Warning, this story is really horrific and will be heartbreaking for any fans of his, but Neil Gaiman is a sadistic [not in the BDSM sense] sexual predator with a predilection for very young women.
Paywall bypass: https://archive.is/dfXCj
That’s some sad reading. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion, from the point where the train crashes back to where the company forces an engineer to cut corners on the design.
Legal classification: probably rape, definitely sexual assault.
An enabling factor: wealth (he was in a position to influence other’s well-being economically, offer hush money and sign non-disclosure agreements).
“‘I’m a very wealthy man,’” she remembers him saying, “‘and I’m used to getting what I want.’”
An excuse: BDSM. The author of the article is correct to note:
BDSM is a culture with a set of long-standing norms, the most important of which is that all parties must eagerly and clearly consent
As for the search for the origin of his behaviour… I think they’re on the right track. Like a former child soldier who carries a war inside them, Gaiman has probably been carrying a lot inside.
In 1965, when Neil was 5 years old, his parents, David and Sheila, left their jobs as a business executive and a pharmacist and bought a house in East Grinstead, a mile away from what was at that time the worldwide headquarters for the Church of Scientology. Its founder, the former science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, lived down the road from them from 1965 until 1967, when he fled the country and began directing the church from international waters, pursued by the CIA, FBI, and a handful of foreign governments and maritime agencies. David and Sheila were among England’s earliest adherents to Scientology.
/…/
Palmer began asking Gaiman to tell her more about his childhood in Scientology. But he seemed unable to string more than a few sentences together. When she encouraged him to continue, he would curl up on the bed into a fetal position and cry. He refused to see a therapist.
Reading this, it seems obvious that Gaiman developed his behaviour due to trauma during childhood and youth - and has been exhibiting behaviour patterns that became normalized for him during time in the cult.
As for people whom he assaulted, it seems that they too carry a pattern - they were vulnerable at the time. Some had already experienced violence on themselves. Which, it seems - often hadn’t been resolved, but had become normalized. They were not the kind of people whose “no” is followed by physical self-defense or the full weight of legal options - and Gaiman understood enough to recognize: with them, he could get away with doing things.
She didn’t consider reaching out to her own family. Her parents had divorced when she was 3, and Pavlovich had grown up splitting time between their households. Violence, Pavlovich tells me, “was normalized in the household.”
Well, what can I say about it…
…it is customary that accusations be investigated by cops (who hopefully cannot be bought) and presented as charges to a court of law. The defendant should have a chance to deny or excuse their actions, but if deemed guilty, is required to give up time or resources either as compensation or punishment. A court could make lesser or greater punishment dependent on taking action to fix one’s behaviour traits - seeking assistance and not offending again. Those harmed should be offered assistance by their societies.
Sounds like someone who suffered from serious abuse, never went to actual therapy in a meaningful way but instead got into a position of power where he could feel good by being the abuser instead of the abused. Which does not excuse any of it. On the contrary, his writing shows very clearly that he understands that what he did was wrong, but he did it regardless.
Well, guess I’ll never be getting around to finishing ocean at the end of the lane now, just sickening. And I like his narration so much too, and now it’s just all ruined.
Disgusting
Great book no reason not to enjoy it just because he’s a pos
For me, nah. I’d have trouble separating the artist in this instance, it’s just so fresh. Maybe in a few decades. Regardless, there’s more great media than I could consume in a lifetime, so no loss
I’m just going to assume all authors are creeps from outset from now on.
No one should ever be put on a pedestal. We all have our demons. Though many of them are semi innocent or only hurt ourselves. It still sad to hear another celebrity abused their celebrity.
I do not disagree with you, but I still think it’s heartbreaking when it turns out that a man who is lauded for his feminism turns out to be a horrific rapist, sadist and predator.
100% it wasn’t my intention to imply otherwise. Just to point out that celebrities are still just people and people have pretty dark sides oftentimes. So many people get lulled into traps thinking that someone famous or well known is safe. They’re just like any of the rest of us.
I don’t know about you but none of my demons involve sexual assault.
But that doesn’t take away the fact that someone’s demons could be of this kind. It’s a built-in risk in every human.
