World News

I'm really disappointed in Amanda Palmer. This does not paint a pretty picture of her.

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.

Wow. Several of the instances described are quite clearly rape; with some horrible scarring and degrading stuff through in; exploiting power-imbalance to make it possible. What I struggle to fully understand though are the text messages mentioned in the story. Gaiman argues that there was consent, and there are things said in those text messages that might support him. But the other circumstances, and the pattern of behaviour across multiple victims surely is enough to overrule that.

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 didn’t heed the warning and regretted reading the whole thing - there are very detailed and gruesome first hand accounts of his alleged assaults on multiple women. Excellent reporting throughout, which only makes it more sickening.

Also, as a former Amanda Palmer fan, fuck her, too. It’s clear she enabled this and committed, at minimum, wage theft crimes. Both of them deserve to do jail time with even the most generous best-case-scenarios. I’m sure she was also abused by him, but that is not an excuse to abuse other women. Some feminist.

Yup, big fan of his work, really pissed off to find out he's such an asshole. But I'm glad we live in an era where creeps can get their due. Fuck this guy.

We have to remember that Bill Cosby was praised for decades because he genuinely made the world a better place while being an utter sack of shit.

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.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I have not read anything from Gaiman, but I can see that lots of People really liked his books and the Person he showed the world.

So I just want to say, I'm really sorry for all of you. Even though Gaiman can rot in Hell, I feel sad for people who just got their favorite Books and stories poisoned.

Welp, that's yet another maker of incredible art that turned out to be an absolute monster. Fucking hell.

If what he says about The Ocean at the End of the Lane about the kid representing him is true, then he's just another case of keeping a vicious cycle of abuse going. He should've sought psychological help. Hell, he should seek psychological help now, the media would love to write about his RL redemption.

Serving for his rape crimes would also be nice.

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

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.

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.

I have enjoyed Gaiman’s writing, also the Sandman show was excellent, but I am glad that in this era that I’m not the type of person to be a fan of anybody. I guess it is natural to ascribe virtue and look up to people who create thing you resonate with, but there’s no reason to think someone who wrote a book is worth praising or emulating other than in the book you liked.