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
Gross. I’m glad this particular milkshake duck wasn’t one I cared about. I still won’t spend any more money on JK Rowling’s stuff ever again.
Milkshake duck?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkshake_Duck
Copy/paste- pixelatedboat @pixelatedboat Twitter logo, a stylized blue bird
The whole internet loves Milkshake Duck, a lovely duck that drinks milkshakes! 5 seconds later We regret to inform you the duck is racist
Today I learned!
will be heartbreaking for any fans of his
ISHYGDDT
YAAS.
Your Acronyms Are Shit.
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.
I’m just going to assume all authors are creeps from outset from now on.
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.
That’s some sad reading. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion, from the point where the train crashes back to where the company forces an engineer to cut corners on the design.
Legal classification: probably rape, definitely sexual assault.
An enabling factor: wealth (he was in a position to influence other’s well-being economically, offer hush money and sign non-disclosure agreements).
“‘I’m a very wealthy man,’” she remembers him saying, “‘and I’m used to getting what I want.’”
An excuse: BDSM. The author of the article is correct to note:
BDSM is a culture with a set of long-standing norms, the most important of which is that all parties must eagerly and clearly consent
As for the search for the origin of his behaviour… I think they’re on the right track. Like a former child soldier who carries a war inside them, Gaiman has probably been carrying a lot inside.
In 1965, when Neil was 5 years old, his parents, David and Sheila, left their jobs as a business executive and a pharmacist and bought a house in East Grinstead, a mile away from what was at that time the worldwide headquarters for the Church of Scientology. Its founder, the former science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, lived down the road from them from 1965 until 1967, when he fled the country and began directing the church from international waters, pursued by the CIA, FBI, and a handful of foreign governments and maritime agencies. David and Sheila were among England’s earliest adherents to Scientology.
/…/
Palmer began asking Gaiman to tell her more about his childhood in Scientology. But he seemed unable to string more than a few sentences together. When she encouraged him to continue, he would curl up on the bed into a fetal position and cry. He refused to see a therapist.
Reading this, it seems obvious that Gaiman developed his behaviour due to trauma during childhood and youth - and has been exhibiting behaviour patterns that became normalized for him during time in the cult.
As for people whom he assaulted, it seems that they too carry a pattern - they were vulnerable at the time. Some had already experienced violence on themselves. Which, it seems - often hadn’t been resolved, but had become normalized. They were not the kind of people whose “no” is followed by physical self-defense or the full weight of legal options - and Gaiman understood enough to recognize: with them, he could get away with doing things.
She didn’t consider reaching out to her own family. Her parents had divorced when she was 3, and Pavlovich had grown up splitting time between their households. Violence, Pavlovich tells me, “was normalized in the household.”
Well, what can I say about it…
…it is customary that accusations be investigated by cops (who hopefully cannot be bought) and presented as charges to a court of law. The defendant should have a chance to deny or excuse their actions, but if deemed guilty, is required to give up time or resources either as compensation or punishment. A court could make lesser or greater punishment dependent on taking action to fix one’s behaviour traits - seeking assistance and not offending again. Those harmed should be offered assistance by their societies.
Sounds like someone who suffered from serious abuse, never went to actual therapy in a meaningful way but instead got into a position of power where he could feel good by being the abuser instead of the abused. Which does not excuse any of it. On the contrary, his writing shows very clearly that he understands that what he did was wrong, but he did it regardless.
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.
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
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.
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 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
yeah some of those authors…Like Heinlein’s later novels, what was with the fucking incest?
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.
Huh. I never noticed, but that actually explains Ender’s Game.
Card is also a giant piece of shit in other ways, which is unfortunate because he is a good writer and his essays on the methodology of writing are excellent.
I find it difficult to reconcile how the writer of Speaker for the Dead is such a bigot. Dude took a hard swerve at some point.
You’re not alone in your confusion there, friend. Reading Speaker for the Dead and finding out about who the author was as a person blows my mind as to how such a bigot could even conceive of the ideas in that book.
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?
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Go back to Reddit, douchebag.
You get angry at people you never met, based on stories written by people you never met.
Your anger is very cheap.
Your mother is cheap, too.
Just block him he’s a teenage troll trying to piss people off
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 literally only know that because you heard somebody say it
And yet here you are sticking up for Gaiman because of what he said over what 9 women said.
I am only criticizing you people actually. There’s a lot of room for criticism. Your whole process is retarded.
And yes, you are going after Neil like a mob of 12th century potato farmers.
Statistically speaking, the likelihood of someone lying about sexual assault is low, a reasonable estimate being around 3-4%. When you have 9 separate people making the same claim, it gives credance to the idea that the odds of their claims being false is very low.