This article from 2017 is worth a read for anyone trying to figure out whether/how to separate the art from the artist.
What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men? By Claire Dederer, Paris Review, November 20, 2017 https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/20/art-monstrous-men/
I never read this and I really appreciate the share.
Some parts that spoke to me:
This, I think, is what happens to so many of us when we consider the work of the monster geniuses—we tell ourselves we’re having ethical thoughts when really what we’re having is moral feelings.
Yeah. Guilty.
“The heart wants what it wants.” (Steve Allen when discussing Soon-Yi)
It was one of those phrases that never leaves your head once you’ve heard it: we all immediately memorized it whether we wanted to our not. Its monstrous disregard for anything but the self. Its proud irrationality. Woody goes on: “There’s no logic to those things. You meet someone and you fall in love and that’s that.”
I moved on her like a bitch.
I found this fascinating. While I was confused by Allen’s statement and why women found it so disgusting, the Trump parallel made it click.
A great work of art brings us a feeling. And yet when I say Manhattan makes me feel urpy, a man says, No, not that feeling. You’re having the wrong feeling. He speaks with authority: Manhattan is a work of genius. But who gets to say?
Going back to Gaiman, his work is held to a very high standard. But to say you dislike it, you will be met with confusion or even anger. And this is where this piece really spoke to me.
She mentioned a short story she’d just written and published. “Oh, you mean the most recent occasion for your abandoning me and the kids?” asked the very smart, very charming husband. The wife had been a monster, monster enough to finish the work. The husband had not.
A tangent in the essay about women writers. I found it fascinating that when a fuckface like Elon Musk abandoning his more than dozen kids can still rise the ranks. but God forbid a woman does the same.
There really is no answer to this that the author provides.
The tangent I shared is her last thought: does great art only come from monsters? I think a lot about other creative works, painters, comedians film makers… Who does some wild shit but not nearly to the level of Gaiman’s accusations.
Also, like all summaries, read it yourself and find your own takeaways. It’s the nuance, not the summary, that has value.
The tangent I shared is her last thought: does great art only come from monsters? I think a lot about other creative works, painters, comedians film makers… Who does some wild shit but not nearly to the level of Gaiman’s accusations.
Nah. It’s well known that power corrupts and being a great artist is a form of power, so that skews things perhaps, but I really don’t think there’s a direct correlation.
I’m not convinced that power corrupts, I believe it reveals.
I have no evidence, but I believe Orson Scott Card has a thing for little boys. I devoured his books when I was a tween, but began to feel uneasy over time. There was a reoccurring theme of young boys being put in graphic situations that just, I don’t know, but I’ve never been able to shake that feeling. Song Master pushed me over the edge. A ‘beautiful young boy’ being castrated so he doesn’t go through puberty was when I stopped reading. My Spidey sense had never stopped going off about him since then.
Aaaand I just googled. I’m not the only one who picked up on that. Ew
Huh. I never noticed, but that actually explains Ender’s Game.
Card is also a giant piece of shit in other ways, which is unfortunate because he is a good writer and his essays on the methodology of writing are excellent.
I find it difficult to reconcile how the writer of Speaker for the Dead is such a bigot. Dude took a hard swerve at some point.
You’re not alone in your confusion there, friend. Reading Speaker for the Dead and finding out about who the author was as a person blows my mind as to how such a bigot could even conceive of the ideas in that book.
Felt that way about luc besson films, Leon is great but has deep pedo vibes, then I find out besson wanted a sex scene between Leon and the kid. Also the fifth element, liloo is essentially a baby, but she’s the one everyone wants.
yeah some of those authors…Like Heinlein’s later novels, what was with the fucking incest?
No clue what he did (have not yet read the article). Haven’t really consumed any of his media. But I did buy a coloring book based on some TV show he did?
Anyway, I bought that book because of how fucking weird it was. I remember thinking at the time the artist behind it seemed like a pretty twisted up dude.
I’m surprised everyone else is surprised, but my perspective is fairly unique - not having experienced/enjoyed any of his art beyond some crazy coloring book without the context to understand the pictures.
Cool. This is about a rapist who enjoys inflicting pain on very young women, but I’m glad you enjoyed the coloring book of someone else’s art based on his stories.
