The Magicians, Writers who do bad things, and COVID

[shadowkat]

1. Working to get A-Hah's song Take on Me, out of my head. Thank you very much The Magicians for putting it there. I've had it in my head for 24 hours now. So listening to The Lion Sleeps Tonight. I've kind of fallen for Eliot in The Magicians.

One feels the need to provide a picture:



The character can sing...and dance, and has a dry wit. Also he has a really sweet romance with another lead male character, Quentin. He's bisexual but leans heavily towards men, and he reminds me of a former Minister that I liked (no not in that way).

Also a vocal image. Eliot Singing to Margo in the Desert - or rather Eliot as representative of Margo's Id

He also has a hot friendship with one of the best female characters, Margo.

What's lovely about this series? Is it subverts so many tropes. Including the books, upon which it is adapted from. Quentin Coldwater is the protagonist/hero in the books, and the chosen one? But that's not what happens in the series.

The allegedly heterosexual white male hero's best and most meaningful romance is with Eliot. There's this episode in S3 that is just amazing, and blew me away. And it resonates throughout the rest of the series.

Now, that's its almost over - I'm obsessed and may end up re-watching it.

It has these little 1980s song and dance numbers - to songs like Under Pressure, One Day More, Take on Me, There's a Storm Coming, Hold On, and lots of cool pop culture references.

It's adapted and show-run by Sera Gamble (Supernatural) and John McNamara, with Lev Grossman consulting.

One of the more innovative and better dark fantasy series I've seen to date. Really fit the bill.

2. This has popped up on my correspondence feed again. And I feel the inclination to comment on it - at length and generally speaking. When it stops popping up, I'll probably stop feeling the need to comment on it.

Regarding loving the art, and ignoring the artist who has done something that you personally find abhorrent and unforgiveable beyond repair. This is an individual thing - no judgement here, I've my artists/actors/folks that I can't tolerate either because of something they've done. But I always have mixed feelings about it. Why? I was trained in criminal defense. And taught to think critically and rationally, and logically about things - not emotionally. To reason it out.

And taught to question things. I don't trust most people. And I know people are really good liars particularly to themselves. Actually the best liars believe their lies absolutely. Which makes it difficult to get to the truth. And often impossible.

I listened to my brother once make up a story about my parents sending him to a hellish Christian camp, that specialized in sports. My brother was into sports, and a bit lost, and desperately wanted to go. He eventually figured out it was a cult, got out, and felt embarrassed for wanting to go at all. So he convinced himself that my parents forced him to go. I know for a fact they didn't - I was there, when my father ranted about how much he disliked these sorts of camps.

And in criminal law, I've watched people lie. Quite charmingly actually. It's amazing how well people can lie. I had a boss who was an excellent liar to the point that I found it difficult to tell when she was lying.

I bring this up - because when it comes to ahem, certain crimes, it is very hard to know who is lying. I wasn't sure about the accusations against Whedon for a very long time, until they started piling up, and then I read interviews with Whedon defending himself - talk about incriminating oneself? He did it, in spades. In case you ever questioned the veracity of the complaints against him? Just read his New York Interview. He'd have been better off remaining quiet.

But, I could still enjoy Whedon's works. I could compartmentalize that. Plus it helps that they are largely collaborative in nature. Marsters rarely saw Whedon on set, and was more or less off on his own. And at one point, it really was other writers and directors handling the heavy lifting. Television is a collaborative art form.

In regards to Gaiman? I'd say you're fine for the most part. Good Omens was written by Terry Prachett and Neil Gaiman, and the series is a collaborative effort. Sandman? He's involved but peripherally? In short there's a lot of people involved in it. Also I'm not sure I buy the stuff against Gaiman - it's all via youtube (not reliable at all - youtube and tumblr are the least reliable sources on the planet, both tend to be twenty-something fan sites, and fans are not reliable sources of information, I don't even trust them for reviews, both give me a headache), and this Australian/British conservative tabloid, with a reporter who is anti-trans? I'm skeptical. Of course, I don't trust the NY Times at the moment, it keeps posting opinion pieces from idiots who like Trump. The information age? Yeah, right. More like the misinformation age. I really don't trust reporters and journalists these days - a bunch of lying opportunists.

If it had been in the Guardian, or the Washington Post, or maybe BBC News or NPR, or one of those, sure. But some obscure Australian tabloid that is paid for by rich assholes. No. So I'm ignoring this for the most part and refusing to read what the allegations are, or listening to the links. Give me a reliable non-fan related, non-tabloid or non-questionable source? And I'll think about it.

