/luzhin engagement drama is the A-plot of their drama in petersburg while raskolnikov is like going around the city in a complete delirium telling everyone about how he killed two people. and the thing is raskolnikov ALSO thinks his sister is the main character

[mimic-tesdinic]

I was going to just keep this in the comment section. but it seems @sole-e-acqua blocked me from replying before goading me for not responding

I care about rape happening everywhere. I care about violence against women in the Republic of Iran and under the Israeli Regime.

I'm just confused? Why you don't want the people of Israel to be liberated from their dictator? You're an Israeli woman yourself, why don't you care about the Israeli Gender Apartheid?

Do you support the forceful sterilization of Black Jewish women under the Israeli Regime? Do you support the Israeli Regime flooding their streets with convicted pedophiles?

You've already said you don't care about a Palestinian prisoner being raped to death on camera, but are you OK with the rapists who did that walking free on the streets, no precautions against them repeat offending against Israeli women and girls?

Don't the women of Israel deserve to be freed from the oppressive regime they live under?

[mimic-tesdinic]

D'artagnan is a rapist. btw.

I mean, yeah. The orginal story is more akin to something like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, in the sense that the protagonist isn't supposed to be a good person. He is still canonically 18/19 through most of the original story, which was more my point.

[mimic-tesdinic]

There's a weird conflation I've seen with the new Wuthering Heights movie where people treat Margot Robby being cast as Catherine as like... on par with Heathcliff being portrayed as white?

Like don't get me wrong, if you think she was miscast that's totally fine, but one of these things is erasing any sort of themes of racism and historic subjugation, in order to maintain the status quo of having a conventionally attractive white man as your brooding male lead, and the other is having a 30 year old play a character that's 18?

If you think Margot Robby is miscast, that's totally fine, but it feels a little weird turning it into an age thing feels a little weird when Hollywood constantly casts older actors to play younger characters, especially in adaptations of classic literature, and it honestly feel tone-deaf to give it the same weight as like, pretty blatant racism...

[segamascott]

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

it does still make me insane specifically how many queer people lovingly embrace astrology. I went to a poetry workshop yesterday that was genuinely quite good but also included an option to disclose astrology designations during introductions and so many people broke out some variation of "I'm a [x] sum but I have a [y] placement and it SHOWS" girl no it doesn't. that's meaningless correlation you completely invented the causation

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

I'd say that rejecting biological determinism in favor of space gas determinism isn't the slay the astrology queers think it is but if I'm being completely honest I fear that many members of our community haven't even really rejected biological determinism so much as sprinkled a layer of glitter on it

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

yes that's how confirmation bias works

[warlockofagnesi]

hang on this is way too good to leave in the comments

[sillysear]

[mimic-tesdinic]

I think the post is missing a very important thing about Vampire folklore as well as fiction

Children have always been the vampire's primary diet.

The younger the victim the more likely for the vampire to eat. This is true in Hungarian, Bulgarian folklore as well as in Serbian, then-Moravian, and Balkan folk tales. This goes beyond European borders as well, with the Estryes, for example.

(There were times when the vampire would also feed on cattle, but it was mostly children in order to explain sudden side death in rural communities.)

And Stoker consulted Arminius Vambery a Hungarian traveler about vampire fiction.

Vampire legends aside, vampires in fiction have been also feeding on children as the easiest targets. In one of the earliest vampire poems, the German Wake not the Dead, the vampire Brunhilda primarily targets village children, and later her husband's children from another marriage.

The fact that later in English and French literature the vampire became less of a carnivorous monster and more of a charming seducer is a different topic.

Yeah, a lot of cultures that had little-to-no contact with Jewish people also had similar supernatural creatures that would eat children (the Cherokee Spearfinger, the Navajo Skinwalkers, the Chinese Hungry Ghost, just to name a few)

It makes sense to me that if human civilizations tends to:

1.) Prioritizes the health and safety of children

2.) consume meat

That those civilizations might come up with scary stories about some sort of Mythological creature that eats children.

Not to mention a lot of Jewish people contributed to the popularization of vampires in pop-culture. Ármin Vámbéry, who you mentioned helped Stoker with the folklore aspects, was himself Jewish. The screen-writer of Nosferatu, Henrik Galeen, was also Jewish.