(He’s a writer, not an artist.)
No clue what he did (have not yet read the article). Haven’t really consumed any of his media.
I’m surprised everyone else is surprised
This comment didn’t need to be made.
You really, really should use this as an example for yourself in the future to read the room. That means read the article before making a thoughtless comment on something you obviously didn’t fully grasp.
As if the comment section is some sacred place where only somber reflection can occur.
I genuinely liked the other person’s thoughtful response.
You just seem bitter.
sombre reflection
You apparently still haven’t read the article. Given the reactions to your comment, you may want to go see why the comments are “sombre”, as you put it.
It’s behind a paywall for me. Did you read it?
I did. It’s a culture vulture article, you just need to use an incognito tab.
As unpleasant as the content is, just read the article. And remember that lots of folks have trusted Neil Gaiman for a long time (I’m 50) to tell stories they connect with, especially in the 90s when there were fewer writers to do so.
You may have liked the thoughtful response but you clearly didn’t heed any of it.
Every comment after the first has been a response to someone else’s comment to me. You’re saying I didn’t heed any of that comment because I … responded to other comments?
This is probably one of those perspectives that’s best kept to yourself - or at least not shouted through a megaphone, as is the effect of posting your thoughts online. Please don’t take my tone as harsh or judgemental there, just friendly advice. I know you mean well, but your unique perspective really doesn’t give you the opportunity to grasp just how much Gaiman seemed to genuinely be a good person. He wrote the kind of stories that were powerful and meaningful to marginalized people in particular. He focused on voices and perspectives rarely given the spotlight at the times when he was writing, and he wrote sensitively and thoughtfully about issues facing women, queer people and people of colour despite being, to my knowledge, none of those things himself.
For a lot of people this is genuinely heart breaking. It’s easy to say that you should never put anyone on a pedestal, but Neil was one of his rare people who really seemed like he deserved the acclaim and the trust that he was given. While I absolutely get that you mean no harm by what you’re saying here, it unfortunately comes across as very smug and self-serving in a situation where a lot of people are dealing with a very real and very justified sense of abject betrayal.
I agree. I am hearing what you’re saying, and I feel the loss of finding this out about him. However I’ve had a similar experience of wanting to like Gaiman because he checked all the right boxes, and just feeling put off by something in his writing. And thinking it was a problem with me. It’s easy for the mind to see this news and say, aha, that’s why I didn’t like him. But that’s the benefit of hindsight. Who knows if things like this, the hidden part of people’s personality, are actually detectable in their writing. Anyone feeling like I do is just trying to make sense of it all the same as everybody else. And it’s important to recognize that he was a role model for so many and did good work with his fiction, and not trying to say it was obvious, because it wasn’t.
That’s a good point. Not to be rude but most people are not good writers. Well-meaning attempts to rationalize for oneself can easily deform into reading like “smug” attempts to incorporate hindsight into somehow prophetic vibes. I try to give people a bit of grace because the consciousness to (attempt to) perceive how your text might be read by others is not a trait oft emphasized.
I… don’t understand why you felt the need to share this. You didn’t read the article and aren’t familiar with his work? What is it that you are contributing? What are you saying that others should hear?
Respectfully, it sounds like you are talking to hear yourself talk. Not every memory or thought I’d worth sharing, in fact, most are better left unsaid.
Especially when it’s about coloring books in a thread about systemic and repeated rape.
I found it interesting to think about his darker side hidden in plain view all along. Didn’t seem like the sort of thing that would be offensive.
It’s clearly a bad faith statement to characterize my comment as being about “coloring books” in a thread about “systemic and repeated rape”.
Read the comments. People are upset they don’t get to like one of their favorite authors anymore. That’s what the thread is about.
You evoked rape to strengthen your argument? That’s fucking gross.
You evoked rape to strengthen your argument? That’s fucking gross.
It’s literally what the article is about. Which would’ve been a faster read than you arguing with pointing at your out of place comment. Not informing yourself is a very odd thing to get defensive over.
will be heartbreaking for any fans of his
ISHYGDDT
YAAS.
Your Acronyms Are Shit.
