There Is No Safe Word: How the best-selling fantasy author Neil Gaiman hid the darkest parts of himself for decades.
There Is No Safe Word: How the best-selling fantasy author Neil Gaiman hid the darkest parts of himself for decades.
How the best-selling fantasy author Neil Gaiman hid the darkest parts of himself for decades.
Warning, this story is really horrific and will be heartbreaking for any fans of his, but Neil Gaiman is a sadistic [not in the BDSM sense] sexual predator with a predilection for very young women.
Paywall bypass: https://archive.is/dfXCj
I'm really disappointed in Amanda Palmer. This does not paint a pretty picture of her.
As far as I'm concerned Palmer is an active participant. There's absolutely no way she didn't know what was going on, and her public feminist stance provided extra credibility to Gaimen.
This is an extremely fucked up article. I don't think anyone could read it and not be disturbed.
Wow. Several of the instances described are quite clearly rape; with some horrible scarring and degrading stuff through in; exploiting power-imbalance to make it possible. What I struggle to fully understand though are the text messages mentioned in the story. Gaiman argues that there was consent, and there are things said in those text messages that might support him. But the other circumstances, and the pattern of behaviour across multiple victims surely is enough to overrule that.
Pleasing your abuser and even returning to them because all you have ever known is abuse and they are showing you attention is extremely common. This situation sounds like one of those.
Edit: In the article they also point out that she didn't actually think of it as rape until she described the situation to others. Which is something I have heard more than one other rape victim say.
This article from 2017 is worth a read for anyone trying to figure out whether/how to separate the art from the artist.
What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men? By Claire Dederer, Paris Review, November 20, 2017 https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/20/art-monstrous-men/
I never read this and I really appreciate the share.
Some parts that spoke to me:
This, I think, is what happens to so many of us when we consider the work of the monster geniuses—we tell ourselves we’re having ethical thoughts when really what we’re having is moral feelings.
Yeah. Guilty.
“The heart wants what it wants.” (Steve Allen when discussing Soon-Yi)
It was one of those phrases that never leaves your head once you’ve heard it: we all immediately memorized it whether we wanted to our not. Its monstrous disregard for anything but the self. Its proud irrationality. Woody goes on: “There’s no logic to those things. You meet someone and you fall in love and that’s that.”
I moved on her like a bitch.
I found this fascinating. While I was confused by Allen's statement and why women found it so disgusting, the Trump parallel made it click.
A great work of art brings us a feeling. And yet when I say Manhattan makes me feel urpy, a man says, No, not that feeling. You’re having the wrong feeling. He speaks with authority: Manhattan is a work of genius. But who gets to say?
Going back to Gaiman, his work is held to a very high standard. But to say you dislike it, you will be met with confusion or even anger. And this is where this piece really spoke to me.
She mentioned a short story she’d just written and published. “Oh, you mean the most recent occasion for your abandoning me and the kids?” asked the very smart, very charming husband. The wife had been a monster, monster enough to finish the work. The husband had not.
A tangent in the essay about women writers. I found it fascinating that when a fuckface like Elon Musk abandoning his more than dozen kids can still rise the ranks. but God forbid a woman does the same.
There really is no answer to this that the author provides.
The tangent I shared is her last thought: does great art only come from monsters? I think a lot about other creative works, painters, comedians film makers... Who does some wild shit but not nearly to the level of Gaiman's accusations.
Also, like all summaries, read it yourself and find your own takeaways. It's the nuance, not the summary, that has value.
The tangent I shared is her last thought: does great art only come from monsters? I think a lot about other creative works, painters, comedians film makers… Who does some wild shit but not nearly to the level of Gaiman’s accusations.
Nah. It's well known that power corrupts and being a great artist is a form of power, so that skews things perhaps, but I really don't think there's a direct correlation.
Gross. I'm glad this particular milkshake duck wasn't one I cared about. I still won't spend any more money on JK Rowling's stuff ever again.
Milkshake duck?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkshake_Duck
Copy/paste- pixelatedboat @pixelatedboat Twitter logo, a stylized blue bird
The whole internet loves Milkshake Duck, a lovely duck that drinks milkshakes! 5 seconds later We regret to inform you the duck is racist
That's some sad reading. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion, from the point where the train crashes back to where the company forces an engineer to cut corners on the design.