With that being said, it's still possible for Vampires to be used in an anti-Semitic way. There were Nazi's in WWII Germany who enjoyed Nosferatu and likened Count Orlok to Jewish people.

I think that Bram Stoker used Vampires as a metaphor to commentate on the English colonization of Ireland and had no intentions of referencing the Blood-libel.

I don't think there's evidence of him intending for it to be read in an anti-Semitic way, even though it might seem like that from a surface level glance.

[mimic-tesdinic]

The Baby-Eating in Dracula

Although I do believe that Bram Stoker had a lot of bigoted beliefs, I've always been of the opinion that themes of anti-Semitism within Dracula were unintentional (that's not to say that it isn't anti-Semitic, or unproblematic, just that I don't think he was intentionally making a political statement about Jewish people in particular).

The scene where the three vampire women eat a human baby is actually a pretty interesting example of this. Because though it is true that this could be in reference to the blood libel, I think the much more likely inspiration for it is Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", which was written in 1729 to satirize the English exploitation of Irish peasants.

Obviously there's fair critique for the potential negative implications of "A Modest Proposal", this image, which is a fairly commonly used depiction of it's contents, portrays the Englishman very similarly to anti-Semitic caricature of Jewish people. With that said however, the man in the picture is intended to represent an English Nobleman.

It's good to be aware of the negative implications of these sorts of tropes, and think critically about the portrayal of them. At the same time it does remind me of the old saying "Antisemitism is the Socialism of fools". Bram Stoker was born in 1847, the deadliest year of the Irish Famine. He was considered an outsider by the majority of English society. To dismiss potential themes of class conscientiousness and Imperialism entirely is to deny the subjugation that the Irish faced under British Imperialism. I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk about the problematic aspects of this sort of thing, but I think we have to approach this situation with a bit of nuance.

[evydraws]

9 May - Mina Murray to Lucy Westenra

(Jonathan's coming home in about a week, and he's well, you heard it here first.)

[mimic-tesdinic]

Thoughts on Sinners(2025)

It was really good!

It's a movie about vampires set in the Jim Crow South that deals with racism, both explicitly and through the metaphor of vampires. The main antagonist is a white Irish vampire searching for the same connection to his culture that he sees in POC.

For a bit of context here, the majority of white southerners (especially poor white-southerners) emigrated from Ireland and Scotland to escape persecution under the British Empire. Over time, in an effort to be respected and seen as 'white' by their society in general, they gave up most of the culture and tradition that made up their ethnic identity and became viciously bigoted against black and indigenous people. In an attempt to conform to white hegemony they ended up sacrificing their sense of community. Some of them tried to form a new identity on the basis of white-supremacy. Some of them imitated black-culture, and became successful artists selling that culture to the broader America (Elvis Presley is a good example of this).

The antagonist of Sinners was mostly an example of the latter, attacking and turning black Southerners in an attempt to appropriate their culture.

I'm not familiar with the behind-the-scenes for this movie, so I can't say for sure that this was the writers intent, but the choice of highlighting the main-antagonist as Irish seemed in some ways to reference Bram Stoker's, the author of Dracula, Irish identity. A lot of Stokers inspiration for Transylvania seems to come partially from stories he heard about the Irish Potato Famine and British-Colonization of Ireland. Despite this, Dracula is not very openly critical England, with the main-cast of characters being English, and Dracula himself being Eastern-European.

Again, I can't say for certain, but I felt like the movie, to some extent, used vampires because they were popularized by an Irish man who in many ways conformed to that same white-homogenization as our antagonist.

[star-anise]

Help someone got me ranting on how Westeros’s economy and agriculture make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER before bedtime

how am I supposed to go to sleep now

[star-anise]

Okay basically:

You get the European High Middle Ages by achieving agricultural surplus.

NOT having agricultural surplus means: You just barely have enough food to make it through the winter. Producing food is the highest agricultural priority. Everyone who CAN make food DOES make food. Major agricultural events like harvest, planting, fishing, roundup, and butchering are all-hands-on-deck events where the entire community has to work together to make sure you last the winter.

