Neil Gaiman Accused of Sexual Abuse
July 6, 2024 8:33 AM Subscribe
Neil Gaiman Accused of Sexual Abuse
The story is developed at much more length in a 4-part podcast. The Tortoise would prefer you listen to it via their app, but it seems downloadable on any podcatcher under the name "Slow News" or "The Slow Newscast."
In the previous attempt at a post, there was some concern over the character of The Tortoise and it's reporting. At this point, they seem to be the only venue with access to the two accusers, so other reporting is largely reprinted from the original article.
Examples:
Rolling Stone
Comic Book Resources
NZ Herald
The story is developed at much more length in a 4-part podcast. The Tortoise would prefer you listen to it via their app, but it seems downloadable on any podcatcher under the name "Slow News" or "The Slow Newscast."
In the previous attempt at a post, there was some concern over the character of The Tortoise and it's reporting. At this point, they seem to be the only venue with access to the two accusers, so other reporting is largely reprinted from the original article.
Examples:
Rolling Stone
Comic Book Resources
NZ Herald
I am going to reserve judgement at this time. The author, Rachel Johnson, has also written pieces such as "When it comes to trans issues, JK Rowling is the heir to George Orwell".
Given that this came out a day before elections, and shortly after Gaiman came out in support of David Tennent...I'll need a little more to go on before forming an opinion.
posted by Rudy_Wiser at 8:43 AM on July 6 [11 favorites]
Given that this came out a day before elections, and shortly after Gaiman came out in support of David Tennent...I'll need a little more to go on before forming an opinion.
posted by Rudy_Wiser at 8:43 AM on July 6 [11 favorites]
r/goodomens seems to have a lot of people skeptical of the accusations, but r/neilgaiman has more folks saying they’ve heard enough rumblings for a long enough time that this wasn’t a surprise
posted by rikschell at 8:46 AM on July 6 [7 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 8:46 AM on July 6 [7 favorites]
Say it ain't so.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:48 AM on July 6 [11 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:48 AM on July 6 [11 favorites]
His admission of what went on with the nanny, considering the age difference, considering he was her employer, is particularly troubling.
posted by mittens at 8:51 AM on July 6 [35 favorites]
posted by mittens at 8:51 AM on July 6 [35 favorites]
(What did David Tennent need support for?)
posted by eviemath at 8:51 AM on July 6 [3 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:51 AM on July 6 [3 favorites]
I'm inclined to hear out claims from powerless people against those with status -- even against Neil, who's written a lot of stuff that I like and have liked for a long time.
Is there any story-behind-the-story why this isn't getting more traction? It can't only be this exclusive access to the accusers at this podcast.
posted by k3ninho at 8:52 AM on July 6 [5 favorites]
Is there any story-behind-the-story why this isn't getting more traction? It can't only be this exclusive access to the accusers at this podcast.
posted by k3ninho at 8:52 AM on July 6 [5 favorites]
I've heard a number of publishing people say he's a missing stair, but nobody who has said so publicly that I could link.
The version he has admitted to, in which he (60 or 61) seduces his child's nanny (21) on her first day of work, while not illegal does seem pretty sus. She evidently made a police complaint in 2022. The other accuser he met in his 40's when she was 18, and they got involved when she was 20.
I would love for it to be false but will be pretty surprised, honestly, given how these things usually go.
posted by joannemerriam at 8:53 AM on July 6 [48 favorites]
The version he has admitted to, in which he (60 or 61) seduces his child's nanny (21) on her first day of work, while not illegal does seem pretty sus. She evidently made a police complaint in 2022. The other accuser he met in his 40's when she was 18, and they got involved when she was 20.
I would love for it to be false but will be pretty surprised, honestly, given how these things usually go.
posted by joannemerriam at 8:53 AM on July 6 [48 favorites]
(The Tennent bit was actor David Tennent criticising the -- now former -- culture minister for trans-exclusionary/trans-erasure stance, causing Sunak to respond on Twitter:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz77exew09lo )
posted by k3ninho at 8:57 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz77exew09lo )
posted by k3ninho at 8:57 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
Huh. I had wondered a bit at the time what had gone on out of the public eye that led to the dissolution of his marriage with Amanda Palmer. As I recall, he wrote a self-deprecating but vague on any details social media post announcement, but some of Palmer’s posts I’ve seen about parenting or remembering her time in New Zealand seems to imply something serious that she had some ongoing anger toward him about (nothing she said directly, just kind of the sense I got from tone and from what was omitted).
posted by eviemath at 9:00 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 9:00 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
Huh. I had to look up the references above. I guess David Tennant came out in favor of trans rights. Then this is the anti-trans screed mentioned above that Rachel Johnson wrote, just for reference (because I had no idea who this writer was, and I'm guessing others might not as well).
Both things could be true: One of the podcast authors, Johnson, appears to be embedded with the anti-trans perspective. I've also heard someone in the know allege that Gaiman's behavior with fans seemed womanizing at best and they'd avoided him because of that.
posted by limeonaire at 9:01 AM on July 6 [4 favorites]
Both things could be true: One of the podcast authors, Johnson, appears to be embedded with the anti-trans perspective. I've also heard someone in the know allege that Gaiman's behavior with fans seemed womanizing at best and they'd avoided him because of that.
posted by limeonaire at 9:01 AM on July 6 [4 favorites]
Here's the Tumblr take on this:
Okay, be for fucking real for a second. If we take Neil Gaiman's version of events at face value, he initiated a sexual relationship with his 6-year-old child's 21-year-old nanny within hours of meeting her, as a 61-year-old man who is also rich, famous, and influential.
He lived her lifetime two times over before she was even born. He was her employer. She was dependent on him and his wife for her housing. And he pursued a relationship with her despite all of those facts. And that's someone you think is a good person being unfairly accused of abusing his power?
If we go by Neil's account of the situation, the power dynamics are still so utterly skewed, and the situation is still so utterly creepy that I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that the relationship was "consensual." Powerful old men should not be sleeping with their young employees.
Quite frankly, any man who would engage in such a relationship and consider it consensual has too warped an understanding of consent to be trusted in his assessment of whether there was consent.
A man who isn't predatory and abusive would never have sought out this "relationship" to begin with. Much less coerced the girl in question into signing an NDA after the fact in exchange for paying her rent while she was struggling and even hospitalized with suicidal urges in the aftermath of their "relationship."
Neil's behaviour with Scarlett, even if we take his account as the truth, was utterly unacceptable. A 61-year-old man with enormous influence and resources should not be seeking reassurance and support about HIS mental health from a 21-year-old who was IN THE HOSPITAL ON SUICIDE WATCH.
Listening to his audio messages tells you everything you need to know: that he was manipulative, inappropriate, and careful. He guilts her into reassuring him repeatedly that she consented, that he did nothing wrong. He presents himself as suicidal because of the idea that she is "planning to 'MeToo' him." He makes her care for HIM and reassure HIM as if he is the vulnerable party. His messages to her show a man preoccupied with self-image. They show a man with awful boundaries. They show a predator who is very invested in his (self-)image as a "good guy."
Be for fucking real. What's more likely: that a famous and powerful man abused his power and crossed boundaries with young, vulnerable women, who he ADMITS TO ENGAGING IN SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH, or that these two women on separate continents with 20 years separating their experiences are engaged in a conspiracy to smear the name of a man with whom they had loving, consensual relationships? What's more likely? That a powerful man crafted a wholesome public persona while behaving reprehensibly behind closed doors, or that journalists conspired against him to destroy his image because he happens to support trans rights? BE FOR FUCKING REAL.
posted by Lanark at 9:02 AM on July 6 [179 favorites]
Okay, be for fucking real for a second. If we take Neil Gaiman's version of events at face value, he initiated a sexual relationship with his 6-year-old child's 21-year-old nanny within hours of meeting her, as a 61-year-old man who is also rich, famous, and influential.
He lived her lifetime two times over before she was even born. He was her employer. She was dependent on him and his wife for her housing. And he pursued a relationship with her despite all of those facts. And that's someone you think is a good person being unfairly accused of abusing his power?
If we go by Neil's account of the situation, the power dynamics are still so utterly skewed, and the situation is still so utterly creepy that I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that the relationship was "consensual." Powerful old men should not be sleeping with their young employees.
Quite frankly, any man who would engage in such a relationship and consider it consensual has too warped an understanding of consent to be trusted in his assessment of whether there was consent.
A man who isn't predatory and abusive would never have sought out this "relationship" to begin with. Much less coerced the girl in question into signing an NDA after the fact in exchange for paying her rent while she was struggling and even hospitalized with suicidal urges in the aftermath of their "relationship."
Neil's behaviour with Scarlett, even if we take his account as the truth, was utterly unacceptable. A 61-year-old man with enormous influence and resources should not be seeking reassurance and support about HIS mental health from a 21-year-old who was IN THE HOSPITAL ON SUICIDE WATCH.
Listening to his audio messages tells you everything you need to know: that he was manipulative, inappropriate, and careful. He guilts her into reassuring him repeatedly that she consented, that he did nothing wrong. He presents himself as suicidal because of the idea that she is "planning to 'MeToo' him." He makes her care for HIM and reassure HIM as if he is the vulnerable party. His messages to her show a man preoccupied with self-image. They show a man with awful boundaries. They show a predator who is very invested in his (self-)image as a "good guy."
Be for fucking real. What's more likely: that a famous and powerful man abused his power and crossed boundaries with young, vulnerable women, who he ADMITS TO ENGAGING IN SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH, or that these two women on separate continents with 20 years separating their experiences are engaged in a conspiracy to smear the name of a man with whom they had loving, consensual relationships? What's more likely? That a powerful man crafted a wholesome public persona while behaving reprehensibly behind closed doors, or that journalists conspired against him to destroy his image because he happens to support trans rights? BE FOR FUCKING REAL.
posted by Lanark at 9:02 AM on July 6 [179 favorites]
I read the AV Club piece earlier in the week and it saddens me because even if the accusers are misguided or misremembering or exaggerating or out right lying, the quotes from Gaiman himself are fairly gross. Someone mentioned the weirdness of starting a sexual relationship with his much younger just hired nanny, but also in that story is a quote from him citing inaction by the police as evidence he's done nothing wrong which is laughable since authorities often don't have enough to go on to make a criminal case even when things are cut and dried, not to mention that many behaviors and actions that are not legally actionable are still immoral. Also within that story is him bringing up the mental health status of his accuser. Even if true and relevant to the conflict it is just not his place to bring up. That's just gross.
So I'm basically of the position that it's not actually necessary to adjudicate the factual details to notice that his own admissions and statements in response do not speak well of him.
posted by R343L at 9:03 AM on July 6 [31 favorites]
So I'm basically of the position that it's not actually necessary to adjudicate the factual details to notice that his own admissions and statements in response do not speak well of him.
posted by R343L at 9:03 AM on July 6 [31 favorites]
His relationships with both women are definitely gross and power-imbalanced -- which doesn't make them illegal, but it is very distasteful.
There's a thread on r/podcasts about Tortoise Media, debating how much their TERF-iness (or at least this particular author's TERF-iness) may influence their report. General consensus seems to be that the site has some shitty authors, but that doesn't mean they aren't correct about Gaiman.
I haven't listened to the podcasts, but comments from some people who have suggest that 1) the women seem absolutely sincere in their claims; 2) the women seemed to not have made any outward expression to Gaiman that the acts were non-consensual; 3) the podcast host asks some leading questions to at least one of the women; and 4) at the very least, Gaiman was probably coercing these women via the economic/status imbalance, and has been rumored for a while to be gross with female fans.
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:03 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
There's a thread on r/podcasts about Tortoise Media, debating how much their TERF-iness (or at least this particular author's TERF-iness) may influence their report. General consensus seems to be that the site has some shitty authors, but that doesn't mean they aren't correct about Gaiman.
I haven't listened to the podcasts, but comments from some people who have suggest that 1) the women seem absolutely sincere in their claims; 2) the women seemed to not have made any outward expression to Gaiman that the acts were non-consensual; 3) the podcast host asks some leading questions to at least one of the women; and 4) at the very least, Gaiman was probably coercing these women via the economic/status imbalance, and has been rumored for a while to be gross with female fans.
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:03 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
David Tennant has been out in favor of trans rights for ages. Hence the award acceptance speech where he gave the remarks that kicked off the furor.
I kinda don’t want to give clicks to the main story in ‘if I don’t read it maybe it won’t be true’ but I will admit that it’s more *disappointing* than *surprising*.
posted by janell at 9:05 AM on July 6 [7 favorites]
I kinda don’t want to give clicks to the main story in ‘if I don’t read it maybe it won’t be true’ but I will admit that it’s more *disappointing* than *surprising*.
posted by janell at 9:05 AM on July 6 [7 favorites]
I am perfectly content to cancel him just based on the things he admits happened.
If he forced or coerced those sexual encounters, then he should also be imprisoned.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:06 AM on July 6 [22 favorites]
If he forced or coerced those sexual encounters, then he should also be imprisoned.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:06 AM on July 6 [22 favorites]
Incidentally, the author Rachel Johnson is Boris Johnson's sister. She was a Conservative but joined the Lib Dems because of her opposition to Brexit. She seems like probably not a great person who is breaking an ugly story about someone else doing really, really bad things.
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:09 AM on July 6 [11 favorites]
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:09 AM on July 6 [11 favorites]
Separately: What's so frustrating is that in looking over a friend's sci-fi/fantasy bookshelf recently, and giving each other TV and webcomic recs, there had to be so many caveats. Like yeah, I love that author's work, but he was a complete jerk to me at a workshop and has some pretty problematic views. I love that author's work, but now there are allegations. I love that author's work, but his libertarian techno-utopianism hasn't aged well. I love that show, but its one Jewish character is an antisemitic caricature. I love that show, but they allegedly stole the idea and never credited the originator. I love that show and enjoy the genre, even though I know procedurals reinforce stereotypes and promote the prison-industrial complex.
Maybe we were just virtue-signaling to each other, but there are so many caveats and asterisks.
posted by limeonaire at 9:16 AM on July 6 [60 favorites]
Maybe we were just virtue-signaling to each other, but there are so many caveats and asterisks.
posted by limeonaire at 9:16 AM on July 6 [60 favorites]
And the moral of the story is do not place anyone up on a pedestal for something they have done that you really like, may have changed your life, gave you new insights, etc because beyond that something may lie other actions, opinions, etc that may be rightfully condemned, and guilt by association may bleed upon you because you once thought so highly of this fatally flawed individual.
posted by njohnson23 at 9:26 AM on July 6 [11 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 9:26 AM on July 6 [11 favorites]
As a trans person who long got iffy vibes from Gaiman, this seems depressingly like one of those occasions when both things could be true at the same time. I'm grateful to this thread for giving me a lot of context about the author that I didn't know when I read the Tortoise article earlier this week, and I'm also compelled by arguments along the lines of Lanark's.
posted by terretu at 9:28 AM on July 6 [16 favorites]
posted by terretu at 9:28 AM on July 6 [16 favorites]
What's more likely? That a powerful man crafted a wholesome public persona while behaving reprehensibly behind closed doors, or that journalists conspired against him to destroy his image because he happens to support trans rights?
It's the 2020's. Both are likely.
Frankly, Neil has pretty much admitted it/been busted via his own recordings. That's enough. That's disgusting and disappointing.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:43 AM on July 6 [13 favorites]
It's the 2020's. Both are likely.
Frankly, Neil has pretty much admitted it/been busted via his own recordings. That's enough. That's disgusting and disappointing.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:43 AM on July 6 [13 favorites]
I’ve never been into Gaiman’s work for whatever reason. My main knowledge of him is tangential. And from that one Tori song when she sings/laments “where’s Neil when you need him?”
He is … creepy AF at a bare minimum from what he has admitted to.
The source is probably taking joy inflicting harm on someone they see as a vague “other” but there is enough here that that doesn’t seem to matter.
There does need to be independent reporting, though. If no media outlet can verify these claims independently, that gets weirder as time goes on.
But Neil is done, just from what he admitted already.
posted by teece303 at 9:53 AM on July 6 [3 favorites]
He is … creepy AF at a bare minimum from what he has admitted to.
The source is probably taking joy inflicting harm on someone they see as a vague “other” but there is enough here that that doesn’t seem to matter.
There does need to be independent reporting, though. If no media outlet can verify these claims independently, that gets weirder as time goes on.
But Neil is done, just from what he admitted already.
posted by teece303 at 9:53 AM on July 6 [3 favorites]
Is there any one who gets power and wealth and stays pure at heart? Just once I'd like a prolific and powerful dude I enjoy not turn out ot be a shit. (Odds are of course that plenty of people are lovely and non-abusive, but we don't hear about them for that reason)
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:57 AM on July 6 [12 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:57 AM on July 6 [12 favorites]
Is there any story-behind-the-story why this isn't getting more traction?
I assume it's because it's a story with a single, suspect, source. It's juicy though, so I expect some other organizations will follow it up with their own investigations.
But like a lot of people, what Gaiman has directly admitted to lowers my respect for him considerably.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:58 AM on July 6 [4 favorites]
I assume it's because it's a story with a single, suspect, source. It's juicy though, so I expect some other organizations will follow it up with their own investigations.
But like a lot of people, what Gaiman has directly admitted to lowers my respect for him considerably.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:58 AM on July 6 [4 favorites]
Is there any one who gets power and wealth and stays pure at heart?
David Tennant. He's always been an LGBTQ+ ally, and he's gotten way more vocal about it recently (spurred on in part, no doubt, because one of his kids is nonbinary). I've literally never heard anyone say anything about him being a jerk in any interaction, and I can add that my own interaction with him (30 seconds outside a stage door) was lovely and he was gracious to everyone.
There's a lot of people at fault here - but I'm casting sideeye on the journalists; although not for the reason you think:
* It sounds like Neil definitely did something REALLY misguided. I'm disappointed about that. Illegal, unfortunately not - immoral and skeevy, though, yes.
* It also sounds like the accusers may have had some complicated mixed emotions about the situation. Like, I get the sense that at the time, they may have believed they were down with this, but in retrospect realized that "hang on, maybe this wasn't so cool."
* But as for the journalists - it sounds like they just pounced on the accusers just as they were starting to think "wait a second" and were all "you know, what will make you feel better is going public on my show!" It feels like the journalists were also kinda manipulative in getting the accusers to go public, and that's also pretty damn skeevy.
(IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not saying that every accuser who comes forward is being manipulated by the media. I am just noticing a very big difference between accusers who approach the media themselves after having filed a police report and gotten no traction, or who are coming to the media several years after the fact, and this instance, in which it feels like this is recent "i've just realized this actually" memory being swooped on by some TERF-y journalists wanting to take down a trans ally.)
Neil did something SERIOUSLY shitty to his accusers. I think the people at The Tortoise also did something shitty to Neil's accusers.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:13 AM on July 6 [41 favorites]
David Tennant. He's always been an LGBTQ+ ally, and he's gotten way more vocal about it recently (spurred on in part, no doubt, because one of his kids is nonbinary). I've literally never heard anyone say anything about him being a jerk in any interaction, and I can add that my own interaction with him (30 seconds outside a stage door) was lovely and he was gracious to everyone.
There's a lot of people at fault here - but I'm casting sideeye on the journalists; although not for the reason you think:
* It sounds like Neil definitely did something REALLY misguided. I'm disappointed about that. Illegal, unfortunately not - immoral and skeevy, though, yes.
* It also sounds like the accusers may have had some complicated mixed emotions about the situation. Like, I get the sense that at the time, they may have believed they were down with this, but in retrospect realized that "hang on, maybe this wasn't so cool."
* But as for the journalists - it sounds like they just pounced on the accusers just as they were starting to think "wait a second" and were all "you know, what will make you feel better is going public on my show!" It feels like the journalists were also kinda manipulative in getting the accusers to go public, and that's also pretty damn skeevy.
(IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not saying that every accuser who comes forward is being manipulated by the media. I am just noticing a very big difference between accusers who approach the media themselves after having filed a police report and gotten no traction, or who are coming to the media several years after the fact, and this instance, in which it feels like this is recent "i've just realized this actually" memory being swooped on by some TERF-y journalists wanting to take down a trans ally.)
Neil did something SERIOUSLY shitty to his accusers. I think the people at The Tortoise also did something shitty to Neil's accusers.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:13 AM on July 6 [41 favorites]
Is there any one who gets power and wealth and stays pure at heart?
Many, many people. They are, however, never in the news and virtually never have movies made about them. The impression that power and wealth automatically corrupt is purely selection bias.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:19 AM on July 6 [24 favorites]
Many, many people. They are, however, never in the news and virtually never have movies made about them. The impression that power and wealth automatically corrupt is purely selection bias.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:19 AM on July 6 [24 favorites]
>(What did David Tennent need support for?)
Only thing I've seen recently was that Tennant posted a pride photo, and J.K. Rowling said he was part of the "gender Taliban" or some such asinine thing.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 10:24 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
Only thing I've seen recently was that Tennant posted a pride photo, and J.K. Rowling said he was part of the "gender Taliban" or some such asinine thing.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 10:24 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
Is there any one who gets power and wealth and stays pure at heart?
That's a really good question.
The best-known answer: Mister Rogers.
As Tell Me No Lies says, there are many, many people. Take a look at the recent post about Mark Melton and all the people he works with to fight (successfully!) for people who are being wrongly evicted.
It's a really good question, because we all need reminders that, however many terrible acts we learn about, there are people all over the world - all over the country, all over your community - who get up every day and do something that helps others, something that makes the world a better place.
(Personally, I ask myself who continues to do good things, who continues to put lovingkindness into the world; asking for people who are actually pure at heart may be an impossibly high standard.)
Thank you for asking that question, drewbage1847. We should all talk more about the people who are lovely.
posted by kristi at 10:44 AM on July 6 [30 favorites]
That's a really good question.
The best-known answer: Mister Rogers.
As Tell Me No Lies says, there are many, many people. Take a look at the recent post about Mark Melton and all the people he works with to fight (successfully!) for people who are being wrongly evicted.
It's a really good question, because we all need reminders that, however many terrible acts we learn about, there are people all over the world - all over the country, all over your community - who get up every day and do something that helps others, something that makes the world a better place.
(Personally, I ask myself who continues to do good things, who continues to put lovingkindness into the world; asking for people who are actually pure at heart may be an impossibly high standard.)
Thank you for asking that question, drewbage1847. We should all talk more about the people who are lovely.
posted by kristi at 10:44 AM on July 6 [30 favorites]
A 60-year-old man putting the moves on a vulnerable 20-year-old who relies on him for her income seems cut and dried to me.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:44 AM on July 6 [37 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:44 AM on July 6 [37 favorites]
Ugh. Sometimes you wonder if it's generational, because the sensitive artsy creeper who everyone loves is a real late Boomer/Gen X archetype. They got a lot of tolerance in my generation because it was so unusual not to be an eighties/nineties macho asshole and then they used it to be creepy abusers.
posted by Frowner at 10:48 AM on July 6 [40 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 10:48 AM on July 6 [40 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: you summed up my thoughts on this after reading the article and thinking on it for a while.
Not important, but while I think Gaiman has been highly influential and a powerful figure in literature, pop culture and storytelling... none of what I have read of his has ever clicked with me. I've tried reading three or four of his novels and dropped every one of them.
posted by SoberHighland at 10:54 AM on July 6 [4 favorites]
Not important, but while I think Gaiman has been highly influential and a powerful figure in literature, pop culture and storytelling... none of what I have read of his has ever clicked with me. I've tried reading three or four of his novels and dropped every one of them.
posted by SoberHighland at 10:54 AM on July 6 [4 favorites]
What's more likely? That a powerful man crafted a wholesome public persona while behaving reprehensibly behind closed doors, or that journalists conspired against him to destroy his image because he happens to support trans rights?
It's the 2020's. Both are likely.
Yeah, this tracks.
Neil did something SERIOUSLY shitty to his accusers. I think the people at The Tortoise also did something shitty to Neil's accusers.
This also sounds plausible to me. Neil is at the very least -- by his own admission! -- an extremely unethical, predatory partner deliberately pursuing much younger women *who he employed and has financial power over*. He is very plausibly also a rapist in the specific ways the women reported in the articles.
With the extremely skewed power dynamics, it feels like sexual assault either way to me. He admits to getting in the bathtub naked to engage in physical/sexual activity with someone one third of his age who he'd hired as an employee in his home, and just met an hour ago. How can you possibly be sure, as the more powerful person, that your vulnerable younger employee is actually, truly consenting?
At the same time, it seems entirely possible that these particular journalists are also taking advantage of the women Gaiman abused, using the survivors' stories for their own political purposes rather than respecting the survivors' autonomy and and elevating their voices and stories on their own terms -- which, like sexual assault, is another reprehensible way of treating a person as an object rather than a subject.
On another occasion, Scarlett alleged that the sex between them “was so painful and so violent” that she lost consciousness.
During that time, she sent him numerous messages indicating that she consented to the sexual activity.
There is 100% an abuse tactic where the abuser convinces the person they're abusing to send multiple text messages or emails stating that the contact is consensual, so that the abuser can use that written record to publicly discredit the victim if they ever come forward with accusations in the future. Having to repeatedly reassure someone over text message that they are not abusing you is in itself an enormous red flag.
posted by cnidaria at 10:55 AM on July 6 [45 favorites]
It's the 2020's. Both are likely.
Yeah, this tracks.
Neil did something SERIOUSLY shitty to his accusers. I think the people at The Tortoise also did something shitty to Neil's accusers.
This also sounds plausible to me. Neil is at the very least -- by his own admission! -- an extremely unethical, predatory partner deliberately pursuing much younger women *who he employed and has financial power over*. He is very plausibly also a rapist in the specific ways the women reported in the articles.
With the extremely skewed power dynamics, it feels like sexual assault either way to me. He admits to getting in the bathtub naked to engage in physical/sexual activity with someone one third of his age who he'd hired as an employee in his home, and just met an hour ago. How can you possibly be sure, as the more powerful person, that your vulnerable younger employee is actually, truly consenting?
At the same time, it seems entirely possible that these particular journalists are also taking advantage of the women Gaiman abused, using the survivors' stories for their own political purposes rather than respecting the survivors' autonomy and and elevating their voices and stories on their own terms -- which, like sexual assault, is another reprehensible way of treating a person as an object rather than a subject.
On another occasion, Scarlett alleged that the sex between them “was so painful and so violent” that she lost consciousness.
During that time, she sent him numerous messages indicating that she consented to the sexual activity.
There is 100% an abuse tactic where the abuser convinces the person they're abusing to send multiple text messages or emails stating that the contact is consensual, so that the abuser can use that written record to publicly discredit the victim if they ever come forward with accusations in the future. Having to repeatedly reassure someone over text message that they are not abusing you is in itself an enormous red flag.
posted by cnidaria at 10:55 AM on July 6 [45 favorites]
I would personally like us to have a cultural norm where one does not put the make on the much younger nanny and where one doesn't do painful things to people during sex unless that has been specifically negotiated in advance, and I'd like us as a culture to think that these are bad things to do and indicate a bad character, not just laddish things that are getting blown out of proportion.
posted by Frowner at 10:59 AM on July 6 [58 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 10:59 AM on July 6 [58 favorites]
Our culture just falls back on this whole "men cannot be expected to think carefully about sex or consent, naturally they just forge ahead and unless their partners pull out the rape whistle in the midst of the encounter, no wrong was committed". But I contend that men, like other people, can in fact think, "this is a very pretty girl but she is much younger than me and my employee, so I'll just note that she is pretty and move on" or even, "my partner seems not to be enjoying this encounter, maybe I'll check in or stop". I contend that this could and should be normal, that it's not rocket science, that you can refrain from coercing and hurting people without very much effort.
posted by Frowner at 11:03 AM on July 6 [75 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 11:03 AM on July 6 [75 favorites]
This is disappointing and a little surprising, but only a little. Power and authority are so easy to abuse that it's almost a given that anyone in such a position has done something to abuse that power and authority even if it's not sexual. Regardless, we need to continue to hold the powerful to a higher standard and never make excuses, no matter how well loved they may be.
posted by tommasz at 11:03 AM on July 6 [3 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 11:03 AM on July 6 [3 favorites]
Is there any one who gets power and wealth and stays pure at heart?