Legal classification: probably rape, definitely sexual assault.
An enabling factor: wealth (he was in a position to influence other's well-being economically, offer hush money and sign non-disclosure agreements).
“‘I’m a very wealthy man,’” she remembers him saying, “‘and I’m used to getting what I want.’”
An excuse: BDSM. The author of the article is correct to note:
BDSM is a culture with a set of long-standing norms, the most important of which is that all parties must eagerly and clearly consent
As for the search for the origin of his behaviour... I think they're on the right track. Like a former child soldier who carries a war inside them, Gaiman has probably been carrying a lot inside.
In 1965, when Neil was 5 years old, his parents, David and Sheila, left their jobs as a business executive and a pharmacist and bought a house in East Grinstead, a mile away from what was at that time the worldwide headquarters for the Church of Scientology. Its founder, the former science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, lived down the road from them from 1965 until 1967, when he fled the country and began directing the church from international waters, pursued by the CIA, FBI, and a handful of foreign governments and maritime agencies. David and Sheila were among England’s earliest adherents to Scientology.
/.../
Palmer began asking Gaiman to tell her more about his childhood in Scientology. But he seemed unable to string more than a few sentences together. When she encouraged him to continue, he would curl up on the bed into a fetal position and cry. He refused to see a therapist.
Reading this, it seems obvious that Gaiman developed his behaviour due to trauma during childhood and youth - and has been exhibiting behaviour patterns that became normalized for him during time in the cult.
As for people whom he assaulted, it seems that they too carry a pattern - they were vulnerable at the time. Some had already experienced violence on themselves. Which, it seems - often hadn't been resolved, but had become normalized. They were not the kind of people whose "no" is followed by physical self-defense or the full weight of legal options - and Gaiman understood enough to recognize: with them, he could get away with doing things.
She didn’t consider reaching out to her own family. Her parents had divorced when she was 3, and Pavlovich had grown up splitting time between their households. Violence, Pavlovich tells me, “was normalized in the household.”
Well, what can I say about it...
...it is customary that accusations be investigated by cops (who hopefully cannot be bought) and presented as charges to a court of law. The defendant should have a chance to deny or excuse their actions, but if deemed guilty, is required to give up time or resources either as compensation or punishment. A court could make lesser or greater punishment dependent on taking action to fix one's behaviour traits - seeking assistance and not offending again. Those harmed should be offered assistance by their societies.
Yup, big fan of his work, really pissed off to find out he's such an asshole. But I'm glad we live in an era where creeps can get their due. Fuck this guy.
But it's mere hearsay. Is your judgment so casual?
Hearsay, eh?
9 women, the youngest being 18, are all saying the same thing, and he also made them sign NDA's. [Content Warning]
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I didn’t heed the warning and regretted reading the whole thing - there are very detailed and gruesome first hand accounts of his alleged assaults on multiple women. Excellent reporting throughout, which only makes it more sickening.
Also, as a former Amanda Palmer fan, fuck her, too. It’s clear she enabled this and committed, at minimum, wage theft crimes. Both of them deserve to do jail time with even the most generous best-case-scenarios. I’m sure she was also abused by him, but that is not an excuse to abuse other women. Some feminist.
I never liked her. She always struck me as the worst kind of drama club narcissist.
Wait what happen with Amanda Palmer? I've looked her stuff for a while what did she do?
Idk how to format, but I want to save you from reading if you need that. So here’s a brief list of claims in the article:
- she frequently and repeatedly recruited homeless, impoverished female fans to provide childcare without any payment
- she repeatedly left these women alone with Gaiman, without the child present
- she warned Gaiman to “keep his hands off” at least one woman
- she said that at least 14 women had come to her for help with Gaiman
- she subsequently wrote a song about how much of a chore it was for her to deal with the multiple “suicidal mess”es Gaiman created
- she routinely controlled employment/housing of these women and knew Gaiman was, at best, sleeping with them (this cannot be consensual when housing/employment are in the mix)
- when notified of an assault that happened with her child present, only questioned whether the child was “wearing headphones”
- refused to cooperate with at least one police investigation
- refused any material help to assaulted women after repeatedly assuring them she would “take care of” them, get different housing/employment set up, etc.
