#Neil Gaiman is a serial rapist

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

To the people claiming there were no signs of who Neil Gaiman really was, I have to ask, what would have been one? If writing an essay in defense of child pornography isn't a huge red flag, what is? If writing about young girls happily marrying adult men (Stardust), and adult men fantasizing about kissing young girls (Neverwhere), and young girls being demons who seduce and rape adult men, which is graphically described (Snow, Glass, Apples) doesn't make you even a little suspicious of the author, what would?

Like, you can say you didn't see the signs! That's fine! There are always signs that get missed! If none of them did, no predator would ever get a chance to victimize. And it doesn't make you a bad person to have missed them!

But the number of people insisting there were no signs with Gaiman and that everybody pointing out his depictions of women and girls now are doing so disingenuously is sending me. I think there are other men who depict women and girls in similar ways and you don't want to be suspicious of them now, so you're ignoring it when this should be a wake up call. Genuinely missing the signs doesn't necessarily say anything bad about you as a person, but wilfully ignoring them does.

[helly-r]

I swear to god if these unemployed losers start whining about much they loved his books and his work saved them or whatever I will lose it. how absolutely pathetic to make these women’s suffering about yourself and your fandom.

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

I need to find that post I made a while back about unreliable and dishonest women being abused because it's relevant here. Gaiman doesn't just target vulnerability for control; it's also practical. Even though very few women lie about rape, if a woman is known for lying generally or for having memory problems, or hallucinating false scenarios and a man rapes her, who's going to believe her? Look what Gaiman tried to say about the first two victims who came forward, that the one regretted it and the other remembered wrong.

This is also why I urge you to listen carefully when a man disputes a rape allegation. Don't focus on the details he disputes--trauma victims commonly mess up details and people who are prone to lying generally will probably make some up. But what is he saying did happen? He's trying to put holes in her story, but what is his really? Early on Neil Gaiman confessed to having sex with two women who were both employee and tenant to him. That was rape to begin with. He had a number of women sign NDAs after sexual encounters with him. Why? Why would a consensual encounter need that? And he's not the only one. Lots of rapists do this. Don't fall for it.

[theodora-crane]

I am now actually consistently seeing people talk about Neil Gaiman and J.K. Rowling in the same breath and light and it is just so fucking BATSHIT. Woman who has the wrong opinion and a history of being too mean spirited is EXACTLY the same as a serial rapist who intentionally targeted poor women with no social power. Clearly. This makes so much sense and is not heinous in nature at all. So many people were so quick to point out the meanness in Harry Potter as the proof in the pudding that HP fans were just stupid and mean and should have known Rowling's nature all along, the icing on the cake of her terfy crimes. Meanwhile, where are these accusations about the content of Gaiman's writing? Or did he toe the line of having the right opinions in public well enough that we'll skip that part this time? The character of Calliope keeps coming to mind. I suppose he's just such a good writer and ally that it cancels out the magnitude of his evil and brings him back down to being just as bad as the woman who donated so much money to women and children that she managed to slough off her billionaire status. I do not personally like her, and even though I do frequently think that she is wrong about SOME things, but I don't actually believe she's fucking evil enough to be classed with a serial rapist, and this should actually be clear to anyone with even a little sense, actually! But somehow "terf" is up there with "rapist" now, apparently.

[olderthannetfic]

I saw a really good post about David Lynch's films after his death and how they were so cathartic for OP in how they depicted assault and survivors, and then some dipshit shits all over it with something like "don't you understand that HERO WORSHIP like this is how Neil Gaiman happens? you don't know what Lynch was like in his private life!" The thing is that while obviously don't put creators on pedestals, I think that expecting someone not to be a serial rapist is in fact not a pedestal. It's baseline faith in humanity. We shouldn't be so hypervigilant that we end up wrapping around to suggesting that Gaiman's behavior is normal, by acting like it is a thing that one has to "expect."

It's not parasocial to hope Terry Pratchett didn't know (especially when we know a lot of Gaiman's famous friends who are still living didn't), and to think based on no evidence to the contrary that he likely would not have approved. Most human beings would not! I think that should be your default assumption. We've completely lost the plot on "parasocial" relationships. Parasocial is taking it as a personal betrayal that an actor you like cheats on their spouse, or other personal-life stuff that is none of your business. You don't have to care about Gaiman any which way to be horrified by what's in that Vulture article. the answer to this is not to just stop admiring artists or other famous people who make things we like, and it's not to shame people for feeling that way as though they are either somehow responsible or making themselves more vulnerable. I think if that's your take away then you kind of missed the point entirely.