It’s always dangerous to hope, but so far Keanu Reeves.
posted by teece303 at 11:24 AM on July 6 [24 favorites]
It’s always dangerous to hope, but so far Keanu Reeves.
posted by teece303 at 11:24 AM on July 6 [24 favorites]
I am perfectly content to cancel him just based on
and here I was thinking cancel culture wasn't a thing except, of course, on the right
posted by philip-random at 11:41 AM on July 6 [2 favorites]
and here I was thinking cancel culture wasn't a thing except, of course, on the right
posted by philip-random at 11:41 AM on July 6 [2 favorites]
Neil Gaimen raped his nanny. That’s the bottom line. Nothing in his story is consistent with a consensual sexual encounter.
He’s another shitty person who is good at making entertaining shit.
posted by interogative mood at 11:43 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
He’s another shitty person who is good at making entertaining shit.
posted by interogative mood at 11:43 AM on July 6 [8 favorites]
Keanu Reeves
But all it has gotten him is sadness...
and millions of dollars.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:44 AM on July 6 [6 favorites]
But all it has gotten him is sadness...
and millions of dollars.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:44 AM on July 6 [6 favorites]
Don't care much about this one way or the other, but I've always been baffled by people who pointedly refuse to consume or like good art by bad people, or good art with one problematic aspect. I want to say to them, "are you aware of the level of narcissism and drive it takes to make it big in any of the arts? And how difficult it is for even a basically decent person to not have that level of narcissism spill over into their non-art life?"
I have trouble believing that people who do this pointed refusal are doing anything other than public preening or virtue signaling, but it would seem that I am wrong and people are serious. Well, okay, it's your life. I can't imagine what a palette of TV or literature or whatever that IS acceptable to Performative Tumblr is like, but I'm guessing it's pretty painful as art.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:46 AM on July 6 [13 favorites]
I have trouble believing that people who do this pointed refusal are doing anything other than public preening or virtue signaling, but it would seem that I am wrong and people are serious. Well, okay, it's your life. I can't imagine what a palette of TV or literature or whatever that IS acceptable to Performative Tumblr is like, but I'm guessing it's pretty painful as art.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 11:46 AM on July 6 [13 favorites]
unofficial transcript of episode 1 (via bluesky)
posted by BungaDunga at 11:48 AM on July 6 [1 favorite]
posted by BungaDunga at 11:48 AM on July 6 [1 favorite]
gretchen felker-martin's thoughts:
from people who have actually listened to the podcast, i hear that it's produced as a sort of "true crime"-y serial and has numerous problems - everything from conflating bdsm with abuse to overusing distasteful music stings for suspense - but they do have a recording of neil's voice in ep 2, so it doesn't sound as if they're making up his quotes out of whole cloth. on the whole it appears to give gaiman, rather than his accusers, more benefit of the doubt. far from a hit piece, in other words.
i bring this up because i was made aware of the rumors about gaiman several years ago from someone in the comics industry, and have been waiting for something like this to come out ever since. the numerous, numerous reactions that immediately discounted the accusations as a TERF psyop strategically timed to undermine the UK elections (and/or smear david tennant by association, and/or ... ???) were such a mindfuck i was almost second-guessing my own information.
but no, it's just that fans would rather assume their idol is unimpeachable and make up a whole conspiracy theory in his support than believe a popular, powerful man in creative industry (and "one of the good ones" to boot, an image he never shied away from) could turn out to be yet another sex pest.
posted by a flock of goslings at 11:51 AM on July 6 [24 favorites]
The publishing world has horror stories about this guy going back decades.elsewhere on the social internet, you see many more people affirming that there have been rumors going back years about neil gaiman's unsavory behavior toward young women, particularly fans, with and without the enabling/participation of his ex-wife amanda palmer (no great respecter of sexual consent herself). a number of them either personally experienced unwanted advances/creepy behavior from him or know someone who did. one former bookstore employee relates that "his publisher doesn't like assigning female publicists because they always have complaints" (!)
God knows it's no fun to be on the same side of something as Julie Bindel, a woman who once wrote an essay about how I'm a violent man, but in this instance that's a pill we have to swallow to reckon with this mess.
If you find yourself turning away from the knowledge that Gaiman will have to be excised from the publishing world and from sff in particular, overwhelmed by the emotional and personal conflicts this could cause, you need to reexamine your values and the kind of world you want to help make.
I know it would be "easier" or whatever if the allegations were false, but as artists we have a duty to set the tone of our field's response to this kind of predatory behavior. It can't be half-assed or cowardly.
from people who have actually listened to the podcast, i hear that it's produced as a sort of "true crime"-y serial and has numerous problems - everything from conflating bdsm with abuse to overusing distasteful music stings for suspense - but they do have a recording of neil's voice in ep 2, so it doesn't sound as if they're making up his quotes out of whole cloth. on the whole it appears to give gaiman, rather than his accusers, more benefit of the doubt. far from a hit piece, in other words.
i bring this up because i was made aware of the rumors about gaiman several years ago from someone in the comics industry, and have been waiting for something like this to come out ever since. the numerous, numerous reactions that immediately discounted the accusations as a TERF psyop strategically timed to undermine the UK elections (and/or smear david tennant by association, and/or ... ???) were such a mindfuck i was almost second-guessing my own information.
but no, it's just that fans would rather assume their idol is unimpeachable and make up a whole conspiracy theory in his support than believe a popular, powerful man in creative industry (and "one of the good ones" to boot, an image he never shied away from) could turn out to be yet another sex pest.
posted by a flock of goslings at 11:51 AM on July 6 [24 favorites]
Kathryn Tewson on BlueSky (a paralegal with an excellent reputation) has created a transcript of the first episode and will be working on transcripts of the remaining episodes.
Direct Google drive link to the PDF for Episode 1
As she notes in a post from 3:22pm EST yesterday (which should be readable to everyone -- no BlueSky account required): "I have listened to and transcribed the first episode of the Tortoise Media podcast series "The Allegations Against Neil Gaiman." This is NOT a certified transcript and should not be relied on for legal or journalistic purposes without confirming with original audio. "
From two follow-up posts in the same thread: "[post 1]IMHO, Scarlett describes a violent, abusive, and exploitative relationship in which Gaiman coerced her consent while she was in a vulnerable position. She has some contemporaneous messages that would be consistent with consent but I believe these are her attempts to normalize the events to herself. [post 2] Scarlett's account is consistent and credible to me, and I believe every word. There is nothing to indicate that Gaiman spoke directly to the podcast or that they reached out to him for comment."
(She posted a reply late yesterday/early today that newer info is consistent with Gaiman responding directly to the podcasters, but I can't find that reply right now to quote it verbatim.)
You should be able to read all of Tewson's BlueSky posts here without a BlueSky account. You won't be able to read her replies to others' posts unless you are signed in to a BlueSky account -- sorry!
On preview: beat to the link, but I can bring the context!
posted by maudlin at 11:56 AM on July 6 [5 favorites]
Direct Google drive link to the PDF for Episode 1
As she notes in a post from 3:22pm EST yesterday (which should be readable to everyone -- no BlueSky account required): "I have listened to and transcribed the first episode of the Tortoise Media podcast series "The Allegations Against Neil Gaiman." This is NOT a certified transcript and should not be relied on for legal or journalistic purposes without confirming with original audio. "
From two follow-up posts in the same thread: "[post 1]IMHO, Scarlett describes a violent, abusive, and exploitative relationship in which Gaiman coerced her consent while she was in a vulnerable position. She has some contemporaneous messages that would be consistent with consent but I believe these are her attempts to normalize the events to herself. [post 2] Scarlett's account is consistent and credible to me, and I believe every word. There is nothing to indicate that Gaiman spoke directly to the podcast or that they reached out to him for comment."
(She posted a reply late yesterday/early today that newer info is consistent with Gaiman responding directly to the podcasters, but I can't find that reply right now to quote it verbatim.)
You should be able to read all of Tewson's BlueSky posts here without a BlueSky account. You won't be able to read her replies to others' posts unless you are signed in to a BlueSky account -- sorry!
On preview: beat to the link, but I can bring the context!
posted by maudlin at 11:56 AM on July 6 [5 favorites]
Don't care much about this one way or the other, but I've always been baffled by people who pointedly refuse to consume or like good art by bad people, or good art with one problematic aspect. I want to say to them, "are you aware of the level of narcissism and drive it takes to make it big in any of the arts? And how difficult it is for even a basically decent person to not have that level of narcissism spill over into their non-art life?"
the bar is lower than you think, men get away with being huge shits to women in their life, and as long as they aren't accused of actual assault, people don't look at it too hard. artists being shitheads in their personal life is practically part of the allure. if the stuff people are saying online is right, Gaiman has been skeevy with women for decades, it did him no harm at all
posted by BungaDunga at 11:58 AM on July 6 [18 favorites]
the bar is lower than you think, men get away with being huge shits to women in their life, and as long as they aren't accused of actual assault, people don't look at it too hard. artists being shitheads in their personal life is practically part of the allure. if the stuff people are saying online is right, Gaiman has been skeevy with women for decades, it did him no harm at all
posted by BungaDunga at 11:58 AM on July 6 [18 favorites]
numerous reactions that immediately discounted the accusations as a TERF psyop strategically timed to undermine the UK elections
Seems a bit of a stretch to say the TERF ratfucker squad would be framing a famous geek author to this end and not, say, a Labour MP.
I've always been baffled by people who pointedly refuse to consume or like good art by bad people, or good art with one problematic aspect.
I cannot recommend highly enough Claire Dederer's Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma on this very subject. Whether or not you agree with her takes on the various monstrous artists she discusses inside (Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Miles Davis, etc. etc. etc.), her writing is introspective and thoughtful and nuanced.
posted by HeroZero at 12:02 PM on July 6 [27 favorites]
Seems a bit of a stretch to say the TERF ratfucker squad would be framing a famous geek author to this end and not, say, a Labour MP.
I've always been baffled by people who pointedly refuse to consume or like good art by bad people, or good art with one problematic aspect.
I cannot recommend highly enough Claire Dederer's Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma on this very subject. Whether or not you agree with her takes on the various monstrous artists she discusses inside (Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Miles Davis, etc. etc. etc.), her writing is introspective and thoughtful and nuanced.
posted by HeroZero at 12:02 PM on July 6 [27 favorites]
incidentally the idea that this was somehow related to the UK election has to be the most pinboard-and-string thing I've seen in a while. I know the collective powers of the UK establishment are numerous but "dropping a longform podcast about someone only tangentially involved in politics the day before an election" is not how ratfucking works, come on
posted by BungaDunga at 12:04 PM on July 6 [27 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 12:04 PM on July 6 [27 favorites]
I want to say to them, "are you aware of the level of narcissism and drive it takes to make it big in any of the arts? And how difficult it is for even a basically decent person to not have that level of narcissism spill over into their non-art life?"
I think you'll find that all it takes is a rich, well-connected mom and dad, actually.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:05 PM on July 6 [12 favorites]
I think you'll find that all it takes is a rich, well-connected mom and dad, actually.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:05 PM on July 6 [12 favorites]
I think you'll find that all it takes is a rich, well-connected mom and dad, actually.
Not "all", but you're not wrong that it's a big factor. Why we were cursed to see Lena Dunham everywhere for so many years.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 12:16 PM on July 6
Not "all", but you're not wrong that it's a big factor. Why we were cursed to see Lena Dunham everywhere for so many years.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 12:16 PM on July 6
I would suggest that narcissism is a quality that often overlaps with an artistic temperament, but does little to help achieve success; in my experience, narcissists create as many friends as they do enemies, and the wrong enemy can really derail a person's life and career. Additionally, their friends are usually just enemies in waiting. Drive is something else, but to be honest the thing that motivates people to spend all day creating (or self-promoting) is foursquare against the thing that would cause a person to inflict one's sexuality upon a disinterested party, or even an interested one; creation eats up the free time a person needs for that. It's perhaps significant that Gaiman doesn't seem to publish much these days.
I find the whole subject of Neil Gaiman and this child sad and distasteful, but this is bigger than that. The idea that a good artist is also of course going to be a creep in his personal life is bullshit. I think the reality is that success of any sort gives people opportunities to be shitbags and latitude to get away with being shitbags, not that any great artist is of course a shitbag. If Neil Gaiman had been pursuing his art, he wouldn't have had the chance to be a shitbag. He'd have been too busy actually creating.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:33 PM on July 6 [18 favorites]
I find the whole subject of Neil Gaiman and this child sad and distasteful, but this is bigger than that. The idea that a good artist is also of course going to be a creep in his personal life is bullshit. I think the reality is that success of any sort gives people opportunities to be shitbags and latitude to get away with being shitbags, not that any great artist is of course a shitbag. If Neil Gaiman had been pursuing his art, he wouldn't have had the chance to be a shitbag. He'd have been too busy actually creating.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:33 PM on July 6 [18 favorites]
I think this is less about artists and artistry and more about male nerd entitlement, which you do see tendrils of throughout Neil Gaiman’s work from time to time. A certain type of male nerd from that era had simmering resentment against the women who wouldn’t sleep with them, and they carried it into their rich and famous days. This is Whedonesque behavior - not rape, exactly, but abuse of power and privilege that they are too blinded by to see they are doing anything wrong, combined with a subtle hate of the women who now like them because they still subtly hate themselves.
I find it telling also that Gaiman leans on “I didn’t do anything legally wrong.” Yeah, but it was morally wrong. It was morally wrong to abuse that power. It was morally wrong not to pay your worker promptly and to leave her helpless, and it was morally wrong to treat her as just another body in your orbit that came with your young hot wife. And it was morally wrong to use your age and experience against her and to hurt her in a way that she did not have cause to expect - whether she liked you or not.
posted by corb at 12:40 PM on July 6 [46 favorites]
I find it telling also that Gaiman leans on “I didn’t do anything legally wrong.” Yeah, but it was morally wrong. It was morally wrong to abuse that power. It was morally wrong not to pay your worker promptly and to leave her helpless, and it was morally wrong to treat her as just another body in your orbit that came with your young hot wife. And it was morally wrong to use your age and experience against her and to hurt her in a way that she did not have cause to expect - whether she liked you or not.
posted by corb at 12:40 PM on July 6 [46 favorites]
Bard College needs to fully fire Gaiman, and that eftsoons and right speedily.
I've had to shepherd a few of my students through sexual harassment in professional circles. (I don't know what it is about White Male Archivists of a Certain Age, but I wish it would go away forever.) When this broke, I asked myself "would I trust Gaiman around my students?" and my backbrain sent up the immediate answer HELL TO THE FUCK NO.
posted by humbug at 12:52 PM on July 6 [15 favorites]
I've had to shepherd a few of my students through sexual harassment in professional circles. (I don't know what it is about White Male Archivists of a Certain Age, but I wish it would go away forever.) When this broke, I asked myself "would I trust Gaiman around my students?" and my backbrain sent up the immediate answer HELL TO THE FUCK NO.
posted by humbug at 12:52 PM on July 6 [15 favorites]
Everyone has a personal line. I had actually not heard any of these rumors before, so I did hope they were false, because I liked some of his art. But they sound pretty credible and now I have to choose what to do about it just like any other fan.
What usually happens for me is that the thing I used to like has a bad taste on it now. I remember that the creator did what they did, and so anything that might reflect that (like a relationship in a story) gets questioned in a new way. Even if I still see the things I liked, they don't hit the same, or hit really badly now.
Gaiman isn't the only creator out there, and his stories aren't the only ones to read. If I stop reading or watching his stuff, I'll survive.
posted by emjaybee at 1:13 PM on July 6 [23 favorites]
What usually happens for me is that the thing I used to like has a bad taste on it now. I remember that the creator did what they did, and so anything that might reflect that (like a relationship in a story) gets questioned in a new way. Even if I still see the things I liked, they don't hit the same, or hit really badly now.
Gaiman isn't the only creator out there, and his stories aren't the only ones to read. If I stop reading or watching his stuff, I'll survive.
posted by emjaybee at 1:13 PM on July 6 [23 favorites]
the whedon comparison is particularly apt given that gaiman also had a fan-built reputation of "feminist ally we all love," which he willingly embraced. like whedon, people point to his work as proof of his feminist bona fides: look at his strong female characters! etc. etc.
this is obviously a fallacy (and "feminist ally" is a useful persona to hide behind if you want to cultivate an adoring female crowd) but even so, after whedon's bad behavior came out, there started to be reevaluation of his work and people finding more underlying misogyny in it that had gone mysteriously unnoticed before. i am almost certain a similar reckoning will happen to gaiman, which will be personally satisfying to me because i feel like i've been reading his writing with "they live" glasses on for years now while everyone else sings its praises
posted by a flock of goslings at 1:14 PM on July 6 [30 favorites]
this is obviously a fallacy (and "feminist ally" is a useful persona to hide behind if you want to cultivate an adoring female crowd) but even so, after whedon's bad behavior came out, there started to be reevaluation of his work and people finding more underlying misogyny in it that had gone mysteriously unnoticed before. i am almost certain a similar reckoning will happen to gaiman, which will be personally satisfying to me because i feel like i've been reading his writing with "they live" glasses on for years now while everyone else sings its praises
posted by a flock of goslings at 1:14 PM on July 6 [30 favorites]
Is there any story-behind-the-story why this isn't getting more traction?
yeah
people love neil gaiman.
also, in the first day or two, nobody had figured out a way to argue that if it was true it really said something worse about amanda palmer than about him (they have now, but bless their rotten hearts, it took a little time.) this positioning is very important to a lot of people.
also, many middle-aged people young enough to be his daughter like to fondly remember their youthful crushes on him and would like to keep on thinking that if they had ever caught his eye it would have been sexy and nice, not traumatic and disgusting. one would like to think that keeping their nostalgia clean could not possibly be a powerful motivating factor but one knows better.
also he has countless famous friends and if one is a coward one doesn’t want to find out which ones will say what horrible things.
also, he has a history of cutely suggesting that exes have personality disorders, and if he ever speaks publicly about this he will very probably talk about his victims as exes. if one has a weak stomach one hesitates to provoke this.
also he has been famous for maybe-probably sleeping with fans for several decades. many people have decided to think that he hasn’t done anything worse than that, or that he stopped doing that when he hit 50, or 55, or 60, or that you can’t be shocked now because it’s old news.
I’d love to blame his lawyers or whatever and i’m sure he does have them. but mainly? people love him. that’s all he’s ever needed.
posted by queenofbithynia at 1:15 PM on July 6 [18 favorites]
yeah
people love neil gaiman.
also, in the first day or two, nobody had figured out a way to argue that if it was true it really said something worse about amanda palmer than about him (they have now, but bless their rotten hearts, it took a little time.) this positioning is very important to a lot of people.
also, many middle-aged people young enough to be his daughter like to fondly remember their youthful crushes on him and would like to keep on thinking that if they had ever caught his eye it would have been sexy and nice, not traumatic and disgusting. one would like to think that keeping their nostalgia clean could not possibly be a powerful motivating factor but one knows better.
also he has countless famous friends and if one is a coward one doesn’t want to find out which ones will say what horrible things.
also, he has a history of cutely suggesting that exes have personality disorders, and if he ever speaks publicly about this he will very probably talk about his victims as exes. if one has a weak stomach one hesitates to provoke this.
also he has been famous for maybe-probably sleeping with fans for several decades. many people have decided to think that he hasn’t done anything worse than that, or that he stopped doing that when he hit 50, or 55, or 60, or that you can’t be shocked now because it’s old news.
I’d love to blame his lawyers or whatever and i’m sure he does have them. but mainly? people love him. that’s all he’s ever needed.
posted by queenofbithynia at 1:15 PM on July 6 [18 favorites]
The bad character doesn’t seem necessary to make good art; it might be an advantage in worldly success as an artist, in proportion to the badness of the world.
There are plenty of artists still working day jobs whose few works are my touchstones, and they add up to enough that I’m never going to keep up with everything.
posted by clew at 1:18 PM on July 6 [8 favorites]
There are plenty of artists still working day jobs whose few works are my touchstones, and they add up to enough that I’m never going to keep up with everything.
posted by clew at 1:18 PM on July 6 [8 favorites]
I find it telling also that Gaiman leans on “I didn’t do anything legally wrong.” Yeah, but it was morally wrong.
no, there are actions described in the transcript that are legally wrong. he is absolutely accused of worse than exploitation and pressure.
you don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything, but taking his word for the extent of it just for the sake of argument is how he is going to get out of this with his reputation intact. it is tempting to do but it is poison.
posted by queenofbithynia at 1:21 PM on July 6 [8 favorites]
no, there are actions described in the transcript that are legally wrong. he is absolutely accused of worse than exploitation and pressure.
you don’t have to take anyone’s word for anything, but taking his word for the extent of it just for the sake of argument is how he is going to get out of this with his reputation intact. it is tempting to do but it is poison.
posted by queenofbithynia at 1:21 PM on July 6 [8 favorites]
I haven't read the full allegations but based on his own words, yeah, his behavior has been gross and if not illegal, morally awful. At the same time, I'm suspicious of the outlet, and while I don't think the timing is about the UK election (neither he nor even David Tennant are that big of deals), it wouldn't shock me if there was an effort to get Tennant to shut up and/or discredit him through Gaiman. The outlet carrying this story and timing being suspect don't mean it isn't true. I am disappoint.
That said, I was married to a young-end boomer who was absolutely a feminist and ally and stuff back in the 90s. He cared about pronouns, he did clinic defense in 1992 when the Republicans showed up in Houston, he really walked the walk publicly. But in private he was domineering, verbally abusive, ableist about the early stages of my disability, etc. etc. I don't think my ex could see the conflict between his intellectual stance and his actions. When I think of guys like Gaiman and Whedon now, I think of him.
To be clear, thinking of these guys as being like my ex-husband is in no way a compliment, just a note that I think less of them as hypocrites than as having a very specific blind spot about how their actions run counter to their ideology. This isn't exclusive to them--we almost all fall short of our morals in places--but I think the blindness of privilege is more obvious in public figures or people we're very close to.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 1:26 PM on July 6 [25 favorites]
That said, I was married to a young-end boomer who was absolutely a feminist and ally and stuff back in the 90s. He cared about pronouns, he did clinic defense in 1992 when the Republicans showed up in Houston, he really walked the walk publicly. But in private he was domineering, verbally abusive, ableist about the early stages of my disability, etc. etc. I don't think my ex could see the conflict between his intellectual stance and his actions. When I think of guys like Gaiman and Whedon now, I think of him.
To be clear, thinking of these guys as being like my ex-husband is in no way a compliment, just a note that I think less of them as hypocrites than as having a very specific blind spot about how their actions run counter to their ideology. This isn't exclusive to them--we almost all fall short of our morals in places--but I think the blindness of privilege is more obvious in public figures or people we're very close to.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 1:26 PM on July 6 [25 favorites]
Is there any one who gets power and wealth and stays pure at heart?
Dolly Parton.
posted by Mitheral at 1:30 PM on July 6 [52 favorites]
Dolly Parton.
posted by Mitheral at 1:30 PM on July 6 [52 favorites]
Absolutely nothing wrong with holding back a bit while the story plays out in the media.
There are all manner of people out there who will spin and lie through the media. That’s our reality, so caution is fine.
But after a couple days it’s become clear that Gaiman sure seems like an absolute creep, and possible criminal, even if he never serves time.
posted by teece303 at 1:36 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
There are all manner of people out there who will spin and lie through the media. That’s our reality, so caution is fine.
But after a couple days it’s become clear that Gaiman sure seems like an absolute creep, and possible criminal, even if he never serves time.
posted by teece303 at 1:36 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
I think you'll find that all it takes is a rich, well-connected mom and dad, actually.
it's a factor in some fame, for sure. But speaking of monsters, a dig into Roman Polanski's childhood reveals more horror than nepotism.
posted by philip-random at 1:47 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
it's a factor in some fame, for sure. But speaking of monsters, a dig into Roman Polanski's childhood reveals more horror than nepotism.
posted by philip-random at 1:47 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
I'm another who's been reeling under the one-two punch of "no, this is someone whose work I've admired half my life" and "this source is shady as hell and part of the TERF army I've seen warring against other people I like and respect online". So I reserved judgment when this first came out and was hoping to see or hear something, anything, exculpatory. I wish I had. I have not.
So yeah. This *is* someone whose work I've admired half my life. And some of the folks behind the podcast *are* shady TERFs who are no doubt reveling in destroying the public persona of someone they hate. But neither of those change the fact that the details coming out are damning and that we owe it to women in SFF spaces to fix this missing stair immediately.
Sandman will still have value. Good Omens will still have value. The other novels, short stories, comics, and plays will still have value. Their value will be tarnished and diminished by association but the work can stand on its own, for those still willing to accept it given the source. Some will discard it entirely, and that's fair, it's not as if there's any shortage of great work by people who haven't got the attention or accolades they deserve. I'm hanging on to some of it, at least for now, because it has meaning to me apart from the author. That's where I am now and it may change. I won't argue with anyone who feels differently, in either direction.
But Gaiman the feminist ally, the trans ally, the SFF elder statesman, the aspirational role model -- he needs to come down off that pedestal, stat. We need to stop thinking of him as an ally and we need to start thinking of him and handling him exactly as we would anyone else credibly accused of abusing his power to assault women. "Cancellation" is a loaded term that I hesitate to unpack for anyone, but at least Gaiman has been held up by a lot of us as one of the good guys, and whatever the final outcome of the current drama, we need to stop holding him up as one of the good guys, immediately.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:53 PM on July 6 [35 favorites]
So yeah. This *is* someone whose work I've admired half my life. And some of the folks behind the podcast *are* shady TERFs who are no doubt reveling in destroying the public persona of someone they hate. But neither of those change the fact that the details coming out are damning and that we owe it to women in SFF spaces to fix this missing stair immediately.
Sandman will still have value. Good Omens will still have value. The other novels, short stories, comics, and plays will still have value. Their value will be tarnished and diminished by association but the work can stand on its own, for those still willing to accept it given the source. Some will discard it entirely, and that's fair, it's not as if there's any shortage of great work by people who haven't got the attention or accolades they deserve. I'm hanging on to some of it, at least for now, because it has meaning to me apart from the author. That's where I am now and it may change. I won't argue with anyone who feels differently, in either direction.
But Gaiman the feminist ally, the trans ally, the SFF elder statesman, the aspirational role model -- he needs to come down off that pedestal, stat. We need to stop thinking of him as an ally and we need to start thinking of him and handling him exactly as we would anyone else credibly accused of abusing his power to assault women. "Cancellation" is a loaded term that I hesitate to unpack for anyone, but at least Gaiman has been held up by a lot of us as one of the good guys, and whatever the final outcome of the current drama, we need to stop holding him up as one of the good guys, immediately.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 1:53 PM on July 6 [35 favorites]
It's worth noticing that, while both of these women came forward (or were dragged forward, if you prefer) now, they are telling two different stories at two different times. The first, Scarlet, records events that occurred only a few years ago, while the second, K, is talking about things that happened 20 years ago. I'm not diminishing the claims; there is not that much difference between a 40 year old and a 60 year old having sexual relations with 20-ish year olds on the skeeviness or legal scales. It does, however, strongly implies that this behavior has been going on for decades at the least.
I'm not a big fan of Gaiman's writing; I think there are others who mine the same territory in ways that are more to my taste. However, years ago, I knew him well enough to stop and chat if we met on the street or in a club, and I admired that he seemed to have avoided letting fame go to his head. I had the opportunity to see him at a few signings, and I also admired his ability to give each fan his full attention while keeping the line moving and gently redirecting people who wanted to make it clear that they were available. to use very old-fashioned terms, he had an air of humility and class. So I don't mourn his writing as much as the image that I had of him once upon a time. Was he always a predator or did he slowly become one? Was I a foll to like him as a person? I have no idea.
As far as supporting an artist whose behavior you abhor, I think that's an individual choice. Maybe you can still love his work; maybe reading something new or something old will now trigger unease or disgust in they way he describes something or the views he presents; maybe you no longer want to give him money or power; maybe you are willing to do that to some degree. I don't think there is a single moral answer to that question or that, because you still like Gaiman's writing, you must also like Polanski or Rowling or whomever or be a hypocrite. It's possible to feel all sorts of ways about something and someone.