These are Earth winters in Northern Europe. Winters that last a couple of months.

The High Middle Ages in Europe were made possible because agriculture got good enough that some places could produce WAY more food than was necessary, which allowed others to specialize. You need a LOT of agricultural surplus to get:

Cities full of common people who don’t contribute to agriculture at all

(As opposed to: a village-based economy)

A class of idle rich whose women focus entirely on decorative handicrafts and whose men use massive amounts of metal to pretend to fight each other

(As opposed to: Noblewomen who were intimately involved in organizing the production, distribution, and storage of food and clothing for the entire community; warriors wearing armour made of leather and using weapons like spears that required less metal)

Wars that economically devastate an entire region by killing massive amounts of peasantry

(As opposed to: War that is deliberately focused between combatants because agricultural workers are expensive and necessary)

The last one is the especial kicker. That kind of economic and agricultural devastation is very characteristic of the Hundred Years War, which ASOIAF is mostly based on. It arose when you got so much agricultural surplus that you could literally set fire to crops and mills and kill peasants and still make it through the winter.

So Westeros is, essentially, an incredibly food-secure society.

And then

You tell me

THAT WINTER LASTS ANYWHERE FROM A FEW YEARS TO ALMOST A CENTURY???

And all the Starks do to prepare for it is sound ominous and put glass greenhouses in a stone castle?????????????

[whetstonefires]

Man so much this.

I never got involved with GoT because I’d been warned it was grim in a way I find unfun, but I heard it was about a bunch of people competing to be ruler of a region defined by periodic multi-year winters, of which the first in a while was coming up soon. And that the writer had described his goal as ‘like Tolkien but with more realism.’

And I assumed for actual years that a core element of the entire drama was the different would-be leaders and factions having different logistical plans to prepare for the Ice Zombie Climate Change Decade (including presumably at least one ‘That’s Fake Haha’) and how much of what kinds of supplies are to be stored in what ways, for whose benefit, and the constant loss of precious time as everyone backstabs each other, while the constant shifting of power means that no one’s infrastructure plans get fully realized, so Westeros has about 20% of the necessary granaries and Winter Is Coming.

Until I casually asked a fan who’d been explaining the ice zombies and the Crazy Big Wall to me what the culture’s norms for caching food for the long winters had been, traditionally, only to find that nothing of the kind had ever come up.

For admittedly neither the first time nor the last, I was so bitterly disillusioned in a cultural phenomenon in which I had steadfastly declined to participate.

[mikkeneko]

#i know#this is not the first time i have ranted about this on this blog#but!#but!!!#i just cannot get over#he ripped off Pern and bragged about his realism and couldn’t be arsed to care about the agricultural economy in any meaningful way#and he wants to talk his worldbuilding up contra TOLKIEN?#man that guy may have stylized his politics#but at least i understand how people in middle earth#are alive#anyway

[tinsnip]

I love it when people are Mad About Worldbuilding. Those are my kinda people.

[jhaernyl]

I would 1000% be there for a North where they look grim and dour to Southerners because they think the Southerners are fucking morons who are way too frivolous and are not preparing enough while the North has been busting ass to actually, really, seriously prepare for the next who-knows-how-long winter since the end of the previous one bc Winter Is Coming you fucking grasshoppers and the idea of the South being able to order them to part with even one single grain of their stores or one salted sardines when the going will inevitably get tough is galling and makes every true Northener want to just put a sword through their hearts and spare the North from them and their feasts.

[sainamoonshine]

I want the entire North to have figured how to survive on, like, mushrooms they grow in dark rooms that they just need to keep heated up and have no actual need for sun, and like drinking a little bit of your horse’s blood every day and then carefully tending to the wound, and thus storing dried and dehydrated grain that would be somewhat inedible for humans but can keep their cattle going a long time. I want them to specialize in long term storage of foods like salting and drying. I want them to have invented glass jars sealing, and be mildly off put by even the though of food that goes bad in only a couple of days. (They see someone just leave a tomato on their counter without doing anything to cook/prepare/conserve it and get twitchy.) I want them to have an agriculture based on lichen and to be professionnal ice-fishers.

