Maybe I've been too indoctrinated by the growth mindset, but I think the only reason to resign is if Cheatle doesn't think they're the right person to fix the mistakes that happened.
No matter how much you believe in yourself, if no one else believes in you any more then you are not the right person to fix the mistakes made on your watch. Cheatle had no support. She had no choice.
Yeah it appears that Gaiman has long been abusive. I've absolutely loved some of his work so I'm pissed off and disappointed. Sadly I'm no longer surprised when a famous dude, even one who seems otherwise insightful and compassionate, turns out to be a piece of shit.
I hope those he mistreated get some solace and healing from this coming to light.
CW for sexual abuse in spoiler
There's a particular Sandman issue that also made it into the TV adaptation that features writers who imprison and rape a woman for decades because it gives them the inspiration for their craft they fear they have lost. I'd past considered it an honest attempt to write about horrific sexual abuse with compassion for the victim and contempt for the perpetrators, but now it seems it's exactly the kind of thing Gaiman gets off on and has ignored consensual kink boundaries while abusing his position to pursue. Yuck.
I dunno, I think that story makes it pretty clear who he thinks is the bad guy. As is so often the case, I am reminded that the line between good and evil goes through us, not between us.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I dunno, I think that story makes it pretty clear who he thinks is the bad guy. As is so often the case, I am reminded that the line between good and evil goes through us, not between us.
That's... kinda the same as what I wrote, isn't it? It can be both true that a story is clear about what acts are villainous while providing titillation from those same villainous acts for the creator and audience. In fact, that's a pretty ancient artistic device.
But it makes a difference to me whether I read Calliope as a morality tale in which an abuser meets a horrible fate or as an exploration of the sexual fantasies of a real life author who is both aware of the horrors of abuse but excited enough by them to go beyond the limits of safe & consensual kink play. As a story it's both at once, and probably other things besides (all art is multitudes), but the sexual fantasy aspect is going to be much more present in my mind in any way I engage with that work from now on. And while I'm fine with non-con sexual fantasies in art, I'm less fine with combining them with morality tales in ways that both disguise the fantasy aspect and implicitly help foster their creators' public images as people sympathetic to victims and hence safe to be around.
I dunno, I think that story makes it pretty clear who he thinks is the bad guy. As is so often the case, I am reminded that the line between good and evil goes through us, not between us.
That's... kinda the same as what I wrote, isn't it? It can be both true that a story is clear about what acts are villainous while providing titillation from those same villainous acts for the creator and audience. In fact, that's a pretty ancient artistic device.
But it makes a difference to me whether I read Calliope as a morality tale in which an abuser meets a horrible fate or as an exploration of the sexual fantasies of a real life author who is both aware of the horrors of abuse but excited enough by them to go beyond the limits of safe & consensual kink play. As a story it's both at once, and probably other things besides (all art is multitudes), but the sexual fantasy aspect is going to be much more present in my mind in any way I engage with that work from now on. And while I'm fine with non-con sexual fantasies in art, I'm less fine with combining them with morality tales in ways that both disguise the fantasy aspect and implicitly help foster their creators' public images as people sympathetic to victims and hence safe to be around.
Okay, like, I can see that? I guess I just don't think the fantasy aspect is likely there at any intentional level. Maybe it is, but I don't have anything that particulalrly makes me think that yet.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I'm reminded of a story by the comedian Jonah Ray where he met Lars Ulrich (of Metallica suing Napster fame), and he asked for illegal copies of a song he liked. People — especially people in power — are always willing to excuse their own behavior, even if it's contradictory to their own beliefs.
This can apply to Gaiman as well as the pastor in Kamilah's post...
Disney wants a wrongful death lawsuit thrown out because the plaintiff had Disney+
. . . is arguably even worse. No, they aren't trying to get the suit dismissed ("thrown out") and are not claiming the case lacks merit cuz the plaintiff had Disney +.
They actually get the key details correct deep within the article. What the defendants actually did was file a motion to compel arbitration. The basis of the motion was a mandatory arbitration agreement that was part of the trial Disney + subscription for which the plaintiff signed up in 2019 and to which he allegedly agreed again in 2023 when he bought Disney World park tickets online.
We don't have the actual motion to compel arbitration or the plaintiff's response, but anyone who's been involved in these messes knows that courts generally bend over backward to enforce arbitration agreements. The Federal Arbitration Act and its state law clones essentially require that. If the statement in the article that the plaintiff filed suit exclusively as the representative of his deceased wife's estate, that may be enough to defeat the motion. It'd depend in large part on how the arbitration agreement is worded.
If the court grants the motion, the lawsuit isn't "thrown out." The case would be stayed - "pause the legal proceedings in the meantime," as the article puts it - until the arbitration is complete. At that point the case goes back in court. The party who won the arbitration will ask the judge to confirm the arbitration award and enter judgment, and the losing party will have a chance to present objections to the award.
The article parrots the hoary old chestnut that "[a]rbitration is generally considered a more efficient and cost-effective method of resolving disputes than litigation[.]" As anyone who's ever been through arbitration of a complex PI/wrongful death claim or commercial dispute knows, that is utterly bereft of truth.
It's also worth noting what a crap shoot arbitration is. An incompetent arbitrator can get all the facts wrong, all the law wrong, and apply the wrong law to the wrong facts in a singularly idiotic way, yet still have his ruling confirmed in court. Arbitration statutes quite intentionally allow for no meaningful judicial review.
So yeah, Mick is correct. The title is clickbaity AF, and doesn't even need to be.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Re: News Miscellany
He's not my favorite author, but I enjoy a lot of what he's produced.
I don’t see it as corporate arrogance so much as clutching at straws, and that headline is clickbaity-wrong.
...........
Linear Mode