Maybe make sure that any 20-year-old women you know who like his work know about him, though.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:15 PM on July 6 [21 favorites]
I'm not a big fan of Gaiman's writing; I think there are others who mine the same territory in ways that are more to my taste. However, years ago, I knew him well enough to stop and chat if we met on the street or in a club, and I admired that he seemed to have avoided letting fame go to his head. I had the opportunity to see him at a few signings, and I also admired his ability to give each fan his full attention while keeping the line moving and gently redirecting people who wanted to make it clear that they were available. to use very old-fashioned terms, he had an air of humility and class. So I don't mourn his writing as much as the image that I had of him once upon a time. Was he always a predator or did he slowly become one? Was I a foll to like him as a person? I have no idea.
As far as supporting an artist whose behavior you abhor, I think that's an individual choice. Maybe you can still love his work; maybe reading something new or something old will now trigger unease or disgust in they way he describes something or the views he presents; maybe you no longer want to give him money or power; maybe you are willing to do that to some degree. I don't think there is a single moral answer to that question or that, because you still like Gaiman's writing, you must also like Polanski or Rowling or whomever or be a hypocrite. It's possible to feel all sorts of ways about something and someone.
Maybe make sure that any 20-year-old women you know who like his work know about him, though.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:15 PM on July 6 [21 favorites]
i wish we would stop all idolizing of public figures due to their perceived virtue immediately and forever. it's naive at best and helps enable consequence-free abuse at worst.
someone who deliberately cultivates an image of "one of the good ones," or at least welcomes that perception, should immediately raise suspicions. instead they tend to end up with a fandom that elevates them as some sort of unproblematic mascot.
i feel horrible for the accusers knowing they'll face even more than the standard reaction of disbelief to their stories, just because so many people have internalized that "neil gaiman? no, he could never!"
posted by a flock of goslings at 2:30 PM on July 6 [12 favorites]
someone who deliberately cultivates an image of "one of the good ones," or at least welcomes that perception, should immediately raise suspicions. instead they tend to end up with a fandom that elevates them as some sort of unproblematic mascot.
i feel horrible for the accusers knowing they'll face even more than the standard reaction of disbelief to their stories, just because so many people have internalized that "neil gaiman? no, he could never!"
posted by a flock of goslings at 2:30 PM on July 6 [12 favorites]
Maybe N K Jemisin can become the go to author for live action remakes of fantasy works now. Gaiman should be too toxic to touch henceforth, and hopefully Rowling's reign is over.
posted by asok at 2:34 PM on July 6 [13 favorites]
posted by asok at 2:34 PM on July 6 [13 favorites]
Was he always a predator or did he slowly become one? Was I a foll to like him as a person? I have no idea.
Ah, there’s the rub. I think there are a lot of predators that, when they aren’t being a predator, are outwardly decent people. That’s something tricky about people: they can be more than one thing at the same time.
Lots of sexual assaulters out there are respected pillars of their communities, as long as they don’t get caught.
Which is honestly more scary to me than someone who “fell” or turned evil, etc.
posted by teece303 at 2:35 PM on July 6 [8 favorites]
Ah, there’s the rub. I think there are a lot of predators that, when they aren’t being a predator, are outwardly decent people. That’s something tricky about people: they can be more than one thing at the same time.
Lots of sexual assaulters out there are respected pillars of their communities, as long as they don’t get caught.
Which is honestly more scary to me than someone who “fell” or turned evil, etc.
posted by teece303 at 2:35 PM on July 6 [8 favorites]
Maybe N K Jemisin can become the go to author for live action remakes of fantasy works now.
Eh, Jemisin showed her bad side in twitter at least a few times. Maybe no one should have that pedestal.
Joanna Russ, in an essay called “Magic Mamas and Trembling Sisters,” talked about feminist groups in the 70s and 80s tended to elevate members and then tear them down. Maybe a related ore is to lift one or two voices up and let their various failings make them a disappointment. Would Rowling be so galling if she hadn’t been made a hero?
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:51 PM on July 6 [10 favorites]
Eh, Jemisin showed her bad side in twitter at least a few times. Maybe no one should have that pedestal.
Joanna Russ, in an essay called “Magic Mamas and Trembling Sisters,” talked about feminist groups in the 70s and 80s tended to elevate members and then tear them down. Maybe a related ore is to lift one or two voices up and let their various failings make them a disappointment. Would Rowling be so galling if she hadn’t been made a hero?
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:51 PM on July 6 [10 favorites]
He fucking knew.
posted by bindr at 2:56 PM on July 6 [1 favorite]
posted by bindr at 2:56 PM on July 6 [1 favorite]
"There are no pedestals, only missing stairs" ? I think that's almost a good aphorism but it needs work.
posted by PresidentOfDinosaurs at 2:57 PM on July 6 [8 favorites]
posted by PresidentOfDinosaurs at 2:57 PM on July 6 [8 favorites]
Would Rowling be so galling if she hadn’t been made a hero?
Rowling would just be another asshole who hates trans people. That sucks; but, well, it wouldn't make her unusual at all.
I think what we have to ask ourselves is why we need to make heroes out of entertainers. Surely they are wiser than us somehow, or more magical, or possess some sense-making insights that we crave as we fumble sluggishly through our own shitty little lives. It's important to believe in transcendence, maybe; this person is important because of how their work makes me feel, and that feeling is Important. It is important, is the thing. But a person who creates nice things is still a person...if they weren't, the things they made wouldn't be remarkable, would they? And they are probably at their best when they're creating. They shine, in those moments. Moments spent, uh, alone in a room, not talking to anyone or relating to other people in any way. Then, after...um...
...Well...
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:07 PM on July 6 [9 favorites]
Rowling would just be another asshole who hates trans people. That sucks; but, well, it wouldn't make her unusual at all.
I think what we have to ask ourselves is why we need to make heroes out of entertainers. Surely they are wiser than us somehow, or more magical, or possess some sense-making insights that we crave as we fumble sluggishly through our own shitty little lives. It's important to believe in transcendence, maybe; this person is important because of how their work makes me feel, and that feeling is Important. It is important, is the thing. But a person who creates nice things is still a person...if they weren't, the things they made wouldn't be remarkable, would they? And they are probably at their best when they're creating. They shine, in those moments. Moments spent, uh, alone in a room, not talking to anyone or relating to other people in any way. Then, after...um...
...Well...
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:07 PM on July 6 [9 favorites]
I have several friends who’ve taken this news very hard, and I understand why. People do make heroes of artists and entertainers, because they gift us with emotional and even transcendent experiences. I didn’t love all of Gaiman’s work, but there were certainly works of his that I found personally meaningful. I still do. So I won’t criticize the people I know who feel like they lost something, even if they never met the man.
I’ve been disappointed in enough heroes at this point that I try very hard not to be attached to the image of a person anymore, unless I know them well personally (often including many of their faults). My reaction to this news was a disappointed sigh and a mental note to avoid buying his future books, and then I moved on with my day. But that level of detachment was only won through being disappointed in many others before him.
And God knows that’s a difficult distance to maintain. Especially in today’s media and social-media environment, where (for example) adaptations of Gaiman’s work are advertised when the Netflix app opens, and his posts have appeared on a social feed mixed in with those of college friends, coworkers, and local businesses.
posted by learning from frequent failure at 3:23 PM on July 6 [9 favorites]
I’ve been disappointed in enough heroes at this point that I try very hard not to be attached to the image of a person anymore, unless I know them well personally (often including many of their faults). My reaction to this news was a disappointed sigh and a mental note to avoid buying his future books, and then I moved on with my day. But that level of detachment was only won through being disappointed in many others before him.
And God knows that’s a difficult distance to maintain. Especially in today’s media and social-media environment, where (for example) adaptations of Gaiman’s work are advertised when the Netflix app opens, and his posts have appeared on a social feed mixed in with those of college friends, coworkers, and local businesses.
posted by learning from frequent failure at 3:23 PM on July 6 [9 favorites]
It's bummers all the way down.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:33 PM on July 6 [20 favorites]
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:33 PM on July 6 [20 favorites]
If you're not sure what to do with your feelings about this, I'll note that part of John Scalzi's reaction was a donation to RAINN, which seems like one good way to respond.
posted by kristi at 4:05 PM on July 6 [31 favorites]
posted by kristi at 4:05 PM on July 6 [31 favorites]
I am going to reserve judgement at this time. The author, Rachel Johnson, has also written pieces such as "When it comes to trans issues, JK Rowling is the heir to George Orwell".
In the future, I'd suggest waiting for better sources on a developing story than platforming rabid transphobes.
posted by signal at 4:17 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
In the future, I'd suggest waiting for better sources on a developing story than platforming rabid transphobes.
posted by signal at 4:17 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
In the future, I'd suggest waiting for better sources on a developing story than platforming rabid transphobes.
how many times and to how many different better sources do you think a rape victim should have to repeat her full story and provide all her corroborating documents and character witnesses before you agree to consider her account in her own words, which were recorded and some of which already have been transcribed?
“in the future, I’d suggest” reading those transcripts at your leisure.
posted by queenofbithynia at 4:39 PM on July 6 [41 favorites]
how many times and to how many different better sources do you think a rape victim should have to repeat her full story and provide all her corroborating documents and character witnesses before you agree to consider her account in her own words, which were recorded and some of which already have been transcribed?
“in the future, I’d suggest” reading those transcripts at your leisure.
posted by queenofbithynia at 4:39 PM on July 6 [41 favorites]
Sandman will still have value. Good Omens will still have value. The other novels, short stories, comics, and plays will still have value. Their value will be tarnished and diminished by association but the work can stand on its own, for those still willing to accept it given the source.
I'm reminded of the open letter Daniel Radcliffe wrote after J. K. Rowling first showed her TERF ass - he wrote an absolute masterwork of a public statement, threading the tricky needle between "this is the woman who basically made my career" and "I completely 100% disagree with her on this point though"; it was something he wrote over at The Trevor Project, to boot. Most of it is him affirming that his position is VERY different from hers, and that trans women are women.
But then at the end he addresses the fans of the books themselves and how they may be feeling (emphasis below is mine).
....Then again, Georgia Tennant is becoming something of a name in the producing side of things, I wonder if she could handle taking Good Omens on at least.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:10 PM on July 6 [38 favorites]
I'm reminded of the open letter Daniel Radcliffe wrote after J. K. Rowling first showed her TERF ass - he wrote an absolute masterwork of a public statement, threading the tricky needle between "this is the woman who basically made my career" and "I completely 100% disagree with her on this point though"; it was something he wrote over at The Trevor Project, to boot. Most of it is him affirming that his position is VERY different from hers, and that trans women are women.
But then at the end he addresses the fans of the books themselves and how they may be feeling (emphasis below is mine).
To all the people who now feel that their experience of the books has been tarnished or diminished, I am deeply sorry for the pain these comments have caused you. I really hope that you don’t entirely lose what was valuable in these stories to you. If these books taught you that love is the strongest force in the universe, capable of overcoming anything; if they taught you that strength is found in diversity, and that dogmatic ideas of pureness lead to the oppression of vulnerable groups; if you believe that a particular character is trans, nonbinary, or gender fluid, or that they are gay or bisexual; if you found anything in these stories that resonated with you and helped you at any time in your life — then that is between you and the book that you read, and it is sacred. And in my opinion nobody can touch that. It means to you what it means to you and I hope that these comments will not taint that too much.I'm fairly certain this means Neil will no longer be involved with the next seasons of Good Omens and Sandman, and my only disappointment there is over how that means those adaptations may run the risk of sucking (like American Gods did).
....Then again, Georgia Tennant is becoming something of a name in the producing side of things, I wonder if she could handle taking Good Omens on at least.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:10 PM on July 6 [38 favorites]
This feels like an episode of Colombo - he lays out the crime in his own words and we just watch him do it.
He did it. And another man gets Me Tooed.
posted by Comstar at 5:13 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
He did it. And another man gets Me Tooed.
posted by Comstar at 5:13 PM on July 6 [3 favorites]
As I said on the previous post (before it got deleted at the posters request):
This has the potential to get so Very Ugly and I hope the women involved have some form of protection and people on whom they can trust, I also hope they don't get doxxed.
posted by Faintdreams at 5:25 PM on July 6 [5 favorites]
This has the potential to get so Very Ugly and I hope the women involved have some form of protection and people on whom they can trust, I also hope they don't get doxxed.
posted by Faintdreams at 5:25 PM on July 6 [5 favorites]
So. I've been trying unpack my feelings about this for the past couple of days only to come to the conclusion that ... I don't really have any, or that they're pretty complicated. I think I've left how I felt about Gaiman pretty firmly in the past. That's just me, though. I'm not heartbroken so much as I'm just accepting that this is, honestly, sadly, true.
Neil Gaiman's work means a lot to me. I would say it is, in some respects, responsible for where I am in life and the relationships I've made. I was in deep in the fandom there for a while (late '90s through late '00s) and I know people who have worked with him. (I mean, in two days, we're approaching the 30 year anniversary of when I first read Preludes and Nocturnes.)
That he often slept with his fans and formed inappropriate (if consensual) relationships with them has been a pretty open secret since the late '90s, honestly, but I think some of that was just "it was what happened" and I think for most reports (not all!) was not predatory overall.
But I think we all also knew that his charming, slightly awkward Englishman thing was ... maybe not completely an act, because in my few brief encounters with him, he was always a charming, slightly awkward Englishman ... but clearly a pose. It was what people wanted from him and he delivered. I think you can say that was either a form of self-protection or manipulative. I think it can be be both, honestly.
I also think he's someone who never quite grew up and never overcame whatever childhood issues he had (I'm not going to speculate but I've also read his work). I keep saying men would rather make terrible art than get therapy and as much as I know how much creating art can be therapeutic ... but, get some therapy.
I think he got too attached to the attentions of women younger than he was. And the older he got, the younger they stayed (as the saying goes).
I believe that the podcasts are both a hit piece and the truth. I think he's a messy person who's been egotistical and cruel but also has been kind and supportive to a lot of people. I think those things can coexist.
I realize that's not a comfort to his survivors, though. I wish them peace and I hope they can find healing.
(Gaiman hasn't really written anything of significance in a while and seems like he's mostly focused on TV/movie projects and being a "personality." I wouldn't be surprised if he just quietly disappears.)
If you have issues with anything I said, that's fine. This was just kind of a brain dump and incoherent. I may not have expressed myself the best.
posted by edencosmic at 5:33 PM on July 6 [28 favorites]
Neil Gaiman's work means a lot to me. I would say it is, in some respects, responsible for where I am in life and the relationships I've made. I was in deep in the fandom there for a while (late '90s through late '00s) and I know people who have worked with him. (I mean, in two days, we're approaching the 30 year anniversary of when I first read Preludes and Nocturnes.)
That he often slept with his fans and formed inappropriate (if consensual) relationships with them has been a pretty open secret since the late '90s, honestly, but I think some of that was just "it was what happened" and I think for most reports (not all!) was not predatory overall.
But I think we all also knew that his charming, slightly awkward Englishman thing was ... maybe not completely an act, because in my few brief encounters with him, he was always a charming, slightly awkward Englishman ... but clearly a pose. It was what people wanted from him and he delivered. I think you can say that was either a form of self-protection or manipulative. I think it can be be both, honestly.
I also think he's someone who never quite grew up and never overcame whatever childhood issues he had (I'm not going to speculate but I've also read his work). I keep saying men would rather make terrible art than get therapy and as much as I know how much creating art can be therapeutic ... but, get some therapy.
I think he got too attached to the attentions of women younger than he was. And the older he got, the younger they stayed (as the saying goes).
I believe that the podcasts are both a hit piece and the truth. I think he's a messy person who's been egotistical and cruel but also has been kind and supportive to a lot of people. I think those things can coexist.
I realize that's not a comfort to his survivors, though. I wish them peace and I hope they can find healing.
(Gaiman hasn't really written anything of significance in a while and seems like he's mostly focused on TV/movie projects and being a "personality." I wouldn't be surprised if he just quietly disappears.)
If you have issues with anything I said, that's fine. This was just kind of a brain dump and incoherent. I may not have expressed myself the best.
posted by edencosmic at 5:33 PM on July 6 [28 favorites]
I had heard rumblings last week about scandalous journalists accusing Neil Gaiman of scandalous behavior, so, assuming there wasn’t much to the accusations, I searched “Neil Gaiman drama.” What a useless search that was—not because of all his adaptations on streaming media these days, but because for decades, Neil Gaiman has been as much a center of “drama” as London’s West End, which I did not know.
posted by infinitewindow at 5:38 PM on July 6
posted by infinitewindow at 5:38 PM on July 6
I'm just going to drop my comments from the previous thread verbatim:
Even if Gaiman's version of events is true and it was entirely consensual, hooking up with you kid's nanny who is 40 years your junior is gross. The other accuser had a 20 year age gap and met him when she was a 18 year old fan and he was already a well established author. Both involve massive power imbalances. Similar situations have resulted in authors being cancelled even without any allegations of SA.
Also, fuck TERFs and yes I wish anyone else was reporting this.
posted by thecjm at 5:42 PM on July 6 [11 favorites]
Even if Gaiman's version of events is true and it was entirely consensual, hooking up with you kid's nanny who is 40 years your junior is gross. The other accuser had a 20 year age gap and met him when she was a 18 year old fan and he was already a well established author. Both involve massive power imbalances. Similar situations have resulted in authors being cancelled even without any allegations of SA.
Also, fuck TERFs and yes I wish anyone else was reporting this.
posted by thecjm at 5:42 PM on July 6 [11 favorites]
I just recently watched episode 11 of Sandman. Where the “feminist” author who makes a big fuss of announcing his love of Octavia Butler is also a rapist.
He gets what’s coming to him.
posted by bunderful at 6:10 PM on July 6 [9 favorites]
He gets what’s coming to him.
posted by bunderful at 6:10 PM on July 6 [9 favorites]
guilt by association may bleed upon you because you once thought so highly of this fatally flawed individual.
Nah…if there was guilt by association in once thinking highly of someone who has since turned out to be an asshole, we’d all be dripping red.
posted by bq at 6:14 PM on July 6 [2 favorites]
Nah…if there was guilt by association in once thinking highly of someone who has since turned out to be an asshole, we’d all be dripping red.
posted by bq at 6:14 PM on July 6 [2 favorites]
Also, GROSS, in The Ocean at the End of the Lane there is a nanny who is actually an evil spirit who the married dad immediately fucks. Which is then…never mentioned again. Poor Una.
posted by bq at 6:15 PM on July 6 [5 favorites]
posted by bq at 6:15 PM on July 6 [5 favorites]
Just found this, which sounds like a relevant read, but I am running out the door now. Mods, please delete if it turns out to be ... anything, but it's answering the questions about Tortoise and why it's the only source.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:15 PM on July 6 [6 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:15 PM on July 6 [6 favorites]
And another man gets Me Tooed.
he didn’t get anythinged. he did things to women. the cute hashtag phrase happened to them, not to him.
could people consider reading the rough transcripts that are available so far before giving their important opinions on his tv shows or his comics or his novels and whether you will or won’t still like them tomorrow. I truly do not believe that so many of you would be shrugging and talking so blithely about Even if it was like he said it was if you had actually read what she says it was like. also, there’s no chance it was like he said it was.
as you know if you have read any of the transcripts , the podcasters minimize the allegations in a way that is fairly grotesque. but the victims’ statements and messages are in there.
if you can’t take it, you don’t have to know. but if you choose not to know, then stop frantically filling up all the silence and the space with noise about how you don’t know. I am not quoting the things I am urging people to read because it would be deleted in half a second for being so foul. the words assault and abuse do not, by themselves, paint an adequate mental picture.
links are here, this person is not me and I don’t know them.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:19 PM on July 6 [35 favorites]
he didn’t get anythinged. he did things to women. the cute hashtag phrase happened to them, not to him.
could people consider reading the rough transcripts that are available so far before giving their important opinions on his tv shows or his comics or his novels and whether you will or won’t still like them tomorrow. I truly do not believe that so many of you would be shrugging and talking so blithely about Even if it was like he said it was if you had actually read what she says it was like. also, there’s no chance it was like he said it was.
as you know if you have read any of the transcripts , the podcasters minimize the allegations in a way that is fairly grotesque. but the victims’ statements and messages are in there.
if you can’t take it, you don’t have to know. but if you choose not to know, then stop frantically filling up all the silence and the space with noise about how you don’t know. I am not quoting the things I am urging people to read because it would be deleted in half a second for being so foul. the words assault and abuse do not, by themselves, paint an adequate mental picture.
links are here, this person is not me and I don’t know them.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:19 PM on July 6 [35 favorites]
I am so very desperate for people who have not read the transcripts to refrain from giving ANY input until they’ve listened to/read the nanny’s account in her own words. It sucks to listen to anything from an untrustworthy TERF-related publication etc, but the young girl is telling the story IN HER OWN WORDS. And now there’s a transcript! See above!
Several trans women on Bluesky are also saying they’re especially angry at being used as an excuse to disbelieve or ignore or equivocate sexual assault by A CIS MAN.
posted by oh__lol at 6:59 PM on July 6 [18 favorites]
Several trans women on Bluesky are also saying they’re especially angry at being used as an excuse to disbelieve or ignore or equivocate sexual assault by A CIS MAN.
posted by oh__lol at 6:59 PM on July 6 [18 favorites]
regarding the podcaster affiliations:
if you think the victims have been badly served by bad media people who used their position of power, respect and authority to get close, and then used that closeness to exploit their experiences for despicable ends, and that this probably wouldn’t have happened if the victims had other, more ethical people looking out for them, I agree. that seems pretty likely. and if you think that’s bad, wait till you hear what neil did.
we might all also pause to reflect that if this is the second time they have trusted bad storytellers with bad morals, that pattern makes their stories more credible, not less.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:03 PM on July 6 [11 favorites]
if you think the victims have been badly served by bad media people who used their position of power, respect and authority to get close, and then used that closeness to exploit their experiences for despicable ends, and that this probably wouldn’t have happened if the victims had other, more ethical people looking out for them, I agree. that seems pretty likely. and if you think that’s bad, wait till you hear what neil did.
we might all also pause to reflect that if this is the second time they have trusted bad storytellers with bad morals, that pattern makes their stories more credible, not less.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:03 PM on July 6 [11 favorites]
I'm devastated, quite frankly. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me countless times over a period of thirty years...well. In my apartment there are several shelves of books, some of them autographed, that I have to deal with, not to mention the toys and tchotchkes. As for the tattoo, I'll probably just cut my right arm off.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:11 PM on July 6 [9 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:11 PM on July 6 [9 favorites]
I remember reading Sandman in the 90s, particularly the Game of You arc, which introduced Wanda, a transgender woman. Gaiman's handling of the character was good and moving and I appreciated that he was treating her as human.
To find out now that he's been shitty isn't too surprising in these day and age. Everyone moving in circles of power is a bit shitty in some ways, yeah? No matter the industry, power corrupts on many levels.
But as I've been thinking about the news and people noting that what he allegedly did wasn't illegal, I keep asking myself, "Maybe it should be", somehow, someway.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:21 PM on July 6 [7 favorites]
To find out now that he's been shitty isn't too surprising in these day and age. Everyone moving in circles of power is a bit shitty in some ways, yeah? No matter the industry, power corrupts on many levels.
But as I've been thinking about the news and people noting that what he allegedly did wasn't illegal, I keep asking myself, "Maybe it should be", somehow, someway.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:21 PM on July 6 [7 favorites]
No, this is worse than being shitty. That transcript is fucking disturbing.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:23 PM on July 6 [17 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:23 PM on July 6 [17 favorites]
Reading that transcript: people who are innocent and in a consensual relationship don’t pay people’s rent for six months on the condition of their signing an NDA dated back to the day they started their “consensual” relationship.
posted by corb at 7:26 PM on July 6 [28 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:26 PM on July 6 [28 favorites]
He penetrated someone nonconsensually with his finger. He's a piece of shit.
posted by pelvicsorcery at 7:30 PM on July 6 [6 favorites]
posted by pelvicsorcery at 7:30 PM on July 6 [6 favorites]
But as I've been thinking about the news and people noting that what he allegedly did wasn't illegal, I keep asking myself, "Maybe it should be", somehow, someway.
rape is illegal.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:34 PM on July 6 [11 favorites]
rape is illegal.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:34 PM on July 6 [11 favorites]
The NDA implies to me that the event was both calculated and part of a pattern.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:37 PM on July 6 [2 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:37 PM on July 6 [2 favorites]
OMFG. "Kathryn Tewson on BlueSky (a paralegal with an excellent reputation) ..." is also a MeFite. I thought her writing style and some of her anecdotes seemed familiar.
She's provided the transcript for the second episode. Direct link to Episode 2: the WhatsApps (PDF)
Her usual disclaimer: "I have transcribed the second episode of Tortoise's podcast series "Master: the Allegations against Neil Gaiman." This transcript is not certified and should not be relied on for legal or journalistic purposes without confirming with audio."
From that thread: "This episode goes into further detail about the sexual abuse and assault Scarlett endured at Gaiman's hands, as well as the ways he exploited and manipulated her as she was coming to grips with the severity of what she had endured. The podcasters describe this as "mild BDSM." I would challenge that interpretation: this bears no relation to any safe, sane, consensual BDSM practices I am aware of, and the conduct described would not fall into the "mild" category for anyone I know. It also describes how Rachel was induced to sign an NDA, how Neil got her to go on record with his therapist (!!) to say he had not raped her, and touches on the frustrating experience she had going to the New Zealand police. I have highlighted the places where Scarlett speaks in her own voice, both with the podcasters and in archived recordings, as well as Neil's statements in his own voice from archived recordings. This episode contains the first hint that Neil may indeed have spoken to the podcasters, on page 12."
posted by maudlin at 7:44 PM on July 6 [10 favorites]
She's provided the transcript for the second episode. Direct link to Episode 2: the WhatsApps (PDF)
Her usual disclaimer: "I have transcribed the second episode of Tortoise's podcast series "Master: the Allegations against Neil Gaiman." This transcript is not certified and should not be relied on for legal or journalistic purposes without confirming with audio."
From that thread: "This episode goes into further detail about the sexual abuse and assault Scarlett endured at Gaiman's hands, as well as the ways he exploited and manipulated her as she was coming to grips with the severity of what she had endured. The podcasters describe this as "mild BDSM." I would challenge that interpretation: this bears no relation to any safe, sane, consensual BDSM practices I am aware of, and the conduct described would not fall into the "mild" category for anyone I know. It also describes how Rachel was induced to sign an NDA, how Neil got her to go on record with his therapist (!!) to say he had not raped her, and touches on the frustrating experience she had going to the New Zealand police. I have highlighted the places where Scarlett speaks in her own voice, both with the podcasters and in archived recordings, as well as Neil's statements in his own voice from archived recordings. This episode contains the first hint that Neil may indeed have spoken to the podcasters, on page 12."
posted by maudlin at 7:44 PM on July 6 [10 favorites]
I tried to read the transcripts, but I only got a little bit of the ways into the second episode before I had to stop. After that, I don't have anything to say except for fuck that guy, what a fucking monster.
posted by jordemort at 7:53 PM on July 6 [4 favorites]
posted by jordemort at 7:53 PM on July 6 [4 favorites]
I am perfectly content to cancel him just based on
and here I was thinking cancel culture wasn't a thing except, of course, on the right
I'm pretty sure the thing on the right is to complain about "cancel culture" and use that as a reason to not actually cancel people, and find excuses for heinous sexist, misogynist, and illegal behavior.
Don't care much about this one way or the other, but I've always been baffled by people who pointedly refuse to consume or like good art by bad people, or good art with one problematic aspect. I want to say to them, "are you aware of the level of narcissism and drive it takes to make it big in any of the arts? And how difficult it is for even a basically decent person to not have that level of narcissism spill over into their non-art life?"
I have trouble believing that people who do this pointed refusal are doing anything other than public preening or virtue signaling, but it would seem that I am wrong and people are serious. Well, okay, it's your life. I can't imagine what a palette of TV or literature or whatever that IS acceptable to Performative Tumblr is like, but I'm guessing it's pretty painful as art.
