4 ms·
Since no one mentioned, I was a bit confused. I had heard of the Sandman, had some awareness that it was an oldish popular and well-regarded comic leading to a
by Maursault 4y ago
Since no one mentioned, I was a bit confused. I had heard of the Sandman, had some awareness that it was an oldish popular and well-regarded comic leading to a popular graphic novel. I must have seen imagery of Sandman somewhere. But then I watched the series I was utterly confused by the goth imagery and a lot of other elements.
A little research revealed I was certainly confused. The Sandman I had in mind was the original Sandman, Wesley Dodds, a novel creation of Gardner Fox (writer) and Bert Christman (artist) for DC comics, and who's popularity languished in the 1940's, but must have come back into style for (I can find no reference to but have seen) the 1980's graphic novel, large format, grey cover featuring Dodds as the Sandman.
The dip in popularity in the 1940's led other creators to steal the name and ideas and use for other unrelated comic characters. But then those characters have been forgotten and Dodds returns, only for Gaiman (also for DC) to capitalize on the popularity of the original Sandman (Dodds) just a few years later by creating the god Sandman (Morpheus), and retconning Wesley Dodds as being given his powers by Morpheus.
Science fiction has always been a pioneering genre for fairly representing minorities. But Gaiman turned everything goth, maybe a little steampunk, and gratuitously gay. I don't think there is anything wrong with giving a little of this and a little of that for the various groups of viewers and consumers, especially minorities, but, with a ham fist, Gaiman overindulges, belabors and vastly over-represents alternative lifestyles, who happen to all be white but for a single exception, a black woman. No Finns, no Danes, no Pols, no Hindus, no Japanese, no Filipinos... mostly just gay white male characters, and a couple few black men and women.
I don't like to criticize a work in this way, because it is not all that matters, but I am nearly certain that Gaiman intended to shock, and I expect wants discussion on it. My feelings are that gay and lesbian characters were avant garde in the late 1960s, but now they're used kind of like too much ketchup. Everything is drowning in ketchup.
- braingenious 4y ago> But Gaiman turned everything goth, maybe a little steampunk Have you read the comic? It’s very, very goth and steampunk. As for “there are only gay blank women” point… what? There are like three black women in the show for more than an episode or two that I can think of. The main character is a god played by a white guy, the main antagonist is a non-human nightmare played by a white guy, the secondary antagonist (ruby guy) is a white guy, his mom is a notedly straight white woman, Constantine is a write woman, Lucifer is a white woman, and while Stephen Fry may be gay in real life, his character doesn’t really have a sexuality. Aside from Rose Walker, the majority of people that move the story forward are white folks.
- Maursault 4y ago
- braingenious 4y ago
- Maursault 4y ago[flagged]
- braingenious 4y ago
- routerl 4y ago
- yazboo 4y agoNot enough Danes? He’s not doing demography, he’s telling a story. Should Nick Cave be playing more ragtime? Where are the Italian neorealist films of Guillermo del Toro? Complaining about Neil Gaiman over representing gay goths is like complaining about Kenny Rogers over representing gamblers.
- Maursault 4y agoYou've missed the point and constructed a straw man. The point I made was any minority representation on television is good. Art should reflect life. Unless it is a cultural work, which The Sandman is not, vastly over-representing a minority, and one that is already recognized as over-represented in the industry, is obsessive and indulgent. If it was essential to the story, that is one thing, but almost none of it had anything to do with the story or its advancement. It is gauche wallpaper. It is gratuitous. The homosexuality of the characters doesn't matter. It could be remade entirely with only straight characters, and it would still be sexually gratuitous and indulgent. Dreams are inherently sexual, but this fact is entirely lost on Gaiman.
- justinclift 4y ago> Dreams are inherently sexual ... To me, that's a really weird statement. Perhaps it's more a reflection of how you dream?
- goto11 4y agoDo you also get uncomfortable when there are more cops in shows that there are on average in society?