I want the North to have a food culture that is so wildly different from all the other groups that they’re constantly told their food is weird and bad.

[petermorwood]

This was created by someone who takes jabs at Tolkien during interviews for not spending more time on “Aragorn’s tax policy”…

I wonder if the long winter idea seemed like a good idea at the start, then all the politics and war and stabnation and rapeicity took over and seasonal stuff got sidelined or even forgotten.

The next books are called “The Winds of Winter” and “A Dream of Spring”, so those seasons may be getting a bit more attention.

Let me know if it happens.

[headspace-hotel]

Have never read or watched ASOIAF/GOT but. Whaling. Whaling should be like the main industry in this world during the cold time

[peachpulpeuse]

if u guys like this shit you should read this detailed blog where he rips the entire concept of the dothraki horse lords to shreds lol https://acoup.blog/category/collections/that-dothraki-horde/

[star-anise]

This blog fucking SLAPS!

george martin’s face off

I am listening through the audio version cackling with GLEE over its beautifully pedantic bitchiness. It makes for 2-3 hours of listening and I am GONNA listen to ALL OF IT instead of sleeping. Thank you so much for sharing it with us.

Current favourite quote (which happens to be the last bit I read up to, because it keeps topping itself):

“Now, I am not saying that Martin planned to construct his Dothraki out of Native American stereotypes and bad Halloween costumes. In fact, I am fairly confident he intended nothing of the sort. But in the absence of doing some effective research (and it is going to become increasingly apparent that at least effective research was not done) there was quite possibly nothing else to inform the effort other than what was ‘in the air’ of the popular consciousness.”

I hope ancient and military historian Dr. Bret C. Deveraux, visiting lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill, has a very I Fucking Love You Dude day.

Also, to everyone defending ASOIAF like “It’s not supposed to be history, it’s fantasy,” have you not been paying attention to all the frickin’ times your own author and showrunners have blown their own horns about “historical realism”? George RR Martin practically built his brand by sneeringly implying that anything with less rape and racism was just namby-pamby whitewashing because only HE has the guts to portray all the (looks at smudged writing on hand) sexy sexy violence.

It’s 2022 and ASOIAF showrunners are STILL putting on clown noses and talking about how they HAVE to include gory scenes of rape, violation, and murder, because 🤡that’s what life is really like in a patriarchy🤡.

[the-lady-general]

so after putting the asoiaf rant in the tags, if you like reading fantasy that is about infrastructure and resource management in a setting with absolutely deadly environmental challenges and utterly delicious worldbuilding, you will LOVE roadwarden

[bbq-potato-chip]

exactly what you think it means

[praise-the-lord-im-dead]

Another Orual sketch :)

[thoodleoo]

if you need proof that odysseus and penelope are the real Mythical Power Couple from greek mythology here’s a reminder that in book 18 of the odyssey odysseus sees penelope tricking her suitors into giving her free shit even though she has no intention of marrying any of them and his heart is immediately warmed at the sight because That’s His Girl

[cuckoo-on-a-string]

"Appropriate" responses to the Gaiman issue

TLDR: This isn't a Rowling situation, be wary of internalized purity culture.

He's a predator. I'm glad a proper journalist followed up where police have failed (and possibly given victims a better footing for future charges).

But I have a problem with the knee-jerk responses targeting the fandom.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about insulting The Predator. This is about how you treat people who have/do/will enjoy the stories that unfortunately came into the world through his keyboard.

Fans aren't intrinsically evil/uncaring for continuing to participate in associated fandoms.

This is not another Rowling situation. Why? Let me clarify. The consequences of consumption are very different. Rowling is ACTIVELY using her popularity and income as a creative to target one of the most vulnerable minorities in the world. Buying official merch/books/movie tickets prove to the powers that be that she remains a good investment, so they'll give her even more money. This perpetuates the cycle - new movie/book deals, more income, more hate, rinse and repeat.

The push to avoid Rowling's work in full is driven by the fact that she has FACED NO CONSEQUENCES and is still powered by her creative properties. It's fandom/consumers trying to bring justice.

