I just wanted to confirm that it was Franzen who gave that Wallace line to the world, and also felt compelled to put it into the mouth of a Wallace-like musician who sleeps with wife of the Franzen-like protagonist of Freedom. There was, perhaps, a lot going on in his relationship with Wallace.
I've enjoyed what I've read of Gaiman's well enough but was always put off by his social media presence. I recall seeing him post an email he'd received from a fan without much disposable income pleading for access to his Master Class courses, to enlist his followers to crowdfund their tuition, and the act of drawing on his fans' generosity to make sure another fan could only access his advice after being charged for it was something I found really distasteful. It didn't make me think he would turn out to be a sexual predator but always soured his cloying public persona for me.
I also wonder if it's worth trying to understand the impetus of making art itself not as a precursor to this kind of predation -- I made art as a means to and end of becoming a predator -- but as a consequence of the desire for predation itself. That is, how many of this type of artists do what they do precisely *because* art can be manipulative? I remember having a conversation with Amanda Palmer once, where she was saying she was mad about the guy in the front row of her concert trying to sing along to the songs, because she felt it was sort of disrespectful -- "I'm trying to give you this experience, and you're not accepting it," is (roughly) what I remember her saying.
And I don't mean that all artists or narcissists, and I don't even think I mean that some art is pure because it comes from good motivations and some art is necessarily secretly degraded because it comes from evil ones -- I don't think there's any real reason to believe that great art can't come from the absolute worst possible places -- but that there's something about the way that art can affect another person that's appealing to the kind of person that wants to control and dominate other people.
"titled 'Master,' because he wanted at least one of his victims to call him 'master.'”
3 of them: Scarlett (nanny), K (fan), Caroline Wallner (tenant/caretaker)
A fourth, Claire (fan), reported something similar, namely Gaiman saying "I am a very wealthy man and I'm used to getting what I want."
Only Julia Hobsbawm doesn't report some sort of attempt at a master/slave dynamic. In her case NG was young and not yet a big deal in the world, so he settled for physical force and threw her down on her sofa. She resisted by stiffening her body and he took no for an answer.
As a side note, Hobsbawm's the only one of the 5 victims to have someone powerful in her corner. Her father was Eric Hobsbawm, one of the most famous historians in the world and presumably a heavyweight on the London literary/publishing scene. This may be why Gaiman backed off.
You were doing so well until you went off the rails and dragged JK Rowling into it. Tweeting isn’t the same as sticking your finger up a girl’s ass within an hour of meeting her.
Also pro-tip: watch your tone, it’s not smart to condescend to a woman writer about misogyny. If you struggle with understanding tone, please understand this as a dismissal: I am not looking to engage in a conversation. Reply and I’ll block you.
I just wanted to confirm that it was Franzen who gave that Wallace line to the world, and also felt compelled to put it into the mouth of a Wallace-like musician who sleeps with wife of the Franzen-like protagonist of Freedom. There was, perhaps, a lot going on in his relationship with Wallace.
I've enjoyed what I've read of Gaiman's well enough but was always put off by his social media presence. I recall seeing him post an email he'd received from a fan without much disposable income pleading for access to his Master Class courses, to enlist his followers to crowdfund their tuition, and the act of drawing on his fans' generosity to make sure another fan could only access his advice after being charged for it was something I found really distasteful. It didn't make me think he would turn out to be a sexual predator but always soured his cloying public persona for me.
oh BOY I need to finally read Freedom.
I also wonder if it's worth trying to understand the impetus of making art itself not as a precursor to this kind of predation -- I made art as a means to and end of becoming a predator -- but as a consequence of the desire for predation itself. That is, how many of this type of artists do what they do precisely *because* art can be manipulative? I remember having a conversation with Amanda Palmer once, where she was saying she was mad about the guy in the front row of her concert trying to sing along to the songs, because she felt it was sort of disrespectful -- "I'm trying to give you this experience, and you're not accepting it," is (roughly) what I remember her saying.
And I don't mean that all artists or narcissists, and I don't even think I mean that some art is pure because it comes from good motivations and some art is necessarily secretly degraded because it comes from evil ones -- I don't think there's any real reason to believe that great art can't come from the absolute worst possible places -- but that there's something about the way that art can affect another person that's appealing to the kind of person that wants to control and dominate other people.
yeah I can definitely see that. Puts Gaiman's marriage to Palmer and his insistence on "the power of stories" in a new light...
2 cents, for what it's worth
"titled 'Master,' because he wanted at least one of his victims to call him 'master.'”
3 of them: Scarlett (nanny), K (fan), Caroline Wallner (tenant/caretaker)
A fourth, Claire (fan), reported something similar, namely Gaiman saying "I am a very wealthy man and I'm used to getting what I want."
Only Julia Hobsbawm doesn't report some sort of attempt at a master/slave dynamic. In her case NG was young and not yet a big deal in the world, so he settled for physical force and threw her down on her sofa. She resisted by stiffening her body and he took no for an answer.
As a side note, Hobsbawm's the only one of the 5 victims to have someone powerful in her corner. Her father was Eric Hobsbawm, one of the most famous historians in the world and presumably a heavyweight on the London literary/publishing scene. This may be why Gaiman backed off.
You’re pathetic, go ahead and block me
You were doing so well until you went off the rails and dragged JK Rowling into it. Tweeting isn’t the same as sticking your finger up a girl’s ass within an hour of meeting her.
Rowling hasn’t just made a couple tweets, she’s donated a huge sum of money to at least one anti-trans group: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/02/jk-rowling-donates-big-money-to-anti-trans-group/ and she’s lobbied the Labour party directly in favor of her transphobic agenda: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/24/labour-gender-transition-recognition-process-trans
Also pro-tip: watch your tone, it’s not smart to condescend to a woman writer about misogyny. If you struggle with understanding tone, please understand this as a dismissal: I am not looking to engage in a conversation. Reply and I’ll block you.