--

Yeah, seriously. There are plenty of famous people who were crappy spouses or even just had very mutually-caused relationship problems or who were grouchy coworkers or otherwise not a paragon of virtue. Most of them aren't serial rapists.

[rinadragomir]

I saw the news literally yesterday and it took me 10 hours to process it. I'm kinda glad I'm not always online rn, this shit made it so fucking hard to focus on my work today.

You can accept that Neil Gaiman's works such as Coraline, Good Omens and stuff are great AND pray for him to never know peace and rot in jail. These statements can coexist.

I never really caught up with the news about this man but he's always been on Tumblr and lots of people knew that he's a cool dude with cool books. His works were heavily praised. You can find dark hints in Cinderella if that's what you're searching for.

His books are literally on every "best books" list.

THAT'S what's so scary about it. You never know. YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT PEOPLE YOU'RE NOT CLOSE TO. Heck it even your friend might be a predator.

He's a serial rapist, he's ruined many women's lives and the childhood of his little son. He was able to escape any punishment for so long BECAUSE HE WAS THAT "NICE GUY WITH COOL BOOKS" to lots of people. Plus of his wealth and connections ofc.

THAT IS WHY we can't make assumptions about people based on their art only. It doesn't say SHIT about an actual person. I was following his tumblr account for years and all I saw was him giving deep reviews and being sweet. That's just fucking amazing, I wanna throw up.

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

For anybody who might be taken by this absolute bullshit: two of the women were his employees and tenants at the same time. It is not possible for that to be a consensual relationship. No matter how many fanfics you may have read or romcoms you may have watched or bad romances you may have read, it. Is. Not. Possible. By his own admission, although he refuses to use the word, he raped two women.

And if he can rape two women and lie about it, assume he's lying about the rest too. Doubtless, there will be details in the victims' stories that don't add up. This is normal; memory can mess up details, especially for a traumatic experience. It does not mean he's right. He has admitted to two while trying to claim he raped no one and that the women simply have hurt feelings--that is a misogynistic stereotype, by the way.

Saw Neil Gaiman's statement today and I couldn't stop thinking about this.

[a-shot-of-the-strange]

time to make one last post about neil gaiman

if you had told me a year and a half ago we’d be here i would never have believed you. my fifteen minutes of internet fame could never have been caused by a monster. yet here we are.

let me make one thing extremely clear: neil gaiman is a serial rapist. he is not a ‘creep’ or a ‘bad guy’, he is a serial rapist. call him what he is. do not downplay his monstrosities.

the weird part about all of this is i grew up with him. and i’m the same age as one of his victims. i read his books as a child and i am the same age as one of his victims.

do not forgive him. do not forgive amanda palmer. do not forgive anyone remotely involved with these horrific acts.

and one more thing: in my mind, good omens belongs to sir terry pratchett. and it should to you too. may he rest in peace separate from this hell.

support the victims. say their names. do not forget them.

[pwurrz]

you do not need to read the neil gaiman article, by the way. you are under no obligation to read the whole thing, especially when it describes horrific, disgusting, extremely triggering and inhumane acts in extensive detail. you don’t have to put yourself through that for the sake of ‘not looking away’ or supporting the victims. it’s okay if you can’t read the article. it’s normal. don’t let people guilt trip you into hurting yourself.

neil gaiman is a sexual abuser and serial rapist who assaulted, humiliated and physically beat over 14 women, one of which was a lesbian. one of the women he abused was his five year old son’s babysitter, and he was abusing her in front of his son to groom him into thinking what he was doing was normal. amanda palmer was aware but complicit in neil gaiman’s abuse.

that’s all you need to know.

[innocuousghost]

Since the article about Neil Gaiman I've seen a lot of people reassessing their relationship with Terry Pratchett. Which to a certain extent does make sense: they were co-authors and as a part of his cult of personality Neil Gaiman frequently presented himself as The Guy Who Knew Terry Pratchett. So in the public consciousness their legacies seem very intertwined.

So I can understand the pivot to asking about Terry Pratchett.

But a lot of what I've seen strikes me as being paranoid and conspiratorial in a way that I do not think is healthy or particularly useful. ("Did he know? Did he not know? Was Neil Gaiman overstating their friendship? Why did Terry Pratchett really have his hard drive destroyed?")