Gaiman, on the other hand, knew he was doing bad shit on some level because he kept his abuse hidden. His status and reputation let him get close to vulnerable fans and essentially intimidate authorities from going after a celebrity. He is FACING CONSEQUENCES. I would personally like to see criminal charges brought against him, but that's out of the fandom's hands. Things we could've influenced (his Disney deal appears to have gone to shit, he's been booted from the truncated final season of GO, and there's no news on Sandman 3) are already in motion. If his publisher doesn't drop him, I'd say avoiding his future works is beyond valid (I certainly wouldn't buy them). But I'm going to watch the new season of Sandman. And once I've taken time away, I'll probably finish my active fics.

"Judging" people who still enjoy his work stems from good intentions that grew out of the fetid ground of purity culture rhetoric.

Writing fanfic and enjoying shows that are already made do not make people soulless accomplices. The idea that unproblematic stories by saintly creators are the only things you're allowed to enjoy is not only flirting with censorship, but it's also impossible.

If you think people should have nothing to do with Gaiman's works, you better throw out anything Weinstein touched. That includes Jackson's LOTR trilogy, FYI. Also, anything his company officially produced (which still gives him money in some cases) should never, ever grace your screen. That includes some of the better Stephen King adaptations, The Orphanage (which was a breakthrough Spanish-language film in Western markets), The King's Speech, The Imitation Game, Woman in Gold, Paddington, and It Follows.

If you aren't willing to publicly announce your "disappointment" in anyone who continues to enjoy any of those films, then kicking up a fuss over how other people process and interact with problematic content from a fallen celebrity who is in the process of getting his dues is pure hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm maliciously complying with Gaiman's famous quote about how once a story is out there, it doesn't belong to the author anymore. Well said, Predator, these are mine now, and I shall fuck about with them as I see fit.

Attacking or snobbishly looking down your nose at the fandom also erases YEARS of beautiful critique and thoughtful exploration of existing, acknowledged problems in works like The Sandman.

People in these parts already know how to handle complex issues in complex pieces of media. Gaiman isn't our god. His canon is not our bible. He didn't teach us morality, as is apparently the case for a lot of people who grew up reading Rowling's works as a child.

If you have a problem with the censorship comment I made, I'd like to point out at least one writer friend is LEANING INTO the fandom as a way to process their own trauma. Suffice it to say they survived a very similar situation. They see it as empowering to take the stories away from the abuser and use the characters/settings to make something new.

I get the ick. I have it right now. But I'm not burning every copy of his work I own (full disclosure I have... *checks shelves* a copy of Neverwhere and The Sandman series). Doing so is totally valid, and if that helps you process and feel better - go for it!

But this is not the same as Rowling and the only ones you hurt by declaring your "judgement" is a complex group of individuals who are able to enjoy fiction, remain aware of potential social consequences, and found a place that doesn't align with your black/white morality.

With that said, judge away! I better not see any stories from Charles Dickens, anything in anyway associated with the Weinsteins, Nickelodeon shows, Charlie Chaplin references, or Francis Ford Coppola films touch your feed. If you scratch the surface, you'll find more things to judge others for enjoying, and they will inevitably find something to judge you for, too.

[mimic-tesdinic]

Neil Gaiman is _also_ ACTIVELY using (his) popularity and income as a creative to target one of the most vulnerable minorities in the world.

He used his own fanbase as a pool of vulnerable people to victimize. He is not in jail and chances are he's not going to be. He is facing the exact amount of consequences as JK Rowling, negative press, and that's likely the only consequence he'll get.

You cannot argue that supporting Gaiman is in anyway different than supporting Rowling. That is a logical contradiction.

Trans people are about four times more likely to be victimized than cisgender people. If we excuse violence against cis women, trans people of all genders will also suffer. You cannot weaponize the suffering of trans people to downplay violence against women. Trans people are also victims of misogyny, often more so than cis women.

If people choose to still be a part of fandoms that he's involved in, that's their decision and trying to reason with them will only make them dig their heels in harder, the same way fans of Harry Potter dug their heels in when asked to boycott JK Rowling.

I'm not going to tell you what you can or can't do, because you've already made up your mind, but supporting Gaiman's IP is morally no different than supporting Harry Potter

TLDR: This is a Rowling situation

[cuckoo-on-a-string]

Only going one round on this, but it is different.

