Talk:Neil Gaiman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 The Gaim 2 Gaiman and Science Fiction 3 Pronunciation 4 Photos 5 Australian law 6 Scientology 7 Movie Reviews? 8 Open Rights Group 9 Recent Edit 10 Better Structure 11 Sandman: TEN volumes 12 Status of Miracleman Lawsuit??? 13 Firebird 14 Inspired by Fritz Leiber? 15 Death Movie 16 Reference to a book 17 Proposed split 18 Jewish 19 "New Fabulist" 20 Gene Wolfe

[edit] The Gaim

I would like a reference on this allegation that Strazinsky has alleged that the masks of the "Gaim" on his Babylon 5 series were NOT based on the Sandman mask? I find it extremely hard to believe that a race of aliens called "THE GAIM" bearing a mask that looks nearly identical to the Sandman mask were not intentionally created as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.59.191 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 27 June 2004 (UTC).

Without digging too deeply into the matter, I would point out that one of Gaiman's goals with the Dream mask was to resemble the gas mask worn by the Golden Age Sandman, and thus the similarities could be due to the common source of WW2 gas masks... Snowspinner 02:46, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, they were created as just another alien species. Maybe the makeup folks had Dream in mind, maybe they had Dodds in mind, or maybe it was just coincidence. Then someone noticed the similarity and nicknamed them; the name stuck and was made official. --Tverbeek 13:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the categories classifying Gaimain as a cartoonist and comics artist, because he doesn't do either of those professionally. Yes, he can draw OK, he reportedly doodles every script he writes, and he's allowed one self-drawn comic (done as a creative challenge) to be published, but he's not known for drawing, any more than I am known as a stage actor. --Tverbeek 13:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gaiman and Science Fiction

I would argue that the first paragraph should not mention science fiction, as (apart from the one Babylon 5 episode) Gaiman has never really been involved in SF. I would like to change this to something like 'fantasy and horror'. I don't want to step on anyone's toes though so let me know if you disagree!--Dreamday 20:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some people consider superheroes to be a form of SF, and he's done some work in spandex (the characters, not him) that isn't really "horror" or "fantasy". He's won a few SF awards, I believe. But you're right; he's not generally known as a "sci fi writer". If I had to peg a genre on him I'd say "fantasy" but note that he routinely works in the adjacent/overlapping genres of SF, supers, horror, and kid lit. Tverbeek 16:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Check out the collection Smoke and Mirrors. Several of those stories could be considered sci-fi, although granted, not exactly -hard- sci-fi. This is far from the only time he's done scifi, mind.

[edit] Pronunciation

Does anyone know how to pronounce his last name? Perhaps it's obvious with a British accent, but it's not at all self-evident to me. grendel|khan 09:17, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

I still tend pronounce the first syllable "Guy", having long done so, nearly rhyming it with "Diamond" but by most accounts it seems to be pronounced like "Gay"; I might have even heard him pronounce it like that in a sound file once, but am not certain of that. ~ Rumour 09:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: When, in 1997, he was accepting an award from GLAAD for his comic Death: The Time of Your Life, he commented that it was the first time he had ever heard people cheering the correct pronunciation of his last name. :-) So yes, it's pronounced "gay-man." (or "gaymun," depending) --Ray Radlein 10:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

It seems many people are skittish about pronouncing his name that way, because of what it sorta sounds like, but A) that doesn't seem to bother him, and B) it's correct. It rhymes with Cayman (as in Cayman Islands) and is roughly homophonous with gamin' (casual pronunciation of the gerund form of the verb to game). Tverbeek 16:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or we could, instead of speculating, consult Mr. Gaiman. :-) http://www.neilgaiman.com/faqs/ongaimanfaq/ Koyaanis Qatsi 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although lovely, that apostrophe between the [m] and the [n] isn't IPA. It should probably be [?], [?] or syllabic [n.]. --Peter Farago 21:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I do recall interviews with him on the MirrorMask dvd and he was relating a story to how he ended up involved with Princess Mononoke. He said something to the effect they went to Quentin Tarantino for translation and he said "No you want Gaiman." He pronounced his own name to something to the effect of Gay-man. I guess he would be the best source for the pronunciation of his own name, but I could be wrong - I'm not sure the exact pronunciation of my own last name nor even where it's from.Abrynkus 20:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

With the recent addition and shuffling and placement of photos, I'm beginning to feel like I'm watching a teenage girl decorating her room. :) Seriously, the article only needs one good portrait of the subject, and maybe another "action" shot of him (e.g. at a convention). Maybe if he were older, "Young Neil" and "Old Neil" photos would be appropriate, but anything more than that is redundant. Tverbeek 17:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles change and improve, and mostly for the better. (Which reminds me -- can someone find some decent photos of me that aren't me blinking in the middle of a booksigning for the Wiki entry on me?) [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koyaanis Qatsi (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC).