Now, I never met Terry Pratchett. But for my money? It seems pretty likely that he didn't know what was going on. The article itself states that most of Neil Gaiman's living friends didn't know what was going on: "But in my conversations with Gaiman’s old friends, collaborators, and peers, nearly all of them told me that they never imagined that Gaiman’s affairs could have been anything but enthusiastically consensual." And throughout most of the timeline of assaults the article covers Terry Pratchett was largely either in the late stages of dimentia on another continent or dead.

Though obviously we can't say for sure he didn't know something. (Even if he genuinely didn't know it's not like he would have turned to Rihanna Pratchett and said "Just in case anybody ever asks I want it on the record that to my knowledge Neil Gaiman is not and never has been a serial rapist.")

But ultimately. That's not actually the core issue that's keeping people awake at night I don't think. I think it's "How do I continue being fans of creatives knowing that some of them are secretly capable of legitimate evil without me ever being made aware of it?"

There is a pretty loud and unpleasant contingent on the internet whose solution to that problem seems to be "You can't. The only way to eschew blind celebrity worship is to live your life every second assuming in the back of your mind that every creative living or dead could be revealed to be a serial rapist at any moment. Just in case it turns out they actually are." Which. Doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. Or even feasible. And that is certainly not a lens I would recommend universally applying to strangers. Not even famous ones.

Instead I think it's probably helpful to look at famous strangers the way you would look at strangers in your own life - like the barista at your coffee shop: that they are probably flawed but also presumably decent. And much like with a barista, in your limited interactions (largely exchanges of product for money, with perhaps a smattering of surface level small talk. Much like with celebrities) you probably won't have much opportunity to discover if they're secretly a bad person. So if it turns out they are, it really isn't your fault that you didn't notice.

And based on what I saw in his books and interviews and his memoir by Rob Wilkins - though he was presumably decent I also certainly think Terry Pratchett was flawed. He was occasionally rude (based on anecdotes from people who knew him), some of the jokes in his books about the counterweight content strike me as being in poor taste and despite his flashes of acab I'd say the perspective of the city watch books was actually largely police reformist rather than abolitionist.

Yet I continue like his work (and what small slice I know about him as a person) anyways.

And understanding creatives as being flawed doesn't even mean "there's something unequivocally problematic out there! Hiding! In their work! In their interviews! And if you employ enough of a bad faith reading then you'll be able to find it!" No. (I mean, there might be some genuinely ethically dubious stuff in there but there also might not.) In my experience even just seeing the little flaws, like flaws in their craft are enough to knock creatives off of the perfect pedestal in your mind. Like, stuff you don't even have to be super knowledgeable about the craft in question to notice. "Eh that scene really dragged. That joke didn't really land. Anyways" And I certainly think Terry Pratchett had his craft issues. Just look at the first two Discworlds and some of the middle rincewind books for proof of that. And it can even be smaller than that. Tiny personality flaws that annoy you: Terry Pratchett was very snobby about Doctor Who in a way that strikes me as overly pedantic enough to be worthy of an eyeroll.

We should see the creatives who you admire, who make work you love as earthly and human. Not as untouchable gods who can do no wrong. (Clearly that isn't working out for us for a variety of reasons)

And setting aside the total monsters, I think it's a good thing that the stuff you like was made by people who are flawed. Humans are flawed, the people in your fandom are flawed, your friends are flawed, and you're flawed. But look at all the cool stuff you all make anyways.

[joannerowling]

It’s fascinating how JKR saying women/girls are oppressed based on our sex is enough to retroactively render everything she’s ever written irredeemably evil forever, but when Neil Gaiman is outed as a serial rapist, suddenly the discussion becomes “we should acknowledge that bad people can make really really really good art too!!!!” Being male must be a fucking trip.

Literally, and that post is still full of people tagging or commenting something like, "okAy bUt jK rOwLinG AckSHUlLy iS a BaD wRItEr!"

Like full disclosure my position on this subject is that the only reason you should not read a book is if you don't enjoy it; after that, if you want to add some criteria, like if you think the author's a "bad person" you don't wanna give money to or read what they have to say, it's between you and your god isn't it? And i don't think someone writing about dark issues or even disturbing things like Gaiman did is NECESSARY a sign that the writer is secretly a deranged sexual pervert who has hurt real people.

