Slashdot Mirror
Neil Gaiman Responds
1) Mononoke's Disappointing Box Office - by RobertB-DC
Mr. Gaiman, after the time, effort, and research you put into the dub of Princess Mononoke, were you disappointed by the film's
performance at the US box office? Do you feel that the film was
mishandled by Miramax, or were US audiences not quite ready to have
their expectations of animation stretched that far?
Neil:
Not particularly disappointed, but then I've never equated sales, good or
bad, with quality, and Princess Mononoke was pretty much the first ever
attempt to release something like that into movie theatres in the US. I took much more pleasure in seeing how close we got to 100% at RottenTomatoes.com than I was ever bothered by its box office.
Do I think Miramax could have handled it better? Probably, in a lot of ways -- for example, there was some silliness in the beginning where, once I'd written five drafts of the script, each word having to be approved each time by Ghibli and Miramax, they gave my final draft to someone to make sure that the mouth movements matched the script, and then cut me out of the loop for six months. The person who did the mouth-flap draft didn't like my script, and rewrote it. His version was what was recorded, initially. They screened it. It was a disaster. Then they called me back in and let me work with the director, Jack Fletcher, and he and I went back and put as much of my original dialogue back in as we could, but it all had to be recorded fairly fast at this point. I was proud of the final product, but wished that I'd been included during the period when everything went wrong: it would have made things a lot easier, and we could have been polishing at the end rather than desperately fixing things.
Harvey Weinstein really wanted to trim it. It's a long film. If Ghibli had let him trim, Miramax might have gone much wider with the film, and more movie theatres might have taken a chance on it -- but then, the audience would have been (rightly) complaining about not having been shown the whole film, as it was made, and I'd probably now be answering questions on Slashdot about whether the restoration of the missing minutes on the DVD made up for losing them in the cinemas...
Having said all that, Miramax didn't throw it away: they released it into the "ten major markets", and if the audiences had come out for it, then its theatrical release would have got much wider. Probably best simply to view it as a step on the way to something...
2) The Balance of Collaboration - by buckhead_buddy
Do you find solo work (such as American Gods) to be more productive or
pleasant for you than collaborative work (such as Good Omens)?
The graphic novel medium relies strongly on collaboration. Not only with artists and editors, but also to a limited extent with marketers, trademark lawyers, and even the "past continuity" of what others before you have written. Your persistence in this field seems like it could get to be almost hellish unless you drew very solid boundaries with your collaborators or you really enjoyed such chaos.
As a freelance programmer I struggle trying to find the appropriate balance of collaboration to satisfy and motivate. While your work is in a completely different field, I'm curious what thoughts, anecdotes, or advice you might have on keeping collaboration in balance.
Neil:
I like being able to do both, really. The biggest difference is that I
can enjoy the collaborative work, when it's done, more than I could ever
enjoy, for example, a short story of mine. I'd never pick up a solo novel of mine to read for pleasure, whereas I've taken lots of pleasure from Sandman: ENDLESS NIGHTS.
There are tricks to collaboration, the biggest one of which is getting the best work from your collaborator by knowing what it is they do, and enjoying it, and bouncing off them.
In writing together, it's both of you having the same story or story voice in your heads. I'm a fairly good mimic, which also helps (it's still amusing to hear people tell me what parts of Good Omens I wrote or Terry wrote. Mostly, they're wrong.)
I suspect I learned more from writing American Gods, or from getting through solo screenplays, than I did from Good Omens or, say, the Beowulf I wrote with Roger Avary, because it's very easy to let your co-writer do a bit you're going to have problems with. But you learn more from getting through the bits you have problems with than you ever do sailing blithely across the parts that, for you, are easy.
Working with artists is a very different process to collaborating with other writers. It's a collaborative process, sure, but, for me anyway, knowing who's going to be drawing something is the first piece in the puzzle of what the story is going to be. I couldn't have made Stardust without Charles Vess, because it started as trying to think of something I wanted to see Charles draw. Given Charles's fondness for trees and faerie and the Victorian fairy illustrators, that was the way my mind went. It's not where my mind would have gone had I decided to do a project with, say, Geoff Darrow.
Occasionally it happens upside down -- I'll write something down and then need to find an illustrator. In this case I normally adopt Tactic #1, which is to say, ask Dave McKean if he wants to draw it. So far I've never had to figure out what Tactic #2 would be, as Dave drew the pictures for Coraline, for The Day I Swapped My Dad For Two Goldfish, and for The Wolves in the Walls. And he will be illustrating a book called Crazy Hair, my next children's book, using the computers he's currently using to animate the creatures and world in Mirror-mask, our film for Hensons.
Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you mean about collaborating in the graphic novel medium. Sure, you work with editors, letterers, publicists, agents, lawyers, publicity people, bookshop and comic shop owners, and, passively, with the people who were there before you. And yes, there's a certain amount of chaos, and yes, I do enjoy it.
But then, that's true for most people in any artistic field. You don't exist in a vacuum. Art's always a dialogue with those who went before, and with the other people out there in your field, and with those who make what you do happen (Composers need orchestras, and grants, and, sometimes, movies-or-games. And lawyers. And agents. Anyone involved in making a movie depends on hundreds of other people for -- well, everything, really.) You have to learn to play well with others, even if it's not your natural temperament. And, unless you're a dedicated hermit and mystery of the James Tiptree Jr persuasion, you will have to deal with practically as many people as a solo novelist -- copy editors and editors and publicists and agents and lawyers and Bookshop managers and so forth... Although you may have lots of down time while you're away and writing, during which people leave you alone.
3) I know I should be asking about you and your work - by rgoer
So I love every word I've read from your pen, but presently I'm in the
middle of a dry spell--and the way I figure, if you're going to seek
advice, seek advice from one you admire, right? So, are there any
authors out there right now you can't get enough of? Anybody you're
reading that you feel nobody should miss? Fiction, nonfiction, a decent
biography you've read lately? Do you even have time to get a good read
in with all the hustle and bustle of just being Neil Gaiman?
Neil:
I don't get as much reading time as I want, and I miss it very much.
But I still read.
When you start writing fiction, you start reading less fiction. Not sure why this is, but it's true.
Personally, I tend to read indiscriminately until I get obsessed by something. My current obsession, which may or may not turn into fiction at some point, is the Jack Benny radio show, so there's an awful lot of reading about that and about American Radio going on.
Books I've enjoyed over the last few months (off the top of my head, and from a quick glance to the shelf immediately to my right) would include:
The Power of Babel - A Natural History of Language by John McWhorter. Great book about Language, although every country I went to on my recent book tours I'd quote an interesting fact about their language from the book, and someone would say "Well, yes... but it's not quite like that..."
The Knight by Gene Wolfe. One of my favourite American authors just wrote a medeival fantasy with giants and dragons and suchlike, and made a genre I thought was dead clamber out of the grave. Lovely book.