So that's what's happened! Unfortunately he didn't point out (not that he should have to) that the photos have to abide by Wikipedia policy, and copyright law. I've removed the apparent and likely copyright violations (and one simply not-very-good image), leaving just one properly-documented photo that's a fairly good likeness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tverbeek (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC).

If e-mailed, I expect Gaiman could point to at least one good photo that's cleared for use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.219.212.72 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Australian law

Neil explains that while his publishers may explain that this is due to recent changes in the publishing industry caused by the Harry Potter series it is in fact because of an Australian law that allows importation of books from other markets.

This sounds kind of strange. Does anybody know the source? It's not like a law forbidding importing books is a common thing, and why Australia? Conf 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted this. Conf 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

I'm wondering whether it is relevant (and appropriate) to add a section on Neil Gaiman's involvement with Scientology. As far as i gather his father is very high up in scientologly circles and, acordingly, Neil had links with the cult. Opinions?- afterswish1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.163.142 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC).

Yes this info needs adding, although I cannot reference it. Apparently his father is indeed high in the ranks of Scientology. Having exchanged correspondence with some Scientologists I learned Neil used to play the piano at some Scientology headquarters or other in the UK.

The first time young Neil was reported in the papers was because he was at first refused entry to a prestigious school (I'm guessing the C of E school mentioned) because they were concerned about his father's Scientology connections. Gaiman has remained silent about Scientology, which some interpret as his rejection of the organisation - but you would have to ask him that (which I have never had the courage to do having met him at signings a couple of times). Scientology is mentioned (my Gaiman loving friend tells me) in one of his works - but only briefly. Perhaps someone can reference??? I am going to add a Scientology section because it is an interesting part of Gaiman's life - but until I can find the references I will keep it as vague as possible. Regards, User —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.61.55 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

People have asked him quietly about it at signings and conventions over the years and every one has reported back that he declined to speak about it. Danguyf 23:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough. See below however, for a reputable source (The Times of London) which does give some factual background. Magic Pickle 13:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As for whether it is appropriate to add Scientol. - Wikipedia is not a fan listing - and I believe it is fine to add publicly known details about a celebrity which may remind them of distressing or unpleasant aspects of their life (not saying Scientology is necessary unpleasant to Neil, of course) they may not want to discuss. I personally find Scientology fascinating, I find Gaiman interesting - and perhaps the organisation has had some pull on Gaiman's imagination? Hubbard was a sci-fi writer himself, don't forget! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.61.55 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

Just because something is publicly known doesn't necessarily make it appropriate to add. It's not a question of whether the subject likes it known or not; I'd be more concerned about including it as merely gossip. I'd be especially leary of adding information about a subject's family members unless they too are public figures, or the information is directly relevant to understanding the subject himself (e.g. if Gaiman frequently wrote about similar organisations). It smacks a little of "guilt" by association (not that I'm saying it's a crime, but they do have an unpopular reputation). Tverbeek 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point about family members. Perhaps if the entry concentrates on the fact that NG was apparently a Scientol. himself until the eighties. As for Scientol. supposedly being unpopular - I don't think that really has any effect on its appropriateness. Besides, if the info is factual and NG was a Scientol. for a long while (or born into the faith) then surely that is worth adding to the biographical section. NG may not want to talk about Scientol. But simply to add that he was once a member (without any further comment) doesn't seem to me to be inappropriate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.61.55 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC).