Just…awful stuff, and this is best case scenario, FFS. She is fucking trash.
She was married to him and enabled him.
Welp, that's yet another maker of incredible art that turned out to be an absolute monster. Fucking hell.
If what he says about The Ocean at the End of the Lane about the kid representing him is true, then he's just another case of keeping a vicious cycle of abuse going. He should've sought psychological help. Hell, he should seek psychological help now, the media would love to write about his RL redemption.
Serving for his rape crimes would also be nice.
I was just thinking about how people that are idolized like David Bowie and Bob Dylan are going to have their legacies ruined when all their crimes come to light
Welp, I guess if I still want to read any of his books, there will probably be a ton of them at the thrift store
Libraries are free.
There's also the Libby app
Annual vpn subscription: $75
20 TB home server: $450
Enjoying the art while the shitheel artist doesn't profit: Priceless
When you want an artist to benefit from their creative works, support them directly. For everything else, there's piracy
I dunno. Pirating it is still giving them attention. Talking about it, bringing them up, giving them relevance. You're paying for it with mental space. But when you straight up shun them, they wither away.
Like the great Terry Pratchett (rip), I see them like Small Gods: you give them power when you believe they exist.
I have enjoyed Gaiman’s writing, also the Sandman show was excellent, but I am glad that in this era that I’m not the type of person to be a fan of anybody. I guess it is natural to ascribe virtue and look up to people who create thing you resonate with, but there’s no reason to think someone who wrote a book is worth praising or emulating other than in the book you liked.
Sounds like someone who suffered from serious abuse, never went to actual therapy in a meaningful way but instead got into a position of power where he could feel good by being the abuser instead of the abused. Which does not excuse any of it. On the contrary, his writing shows very clearly that he understands that what he did was wrong, but he did it regardless.
I have no evidence, but I believe Orson Scott Card has a thing for little boys. I devoured his books when I was a tween, but began to feel uneasy over time. There was a reoccurring theme of young boys being put in graphic situations that just, I don't know, but I've never been able to shake that feeling. Song Master pushed me over the edge. A 'beautiful young boy' being castrated so he doesn't go through puberty was when I stopped reading. My Spidey sense had never stopped going off about him since then.
Aaaand I just googled. I'm not the only one who picked up on that. Ew
Felt that way about luc besson films, Leon is great but has deep pedo vibes, then I find out besson wanted a sex scene between Leon and the kid. Also the fifth element, liloo is essentially a baby, but she’s the one everyone wants.
Card is also a giant piece of shit in other ways, which is unfortunate because he is a good writer and his essays on the methodology of writing are excellent.
Huh. I never noticed, but that actually explains Ender's Game.
yeah some of those authors...Like Heinlein's later novels, what was with the fucking incest?
Jesus fucking Christ.
I have not read anything from Gaiman, but I can see that lots of People really liked his books and the Person he showed the world.
So I just want to say, I'm really sorry for all of you. Even though Gaiman can rot in Hell, I feel sad for people who just got their favorite Books and stories poisoned.
Sandman was my teenage years. The series got me into the goth subculture which led to such great experiences in my life. Finding out Gaiman is a monstrous piece of shit has been gut punch.
This is way worse than the J.K. Rowling turned TERF bit. These are actual crimes committed against women.
I legit really enjoyed many of his works, Good Omens, written with Terry Pratchett, is an all time classic, and I used to be proud of the fact that I actually met the man, as did one of my oldest friends as well as my brother in law.
Now it's all like "What the fuck?"
Is it awful that a part of me is glad Terry Pratchett is gone and doesn’t have to face this about someone who was a friend and co-writer?
Given how progressive Pratchett’s stories were I would have a hard time believing he was a bad person or could support bad people, and I imagine this would be hard on him. Then again perhaps I’m just selfishly glad that I don’t have to know if he didn’t respond appropriately by distancing himself.