Gaiman isn't funding organizations/legislation to legalize rape.

Rowling is funding organizations/legislation to legalize discrimination and ban trans folks from public life.

There's a major difference between someone funding legal measures against a minority population and another sexual predator being outed. No one is trying to normalize rape (even he isn't, which is why he fucking hid it for so long). Rowling is trying to normalize transphobia. That's the difference between weaponizing a platform and being a repulsive cretin.

Also, unlike Rowling, Gaiman has already started facing tangible, financial consequences. Good Omens will not have a season 3. Amazon is squeezing everything into a single, movie-length installment and have booted Gaiman from any further say in the matter. That lack of screentime could directly hurt his pocket book. Banning him from further cooperation on the project also suggests that his plans with the streaming service for other projects won't bear fruit. Netflix is likely waiting until they've gained back their investment on Sandman (which is already completed) before officially pulling the plug, but they've already cancelled one of his shows.

Gaiman is also losing his fucking Disney movie.

So. Yeah, actually, there have already been consequences of the type fan activity could have any impact on. And I explicitly said I hope the shit we can't control (like criminal proceedings) gains ground now that he's been revealed as a predator.

It's funny how you're talking about me 'already making up my mind' but I've had several civil discussions with people where I've been happy to clarify points or agree with other angles.

Someone suggested pirating to be sure there aren't royalties, which I'm all for.

I also explicitly said in reply that if the situation changes, my actions and opinions will change accordingly.

[mimic-tesdinic]

Being a Rapist Normalizes Rape Being outed as a Rapist and still keeping your fame/career is Normalizing Rape If Rowling never said anything about trans people on Twitter, but used the clout she amassed from her fame to access trans women who were her fans and horribly assault and traumatize them, would that suddenly make supporting her morally justifiable?

What if Vulture released an expose about JK Rowling assaulting trans women?

Should that not negatively impact her career?

If it didn't hurt her career, would that not set a president that it was ok to ruin a few trans peoples lives, as long as you made good art?

There is a space where you could maybe argue that Gaiman being a rapist in private doesn't do the same amount of material harm as JK Rowling, if you're a consequentialist. That is no longer the case. Anything that Gaiman does from here on out will endorse his behavior. His cultural relevance will be used to normalize sexual assault.

There's no proof that any of Gaiman's projects were cancelled because of his allegations. There's a myriad of factors that would have contributed to that. The last two movies of Fantastic Beasts were cancelled and considering that the 3rd movie was already deep in pre-production when Rowling began her Tirade, there's no proof that that franchise wasn't cancelled because of her behavior. Plenty of movies will still be produced, even when they support terrible people. Ezra Miller faced similar accusations to Gaiman, but DC still released The Flash.

I'm not trying to tell you what you should or shouldn't do, but you've yet to present me evidence that this is morally any different than Harry Potter. It feels like you're cherry picking which bad people are ok to support based on what media you like personally.

[cuckoo-on-a-string]

"Appropriate" responses to the Gaiman issue

TLDR: This isn't a Rowling situation, be wary of internalized purity culture.

He's a predator. I'm glad a proper journalist followed up where police have failed (and possibly given victims a better footing for future charges).

But I have a problem with the knee-jerk responses targeting the fandom.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about insulting The Predator. This is about how you treat people who have/do/will enjoy the stories that unfortunately came into the world through his keyboard.

Fans aren't intrinsically evil/uncaring for continuing to participate in associated fandoms.

This is not another Rowling situation. Why? Let me clarify. The consequences of consumption are very different. Rowling is ACTIVELY using her popularity and income as a creative to target one of the most vulnerable minorities in the world. Buying official merch/books/movie tickets prove to the powers that be that she remains a good investment, so they'll give her even more money. This perpetuates the cycle - new movie/book deals, more income, more hate, rinse and repeat.

The push to avoid Rowling's work in full is driven by the fact that she has FACED NO CONSEQUENCES and is still powered by her creative properties. It's fandom/consumers trying to bring justice.