Peter Straub -- Lost Boy Lost Girl. Straub writing horror fiction, or detective fiction, or serial killer fiction, or a ghost story. Or, quite possibly, a mainstream novel about wishfulfillment in the face of tragic loss.
The Penguin Book of Modern African Poetry
Wislawa Szymborska -- Nothing Twice: Selected Poems
No Sleep Till Canvey Island: The Great Pub Rock Revolution by Will Birch -- well-researched book about a period I sort-of knew about. Mostly enjoyable for the way it follows events: British Pub Rock (and Stiff Records, and perhaps the UK version of Punk) can be traced back to the meeting of a hippy film editor with plans for a "Pleasure Dome" and a con-man...
The Turk by Tom Standage -- I'd always wondered about the eighteenth century chess-playing automata...
Essential Acker -- the Selected Writings of Kathy Acker
Tragically I Was An Only Twin -- The Complete Peter Cook edited by William Cook
Things That Never Happen -- Short stores of M. John Harrison (incidentally, Mike Harrison's novel "LIGHT" was, to my mind, the best SF novel of the last five years. An astonishing piece of work.)
I'm looking forward to the new David Quammen book, The Monster of God -- his natural history writing is always enormously pleasurable, and to the new Martin Millar novel "The Lonely Werewolf Girl".
I try and mention books I enjoy on my journal at www.neilgaiman.com, although I've noticed that when I say nice things about books on my journal, they tend to turn up as blurbs on the back of the books some months later...
4) Abandoned ideas - by Anonymous Coward on 01:26 PM September 22nd, 2003
Neil, I vaguely recall from the Neverwhere DVD that the germ of the idea was the homeless of London, but that you were wary of glamorizing something
that really is not glamorous. In your Talk of the Nation interview, the serial-killer convention was brought up, and I got the feeling
you were uncomfortable with something so dark being glamorized.
I wonder if there have been any project ideas that you've left by the roadside because you felt the result would hold something unfortunate up for admiration.
Neil:
There was a Sandman story I wanted to write, which would have been a
heartbreaker, and would have been about the dreams and hopes of an unborn
baby, who was, for whatever reason, never going to be born. I didn't write
it because I could
imagine it being thrust in front of some pregnant teenager who didn't want
to be pregnant to make her change her mind about what she was going to do.
The world of unplanned pregnancy is difficult enough in America; I didn't want to make it harder for someone having a hard time than it already is.
5) That forgotten god from American Gods - by Torinaga-Sama
Okay, this has been driving my wife and I CRAZY. The god in American Gods
that you can't remember after you talk to him. Was that modeled after an
existing god or did you make that up yourself?
I believe you even stumped the internet on that one.
Neil:
You'll have to remind me which character you're talking about.
Odd, I thought I remembered everyone in there. Ah well. Memory's a funny thing...
6) As a Brit living in the US I feel very aware of... - by
exp(pi*sqrt(163))
....how you tailor your writing to which side of the Atlantic your
intended audience is on. When I read Neverwhere it was the US edition
and clearly contained language and explanations that would seem a little
inappropriate to readers in the UK. Do you carry out your own
'translations' of your books? What differences do you see between
American and British audiences to which you need to adapt? And how
involved are you in the translations to other languages and hence cultures?
Neil:
I try to stay on top of the US and the UK editions of books (sometimes I fail). Neverwhere needed quite some work for the US readership, which I did 98% of, and the other 2% was done without my knowledge. (For example -- I kept the word "flat" for where Richard lived, in my US version. It's not a universally common US word, but it's comprehensible. The US editors unilaterally decided to change the word to
"apartment" and did a universal find-and-replace, and in the bound galleys
that were sent to reviewers there were people who believed the Earth was apartment and people started to say things apartmently.)
I'll happily change words when they mean different things -- a pavement in the UK is what an American would call the sidewalk, while the pavement in the US is what Brit would regard as the road. If I have a girl bleeding on the pavement in the US edition, the meaning has changed, so I'm happy to move her to the sidewalk.
A phrase like "It's all a bit of a pantomime," would mean something very different in the US to the UK -- and not in a way that would make a reader stop and realise that English Panto is a long way from "mime".
The first time it happened was with Terry Pratchett, when the US editor wanted us to explain things like Firelighters and English Currency in Good Omens, but we had so much fun with all the extra footnotes and things they crept back into the UK edition. So the Gollancz first edition hardback has fewer footnotes and a slightly darker plot than the current paperback versions on either side of the Atlantic. There were other differences -- Terry changed my Cheers joke to a Golden Girls joke, because he didn't watch Cheers but quite liked the Golden Girls, and I changed my demons dance like the English band in the Eurovision Song Contest line to one about demons dancing like a white band on Soul Train because I suspected Eurovision Song Contests gags might not play in Des Moines.
Stardust I worked hard to keep the same -- even down to the spelling of grey. The UK edition of American Gods isn't the same as the US edition -- partly because I got the galley proofs back a week apart and I was fairly punctilious about making sure that the US version contained as few anglicisms as possible, but much less bothered if the occasional stray "car park" instead of "parking lot" crept into the UK text.
As for other countries -- I'll answer questions from the translators, but with the exception of the French, I'm not up enough in any other language to have any idea of whether or not it's a decent translation, so I'll rely on reader feedback. (Mostly it's pretty good. I keep hearing that the Spanish version of American Gods is a fairly problematic book, though.)
A lot of the time the translators are the unsung heroes, as they take enormous pleasure in pointing out to me when I meet them in person and find myself apologising for hinging so much of American Gods on the several meanings of the word "trunk", or starting all the names of the Endless with D.
I can be fairly certain that when I win awards in other countries for the fiction I owe my translators a great deal.
7) Small Gods and American Gods - by brandonY
Neil, You and Terry Pratchett are two of my favorite authors, but aside
from Good Omens, I never noticed much of a cross-over between any of
your books. However, when American Gods came out, I couldn't help
noticing that the portrayal of its gods and goddesses was very similar
to Pratchett's portrayal of gods in Small Gods, another classic. Is this more than a coincidence?
Neil:
Well, it's also very similar to my portrayal of gods and goddesses in
Sandman, which predates Small Gods. But it's not coincidence, although Small Gods is one of the few Terry Pratchett books I've still not read (because I figured one day I'd write a book about gods, and I tend to avoid things in territory I plan to visit. It's easier that way).
Terry and I have very similar worldviews on a lot of things. When I lived in the UK we'd chat on the phone most days, whether we were writing Good Omens or not, talking about plot and about characters and about fiction. Often the conversations would begin with Terry asking "Which one of these two things is funnier...?" and me going "Well, you know, you could do both. What if you...?" While I was finishing American Gods I went to Sweden where Terry and I were guests at the Gothenberg book fair, and Terry wound up unravelling a knotty plot point in American Gods for me on the train, again by listening to me talk about the alternatives and then saying "But you could do both, you know..." and explaining how.