Welp, I guess if I still want to read any of his books, there will probably be a ton of them at the thrift store
Annual vpn subscription: $75
20 TB home server: $450
Enjoying the art while the shitheel artist doesn’t profit: Priceless
When you want an artist to benefit from their creative works, support them directly. For everything else, there’s piracy
You people cry shitheel with so little substantiating evidence.
15 accusations, voicemails of him setting up hush money payments, NDAs, none of this points to lacking merit. 1 woman, yeah it could be false or misleading. 15? Either this is very very likely to be true, or someone with tons of money has convinced a huge swath of real people in his life and not total strangers to publicly destroy him in a conspiracy that would be on the scale of a military operation. How much money would it take for you to knowingly lie about an innocent person you babysat for, who, if this isn’t true, is lovely to know by all professional accounts. What kind of dollar figure would that take? Would you be willing to do this without possessing the money already? Would you demand that in advance? Who would contact you to get you into this conspiracy? Certainly not the benefactor. How would they know you wouldn’t flip on them in a heartbeat? Or simply out them to begin because you’re not a horrible person. 15 times. Successfully. That’s what this requires. People who are known to have worked for him. That’s you’re pool. That’s a very shallow pool. 15 successful payoffs with no deserters or whistleblowers? Accusing someone of a crime isn’t fruitful. You don’t get fame or money out of this, particularly if you have 15 victims on your side sharing the supposed limelight and potential pay day. And why if that’s all they wanted, why would they go further than blackmail? They were already getting paid off. More women came out after the first 5? More? 10 people were like oh, they are getting 1/5th of the spotlight. I want that. I’ll get 1/15th of a spotlight! All I have to do is ruin the life of the rich guy paying me off right now. It makes NO sense.
I actually never met Neil Gaiman, or the people making the accusations, or the person who wrote the article. How about you?
Do you have to meet the meteorologist and check his data and model to believe their weather forecast? Do you have to meet every single politician, scientist, news reporter, just everyone, to believe any news at all?
If I’m going to revile somebody, yes.
You’re THIS ridiculous? OK. Utterly pointless. Next time lead with ‘‘I’m insane and don’t believe anything or anyone unless I’ve personally met them myself’’ save everyone some time.
Is your bar that you have to meet the victim to believe them?
Actually yes. Before I condemn somebody I insist upon meeting the fellow, interviewing the witnesses and seeing the evidence.
Removed by mod
With what expertise and training? Do we all have to wait until big_fat_fluffy has concluded his investigations before we can trust that any criminal activity has occurred?
Removed by mod
Is this you? What is your evidence that everyone does what you claim they do?
What?
You are arguing that you can’t know things other people tell you. So how do you know that everyone fakes it? Did everyone tell you? Every single person? Are they all telling the truth?
It’s just weak evidence. Hearsay.
That’s literally what you’re arguing against believing in this thread.
I guess it’s different when you do it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ETA: man I’m glad i responded as i did, the poster I was replying to is clearly a troll.
I dunno. Pirating it is still giving them attention. Talking about it, bringing them up, giving them relevance. You’re paying for it with mental space. But when you straight up shun them, they wither away.
Like the great Terry Pratchett (rip), I see them like Small Gods: you give them power when you believe they exist.
GNU Terry Pratchett
I don’t think I would introduce someone to NG’s work if they were unfamiliar with him. So in that sense, yes, talking about them gives them relevance. However, i disagree that pirating in some way benefits the artist. Promotion does.
Where I do see an alignment with Sir Terry is from Reaper Man. Until the person’s works come to a finish, they continue to live. The thing is, will they live on loved, like Terry Pratchett, or hated, like Jimmy Saville. I didn’t believe in hell. But I think, particularly for an artist or entertainer, the knowledge that after you die your memory will be hated, well, that’s a living hell of it’s own for a certain type of person. I genuinely hope Harvey Weinstein the rapist is one of those people.
But back to the point. I’m not paying anything in mental energy if I watch Sandman again. If NG is a cunt, it doesn’t change the fact that Morpheus, Lord of the Dreaming, is a BAMF and I’ll watch the shit out of his show
Libraries are free.