I've altered the mention of Scientology in this bio as, at best, it's a highly speculative Internet rumor. There's been no confirmation that the David Gaiman active in Scientology is actually Neil Gaiman's father, and neither Neil Gaiman nor the Church of Scientology have publicly spoken about the younger Gaiman's possible involvement in or break with Scientology. Furthermore, while there is no firsthand documentation of Neil Gaiman's involvement in Scientology, he has on numerous occasions spoken about being raised Jewish and has also spoken about his father owning a grocery store. Until such time as there is actual documentation or confirmation to support the claim that Gaiman or his father are or were Scientologists, it should be noted only as speculation. — WikiOn623, 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can link to various online sources that claim Gaiman as a former Scientologist, written by former members of the Church, whether this counts as an acceptable source I don't know (some allege Neil used to run the entire Birmingham branch of Scientology). I was told that his father had trouble getting him into the prestigious C of E school because of his Scientology connections and this was reported in a newspaper - this would be the proof - but finding it is another matter. Magic Pickle 22:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous online sources that allude to proof of the Gaiman/Scientology connection, but as noted above, there is currently no ready firsthand documentation or confirmation of this. Until such time as such sources arise or Gaiman himself comments on the issue, it would be irresponsible to report the Scientology connection as fact, especially as Gaiman has spoken of his religious upbringing and has even made statements about his family that may contradict the Scientology rumors -- for instance, he has made mention in interviews of his father being a grocer, while some rumors have David Gaiman, if he is Neil Gaiman's father, running the above mentioned branch of the Church of Scientology. (The fact that some rumors place Neil himself as the head of the branch while others place David Gaiman as such only serve to illustrate the problematic nature of relying on such rumors.) — WikiOn623, 20:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me first state I agree with you that until there is solid proof or Gaiman speaks about it, the current mention of Scientology as rumour only is a good compromise. However, the points you raise do not actually place any doubt whatsoever on the possibility of Neil or David being Scientologists. Neil was schooled in the Church of England and had Jewish religious instruction - that would be quite permissible in Scientology, as long as the belief in something else doesn't supercede Scientological teaching. The fact his father was a grocer has no effect on him being a Scientologist - most Scientologists have jobs! And I don't think being a grocer excludes one from being a Scientologist! Could it not be possible that both Neil and David were head of the branch at different times? I think we have the best description in the article and I support its current incarnation. But I don't see how the issues you raise, raise any doubts about the truth of the rumour. Thanks. Magic Pickle 13:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to raise any doubts at this point. It's simply that the claim appears to contradict better-known information about him. None of the people raising the rumor (which I hadn't heard before) have been able to link to a source at all-- let alone one that we can bank on. Until that proof exists, I consider it interesting speculation. — Wellspring 19:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd respectfully refer those individuals believing we should include a rumor about Neil Gaiman being a Scientologist to the following Wikipedia policies: WP:LIVING, WP:RS, and WP:V. After a brief perusal of same, it seems (to me at least) to be quite clear that unsourced rumors have absolutely no place in a Wikipedia biographical article. Thus, I posit said policies outright close the issue. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would draw your attention to the fact that only WP:V is policy, the other two are guidelines only. Magic Pickle 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'm trying to find the newspaper article about the school mentioned above. Will let you know when I find it and add it back to the bio if I do. I must say though, as I personally do not find anything very controversial about being a Scientologist - I'm not sure why it is being treated by some as an apparently scandalous piece of info that needs to be backed up. The article mentions his lessons at C of E schools and with a cantor, but doesn't reference them. Can we have then references for these, please?Magic Pickle 17:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The article in question was on the front page of The Times (London) on Tuesday August 13 1968. The full text reads as follows ... Headline is "Head bars son of cult man" and the story continues ... A headmaster has refused the son of a scientologist entry to a preparatory school until, he says, the cult "clears its name".

The boy, Neil Gaiman, aged 7, was to have started at Fonthill School, East Grinstead, Sussex, at the beginning of next term, but the headmaster, Mr Michael Carter, has told the boy's parents that he cannot offer him a place.

Mr David Gaiman, the father, aged 35, former South Coast businessman, has become in recent weeks a prominent spokesman for scientology, which has its headquarters in East Grinstead.

Mr Gaiman said last night: "Mr. Carter rang me and stated that in view of the recent Government statement the boy was no longer wanted at the school.

"He was kind enough to point out that I could, as I had paid a registration fee, insist on sending him.

Mr Carter said: "The father has drawn a great deal of attention to himself and the family belongs to an organization said to be socially harmful. Once their name is cleared I would accept the boy. I am not closing the door in his face."Article ends.