8) Coraline and the writing process for YA novels. - by A Big Gnu Thrush
What led you to write the young adult novel Coraline?
Was the writing process for Coraline fundamentally different than some
of your other works?
How did you control the prose to achieve a balance between richness of
language and accessibility to your younger audience?
Neil:
I have two daughters. I started Coraline for Holly, when she was about 6 years old, in 1991. (She's now 18.) Mostly I wanted to write a story I thought she'd enjoy.
I showed the first few chapters to an editor, Richard Evans, at Gollancz, who liked it but thought that it was unpublishable, as I was writing a book aimed at both children and adults. I was writing the book in my own time. Then, in 1992, I moved to America and ran out of "my own time". I wrote about 6 pages between 1992 and 1998, when I persuaded Jennifer Hershey at Avon Books to give me a contract to finish it. She didn't know what it was, no more than I did, but it wasn't a contract for a lot of money, and we figurted we'd sort out whether it would be published as an adult or a children's book when the book was finished.
I went back to it, but I still didn't have a lot of time, so I started writing it in a notebook, beside my bed, and instead of reading before I went to sleep, I'd write fifty or a hundred words of Coraline instead.
And then I wrote it in snatched moments here and there -- a bit on a railway train, a bit on the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund Cruise, and completed it about a decade after I'd started it.
In terms of style, I knew the style I wanted to write it in from page one, which was the only way it survived such an odd way of being written. It's a narrative voice I think of as Classic English Children's Book, although I'd be hard-pressed to find a specific book which sounds like it, except for Clement Freud's wonderful novel "Grimble", which I seem to keep failing to persuade publishers to bring back into print. I wanted a style that was very clean and straightforward, and in which there was room for things to mean more than they literally meant.
9) Sandman the Movie - by ajs
You commented at MIT (BTW: wonderful reading of a great short-story)
that you didn't want to see Sandman the Movie made at this point because
of the horrible treatment it had been given (I think the last draft
script you had read contained, "Puny humans, your bullets cannot harm
me!")
With the change in attitude toward comics in Hollywood, have you considered pressing the issue again? Also, have you considered talking to Hollywood's most successful comic book geek (Jess Whedon) about his getting behind the project? I would be stunned if he wasn't interested, though I'm sure the Firefly movie is sucking down a good chunk of his time....
Neil:
I love reading at MIT.
The good news on Sandman is that it's currently been taken out of the hands of the producers who've led it down the Road to Nowhere for the last 8 years. Currently Paul Levitz at DC Comics and I are trying to figure out what to do with it.
In a perfect world, a director who has the same kind of passion for the material that Peter Jackson had for LOTR, or Sam Raimi had for Spider-Man will come along and sweep everyone up in his wake.
I suspect that Joss Whedon's probably got his plate filled with his own projects.
10 & 10A)
Journal - by greenfield
You have a journal online at www.neilgaiman.com. What
kind of an impact has your journal had on your interactions with the
public? What thoughts do you have regarding online journals (aka
weblogs) in general?
Re: Journal - by burrows
William Gibson just stopped blogging [williamgibsonbooks.com],
stating that informal blog/journal writing gets in the way of writing
fiction.
Is there a conflict for you between maintaining your journal and writing fiction? How do you manage your time / ideas / approach, in order to stay active in both?
Neil:
I've enormously enjoyed the immediacy of having the blog. In some ways it
sort of bypasses established promotional and advertising systems. It means
that, for example, if I'm giving a talk or doing a signing, many of the
people who would have wanted to know this, know it. So while Steve Martin
and I were both headlining at New York Is Book Country, and his face was
on the ad material, mine was the talk that sold out. And if he had a blog,
and blog readers, and so on, like I do, his would have sold out as well. It also means that I have several hundred thousand people cheerfully being
some kind of a knowledge pool, for when I need to know things (especially
techie things, which are always very mysterious to me) and more questions
always being sent in than I could ever answer.
I also like the oddness of the way it exists apart from me - that there are people who wouldn't dream of reading my fiction, but who know that the blog is mostly interesting and funny.
I'm fascinated by what I leave out. Some months ago a cat I'd had for a decade and raised from a kitten was killed, and I didn't put anything up about it on the journal, mostly because I was upset and really didn't want lots of friendly messages of sympathy at that point (it's not that I'll leave out bad things. But that thing felt private, so it stayed off the blog.)
I'm not sure that there's a conflict between journalling and writing fiction. (I'm not sure that there's not.) The big picture problems with doing the journal are more to do with writing in general. I'm a writer: time that I spend writing is time I know I'm working.
And that's not always true -- if I've spent a couple of hours on a journal entry it's probably increased the amount of happiness in the world, but it hasn't got any book written. So there's that. And there's the novel thing as well -- part of the oddness of writing a novel is the way that you start seeing the world through your novel, using the novel almost as a lens, so any observations, thoughts, ponderings, whatever, tend to be put into the novel, which is a good thing.
I'm often hesitant to re-use things I've already put into the journal (although sharp-eyed journal readers noticed some dancing paper dolls in Venice showing up in Sandman: Endless Nights).
It's quite possible that the next time I want to write a novel I'll stop blogging, or, more likely, cut back enormously -- possibly only allow myself to blog if I've I've made my word count, or only post on Sundays, or something equally as mundane. Because the journal's well over quarter of a million words long already. And that's not a book...
Particularly interesting is his discussion of his collaborative relationship with Pratchett.
Princess Mononoke was pretty much the first ever attempt to release something like that into movie theatres in the US
Besides being vague (something like that? Does that mean Anime? Dubs with high-profile actors?), wasn't Akira released into the theaters back in like 1988 or so?
incidentally, Mike Harrison's novel "LIGHT" was, to my mind, the best SF novel of the last five years. An astonishing piece of work.
This book was harder to find at Amazon than it should have been, mainly because of their full-text search engine being on by default. You can find "Light" available here (or at least get a look at the cover so you can find it at your local store). The author's name is listed as M. John Harrison, and it's not currently published in the U.S.
maybe his excuse was a load of bollocks and the real reason he stopped blogging was so that his web site didn't fill up with a bunch of "pattern recognition sucks" postings.
seriously, a little OT, but did anyone think that book was any good at all? i thought his writing style had matured quite a lot, but the content and the plot left a lot to be desired.
It's like a certain somebody says, many people in this country suffer from "visual illiteracy" and can't open their eyes that little bit more.
"Princess Mononoke - Japanese hogwash"
A little harsh perhaps.