Don’t know if I’m even making sense. This is just so disheartening given how many people I know absolutely loved Gaiman.
That must be creepy³ :0
Why though? He is a sack of shit and can rot in hell for all I care.. his art can still be enjoyed. Having him take that way means he has even more power.
I would suggest obtaining it in ways that do not give him new money... Like buying books second hand.
You really should. Sandman and American Gods are incredible, and he also occasionally dipped into trashy comic fare, also enjoyable. He's one trait I guess comes from the comics he used to do, his best stories are all with other people's characters. I don't think he's ever used a original character, they're all like mythological tropes. Even supposedly original protagonists turn out to be Balder or some shit.
We have to remember that Bill Cosby was praised for decades because he genuinely made the world a better place while being an utter sack of shit.
It sounds like (at best) some of Gaiman’s victims consented to some form of foreplay or sex and then rapidly found themselves on the receiving end of some brutal BDSM without consenting to it. If I were a woman reading this I would find it hard to ever trust any man, going into sex, even if I wanted to have sex with him. When the world’s most harmless-seeming man can suddenly become a punishing torturer in the sack, how can you ever know that a guy is safe until after the fact? Jesus.
This is why women choose the bear…
I've never heard it articulated quite like this before, but you phrase it well.
Men like this absolutely deserve to be condemned and shunned for what they have done, but that doesn't also erase the good that they did before -- nor does it preclude them from ever doing good again.
At the same time, any good they do does not erase or counterbalance the harm. Jimmy Savile, the UK's worst celebrity paedophile who abused hundreds of children, conspicuously did a lot for charities throughout his career. He said that he knew God would look at all the good he had done and it would make up for the bad things. There was a calculus in which he only had to do more good each time he did bad, and it would cancel it out. It's a twisted view. Harm is harm and is not changed by any independent "good" act a person does. But apparent goodness can change its significance in the light of the harm that accompanies it.
Savile's apparent selfless good acts were actually a calculated attempt to win license to do harm, and a psychological coping mechanism to allow him to believe in his own basic goodness before God. Plus the reputation for selfless goodness served as a smokescreen to prevent people seeing clearly what was really going on, and to win the support and protection of powerful people. Seen this way, while the charitable works may have had some helpful effects, these were not genuinely good actions but in large part self-serving and an integral part of the dynamics of this man's abuse.
I think the same applies to men like Cosby and Gaiman: the overt charity or the overt feminism changes its meaning when you see how it serves them psychologically and reputationally, amd how it may be a functional part of the whole abusive operation.
Matt Bernstein in a recent video (it's long) discusses men who act as outspoken self-avowed feminists but then abuse their power to treat women terribly. The feminism may be genuine, but it may also be their smokescreen, or a mix of each, and when a man is very loud about being a feminist you have to look carefully to see which is the case. Some are genuine, but you have to ask. Maybe Gaiman was doing the feminist smokescreen, or maybe he's just so messed up that these two sides of his life - the feminism and the abuse - just didn't really encounter each other.
This explains so much. Read a book written by his very young wife. Now I get it and how fucked up he is.
When the initial allegations came out I was shocked. A week later I was having breakfast with a good friend of mine and his wife. The wife worked in the comic book industry and we'd talked about Gaiman before. I brought up the allegations and she told me that no one who rubbed elbowed with his circle were shocked. Apparently he already had something of a reputation.
This is what gets me every time. Once this goes public everyone starts saying, ah yeah, no wonder, they had a reputation already, I knew they were sketchy and so on. So where the fuck where you (not you Hasherm0n, the people bringing this up) all this time? This could have ended so much earlier if people would speak up and make it more public.
There is a big difference between knowing a persons reputation and knowing their actions. Sometimes a person with a bad rep does small things you pick up on that reinforces the feeling. But you still don't actually know enough to accuse them.
It's a big deal accusing a powerful person. They are usually going to deny it and people are going to ask for proof. If all you have is rumors and a feeling it only hurts you.
It took several women coming forward with what happened to them to get the public on their side. Imagine trying to accuse him when all you had was rumors.