That said? It's hard to care one way or the other? It's not like I'm a huge Neil Gaiman fan. (Most of his work is really hard for me to get into. And I've never been in love with it. I liked Good Omens, I was never fannish about it. And I liked aspects of the Sandman, but I wouldn't say I was fannish about it either. Neverwhere and Stardust - I thought were overrated.) I've seen him in person exactly once from a distance, so far away in fact, that I could vaguely tell it was him. I find him charming online. But I also know that is mostly marketing and an act. From the little I've read about his personal life (prior to all of this) - I was somewhat envious. He basically puttered around a cottage in the country, raised his son, had a long distance relationship with his wife, who toured, and wrote whatever he wanted across various mediums in the dark fantasy genre. He was well-respected. And could travel anywhere that he wanted. I was envious. I was also slightly envious of Whedon. These guys were creating - they had their dream jobs. Then...both got outed as asshole pervs. Their lives fell apart, and they've been cancelled online. Also their lives, not so lovely. Both are divorced, and the divorces weren't pretty. They are estranged from their family and children, and struggling to continue to market their work.

Fame is an awful thing. Fame and fortune can turn on you - on a dime. And suddenly, I'm relieved I don't have that life. It is almost as if the universe is trying to tell me to be happy in my little life. Art isn't necessarily worth the price of admission.

Actors I've struggled with more - mainly because I have to look at them? Writer's aren't that big of a problem, although I admittedly have given up on JK Rowling and Orson Scott Card, who have made it publicly known that they will use proceeds from their works to hurt people who are trans or LGBTA, and I just can't. I'm done. We all have lines we can't cross, after all.

Mel Gibson - I was able to watch until he...well, best not to say. Let's just say I was done.

I handwave Will Smith, Whoopie Goldberg, and Morgan Freeman. But Kevin Spacey, sigh, what a loss - he was a brilliant actor. Also, I'm well aware that...people are more than one thing, and none of these people's actions remotely define them. If we decide they do - well that's on us. I'm trying to be a better person than that. I don't always succeed. That said? I still can't read anything else by Rowling, and I've never been able to read anything by Card.

3. Off to bed I think.

The residual effects of my recent bout with COVID appear to be: an asthmatic dry cough, like I have to clear my throat or lungs, and a brain fog, where I'm staring into space at various points and don't want to think, also have difficulty focusing.

I worry about the brain fog, but alas there's not much I can do about it. But hope it will fade away.

I am wearing a mask again, even if no one else is. I take the trains to and from work daily, in and out of a major transportation hub no less, and I'm the only person wearing a mask. Out of over a thousand people.

No wonder it's spreading. Breaking Bad told me that I was correct to wear one. He was considering going back to wearing one. Particularly in crowds and on mass transit. Others in our organization had come down with it.

It feels odd to wear a mask by oneself. My co-workers were looking at me oddly - and figured out that I had had COVID. Nothing like wearing a mask to advertise it. Babs just carries one around with her.

The Air Train was briefly down today, with signs that they could take the shuttle to JFK. People were confused. Several went up the escalator with their bags. Even though there were three to four Port Authority folks telling them not too. On the way home, it appeared to be fixed. But the lobby was awash in cops, mainly Port Authority and MTA PD, but I think NYPD were in there as well. Since 9/11, I've gotten used to seeing cops everywhere. With their battons, guns in the holsters, radio devices, and cuffs. They are a walking arsenal. Apparently we have a museum out in Long Island City of all the radio talkies, and beepers and walkie talkies used from the turn of the century until now by the police. But I think you need to get an invite or contact them to check it out.

Comments

[muccamukk]

In from my network page, I hope that's okay.

The post-Covid brain fog sounds miserable! I hope it clears up soon.

Regarding the Gaiman thing. I totally get not wanting to know the details, but in the spirit of correcting misinformation when I see it: Tortoise Media is a British media outlet which has done solid reporting in the past (they are Tory-leaning, but so is most media in the UK). They don't normally employ Rachel Johnson (who is a TERF, which obviously sucks, and I certainly wouldn't trust her were literally any of the people in the story transgender), but the women came to her, and she went to Tortoise Media. The other reporter on the story is an award-winning journalist, from a family of award-winning journalists, with serious credentials and a solid reputation.

