Gaiman in the New Yorker

This week’s New Yorker has an article by Dana Goodyear on Neil Gaiman. There’s also an online chat with him and Goodyear and readers here. I like a lot of Gaiman’s writing and am impressed with his imagination. It is interesting to note that such a prolific and influential talent has managed to not become a household name. This might be beginning to change. As a result I myself a bit conflicted, as I often am in this situation when someone like this, whose work I’ve followed for years (or that I’ve simply privately noted is really excellent, early on), is maybe about to break into mainstream recognition. I’m happy for them, want to share them with my friends and the world at large while at the same time being a bit worried about it having negative feedback on their work and/or, (yes, I admit this, and I’m not proud of it) possibly how I feel about their work once it becomes more mainstream. A few random examples for me are Michael Pollan, Mary McDonnell, Mad Men, Stephen Fry, and Hendrick’s Gin.

Yeah, I’m weird. Anyway, while I muddle over my neuroses, step away and read the article and the online chat.



Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Gaiman in the New Yorker

  1. Mooncat says:

    Gaiman is a Scientologist.

    Here is a list posted of Scientology’s cornerstone Newsletter (circa November 2009)

    $142 million plus given to Super Power Scam – Ex Scientologist Message Board

    CORNERSTONE CLUB MEMBERS [1315] [$35,000.00]

    You’ll find

    Mary & Neil Gaiman

    And asthe ex Scientologist states…

    Also, this list does not include donations made by people
    who have since left the Church and been declared SP’s
    or “ethics bait”. The Church deletes those people’s names
    from the lists.

    This probably reflects the $30,000.00 Neil Gaiman gave to the cult, and an additional $5000.00 to bring him up to Cornerstone Club member. Neil Gaiman is a Scientologist in good standing.

  2. Clifford says:


    Yeah, and the first thing that springs to mind is: So What?!

    What is the relevance of that? (It is mentioned in the article I pointed to, by the way.) I like some of his writing, and judge it on its own merits and not on the basis of his being a member of some religion or whatever. I’ve simply no interest in the rest of his life. With respect, I do think that in this country we need to get away from demonizing people and the work they do simply because some aspect of their life might disagree with ours. We’re in a whole lot of sociopolitical trouble right now as a result of this mind set.



  3. Mooncat says:

    That’s funny, the first thing that springs to my mind is “hypocrite.”

    Neil Gaiman seems to believe he can say he’s not a Scientologist and at the same time fund a dangerous cult that ruins people’s lives. Gaiman then goes on to defend the same cult that brutally abused and killed Lisa McPherson, and has driven countless men and women to suicide.

    The article you referred to is a profile of Neil Gaiman introducing aspects of his life.

    My comment had to do with Gaiman’s hypocrisy, not his writing. I like William Burroughs writing, but he did play William Tell at a party and shot his wife through the head, which I find to be irresponsible in the extreme.

    Seeing an aspect of someone you like and letting it blind you to the despicable things they do is a dangerous habit.

  4. Clifford says:

    Thanks for your thoughts. I understand that you feel strongly about the matter.