Hope this is of some use. There is little doubt that the Neil Gaiman in question is one and the same. He would be the right age, and living in the right part of England. Felix Farley

Thanks for this. So what do we all say? Now we have a concrete reference can we reintroduce Neil's Scientology background? Magic Pickle 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello?Magic Pickle 15:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, Neil Gaiman is indeed David Gaiman's son, and this is in no way a secret. Neil himself appears to have done pretty much nothing in the CoS since childhood. The canonical reference on famous people in Scientology is Tilman Hausherr's Celebrities In Scientology FAQ, a well-referenced secondary source on the subject. Neil's entry reads:

Name:          Neil Gaiman
Profession:   writer (sandman comics)
Status:       SP in 1983;  was Class VIII auditor, ran the Birmingham
                           org for a while
              but scientologist Mark Pope (MarkPope@aol.com) claims 
              on 4.4.1995: "Neil is a long time Scientologist". 
              (This might be wishful thinking, i.e. not believing 
               that a son of a scieno in good standing is an SP)
Achievement:  
Sources:      informe@best.com (Mike MacLeod):
                    "My auditor is a friend of the elder Gaiman."
              + <name withheld> for most of it
              The Times, 13.8.1968
              David Mayo <mayo@lightlink.com>: 
                 "he was a case supervisor at the G.O. at the time of the 
                  CMO takeover of the G.O. and the transition to RTC/OSA"
              
              Neil Gaiman is the son of David Gaiman, who was a high
              co$ official (GO, from 66-83) and is currently active
              in Russia. (DG's involvement was/is much, much too big
              to cover here; DG was an SP for a time)

              Emerald <emerald@nym.alias.net>:
              I believe Neil Gaiman was active in Co$ later than 1983.
              His name appears in graduate lists in The Auditor Worldwide
              (published by AOSH UK):
                Auditor #202 (copyright 1986)
                - Neil completed the Hubbard Senior Sec Checker Course
                        #222 (1988)
                - completed the 21 Dept Org Board Course
                        #227 (1988)
                - completed the Hubbard Basic Art Course.

That's a bit jargonised, but you get the idea. I'm not sure how relevant it is to this article - I suspect the current mention is quite enough - David Gerard 06:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that web FAQ would count as a reliable source (maybe, I don't know) - it's a moot point though as The Times is definitely a reliable source. Until recently we had no mention of it in the actual article but it has now been added by someone else and seems to be a good job, very factual (with the appropriate ref). How long this info remains in the article before someone decides to delete it, we shall see... Magic Pickle 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Reviews?

Hey I just wanted to ask if anyone has teh book the Sandman Companion? I ask because in it (which contains a series of interviews with Neil) he talks about working as a movie reviewer in his journalistic career. Though this article mentions specifically book reviews, there isn't a mention of movie reviews. It would be easy to stick into the journalism section and easy to reference. I would do it myself, but I'm on vacation this week and don't have the book, so I can't write up a proper citation. Freddie deBoer 17:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He also talks about this in his journal in a couple of places. I remember one of them was in why he quit: he realized he'd seen a lot of films and that most of them didn't make his life any cooler. Koyaanis Qatsi 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He'd mentioned that a documentary about female bodybuilders was one of the few films he'd seen that he thought had been worth the watching--I think that must be Pumping Iron 2 but I can't find the reference to it anywhere. I've tried searching his site by title and by various combinations of female/women bodybuilder/weightlifter, and half a dozen other searches (film-review and variants are all not so useful, due to his own films).... No luck finding it again, I'm afraid. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Rights Group

Gaiman is now the patron of the Open Rights Group. I am unsure where this should go in the article. At the end of what seems to be a chronological biograpghy, or in the same paragraph as his campaigning with the Comic Book Defense Fund? --Caek 01:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edit

I have reverted the previous edit for the following reason: it does not add information, but removes it. English is more specific than British, so unless the references are incorrect (i.e. actually they refer to somthing Scottish for example), should not be changed. Equally the pronounciation should not be removed as it is relevant. If the pronounciation is incorrect, correct it rather than just remove it. — Poobarb 02:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Structure

This article could be better structured. I suggest one section on "Life" and one on "Works". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkman X (talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Sandman: TEN volumes

Just to clarify a minor point: the 75 issues of the orignal Sandman run were entirely collected into ten volumes. What is erroneously called the 11th volume (Endless Nights) was a special of all-new material released some years after the series had finished. There have also been other Sandman-related books that aren't of the original series, ie The Dream Hunters. Satan's Rubber Duck 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Miracleman Lawsuit???

