Neil Gaiman: Three Women Accuse Author of Sexual Assault

sgibson5150@slrpnk.net to News@lemmy.world – 216 points – Neil Gaiman: Three Women Accuse Author of Sexual Assault
rollingstone.com

Following initial investigation in July, three more women come forward, including one who signed NDA following her experience with author

Edit: Not sure why the link abstract says two. The article clearly says three.

52

You fucking dick head. Can't you people just not assault women? Is it that fucking hard?

Edit: and I get these are just allegations - innocent until proven guilty... But like damn dude. 3 women?

if someone had to sign an NDA, then that's pretty damn sketchy

jesus fucking christ does everyone have to turn out to be a fucking asshole?

My reaction as well. At least Terry Pratchett left us too early but he is not touched by any of this shit.

I meant it as him and Gaiman being friends.

Power is pretty corrupting and anyone who is a famous person (as in, public enough to maintain fame as opposed to just broad recognition) probably has a bit of an ego.

I mean your average normal person would be like "Don't idolise me, I'm just someone who writes books you like. Now please leave me alone" not posting on tumblr to adoring young fans.

i don't like to assume everyone famous or powerful is a rapey asshole. but the more time goes by, the less shocked i am when i hear about it

Your normal person would start out as "don't idolize me" but that much attention is in itself corrupting over time.

Enough people tell you, your shit doesn't stink, and eventually you believe them. From there it just gets worse.

Damnit. This always sucks to hear but it sucks even more when it's someone who's work is (was) enjoyable.

I choose to continue to enjoy the work of people who turned out to be shitheads from before learning that they are shitheads. Michael Jackson, Phil Anselmo, now Neil Gaiman (actually, last year for him). All people who created great art that I enjoy and whose future work I will not consume (for the ones that are still alive). To be clear, MJ is only before the allegations. Thriller still kicks ass.

Yeah, you can appreciate that people are complicated, and bad people can create good things. If you try to only read books by people who are morally above reproach, you will wind up with a pretty short reading list.

Is the MJ thing settled or are you just saying you avoid anything thats likely to be problematic too?

I mean, claims against MJ seem pretty bad and, I think, multiple enough that I can't ignore them. There's no proof, to my knowledge. But I'm not comfortable with it.

I think the running counter story is that he felt more comfortable around kids than adults, but people couldn't believe it was innocent. Its really hard to play the accusations game. Macaulay Culkin saying he spent tons of time with him and nothing bad ever happened is as much evidence for good as any of the accusations of wrongdoing.

I also think there was and still is a problematic understanding of psychology especially with small children.

I can justify still enjoying Pantera by knowing that most of what made them awesome was Dimebag.

The work can still be enjoyable - you can separate the art from the artist.

I don't enjoy supporting the artist even if the art is good and don't buy into this argument. If you support the art, the artist is still making money off of it. Unless they are dead I guess....

What is this?

A gentle nudge towards, let's say, alternative means of acquiring media to enjoy. One that, ironically enough, Neil Gaiman commended himself (under certain circumstances, of course). One that is still better than giving money to someone you don't want to support as a person or a creator.

Ahh gotcha. I thought that somehow the artist had been controversial and that this was an example of separating the art from the artist or something. I was thinking in the wrong direction, thanks.

It's possible to enjoy the art without giving material support or publicity.

But do you have to?

For me, knowing that the artist is a terrible person ruins the art for me, or at least compromises it to the point where I don't feel comfortable in my skin continuing to peruse it. And that even if I wouldn't be buying anything new or otherwise be giving the artist money.

Take as an example Jon Schaffer, head of metal bad Iced Earth, which I liked quite a bit in the past. Later it became clear that he is at least problematic, and once he was identified as having participated in the January 6 riots, that was the end of it. I still own older Iced Earth CDs, but I can't listen to them any more.

Or Joss Whedon, whose work I used to love, and I own a lot of DVDs of his stuff. But watching it now knowing what he's done particularly to many women he worked with just seriously hinders my enjoyment of what I once really liked.

I agree, sometimes what you know about the artist can change how you experience it so that it is no longer appealing. That's a legitimate reaction too. If philosophy is art we had this situation with Martin Heidegger, who was quite a brilliant thinker but also, at least for part of his life, a committed Nazi. It's not really possible to read him now without that fact colouring the experience.

lol this argument just happened in a thread about jk rowling.

enjoy your rapist stories

I dunno about him, but I have. I really like Sandman. American Gods was okay, but nothing that blew me away.

considers

Come to think of it, I'd probably enjoy a work coauthored by Neal Gaiman and JK Rowling.

I just read a super interesting book about this–Monsters by Claire Dederer. It won’t really give you answers, but a thought-provoking discussion on this subject I also struggle with.

On the ethereal plane, Sir Pterry is standing with his head bowed.

"I thought I knew him..." he laments.

Death puts his hand on his shoulder and says "IT'S OKAY, I STILL KNOW HIM."

Wasn't the woman that accused Neil deGrasse Tyson of sexual misconduct and it was literally nothing and she was just trying to get him in trouble for no reason.

I'm not saying that I don't believe it I'm just saying that I've met him, and it doesn't fit very well with his character.

I’ve met him, and it doesn’t fit very well with his character.

if you're judging famous people's character by their public persona, or the "face" they put on for their fans and the press, then you're in for a bad time. see also: bill cosby, kevin spacey, andrew cuomo, chris cuomo--i'm leaving out a lot--the point is "i've met him" means basically nothing

i've known/worked with more than one person who everyone loved and thought was a great guy. and then NOPE arrested for CSAM

The count of women accusing Neil Gaiman of sexual assault is now up to five.

The source to this reporting: https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2024/08/01/exclusive-two-more-women-accuse-neil-gaiman-of-sexual-assault-and-abuse/ (RS nags to subscribe and they don't)

Lets wait and see what comes out of it in court.

Imho, the accusation of woman that worked for him seems sketchy.

I dunno, five different women with very different stories really doesn't look good.

The existence of a prior NDA is never a good sign.

I don't know man, if I was a globally recognised author, there's might be quite a few reasons for NDA's besides sexual assault?

While Gaiman’s account denied any non-consensual sex with the two women, their allegations raised questions about whether he had reasonable belief in consent for sex with them given their vulnerability. Gaiman asked one of them to sign a non-disclosure agreement, the first of two known NDAs he signed with former sexual partners, suggesting weak confidence that his account would survive public scrutiny.

Celebrity marriages pretty much always have prenups with confidentiality agreements. Idk why celebrity sex relationships would be so different.

https://www.rgfamilylaw.com/blog/2022/may/can-an-nda-prevent-divorcing-spouses-from-dispar/

To be clear I'm not arguing he's innocent, I'll read the evidence and accounts. I just know when I personally listen to him narrating an audiobook, his hypnotic voice sometimes makes it feel almost like a sex crime.

But that isn't to be taken as me taking any actual sex crimes lightly. Just saying.

Why do they ALL have to be sleezebags?!!

It's a "humans in power" thing, unfortunately.

Edit: Not sure why the link abstract says two. The article clearly says three.

One of my pastimes is comparing the article slug (the part of the web address that includes the title of said article) with what actually got published. It's usually a first draft of the title, but sometimes it reveals corrections. ...And sometimes you get to see someone saying the quiet parts out loud.

An old friend's favourite story about Neil gaiman is how he asked a question during a book signing and NG apparently came over the table at him.

Now I have a guess as to the question!