Speaking out against the rich and powerful often does not work out well for the person who does it. They would be fighting a very rich and very successful man with a legion of extremely devoted fans. Women who have been direct victims of powerful men have spoken out about it and been destroyed for it (see Anita Hill).
That's the logic of a witch hunt. I mean, obviously there are behaviors so suspicious you'd feel almost complicit not to report them. But a lot of the times all we have are the subtle impressions built up by our unconscious brain and it's not until the answer is shown that it all clicks into place and what once was hidden is now so obvious.
Giving off bad vibes isn't a crime.
will be heartbreaking for any fans of his
ISHYGDDT
YAAS.
Your Acronyms Are Shit.
This was a very disturbing read. I'm glad some of the survivors found each and other and are coming out with story, and I hope wierdo gets prison time so he won't be able to do this to anyone else
There's a lot of good books written by awful people. I guess Gaiman might be one of those awful people
I'm just going to assume all authors are creeps from outset from now on.
The sandman audiobooks were so good. I don't expect they'll be finished now, if they were, I don't expect I'd be buying them.
This is certainly going to have an effect on Tumblr.
It's not new information but mostly new details - tumblr has been dealing (or really, trying to deal) with this since July.
I'm wondering if the editor doesn't want the article to be read. It starts off so lengthy and boring, I was ready to give up after the first 3 or 4 paragraphs, and just didn't manage to finish thanks to the prosaic writing style. Hope some actual news outlet picks it up and sticks to the facts.
It's a "long form" story. Sometimes you need that to provide context. Also it helps treat people like people, not just like statistics.
Yeah that article is a slog. It's 5-10x longer than it needs to be. I get they're trying to set the tone, but holy shit.
Thank you, I thought it was just me. I got through a bit more than you it seems but I still started skipping paragraphs at a time before giving up.
I have so many of this man's books on my shelves, a few of them signed. I don't know what to do with them. I don't want to throw them away (yet), because the stories are wonderful and I'm still attached to those characters and worlds. but. I don't to see his name anymore. on anything. I've turned them backwards, spine inward and placed others in the gap between other books and the back of the shelf. what a tragic loss caused by a Jekyll\Hyde monster.
Good Omens is one of my most favorite and re-read books and I don't know how many decades it'll take before I touch it again.
One of my friends owned a synth module and the company owner turned out to be some kind of mysogynist racist asshat (or at best an edgelord indistinguishable from that). He wanted to get rid of it, so he put it up for sale for the market price, with a clear note on it that he'd be donating all of the money to some feminist charity. It sold, someone got the product while knowingly contributing to a good cause, and he got rid of it without it feeling like a waste.
Something like that could be an option?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
H. P. Lovecraft was very racist and you can even see his racism in his books, and people still read his books. You need to disconnect the author with the books, although Lovecraft was racist and not a monster like this guy. I even heard he tried to change before he died.
The stories live on their own. They left his mind and are no longer his. They live in your mind now and are yours now.
If it makes you feel better about them being there, tear out or paint over his name on them. And continue enjoying stories that are good.
I believe in death of the author. People throughout history were all sorts of awful, but that doesn't mean they didn't have some good thoughts too. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
It also helped that he withdrew completely from public life, as opposed to doing the jkrowling thing where she repeatedly announced that anyone supporting her books support her views. Divorcing good omens from him is even easier because Terry Pratchett's daughter stepped up and took over in his stead, but also because there is acutoff that is immediate instead of something lingeringly tainting every aspect of his stories the way the harry potter books and other media is.
This hits tumblr expecially hard because he's a regular poster there and his comments are everywhere, but nevertheless he did inspire a lot of young writers and give good advice there, and you cannot argue that those advice did good when they were being offered, while admitting that asking him anything are not advisable now even if he didn't go full silence.
Part of the problem in Gaiman's case is that he absolutely does not shy away from sexual violence in his stories. The perpetrator usually gets punished, often ironically, but how can you read about one of his villainous rapist characters and not think about how he's got experience with what that character is doing?
That's not a problem with stuff like Good Omens, which is more family fare, or even the stuff he does specifically for kids. It's a huge problem for stuff like Sandman and American Gods.
ty for writing this. it actually helped a bit.