Gaiman, on the other hand, knew he was doing bad shit on some level because he kept his abuse hidden. His status and reputation let him get close to vulnerable fans and essentially intimidate authorities from going after a celebrity. He is FACING CONSEQUENCES. I would personally like to see criminal charges brought against him, but that's out of the fandom's hands. Things we could've influenced (his Disney deal appears to have gone to shit, he's been booted from the truncated final season of GO, and there's no news on Sandman 3) are already in motion. If his publisher doesn't drop him, I'd say avoiding his future works is beyond valid (I certainly wouldn't buy them). But I'm going to watch the new season of Sandman. And once I've taken time away, I'll probably finish my active fics.

"Judging" people who still enjoy his work stems from good intentions that grew out of the fetid ground of purity culture rhetoric.

Writing fanfic and enjoying shows that are already made do not make people soulless accomplices. The idea that unproblematic stories by saintly creators are the only things you're allowed to enjoy is not only flirting with censorship, but it's also impossible.

If you think people should have nothing to do with Gaiman's works, you better throw out anything Weinstein touched. That includes Jackson's LOTR trilogy, FYI. Also, anything his company officially produced (which still gives him money in some cases) should never, ever grace your screen. That includes some of the better Stephen King adaptations, The Orphanage (which was a breakthrough Spanish-language film in Western markets), The King's Speech, The Imitation Game, Woman in Gold, Paddington, and It Follows.

If you aren't willing to publicly announce your "disappointment" in anyone who continues to enjoy any of those films, then kicking up a fuss over how other people process and interact with problematic content from a fallen celebrity who is in the process of getting his dues is pure hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm maliciously complying with Gaiman's famous quote about how once a story is out there, it doesn't belong to the author anymore. Well said, Predator, these are mine now, and I shall fuck about with them as I see fit.

Attacking or snobbishly looking down your nose at the fandom also erases YEARS of beautiful critique and thoughtful exploration of existing, acknowledged problems in works like The Sandman.

People in these parts already know how to handle complex issues in complex pieces of media. Gaiman isn't our god. His canon is not our bible. He didn't teach us morality, as is apparently the case for a lot of people who grew up reading Rowling's works as a child.

If you have a problem with the censorship comment I made, I'd like to point out at least one writer friend is LEANING INTO the fandom as a way to process their own trauma. Suffice it to say they survived a very similar situation. They see it as empowering to take the stories away from the abuser and use the characters/settings to make something new.

I get the ick. I have it right now. But I'm not burning every copy of his work I own (full disclosure I have... *checks shelves* a copy of Neverwhere and The Sandman series). Doing so is totally valid, and if that helps you process and feel better - go for it!

But this is not the same as Rowling and the only ones you hurt by declaring your "judgement" is a complex group of individuals who are able to enjoy fiction, remain aware of potential social consequences, and found a place that doesn't align with your black/white morality.

With that said, judge away! I better not see any stories from Charles Dickens, anything in anyway associated with the Weinsteins, Nickelodeon shows, Charlie Chaplin references, or Francis Ford Coppola films touch your feed. If you scratch the surface, you'll find more things to judge others for enjoying, and they will inevitably find something to judge you for, too.

[mimic-tesdinic]

Neil Gaiman is _also_ ACTIVELY using (his) popularity and income as a creative to target one of the most vulnerable minorities in the world.

He used his own fanbase as a pool of vulnerable people to victimize. He is not in jail and chances are he's not going to be. He is facing the exact amount of consequences as JK Rowling, negative press, and that's likely the only consequence he'll get.

You cannot argue that supporting Gaiman is in anyway different than supporting Rowling. That is a logical contradiction.

Trans people are about four times more likely to be victimized than cisgender people. If we excuse violence against cis women, trans people of all genders will also suffer. You cannot weaponize the suffering of trans people to downplay violence against women. Trans people are also victims of misogyny, often more so than cis women.

If people choose to still be a part of fandoms that he's involved in, that's their decision and trying to reason with them will only make them dig their heels in harder, the same way fans of Harry Potter dug their heels in when asked to boycott JK Rowling.

I'm not going to tell you what you can or can't do, because you've already made up your mind, but supporting Gaiman's IP is morally no different than supporting Harry Potter

TLDR: This is a Rowling situation