Neil Gaiman gets in internet kerfuffle with Minnesota politician

Status
Not open for further replies.
The more I read on this story, the weirder it gets. I will attempt to give the abridged version for those who aren't interested in reading a very long account of the events.

The story begins, mostly, with Neil agreeing to go and speak at a smallish library for a fairly large speaking fee (as he doesn't want to be a speaker and it takes away from writing time). He asks how they can afford to pay his crazy fee and they tell him it is money that the state has put aside to encourage writers to speak, etc. Neil puts it better than I ever could hope to.

So Neil does the speaking engagement, takes the fee and gives it to two charities (since, as he says, he's a writer, not a public speaker), and generally has a good time. He figures everything went smoothly. Fast forward to yesterday (is this even possible?)...

Apparently Minnesota Republican Matt Dean decided he wanted to make a name for himself by attacking Neil personally, calling him a thief for accepting his fee and even going so far as to call him a "pencil-necked little weasel".

Neil, of course, took umbrage to this and didn't care much for being used as a political football. Thus began the twitter comments by Neil, and a link to the guy's website. Unfortunately, he Penny Arcaded his site by doing so.

Does Mr. Gaiman gloat over his success? Of course not. He apologizes for unintentionally crashing the guys website.

Dean, who then got an earful from his mother (I'm not kidding)[url], apologized for the pencil-necked weasel comment, but not for saying Neil stole the money.

The nice thing about all this is it illuminates what happens when a very nice person who happens to have a fairly large fan base (1.5 million followers on Twitter alone) encounters a bully politician. Every once in a while it is nice to see the politician lose the exchange.
[/url]
 
Neil Gaiman is a scholar and a gentlemen, and is one of the few public speakers I'd never accuse of being a shill. He donated the money to charity, instead of keeping it. I think his actions speak for themselves.
 

Necronic

Staff member
I think he's unlucky in this case.

Frankly spending 45k of public funds on an author to speak at a public library in a suburban neighborhood is a waste of money. There were better places to put it than that, it's undeniable. But that's the fault of the legislators who wrote laws allowing it to be used that way and of the people who spent the money, not Gaiman's.

It's like getting mad at a porsche your wife bought because it cost too much, instead of getting mad at your wife.
 
It really smacks of the right's tendency to be anti-intellectual.

We paid money? To a writer? Who is local? Just to Have a cultural event in a suburb? We don't want our children reading...
 
It really smacks of the right's tendency to be anti-intellectual.

We paid money? To a writer? Who is local? Just to Have a cultural event in a suburb? We don't want our children reading...
Wait now I'm confused. Gaiman's an American?

Tangent: I really should get around to reading one of his books, I've liked most of the not literature works of his that I've read/watched, and am definitely looking forward to his episode of Doctor Who (that's still happening this season right?).
 
Wait now I'm confused. Gaiman's an American?

Tangent: I really should get around to reading one of his books, I've liked most of the not literature works of his that I've read/watched, and am definitely looking forward to his episode of Doctor Who (that's still happening this season right?).
He has dual citizenship. He's from England, but he lives here. I think he left England because of his ex-wife.

If you want to read one of his books, I would suggest American Gods or Anansi Boys. If you want something more young adult, Coraline is good.
 
Yes, those are all great books. If you are a fan of Terry Pratchett, you can read Good Omens, which they co-wrote.
 
Also, The Graveyard Book, which is for young'uns, but he's re-releasing a version for adults, which I'll have to read again.

One of my favorite parts of all this (which I've been following for some reason) is when he points out that basically, the republican has an issue with unbridled capitalism.
 
I think he's unlucky in this case.

Frankly spending 45k of public funds on an author to speak at a public library in a suburban neighborhood is a waste of money. There were better places to put it than that, it's undeniable. But that's the fault of the legislators who wrote laws allowing it to be used that way and of the people who spent the money, not Gaiman's.

It's like getting mad at a porsche your wife bought because it cost too much, instead of getting mad at your wife.
Yes. I was horrified that he took that amount for his speaking fee, no matter what he did with it but I was way more horrified that Stillwater offered it to him.
 
Apparently, the whole thing is arranged through an agency, and he's known for dropping the fee dramatically or altogether, particularly for libraries, if they go to the trouble of asking.
 
Yes. I was horrified that he took that amount for his speaking fee, no matter what he did with it but I was way more horrified that Stillwater offered it to him.
The thing is, he doesn't want to do speaking engagements. He sets the price at that amount to discourage people from asking him to speak. He also was told by the library that if he didn't accept it the funds would be taken away (that's kinda how grants work) and couldn't be used for anything else (he even says he doesn't understand why the money can't be put in a fund to be rollover worthy, from year to year). Many times Neil will do speaking engagements and wave or lower the fee for libraries quite substantially.

He didn't take $45,000, either. His fee was $33,600 after taxes. While certainly not a small amount, I feel it is important to indicate the error in the reporting from most news organizations.

Ultimately, the fail is with the politicians who set the rules. Blaming Neil or the library for doing everything within the rules set by the fund and then complaining about it reeks of bad policy (not to mention calling him a thief in the process).
 
Also, The Graveyard Book, which is for young'uns, but he's re-releasing a version for adults, which I'll have to read again.

One of my favorite parts of all this (which I've been following for some reason) is when he points out that basically, the republican has an issue with unbridled capitalism.
I actually enjoyed The Graveyard Book, despite it being for young readers. Each story gets more complex, darker, and less whimsical as the book goes on... which is a perfect allegory for growing up. For instance, it's easy to believe their might by an entire world of ghouls under a tombstone when your 7-8, but it's nigh impossible when your 14. It is, however, MUCH easier to believe in the secret society that murdered your birth family for god knows what reason.

Still, I'm intrigued with what he might do with a re-write of the book for an adult audience.
 
Ultimately, the fail is with the politicians who set the rules. Blaming Neil or the library for doing everything within the rules set by the fund and then complaining about it reeks of bad policy (not to mention calling him a thief in the process).
100% agree.
 
Bwahaha. I love Gaiman and I like the way he handled this. He didn't want the money, was told he basically had to take it or the library would lose it anyway, and then donated to charity. Then he gets accused of being in the wrong? I'm glad Rep. Dean apologized. He was being an ass.
 
Bwahaha. I love Gaiman and I like the way he handled this. He didn't want the money, was told he basically had to take it or the library would lose it anyway, and then donated to charity. Then he gets accused of being in the wrong? I'm glad Rep. Dean apologized. He was being an ass.
Well, he apologized for for the name calling, not for saying Neil was a thief. Oh, and that was because his mom was mad at him (which I find hilarious and bizarre at the same time... why does his mom have to be there when his wife is gone?!?).
 
His ex is American (Wisconsinite,) and they wanted to raise their kids near her parents.
Ahh... so that's the story. I wasn't entirely sure, but I knew he moved because of her for some reason. I suspect he's staying because he doesn't want to uproot his daughter then.

And yes, Gaiman was pretty torn up when he and his ex split. His comments on love and romance from then until he met his current wife were more than a little depressing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top