I couldn’t do an open marriage.  My feelings would be hurt all the time. 

She doesn’t look like a pleasant person to be around, but I’m judging by her photos and interviews and other writings.

I’m confused. Why isn’t Amanda Palmer allowed to announce her separation if she wants to? I was unaware she required Neil Gaiman’s permission to discuss her own life.

Because Amanda wanted us all to know that not only had she bagged the Goth girl dream boyfriend, but she was fucking around with other people on the side. So she talked about it a lot.

Tone’s obviously hard to interpret in something typed, not spoken, but I didn’t think the Gaiman tweet came off terribly snarky. I’m mostly sad for Ash, this whole pandemic thing is confusing enough for a 4 year old without added family drama and separation from a parent on top of it.  

How the fuck is a couple splitting up - especially wth a four year old child caught in the middle - a ‘Great, Job, Internet!’?

YMMV, but Patreon is a good way for artists and podcasters (who work in mediums that are hard to directly monetize) to monetize their work by hiding some of it behind a pay wall.

Dresden Dolls were great, but she’s about the most self absorbed person imaginable

Yes, but they were married for the first part of 2020, which is the equivalent of fifteen years, so really they were married for twenty four years.

He never stopped. I’m not a fan of hers; find her insufferable, actually, but don’t try to Yoko her in this one. It’s lame and inaccurate.

That was only one of several times she’s done stuff like that. She often manages to be holier-than-thou while simultaneously having bad takes like that, and then as you can see her self-regard causes her to give that bloviative description of her suffering.  Hoo boy is right. 

‘Patreon’ sounds kind of insufferable.

it’s okay they’ll be homeschooling them in an egg

I had no idea they had done that on Glee - you just gave me another good reason to have stopped watching after season 1 :-)

I have the same question. I’ve never seen the stage version, but the book (and to a lesser extent, the film) holds a special place in my heart. Roald Dahl already did a pretty bang-up job vilifying masculinity in women through his creation of The Trunchbull....what is the point of taking it a step further to make it…

Yeah, I feel like even back in 2010, casting directors could have found women who could play Trunchbull in the stage version.  Was it seen as comedic?  Trunchbull’s songs don’t even seem like they were written at some weird zone beyond the vocal range of a woman.  I’m a little perplexed too as to why they’d need to…

More ethically and morally reprehensible roles for women!

Also Pam Ferris is still alive, just cast her again.

This sounds like a well thought out casting decision that won’t have any social or cultural repercussions.

What is the point in having a guy play the Trunchbull? I get that the stage production started the “tradition” (way back in the olden times of 2010) but why is it a tradition, anyway? Pam Ferris was iconic in the movie’s version of this role.