Not everyone is a fanboy who reads every minutia of information that pops up across the Net. This was news to me.

Del Coro are you being Scarastic if so hahahahahahahaha. Del I'm being "Scarastic" just to be clear

So... money wins over art? I'm a fan of Gaiman myself, and he definitely deserves every penny he makes, but this is a little petulant/avaricious, no? Maybe calling a "20th anniversary story" art is a little high. I suppose DC could have approached Gaiman and wanted him to tell a story he didn't really have, so he said "Fine, but I'll need more money."

I agree with TheBaffler. I think writers and artists should get compensated for their work, but doesn't Neil have enough money already?
Also, the comic book industry is suffering just like everyone else in this economic downturn. How about cutting them some slack?

I agree with TheBaffler. I think writers and artists should get compensated for their work, but doesn't Neil have enough money already?
Also, the comic book industry is suffering just like everyone else in this economic downturn. How about cutting them some slack?

I strongly disagree with TheBaffler. Comic publishers have a long long history of screwing over artists. Mr. Gaimin has contributed greatly to the world of art and doesn't owe anymore if he doesn't want to. I wouldn't be surprised if it's probably just as much the respect he wants from the publisher, as it is the money.
(now i copy text, refresh the Captcha, hit submit, cross fingers...)

Sandman, greatest comic series ever.

Why the hell should Gaiman let himself get SCREWED in a business deal, just because the fans want more Sandman? I would LOVE more Sandman from Gaiman but thats just the point - its Gaiman that makes it special. If they want him they should pay. Period.

Gaiman is overrated. Here is how you write anything Gaiman has ever written. First go buy a mythology encyclopedia, open to the index pick a entry at random, insert character whole cloth into story, now lather rinse and repeat. Everytime I read on of his books that my wife brought home, I swear I could actually see him at his computer with that encyclopedia open saying, "Ok now Sandman needs to go to Japan, where's the Japan section, oh here it is I need a female character oh here's one, (furiouse typing) Oh now I need a norse god let's see where's the Norse section...ect...ect.." And as far as his "novels" go American Gods was so forgettable and crappy, the second section was an obviouse short story that he inserted into that longer work for page count. Overrated, loved by fairy loving women, and effemenate goth boys.

Paying 1987 wages for 2009 work shows no respect for the artist/writer, or for the amount of money they have brought in for the company. Gaiman was right to turn them down. If he accepted that low wage, other publishes would expect him to do the same. Everyone should get paid what they are worth, no matter that their profession.

I love The Sandman but I'm glad there isn't going to be a new story. There doesn't need to be.

mythman: It's called doing research. Everyone can do it. Not everyone can put it together to make a decent story. If you feel that Gaiman is overrated, that's fine, but it's your opinion. And if you feel he is so overrated, why do you keep reading the books your wife brings home? Why not find something you actually like to read? By the way: I'm neither a fairy loving woman, nor an effemenate goth boy, but I am a huge fan of Gaiman.

The facts behind this were reported in full -- and in more detail -- in our book PRINCE OF STORIES: THE MANY WORLDS OF NEIL GAIMAN (St. Martin's Press), which was in bookstores October 2008. Chris Golden, Hank Wagner and I covered this via Hank's and my lengthy interview with Neil that concludes the book. Sad to see this is still reported as "news" so long after the fact...

The facts behind this were reported in full -- and in more detail -- in our book PRINCE OF STORIES: THE MANY WORLDS OF NEIL GAIMAN (St. Martin's Press), which was in bookstores October 2008. Chris Golden, Hank Wagner and I covered this via Hank's and my lengthy interview with Neil that concludes the book. Sad to see this is still reported as "news" so long after the fact...

To be honest, I wouldn't want to be compensated for work at 20-year-old rates, either. I would guarantee that DC would make one helluva lot more money on an anniversary issue of Sandman than they made on a single issue 20 years ago. IMO, DC was being very stupid. Gaiman is a huge name now, with movies, novels, etc to his credit. If Paul Levitz weren't in charge at DC, do you think he would write a Legion story for 1980's rates?

@"mythman"
"Gaiman is overrated. Here is how you write anything Gaiman has ever written. "

Thank god you figure out how Gaiman writes stories. Since writing stories are so easy, why don't you go ahead and write some and see if you sell as well as Gaiman? Or you just talk out of your ass in front of keyboard watching porn all day long instead loser?

Comic Industry 'deals' around 1987 were not better then for the music industry, etc. The authors, artists, writers were basically paid set, scale wages (next to minimum wage) and and the company basically got it all... character rights, copyright/trademarks, etc. If a new, 'hot' character was created.. the creator got shafted. Read the 'history' of Howard the Duck (NOT the movie... godz!)... and the legal battles over ownership.

Anyway, I suspect it wasn't 'just' getting paid crap, set wages -- it was the whole 'do it and screw u while we make cash on this' attitude of DC.

DC is STILL making money off of Gaiman from the Sandman graphic novels which have stayed in print for YEARS now. ... and DC owns the characters as well. ( how is that a fair deal?? ) Neil should get EVERY penny he's asking for.

Sorry mythman, but Neil Gaiman is probably the finest fantasy writer since Roger Zelazny and one of the greatest writers of the last several generations. It's not just research, but the dialogue, the sub-plots, the plot complications, and the denoument that make him so good.

The Sandman series was eloquently written with multiple entwined story threads. American Gods and its sequel equaled Lord of Light. And the Dream Hunters was simply heaven.

If doing what Gaiman has done is so easy, please send me the titles you have published and I will certainly buy them and read them (and publish reviews).

Neil Gaiman is a half-assed writer. Although he has adapted a serviceable prose style, his writing is ultimately childish and well… goofy. Over and over, Gaiman’s characters are victims, paralyzed emotionally, unable to conclude anything, detached observers who speak ambiguously as if ambiguity was depth which it is not. Gaiman uses the same stock characters that every adolescent embrasses; all powerful gods who will smite you, mean villains who chase you down, woman as props or witches. There is no complexity in Gaiman’s characters, and therefore his plots are derivative and plod along, eventually dissolving in a wave of ennui. I suspect Neil Gaiman’s immaturity as a writer is due to being a Scientologist since birth. Scientologists have inappropriate social reactions, like being home schooled. Gaiman has always been in a carefully controlled environment and had decisions made for him and he has never taken responsibility for his actions, just like all scientologists. Neil Gaiman's writing will never be great because he is stunted and has the emotional maturity of a 15 year old. No wonder he appeals to fucked up teen goths.

In defense of mythman... although I don't thank Mythman put it very well, I do get his point. Gaiman relies on mythology without ever building complex characters and his plots are near drivel. I had no idea Gaiman was a Scientologist but this explains an awful lot. All the Scientologists seem to be socially retarded, the way Cruise was so hopeless when confronted by ordinary newsmen asking softball questions. Gaiman has developed a good prose style, but his stores are just trite. As a reader I want some wisdom, not just ambiguity and laziness.

Am i the only one who thinks it's funny when people write pseudo-intellectual literary reviews and end up making buffoons of themselves? Stock characters that every adolescent "embrasses"? So any story that involves godlike characters or villains is "immature"? I'll go and tell those christians they've been wasting their time, well i already do but that's not germane to the issue. If you're going to be obtuse don't try and mask it by regurgitating tidbits of cliched literary critic jargon. If the sandman series feels "ambiguous" then perhaps you should read things that are more straightforward, like halo novels.

Where do they dig up these turnips?