So there's virtue signaling, which I called myself out for, which in my case occurs when I, a leftist, meet another leftist and we do that thing where we talk about things we like and point out the bad aspects of them, to indicate that we have the correct biases. It can get a bit tiresome even to me, but it has its utility as well at times.
What's left up to each of us is then how we're actually going to, you know, handle the ethical issues that liking those things raises. That's not virtue signaling. That's trying to be an ethical person and not support, monetarily or otherwise, people who are unrepentant about the bad things they've done. As others noted above, it can be really hard to watch or read things and enjoy them when you know about bad things their creators have done.
I feel like those are very different things and that's an important distinction.
posted by limeonaire at 7:57 PM on July 6 [10 favorites]
and here I was thinking cancel culture wasn't a thing except, of course, on the right
I'm pretty sure the thing on the right is to complain about "cancel culture" and use that as a reason to not actually cancel people, and find excuses for heinous sexist, misogynist, and illegal behavior.
Don't care much about this one way or the other, but I've always been baffled by people who pointedly refuse to consume or like good art by bad people, or good art with one problematic aspect. I want to say to them, "are you aware of the level of narcissism and drive it takes to make it big in any of the arts? And how difficult it is for even a basically decent person to not have that level of narcissism spill over into their non-art life?"
I have trouble believing that people who do this pointed refusal are doing anything other than public preening or virtue signaling, but it would seem that I am wrong and people are serious. Well, okay, it's your life. I can't imagine what a palette of TV or literature or whatever that IS acceptable to Performative Tumblr is like, but I'm guessing it's pretty painful as art.
So there's virtue signaling, which I called myself out for, which in my case occurs when I, a leftist, meet another leftist and we do that thing where we talk about things we like and point out the bad aspects of them, to indicate that we have the correct biases. It can get a bit tiresome even to me, but it has its utility as well at times.
What's left up to each of us is then how we're actually going to, you know, handle the ethical issues that liking those things raises. That's not virtue signaling. That's trying to be an ethical person and not support, monetarily or otherwise, people who are unrepentant about the bad things they've done. As others noted above, it can be really hard to watch or read things and enjoy them when you know about bad things their creators have done.
I feel like those are very different things and that's an important distinction.
posted by limeonaire at 7:57 PM on July 6 [10 favorites]
cw disturbing and graphic sexual descriptions
I agree that the podcasters calling it “mild BDSM” is bizarre. And as Tewson pointed out, it was not safe, sane, and consensual. It was not safe—forcing her to give him oral sex after he had had anal sex with her moments earlier is not safe. Anal sex without lubricant until she bleeds and passes out from the pain is not safe. And what they describe in the second episode is not within the usual bounds of consent and would have to be responsibly negotiated beforehand, with conversations about limits, safe words, providing aftercare, etc—and certainly K did not give her consent to penetration, and Scarlett did not give enthusiastic consent in the first encounter either, and was also in an extremely vulnerable place.
Calling what he did “mild BDSM” feels like an insult to the BDSM community, which does highly value true, informed consent and responsible, clear communication and agreement about limits.
posted by oh__lol at 8:34 PM on July 6 [21 favorites]
I agree that the podcasters calling it “mild BDSM” is bizarre. And as Tewson pointed out, it was not safe, sane, and consensual. It was not safe—forcing her to give him oral sex after he had had anal sex with her moments earlier is not safe. Anal sex without lubricant until she bleeds and passes out from the pain is not safe. And what they describe in the second episode is not within the usual bounds of consent and would have to be responsibly negotiated beforehand, with conversations about limits, safe words, providing aftercare, etc—and certainly K did not give her consent to penetration, and Scarlett did not give enthusiastic consent in the first encounter either, and was also in an extremely vulnerable place.
Calling what he did “mild BDSM” feels like an insult to the BDSM community, which does highly value true, informed consent and responsible, clear communication and agreement about limits.
posted by oh__lol at 8:34 PM on July 6 [21 favorites]
Hm. I used to be pretty deep in the Sandman fandom. How deep, I'm not going to say, for privacy reasons. I don't think it would be very difficult for me to get ahold of Gaiman today. He has been very kind to me in the past, and never inappropriate in personal interactions.
And that doesn't really matter today -- mostly, this situation has made me second-guess my past interactions with him and feel bad for the victims.
I don't think it's right to say that people can't have an opinion without reading potentially triggering transcripts that explicitly describe a pretty disturbing situation. I do think it's right to say that people shouldn't just write off these allegations without having read those transcripts. But it's OK to be uncomfortable with the idea of reading them, and sorry, I just am not comfortable doing so. The idea of it nauseates me. I can believe the victims without reading the details, on the basis of the reactions of other MeFites and other friends around the internet.
It does make me a little heartsick that this news has come out, but that's on the actual abuser, not on anyone else.
posted by verbminx at 10:47 PM on July 6 [12 favorites]
And that doesn't really matter today -- mostly, this situation has made me second-guess my past interactions with him and feel bad for the victims.
I don't think it's right to say that people can't have an opinion without reading potentially triggering transcripts that explicitly describe a pretty disturbing situation. I do think it's right to say that people shouldn't just write off these allegations without having read those transcripts. But it's OK to be uncomfortable with the idea of reading them, and sorry, I just am not comfortable doing so. The idea of it nauseates me. I can believe the victims without reading the details, on the basis of the reactions of other MeFites and other friends around the internet.
It does make me a little heartsick that this news has come out, but that's on the actual abuser, not on anyone else.
posted by verbminx at 10:47 PM on July 6 [12 favorites]
(That is to say: I am disgusted that it happened at all, not that anyone revealed it. Those poor girls.)
posted by verbminx at 11:02 PM on July 6 [7 favorites]
posted by verbminx at 11:02 PM on July 6 [7 favorites]
Don't heroize people who are good at their art jobs (making up stories, singing songs, making movies, etc.) and mistakenly imagine they must be some special kind of people through and through. People with art jobs are like plumbers and other professionals, all equally likely or unlikely to lead exemplary or skeevy personal lives. Don't heroize the guy who installs your plumbing and don't feel obligated to have it all torn out if you find out he's a scoundrel.
posted by pracowity at 11:15 PM on July 6 [10 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 11:15 PM on July 6 [10 favorites]
Mod note: One removed. Let's stick to discussion of Gaiman here, rather than attempting to veer into some defense of Tortoise Media.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:08 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:08 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
Yeah, wow, I didn’t think I agreed with the posters who said to read the transcripts before forming an opinion. But I just did and wow how horrifying. Don’t read it if you’re concerned about being triggered or having the image of this nightmarish creepy guy haunt you for the rest of the week.
posted by johngoren at 12:16 AM on July 7 [8 favorites]
posted by johngoren at 12:16 AM on July 7 [8 favorites]
I think "read the transcripts before dismissing" is totally fair.
I don't think dismissing is fair at all whether or not you've read them. That's where I'm at.
posted by verbminx at 1:28 AM on July 7 [3 favorites]
I don't think dismissing is fair at all whether or not you've read them. That's where I'm at.
posted by verbminx at 1:28 AM on July 7 [3 favorites]
Is there any one who gets power and wealth and stays pure at heart?
I feel like putting names to this is daring the universe to break our hearts.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:19 AM on July 7 [35 favorites]
I feel like putting names to this is daring the universe to break our hearts.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:19 AM on July 7 [35 favorites]
Don't heroize the guy who installs your plumbing and don't feel obligated to have it all torn out if you find out he's a scoundrel.
That is an uncommon opinion nowadays.
posted by fairmettle at 2:56 AM on July 7 [2 favorites]
That is an uncommon opinion nowadays.
posted by fairmettle at 2:56 AM on July 7 [2 favorites]
The plumber analogy is useful in that, no you wouldn’t tear out all of your plumbing in the same way that you can’t tear out all of the impact certain works of art have had on you - the emotional and intellectual plumbing, as it were. But you can avoid hiring the plumber again in the future, or giving the plumber any additional money; just as you can avoid giving an artist who you learn has seriously violated your values additional income. With the artist, you just also have to think about royalties in addition to new works produced.
posted by eviemath at 3:41 AM on July 7 [33 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 3:41 AM on July 7 [33 favorites]
But you can avoid hiring the plumber again in the future, or giving the plumber any additional money; just as you can avoid giving an artist who you learn has seriously violated your values additional income. With the artist, you just also have to think about royalties in addition to new works produced.
With some art forms it gets more complicated because there is a whole collective of artists, some of whom may not be scoundrels - and some of whom may even be the scoundrels' victims themselves. For instance, Hitchcock was a bit Harvey-Weinsteinish towards Tippi Hederen when they were filming The Birds. So avoiding that film to deny Hitchcock the royalties also keeps Hederen from getting her own royalties - and she was a victim of the abuse instead of the perpetrator.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:01 AM on July 7 [11 favorites]
With some art forms it gets more complicated because there is a whole collective of artists, some of whom may not be scoundrels - and some of whom may even be the scoundrels' victims themselves. For instance, Hitchcock was a bit Harvey-Weinsteinish towards Tippi Hederen when they were filming The Birds. So avoiding that film to deny Hitchcock the royalties also keeps Hederen from getting her own royalties - and she was a victim of the abuse instead of the perpetrator.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:01 AM on July 7 [11 favorites]
I don't think I understand the "don't heroise" comments here.
Does that mean, "expect everyone to be potentially a harmful abuser so that you can shrug with a lack of surprise when it turns out they are?"
I might be misunderstanding, but it seems perfectly normal and fine to admire a person, and be horrified when they turn out to be harmful?
I understand that one shouldn't expect anyone, artist or athlete, to be unusually virtuous simply because they're unusually talented. But I don't think that's what is happening when people are shocked at this situation with Neil Gaiman?
posted by Zumbador at 4:22 AM on July 7 [12 favorites]
Does that mean, "expect everyone to be potentially a harmful abuser so that you can shrug with a lack of surprise when it turns out they are?"
I might be misunderstanding, but it seems perfectly normal and fine to admire a person, and be horrified when they turn out to be harmful?
I understand that one shouldn't expect anyone, artist or athlete, to be unusually virtuous simply because they're unusually talented. But I don't think that's what is happening when people are shocked at this situation with Neil Gaiman?
posted by Zumbador at 4:22 AM on July 7 [12 favorites]
Yeah it seems like a reasonable response to lost innocence. You grow up going to the bookstore and thinking of your favorite authors as your friends. I wasn’t a huge Gaiman fan, i grew up mostly reading his bio of Douglas Adams, but I always got a warm enough feeling seeing his fantasy books on the shelf and it sucks that this will be replaced from here on out by a gross chill.
posted by johngoren at 4:49 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
posted by johngoren at 4:49 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
I posted some windy stuff up top about whether we should or shouldn't look up to creators, etc., blah blah blah. It's kind of an interesting topic, but I think that if you read the transcripts, even just the highlighted parts that are the accuser's statements, you will quickly realize there is a bigger issue here than whether you can ethically watch the Sandman TV show.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:50 AM on July 7 [4 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:50 AM on July 7 [4 favorites]
I’ve dealt with a house that had been plumbed by a morally bad plumber (cheated on business partners, skipped out of the state, turned out to have falsified quite a lot of paperwork, I think a personal scandal on the way). You know what? The plumbing was also bad. Someone who wouldn’t do his share in anything else wouldn’t do it getting sweaty in a crawl space. The failures damaged the septic, heating, and *roof* systems. We had to replace most of it.
An artist merely represents humanity to me, expands the possible, opens a vein and bleeds onto the page, teaches me empathy. Empathy for what?
I don’t need artists to be perfect - I’m probably too flawed to get the work of a morally perfect person - but … empathy for what?
(I would say Gaiman has the very eighties-nineties-ish flaw of “empathy for the cool”.)
posted by clew at 6:04 AM on July 7 [15 favorites]
An artist merely represents humanity to me, expands the possible, opens a vein and bleeds onto the page, teaches me empathy. Empathy for what?
I don’t need artists to be perfect - I’m probably too flawed to get the work of a morally perfect person - but … empathy for what?
(I would say Gaiman has the very eighties-nineties-ish flaw of “empathy for the cool”.)
posted by clew at 6:04 AM on July 7 [15 favorites]
The thought randomly occurred to me that I hope Terry Pratchett never knew.
posted by humbug at 6:37 AM on July 7 [28 favorites]
posted by humbug at 6:37 AM on July 7 [28 favorites]
there is a bigger issue here than whether you can ethically watch the Sandman TV show.
If the conversation isn't about whether to watch his tv show or whatever he does (whether to admire a bad person's art), isn't this just a "this awful thing happened" post? The news is full of men being horrible. You could probably start a MetaFilter subsite devoted to stories about men doing despicable things to babysitters and nannies.
posted by pracowity at 6:49 AM on July 7 [6 favorites]
If the conversation isn't about whether to watch his tv show or whatever he does (whether to admire a bad person's art), isn't this just a "this awful thing happened" post? The news is full of men being horrible. You could probably start a MetaFilter subsite devoted to stories about men doing despicable things to babysitters and nannies.
posted by pracowity at 6:49 AM on July 7 [6 favorites]
If the conversation isn't about whether to watch his tv show or whatever he does (whether to admire a bad person's art), isn't this just a "this awful thing happened" post?
That's a great question. The answer is no. As already seen here, many people who are members of this website have crossed paths with this person, or know people who have, or could easily cross paths with this person in the future. It is not at all unlikely that a person who sees this post could be a young creative who fits the profile of someone who would be of interest to this person. In my opinion, that is the purpose of the post. You may have another opinion.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:56 AM on July 7 [13 favorites]
That's a great question. The answer is no. As already seen here, many people who are members of this website have crossed paths with this person, or know people who have, or could easily cross paths with this person in the future. It is not at all unlikely that a person who sees this post could be a young creative who fits the profile of someone who would be of interest to this person. In my opinion, that is the purpose of the post. You may have another opinion.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:56 AM on July 7 [13 favorites]
My reaction to this news was a disappointed sigh and a mental note to avoid buying his future books, and then I moved on with my day. But that level of detachment was only won through being disappointed in many others before him.
posted by learning from frequent failure at 3:23 PM on July 6
Eponysterical! Really speeds up the process, I suppose, if you can learn from the (very) frequent failures of the people around us, too…
Thanks for sharing, GenjiAndProust.
posted by eirias at 7:02 AM on July 7 [3 favorites]
posted by learning from frequent failure at 3:23 PM on July 6
Eponysterical! Really speeds up the process, I suppose, if you can learn from the (very) frequent failures of the people around us, too…
Thanks for sharing, GenjiAndProust.
posted by eirias at 7:02 AM on July 7 [3 favorites]
I would (respectfully!) argue that the “can you still enjoy his work” discussion is relevant because a lot of fans are vocally defending him or being publicly dubious about the claims of the women because they’re desperate to keep liking his work (see: Good Omens fans on Tumblr, etc).
God, this discourse is brutal for survivors to read. As people keep saying, “Neil Gaiman isn’t going to read your post defending him and casting doubt on her allegations or her very existence, but someone who’s a survivor WILL.”
The more one can get it through their brain that you can say, “I like Good Omens, it means a lot to me and I’m struggling with this news,” AND “That man is a flaming piece of dogshit who sexually assaulted his nanny,” the more I hope the discourse improves (?).
posted by oh__lol at 7:11 AM on July 7 [29 favorites]
God, this discourse is brutal for survivors to read. As people keep saying, “Neil Gaiman isn’t going to read your post defending him and casting doubt on her allegations or her very existence, but someone who’s a survivor WILL.”
The more one can get it through their brain that you can say, “I like Good Omens, it means a lot to me and I’m struggling with this news,” AND “That man is a flaming piece of dogshit who sexually assaulted his nanny,” the more I hope the discourse improves (?).
posted by oh__lol at 7:11 AM on July 7 [29 favorites]
It’s definitely giving a certain amount of Trevor Bauer
posted by toodleydoodley at 7:31 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
posted by toodleydoodley at 7:31 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
Does that mean, "expect everyone to be potentially a harmful abuser so that you can shrug with a lack of surprise when it turns out they are?"
I might be misunderstanding, but it seems perfectly normal and fine to admire a person, and be horrified when they turn out to be harmful?
yeah imho "don't heroize people" is for when you learn your hero was kind of a shit to people in their personal life, or screwed over collaborators, or plagiarized, or whatever. It's not for the sort of allegations presented here, which are beyond the bounds of behavior you'd try to hold any random stranger to, not just stuff unbefitting a hero.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:39 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
I might be misunderstanding, but it seems perfectly normal and fine to admire a person, and be horrified when they turn out to be harmful?
yeah imho "don't heroize people" is for when you learn your hero was kind of a shit to people in their personal life, or screwed over collaborators, or plagiarized, or whatever. It's not for the sort of allegations presented here, which are beyond the bounds of behavior you'd try to hold any random stranger to, not just stuff unbefitting a hero.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:39 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
I just had a really sad thought - I wonder how Tori Amos is doing.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:50 AM on July 7 [10 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:50 AM on July 7 [10 favorites]
If you're a man trying to be a decent human being and looking for role models while you do so, things can seem grim at times.
I'm tempted to say that Jason Isbell has seemed to be an exemplary human being, but he just got divorced and we may yet hear some shit. The disappoinment train makes so many stops.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:57 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
I'm tempted to say that Jason Isbell has seemed to be an exemplary human being, but he just got divorced and we may yet hear some shit. The disappoinment train makes so many stops.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:57 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
so the way i see it, fan communities should be able to, when necessary, replace the author of the works at the center of the fandom with a new author determined by the community via whatever democratic process the community itself chooses. when the community carries out an author replacement, the person they elevate gets to take both the name of the replaced author and all credit for all works that author produced. the hp community, for example, should be able to declare a new rowling, and once that rowling has been declared the new rowling is j.k. rowling, and is in all ways considered to be the author of all works the previous j.k. rowling had created. the previous rowling is, meanwhile, demoted to just being someone who happens to have the same name as the author of the harry potter novels.
the new author can of course disclaim ownership of whichsoever works previously attributed to the old author that they decide aren’t worth claiming. in the case of harry potter, presumably the new rowling could declare cursed child a piece of fanfiction written by the person previously considered to be the author of the novels rather than a legitimate work of the newly legitimized rowling.
i am certain that somewhere on tumblr there is someone worthy of being the new gaiman who the community could agree upon.
n.b.: some communities may choose to use non-democratic means to determine new authors. for example, it would be reasonable for the a song of ice and fire fan community to recognize right of conquest as a valid means of achieving sole grrm-hood.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:02 AM on July 7 [6 favorites]
the new author can of course disclaim ownership of whichsoever works previously attributed to the old author that they decide aren’t worth claiming. in the case of harry potter, presumably the new rowling could declare cursed child a piece of fanfiction written by the person previously considered to be the author of the novels rather than a legitimate work of the newly legitimized rowling.
i am certain that somewhere on tumblr there is someone worthy of being the new gaiman who the community could agree upon.
n.b.: some communities may choose to use non-democratic means to determine new authors. for example, it would be reasonable for the a song of ice and fire fan community to recognize right of conquest as a valid means of achieving sole grrm-hood.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:02 AM on July 7 [6 favorites]
So there's virtue signaling, which I called myself out for, which in my case occurs when I, a leftist, meet another leftist and we do that thing where we talk about things we like and point out the bad aspects of them, to indicate that we have the correct biases. It can get a bit tiresome even to me, but it has its utility as well at times.
This sounds unbearable and a really clear illustration of why "leftists" never really get anywhere politically.
I am someone who, though I vote center-left on a harm reduction basis, am way, way far to the left economically—I think the oligarchy should be guillotined and business run as workers' cooperatives under the guidance of a state that limits/bans activities deemed problematic by a democratic consensus, e.g., AI, junk food. Not signaling a virtue here; also, I do not spend any real time in public proclaiming my beliefs, again on a harm reduction basis. My point is that this is what "leftist" means to me: someone who advocates for collective ownership of the means of production. So my question to the person who said the above quote is what's the relation between what you describe and leftism?
I think this quote has made me think about why/how the meaning of "leftist" appears to have shifted, such that this sort of cultural Tumblrization is what the word has come to mean, and this may be why I've increasingly come to have issues with people who call themselves "leftists". So, thanks for the food for thought.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:18 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
This sounds unbearable and a really clear illustration of why "leftists" never really get anywhere politically.
I am someone who, though I vote center-left on a harm reduction basis, am way, way far to the left economically—I think the oligarchy should be guillotined and business run as workers' cooperatives under the guidance of a state that limits/bans activities deemed problematic by a democratic consensus, e.g., AI, junk food. Not signaling a virtue here; also, I do not spend any real time in public proclaiming my beliefs, again on a harm reduction basis. My point is that this is what "leftist" means to me: someone who advocates for collective ownership of the means of production. So my question to the person who said the above quote is what's the relation between what you describe and leftism?
I think this quote has made me think about why/how the meaning of "leftist" appears to have shifted, such that this sort of cultural Tumblrization is what the word has come to mean, and this may be why I've increasingly come to have issues with people who call themselves "leftists". So, thanks for the food for thought.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:18 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
i’ve found this venn diagram quite useful for identifying the beliefs of and differences between leftists, liberals, and conservatives.
n.b. this is not to be taken as an endorsement for the subreddit this is posted on; it’s just the only place i can find an easily shareable copy of the image
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:25 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
n.b. this is not to be taken as an endorsement for the subreddit this is posted on; it’s just the only place i can find an easily shareable copy of the image
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:25 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
Yeah, wow, I didn’t think I agreed with the posters who said to read the transcripts before forming an opinion. But I just did and wow how horrifying.
yeah it’s not the kind of position I normally expect to hold but it is painfully obvious from earlier (and some current) comments who knows what he’s accused of and who is making gauzy best-case guesses. different worlds. it is also obvious, when people make specific references to specific acts, exactly where they stopped reading, because they are often alluding to the least of it. and this with, I believe, still two segments left to transcribe.
there is nothing wrong with being unable to handle it and saying honestly that you don’t want to have it in your head. there’s a reason I looked up the transcript instead of the audio. but there is everything wrong with actively claiming, as some have, that you “believe the women” while adamantly refusing to know what they said. believing in an assortment of watered-down third-hand internet characterizations by commenters who, as I say, patently did not read or are not willing to repeat the bad stuff, is not just as good and is actually really dangerous.
I believe the women in this case because I find their stories intensely and specifically credible. the one victim being his much younger employee in his home is not essential knowledge, actually. you would think that is was, if you hadn’t read the details, because it is all anybody wants to talk about. and it is all anyone wants to talk about because that is the part he does not dispute. and people are more comfortable assuming the truth of his statements than hers, because “believe women” is a popular slogan but carries some risk as an actual practice. people like to hedge their bets.
but what he did to her would be equally heinous and criminal if she were a woman of 50 with a lawyer and a house of her own and no fear. discussion latched on to the young-nanny/older-man angle because in isolation it is easy to reframe that as ambiguous and a grey area and maybe not technically illegal. it is incredibly harmful to talk only about that, and talking only about that is absolutely what ng wants.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:29 AM on July 7 [21 favorites]
yeah it’s not the kind of position I normally expect to hold but it is painfully obvious from earlier (and some current) comments who knows what he’s accused of and who is making gauzy best-case guesses. different worlds. it is also obvious, when people make specific references to specific acts, exactly where they stopped reading, because they are often alluding to the least of it. and this with, I believe, still two segments left to transcribe.
there is nothing wrong with being unable to handle it and saying honestly that you don’t want to have it in your head. there’s a reason I looked up the transcript instead of the audio. but there is everything wrong with actively claiming, as some have, that you “believe the women” while adamantly refusing to know what they said. believing in an assortment of watered-down third-hand internet characterizations by commenters who, as I say, patently did not read or are not willing to repeat the bad stuff, is not just as good and is actually really dangerous.
I believe the women in this case because I find their stories intensely and specifically credible. the one victim being his much younger employee in his home is not essential knowledge, actually. you would think that is was, if you hadn’t read the details, because it is all anybody wants to talk about. and it is all anyone wants to talk about because that is the part he does not dispute. and people are more comfortable assuming the truth of his statements than hers, because “believe women” is a popular slogan but carries some risk as an actual practice. people like to hedge their bets.
but what he did to her would be equally heinous and criminal if she were a woman of 50 with a lawyer and a house of her own and no fear. discussion latched on to the young-nanny/older-man angle because in isolation it is easy to reframe that as ambiguous and a grey area and maybe not technically illegal. it is incredibly harmful to talk only about that, and talking only about that is absolutely what ng wants.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:29 AM on July 7 [21 favorites]
Perhaps it's that I spent age 18 onwards clarifying that I went to a "women's college" not a "girl's school," but the occasional description of two then 20 year olds, now 22 and 42ish year olds, as "girls" in this thread: not my favorite.
When Gaiman flew to Scotland in May 2020 and ditched Palmer with their 4-year-old in NZ, he burned through most of my respect for him. Reading the podcast transcript dropped an A-bomb on the rest of it. I hope these women get justice.
It's.... something... to see how fandom is used to manipulate, in these. The transcript of the second podcast episode includes a moment, juxtaposed with present-day Gaiman lying about this woman having a condition that causes false memories, where he sends a supportive whatsapp to her that ends with "you have to stick around so I can introduce you to Fiona Shaw" (her celebrity crush!). "Stick around" because she is suicidal in the hospital. And then he does get Fiona Shaw to Whatsapp her. How surreal, to have so much money and fame and access and "magic" leveled against you by the person who's put you in so much pain.
posted by 26thandfinal at 8:41 AM on July 7 [13 favorites]
When Gaiman flew to Scotland in May 2020 and ditched Palmer with their 4-year-old in NZ, he burned through most of my respect for him. Reading the podcast transcript dropped an A-bomb on the rest of it. I hope these women get justice.
It's.... something... to see how fandom is used to manipulate, in these. The transcript of the second podcast episode includes a moment, juxtaposed with present-day Gaiman lying about this woman having a condition that causes false memories, where he sends a supportive whatsapp to her that ends with "you have to stick around so I can introduce you to Fiona Shaw" (her celebrity crush!). "Stick around" because she is suicidal in the hospital. And then he does get Fiona Shaw to Whatsapp her. How surreal, to have so much money and fame and access and "magic" leveled against you by the person who's put you in so much pain.
posted by 26thandfinal at 8:41 AM on July 7 [13 favorites]
i just feel like it’s terribly wrong whenever there’s a relationship involving amanda palmer wherein amanda palmer isn’t the worst person in the relationship.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:44 AM on July 7 [11 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 8:44 AM on July 7 [11 favorites]
Sorry, still beyond aggravated here because I truly feel like I’m living in a bizarro timeline where people who were previously all, “Believe women when they tell you about the sexual assault they experienced!” are now like, “Their very existence was probably made up by TERFs to politically smear a cis man.” Just in tears and bewildered by this 2000’s era rape and SA denial.
Like, yes, I do believe in critically examining your sources, etc, but the cadre of SFF writers publicly going, “Well, I don’t care to investigate the first-hand accounts, but the source is so tainted we couldn’t possibly believe ANYTHING they say,” when the source is literally just a first-hand account from the poor damn girl. I feel like I’m seeing rape culture in action and I don’t understand why they are not seeing what they’re *doing*, it’s the most obvious villain shit! I am so fucking disappointed in them.
I know that it’s baffling when your friend and colleague is accused of rape. And I do think that there’s nuance possible even then.
But, like, in public? Shut the hell up instead of publicly casting doubt on the victims with zero knowledge and then being, “Oh la de da, these women were so angry at me when I said that I won’t listen to the readily available account from the SA victim before casting doubt on all of it, and I don’t know why! They’re being unreasonable!”
Yes I am subtweeting some SFF writers specifically. Sorry for the rant.
posted by oh__lol at 8:45 AM on July 7 [29 favorites]
Like, yes, I do believe in critically examining your sources, etc, but the cadre of SFF writers publicly going, “Well, I don’t care to investigate the first-hand accounts, but the source is so tainted we couldn’t possibly believe ANYTHING they say,” when the source is literally just a first-hand account from the poor damn girl. I feel like I’m seeing rape culture in action and I don’t understand why they are not seeing what they’re *doing*, it’s the most obvious villain shit! I am so fucking disappointed in them.
I know that it’s baffling when your friend and colleague is accused of rape. And I do think that there’s nuance possible even then.
