The Sandman and Jo Rowling

[KatVonlabonk]

I knew that the merest mention of "Jo Rowlings" name would cause an Internet meltdown.

Some of Neil Gaiman's behaviour on twitter has left a lot to be desired, but he does create some magical things (see also Philip Pullman).

I was actually surprised he name checked her, even in a throw away comment like that. That's the daft place we find ourselves in. I wonder........

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/the-sandman-harry-potter-jk-rowling-calliope-b2149785.html

Ah Gaiman didn't write the specific episode, but I believe he's closely connected to the project, it being an adaptation of his work.

Finding out what an absolute cockwomble Gaiman is was the biggest disappointment of this whole furore. Still enjoying Sandman though, and noting with amusement that the title character looks a bit like Gaiman with a very heavy beautify filter 😁

Has Rowling ever expressed any interest whatsoever in directing films? It seems very odd to say they won’t let her.

i guess they’re just using her name to highlight the comparative awesomeness of Gaiman’s fictional writer character. My diagnosis: professional jealousy leaking out.

Can't read the article- what are the references?

Don’t really get how the reference in the Sandman is a dig at her? What am I missing?

It doesn’t mean anything.

It’s just a reference to the fact that it’s hard for even big name writers to be allowed to direct, if that’s what they want.

They’re just using her as a massive name everyone would recognise to illustrate the point. It’s not suggesting she wants to.

I imagine not being allowed to direct might have bothered Gaiman at some point in his life, or the person who wrote this ep, but equally it might just be a general point about the industry.

No, I didn’t see it as a dig at her at all. The pretentious ( fictional) author is trying to muscle in on directing the film of his book and someone points out that even JKR can’t do that. I would say it was the opposite of a dig if anything. The current debate is so absolutely toxic, particularly in the publishing world, that people obsess over the least thing.

Can't read link. Independent. Watching Sandman atm. What episode is JKR reference and why is it contentious?

That's how I saw it too. Not as a dig at all.

I was pleased to see it. Definitely wasn’t a dig. Rather it was an acknowledgement that Joanne Rowling is the author considered most likely to get her own way (with regard to anything) in that industry.

The agent comment was, I think, a statement that the person saying he would like to be her agent (with the implication he’d get her her own way if she wanted to direct). It certainly wasn’t a suggestion that Joanne Rowling needs an agent who would keep her under better control. (And isn’t that a typical TRA conclusion, that even a powerful woman needs to be controlled better).

Ep 11- Dream of a Thousand Cats/Calliope, specifically in the Calliope segment.

They’re just using her as a massive name everyone would recognise to illustrate the point. It’s not suggesting she wants to.

It is suggesting she wants to, with "Then she needs a better agent."

"The scene, set in August 2020, reveals that “every major studio wants a piece” of Madoc, with the author set to work with ‘whoever lets him write and direct” the film adaptation of his novel.

One character then says: “They won’t even let Jo Rowling write and direct,” to which the other replies: “Jo Rowling needs a new agent. Tell her to call me.”"

I saw the episode. It wasn't a dig at JKR at all. Just a recognisable name to use for the line.

I didn't see it as a dig, she's world famous so a good author to use for a slightly amusing couple of lines.

But then I'm not a nutty TRA on twitter....
"OOOOOOH MY GOD THE DIG AT JK ROWLING, I’M HOWLING,” one of the many tweets read, with another reading: “Not Neil Gaiman shading Jo Rowling on Sandman.”
And apparently the mere mention of her without a trigger warning, has meant, for some, a hasty retreat to a safe place.

I've been enjoying the Sandman. I like the randomness of it. I was expecting it to be all one story. The episode set in the diner was really excellent.

I can’t understand how anyone can interpret it as a dig.

it’s using her as the most recognisable living author.

mainly because she is, and really most people either love her books or aren’t interested in what she has to say because Harry Potter has no interest for them.

Sorry, beastlyslumber, I cross posted with you there!

I’m really looking forward to how they portray Wanda…

In the comics, by todays standards, it’s a bit Terfy. Wanda specifically isn’t allowed to walk the moon’s road because she’s actually a man. It’s a huge plot point. Would be utter career suicide to leave it in there now, I should think.

I don't think it's a dig, but I do think it's strange as I'm pretty sure that if she actually wanted to be a director she'd be able to make that happen. It reads like a power fantasy from a writer who wanted to write a (self-insert?) author character even more powerful than JKR.

(I haven't seen the episode, maybe "power fantasy" is the point.)

Sorry, that was a bit off point but something I’ve been wondering about for a while.

I hope that NG put the line about JKR in to show a bit of solidarity with her. That would be nice.

There’s no way Wanda won’t get to go, there’s no way they’ll have Thessaly comment on her true sex. The end of A Game of You will probably be different if hey adapt it as well, I reckon.

It's not a dig.

If anything, it's a dig (or not really a dig, more like taking the piss out of) entitled writers who think being a writer qualifies them to direct.

Directing is a very specific skillset, you need to have a high degree of technical and practical knowledge plus experience of working with actors and having the soft skills and diplomacy to be able to get actors - who can be very highly strung and demanding - to calm down and do what you want them to do. Writers don't tend to have any of those because writing is such a different skillset.

A lot of writers think only they can direct their writing when they don't have the first clue about what directing actually involves. When writers do direct their own work (not talking about filmmakers who write scripts for themselves to direct, but novelists) there's usually a very experienced DOP or first AC doing most of the real work without getting credit.

I actually have worked with Neil briefly and talked with him a lot about his early experiences adapting his stuff for TV, and I know he's directed a couple of tiny shorts so has some understanding of the technical skills required. I'd bet this is supposed to be satirising novelists who think they can direct.

"If anything, it's a dig (or not really a dig, more like taking the piss out of) entitled writers who think being a writer qualifies them to direct."

I like that!

Been wondering the same ...

I'd like to think so, but he is a bit of a big wokey prick so it's hard to believe.