I think the problem with this movie's acceptance in North American markets has to do a lot with its marketing as a kid's movie. This probably has to do with North America's general perception on animation as being a medium solely for childish cartoons and superhero comics. When I first saw the previews for Princess Mononoke, I was certain it was of the "childish" variety. (And the fact that movies theatres were packed with small children, who were inevitably crying once the first bloody scenes came by certainly belays the successful marketing of a kid's movie).
On the other hand, if marketing for the animated movie hadn't targeted children, arguably the only people who would've seen it would have been the niche market of Anime fans, which is still not a very massive audience today although it is growing ever larger. This makes me wonder though, how do you market an animated movie that is neither a children's story nor a superhero tale to an audience that may not be ready to reinterpret their views on animation as a medium? Or better yet, how can you force a change in perception on animation as a medium? Surely movies like Akira and Ghost in the Shell must have aided in opening the awareness of some people, but what would have happened if Ghost In The Shell was marketed as a children's movie?
5) That forgotten god from American Gods - by Torinaga-Sama
Okay, this has been driving my wife and I CRAZY. The god in Ameican Gods that you can't remember after you talk to him. Was that modeled after an existing god or did you make that up yourself?
I believe you even stumped the internet on that one.
Neil:
You'll have to remind me which character you're talking about.
Odd, I thought I remembered everyone in there. Ah well. Memory's a funny thing...
That is some funny shit. hahahahahaha
Gaiman makes a great point of Blogs! Instead of going through their agent/publisist releasing a statement "Mr. Gaiman enjoyed working with Terry Prachett" Gaiman can now just fire up his blog and write it there instead. Its more personal since it comes directly from him and it is exactly what he wants to say instead of having his agent/publisist insisting on changing the content.
Have you considered asking M. Night Shyamalan, who wrote and directed "Unbreakable"
...and moved into the highly rewarding and adult field of trolling on Slashdot. Yeah, good on ya, ringmeat.
Well it sure compares favourably in response length to, oh, let's say, Shatner's quips.
Gaiman has been at the top of my favorite authors list for a while now. This makes me respect the person as well as the works. I always like to find out something about who the author behind good books is.
There is no dark side of the moon really, matter of fact it's all dark
He recommends The Knight by Gene Wolfe. Unfortunately, it hasn't been published yet. I suppose he receives a lot of free books from publishers hoping to get quotes from him for the dust jackets.
It was first and +5 in the original solicitation for interview questions. Was this Gaiman's decision? Can't say as I blame him for opting to pass on that one... "Hmmm, let's see, do I alienate my Slashdot audience, or my friends, family, and everyone else in my industry...? Decisions, decisions..."
(1) "I get *paid* to write for a *living*, Sunshine! Copy my stuff illegally and my lawyer, Knuckles of The Endless, will be paying you a visit, and *not* in your dreams!"
or
(2) "Yeah, I'm kind of all high-tech and new-agey that way, I think one or two people should buy my books, OCR them, then dump them on the 'Net to disseminate freely. I've had my NYT bestseller, so I'm all done with that making-money thing now. I think it would be really cool if a bunch of you would download American Gods and write your own fan-fic sequel. I'll even help you get it published and talk about you in my blog."
Talk about your basic No-Win scenario:
What? No sarcasm? No abuse?
/. I've read. Partly this is because Neil was so forthcoming and willing to answer in depth, but also because the /. editors really did pick out ten of the best questions.
I just want to say that this was definitely one of the best interviews on
Good work guys. You get dumped on a lot, and probably deserve more praise than you receive.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I think one or two people should buy my books, OCR them, then dump them on the 'Net to disseminate freely.
Yeah, because we all know that happens when writers embrace technology.
We didn't send Neal that question because he's written a fair amount about P2P and filesharing on his own site, and we try to stick to questions the interview guest hasn't already answered elsewhere.
- Robin
"Jap" is considered a racial slur by many Japanese, and very offensive. It's probably best to avoid using it.
And yes, they did use a (fairly wheezy) male voice actor in the Japanese version, which was odd since the character made more sense (to me, anyway) as female. I agree that the dub in general was quite good (as far as those things go), and that Billy Bob Thornton was just OK. I definitely prefer subtitles to dubs, but I think a lot of Americans refuse to deal with subtitles. At least, I like to pretend that's the reason why Delicatessen hasn't come out on DVD, and not that people have no taste for cool, dark humor.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
"Knuckles of The Endless" made me snarf coffee out my nose. Thank you.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Alex and Geddy killed each other last night, actually; good ridance I say to both of the fuckers, I was tired of feeding them for three years while they "took time off from working". As for the DVD, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Gaiman has written plenty about "the very nature of life itself," so I have a hard time believing he's terrified of the Big Subjects. It's more a matter of the fact that while spme people may pressure pregnant girls to have abortions, that pressure generally does not take the form of the vicious attacks so beloved of the anti-abortion crowd. This isn't PC, it's reality. NARAL does not shoot people in the back. "Pro-lifers" do. If you're able to put aside your biases for a moment, I think you'll see why Gaiman would have been hesitant to give people like that any more, er, ammunition.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
That was damn Insightful. Kinda reminds me of the professors in college who exort you to question authority, then get snippy when you tell them they're full of shit.
Wish I had some Mod points for you, but there you go.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I don't think Political Correctness won out at all. From his description, the story was going to be a heartbreaking and bittersweet story of a couple who desperately wanted to have a child, but couldn't.
Now imagine being a teenage girl, who screwed up and is now pregnant. Now the circumstances in the situation result in the best option be to not have the child. That is a tough choice to made, and is damn hard thing to do. The woman has to look at her life and make the best choice.
Now, someone who isn't in her shoes, and will not suffer the consquences of the situation comes along and throws this story in her face. The story will only make her choice tougher and harder. It will only mess up a tough, situation and make it even worse.
Neil didn't want to be involved in that. He saw his story and decided that he didn't want to be responsible for something like that. I applaud him for having the courage to take responsibility for his work. So often we see people yelling that artists and writers should take responsibility for their work and how their work will effect the audience. Here someone does just that and you have someone immediately call the PC-police on the issue.
Neil knew his work would be used in a way he would not want. So instead of comprosing the work to make it PC for everyone, he decided not to tell that story.
I think you let your rage over a certain topic prevent you from understanding Gaiman's reasoning for not writing said story. He doesn't want his story to be used by zealots to hurt or intimidate women already in a difficult situation. From what I read, he would probably be happy to see a woman thinking of getting an abortion read the story and change her mind if everything worked out for the better.
The stuff about the PC police being after him and changing his mind exists between your ears and nowhere else. It seems that Mr. Gaiman thought of some consequences of the story he personally didn't like and decided aggainst it. I'm sorry his choice wasn't one you agree with. Perhaps you could write your own comic the way you wanted it to be told instead of calling people names?
Happy people make bad consumers.
> Terry... didn't watch Cheers but quite liked the Golden Girls.