There’s also the Libby app
I never liked his books. Just kept trying and trying to get into them, seemed like everyone was reading Sandman and American gods and I was just struggling to finish Neverwhere. Like there was something just…wrong about it. Now I’m thinking I saw something under those words he wrote. Something I didn’t like.
Before I knew any of the horrible stuff about him I still couldn’t get into his books. There is a focus on style and tone at the expense of narrative and plot. That just doesn’t work for me at all.
My partner and I are right there with you. Could never understand why so many people were so enamored. I tried really hard to like his writing, and there were a few that were ok, and some had a neat concept, but that was the best I could dredge up to say about them.
I doubt I was subconsciously seeing something in them, but I do think there’s a stylistic thing that never resonated with me. And now I’m glad. I am grateful to not feel the grief of losing an artist who meant something to me.
This is true for me too. I liked a few of his books, and The Sandman, but I didn’t love anything, not enough to recommend them to others. Except Good Omens, which has always been a favourite (but then, Pratchett IS one of my favourite authors.
Also the film Mirrormask and Coraline were great - his work seems better in film than in writing.
I’ve always been told I’d enjoy Sandman, but… I never really did more than dip my toes in because there was just this “vibe” to it…
The sandman tv show was pretty good
There’s a lot of good books written by awful people. I guess Gaiman might be one of those awful people
Gross. I’m glad this particular milkshake duck wasn’t one I cared about. I still won’t spend any more money on JK Rowling’s stuff ever again.
Milkshake duck?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkshake_Duck
Copy/paste- pixelatedboat @pixelatedboat Twitter logo, a stylized blue bird
The whole internet loves Milkshake Duck, a lovely duck that drinks milkshakes! 5 seconds later We regret to inform you the duck is racist
Today I learned!
God, barf.
I was one of those sad goth kids clinging to the dresden dolls through my turbulent adolescence. After palmer met this nutsack her whole vibe changed. I mourned the loss of an era and ultimately left it all behind. I can’t even begin to fathom what kind of… Mind-shattering nightmare that would be, someone you connected with on that level, being the intersection in your life between “the before times” and one of the most traumatic things that can happen to someone. Fuck.
Having read the whole article, I’m not entirely sure Amanda Palmer comes out smelling of roses either - the way the last few paragraphs are written make me feel she’s covering up for him, and those lyrics read like she’s got it in for her.
When the initial allegations came out I was shocked. A week later I was having breakfast with a good friend of mine and his wife. The wife worked in the comic book industry and we’d talked about Gaiman before. I brought up the allegations and she told me that no one who rubbed elbowed with his circle were shocked. Apparently he already had something of a reputation.
This is what gets me every time. Once this goes public everyone starts saying, ah yeah, no wonder, they had a reputation already, I knew they were sketchy and so on. So where the fuck where you (not you Hasherm0n, the people bringing this up) all this time? This could have ended so much earlier if people would speak up and make it more public.
Speaking out against the rich and powerful often does not work out well for the person who does it. They would be fighting a very rich and very successful man with a legion of extremely devoted fans. Women who have been direct victims of powerful men have spoken out about it and been destroyed for it (see Anita Hill).
Or all the countless women and Harvey Weinstein before the 2017 NY Times piece.
Giving off bad vibes isn’t a crime.
There is a big difference between knowing a persons reputation and knowing their actions. Sometimes a person with a bad rep does small things you pick up on that reinforces the feeling. But you still don’t actually know enough to accuse them.
It’s a big deal accusing a powerful person. They are usually going to deny it and people are going to ask for proof. If all you have is rumors and a feeling it only hurts you.
It took several women coming forward with what happened to them to get the public on their side. Imagine trying to accuse him when all you had was rumors.
Its a big deal accusing a powerful person
Terry Crews is a former NFL player and all around “dude I would not want to mess with”
Even still he was hesitant to tell anyone he was abused, what does that tell you about the system
That’s the logic of a witch hunt. I mean, obviously there are behaviors so suspicious you’d feel almost complicit not to report them. But a lot of the times all we have are the subtle impressions built up by our unconscious brain and it’s not until the answer is shown that it all clicks into place and what once was hidden is now so obvious.
