- cross-posted to:
- britishtelly
- cross-posted to:
- britishtelly
cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/22187363
Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman had the longest of mistiest paths to becoming a TV show, three decades after the DC Vertigo comic’s debut. The hesitation was down to the fantasy author resisting several awful movie attempts, and too much could have gone wrong in adapting the infinitely layered fantasy story, but Netflix brought a lugubrious and stunning spectacle to screens (full of Life Amid Death) as the first three graphic novels were initially adapted.
The second season has taken years to come together, which isn’t unheard of for a Netflix fantasy series with heavy VFX. Sadly, this could also conceivably be the final season, given that several Gaiman projects (like Amazon’s Good Omens) have been cut short, cancelled, or apparently indefinitely paused in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations against the author (as initially reported by Tortoise Media). Those accusations do make the show’s bonus “Calliope” story hit differently than when the episode first surfaced, but that’s not a discussion for today. The Sandman‘s second season is still coming, so let’s (awkwardly) sift through what we can expect.
…
How many episodes will we see? The first season brought 10 initial episodes and a bonus hour, but Netflix has not offered a count for the second season. However, Redanian Intelligence has passed on the rumor that we could see 12 new episodes of The Sandman when the show returns. This seems too good to be true, so we will await official word on that note, but the second season will leap headlong into Season Of Mists, the fourth graphic novel (considered the favorite volume of many The Sandman fans).
Going back to Stranger in a Strange Land I’ve loved enough books by great and terrible authors, I’ve firmly landed in the camp of love the art not the artist.
They’ve done a fantastic job with this series so far. I want to see it completed. The ending is too important to leave it unfinished.
I’ve landed firmly in the other camp that I cannot separate the artist, once it’s shown they are useless human garbage, from the outward false pretense of their art, made to make themselves appear other that what they truly are, and knowing what I do about the author, for me to celebrate their pretense makes me contemptible, pathetic, and conspiratory in continuing to celebrate their and it’s perceived “brilliance”, squarely in the face of those to whom they’ve harmed. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Human garbage is still human, we must accept the darkness in us to overcome it. The meaning and value of art is not determined by the author’s intention, but rather by the viewer’s interpretation. We can recognize that a great piece of art was created by a flawed person but also recognize the value and richness it has provided to countless others.
In the case of Gaiman, his work got me interested in diving deeper into literature through his portrayal of Shakespeare and his modern interpretation of mythology in American gods.
How can you not separate the art and artist; While saying my contemptible, pathetic, and conspiratorial traits, are just different strokes?
Not sure why you imply Heinlein is terrible as a person, he seems pretty benign, especially comping from a military background.
He was a pretty hard core libertarian and misogynistic. Even for his time. He said himself, he only wrote Stranger as a joke making fun of the hippies. Still one of my top 5 favorites though.
Libertarian , sure, but more old school one before Ayn Rynd and co ruined it? Misogynistic? I thought he had female characters achieving things and mixed gender militaries in his work?
I might be remembering things wrong, I read his stuff decades ago
Maybe I’m just sore after his comments about Stranger.
However, given what we now know about the other two pillars of the Golden Age of Science Fiction, his reputation is the least tarnished. A low bar, perhaps, but still…
What’s wrong with Asimov?
Sexual harassment.
Fuck sake
Looks like the real article was a link inside the article the person posted.
From the article, it sounds like it was pinching/groping very publicly. Not good by any means (and probably contributed to the genre being male oriented/dominated for so long), but also sounds like nothing more than that (although given his own willingness to state some of those things, it’s definitely possible he did worse).
:(
What’s wrong with libertarians? I think they get a bad rap and some of their ideas might be unworkable but their hearts are in the right place.
The few times I’ve dug into it with someone, it always comes down to, “I don’t want to pay so much to help people I don’t know or like?”
There definitely are some of those and I’ve met them. But when I’ve dug further with them I found there were plenty of government programs they benefited from that they would be unwilling to give up. In other words, “government benefits for me but not for thee!”These people I would call selfish hypocrites rather than libertarians.
No, when I think of a libertarian I think of someone like Milton Friedman. He believed everyone would be better off with less government intervention in people’s lives. In the few cases where he thought government was still necessary (such as law enforcement, national defence, and the disbursement of a negative income tax benefit) he believed it should be kept.
It’s kind of convenient, isn’t it? They want less government, but to keep the bits they do want. Well, so does everyone else, and you know how we settled it? Voting.
Adding a note to say I’m not specifically talking about American politics here, but the ideas in general.
Yeah. Friedman makes the case that he wants government programs eliminated wherever and whenever possible and that the only ones which should remain are those that can’t be handled by private enterprise.