Next we find out Neil Stephenson has every Mr. Belvedere on tape, William Gibson loves ALF, and Iain Banks never missed an episode of Hee Haw.
My world is falling apart!
Operator, give me the number for 911!
I felt the same way when I read this comment from Neil. Although I am an ardent admirer-from-afar of Neil's (couldn't tell you much about what he has written lately) I have to say, this information took him down a few rungs in my eyes.
Having a position of respect and authority compels you to not only try to increase the net happiness in the world (an apparent preoccupation of Neil's) but to also say the hard but true things. I really can't believe he has children but didn't write that story. If I was him, nothing could have *prevented* me from writing it.
You've managed to completely replace what Mr. Gaiman actually said with a behavior you'd like to demonize and set him up as a straw man. The issue was never that he was afraid to write about "something as important as the very nature of life itself." He's done that several times - and often in ways that do tick off your "PC establishment". The point here is that the story he considered writing could well have hurt someone. A story about a serial killer's convention isn't likely too.
The hypothetical girl you described is every bit as important as the girl Mr. Gaiman describes. The point here isn't that he's interested in not giving tools to one side or the other, but rather that it's already a very difficult decision, and there's already loads of pressure put on by lots of people on both sides, and he'd rather not add to that for anyone.
While I'd personally be very interested in seeing the story, given the inability to do any reasonable controlled distribution, I think this was a wonderful show of compassion on Mr. Gaiman's part.
Where are my mod points when i need 'em?
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
Give me a break. More like he realized that had he written the story, it would've been snatched up by the pro-life propaganda machine, used to fuel their fires, and waved in the face of some already-confused kid. I'd bet money that was not Neil's intention in writing it. Personally, as a writer, I would be horrified if someone were using my work like that, so I not only understand his point of view, I completely support it.
A little perspective, please. It's not about PC-ness or cowardice at all. It's about doing the right thing for the story. And having it paraded around by people who misinterpret the true meaning would, in my opinion, cheapen it. Far too many people would get the same wrong idea about it at that point.
Sometimes you wake up. Sometimes the fall kills you. And sometimes, when you fall, you fly.
Perhaps it's because no one's bothered to install a Movie Theatre in the middle of nowhere?
What you call "Politically Correct Thought Police Establishmentarianism" the rest of the world calls tact.
Where I live in (Finland) there is much of the same prejudice against animations. The TV-stations have this common misconception that animated equals children.
What they have not understood is that animation can be a means to tell stories in the same way movies do. Oh well, we could possibly categorise Sandman as childrens' reading because it is a comic.
But back to animation. Each christmas, our TV channels air program for children from early morning. Usually there are quite a lot of animated shorts included. Hence, I am secretly waiting for the day when some channel honchos find they have yet another animated movie in stock and air Grave of the Fireflies on christmas morning.
The sociopath in me grins when I think of all the families that would find their cheery christmas ruined because of crying children; and the following calls that would swamp the station's lines. I honestly do not believe anything less would wake the TV honchos up to the cold reality that animation does not imply childrens' program.
There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
Roger also wrote the first Sandman script, and it was fucking PERFECT before the studio utterly destroyed it. It's my Dream (heh) role, even more than Watchmen, so add me to the list of people who are happy to read that it may be crawling back to life.
I'd also like to add that I think this is the best Ask Slashdot I've ever read. You know someone is a great writer when their freakin' interview answers are compelling and entertaining.
BAEN Authors?! Please don't put Gaiman in the same league as the Baen stable. Those guys will come to your house, wash your car, and watch your kids for a couple of hours if you buy their book. The promotional risks that are worth taking for the coffeeshop artists don't necessarily work for the major leaguers.
The story will only make her choice tougher and harder.
No, it wouldn't.
The story would just add other things to think about. It's just another piece of information. It's a very hard decision before reading the story, and it's a very hard decision after reading the story. The story can't change that.
Now the circumstances in the situation result in the best option be to not have the child.
That's begging the question. How does the woman decide what is really the best option? Maybe the story changes her mind and results in her making a decision that leads to a lot of happiness. How do you know?
It's just one more way of looking at things, one more thing to consider. You seem to be saying certain ideas should never be entertained or considered. That certain ideas are just to dangerous to expose to someone who needs to make an irrevocable, life changing decision.
That's political correctness in a nutshell. Sadly, Mr. Gaiman made the same decision.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
His decision was not based on any sort of PC attitude.
It was based on not having his work used to manipulate, confuse, and and disturb someone going through a very difficult period of their life by people with an agenda to push as he very clearly stated.
It seems like the right decision considering you have already twisted his decision not to write it to support your own "anti-PC" agenda.
If you're able to put aside your biases for a moment, I think you'll see why Gaiman would have been hesitant to give people like that any more, er, ammunition.
Ok, so you generalize that all "pro-lifers" shoot people in the back, while all abortion providers are white as the driven snow, but I'm the one who's biased?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
It's more a matter of the fact that while spme people may pressure pregnant girls to have abortions, that pressure generally does not take the form of the vicious attacks so beloved of the anti-abortion crowd. This isn't PC, it's reality. NARAL does not shoot people in the back. "Pro-lifers" do.
I'd think it's actually the most difficult for a young woman to assert her right to a choice when her parents or boyfriend are telling her that she needs to have an abortion. But it is really supposed to be her choice, and no one else's.
From his description, the story was going to be a heartbreaking and bittersweet story of a couple who desperately wanted to have a child, but couldn't.
It looks like you are wrong about the subject of the story. Gaiman said it "would have been about the dreams and hopes of an unborn baby, who was, for whatever reason, never going to be born."
So it would have focused on the fetus, not its parents, and it would not have described whether the pregnancy ended through miscarriage, or elective abortion. This is actually pretty clear from what he said.
Yes, yes it would.
I think you mean that having someone pose dificult questions to you during a decision-making process leads to that decision being better thought-out and wiser. That's fine, but "more difficult" is not the same as "easier".
I guess Mr. Gaiman may have been being politically correct, depending on your definition of that particular meaningless, reality-independent quip, but from what he said, I think his decision was less based on some freakish stance that "certain ideas should never be entertained" and more on a completely reasonable guilt about arrogantly insinuating himself into a debate in which he has no place. I call that being considerate, but to each his own.
It was based on not having his work used to manipulate, confuse, and and disturb someone going through a very difficult period of their life by people with an agenda to push as he very clearly stated.
How is deciding that an idea is too dangerous to be exposed to certain people anything BUT politically correct?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Maybe it's not cowardice, maybe it's time management. This was one idea out of a , surly full, stable of ideas. So he lay's out his ideas on the table and goes "Hmmm... what should I work on?"
Some of the ideas don't generate enough of his interest, some bring up feelings or concerns he doesn't want to deal with at that time. It sounded like this story fell into the latter category. He didn't say he'd NEVER write that story. It was just an example of one that he'd set aside.