But, like, in public? Shut the hell up instead of publicly casting doubt on the victims with zero knowledge and then being, “Oh la de da, these women were so angry at me when I said that I won’t listen to the readily available account from the SA victim before casting doubt on all of it, and I don’t know why! They’re being unreasonable!”
Yes I am subtweeting some SFF writers specifically. Sorry for the rant.
posted by oh__lol at 8:45 AM on July 7 [29 favorites]
One last thought and then I should detach and go about my day instead of getting angrier and angrier. I think NG’s “confirmed” account of things is the reason people are going to the “ok but it’s exploitative to fuck your much younger nanny” story instead of talking about the specifics of what he did to Scarlett. So they’re kind of taking it as a least common denominator.
But he does this so often—at least 14 times by Amanda Palmer’s text, but much much more if you look at the whisper network—that all of it probably blurs together for him. So he remembers “cuddling under the sheets” or “making out in the bathtub.” Meanwhile, Scarlett remembers it all very clearly and vividly because she has very little sexual experience (and also because it’s clearly traumatic for her). This is not the ONLY reason why we should believe her and take her account to be central, but just another bolster to that. What she says is extremely clear and credible, and it frustrates me that a lot of people are defaulting to what *he* said happened.
Again, privileging the assaulter’s account wouldn’t happen to most other men. He’s just done a great job cultivating a progressive man persona.
posted by oh__lol at 8:55 AM on July 7 [15 favorites]
But he does this so often—at least 14 times by Amanda Palmer’s text, but much much more if you look at the whisper network—that all of it probably blurs together for him. So he remembers “cuddling under the sheets” or “making out in the bathtub.” Meanwhile, Scarlett remembers it all very clearly and vividly because she has very little sexual experience (and also because it’s clearly traumatic for her). This is not the ONLY reason why we should believe her and take her account to be central, but just another bolster to that. What she says is extremely clear and credible, and it frustrates me that a lot of people are defaulting to what *he* said happened.
Again, privileging the assaulter’s account wouldn’t happen to most other men. He’s just done a great job cultivating a progressive man persona.
posted by oh__lol at 8:55 AM on July 7 [15 favorites]
Sorry, still beyond aggravated here because I truly feel like I’m living in a bizarro timeline where people who were previously all, “Believe women when they tell you about the sexual assault they experienced!” are now like, “Their very existence was probably made up by TERFs to politically smear a cis man.”
Just for the record in case: I absolutely believe the accusers. My side-eye at the podcast is more about getting a weird vibe that they may have themselves pressed the accusers into this interview in the first place; as in, maybe the accusers wanted some more time to process things their own way, but these producers talked them into A Public Statement now. I don't have any proof of that, mind, and am happy to be proved wrong; the timing just feels kinda suspicious and I hope the accusers weren't railroaded into going public before they were ready, is all.
Also: logicpunk, that was a REALLY gross thing to say.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:05 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
Just for the record in case: I absolutely believe the accusers. My side-eye at the podcast is more about getting a weird vibe that they may have themselves pressed the accusers into this interview in the first place; as in, maybe the accusers wanted some more time to process things their own way, but these producers talked them into A Public Statement now. I don't have any proof of that, mind, and am happy to be proved wrong; the timing just feels kinda suspicious and I hope the accusers weren't railroaded into going public before they were ready, is all.
Also: logicpunk, that was a REALLY gross thing to say.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:05 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
I'm angry and sickened by the news. As someone who was groomed similarly as a young teen, when I discovered the comics, they spoke to me and helped me navigate the horror and beauty and contradictions I saw in the world. The tensions on the page have left an indelible mark on my psyche. And yet, for me, it was always the kind of work that you don't revisit...
The cruelty, and ways some people seemed drawn to that, wasn't lost on me. Later, I'd resolve some of the ambiguity of acts perpetrated by my peers, by blaming it on youths with massive trauma... But I'd wonder... And yeah, I've got a lot of associations mixed up there... Despite that complex soup.mm
It never once occurred to me, until this transcript, that the author would be mixed up in that. I'd unconsciously aligned him to my experience, and now I am enraged and disgusted, almost beyond words.
The seething message from Misma included in the transcript sums it up. And I wish, wow, I just want to see more of that in the world.
posted by bindr at 9:24 AM on July 7 [9 favorites]
The cruelty, and ways some people seemed drawn to that, wasn't lost on me. Later, I'd resolve some of the ambiguity of acts perpetrated by my peers, by blaming it on youths with massive trauma... But I'd wonder... And yeah, I've got a lot of associations mixed up there... Despite that complex soup.mm
It never once occurred to me, until this transcript, that the author would be mixed up in that. I'd unconsciously aligned him to my experience, and now I am enraged and disgusted, almost beyond words.
The seething message from Misma included in the transcript sums it up. And I wish, wow, I just want to see more of that in the world.
posted by bindr at 9:24 AM on July 7 [9 favorites]
Ah, yes, logicpunk, as we all know, people with money have no emotions and can't be dismayed or distraught or horrified and they are not deserving of our consideration or empathy. Flagged as what the actual fuck.
posted by tzikeh at 9:27 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
posted by tzikeh at 9:27 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
It is neither naive nor childish to admire people for their creative works and think they are good people because they espouse good values. There are plenty who don't bother with that mask and even brag about their deplorable traits. As adults, we trust people who seem trustworthy and revoke that trust when they are revealed not to be.
The cynic's "I told you so" only stings because we rarely tell the cynic when they were wrong; we're too busy reading and discussing stories we like.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:27 AM on July 7 [16 favorites]
The cynic's "I told you so" only stings because we rarely tell the cynic when they were wrong; we're too busy reading and discussing stories we like.
posted by AlSweigart at 9:27 AM on July 7 [16 favorites]
It is neither naive nor childish to admire people for their creative works and think they are good people because they espouse good values.
i agree with the first part. as for thinking someone is a good person because they espouse good values, i've simply seen too much evidence against to believe this. people can say anything they want - if you don't know them personally (and sometimes even if you do), you don't know whether they're living up to what they say. it is much more realistic and pragmatic to assume that people in general sometimes (frequently, even) behave in ways that contradict their stated values, and go from there, rather than taking their virtue for granted just because they know how to say the right things.
posted by a flock of goslings at 10:14 AM on July 7 [6 favorites]
i agree with the first part. as for thinking someone is a good person because they espouse good values, i've simply seen too much evidence against to believe this. people can say anything they want - if you don't know them personally (and sometimes even if you do), you don't know whether they're living up to what they say. it is much more realistic and pragmatic to assume that people in general sometimes (frequently, even) behave in ways that contradict their stated values, and go from there, rather than taking their virtue for granted just because they know how to say the right things.
posted by a flock of goslings at 10:14 AM on July 7 [6 favorites]
There's a difference between thinking someone is a good person and thinking that they're a minimally decent person. There's a difference between hero worship and admiration.
posted by meese at 10:28 AM on July 7 [7 favorites]
posted by meese at 10:28 AM on July 7 [7 favorites]
maybe it's also a bit grotesque to fret publicly over how some famous friend of gaiman's is going to react to something that didn't involve that person at all (hopefully). it is centering gaiman's high-profile relationships at the expense of, y'know, the actual victims.
posted by logicpunk at 10:29 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
posted by logicpunk at 10:29 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
It is neither naive nor childish to admire people for their creative works and think they are good people because they espouse good values.
I feel like there's a slightly different progression going on here. From "this work speaks to me" to "the creator understands me" to "the creator is like me" and, in the opposite direction, "I am a good person," thus: "the creator, who is like me, is also a good person."
This kind of identification makes it more difficult to hear bad things about the creator, because it feels like a personal attack.
The celebrity abusers who have recieved the most public support, such as Woody Allen & Louis C.K., are ones whose work involves exposing their own vulnerabilities in a way that's relatable.
posted by cheshyre at 10:37 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
I feel like there's a slightly different progression going on here. From "this work speaks to me" to "the creator understands me" to "the creator is like me" and, in the opposite direction, "I am a good person," thus: "the creator, who is like me, is also a good person."
This kind of identification makes it more difficult to hear bad things about the creator, because it feels like a personal attack.
The celebrity abusers who have recieved the most public support, such as Woody Allen & Louis C.K., are ones whose work involves exposing their own vulnerabilities in a way that's relatable.
posted by cheshyre at 10:37 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
I've simply seen too much evidence against to believe this.
Sure. But I've also seen how "that liberal feminist is probably just as bad, so you have no grounds to criticize my support of [insert TERF/Nazi/billionaire]" is used to shut down any progressive value or support. Hence why I'd rather start from a position of tentative trust, readily revoked when new facts come to light.
David Tennant publicly supports trans people; is this just him manipulating his image? John Scalzi responded to this story by publicly donating to RAINN; is he virtue signaling? Is Keanu Reeves secretly a horrible person? Is Dolly Parton secretly an abuser?
Maybe. But I'll start by thinking they're not.
posted by AlSweigart at 10:41 AM on July 7 [13 favorites]
Sure. But I've also seen how "that liberal feminist is probably just as bad, so you have no grounds to criticize my support of [insert TERF/Nazi/billionaire]" is used to shut down any progressive value or support. Hence why I'd rather start from a position of tentative trust, readily revoked when new facts come to light.
David Tennant publicly supports trans people; is this just him manipulating his image? John Scalzi responded to this story by publicly donating to RAINN; is he virtue signaling? Is Keanu Reeves secretly a horrible person? Is Dolly Parton secretly an abuser?
Maybe. But I'll start by thinking they're not.
posted by AlSweigart at 10:41 AM on July 7 [13 favorites]
Please do however name which SFF authors are defending; I’d like to know who is failing at this time just because it’s a friend of theirs.
posted by corb at 10:44 AM on July 7 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:44 AM on July 7 [2 favorites]
some famous friend of gaiman's is going to react
Tori Amos is a survivor of rape and spokesperson for RAINN, not ‘some famous friend’.
posted by bq at 10:47 AM on July 7 [14 favorites]
Tori Amos is a survivor of rape and spokesperson for RAINN, not ‘some famous friend’.
posted by bq at 10:47 AM on July 7 [14 favorites]
maybe it's also a bit grotesque to fret publicly over how some famous friend of gaiman's is going to react to something that didn't involve that person at all (hopefully). it is centering gaiman's high-profile relationships at the expense of, y'know, the actual victims.
Does the fact that the particular "famous friend" in question is herself a sexual assault survivor, and one who helped found a sexual assault crisis organization, alter your perspective? Especially since two of the articles I have seen on the allegations link to that very organization in their headers?
Neil Gaiman betrayed a lot of people's trust. Some of those people have gone public with stories about other people doing to them the same stuff he did.to others. That can still come as a shock, no matter their wealth.
It's sad you can't find the compassion for someone like that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:49 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
Does the fact that the particular "famous friend" in question is herself a sexual assault survivor, and one who helped found a sexual assault crisis organization, alter your perspective? Especially since two of the articles I have seen on the allegations link to that very organization in their headers?
Neil Gaiman betrayed a lot of people's trust. Some of those people have gone public with stories about other people doing to them the same stuff he did.to others. That can still come as a shock, no matter their wealth.
It's sad you can't find the compassion for someone like that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:49 AM on July 7 [5 favorites]
think they are good people because they espouse good values
If you have a shame, admit to it, like Hester;
It’s the preacher’s secret scarlet A that festers.
posted by clew at 10:54 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
If you have a shame, admit to it, like Hester;
It’s the preacher’s secret scarlet A that festers.
posted by clew at 10:54 AM on July 7 [1 favorite]
I think the reason this one is hitting so particularly hard for a lot of us isn't necessarily that we thought Gaiman was so wonderful as a person, as it is because he's connected to so very many people who are absolutely seemingly deserving of the title of, if not great person, at least really, really incredibly decent human. The Tennants, Pratchett, Michael Sheen... That's what makes me sick. Because it makes you wonder about everyone, and it especially makes you wonder who you trust in your own life who isn't what they seem to be. Especially for women who have already suffered betrayal and assault by someone who wasn't who they pretended to be. It's less about 'shit another celebrity turns out to be an absolute POS' and more 'which one of my circle is secretly a monster?' and maybe even followed by 'is it only one of them?'
(and that's also mixed in with empathy and sadness for the friends if they really are as decent humans as they seem, and many other messy non-linear emotions)
posted by Saucy Possum at 11:24 AM on July 7 [15 favorites]
(and that's also mixed in with empathy and sadness for the friends if they really are as decent humans as they seem, and many other messy non-linear emotions)
posted by Saucy Possum at 11:24 AM on July 7 [15 favorites]
Mod note: One comment about Tori Amos deleted. This thread can be pretty triggering for victims of abuse, so please be particularly considerate and respectful around this subject. Criticism of the rich and public figures in general is OK, but downplaying the impact of sexual abuse is not.
posted by loup (staff) at 11:36 AM on July 7 [11 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 11:36 AM on July 7 [11 favorites]
This is less like being a garden variety monster and more like being a Monster. I'm not sure everyone gets this, but I'm trying to tell you, you do not know people like this. According to this account that we have every reason to believe is true, this guy did this shit to this woman and then paid for her to have a place to live in exchange for her signing an NDA that goes back to the beginning of their relationship. You don't know anyone who does stuff like this, I promise you. Like, do you hang out with people from the NXIVM cult? If you don't, this is probably something you can rest easy knowing no one in your life is doing. This is very unusual.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:43 AM on July 7 [17 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:43 AM on July 7 [17 favorites]
It’s also a reason why people should at least skim the transcripts. Initially, I thought that the NDA was signed when Scarlett was hired, and, given that Gaiman and Palmer are public figures, that seemed like it might be prudent and even standard practice. But reading the transcript tells a different story. Gaiman made signing an NDA contingent on receiving money to live on (and not a lot of money) once it began to look like she might talk publicly. Without the transcripts, my interpretation of that set of events was totally wrong (and wrong in a way that gave Gaiman more credit). Even if you read the original reporting, there’s a lot to misunderstand.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:33 PM on July 7 [16 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:33 PM on July 7 [16 favorites]
Reading the transcripts really does help you understand the situation.
It's sad because the situation seems particularly monstrous like others said but also depressingly familiar. It's the older guy going after younger, inexperienced women because they won't understand the red flags. The boss taking advantage of an employee who really needs the money. The older scenester guy who tries to intimidate less experienced people into thinking that sexual liberation just happens to look a lot like catering to his fetishes. The rich guy protected by lawyers and compromised mental health professionals. The manipulator who unveils his own urgent emotional neediness while other people are trying to understand their own feelings.
posted by smelendez at 1:41 PM on July 7 [12 favorites]
It's sad because the situation seems particularly monstrous like others said but also depressingly familiar. It's the older guy going after younger, inexperienced women because they won't understand the red flags. The boss taking advantage of an employee who really needs the money. The older scenester guy who tries to intimidate less experienced people into thinking that sexual liberation just happens to look a lot like catering to his fetishes. The rich guy protected by lawyers and compromised mental health professionals. The manipulator who unveils his own urgent emotional neediness while other people are trying to understand their own feelings.
posted by smelendez at 1:41 PM on July 7 [12 favorites]
Not only was the NDA signed after Scarlett's employment had ended, but the document was backdated to the first day of her employment and date of the first assault.
As a lawyer, I found that fact chilling because it suggests that NG sought and obtained legal advice on covering up his behavior. I don't know anything about the law in the relevant jurisdictions but in some places such behavior could comprise obstruction of justice (offering something of value in exchange for an agreement to not report a crime) and support a piercing of the attorney-client privilege under the crime-fraud exception.
+1 to reading the transcripts. Kathryn Tewson is a treasure, and the recent NYT article descrbing, among other things, how she became a paralegal, is worth the read.
posted by Handstand Devil at 1:49 PM on July 7 [13 favorites]
As a lawyer, I found that fact chilling because it suggests that NG sought and obtained legal advice on covering up his behavior. I don't know anything about the law in the relevant jurisdictions but in some places such behavior could comprise obstruction of justice (offering something of value in exchange for an agreement to not report a crime) and support a piercing of the attorney-client privilege under the crime-fraud exception.
+1 to reading the transcripts. Kathryn Tewson is a treasure, and the recent NYT article descrbing, among other things, how she became a paralegal, is worth the read.
posted by Handstand Devil at 1:49 PM on July 7 [13 favorites]
Some fans are commenting that Amanda Palmer's song Whakanewha now makes a lot more sense. (It came out in January, and is named after the national park near where Amanda and Neil lived in New Zealand.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:56 PM on July 7 [10 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:56 PM on July 7 [10 favorites]
Some fans are commenting that Amanda Palmer's song Whakanewha now makes a lot more sense.
Yikes
posted by pracowity at 2:12 PM on July 7 [17 favorites]
Yikes
posted by pracowity at 2:12 PM on July 7 [17 favorites]
Hey, about the transcripts. I don't want to get into another long ramble about why I didn't want to read them. It wasn't the "oh he had an affair with his nanny and that's gross" minimizing stuff; it's more "this is more personal for me than for some, and I feel like I might have dodged a bullet when I was younger, and it's making me feel kind of physically ill."
I still think they are something not everyone should read. The content warnings in this case should not be understated. If you can believe that this is worse than "guy seduces younger live-in nanny" without reading them, and you feel that reading them might be triggering for you, don't read them. (I feel that such people might have bailed from this thread a while ago -- the continued pressure to read the transcripts might especially get to them, or the overall subject might have kept them away to begin with.) On the other hand, there are plenty of people who won't be affected by the transcripts in that way.
As it happens, I did read transcript #2 and it was worse than I thought, when I already thought it was very bad indeed, and reading them absolutely did make me feel even more physically ill. I think I'm pretty much done with his work.
For what it's worth, I really doubt Pratchett knew much outside of "Neil sometimes hooks up with younger female fans."
posted by verbminx at 2:20 PM on July 7 [23 favorites]
I still think they are something not everyone should read. The content warnings in this case should not be understated. If you can believe that this is worse than "guy seduces younger live-in nanny" without reading them, and you feel that reading them might be triggering for you, don't read them. (I feel that such people might have bailed from this thread a while ago -- the continued pressure to read the transcripts might especially get to them, or the overall subject might have kept them away to begin with.) On the other hand, there are plenty of people who won't be affected by the transcripts in that way.
As it happens, I did read transcript #2 and it was worse than I thought, when I already thought it was very bad indeed, and reading them absolutely did make me feel even more physically ill. I think I'm pretty much done with his work.
For what it's worth, I really doubt Pratchett knew much outside of "Neil sometimes hooks up with younger female fans."
posted by verbminx at 2:20 PM on July 7 [23 favorites]
I apologize if you felt like you had to read them because I was saying everyone HAD to read them to have an opinion, verbminx. I really only meant people who were dismissing the claims. For a lot of people, an SA survivor saying, “I was sexually assaulted,” is good enough and it ended there, but around the internet there were also many skeptics who were downplaying what happened or who had clearly not read the transcript and were going off assumptions. I was so fucking sad and angry and nauseated by what the transcripts actually contained that I’ve been on this crusade to tell people to go back to the primary source, because it is so much worse than what everyone was assuming it was. And I feel angry at Tortoise for not making that clear in their summary, for probably clicks and revenue.
Anyways, apologies again. Did not intend to traumatize people who already believed the victims any further! Just wished all these bystanders going “lol it’s a TERF rag lying about shit” could get it through their thick skulls that that’s NOT what was happening.
posted by oh__lol at 3:06 PM on July 7 [8 favorites]
Anyways, apologies again. Did not intend to traumatize people who already believed the victims any further! Just wished all these bystanders going “lol it’s a TERF rag lying about shit” could get it through their thick skulls that that’s NOT what was happening.
posted by oh__lol at 3:06 PM on July 7 [8 favorites]
I don't really love how Tortoise presented this material. The transcripts are necessary for anyone who wants to actually know what transpired (as opposed to just going off vibes) but doesn't want to spend literal hours listening to a podcast. Doling out the actual information in dramatically timed and parceled bits is an entertainment-based approach, and it doesn't seem completely appropriate to what is in effect a current news story that they have an exclusive on (for some reason).
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:13 PM on July 7 [15 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:13 PM on July 7 [15 favorites]
I agree. I keep hearing Tortoise does good reporting, but their choices in the presentation of this story are not what I'd expect to see from a good news outlet. And I'm not arguing that it's a TERF thing or that it calls the veracity of the reporting into doubt; if anything they seem to be approaching this in a way that seems less respectful to both the victims and to the community than I would hope. If I were the victim of sadistic abuse from a widely respected pillar of the community I would want that story told in a straightforward way. Bullet points on a website. Clearly stated facts, easy to share, so other potential victims and the rest of the community could understand immediately what had happened and how to react to it. Not... whatever this is. If anything, this approach just fuels speculation about the motives behind their reporting, TERFy or otherwise.
People still dismissing the story based on the messenger are clearly wrong, but I don't blame anyone giving Tortoise side-eye for these specific reporting choices. If they weren't willing to treat it like news and not entertainment, they should have shared it with someone who would. As it is, half the community is going to need to rely on summaries or word of mouth to learn the truth. Tortoise might benefit from this, and ironically Neil Gaiman himself benefits from this, but the victims and the community do not.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 3:37 PM on July 7 [5 favorites]
People still dismissing the story based on the messenger are clearly wrong, but I don't blame anyone giving Tortoise side-eye for these specific reporting choices. If they weren't willing to treat it like news and not entertainment, they should have shared it with someone who would. As it is, half the community is going to need to rely on summaries or word of mouth to learn the truth. Tortoise might benefit from this, and ironically Neil Gaiman himself benefits from this, but the victims and the community do not.
posted by Two unicycles and some duct tape at 3:37 PM on July 7 [5 favorites]
Oh__lol: absolutely for sure! Mostly I wanted to make two points: they are gonna be a rough read for assault survivors because of some of the graphic details around some of the specific acts that occurred and the messages that were exchanged, and I did finally choose to read them myself despite initial misgivings about doing so. They were worse than I expected! But Gaiman didn't abuse me: he was actually always very kind to me, and I am not an assault survivor otherwise. I felt gross and lost a bit of sleep but I'll be fine.
They're still not an easy read, so I definitely recommend that people look out for themselves -- that's where my concern is. Do read them if you feel safe doing so, or if you need convincing that this isn't just a case of a lefty male celeb who has a good record on trans issues being attacked in an opportunistic way by a TERF rag. I promise you that it is not. Do not read them if graphic details of monstrous behavior will get to you (it was really the bodily fluid stuff that I wish I could un-know, but the texts and the NDA things are probably more damaging in psychological terms).
The day this broke, I was also party to some conversations where people were like, now now, look who Rachel Johnson is, look what day it is in the UK with regard to the election, doesn't this all look a little convenient to you? These conversations were in circles that were queer-friendly, feminist-friendly. I was appalled that anyone was so quick to leap to that kind of downplaying of the allegations because the allegations were uncomfortable for them and tarnished a person and thing they like. Those people definitely needed to read the transcripts or have someone in the conversation who had. It angered me that I was able to say, no, he's done something bad and should be accountable, and they were making excuses from the start because... why. Because they like Good Omens and his social media presence? Like... ugh. Maddening.
posted by verbminx at 3:48 PM on July 7 [8 favorites]
They're still not an easy read, so I definitely recommend that people look out for themselves -- that's where my concern is. Do read them if you feel safe doing so, or if you need convincing that this isn't just a case of a lefty male celeb who has a good record on trans issues being attacked in an opportunistic way by a TERF rag. I promise you that it is not. Do not read them if graphic details of monstrous behavior will get to you (it was really the bodily fluid stuff that I wish I could un-know, but the texts and the NDA things are probably more damaging in psychological terms).
The day this broke, I was also party to some conversations where people were like, now now, look who Rachel Johnson is, look what day it is in the UK with regard to the election, doesn't this all look a little convenient to you? These conversations were in circles that were queer-friendly, feminist-friendly. I was appalled that anyone was so quick to leap to that kind of downplaying of the allegations because the allegations were uncomfortable for them and tarnished a person and thing they like. Those people definitely needed to read the transcripts or have someone in the conversation who had. It angered me that I was able to say, no, he's done something bad and should be accountable, and they were making excuses from the start because... why. Because they like Good Omens and his social media presence? Like... ugh. Maddening.
posted by verbminx at 3:48 PM on July 7 [8 favorites]
if you understand that the claims are claims of rape ( plus other stuff) then no, you do not need to read the transcripts to have an idea of what happened or an opinion about it. the trouble is words like disgusting and degrading mean nothing without any concrete context. for a lot of people bringing in their own self-absorbed subcultural context they just imply sexiness, edgy sex things. it is for that reason, to correct that error, that I urged people to read if they are able. today I saw with my own eyes someone, not here, describing gaiman’s rapes as being a “pushy top.” and they thought they were condemning him in the proper language, as a worldly bdsm-understander. these kinds of lies or, to be charitable, offensive misinformation, are actively circulating. so nobody is obliged to retraumatize themselves but if you are able to tolerate the details there is real value in knowing them.
regarding bullets dodged - what follows is not triggering, I hope. it is somewhat relevant. although I have never suffered anything like what gaiman’s victims did, when I was about 21 I went to stay with my sort-of boyfriend, a married man considerably older than me (but well under 40 - a sketchy type, not a full gaiman.) his wife was older than me but younger than him, and super nice to me. are these striking parallels or what.
he was kind of a dingdong and I don’t think he ever quite registered that in going to see them and not telling anybody I was knowingly risking my literal life and physical safety just to get laid, and that this is a sign of unusual immaturity, not unusual maturity. I was aware of both those things, obviously; I wasn’t stupid. I even said so. but what is it they say, you cannot make a man understand a thing when his sex life depends upon him not understanding it.
anyway, long story short, this isn’t a story of trauma, and that’s not because my situation and intentions going in were so different from scarlett’s (though they were.) the reason it’s not a story of trauma is because this guy wasn’t wasn’t a rapist.
this is the standing I think I have to speak about the matter.
posted by queenofbithynia at 3:58 PM on July 7 [9 favorites]
regarding bullets dodged - what follows is not triggering, I hope. it is somewhat relevant. although I have never suffered anything like what gaiman’s victims did, when I was about 21 I went to stay with my sort-of boyfriend, a married man considerably older than me (but well under 40 - a sketchy type, not a full gaiman.) his wife was older than me but younger than him, and super nice to me. are these striking parallels or what.
he was kind of a dingdong and I don’t think he ever quite registered that in going to see them and not telling anybody I was knowingly risking my literal life and physical safety just to get laid, and that this is a sign of unusual immaturity, not unusual maturity. I was aware of both those things, obviously; I wasn’t stupid. I even said so. but what is it they say, you cannot make a man understand a thing when his sex life depends upon him not understanding it.
anyway, long story short, this isn’t a story of trauma, and that’s not because my situation and intentions going in were so different from scarlett’s (though they were.) the reason it’s not a story of trauma is because this guy wasn’t wasn’t a rapist.
this is the standing I think I have to speak about the matter.
posted by queenofbithynia at 3:58 PM on July 7 [9 favorites]
Yeah, sorry, I tried to read the transcript, but I only got to the part where she talked about them getting in the bath together, and then she talks about being attracted to women and never having had sex, and I just...couldn't.
I was a victim of childhood sexual abuse/rape/incest. (I don't personally use the "survivor" terminology for myself). What she was talking about, about how she was internally freaking out but also kept thinking, "maybe this is normal?!", about being attracted to women, not men, it's too close to home. I can't read anymore.
but there is everything wrong with actively claiming, as some have, that you “believe the women” while adamantly refusing to know what they said.
Look, I agree that no one should try to say this is "morally wrong but not legally wrong" or "maybe it's just a hit piece?" without reading the transcript. But it's not fair to say that no one should be saying they "believe the women" without reading the transcripts or listening to the podcast. I believed them before reading the transcript. And I still tried to force myself to read the transcripts, because I wanted to be able to write a comment showing my agreement, and I wanted to clear the appropriate bar and not feel like I was doing a disservice to these women.
But I'm not going to risk causing even more harm to myself just the meet the bar that has been set in this thread for participation. I know, at mefi we're supposed to RTFA. Maybe I shouldn't be saying anything at all.