Does anyone have any information re: this issue? Maybe even the case number, since this is public information? Yes, I see that Gaiman won a judgment against Image/ Todd M., but there is no mention as to whether the Miracleman rights have been resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.101.34 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 May 2006.

It's mentioned as Gaiman v. McFarlane, but I'm not sure if that's the original or the appeal (or both?). McFarlane's appeal failed, btw, but the court in its decision didn't address the MiracleMan rights enough to for me to be able to figure out what's going on.

Gaiman talks about the case some [here]; he doubts that McFarlane actually has any legitimate claim to Miracleman. — Koyaanis Qatsi 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firebird

I heard Neil Gaiman wrote a short story called "Firebird." Does anyone know where to find it?

~ Sarabi1701 01:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It will be in his collection Fragile Things, to be released November 2006. Danguyf 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also in Noisy Outlaws, Unfriendly Blobs, and Some Other Things.... Danguyf 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Sarabi1701 22:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspired by Fritz Leiber?

Reading The swords of Lankhmar by Fritz Leiber, I find it likely he has been inspired by this book in what he writes in Neverwhere. Any comments?

roy

[edit] Death Movie

Does anyone remember the miniserie of the Death? with 3 parts? He wasn't doing some movie about that? - sorry by my bad english... ú___ù

[edit] Reference to a book

There is a reference to a book about Gaiman on Joseph McCabe (editor) that might be relevant to this article. Alan Pascoe 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split

I'm proposing that the Bibliography section is split out of this article, and into a new one. I would suggest that the new article is called List of works by Neil Gaiman, but am open to suggestions. This would leave more space in this article (which's currently growing a bit long) to discuss both Neil Gaiman and his most important works. If noone opposes this split, I will carry it out in a weeks' time. Mike Peel 06:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is justified yet. But if you do, I suggest a title like Neil Gaiman bibliography. "List of" doesn't sound right. -- Beardo 14:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm behind it. "Bilbiography" does sound a bit better, though. Stilgar135 03:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to go with List of works by Neil Gaiman, for the following reasons. I'm not so keen on "Bibliography", as that tends to refer just to books whereas Neil's also got audio and video works. The "List of..." part seems to be a standard wikipedian thing, going off Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming_conventions, but if people still oppose it I'd go with Works by Neil Gaiman Mike Peel 10:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Meriam Webster says "Main Entry: bib·li·og·ra·phy

1 - the history, identification, or description of writings or publications

2 a - a list often with descriptive or critical notes of writings relating to a particular subject, period, or author b : a list of works written by an author or printed by a publishing house

3 - the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production"

2 b sounds like us. The naming conventions you mention aren't really applicable. This should be something within Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) but policy hasn't been developed yet. Within articles, the term "bibliography" is widely used - why change when we move to a separate page. (Though see List of published material by Alan Moore which I think is terribly ungainly, and also Category:Bibliographies by author which seems underpopulated). -- Beardo 14:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"2 b" says written and printed, which to me implies a textual document, be it comic book, short story, book, manuscript, etc. I wouldn't say that it includes audio and visual work, however - just the scripts associated with them. I guess that you could say that the listed audio and visual works have had scripts written for them, so they could fall under bibliography, but to me it makes more sense to use the more general "works", which covers pretty much everything. However, if you disagree, then I won't continue arguing the point; I'll just use "Bibliography of Neil Gaiman". Mike Peel 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish

Is it standard to state people's religeous beliefs in the lead section? It seems very odd to me. --SidiLemine 10:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

and me. Maybe it refers to his background rather than his personal beliefs. Still odd, though.

It shouldn't be standard, that's for certain. I changed the lead to a more sensible description.J.R. Hercules 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "New Fabulist"

I'm removing the sentence on Gaiman being "quoted" as a New Fabulist because

a) Who is quoted? It is an unsourced statement b) New Fabulist has no Wikipedia entry, and a quick Google search did not reveal it to be a well-established term c) It is not defined or explained in the article

[edit] Gene Wolfe

I think it should be mentioned somewhere in here, as I learned it from the book Hanging With The Dream King (a book of interviews about Gaiman) that Gaiman is the only person to have ever collaborated with notable author Gene Wolfe. Also it can be mentioned that Gaiman had no idea he was the only one until he was told in an interview for the book several years later - he always assumed that it was common. Abrynkus 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)