I could write a story about a nazi who tortures Jews and feels bad about it, because he feels remorse over it. I won't, not because I wish to be politically correct, but because I find the subject matter distasteful and I don't want to.
Actually that's not totally true. I wouldn't write about it because I'm not a particularly good writer. Either way, it shows that there are plenty of reasons not to write a story that have nothing to do with trying to convince you that I'm not driven by political correctness.
=Shreak
He didn't say ANYTHING about the idea being dangerous. All he said was the he didn't want the finished product being used in a way he didn't agree with. It's like a scientist refusing to work on a atomic bomb because he didn't want to blow people up. This isn't political correctness, this is foresight. He looked at the probable (or even just possible) results of his actions and decided that the outcome was not one he approved of, so he decided to not do the action.
If he had really thought that the idea was dangerous he wouldn't of mentioned in on a public website. Nothing is stopping you from writing that story, making the idea into a physical form, and showing it to whomever you want to. It's not the idea, it's the realization that he decided against.
Maybe it's not cowardice, maybe it's time management.
But that's not the reason Mr. Gaiman explicitly stated.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
excellent sir
I'll admit that I have not read a lot of Gaiman's work, but I didn't particular enjoy American Gods. It was an interesting concept but the story seemed to lose steam about half-way through and never picked up the threads. I was surprised to see that is was shortlisted for the Hugo/Nebula awards.
Would you feel the same if the story presented a pro-abortion POV?
> Neal
Neil
I don't mean this unkindly, but I really think Neal's kidding himself here. Look at the numbers for Spirited Away . For its opening weekend, it grossed an astonishing $17,300 per screen, $449,839 on 26 screens. This is comparable to the heavily-promoted, heavily licensed, heavily merchandised Monsters, Inc., released the same year. It won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature. Despite all this, it never received the wide distribution that was promised, even after the Academy Award, but was buried by a different subsidiary of the same company that gave Princess Mononoke such short shrift.
I'm not generally one for conspiracy theories, but it's not unreasonable to conclude at this point that Disney licensed the Miyazaki corpus not to bring it to the American public, but to ensure that most of the American public is never exposed to it. Repeatedly, they have met what has to be a minimal contractual obligation for promotion and distribution, after which the films disappear from the theaters no matter how the fans clamor for it. I suspect the only reason Miramax/Disney releases them on DVD at all is because they know people will just order them from overseas if they don't. (Even legitimate film distributors in Hong Kong generally produce Region 1 or region-free DVDs for the overseas market. They're not afraid of wide-open markets there for some reason.)
Why would they do this? One possible reason is the sheer quality of it. It makes their own work look very, very bad, although these days we don't really need much of a standard for comparison. Disney's recent Brother Bear demonstrates clearly that they're no longer capable of producing quality animated films on their own. The success of films like Monsters, Inc over Disney's hand-drawn animation should be ascribed less to the computer animation than to the fact it was actually made by another company entirely. But unlike Pixar's work, Disney can't really rebrand Miyazaki as their own product. It's just too unlike everything else they do, both in terms of the animation style and the story values. So they do their best to hide it instead. This way they never have to compete with it.
So I'm afraid they indeed threw Mononoke away. Just like they've thrown away every other Miyazaki film.
And the brethren went away edified.
Would you feel the same if the story presented a pro-abortion POV?
The greater diversity of ideas available to people, the better. Even ones I don't agree with, yes.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Mr Gaiman also did not make any explicit statements about political correctness.
He simply stated that he was not interested in persuing the storyline because the final product may have been used in ways he was not comfortable with.
We do not know what he chose to do instead, which may have had a more profound or more personal meaning. Or not. We'll never know.
The only thing we can say is that Mr Gaiman did not state "I didn't write this story because I wanted to be politically correct".
=Shreak
I'm not a big follower of anime, but I think I may have seen this one (in japanese, with no sub-titles - my understanding of it wasn't the best). Was this the one where some guy rode around on an antelope and worms grew out of giant dog's faces?
There is never a good reason for abortions carried out for reasons other than saving the life of the mother. Nothing says the mother must be the one to raise the baby once it's born. There are still waiting lists years long for adoptions. Sure, pregnancies are difficult, and sure, an out-of-wedlock pregnancy might cause problems for a young woman's social standing -- although far less nowadays than would have been the case 30, or even 20 years ago. The inconvenience these things entail is nothing next to the value of a human life.
Of course the abortion decision is a difficult one, and it doesn't help that women considering them are rarely presented with all the information really needed to make a fully informed desicion. But the main reasons it's so difficult is that the right choice involves so much work, even if the baby is adopted out, and because there's this overwhelmingly loud chorus chanting that there's really nothing wrong with it. Under the circumstances, it's a wonder that any mothers in this situation do choose life at all.
And the brethren went away edified.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The politically correct always consider political correctness tact.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Disney Inc stinks, no question about that. But just because they are bad, does that make Mononoke good? I think the real problem with anime in general is a cultural one. Its like opening a brittish resteraunt in america. What needs to be done is to take the quality aspects of anime, and leave out the considerable amount of crap. But the fans will protest any change to any movie, because it is different than what they are used to.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
> Is he actually gay, or is this just a stupid slashdot troll?
The fact that you have to ask that is disappointing. I don't know Neil's Sex Pref, but that guy's a stupid troll no matter which way you toss him.
And the thoughtlessly rude always call it political correctness when people are offended.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Well, I researched some on the net, and Neil has a wife and 2 kids. This would make homosexuality rather unlikely in my eyes.
My guess (from what he says) is not that he was afraid of criticism for his viewpoint (as PC usually implies) but that he was afraid that what he wrote and thought would be misused. I don't think this is cowardice, but a matter of thinking of the consequences of his actions and deciding that whatever good might be done from the story might be undone by others who use what he says to achieve ends inconsistent with those he intended the story to support.
An extreme example - what if the men that made the atomic bomb had decided not to do so because they believed that its potential uses (or rather its uses in the hands of potential enemies) would do more harm than good? Perhaps they would be wrong, but I would not call them cowards. A more moderate example would be the soundtrack for the movie Bob Roberts - the people who made the movie were liberal and feared that the songs they wrote to parody conservatives would instead be used by conservatives for their benefit. The people that made the movie decided that releasing the soundtrack would have been couterproductive to what they believed, so they chose not to release one. I don't believe this was cowardice - they made an estimate of the likely consequences or releasing a soundtrack to what they believed and decided that the consequences were negative.
I don't believe that Neil Gaiman's choosing not to write this story is cowardice, but an awareness of the potential uses of the story and his belief that the consequence of publishing the story would be negative - not necessarily to himself but to others and (probably) overall. If he knew the consequences of his story, recognized them as bad, and wrote them anyway, he could more easily be accused of cowardice because he recognized the consequences of his action but was unwilling to stop them - even this, however, is not certain - he could have simply have judged the consequences good and gone on with it.