And yet, as someone who has been raped by a Monster (and no, not just a garden variety monster), who understands being raped by someone with so much power over you, who tries to convince you that you wanted it, who forces you to take care of them, who forced myself to read every comment in this thread before commenting (though I've missed some of the more recent ones, it's taken me so long to write this), I feel like I should be allowed to comment in support of these women and the violations and yes, illegal acts that were done to them, and shouldn't have to wade through a full transcript that will cause me that much harm.
Anyway, I clearly should have noped out of this thread from the beginning. It's obviously not the right place for me. Honestly, it's enough to make me question whether mefi is the right place for me at all. I'm out.
posted by litera scripta manet at 4:37 PM on July 7 [17 favorites]
I was a victim of childhood sexual abuse/rape/incest. (I don't personally use the "survivor" terminology for myself). What she was talking about, about how she was internally freaking out but also kept thinking, "maybe this is normal?!", about being attracted to women, not men, it's too close to home. I can't read anymore.
but there is everything wrong with actively claiming, as some have, that you “believe the women” while adamantly refusing to know what they said.
Look, I agree that no one should try to say this is "morally wrong but not legally wrong" or "maybe it's just a hit piece?" without reading the transcript. But it's not fair to say that no one should be saying they "believe the women" without reading the transcripts or listening to the podcast. I believed them before reading the transcript. And I still tried to force myself to read the transcripts, because I wanted to be able to write a comment showing my agreement, and I wanted to clear the appropriate bar and not feel like I was doing a disservice to these women.
But I'm not going to risk causing even more harm to myself just the meet the bar that has been set in this thread for participation. I know, at mefi we're supposed to RTFA. Maybe I shouldn't be saying anything at all.
And yet, as someone who has been raped by a Monster (and no, not just a garden variety monster), who understands being raped by someone with so much power over you, who tries to convince you that you wanted it, who forces you to take care of them, who forced myself to read every comment in this thread before commenting (though I've missed some of the more recent ones, it's taken me so long to write this), I feel like I should be allowed to comment in support of these women and the violations and yes, illegal acts that were done to them, and shouldn't have to wade through a full transcript that will cause me that much harm.
Anyway, I clearly should have noped out of this thread from the beginning. It's obviously not the right place for me. Honestly, it's enough to make me question whether mefi is the right place for me at all. I'm out.
posted by litera scripta manet at 4:37 PM on July 7 [17 favorites]
Some fans are commenting that Amanda Palmer's song Whakanewha now makes a lot more sense.
tbh that song just made me angry, not at its unnamed subject, but at her - yes haha you're very clever, 'whaka' does sound a bit like 'fucker' and 'whakanewha' does sound a bit like 'fuckin a fu - ' so I see why you did that but also, 'Whakanewha' is a hoodwink, a deceit, you could have done so much more with this but you went with another 'whaka' pun we've all heard a million times so why don't you just whak off.
posted by ngaiotonga at 4:37 PM on July 7 [8 favorites]
tbh that song just made me angry, not at its unnamed subject, but at her - yes haha you're very clever, 'whaka' does sound a bit like 'fucker' and 'whakanewha' does sound a bit like 'fuckin a fu - ' so I see why you did that but also, 'Whakanewha' is a hoodwink, a deceit, you could have done so much more with this but you went with another 'whaka' pun we've all heard a million times so why don't you just whak off.
posted by ngaiotonga at 4:37 PM on July 7 [8 favorites]
Litera scripta manet, I'm sorry you felt like you had to read that transcript. Speaking for myself, I was stunned when I read it; it absolutely changed my perspective on the situation. I knew going in that Gaiman had done something wrong, but I had no idea the degree to which what he had done was psychologically, emotionally, and materially manipulative. When I stressed that people should read the transcript, that was why. I think that we hear these stories so often that our minds fill in the blanks, but I have never read anything like this before. I am stunned.
That said, a blunt abstract on the podcast would be useful. No one should have to pore over all of that to understand the situation.
I'm really sorry you felt like you had to read that transcript.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:52 PM on July 7 [7 favorites]
That said, a blunt abstract on the podcast would be useful. No one should have to pore over all of that to understand the situation.
I'm really sorry you felt like you had to read that transcript.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:52 PM on July 7 [7 favorites]
Doling out the actual information in dramatically timed and parceled bits is an entertainment-based approach, and it doesn't seem completely appropriate to what is in effect a current news story that they have an exclusive on (for some reason).
I'm glad you said this. The phrase "entertainment-based approach" helped me put my finger on what was bothering me about having read/skimmed the transcripts.
posted by hoyland at 5:01 PM on July 7 [9 favorites]
I'm glad you said this. The phrase "entertainment-based approach" helped me put my finger on what was bothering me about having read/skimmed the transcripts.
posted by hoyland at 5:01 PM on July 7 [9 favorites]
Ngaiotonga, you may want to read the lyrics.
....I also tried reading the transcript and had to nope out at the point where there were suddenly two people in the bath. If that makes me a scaredy-cat, so be it. But one thing it has done is disavowed me of the notion I had earlier that the journalists were a little exploitative; one of his accusers actually reached out to one of the reporters to initiate the conversation. And as for what she said - I read enough to be firmly in team Yep, Fuck Him. Like, I'm seriously entertaining returning the thing I got at a book signing of his ten years ago.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:06 PM on July 7 [5 favorites]
....I also tried reading the transcript and had to nope out at the point where there were suddenly two people in the bath. If that makes me a scaredy-cat, so be it. But one thing it has done is disavowed me of the notion I had earlier that the journalists were a little exploitative; one of his accusers actually reached out to one of the reporters to initiate the conversation. And as for what she said - I read enough to be firmly in team Yep, Fuck Him. Like, I'm seriously entertaining returning the thing I got at a book signing of his ten years ago.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:06 PM on July 7 [5 favorites]
This sounds unbearable and a really clear illustration of why "leftists" never really get anywhere politically. ... So my question to the person who said the above quote is what's the relation between what you describe and leftism?
To wrap up this potential derail: I'm not saying virtue-signaling is an inherent facet of leftism. I'm saying that it's often a thing that leftists do to relate to each other. If you don't, cool. And yeah, I had a moment of realization last year when I listened to a friend's many caveats and apologias for the things she likes that that is what the nebulous thing called virtue-signaling is, that the right likes to trot out as some kind of evidence of the left's foolishness or something. The right also likes to call any ethical stand for social justice virtue-signaling, however, so I thought it would be useful to define our terms.
As I said, however tiresome it can be, it does have its uses. It's a way to determine whether we have common cause, as well as, in the case of the topic of this thread, whether someone is safe to be around. We are more than the sum of what we consume, but what we consume and how we relate to it does matter. And that's also why this thread matters beyond just "news about terrible people doing terrible things," because how we relate to this news and the choices we make in how we take it say something about who we are or aspire to be.
posted by limeonaire at 5:10 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
To wrap up this potential derail: I'm not saying virtue-signaling is an inherent facet of leftism. I'm saying that it's often a thing that leftists do to relate to each other. If you don't, cool. And yeah, I had a moment of realization last year when I listened to a friend's many caveats and apologias for the things she likes that that is what the nebulous thing called virtue-signaling is, that the right likes to trot out as some kind of evidence of the left's foolishness or something. The right also likes to call any ethical stand for social justice virtue-signaling, however, so I thought it would be useful to define our terms.
As I said, however tiresome it can be, it does have its uses. It's a way to determine whether we have common cause, as well as, in the case of the topic of this thread, whether someone is safe to be around. We are more than the sum of what we consume, but what we consume and how we relate to it does matter. And that's also why this thread matters beyond just "news about terrible people doing terrible things," because how we relate to this news and the choices we make in how we take it say something about who we are or aspire to be.
posted by limeonaire at 5:10 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
It just really sunk in for me that as a society we throw around the word "grooming" but then we're surprised when victims have a history of positive interactions with their abusers during and after the abuse that conflicts with what they say about the abuse itself. I didn't really think it through in this many words, but of course that's what grooming is, softening people up strategically so that they accept being victimized. If you've been manipulated into thinking that your abuser is great and you love them, then of course you're going to have loving feelings for them alongside the other feelings.
I guess this is why the age difference and the nanny status do seem important - it's not like you can't groom a older person/age peer to get them to accept abuse, but it's clearly easier with someone who is young and inexperienced and who is dependent on you materially or socially.
I guess when people do say "but none of this was illegal", I'm reminded of those Sherlock Holmes stories where he talks about how there are crimes that the law cannot touch.
posted by Frowner at 5:11 PM on July 7 [20 favorites]
I guess this is why the age difference and the nanny status do seem important - it's not like you can't groom a older person/age peer to get them to accept abuse, but it's clearly easier with someone who is young and inexperienced and who is dependent on you materially or socially.
I guess when people do say "but none of this was illegal", I'm reminded of those Sherlock Holmes stories where he talks about how there are crimes that the law cannot touch.
posted by Frowner at 5:11 PM on July 7 [20 favorites]
I think people saying “read the transcripts” meant it for people doubting the women, not for anyone else. I read them, and am glad I did, even if they are brutal, because it contextualizes how someone can be assaulted and still send texts that will be used against them and used to suggest consent later - because someone is being advised by a lawyer on how to manufacture it.
posted by corb at 5:11 PM on July 7 [7 favorites]
posted by corb at 5:11 PM on July 7 [7 favorites]
Ahhhhh I’m so sorry for the impression I have made of saying everyone has to read the transcript, for real! I was in a fit of frustration when I wrote that and I definitely meant that for people who were dismissive of S & K’s allegations, because there were a LOT of people dismissive of S & K’s allegations, or who warped them into “well it was just bad power dynamics” or “scuzzy” instead of the naked SA it was. If you believed the women from the start, there was never any need. My plea was meant for anyone still questioning whether the victims were “in a consensual relationship” and whether their words have been misrepresented, or people weirdly invested in the conspiracy theory that the podcast is trying to influence the UK elections. There were a lot of those at the outset.
Definitely did NOT mean to catch SA survivors in my shotgun blast meant for skeptics, and for that I apologize.
posted by oh__lol at 5:13 PM on July 7 [7 favorites]
Definitely did NOT mean to catch SA survivors in my shotgun blast meant for skeptics, and for that I apologize.
posted by oh__lol at 5:13 PM on July 7 [7 favorites]
So: this one hurts.
Neil’s work is something I have been able to share across friendships and even with my own mother. Good Omens remains my favourite novel; The Sandman remains an informative influence and a constant re-read.
But.
There is no defending him because what he has done is indefensible; even if one tried to put a “positive” spin on the most possible credulity-straining belief possible, it is indefensible. A power imbalance is a power imbalance is a power imbalance. For myself and other female fans, Neil made us feel emotionally safe. It was like having someone else who believed our fears, our worries, and the reassurance that it will all work out in the end, sometimes in ways you don’t expect. It is a deep betrayal and it really sucks.
Of all fans, those are the people who should believe the victims. But because it’s Neil Gaiman, we’re supposed to be, “Oh, come on. RIDICULOUS.” Even when I first heard about it, even myself was giving side-eye to Tortoise. But after 24 hours, giving it serious thought, I’m like, “Okay, so I’m willing to side with an abuser because I don’t like the messenger? That doesn’t sit right with me.” And when I read more about the women impacted, I just couldn’t side with someone I considered my favourite author. Not gonna happen.
I was sort of glad this took so long to come to the Blue, but I do have my Bingo card ready:
Ugh I never liked him you all were fools I am morally superior and vet every single piece of media I consume - CHECK
I heard rumors for years but never did anything about it and yet I am morally superior – CHECK
Maybe I don't hang out in intense fan circles, or something, but I never heard those rumours. It doesn't mean they aren't true. Judging people who didn't know and yet you knew is still a shitty look. My world doesn't revolve around an author; I wouldn't know where to look and where to go to find anything about anyone. Like, celebrity gossip and rumour is not my thing.
And honestly, if this news is coming out of the UK and they have strict libel laws, it’d be wild to go after a towering figure without proof.
I am let down. But then I need to stop being surprised at how awful famous men can be.
posted by Kitteh at 5:22 PM on July 7 [30 favorites]
Neil’s work is something I have been able to share across friendships and even with my own mother. Good Omens remains my favourite novel; The Sandman remains an informative influence and a constant re-read.
But.
There is no defending him because what he has done is indefensible; even if one tried to put a “positive” spin on the most possible credulity-straining belief possible, it is indefensible. A power imbalance is a power imbalance is a power imbalance. For myself and other female fans, Neil made us feel emotionally safe. It was like having someone else who believed our fears, our worries, and the reassurance that it will all work out in the end, sometimes in ways you don’t expect. It is a deep betrayal and it really sucks.
Of all fans, those are the people who should believe the victims. But because it’s Neil Gaiman, we’re supposed to be, “Oh, come on. RIDICULOUS.” Even when I first heard about it, even myself was giving side-eye to Tortoise. But after 24 hours, giving it serious thought, I’m like, “Okay, so I’m willing to side with an abuser because I don’t like the messenger? That doesn’t sit right with me.” And when I read more about the women impacted, I just couldn’t side with someone I considered my favourite author. Not gonna happen.
I was sort of glad this took so long to come to the Blue, but I do have my Bingo card ready:
Ugh I never liked him you all were fools I am morally superior and vet every single piece of media I consume - CHECK
I heard rumors for years but never did anything about it and yet I am morally superior – CHECK
Maybe I don't hang out in intense fan circles, or something, but I never heard those rumours. It doesn't mean they aren't true. Judging people who didn't know and yet you knew is still a shitty look. My world doesn't revolve around an author; I wouldn't know where to look and where to go to find anything about anyone. Like, celebrity gossip and rumour is not my thing.
And honestly, if this news is coming out of the UK and they have strict libel laws, it’d be wild to go after a towering figure without proof.
I am let down. But then I need to stop being surprised at how awful famous men can be.
posted by Kitteh at 5:22 PM on July 7 [30 favorites]
That's well-said, Kitteh. There's so much bound up in these texts for me too. I've shared them with friends, family, and friends who are and were like family to me. A dear departed friend gave me the entire run of Sandman as a gift, and we shared that. I always saw him in Fiddler's Green. Another friend and I read a lot of his other books together. An ex and I watched American Gods together. So there's all of that head canon to be dealt with too. The memories of how we enjoyed these works together mean something to me, and I appreciate so much what the artists and editors who collaborated on these works put into them. Their work informed a whole universe of things I've enjoyed.
None of that changes the fact that I believe people who come forward to report these things. I'm saddened and dismayed that the writer allegedly did these things and let all of us down. It's a betrayal, especially because so many characters in his works (including his Mary Sue) seem to take pride in their ethics and intelligence. They're supposed to be exceptional, and we're supposed to believe he's exceptional as well. As it turns out, maybe he's just exceptional at keeping it from wider knowledge for this long.
posted by limeonaire at 5:42 PM on July 7 [5 favorites]
None of that changes the fact that I believe people who come forward to report these things. I'm saddened and dismayed that the writer allegedly did these things and let all of us down. It's a betrayal, especially because so many characters in his works (including his Mary Sue) seem to take pride in their ethics and intelligence. They're supposed to be exceptional, and we're supposed to believe he's exceptional as well. As it turns out, maybe he's just exceptional at keeping it from wider knowledge for this long.
posted by limeonaire at 5:42 PM on July 7 [5 favorites]
The more I think about this, the more I think about the weird and uncomfortable situations I put up with as a young person, even in relationships that were broadly safe and consensual, and the more I can absolutely see how this went down. I remember quite well one situation where various things happened, I was uncertain and ambivalent and although I did ultimately put a stop to it, it did have that same escalation and relied on the same weirdness and uncertainty. I was older, I was not in a strange place, I had support, the person involved was a chancer and not a calculating manipulator, but that feeling of "I am kind of skeeved out but also uncertain of how I am supposed to act, I don't want to be rude, maybe this is normal" seems extremely familiar, as does the feeling that you are just sort of going to...have a friendly relationship afterward and pretend to the best of your ability that it's all cool, because what if it's supposed to be all cool and you just don't get it? Like, I think that if in my younger, thinner, more girl days I had ended up in such a tub, I would..probably have gone along with it? And probably ended up in a similar situation? And that what protected me from that was simply that I had more friends and more money and a lively sense of "I have cash for a taxi to get me out of here"?
posted by Frowner at 5:49 PM on July 7 [15 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 5:49 PM on July 7 [15 favorites]
Y'all, I think that Amanda Palmer was trying to say what she could back in January. Here's another off the same album as "Whakanewha"; the album is a collection of things she wrote while she was in New Zealand and was stuck there because of Covid, but then things went sideways with Neil and he took off for Scotland.
Eight-thousand miles away
The man in the house gets a little more broke every day
Who says what's real and what's fake
You've been lying so much for so long I don't know what to say
And I keep on telling all my friends it's not that bad
But that depends on what bad is
And Ash points to the family in the story
And he asks me where the dad is
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:44 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
Eight-thousand miles away
The man in the house gets a little more broke every day
Who says what's real and what's fake
You've been lying so much for so long I don't know what to say
And I keep on telling all my friends it's not that bad
But that depends on what bad is
And Ash points to the family in the story
And he asks me where the dad is
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:44 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
That basically just sounds like complaining about the breakup of her marriage. Marriages break up all the time. If she was trying to communicate something more, I think she would have just said it, she's not a shy person.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:34 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:34 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
I don't care what that woman has to say or was trying to communicate. She enabled and normalized whatever was happening here.
posted by bindr at 7:37 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
posted by bindr at 7:37 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
If she was trying to communicate something more, I think she would have just said it, she's not a shy person.
Not unless she ALSO was made to sign an NDA....and at this point I wouldn't put it past him.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:41 PM on July 7 [2 favorites]
Not unless she ALSO was made to sign an NDA....and at this point I wouldn't put it past him.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:41 PM on July 7 [2 favorites]
Okay, I stepped away, and calmed down enough to come back and say this:
Coercion is rape. Grooming is a method of coercion that rapists and child molesters use. Grooming works because the rapist has the power, they start subtly, so that you don't trust yourself, so that you start rationalizing and thinking, maybe I'm wrong, maybe this isn't so bad. You can see that happen immediately with Scarlett in the bath scene of the transcript.
One of the worst parts about this type of sexual abuse is that it is such a mindfuck. It's often not until you have enough distance from it that you understand.
This wasn't just "gross old guy sleeps with younger nanny who he employs so it's morally wrong but not legally." It doesn't matter that she was no longer a minor. Neil Gaiman knew what he was doing. He used his power and influence to get what he wanted, even know he knew that wasn't what she wanted.
How do I know he knew that? B/c if Neil Gaiman honestly believed the nanny wanted to fuck him, he wouldn't have to groom her to get her to sleep with him.
So if anyone is still on the fence about whether Neil Gaiman is a sexual predator or just "sort of creepy older man", please trust me. He is a sexual predator. I experienced my own version of this first hand. I recognize exactly the thoughts that were going through her head. I don't need to read any more to know for a fact.
I hope Neil Gaiman suffers every possible consequence for his actions. But I won't be holding my breath. And I have tremendous respect for the women who were willing to go on this podcast to make this public.
posted by litera scripta manet at 7:52 PM on July 7 [34 favorites]
Coercion is rape. Grooming is a method of coercion that rapists and child molesters use. Grooming works because the rapist has the power, they start subtly, so that you don't trust yourself, so that you start rationalizing and thinking, maybe I'm wrong, maybe this isn't so bad. You can see that happen immediately with Scarlett in the bath scene of the transcript.
One of the worst parts about this type of sexual abuse is that it is such a mindfuck. It's often not until you have enough distance from it that you understand.
This wasn't just "gross old guy sleeps with younger nanny who he employs so it's morally wrong but not legally." It doesn't matter that she was no longer a minor. Neil Gaiman knew what he was doing. He used his power and influence to get what he wanted, even know he knew that wasn't what she wanted.
How do I know he knew that? B/c if Neil Gaiman honestly believed the nanny wanted to fuck him, he wouldn't have to groom her to get her to sleep with him.
So if anyone is still on the fence about whether Neil Gaiman is a sexual predator or just "sort of creepy older man", please trust me. He is a sexual predator. I experienced my own version of this first hand. I recognize exactly the thoughts that were going through her head. I don't need to read any more to know for a fact.
I hope Neil Gaiman suffers every possible consequence for his actions. But I won't be holding my breath. And I have tremendous respect for the women who were willing to go on this podcast to make this public.
posted by litera scripta manet at 7:52 PM on July 7 [34 favorites]
The more I think about this, and discussions on grooming, the media, format and so forth, the less I'm thinking the reporters did her a disservice.
I mean, this is what abuse looks like. This is grooming, boundary pushing, denial, enabling, confusion and so on. This was a woman looking for something, and being dismissed on many fronts...
She went to the police! She was in hospitals! She told friend! She told his wife! She simultaneously signed papers and sent messages trying to make this something it wasn't. That's also commonly what reporting abuse looks like.
She reached out until she found a place that listened. For whatever reasons or motivations. And They have the receipts. Or at claim to in a way that would damage a lot of careers. They spoke to experts. This has been in process for months.
They aired it in a way that required listening to, or at least transcription, can't easily skim. And now this information is out, and It's out, and in a way that people are discussing it, that doesn't involve a woman accusing someone of abuse, and that person refuting by showing a text that implies otherwise and the world shrugging and moving on.
I know I'm thinking more about the messiness and ways I'd have responded in my life. I see others posting the same things. And I think there's a lot of us spending time thinking more about it, beyond mere he said/she said.
posted by bindr at 8:04 PM on July 7 [6 favorites]
I mean, this is what abuse looks like. This is grooming, boundary pushing, denial, enabling, confusion and so on. This was a woman looking for something, and being dismissed on many fronts...
She went to the police! She was in hospitals! She told friend! She told his wife! She simultaneously signed papers and sent messages trying to make this something it wasn't. That's also commonly what reporting abuse looks like.
She reached out until she found a place that listened. For whatever reasons or motivations. And They have the receipts. Or at claim to in a way that would damage a lot of careers. They spoke to experts. This has been in process for months.
They aired it in a way that required listening to, or at least transcription, can't easily skim. And now this information is out, and It's out, and in a way that people are discussing it, that doesn't involve a woman accusing someone of abuse, and that person refuting by showing a text that implies otherwise and the world shrugging and moving on.
I know I'm thinking more about the messiness and ways I'd have responded in my life. I see others posting the same things. And I think there's a lot of us spending time thinking more about it, beyond mere he said/she said.
posted by bindr at 8:04 PM on July 7 [6 favorites]
Grooming works because the rapist has the power, they start subtly, so that you don't trust yourself, so that you start rationalizing and thinking, maybe I'm wrong, maybe this isn't so bad. You can see that happen immediately with Scarlett in the bath scene of the transcript
And look, I want to be real about this - so, so many of us GenX/Millenial cusp women experienced almost generational wide grooming for decades, and so it's sometimes hard to recognize it when it happens to other women, because it was the air we breathed in and the water we fucking swam in. Men gave fucking classes on how to confuse us and push our boundaries. And then, as though that weren't bad enough, they assessed our worth by how damaged we were. That's so much a part of this shit. You got, like, one sexual assault that people would believe, and after that, people thought it must be your fault, because surely lightning wouldn't strike twice, right?
I've talked on here about the prevalence of sexual assault in my late teens and early twenties; what I don't think I have talked about is how often I minimized it afterwards, both to other people and to myself, because that way I could reframe it to myself, and I wouldn't be this girl who had just been assaulted again and again. Instead I would take the other story I was being offered - that of the powerful girl, who didn't live by conventional rules. And the men were the ones offering that story, because it suited them to offer me that story, because that story let them hurt me and let them get away with it and still be accepted in the social circle.
Scarlett took a story, the story she was being offered, because if she was driving Neil Gaiman nearly to suicide, then she mattered ,and wasn't just the woman that he casually broke. That doesn't mean he didn't hurt her.
posted by corb at 8:12 PM on July 7 [33 favorites]
And look, I want to be real about this - so, so many of us GenX/Millenial cusp women experienced almost generational wide grooming for decades, and so it's sometimes hard to recognize it when it happens to other women, because it was the air we breathed in and the water we fucking swam in. Men gave fucking classes on how to confuse us and push our boundaries. And then, as though that weren't bad enough, they assessed our worth by how damaged we were. That's so much a part of this shit. You got, like, one sexual assault that people would believe, and after that, people thought it must be your fault, because surely lightning wouldn't strike twice, right?
I've talked on here about the prevalence of sexual assault in my late teens and early twenties; what I don't think I have talked about is how often I minimized it afterwards, both to other people and to myself, because that way I could reframe it to myself, and I wouldn't be this girl who had just been assaulted again and again. Instead I would take the other story I was being offered - that of the powerful girl, who didn't live by conventional rules. And the men were the ones offering that story, because it suited them to offer me that story, because that story let them hurt me and let them get away with it and still be accepted in the social circle.
Scarlett took a story, the story she was being offered, because if she was driving Neil Gaiman nearly to suicide, then she mattered ,and wasn't just the woman that he casually broke. That doesn't mean he didn't hurt her.
posted by corb at 8:12 PM on July 7 [33 favorites]
but he didn’t start subtly! he did the classic move of doing something outrageously violating right up front because if your victim freezes in shock instead of screaming and running, you know you have good odds of being able to brutalize her extensively. it’s a filter to weed out unpredictable people without a suitable trauma history and it’s effective. the podcast, shoddy as it is, even brought in a psych guy to spell this out because it is such a famous tactic even email scammers use it.
he goes for previously abused women he can treat like his own characters. when I read the bit about “the pain was celestial” I said to myself Oh jesus, because it’s such a fuckin neil gaiman line and if he didn’t tell it to her he’ll take it from her and repurpose it someday. of all the many reasons I believe her, that one adjective might be the reason I believe her the most. we say he groomed her but neil gaiman thinks he wrote her. I’d stake my life on it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:14 PM on July 7 [30 favorites]
he goes for previously abused women he can treat like his own characters. when I read the bit about “the pain was celestial” I said to myself Oh jesus, because it’s such a fuckin neil gaiman line and if he didn’t tell it to her he’ll take it from her and repurpose it someday. of all the many reasons I believe her, that one adjective might be the reason I believe her the most. we say he groomed her but neil gaiman thinks he wrote her. I’d stake my life on it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:14 PM on July 7 [30 favorites]
well, also, the thing I'm not seeing a lot (and I admit that I do not have the mental energy to read or participate in a lot of conversations about this, so fair enough if this is coming up more than I've seen):
Do we really believe Scarlett's situation with a man in his 60s was a unique one in which the man had never done any such thing before, never tried anything like that before, didn't have his own patterns and procedures, his ways of cleaning up afterward? Things just got out of hand? It was very unfortunate for them both but, you know, human nature and fallibility?
Because I sure fucking don't, and if anyone does, I have the deed to a bridge in London that they might be interested in purchasing. I suspect that similar things had likely been going on for a long, long time, and Scarlett was in a unique position (particularly with a supportive friend) to come forward and expose them. The story itself is disgusting enough, but the queasy feeling that it's just the tip of an iceberg looms in the background -- similar to the difference between hearing a single story of an isolated incident of abuse and realizing that the abuse involved was pervasive and systemic.
posted by verbminx at 8:54 PM on July 7 [14 favorites]
Do we really believe Scarlett's situation with a man in his 60s was a unique one in which the man had never done any such thing before, never tried anything like that before, didn't have his own patterns and procedures, his ways of cleaning up afterward? Things just got out of hand? It was very unfortunate for them both but, you know, human nature and fallibility?
Because I sure fucking don't, and if anyone does, I have the deed to a bridge in London that they might be interested in purchasing. I suspect that similar things had likely been going on for a long, long time, and Scarlett was in a unique position (particularly with a supportive friend) to come forward and expose them. The story itself is disgusting enough, but the queasy feeling that it's just the tip of an iceberg looms in the background -- similar to the difference between hearing a single story of an isolated incident of abuse and realizing that the abuse involved was pervasive and systemic.
posted by verbminx at 8:54 PM on July 7 [14 favorites]
fwiw there are two accusers in the piece, the other one (I think unnamed?) met him in 2003. So, that's two women, 20 years apart.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:02 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 9:02 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
Apologies, I wasn't clear in my previous comment: I'm being cynical about conversations I'm seeing outside of Metafilter. This one is all right.