I was going to say this is so beyond someone being racist or your favorite musician turning into a conservative shithead... which, it is, but... that helped. thank you.
It can be hard to separate art from artist, but just keep in mind that you've already paid for those books. He isn't getting more money from you just rereading them, and nothing changes if you continue to enjoy the books.
Also he doesn't get paid if you pirate them. So feel free to pirate them.
At least with Good Omens you can focus on Terry. This is grim.
Side story: I have a number of dear friends who were huge Gaiman fans, so I tried to be one too. And I just could not. I could hardly get through most of his books. I liked the concept of American Gods but didn’t care for the story and Neverwhere was ok, but I didn’t see what my friends kept going on about.
Then I read Good Omens and loved it. Finally! I was enjoying Gaiman.
Years later, my now-partner introduced me to Discworld. Then I reread Good Omens and realized that everything I enjoyed so much in it almost certainly came from Pratchett, not Gaiman. When you know some of each’s writing, some parts start to stand out as one or the other. And I have no doubt what made that book so great (to me, at least) was Sir Terry’s influence.
Time to buy mangas
God, barf.
I was one of those sad goth kids clinging to the dresden dolls through my turbulent adolescence. After palmer met this nutsack her whole vibe changed. I mourned the loss of an era and ultimately left it all behind. I can't even begin to fathom what kind of.. Mind-shattering nightmare that would be, someone you connected with on that level, being the intersection in your life between "the before times" and one of the most traumatic things that can happen to someone. Fuck.
Having read the whole article, I'm not entirely sure Amanda Palmer comes out smelling of roses either - the way the last few paragraphs are written make me feel she's covering up for him, and those lyrics read like she's got it in for her.
No one should ever be put on a pedestal. We all have our demons. Though many of them are semi innocent or only hurt ourselves. It still sad to hear another celebrity abused their celebrity.
I do not disagree with you, but I still think it's heartbreaking when it turns out that a man who is lauded for his feminism turns out to be a horrific rapist, sadist and predator.
100% it wasn't my intention to imply otherwise. Just to point out that celebrities are still just people and people have pretty dark sides oftentimes. So many people get lulled into traps thinking that someone famous or well known is safe. They're just like any of the rest of us.
I don't know about you but none of my demons involve sexual assault.
But that doesn't take away the fact that someone's demons could be of this kind. It's a built-in risk in every human.
I never liked his books. Just kept trying and trying to get into them, seemed like everyone was reading Sandman and American gods and I was just struggling to finish Neverwhere. Like there was something just...wrong about it. Now I'm thinking I saw something under those words he wrote. Something I didn't like.
Before I knew any of the horrible stuff about him I still couldn't get into his books. There is a focus on style and tone at the expense of narrative and plot. That just doesn't work for me at all.
This is true for me too. I liked a few of his books, and The Sandman, but I didn't love anything, not enough to recommend them to others. Except Good Omens, which has always been a favourite (but then, Pratchett IS one of my favourite authors.
Also the film Mirrormask and Coraline were great - his work seems better in film than in writing.
I've always been told I'd enjoy Sandman, but... I never really did more than dip my toes in because there was just this "vibe" to it...
My partner and I are right there with you. Could never understand why so many people were so enamored. I tried really hard to like his writing, and there were a few that were ok, and some had a neat concept, but that was the best I could dredge up to say about them.
I doubt I was subconsciously seeing something in them, but I do think there’s a stylistic thing that never resonated with me. And now I’m glad. I am grateful to not feel the grief of losing an artist who meant something to me.
The sandman tv show was pretty good
awful
Well, guess I’ll never be getting around to finishing ocean at the end of the lane now, just sickening. And I like his narration so much too, and now it’s just all ruined.
Disgusting
Great book no reason not to enjoy it just because he's a pos
For me, nah. I’d have trouble separating the artist in this instance, it’s just so fresh. Maybe in a few decades. Regardless, there’s more great media than I could consume in a lifetime, so no loss
I met him very briefly in 1995, same San Diego comic con trip when I met Stan Lee, James Robinson, Wade Von Grawbadger, Will Eisner, and Shannon Wheeler.