They put out the reporting after eight months of investigation, telling the stories of four women in their own words, all backed up with documentation. A fifth woman has come forward via a different source, talking to a non-binary podcaster. One can nitpick some of the reporting, which I have, but it's not gossip columnist stuff. The Guardian has linked to the reporting twice; Rolling Stone, Business Insider, and others have covered it as well. There hasn't been original reporting from the likes of the BBC or the Washington Post, but that kind of investigation takes months or even years, so it's likely coming.

Meanwhile, Gaiman has hired a professional reputation management company, and gone silent.

[shadowkat]

Thanks, but I'm still skeptical. Gaiman has been a heavy proponent of the non-binary rights, trans, and LGBTA.

I think the problem is social media has been doing this a lot. Trump has over 200 sexual violence allegations against him? Convict him? Not yet. And I believe those. I actually met some of them.
The media has been horrible about reporting them, and doesn't push at all. While liberal actors, directors, comedians and writers are outed, cancelled, and the allegations are all about five or six years or more ago? Plus the publications outing Gaiman are all "conservative" and less than reliable. (Business Insider isn't reliable and known for misinformation.) The difficulty is I'm seeing an interesting pattern emerge with the press and journalists - they are going after folks that their "employers" dislike, but ignoring folks that their employers support?

Also, I know how impossible to prove sexual allegations are. It's easy to fabricate these stories. And without corroborating evidence? Hard to prove. We want to believe the allegations, these poor women, and so many - it's not possible they could be lying. But at the end of the day? I honestly don't know.

I'd be less skeptical, if it weren't for well, Trump.

[ETA: The problem with our media - is 90% of it is no longer reliable, and less interested in reporting facts, then getting subscribers and "click bait". I gave up on the NY Times, who kept posting opinions in favor of Trump, and on everything. I don't require this and cancelled my subscription for the first time in 10 years. There's so much information out there - that every publication is fighting for readers. There's various charts out about reliability of the media source and all the ones you sited fall somewhere below the legitimacy line, and tend to be entertainment (Rolling Stone), low level (Business Insider - don't follow its advice - I learned that a while back).

The news sources that I trust at the moment are: Spectrum News NY1 (mainly because it just reports facts and doesn't have a lot of editorializing - and is more local based), National Public Radio, PBS's news outlets, and in the print realm? Maybe the New Yorker, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune, I'm skeptical of the NY Times. British and Australian news media has been unreliable since the 20th Century and gotten progressively worse over time. They kind of invented yellow journalism between them, and are responsible for Fox News and Rupert Murdoch.

I wish I could trust them. But I don't.]

[muccamukk]

Fair enough.

When it comes down to it, I'm as interested in giving the women the benefit of the doubt as I am extending the same grace to some guy.

[shadowkat]

Yeah, well, it's not about that, though? And that perspective lead to quite a few lynch mobs in US history? It's actually the plot of To Kill a Mockingbird, and several novels.

I don't think you should decide to believe someone solely based on their gender. Women and men both lie.

At the end of the day? You don't know if he's guilty or innocent. Anymore than I do.

I did moot rape trials in law school, we played all the roles. I also interned and worked with Domestic Violence Coalition and with Rape cases. There's always more to a story than you think, and relying purely on someone's telling of a story or an eye-witness account - you don't want to go down that slippery slope. Never believe someone solely on their gender, age, ethnicity, religion, etc. Women are as capable of lying as anyone. Lying isn't gender specific.

[muccamukk]

Statistically false allegations are incredibly rare. I'm not saying that women can't lie; I'm saying that it's incredibly unlikely for five women to make false allegations of sexual assault when they have nothing to gain by it, and we should give those five women who spoke up as much benefit of the doubt as we are giving Neil Gaiman.

I don't know if he's guilty or innocent. I think on balance of probability, it's looking very bad for him. This is based on having listened to the stories, and read everything I could find about them.

I don't think we should go out an lynch the man, or do anything about him one way or another. Personally I'm not going to engage with his work anymore, even the Good Omens TV show, which I love, but I fully understand people making other choices.

Of course you can personally believe anything you like, and read anything you like.

I just wanted to correct this misinformation in your post.

(frozen)

[shadowkat]

I looked up Tortoise Media - I stand by my statement above. They read like the New York Post or The Nation, and I don't see those as reliable either.

Your mileage clearly varies, which is okay. But my journal, my rules.