I'm also specifically speaking of women he met outside of a fan context, because we already knew that he groomed and slept with fans. Scarlett's experience seems like something a bit different for a variety of reasons, more related to her proximity/availability than her interest in his work.
posted by verbminx at 9:13 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
I'm also specifically speaking of women he met outside of a fan context, because we already knew that he groomed and slept with fans. Scarlett's experience seems like something a bit different for a variety of reasons, more related to her proximity/availability than her interest in his work.
posted by verbminx at 9:13 PM on July 7 [3 favorites]
I heard rumors for years but never did anything about it and yet I am morally superior – CHECK
i've been seeing this sentiment around here and there in reaction to the number of commenters who have said "i knew" or even "we knew" or "everybody knew."
i think i understand where this frustration is coming from. for those who were blindsided by this news, and therefore particularly affected by it, it must be galling to hear that to many, it wasn't a surprise at all, because there were people who "knew" the whole time. and, to paraphrase another commenter, whisper networks only protect people if they're in the network. the obvious question to ask, hearing about these victims, is "if people knew, why didn't anyone warn her?"
"why didn't anyone warn her?" i wish someone had. i wish any of his victims had been warned off him before they could be hurt. but that's the thing about predators, they go after those who don't know any better - almost by definition. that is a failure of the predator, not the victim or her support network.
"then why didn't anyone make the rumors public?" because speaking up against powerful, influential people is guaranteed a backlash that not everyone can withstand, and understandably don't want to invite at risk of their own well-being.
but that doesn't mean no one ever "did anything about it." that's what a whisper network is. people trying to protect each other with the limited means they have available.
and i know what i'm about to say is presumptuous, but i question the anger being directed specifically at people who "knew" better, because a lot of it seems to be fueled by anger at not having personally known sooner themselves, and feeling that sting of being hoodwinked and betrayed. i've heard a lot of voices saying they "heard rumors for years," but i haven't seen anyone claim moral superiority, or judge people who didn't know (at least in this particular thread - i might have missed it - i'm sure it's happening elsewhere. i'm not trying to defend people who are in fact lording their superior insight over everyone else).
i guess i just want to say that i get where that anger is coming from but i don't think it's entirely fair. many of the people who "knew" for years went through their own shock of disappointment and disillusionment, then tried their best to do what they could, while hoping someone would be brave enough to come forward and make the truth more widely known. i know because i'm one of them.
posted by a flock of goslings at 10:28 PM on July 7 [9 favorites]
i've been seeing this sentiment around here and there in reaction to the number of commenters who have said "i knew" or even "we knew" or "everybody knew."
i think i understand where this frustration is coming from. for those who were blindsided by this news, and therefore particularly affected by it, it must be galling to hear that to many, it wasn't a surprise at all, because there were people who "knew" the whole time. and, to paraphrase another commenter, whisper networks only protect people if they're in the network. the obvious question to ask, hearing about these victims, is "if people knew, why didn't anyone warn her?"
"why didn't anyone warn her?" i wish someone had. i wish any of his victims had been warned off him before they could be hurt. but that's the thing about predators, they go after those who don't know any better - almost by definition. that is a failure of the predator, not the victim or her support network.
"then why didn't anyone make the rumors public?" because speaking up against powerful, influential people is guaranteed a backlash that not everyone can withstand, and understandably don't want to invite at risk of their own well-being.
but that doesn't mean no one ever "did anything about it." that's what a whisper network is. people trying to protect each other with the limited means they have available.
and i know what i'm about to say is presumptuous, but i question the anger being directed specifically at people who "knew" better, because a lot of it seems to be fueled by anger at not having personally known sooner themselves, and feeling that sting of being hoodwinked and betrayed. i've heard a lot of voices saying they "heard rumors for years," but i haven't seen anyone claim moral superiority, or judge people who didn't know (at least in this particular thread - i might have missed it - i'm sure it's happening elsewhere. i'm not trying to defend people who are in fact lording their superior insight over everyone else).
i guess i just want to say that i get where that anger is coming from but i don't think it's entirely fair. many of the people who "knew" for years went through their own shock of disappointment and disillusionment, then tried their best to do what they could, while hoping someone would be brave enough to come forward and make the truth more widely known. i know because i'm one of them.
posted by a flock of goslings at 10:28 PM on July 7 [9 favorites]
I also “knew” for years, and so did friends who are writers in the SFF scene. There were a lot of rumors about how he preyed on starry-eyed young women in his writing workshops, how he and AFP treated the grad students at Bard as a buffet of young women to proposition for threesomes. Nothing that any of us could prove, as it was all second-hand or third-hand information. People said it was known that he pushed boundaries but most of the people I know are still surprised by the awfulness of *this* particular report even as they say, “Yep, totally believe it based on what he’s like.”
I don’t know that it would have been reasonable for people to have come forward with only a scrap of rumor and go, “This guy you all love, I heard he’s creepy based on unsubstantiated rumors,” and let the harassment and disbelief roll in from all corners… A few months ago, I did a search on my usual gossip resources, wondering if anyone knew about him yet, and found absolutely nobody publicly alluding to the gossip about him, so I think it’s valid to say that if you weren’t plugged in to the network you would have no idea, sadly.
That said, I didn’t speak up because I didn’t feel it was my right to share these rumors and didn’t think it would be responsible, and I assume a lot of others felt the same. :( I even considered posting about the rumors I knew a year ago but it felt in bad taste to do so when the rumors may well have just been vicious mean things said about a polyamorous couple.
posted by oh__lol at 11:51 PM on July 7 [14 favorites]
I don’t know that it would have been reasonable for people to have come forward with only a scrap of rumor and go, “This guy you all love, I heard he’s creepy based on unsubstantiated rumors,” and let the harassment and disbelief roll in from all corners… A few months ago, I did a search on my usual gossip resources, wondering if anyone knew about him yet, and found absolutely nobody publicly alluding to the gossip about him, so I think it’s valid to say that if you weren’t plugged in to the network you would have no idea, sadly.
That said, I didn’t speak up because I didn’t feel it was my right to share these rumors and didn’t think it would be responsible, and I assume a lot of others felt the same. :( I even considered posting about the rumors I knew a year ago but it felt in bad taste to do so when the rumors may well have just been vicious mean things said about a polyamorous couple.
posted by oh__lol at 11:51 PM on July 7 [14 favorites]
After Jian Ghomeshi and then Louis CK, I think my mental switch just flipped about this stuff. Not that I assume every person is a monster -- I tend to engage with people who say self-reflective and good things on the assumption that they're self-reflective good people.
But I've never been a "fannish" person and I've definitely stopped investing in content-creating strangers emotionally.
Partly because we're in the absolute golden age of content creation. I felt bad when Louis CK turned out to be a creep, because I liked his comedy, but guess what? There are a lot of other comedians that I got to discover because I mentally kicked Louis CK to the curb and started looking for new comedy voices.
I liked Neil Gaiman a lot! I bought all the Sandman comics first run. I've read ~75% of his stuff, and liked most of it a bunch. I thought he was a mensch on social media. But guess what? I now get to fill a Gaiman-sized hole in my reading with different and possibly even better writers. That's kind of exciting! Who knows what non-creeps are out there that I now get to discover because I'm dropping a 'default' author from the rota?
The weird rumination from the other morning is that maybe once a creative has reached the point that these kinds of revelations are headline news... they're too big? Maybe the notion that it will be 'shattering to a genre' if somebody is revealed to be a creep means they're sucking too much oxygen out of the room anyway, and it's time to box 'em up to make room for new voices.
Or, if they're gracious people, they might be making room overtly for other voices. I read Service Model recently exclusively because (non-creep) John Scalzi big-upped it and its author, Adrian Tchaikovsky, (indirectly) on BlueSky and then directly in a cover blurb. I really liked it!
posted by Shepherd at 3:35 AM on July 8 [18 favorites]
But I've never been a "fannish" person and I've definitely stopped investing in content-creating strangers emotionally.
Partly because we're in the absolute golden age of content creation. I felt bad when Louis CK turned out to be a creep, because I liked his comedy, but guess what? There are a lot of other comedians that I got to discover because I mentally kicked Louis CK to the curb and started looking for new comedy voices.
I liked Neil Gaiman a lot! I bought all the Sandman comics first run. I've read ~75% of his stuff, and liked most of it a bunch. I thought he was a mensch on social media. But guess what? I now get to fill a Gaiman-sized hole in my reading with different and possibly even better writers. That's kind of exciting! Who knows what non-creeps are out there that I now get to discover because I'm dropping a 'default' author from the rota?
The weird rumination from the other morning is that maybe once a creative has reached the point that these kinds of revelations are headline news... they're too big? Maybe the notion that it will be 'shattering to a genre' if somebody is revealed to be a creep means they're sucking too much oxygen out of the room anyway, and it's time to box 'em up to make room for new voices.
Or, if they're gracious people, they might be making room overtly for other voices. I read Service Model recently exclusively because (non-creep) John Scalzi big-upped it and its author, Adrian Tchaikovsky, (indirectly) on BlueSky and then directly in a cover blurb. I really liked it!
posted by Shepherd at 3:35 AM on July 8 [18 favorites]
I'm not sure there's a Gaiman-sized hole in culture to fill; Gaiman has not written much lately that I know of, other than finally finishing his run on Miracleman, which I found fairly disappointing. In it, MM and his wife sense another superhuman's vibes from across the room, but when MM puts the moves on the dude, who looked up to MM, said dude is so skeeved out that he's inspired to go on a vision quest around the world and no, I'm not making this up, that's the plot of this comic book. Miracleman is not quite an antihero; he's just no longer human, and has few if any checks on his behavior, and no role models, and, well, very little if any humility. Um.
Although Sandman was very meaningful to me when I was young, the story the podcast tells is so startling that Gaiman's creative output is, to me, not even relevant to it. Yes, without his success, nothing he did would have been possible (probably). That's the origin of how he could get away with it. But the "it" itself is so vile that the "how" is trivial. I just don't care that he's a writer. It's not important anymore.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:47 AM on July 8 [10 favorites]
Although Sandman was very meaningful to me when I was young, the story the podcast tells is so startling that Gaiman's creative output is, to me, not even relevant to it. Yes, without his success, nothing he did would have been possible (probably). That's the origin of how he could get away with it. But the "it" itself is so vile that the "how" is trivial. I just don't care that he's a writer. It's not important anymore.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 5:47 AM on July 8 [10 favorites]
Funny you bring up Jian Ghomeshi, Shepherd, because he's the only one of these guys that I was inside the whisper network for before allegations surfaced (I was warned off being alone with Ghomeshi in college radio in the '90s). With Gaiman, I only heard that people in publishing knew Things about him on, like, July 5th.
The thing that is most blowing my mind about this whole situation are the people in my Facebook writing circles who are saying the whole thing is obviously just some kind of UK-election-related psyops to "divide the left" and it makes me feel crazy, much as I'm not happy about the source/podcast I just don't see how that lets Gaiman off the hook. Although I will say, I feel pretty damn divided from those who claim to be on the left who are all "it doesn't pass the sniff test, these women obviously just want attention"* like thanks for letting me know you won't have my back either. (*A quote from a FB acquaintance, not from here.)
posted by joannemerriam at 6:49 AM on July 8 [10 favorites]
The thing that is most blowing my mind about this whole situation are the people in my Facebook writing circles who are saying the whole thing is obviously just some kind of UK-election-related psyops to "divide the left" and it makes me feel crazy, much as I'm not happy about the source/podcast I just don't see how that lets Gaiman off the hook. Although I will say, I feel pretty damn divided from those who claim to be on the left who are all "it doesn't pass the sniff test, these women obviously just want attention"* like thanks for letting me know you won't have my back either. (*A quote from a FB acquaintance, not from here.)
posted by joannemerriam at 6:49 AM on July 8 [10 favorites]
First off - I believe these women and think, at minimum, Gaiman is a creep who has exploited his power & fame in highly unethical and damaging ways.
As a comic nerd, I am surprised that sites like The Beat & Bleeding Cool have not run anything on this situation. Bleeding Cool in particular is a gossipy site that is usually fairly fearless.
I am wondering if they are either concerned with being slapped with libel suits or if there is another, big, shoe waiting to drop.
posted by Dalekdad at 7:06 AM on July 8 [1 favorite]
As a comic nerd, I am surprised that sites like The Beat & Bleeding Cool have not run anything on this situation. Bleeding Cool in particular is a gossipy site that is usually fairly fearless.
I am wondering if they are either concerned with being slapped with libel suits or if there is another, big, shoe waiting to drop.
posted by Dalekdad at 7:06 AM on July 8 [1 favorite]
Enough other outlets have parroted The Tortoise that I'm not sure fear of a libel suit is it, though it is true that amateur (not meant scornfully) sites like Bleeding Cool will be targeted faster than "legit" news sites.
I suspect the other shoe may be about Sandman season 2 (currently shooting) or Good Omens season 3 (scripts underway last I heard). Either could be scrapped, and I'll actually be pretty surprised if Good Omens isn't -- a number of its central people must be asking themselves if they want to go forward with it, considering. (I'm also wondering about Douglas MacKinnon's departure as director now, not that it is any of my business.)
I do not say this with schadenfreude. Good Omens and its fandom were instrumental in getting me through pandemic lockdown mostly mentally intact. The fandom is already fragmenting and diminishing, which is to be expected.
posted by humbug at 7:23 AM on July 8 [2 favorites]
I suspect the other shoe may be about Sandman season 2 (currently shooting) or Good Omens season 3 (scripts underway last I heard). Either could be scrapped, and I'll actually be pretty surprised if Good Omens isn't -- a number of its central people must be asking themselves if they want to go forward with it, considering. (I'm also wondering about Douglas MacKinnon's departure as director now, not that it is any of my business.)
I do not say this with schadenfreude. Good Omens and its fandom were instrumental in getting me through pandemic lockdown mostly mentally intact. The fandom is already fragmenting and diminishing, which is to be expected.
posted by humbug at 7:23 AM on July 8 [2 favorites]
Especially after Netflix dropped the casting pics for The Sandman S2.
I don't know where the shows will end up (I only ever watched Good Omens S1 because that's where the book ends for me and I am content), but I wouldn't be surprised if there are cancellations.
posted by Kitteh at 7:28 AM on July 8 [3 favorites]
I don't know where the shows will end up (I only ever watched Good Omens S1 because that's where the book ends for me and I am content), but I wouldn't be surprised if there are cancellations.
posted by Kitteh at 7:28 AM on July 8 [3 favorites]
I suspect that the existing TV shows may pull an MCU/James Gunn move and just remove Gaiman from the production staff and tap someone else to finish. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Georgia Tennant takes on some kind of a role with Good Omens, in fact - she was co-executive producer for Staged for three seasons, and that may be enough of a resume (especially since David and Michael Sheen and half the cast of Staged are also cast in Good Omens). But there are a number of master classes and speaking engagements that I suspect may be quietly cancelling soon.
I'm also really curious about what might happen at The Golden Notebook, an indie bookstore in Woodstock near where Gaiman lives; he's prone to periodically sneaking in and signing whatever is on the shelves, and they have a whole Neil Gaiman section as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they quietly dismantle the "Gaiman shelf" and shuffle those books in amongst the rest of the books.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:23 AM on July 8 [4 favorites]
I'm also really curious about what might happen at The Golden Notebook, an indie bookstore in Woodstock near where Gaiman lives; he's prone to periodically sneaking in and signing whatever is on the shelves, and they have a whole Neil Gaiman section as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they quietly dismantle the "Gaiman shelf" and shuffle those books in amongst the rest of the books.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:23 AM on July 8 [4 favorites]
If anything, Bleeding Cool has even less credibility than Boris Johnson's sister, so maybe they should sit this one out.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:24 AM on July 8 [6 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:24 AM on July 8 [6 favorites]
I've been having trouble finding space on the bookshelves lately. Guess this helps to clear out a foot or two of space around the G's.
(There's a in-joke at our house, that the shelf that houses Neil Gaiman's work is "The Neil Gaiman Memorial Shelf...He's not dead, we just like to remember him." We even made a little sign. Maybe we can change it to "We'd just like to forget him.")
I'll probably put the books in a box in the basement and try to forget about 'em. Maybe they'll make their way back to the shelves eventually, like the Asimov and some of the Ellis, or maybe not. I'm feeling a little bad about the duplicate copies of his work that I had set aside for the little free libraries in the neighborhood.
His work meant a lot to me, and it was something that was shared among friends and family. My mother bought multiple copies of The Ocean at the End of the Lane to hand out. The kiddo was a fan of Coraline, and was pumped for Good Omens season three (I still hadn't gotten to season two - was saving it for a rewatch with the fam). Every once in a while I'd hop into author Tumblr see what he reblogged. This is gonna leave a hole, and it's not going to be easly filled up with new talent. I don't know if I've got the hours left in the day to start vetting new authors, much less getting to actual reading.
I'm dissipointed. I'm concerned. I'm angry. I hope the women involved get some justice out of this (and I have little doubt that there's more than two who deserve to get some justice).
posted by Rudy_Wiser at 11:01 AM on July 8 [6 favorites]
(There's a in-joke at our house, that the shelf that houses Neil Gaiman's work is "The Neil Gaiman Memorial Shelf...He's not dead, we just like to remember him." We even made a little sign. Maybe we can change it to "We'd just like to forget him.")
I'll probably put the books in a box in the basement and try to forget about 'em. Maybe they'll make their way back to the shelves eventually, like the Asimov and some of the Ellis, or maybe not. I'm feeling a little bad about the duplicate copies of his work that I had set aside for the little free libraries in the neighborhood.
His work meant a lot to me, and it was something that was shared among friends and family. My mother bought multiple copies of The Ocean at the End of the Lane to hand out. The kiddo was a fan of Coraline, and was pumped for Good Omens season three (I still hadn't gotten to season two - was saving it for a rewatch with the fam). Every once in a while I'd hop into author Tumblr see what he reblogged. This is gonna leave a hole, and it's not going to be easly filled up with new talent. I don't know if I've got the hours left in the day to start vetting new authors, much less getting to actual reading.
I'm dissipointed. I'm concerned. I'm angry. I hope the women involved get some justice out of this (and I have little doubt that there's more than two who deserve to get some justice).
posted by Rudy_Wiser at 11:01 AM on July 8 [6 favorites]
I was convinced before even touching the transcripts, because, as usual, WHY THE FUCK ELSE would two people, totally unknown to each other and with nothing to gain except the avalanche of shit they are no doubt now receiving in their inboxes, admit publicly to being victimized by one of the best-loved SFF figures now living? Who (of course of course of course) has spent literal decades successfully selling himself (including to yours truly) as a somewhat self-satisfied but basically earnest supporter of women's and LGBTQ+ rights?
Now that I've read the 3 documents that Kathryn shared (JESUS!!!! CHRIST!!!!), I can say that even if none of what our culture inflicts on rape victims were true--
the abuse and bodily danger people face when they tell the truth about celebrated rapist artistes
the projected fear and scorn and disgust survivors of sexual violence have to deal with even if their attackers are merely anonymous assholes
the unhinged harassment campaigns online fandom can levy against any woman who threatens to puncture their fantasy of their favorite creators as their ideal fantasy lovers / imaginary best friends--
He betrays himself by HIS FIRST REACTION to learning his supposedly consenting lover felt that he had committed a disgusting crime against her. (A reaction which is then sustained through multiple communications up to and including correspondence with his legal representative.)
He does not recoil in spiritual horror and ask how their perceptions could have been so disastrously misaligned, or even beg her forgiveness for how he may have harmed her, even if he wanted to pretend it was unintentional. He immediately CONTINUES ABUSING HER by threatening suicide--and not even due to shame or rejection, but OVER WHAT HER ACCUSATIONS MIGHT DO TO HIS PUBLIC IMAGE.
That's it. Curtains. That's all you need to prove that Neil Gaiman knows perfectly fucking well that he's a criminal and a prick.
(As for Palmer and her half-hearted "oh wow dude what an extremely bad situation"--only after being justifiably lit up by Scarlett's friends--what the fuck ever, lady.)
posted by peakes at 12:00 PM on July 8 [17 favorites]
Now that I've read the 3 documents that Kathryn shared (JESUS!!!! CHRIST!!!!), I can say that even if none of what our culture inflicts on rape victims were true--
the abuse and bodily danger people face when they tell the truth about celebrated rapist artistes
the projected fear and scorn and disgust survivors of sexual violence have to deal with even if their attackers are merely anonymous assholes
the unhinged harassment campaigns online fandom can levy against any woman who threatens to puncture their fantasy of their favorite creators as their ideal fantasy lovers / imaginary best friends--
He betrays himself by HIS FIRST REACTION to learning his supposedly consenting lover felt that he had committed a disgusting crime against her. (A reaction which is then sustained through multiple communications up to and including correspondence with his legal representative.)
He does not recoil in spiritual horror and ask how their perceptions could have been so disastrously misaligned, or even beg her forgiveness for how he may have harmed her, even if he wanted to pretend it was unintentional. He immediately CONTINUES ABUSING HER by threatening suicide--and not even due to shame or rejection, but OVER WHAT HER ACCUSATIONS MIGHT DO TO HIS PUBLIC IMAGE.
That's it. Curtains. That's all you need to prove that Neil Gaiman knows perfectly fucking well that he's a criminal and a prick.
(As for Palmer and her half-hearted "oh wow dude what an extremely bad situation"--only after being justifiably lit up by Scarlett's friends--what the fuck ever, lady.)
posted by peakes at 12:00 PM on July 8 [17 favorites]
One of the things that is really unsatisfying about all this--and scary, and gross, and weird--is that apparently three-quarters of the world's population knew all about this, and have been talking about it for years, but somehow it's never public? Who else is on this list that 'everyone' knows about, except no one seems to so everyone's shocked when it comes out? I don't mean that rhetorically--I would like it if someone provided a list of these people, prior to the big news stories.
posted by mittens at 12:26 PM on July 8 [4 favorites]
posted by mittens at 12:26 PM on July 8 [4 favorites]
The thing that is most blowing my mind about this whole situation are the people in my Facebook writing circles who are saying the whole thing is obviously just some kind of UK-election-related psyops to "divide the left"
I recognise you're not agreeing with this FB take at all but Neil Gaiman is just not famous enough in the UK for this to be even plausible. David Tennant and Michael Sheen are famous. Gaiman is a genre author.
And besides which, the left won the election the UK election by any relevant measure.
posted by plonkee at 12:44 PM on July 8 [6 favorites]
I recognise you're not agreeing with this FB take at all but Neil Gaiman is just not famous enough in the UK for this to be even plausible. David Tennant and Michael Sheen are famous. Gaiman is a genre author.
And besides which, the left won the election the UK election by any relevant measure.
posted by plonkee at 12:44 PM on July 8 [6 favorites]
mittens, I can offer you a personal explanation that may partly generalize.
Somebody geek-famous whom I had a nodding acquaintance with -- a few social-media interactions, both of us keynoting the same conference once -- sexually harassed a professional friend of mine. Did I believe her when she told me about him? Yep. Do I still believe her? Yep. Do I think he's likely harassed other women also? Yep.
Do I whisper-network warn people about him and the organization he works for? Yep, absolutely, whenever I get a chance. I've even taken the opportunity to trash the org as a grant reviewer (though for different, grant-relevant reasons; the org is Not Great in several ways).
Will I go public with his name? Hell no. I have no evidence other than my friend's statement, and my friend told me in confidence which I don't care to break. This guy is geek-famous enough that if I accuse him -- no matter the strength of proof -- I can expect a tsunami of abuse from his hangers-on that will almost certainly spill over damagingly into my offline life. Were I to name my friend, she'd be in for it too.
I wish I had a better answer for you. This is the answer I have.
posted by humbug at 1:11 PM on July 8 [13 favorites]
Somebody geek-famous whom I had a nodding acquaintance with -- a few social-media interactions, both of us keynoting the same conference once -- sexually harassed a professional friend of mine. Did I believe her when she told me about him? Yep. Do I still believe her? Yep. Do I think he's likely harassed other women also? Yep.
Do I whisper-network warn people about him and the organization he works for? Yep, absolutely, whenever I get a chance. I've even taken the opportunity to trash the org as a grant reviewer (though for different, grant-relevant reasons; the org is Not Great in several ways).
Will I go public with his name? Hell no. I have no evidence other than my friend's statement, and my friend told me in confidence which I don't care to break. This guy is geek-famous enough that if I accuse him -- no matter the strength of proof -- I can expect a tsunami of abuse from his hangers-on that will almost certainly spill over damagingly into my offline life. Were I to name my friend, she'd be in for it too.
I wish I had a better answer for you. This is the answer I have.
posted by humbug at 1:11 PM on July 8 [13 favorites]
-I would like it if someone provided a list of these people, prior to the big news stories.
Someone tried. This is how it went.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:13 PM on July 8 [16 favorites]
Someone tried. This is how it went.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:13 PM on July 8 [16 favorites]
I heard on a very unrelated podcast today that men are taught that power is pleasure and that rang so true to me and reminded me of this thread.
Maybe it's because am a sexual assault and abuse survivor but...I don't think it's a big leap from understanding what #MeToo actually is to this story. Maybe my perspective is just warped.
From the assistant manager at McDonalds who trades either overtly sexual or kind of creepy favours for good shifts to the likes of Epstein, are we really surprised that it's possible for some men (and a much smaller number of women, as we should know about people like MZB) to behave this way? That's what #MeToo was all about - that it's not actually uncommon. That's why it trended. That the power structures of the workplace and careers in entertainment and the arts actually create an environment that supports men in predatory behaviour, due to their power.
That hashtag, man - I remember when it was first trending and having to go in the bathroom and cry...not just in anger and empathy for the women but at the sheer numbers.
These guys looks like everyone else -they create art and story and music and movies and products and marketing and code and engineering just like the rest of us, or better than the rest of us. But the difference is, they use that to exercise power over others in shit, shit ways. And to shield themselves. Yay if those shields fall apart.
I also think fandom, or feeling passionate about things in a particular shared way, is generally okay. The energy of it is fun and I'm down with people loving narrative and visuals and stuff. I think it is fine to honour the way creating things creates connection, and to think highly of those who create them. It's human and kind of wonderful.
But...I think part of growing up in fandom also is learning that your heroes also are limited. I remember when my first author bubble burst*...it was good for me, since it didn't involve assault or anything else but also really showed me that writers are people first...just people, man. And then of course being in my mid-50s, I have also loved - lovedloved - works that I now know are really problematic. That's okay too. Being able to handle the mess is I think what creates progress.
If you have to deny that there was anything attractive in the art then you set yourself up for the next time you love something. Or you stop connecting and that sucks too.
I think that maybe fandom - whatever that means - could do a better job of enjoying the fannish parts without creating weird power structures. I've been to a small con where nothing terrible happened (that I'm aware of), but I found the way certain people held court and others attended those mini-courts really disturbing - and the way that experience was entrenched in how the con was conducted. And it was run by one of the good guys, so it was hard to understand how that had come to be. I have been really cautious about attending similarly-sized events since just from ick.
I do think that this more positive culture of understanding is growing in fandom, and people are getting smarter about how to run things, etc. It's also about diversity - if you can handle diverse perspectives, there's less likely to be a One True Power Structure that happens to align with sexual predation.
But progress isn't always linear.
* Anne McCaffrey, emailing me really upset, with lots and lots of words, that people online were upset with her, and saying she was going to shut all the online Pern-based games down (not just Benden/Ruatha.) I don't think I was the only person that talked her off the ledge, but I felt like it was up to me, and man, that punctured my faith in the fan/author relationship.
posted by warriorqueen at 1:42 PM on July 8 [13 favorites]
Maybe it's because am a sexual assault and abuse survivor but...I don't think it's a big leap from understanding what #MeToo actually is to this story. Maybe my perspective is just warped.
From the assistant manager at McDonalds who trades either overtly sexual or kind of creepy favours for good shifts to the likes of Epstein, are we really surprised that it's possible for some men (and a much smaller number of women, as we should know about people like MZB) to behave this way? That's what #MeToo was all about - that it's not actually uncommon. That's why it trended. That the power structures of the workplace and careers in entertainment and the arts actually create an environment that supports men in predatory behaviour, due to their power.