Ultimately, he is responsible to himself. PC works by intimidating someone into not saying something. I don't think that a system that implies cowardice from those who choose not to speak either unpopular or easily misconstrued opinions is much of an improvement.
Perhaps... then again, the socially reactionary always mistake being an maladjusted asshole for having integrity.
and why the unfortunate name?
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
It's been done.
I know someone who had to have a late-term abortion for medical reasons. She wanted to have the baby, but couldn't. She was "presented" with all the information she could take. The only "overwhelmingly loud chorus" was the gauntlet of protesters who didn't bother finding out why she was at the clinic before assaulting her. To even have the procedure she and her husband had to travel three states away, stay at a certain motel that wouldn't kick them out, and take a certain taxi that would actually stop at the clinic. All they did is make a hard situation harder.
Her pain is the fruit of the pro-life movement. Her pain is the product of the skewed reality presented in the tracts you got your information from.
There's the idea. Wow, Babies, even unborn ones, have the capacity to hope and dream. Maybe now, maybe later. And now that idea is out in the wild. Shock, horror. Don't tell the pro-lifers or we'll never hear the end of it. Jeez, so much for Mr Gaiman's PC credentials.
Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?
Oscar Wilde had a wife and two kids. Just thought I'd point that out.
Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?
Of course the abortion decision is a difficult one, and it doesn't help that women considering them are rarely presented with all the information really needed to make a fully informed desicion.
How do you know this? Have you ever been to or worked with a pro-choice pregnancy counsellor? (FYI pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion)
I have and I can say that I have personally NEVER seen a client who was pressured or not presented with all the facts regarding the options they had (regardless of their decision: parenting, adoption, abortion). To say that women are "rarely" presented with the facts about abortion is absolutely untrue.
I'm sure that, like in many life situations, there are less than ethical counsellors or doctors out there. I imagine in the American private healthcare system, there is a concern that doctors are only out to make money. But you can apply that concern to all medical procedures.
To zero in on abortion providers as deceitful smacks of anti-choice/pro-life propaganda - or at least wishful thinking on the part of those who would prefer to see women who have had abortions as victims instead of informed decision makers.
That's nice.
I think Mr. Gaiman's sexual preference, whatever it may be, is rather off topic for this thread. And I think he's liberal enough overall (one somewhat major sandman character is transsexual, and another is androgenous) that if he WERE gay or bi he'd be open about it.
I totally reject violence done in the name of abortion protests. As a self-described evangelical, Bible-believing Christian, I can give zero support to acts of terrorism carried out in the name of "protecting life." People who shoot abortion providers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period. It is inexcusable, and unjustifiable according to Christian beliefs.
That having been said, abortion providers should be considered suspect as well. The so called "pro-choice" movement has proven adept at positioning itself. Have you ever noticed that all newspapers use "pro choice" and "anti-abortion" instead of other monikers? (e.g. pro-abortion, pro-life?) The commonly used style guide in the press mandates this and there has recently been a controversy about a letter to the editor being revised without the consent of the author to reflect those word choices.
Please also note that the public debate from the so-called "pro choice" side has little to do with the medical and moral issues. The debate from that side is framed in terms of "my rights" "my body" "my choice." Propaganda? Most definitely.
Abortion on demand is a HUGE money maker. The providers have reason to influence people to choose their services - even if it means not disclosing all of the relevant information.
The matter of the impact to the woman - psychologically and physically - is not understood or cared for. Abortion providers do not systemically provide counseling for their clients. Many women are emotially scarred as a result of those services. It's not just a blob of tissue like a tumor. Telling women that the problem will be gone when the baby is removed is not telling the whole truth.
RU-486 - a dangerous drug that promises more privacy - in home abortion on demand that has killed a number of women (in addition to the unborn children.) This information is clearly not widely identified. In fact, when you read that last sentence, did you think "Is he making that up?"
There are 3,000+ abortions a day in the US. The vast majority are for birth control. What losses are we sustaining to our culture as we give up those lives from our shared culture?
Then there is the matter of the life of the infant.... When Roe v. Wade set the infamous precedent, our understanding of embryonic development was quite different than it is today. Today we can know that all of the components for humanity are present at conception. in vitro fertilization is fairly mature, and the age of viability keeps getting pushed back. I submit to you that a time is coming, and not too far off when a baby can be "born" without having benefit of shelter in a womb at all. It's a matter of shelter and food.
My big beef with the pro-life community is the limited support for adoption that is currently available. Thankfully that is changing. More and more pro-life organizations are lending emotional and monetary support to the adoption process. Thankfully the US tax code now provides more incentive to adopt.
There are plenty of wackos out there who will commit crimes in the name of the movement. Let's not assume that all of them work for one side of the debate.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more, please email me.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I absolutely love the way he says "I don't get as much reading time as I want, and I miss it very much" and then he rattles off ELEVEN of the books he's read and enjoyed in the past few months (i.e. not including the ones he disliked or forgot).
I'm shamed by how much I read Slashdot instead of good books.This is one of the funniest trolls I've read in a while. If I had mod points, I'd give you +1 Insightful.
cf this:
Um, how did you get your name?
"Contrary to popular belief, actually, I was born with it. My cousin Adam was actually once in a shop, a comic shop, for other people, in Newcastle, and he was just sort of browsing around there and he heard this guy up at the front of the shop explaining to the guy behind the counter very loudly, in the way that people are inclined to do in comic shops, they go up in front of the counter and talk very loudly about things they don't know anything about [laughter], and this guy's explaining very loudly that "Neil Gaiman" is very very obviously a pen name designed to show sexual preferences. Adam listened to this for a while, and walked up and showed him his bus pass. And only once -- a couple of years ago, I was given a GLAD -- the Gay and Lesbian Antidefamation League -- Award for writing nice lesbians, and, um, went down to collect it, there's these famous people, and so forth, and it's the only time I've ever had a room full of people break into spontaneous applause at the correct pronunciation of my name, which I think they all thought was a political statement. I didn't have the heart to say anything..."
Yeah, him too. :)
- R
... if Finland is at all like North America, they'd receive a huge backlash, and they'd never air another adult-oriented animated program again ever, in any time slot, just to make sure some kids weren't accidentally watching or something.
Freedom: "I won't!"
http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal_archives/2002_04 _01_archive.asp
Quote:
Seeing I'm the copyright holder and have every right to grumble, no-one's ever done anything more than take the book or story down, occasionally -- very occasionally -- muttering something hopeless and grumbly like "information wants to be free!" as they do, but mostly being very pleased someone let them know that it was up there.