What people? All I have is a story, same as you.
Unless it’s an AI or an automated response, that’s how everyone knows everything. They either heard it or read it from someone else.
I see stuff and meet people in real life, actually.
And then they tell you things that you were not there to witness. That is literally how communication works.
You just seem to think that people you meet in real life are less likely to lie to you than people in an article that shows that a huge amount of research was done and I’m not sure why.
In real life you can talk to people that you know and see things with your own eyes. This is better than essays written by anonymous people on the internet.
9 women, the youngest being 18
In this world of fucked up authors, it’s sad that I’m impressed that he didn’t go below 18.
That we know about.
I’m already turning down any party invitations from him, i’ll wait to hear underage before I worry about that one :P
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.
Time to buy mangas
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.
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.
I agree, but that’s not what Death of the Author means.
Yeah he was racist, but also a New England resident in like 1910 who married a Jewish woman.
I read an anecdote where Lovecraft went on some sort of antisemitic rant only to be gently reminded by his wife who he married. I guess he was an equal opportunity bigot.
I mean…yeah it seems like he hated pretty much everyone roughly equally, except the English. Idk how a person can hate the Saxons but like the Anglo Saxons.
I honestly think that Lovecraft might have suffered from some mental illness, the guy had so many phobias. His childhood wasn’t good either, he was racist because he genuinely thought they will kill him or hurt him.
Consuming the media is fine; funding the bad people (or their heirs and assigns) is not. Sail the high seas, mateys.
It depends on what the person did. Lovecraft was a racist, but never hurt anyone unlike this guy, so I think it is fine to buy his books.
Also Lovecraft is dead.
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.
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.
Solid analysis.
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 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.
this aged like milk lol
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.
I’ve thought this. Maybe I just ignored the Gaiman parts because they were boring, but I’ve read it a few times and I honestly can barely think of a part that reminds me of Gaiman’s other writing…
It’s been a while but I think it was some of the individual prose that seemed more like Gaiman, mostly like scene setting/ambiance. I only noticed in on a reread I did shortly after reading one of Gaiman’s. On the other hand, all of the memorable stuff like characters, plot, and humor were all very typical Pratchett.
GNU Terry Pratchett <3
This article from 2017 is worth a read for anyone trying to figure out whether/how to separate the art from the artist.
What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men? By Claire Dederer, Paris Review, November 20, 2017 https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/20/art-monstrous-men/
I never read this and I really appreciate the share.
Some parts that spoke to me:
This, I think, is what happens to so many of us when we consider the work of the monster geniuses—we tell ourselves we’re having ethical thoughts when really what we’re having is moral feelings.
Yeah. Guilty.
“The heart wants what it wants.” (Steve Allen when discussing Soon-Yi)
It was one of those phrases that never leaves your head once you’ve heard it: we all immediately memorized it whether we wanted to our not. Its monstrous disregard for anything but the self. Its proud irrationality. Woody goes on: “There’s no logic to those things. You meet someone and you fall in love and that’s that.”
I moved on her like a bitch.
I found this fascinating. While I was confused by Allen’s statement and why women found it so disgusting, the Trump parallel made it click.
A great work of art brings us a feeling. And yet when I say Manhattan makes me feel urpy, a man says, No, not that feeling. You’re having the wrong feeling. He speaks with authority: Manhattan is a work of genius. But who gets to say?
Going back to Gaiman, his work is held to a very high standard. But to say you dislike it, you will be met with confusion or even anger. And this is where this piece really spoke to me.
She mentioned a short story she’d just written and published. “Oh, you mean the most recent occasion for your abandoning me and the kids?” asked the very smart, very charming husband. The wife had been a monster, monster enough to finish the work. The husband had not.
A tangent in the essay about women writers. I found it fascinating that when a fuckface like Elon Musk abandoning his more than dozen kids can still rise the ranks. but God forbid a woman does the same.
There really is no answer to this that the author provides.
The tangent I shared is her last thought: does great art only come from monsters? I think a lot about other creative works, painters, comedians film makers… Who does some wild shit but not nearly to the level of Gaiman’s accusations.
Also, like all summaries, read it yourself and find your own takeaways. It’s the nuance, not the summary, that has value.
The tangent I shared is her last thought: does great art only come from monsters? I think a lot about other creative works, painters, comedians film makers… Who does some wild shit but not nearly to the level of Gaiman’s accusations.
Nah. It’s well known that power corrupts and being a great artist is a form of power, so that skews things perhaps, but I really don’t think there’s a direct correlation.
I’m not convinced that power corrupts, I believe it reveals.