That hashtag, man - I remember when it was first trending and having to go in the bathroom and cry...not just in anger and empathy for the women but at the sheer numbers.
These guys looks like everyone else -they create art and story and music and movies and products and marketing and code and engineering just like the rest of us, or better than the rest of us. But the difference is, they use that to exercise power over others in shit, shit ways. And to shield themselves. Yay if those shields fall apart.
I also think fandom, or feeling passionate about things in a particular shared way, is generally okay. The energy of it is fun and I'm down with people loving narrative and visuals and stuff. I think it is fine to honour the way creating things creates connection, and to think highly of those who create them. It's human and kind of wonderful.
But...I think part of growing up in fandom also is learning that your heroes also are limited. I remember when my first author bubble burst*...it was good for me, since it didn't involve assault or anything else but also really showed me that writers are people first...just people, man. And then of course being in my mid-50s, I have also loved - lovedloved - works that I now know are really problematic. That's okay too. Being able to handle the mess is I think what creates progress.
If you have to deny that there was anything attractive in the art then you set yourself up for the next time you love something. Or you stop connecting and that sucks too.
I think that maybe fandom - whatever that means - could do a better job of enjoying the fannish parts without creating weird power structures. I've been to a small con where nothing terrible happened (that I'm aware of), but I found the way certain people held court and others attended those mini-courts really disturbing - and the way that experience was entrenched in how the con was conducted. And it was run by one of the good guys, so it was hard to understand how that had come to be. I have been really cautious about attending similarly-sized events since just from ick.
I do think that this more positive culture of understanding is growing in fandom, and people are getting smarter about how to run things, etc. It's also about diversity - if you can handle diverse perspectives, there's less likely to be a One True Power Structure that happens to align with sexual predation.
But progress isn't always linear.
* Anne McCaffrey, emailing me really upset, with lots and lots of words, that people online were upset with her, and saying she was going to shut all the online Pern-based games down (not just Benden/Ruatha.) I don't think I was the only person that talked her off the ledge, but I felt like it was up to me, and man, that punctured my faith in the fan/author relationship.
posted by warriorqueen at 1:42 PM on July 8 [13 favorites]
(Also her tentpeg comment but that came later, or at least I was made aware of it later. I put her books in a closet until my eldest son came to an age to read them and I realized...I didn't really think he should, so then I donated them.)
posted by warriorqueen at 1:46 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 1:46 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]
The thing that is most blowing my mind about this whole situation are the people in my Facebook writing circles who are saying the whole thing is obviously just some kind of UK-election-related psyops to "divide the left"
yeah, but to work, the UK would have to have a left to be divided, not just the "We're neo-liberals just like the Conservatives, only antisemitic instead of racist" New Labour.
on the rest of the news: Christ, what an asshole.
(by which I mean Gaiman, of course.)
posted by jb at 1:48 PM on July 8 [4 favorites]
yeah, but to work, the UK would have to have a left to be divided, not just the "We're neo-liberals just like the Conservatives, only antisemitic instead of racist" New Labour.
on the rest of the news: Christ, what an asshole.
(by which I mean Gaiman, of course.)
posted by jb at 1:48 PM on July 8 [4 favorites]
yeah, but to work, the UK would have to have a left to be divided, not just the "We're neo-liberals just like the Conservatives, only antisemitic instead of racist" New Labour.
Starmer is 100% supportive of Israel, and the accusations of antisemitism in Labour were largely relying on the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and really about anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel (and a cudgel for the Labour right to get rid of Corbyn who has been pro-Palestine for his entire career). Obvious that your knowledge of British politics is essentially nil.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:26 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]
Starmer is 100% supportive of Israel, and the accusations of antisemitism in Labour were largely relying on the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and really about anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel (and a cudgel for the Labour right to get rid of Corbyn who has been pro-Palestine for his entire career). Obvious that your knowledge of British politics is essentially nil.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:26 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]
I mean, it's entirely reasonable to be concerned about The Tortoise and Johnson, and their (possible) agendas to harm more progressive causes and/or give "Mumsnet feminists" further causes for alarm or whatever, but, unless you believe Scarlett and K are lying, Gaiman is, even if given every possible benefit of the doubt, a very bad person who has preyed on his fans and other vulnerable women for a long time. Exposing evil does not have to be done for pure reasons, however galling that may seem. If the damning messages in the article were fabricated, I assume we would be hearing about the defamation suit already. There is no "out" by casting aspersions on the sources.
And, if you are a "I believe the women" person who, in this case, suddenly doesn't believe the women, I don't know what to say to you (except "get away from me.")
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:57 PM on July 8 [10 favorites]
And, if you are a "I believe the women" person who, in this case, suddenly doesn't believe the women, I don't know what to say to you (except "get away from me.")
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:57 PM on July 8 [10 favorites]
If there is a political dimension to all of this, my guess is that the victims may have figured a right-leaning news outlet would be less likely to try and catch and kill a story damaging to a figure with few conservative fans. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that's happened before, to judge from some of the comments in this thread.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:15 PM on July 8 [4 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:15 PM on July 8 [4 favorites]
Also her tentpeg comment but that came later
God, I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that! Thanks for the laugh in a grim thread.
posted by chaiminda at 4:45 PM on July 8 [1 favorite]
God, I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that! Thanks for the laugh in a grim thread.
posted by chaiminda at 4:45 PM on July 8 [1 favorite]
mittens: UK libel law is horrific. I could in principle name a "national treasure" who I have good reason to believe is a deeply bad egg, but if I did, with it being third, fourth, or fifth hand information I'd be absolutely cremated by legal threats. I'm a man so rightly often not involved in a lot of whispernets, but there's also at least two more major celebrities below national treasure status that I am also told are not allowed to be alone with women by producers. Naming them too would involve cremation, and likely outing of the contacts I have. The wider number must be more than I have fingers to say the least, and that's just UK.
I can't do much. I just happen to know some people in showbiz by good fortune who have been prepared to drop me sufficient hints.
posted by edd at 4:47 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]
I can't do much. I just happen to know some people in showbiz by good fortune who have been prepared to drop me sufficient hints.
posted by edd at 4:47 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]
OK well I am going to name a couple of people, because I've never heard a bad thing and only heard good things. Both Doctors. The aforementioned David Tennant by all accounts I've heard is a deeply kind and decent family man in the most inclusive way. And I've heard Christopher Ecclestone loses his shit in very appropriate ways when things are not caring and appropriate for all on a set he's on. Just to put a positive thing in there.
(Which may be wrong, cos I was wrong about NG, but still...)
posted by edd at 5:15 PM on July 8 [9 favorites]
(Which may be wrong, cos I was wrong about NG, but still...)
posted by edd at 5:15 PM on July 8 [9 favorites]
Ah heck you're all going to think the bad eggs are Doctors. They're not.
posted by edd at 5:23 PM on July 8
posted by edd at 5:23 PM on July 8
Ha ha, so this is hilarious, you guys, ha ha ha, while I was all, "so Neil Gaiman's an asshole, that kind of figures, never read his stuff much, whatever" it turns out that Alice Munro's husband molested her daughter when she was nine, and Munro chose to stay with him. There are complicating factors: her daughter, Andrea, told her father and stepmother about the assaults, and neither of them informed Munro (WTF) about it until thirty years later, when Andrea told Munro in a letter. Munro temporarily left her husband, but went back to him, saying the revelations came too late. Ha ha, serves me right for even momentarily pitying all you Gaiman fans, because I've been nauseous since I read it this afternoon and just no, no, no, no. HAHAHAHA to me. Fuck.
posted by jokeefe at 5:28 PM on July 8 [1 favorite]
posted by jokeefe at 5:28 PM on July 8 [1 favorite]
Since we’re kind of back to David Tennant I wonder if we can keep two opposing ideas in mind:
That while maybe Tennant is a celebrity who believes and generally says the right things, and while Kemi Badenoch is a conservative in government who uses her influence to enforce her really dangerous beliefs, this:
“…until we wake up and Kemi Badenoch doesn't exist any more - I don't wish ill of her, I just wish her to shut up…”
is a really awful thing for a rich, white, influential cis man to say about a Black woman who is the daughter of immigrants, and she is absolutely right to call him out like this:
“ A rich, lefty, white male celebrity so blinded by ideology he can't see the optics of attacking the only black woman in government by calling publicly for my existence to end…”
posted by toodleydoodley at 5:35 PM on July 8
That while maybe Tennant is a celebrity who believes and generally says the right things, and while Kemi Badenoch is a conservative in government who uses her influence to enforce her really dangerous beliefs, this:
“…until we wake up and Kemi Badenoch doesn't exist any more - I don't wish ill of her, I just wish her to shut up…”
is a really awful thing for a rich, white, influential cis man to say about a Black woman who is the daughter of immigrants, and she is absolutely right to call him out like this:
“ A rich, lefty, white male celebrity so blinded by ideology he can't see the optics of attacking the only black woman in government by calling publicly for my existence to end…”
posted by toodleydoodley at 5:35 PM on July 8
Hell, jokeefe, I'm sorry. I kind of had to read your comment a few times to grok it properly (no complaint) but the situation is just awful. I'm not that familiar with Munro but I'm very sorry you find yourself in this same situation.
posted by edd at 5:36 PM on July 8
posted by edd at 5:36 PM on July 8
There is an FPP about Alice Munro. Maybe that’s a better place for it?
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:42 PM on July 8 [2 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:42 PM on July 8 [2 favorites]
toodleydoodley: I think he recognised where he had gone wrong there and rolled back on it very quickly, but in the circumstances of an election campaign that wasn't recognised as much as it might have been. It was a wrong thing to say, but I think when you're potentially protecting your family it's understandable how it came about and what the true intention was.
And lets not underestimate that Kemi Badenoch, despite her absolutely more difficult circumstances and upbringing than Tennant's, is potentially going to be a hell of a lot more influential even while out of government now than David Tennant, and that some other black women politicians were more in agreement with David Tennant than her.
posted by edd at 5:44 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]
And lets not underestimate that Kemi Badenoch, despite her absolutely more difficult circumstances and upbringing than Tennant's, is potentially going to be a hell of a lot more influential even while out of government now than David Tennant, and that some other black women politicians were more in agreement with David Tennant than her.
posted by edd at 5:44 PM on July 8 [3 favorites]
“ A rich, lefty, white male celebrity so blinded by ideology he can't see the optics of attacking the only black woman in government by calling publicly for my existence to end…”
Oh for fuck's sake. It has nothing to do with her being black or a woman -- it has to do directly with the fact that SHE'S A TRANSPHOBE and an evil person. He named her specifically because she's the problem specifically. You let the Right twist the Left's language around and then you believed them.
posted by tzikeh at 5:44 PM on July 8 [12 favorites]
Oh for fuck's sake. It has nothing to do with her being black or a woman -- it has to do directly with the fact that SHE'S A TRANSPHOBE and an evil person. He named her specifically because she's the problem specifically. You let the Right twist the Left's language around and then you believed them.
posted by tzikeh at 5:44 PM on July 8 [12 favorites]
I for one think Badenoch should shut up because she's a powerful transphobe with a long record of saying hateful things.
posted by BungaDunga at 6:06 PM on July 8 [8 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 6:06 PM on July 8 [8 favorites]
like she was literally in charge of a whole chunk of the Tories' anti-trans policies, she's not just a random government minister, she sucks in very specific ways and anyone would have good reason to wish she, specifically, would shut up and stop doing harm
posted by BungaDunga at 6:13 PM on July 8 [11 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 6:13 PM on July 8 [11 favorites]
Oh for fuck's sake. It has nothing to do with her being black or a woman -- it has to do directly with the fact that SHE'S A TRANSPHOBE and an evil person.
And one of David Tennant's kids is in the LGBTQ community to boot. He wasn't being a privileged cis white guy, he was being a Dad looking out for his kid. And frankly "she needs to shut up" from Papa Bear is getting off easy.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:35 PM on July 8 [4 favorites]
And one of David Tennant's kids is in the LGBTQ community to boot. He wasn't being a privileged cis white guy, he was being a Dad looking out for his kid. And frankly "she needs to shut up" from Papa Bear is getting off easy.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:35 PM on July 8 [4 favorites]
Hell, jokeefe, I'm sorry. I kind of had to read your comment a few times to grok it properly (no complaint) but the situation is just awful. I'm not that familiar with Munro but I'm very sorry you find yourself in this same situation.
I would drop the derail, but I wanted to say that I really, really appreciate these kind words, edd. Thank you.
posted by jokeefe at 7:53 PM on July 8
I would drop the derail, but I wanted to say that I really, really appreciate these kind words, edd. Thank you.
posted by jokeefe at 7:53 PM on July 8
Mod note: A few deleted. Reminder to please reach out to us through contact form or flag the comments if you feel a thread is being derailed. Let’s refrain from getting into a scuffle with each other in-thread.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 8:19 PM on July 8 [1 favorite]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 8:19 PM on July 8 [1 favorite]
Um, it's ok to be a transphobe if you are a woman of color? He's not allowed to call her out on that behavior due to demographics?
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:24 PM on July 8 [7 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:24 PM on July 8 [7 favorites]
If there is a political dimension to all of this, my guess is that the victims may have figured a right-leaning news outlet would be less likely to try and catch and kill a story damaging to a figure with few conservative fans
There is zero evidence that the victims reached out to a right leaning news outlet. The outlet that reported this was co-founded by a major US Democratic fundraiser and Obama appointee. The organization has at least one out trans woman on staff. Two journalists worked on this story, one is the brother of a former right wing PM Boris Johnson but she broke with him on political issues. She’s a well known journalist and generally respected for her work. The fact that she would be hired and assigned to this story isn’t surprising because unfortunately transphobia is tolerated and often ignored.
The suggestion that there was some right wing TERF conspiracy to bring down Gaimen and by proxy David Tennant is not supported by the evidence. This story has nothing to do with David Tennant and the great advocacy he’s been doing.
posted by interogative mood at 10:12 PM on July 8 [7 favorites]
There is zero evidence that the victims reached out to a right leaning news outlet. The outlet that reported this was co-founded by a major US Democratic fundraiser and Obama appointee. The organization has at least one out trans woman on staff. Two journalists worked on this story, one is the brother of a former right wing PM Boris Johnson but she broke with him on political issues. She’s a well known journalist and generally respected for her work. The fact that she would be hired and assigned to this story isn’t surprising because unfortunately transphobia is tolerated and often ignored.
The suggestion that there was some right wing TERF conspiracy to bring down Gaimen and by proxy David Tennant is not supported by the evidence. This story has nothing to do with David Tennant and the great advocacy he’s been doing.
posted by interogative mood at 10:12 PM on July 8 [7 favorites]
Scarlett reached out to Johnson - it was Johnson who brought the story to Tortoise, not that Tortoise got the story and hired Johnson. You may have your issues with Tortoise, or Johnson, but the idea that Tortoise ran this podcast as some deliberate TERF-based exercise is overlooking the facts of how it came to be.
posted by thepuppetisasock at 12:16 AM on July 9 [1 favorite]
posted by thepuppetisasock at 12:16 AM on July 9 [1 favorite]
Um.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:56 AM on July 9
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:56 AM on July 9
I'd hope that this is one derail / conspiracy we can shut down. The Tortoise podcast must have been in production for many weeks if not months, and indeed once of the complaints I've heard is that it was framed as long-form infotainment rather than a breaking news story. The UK general election was infamously called as a snap decision in late May. Whatever dictated the timing of the podcast coming out, it wasn't the date of the election or any pro- or anti-trans comments made during the campaign.
posted by Major Clanger at 2:59 AM on July 9 [3 favorites]
posted by Major Clanger at 2:59 AM on July 9 [3 favorites]
Anyway, I'm sorry for my part in inadvertently taking us down this rabbit hole that seems fairly irrelevant to the actual issue at hand.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:00 AM on July 9
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:00 AM on July 9
Mod note: Note: This thread is getting a lot of flags, a bit unsurprisingly, since it's sort of being persistently, repeatedly derailed in several directions. Rather than yet another round of deletions at this point, I'll just ask that folks who want to go deep on discussing other authors, other celebrity figures, good or bad, UK politics and/or law, specific UK politicians, Israel/Palestine, The Tortoise qua The Tortoise, etc., to consider making a dedicated post about that different topic, or join one already in progress. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:33 AM on July 9 [4 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 3:33 AM on July 9 [4 favorites]
This has hit me in all sorts of personal ways. From 1994, Sandman was a huge component in counteracting the narrative isolation of childhood sexual trauma. I have a big ol' Delirium tattoo. When he revealed his self ID as autistic earlier this year, I thought, ah right, mah peepol.
Reading the transcripts though, that isolation howdied up. The word fawn has not been mentioned in this thread at all. It feels very unlucky to know very clearly what it is to pour affection at an abusive situation, to soothe one's own core. It's so harsh to know the reality that this becomes known for sure as consent, and the curiosity required to suss the nuances just isn't going to be available.
Immediately, I see it as very plausible that his autism blunted the edge of his capacity to intuit the difference between "I feel lucky to be here and obliged to be mild" and "I consent." I can SEE how his thinking might follow the self-exculpation gravity lines. I don't fuckin agree, though. I think there's a level of adult responsibility for understanding your own limitations and accommodating them, like people who get eyeglasses because shit is blurry. His consent protocol is bullshit, and it angers me. It angers me on behalf of the people on the receiving end of his abuse, and it angers me because, generally, people in a position to make sure people in power are aware of and responsible for their limitations DON'T DO THAT, for their own power-seeking reasons. And so these patterns are ubiquitous and continuous.
I'm furious that NG is so small, that his concept of his own power defaults to NDAs and attorneys instead of showing actual care and apology for people expressing hurt by him. Weaponized suicidality is monstrous, and if he was actually so subjectively caught up in his own experience that it was sincere, it's still monstrous, externalizing your own emotions as if they are being done TO you.
I'm pissed, on behalf of all of my friends and family in the poly and bdsm communities whom this reflects terribly and incorrectly upon, on behalf of the autistic community, still struggling to be understood in our empathies and ethics. I'm pissed that my imagination has lost a friend to go on adventures with.
Mostly, though, this is all just very very sad. There are so many avenues of power in this reality that are more rich and rewarding than money and lawyers and coercion, but even the people who detail those avenues in beautiful stories can't fucking inhabit them in their personal lives.
posted by droomoord at 4:42 AM on July 9 [8 favorites]
Reading the transcripts though, that isolation howdied up. The word fawn has not been mentioned in this thread at all. It feels very unlucky to know very clearly what it is to pour affection at an abusive situation, to soothe one's own core. It's so harsh to know the reality that this becomes known for sure as consent, and the curiosity required to suss the nuances just isn't going to be available.
Immediately, I see it as very plausible that his autism blunted the edge of his capacity to intuit the difference between "I feel lucky to be here and obliged to be mild" and "I consent." I can SEE how his thinking might follow the self-exculpation gravity lines. I don't fuckin agree, though. I think there's a level of adult responsibility for understanding your own limitations and accommodating them, like people who get eyeglasses because shit is blurry. His consent protocol is bullshit, and it angers me. It angers me on behalf of the people on the receiving end of his abuse, and it angers me because, generally, people in a position to make sure people in power are aware of and responsible for their limitations DON'T DO THAT, for their own power-seeking reasons. And so these patterns are ubiquitous and continuous.
I'm furious that NG is so small, that his concept of his own power defaults to NDAs and attorneys instead of showing actual care and apology for people expressing hurt by him. Weaponized suicidality is monstrous, and if he was actually so subjectively caught up in his own experience that it was sincere, it's still monstrous, externalizing your own emotions as if they are being done TO you.
I'm pissed, on behalf of all of my friends and family in the poly and bdsm communities whom this reflects terribly and incorrectly upon, on behalf of the autistic community, still struggling to be understood in our empathies and ethics. I'm pissed that my imagination has lost a friend to go on adventures with.
Mostly, though, this is all just very very sad. There are so many avenues of power in this reality that are more rich and rewarding than money and lawyers and coercion, but even the people who detail those avenues in beautiful stories can't fucking inhabit them in their personal lives.
posted by droomoord at 4:42 AM on July 9 [8 favorites]
Anybody can be called out. Of course. But saying someone shouldn’t exist is not the same as calling them out. Does language matter or doesn’t it?
posted by toodleydoodley at 5:59 AM on July 9
posted by toodleydoodley at 5:59 AM on July 9
Nouns get verbed. That's my take on the David Tennant derail. It is unwise and inconsiderate for a white man to publicly neglect to acknowledge the innate humanity of a Black woman, for sure, but my take on it is that Kemi Badenoch was being addressed as an avatar, as a verb, as an immediately identifiable symbol of a force that transcends her individual humanity and identities.
Language does matter, but so does context.
posted by droomoord at 6:09 AM on July 9
Language does matter, but so does context.
posted by droomoord at 6:09 AM on July 9
I am on the fringes of fandom. The absolute fringes. I had heard a single rumor about Gaiman inappropriately hitting on women that were not interested and had made that clear.
He is perhaps the only public figure I'd ever heard anything like that about from within any network I am part of. On the other hand, I have several friends who are really into his work. And I probably know more people tangentially connected to him than say, Warren Ellis.
So I am not completely surprised. A bit gutted, both for myself, and for the friend who I turned onto his works back in high school, who went to every single show/reading/event either he or AFP had in NYC, (they are also a huge Palmer fan), and who has followed him obsessively across multiple forms of social media. They are going to be wrecked by this. His work had an important place in my past, and shaped who I am today to some degree, perhaps like the plumber in the analogy above.
I honestly was (in part because I wasn't as in closely with his fandom as I was/am with Gaiman's) more surprised with Ellis. That was the one I swore about, pissed at him for wrecking several projects he was in the middle of that I would never get to see completed.
This just makes me sad for my teenage self and the friends who used the Sandman comics to get through the late 90s.
As to whether this was being used to attempt to influence the British election, first, it wasn't going to matter. The results were in the bag for Labour months ago as long as Starmer refrained from promising to sell Cornwall to Argentina. Second, the Tories were grasping for anything, so it's not terribly far out of left field. Third, it was most likely long in the works, but the exact release date could have been chosen in some kind of attempt to discredit someone. That does not make it any less true, it just makes the people behind it potentially not completely pure hearted. That does not diminished what he did. I might make them assholes, but it does not make him any less of a monster. Assholes can speak truth to power and be on the side of justice sometimes.
I think he might have been the last well known male figure in my literary pantheon who I was unaware of accusations of abuse about and was still alive. There are others who never quite reached that stage of me thinking of their work, or at least parts of it, in that light, others who are less well known, and some who have passed.
Unfortunately, he now falls into the Allen, Rowling, Jackson, Polanski, Lukyanenko, etc. camp. I've got what I've got by them, but I won't support them again until they're no longer around. Any new work that he creates I'll check out after he passes away. Which is a sad thing to say, and I'll probably enjoy it, but I cannot, morally, support him, after this.
posted by Hactar at 6:24 AM on July 9 [3 favorites]
He is perhaps the only public figure I'd ever heard anything like that about from within any network I am part of. On the other hand, I have several friends who are really into his work. And I probably know more people tangentially connected to him than say, Warren Ellis.
So I am not completely surprised. A bit gutted, both for myself, and for the friend who I turned onto his works back in high school, who went to every single show/reading/event either he or AFP had in NYC, (they are also a huge Palmer fan), and who has followed him obsessively across multiple forms of social media. They are going to be wrecked by this. His work had an important place in my past, and shaped who I am today to some degree, perhaps like the plumber in the analogy above.
I honestly was (in part because I wasn't as in closely with his fandom as I was/am with Gaiman's) more surprised with Ellis. That was the one I swore about, pissed at him for wrecking several projects he was in the middle of that I would never get to see completed.
This just makes me sad for my teenage self and the friends who used the Sandman comics to get through the late 90s.
As to whether this was being used to attempt to influence the British election, first, it wasn't going to matter. The results were in the bag for Labour months ago as long as Starmer refrained from promising to sell Cornwall to Argentina. Second, the Tories were grasping for anything, so it's not terribly far out of left field. Third, it was most likely long in the works, but the exact release date could have been chosen in some kind of attempt to discredit someone. That does not make it any less true, it just makes the people behind it potentially not completely pure hearted. That does not diminished what he did. I might make them assholes, but it does not make him any less of a monster. Assholes can speak truth to power and be on the side of justice sometimes.
I think he might have been the last well known male figure in my literary pantheon who I was unaware of accusations of abuse about and was still alive. There are others who never quite reached that stage of me thinking of their work, or at least parts of it, in that light, others who are less well known, and some who have passed.
Unfortunately, he now falls into the Allen, Rowling, Jackson, Polanski, Lukyanenko, etc. camp. I've got what I've got by them, but I won't support them again until they're no longer around. Any new work that he creates I'll check out after he passes away. Which is a sad thing to say, and I'll probably enjoy it, but I cannot, morally, support him, after this.
posted by Hactar at 6:24 AM on July 9 [3 favorites]
And see, Warren Ellis was an easy one for me to believe as I knew women who frequented his forum and were not shy about talking about how horny and aggressive he could be towards his female fans. Warren Ellis gives off A Certain Vibe even in his works (not on the same level as Mark Millar but not too far off either) for me as I am sure Gaiman does for others.
posted by Kitteh at 6:52 AM on July 9
posted by Kitteh at 6:52 AM on July 9
I think part of the reason this went unnoticed for so long is part of a trend that I have noticed but don’t know how to name, which is that there are communities which aren’t bad in and of themselves, but really bad people like to hide out in, because then they can claim that when you call out their bad behavior you are prejudiced against the culture. And poly, BDSM, and what I can only term the overlapping area of nerd-kink are a few of those, and I say this as someone who has existed in them at various times.
So there’s nothing wrong with being poly, but you definitely get people (usually cis men) who say they’re poly, but really mean that they want to churn and burn through other humans without facing consequences, and are just going to cover it with a glib “but I’m poly! How dare you judge me! This is just my relationship style! You’re not a bigot, are you?” And you get people who say they’re into BDSM, but are less interested in making sure everyone is having a good if edgy time, and are more interested in hurting people. Or less interested in working out interesting stuff about power, and more interested in getting out their untherapized rage at having been previously powerless, which they are now going to take out on unsuspecting people who don’t know it’s not supposed to be like this. And if you point that out, you’re the prude, the asshole, the person harshing on their squee, the one kink-shaming them.
And so if people heard that Gaiman was sleeping with fans, they would probably be met with “but he’s in an open relationship, it’s fiiiiiine, everyone’s an adult here!” And not think about how exploitative it is for someone who literally built people’s dreams and has a shortcut to play on their desires to be sleeping with them, using all the lines he wrote and built an audience for in their heads and hearts. And if someone heard he was hurting people, to think “well I don’t want to kink shame anyone.” But in this case, these are just covers for his abuse.
posted by corb at 7:12 AM on July 9 [2 favorites]
So there’s nothing wrong with being poly, but you definitely get people (usually cis men) who say they’re poly, but really mean that they want to churn and burn through other humans without facing consequences, and are just going to cover it with a glib “but I’m poly! How dare you judge me! This is just my relationship style! You’re not a bigot, are you?” And you get people who say they’re into BDSM, but are less interested in making sure everyone is having a good if edgy time, and are more interested in hurting people. Or less interested in working out interesting stuff about power, and more interested in getting out their untherapized rage at having been previously powerless, which they are now going to take out on unsuspecting people who don’t know it’s not supposed to be like this. And if you point that out, you’re the prude, the asshole, the person harshing on their squee, the one kink-shaming them.
And so if people heard that Gaiman was sleeping with fans, they would probably be met with “but he’s in an open relationship, it’s fiiiiiine, everyone’s an adult here!” And not think about how exploitative it is for someone who literally built people’s dreams and has a shortcut to play on their desires to be sleeping with them, using all the lines he wrote and built an audience for in their heads and hearts. And if someone heard he was hurting people, to think “well I don’t want to kink shame anyone.” But in this case, these are just covers for his abuse.
posted by corb at 7:12 AM on July 9 [2 favorites]
« Older New York's The Met returns 14 looted sculptures to... | Bison prophecy, fulfilled in Yellowstone! Newer »
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:35 AM on July 6 [15 favorites]