("No, that's pizza," I want to tell them. "Pizza wants to be free. Concentrate on liberating pizza from evil pizzerias. Information, on the other hand, really hates being free, and is never happier than when manacled to a wall, like Kirk and Spock in some piece of late 70s bondage-oriented slash fiction.")
I hate to break it to you, her being your mom and all, but she's being kind of a jerk. I guess the take-home message is: she doesn't want to learn, so don't waste your time. You probably wouldn't like old Elvis movies either, or whatever the hell it is old people like to watch ;-)
Freedom: "I won't!"
unless you're a dedicated hermit and mystery of the James Tiptree Jr persuasion, you will have to deal with practically as many people as a solo novelist
For those who missed the reference...
James Tiptree Jr was the pen name of US science fiction author Alice Sheldon. She wrote under a male name (taken from a marmalade jar) so that her stories would have a better chance of selling, and (with the aid of Harry Harrison, I think) devised a 'manly' life story for Tiptree. Drawing on her own career as a secret agent (really!), and borrowing liberally from Ian Fleming, the Tiptree on the dust jackets of her books was a James Bond figure -- the sort of man of action whose stories a Heinlein fan would buy.
Her SF covered addiction, loss, sex, and betrayal, in a way that was somewhat disturbing, and makes me think she may have been mentally ill at the end. Much of her writing has that obsessive Philip K Dick quality. In the end she killed her (invalid) husband and committed suicide.
If you want to check out her stuff, the best place to start is the short story collection 10,000 Light Years From Home. The novels are a bit patchy. Also have a look at the Tiptree Award for feminist writing in SF (the 2002 winner was Light, which Gaiman also mentioned) and a decent potted bio here.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
I think Neil realized that this is such a touchy subject that anything he had to say wrt the soul and feelings of the unborn would be used as propoganda and decided that he did not want to be used that way. Perfectly reasonable decision.
(BTW Jimbo I happen to agree with you completely that abortion is monstrous. This is the wrong forum to discuss it though.)
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
They weren't ready for an alternate universe ecological warrior tale about the terrible effects of unrestrained technology on peoples souls and the environment.
:P
Throw in stuff about spirits, greed, redemption, possibly romance, and some particulalry gory special effects - shooting off peoples arms and heads with arrows - and it becomes something that Americans cannot accept as a 'cartoon'.
Especially when its marketed as a wonderful childrens romp
Yay me!
Wow, you kinda sounded like some conservatives talking about Islam there, for a second.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Hmm. So you're surprised that people react negatively when you are rude to them?
You're not very good with people, are you?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
you have to trust your own gut decision. he didn't think it was a good idea because it made him afraid. there's probably a lot of nuance to that we can't see from here. trusting your readers is one thing. trusting people who aren't your readers is another. shit, look what happened to nietzsche. he *hated* anti-semites, and look what happens as soon as he's out of the picture. some indelicate editing by his sister, and he's the propagandist philosopher for the nazis.
it would have been nice to have him address it as it pertains to his recent miracleman dispute - too bad
goddam cmndr taco is a buttplug extrordinaire.
he's even got assbreath to prove it.
Taco,
you are a dripping swollen shitty anal leech
Mr. Gaiman,
Thanks for your blog and taking the time to anser questions here.
Regards,
Doug Daulton
You disgust me.
This is ridiculous.
Neil says he won't write a piece of fiction about the imaginary thought processes of an imaginary foetus because it might be used inappropriately by the lowlife scum members of the anti-abortion groups (note: I am NOT saying ALL members of such groups are lowlife scum).
You twist this into a claim that somehow Neil has elected not to expose some fundamental truth to the world, because of political correctness. No-one knows what thoughts, if any, go through the mind of a foetus. There is no way that such a story could have any truth to it (that we could recognise as such, at least). All it could do is convey one person's emotional opinion on the subject. Perhaps Neil has thoughts that coincide slightly with those of the anti-abortion crowd, and he has taken this into consideration before providing them with inappropriate ammunition.
where did i say i'd like to be the one making that choice? clearly Mr. Gaiman has concerns over the potential uses of such a story. i'm saying given the inability for him to do any reasonable controlled distribution, it's a reasonable decision to hold it back.
this practice of throwing "politically correct!" around like some sort of slur to anyone who does things the accuser doesn't like it just stupid. it's an attempt to avoid talking about the real issues and instead hiding behind a blanket statement of "don't tell me what to do" or the like. it very much reminds me of a song:
and you'll go "wah wah wah, you're so P.C."
and i will say "hey, wait...
my my my how have the tables turned
that being a f***1ng prick is a desireable trait.
"If you own the Washington Readskins you're a cock" - Atom and his Package
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
>Have you ever noticed that all newspapers use
>"pro choice" and "anti-abortion" instead of other
>monikers?
Strikes me as more accurate monikers, really.
"pro abortion" - that's not quite right. The Pro-Choice movement isn't about keeping score and rooting for more abortions to happen. It's about ensuring women still get choices after pregnancy, rather than be treated as though from this point out they are merely a vessel for a fetus.
And "pro life" isn't exactly right, even if you exclude from consideration the terrorists and snipers. The Anti-Abortion movement is just that: they are against abortions. They want abortion to stop, be illegal, be prohibited. In my opinion, based on my experience talking to them, they aren't pro "life" - they are only pro the life of the fetus. They do not consider the quality of the mother's life. Some of them, hopefully a rare exception, do not consider the mother's life at all - better she die in childbirth than abort. It's certainly the rule that they say, The mother's had her chance, she made her choice when she had sex, shame on her for having unprotected sex (which she might not have done: condoms can break, pills can fail). Now she she must sublimate her entire future to the fetus as a consequence for not being abstinent, for not keeping sex in the box We Christians dictate to the world.
But then these people also believe in Hell: eternal torment as consequence for some pecadillo, like calling God by the "wrong name", in this eyeblink of a life. They seem fond of punishments that don't fit the so-called crime, whether the "crime" is being non-Christian, or enjoying sexual intimacy.
Yeah. Anti-abortion philosophy does seem to come down to an attitude that women should be punished for having sex. Sad, really.
Speaking from personal experience, I'm afriad.
*rolls eyes*
Yes, and the tactless, inconsiderate oafs who don't give a damn how others feel (and certainly wouldn't walk a mile in anyone else's shoes) always say "Well I'm SORRY i'm not POLICTICALLY CORRECT enough for you" when told that they're being jerks.
You don't seem to realize that EVERY pregnancy is a life-risking undertaking. You say "except to save the life of the mother" - in that case, an abortion is always a viable choice, because the mother can always die. You see, in addition to the viability issue, one of the reasons Roe v. Wade drew the line at the third trimester is before that time, abortion is less of a risk to a woman's life than pregnancy is.
It is not yours to decide that every woman who ever got pregnant is obliged to risk her life.
Not that you'll be reading this.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.