I didn't get the creepy vibe from him then, but then again it would have been 25 years before these allegations, at a convention, and I'm not a vulnerable woman.
Why do people get so concerned about what artists do in their personal lives? Authors are fucking weirdos, I don’t let it affect my reading choices. I’m sure Chaucer was a dickhole, but whatever
I mean I keep hearing that Roman Polanski is a good director but I’ll never know, cause I refuse to watch anything made by a convicted pedo. It’s easy to live without a book or movie
Is this some shit-tier trolling or do you really think it's OK to financial support someone who anally rapes women and fucks in front of his kids?
First, people love to burn witches. Screw any moral, logical or aesthetic implications. They can't even spell it. They just want a witch to burn.
Second, people love to cut down anybody taller then them. And Neil Gaiman is a very tall fellow.
All that love, it's inevitable.
Ask any living successful creative of any kind. They will all tell you the same thing ''I am truly sorry this is so, but the biggest factor in your success is going to be how well you manage social media accounts''
burn the witch!
No clue what he did (have not yet read the article). Haven't really consumed any of his media. But I did buy a coloring book based on some TV show he did?
Anyway, I bought that book because of how fucking weird it was. I remember thinking at the time the artist behind it seemed like a pretty twisted up dude.
I'm surprised everyone else is surprised, but my perspective is fairly unique - not having experienced/enjoyed any of his art beyond some crazy coloring book without the context to understand the pictures.
Cool. This is about a rapist who enjoys inflicting pain on very young women, but I'm glad you enjoyed the coloring book of someone else's art based on his stories.
(He's a writer, not an artist.)
I... don't understand why you felt the need to share this. You didn't read the article and aren't familiar with his work? What is it that you are contributing? What are you saying that others should hear?
Respectfully, it sounds like you are talking to hear yourself talk. Not every memory or thought I'd worth sharing, in fact, most are better left unsaid.
Especially when it's about coloring books in a thread about systemic and repeated rape.
I found it interesting to think about his darker side hidden in plain view all along. Didn't seem like the sort of thing that would be offensive.
It's clearly a bad faith statement to characterize my comment as being about "coloring books" in a thread about "systemic and repeated rape".
Read the comments. People are upset they don't get to like one of their favorite authors anymore. That's what the thread is about.
You evoked rape to strengthen your argument? That's fucking gross.
This is probably one of those perspectives that's best kept to yourself - or at least not shouted through a megaphone, as is the effect of posting your thoughts online. Please don't take my tone as harsh or judgemental there, just friendly advice. I know you mean well, but your unique perspective really doesn't give you the opportunity to grasp just how much Gaiman seemed to genuinely be a good person. He wrote the kind of stories that were powerful and meaningful to marginalized people in particular. He focused on voices and perspectives rarely given the spotlight at the times when he was writing, and he wrote sensitively and thoughtfully about issues facing women, queer people and people of colour despite being, to my knowledge, none of those things himself.
For a lot of people this is genuinely heart breaking. It's easy to say that you should never put anyone on a pedestal, but Neil was one of his rare people who really seemed like he deserved the acclaim and the trust that he was given. While I absolutely get that you mean no harm by what you're saying here, it unfortunately comes across as very smug and self-serving in a situation where a lot of people are dealing with a very real and very justified sense of abject betrayal.
I agree. I am hearing what you're saying, and I feel the loss of finding this out about him. However I've had a similar experience of wanting to like Gaiman because he checked all the right boxes, and just feeling put off by something in his writing. And thinking it was a problem with me. It's easy for the mind to see this news and say, aha, that's why I didn't like him. But that's the benefit of hindsight. Who knows if things like this, the hidden part of people's personality, are actually detectable in their writing. Anyone feeling like I do is just trying to make sense of it all the same as everybody else. And it's important to recognize that he was a role model for so many and did good work with his fiction, and not trying to say it was obvious, because it wasn't.
No clue what he did (have not yet read the article). Haven’t really consumed any of his media.
I’m surprised everyone else is surprised
This comment didn't need to be made.
You really, really should use this as an example for yourself in the future to read the room. That means read the article before making a thoughtless comment on something you obviously didn't fully grasp.