But the immediate respect and leniency accorded to Gaiman is so blatant, contrasted with the scorn JK Rowling has received for merely voicing an opinion. People hated her so much they bonded over it. They did not hesitate to play stupid with her books, on purpose, until they believed whole-heartedly in their own stupidity in order to convince others. And those who didn't buy the "goblins are actually just like Jews because they're BANKERS so JKR is ANTISEMITIC" piss poor takes kept it to themselves and just played along because they were too fucking scared of being ostracised. Misogyny is a plague.

[anghraine]

For me, the Neil Gaiman “parasocial relationships are the problem” response reminds me of growing up Catholic. The CSA was always presented as “there are problems in every institution”, which is true but misses the unique problem that the Catholic Church uniquely enabled CSA on a systemic level.

/grim fistbump

I was raised with a really similar line of rhetoric in Mormonism (though less specifically about CSA), and yeah, it's definitely familiar from the Catholic side of my family as well. They're a traditionally police/military/priest family so it can be applied to a wide variety of terrible institutions as well! It's like:

You aren't failed by the institution, it is failed by bad actors who may have harmed you, but failed themselves and the faith/organization/whatever most of all! And have you considered that your expectations of the most basic decency from other human beings is an unrealistic weight to put on these already overburdened people? Don't idealize authority figures, even religious ones allegedly chosen by God—they're just men, after all, and putting people on pedestals doesn't serve anyone. (Etc.)

And I'm just ... sorry, expecting a public figure to not have a secret "serial rapist" life is not putting anyone on a fucking pedestal! People idealizing priests or artists or whomever is not why they're shocked and horrified and scolding them for it achieves absolutely nothing.

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

If there are implicit or explicit consequences for saying no to sex, such as losing your job, or housing, then yes simply isn't a real yes.

This means that if a landlord "has sex with" his tenant, it's rape.

It means if an employer "has sex with" his employee, that's rape.

And it means that if a man "has sex with" his employee who is also his tenant, as Neil Gaiman has admitted to doing with two separate women, that is most certainly rape. Add onto that the emotional upset and extreme financial vulnerability both of them were dealing with, the youth of the one, and the fact the other had three children, and there's just no way that this was consensual at all.

This is literally if you don't believe a word they say and only take his side of the story at face value.

If you do listen to them, then you add on the fact that Gaiman undressed himself and got into a bathtub with the nanny he'd met only hours prior and assaulted her there. You add on the fact that he coerced a mother of three into blowing him or being evicted (and when she stopped responding to his sexually explicit messages, he did indeed evict her and her children). You add on the very young female fan who alleges he raped her. You add on the extreme age difference between him and that young woman, and between him and the nanny. You add on that he made them sign NDAs. You add on his enjoyment of violence against them. You add on the other young woman who alleges he forcibly kissed her. You add on that these women have no relation to one another and that these allegations span decades.

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn if you don't completely hate women is that at best, Neil Gaiman is an opportunistic and careless rapist. He is blind to power dynamics, refuses to take responsibility, and is therefore unsafe to be around any women or girls. Especially those who are particularly vulnerable or under his direct power. At worst, he is a calculating and manipulative rapist who directly engineers situations so that women will be uniquely vulnerable to him and then he takes full advantage.

Which kind of rapist he is depends on whose side you believe: theirs or his. But he's a rapist regardless and deserves jail at the very least, and I wouldn't be sad to learn he died (I'd rejoice). Personally, for every woman who comes forward, I'm suspecting there are several more, and while victims in general do often get some details confused or panic and add/remove certain parts of the story for fear of not being believed, I'm going to hold their word as far more credible than his.

[darklinaforever]

You think Neil Gaiman, a serial rapist, is going to make a good tv show while he’s currently preparing for court?

Why am I only getting bad news this weekend ?!

I was not aware of these accusations. I just did my research and it appears to be two accusations.

On the other hand, there is still what we call the presumption of innocence, so until this matter is over, let's avoid insulting Neil Gaiman from Serial Rapist.

I will continue to learn about this case and until I don't learn more about it, and that a verdict is not officially pronounced I will certainly remain neutral, as I always do in these cases.

Anyway, I was basically talking about the fact that Neil Gaiman managed to get The Sandman renewed by Netflix despite everything. So who knows, maybe he negotiated with Netflix before these accusations came out ? That doesn't change anything about my basic point.

In any case, even if he is found guilty, we will never be able to erase (and we should never in my opinion) the fact that he wrote great works and participated in great shows.

[quasi-normalcy]

It is, in retrospect, impossible for me to read this line except as the psychopathic serial rapist author having a laugh at the world that lets him get away with it. Honestly, fuck Neil Gaiman.

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

It's now three women he raped, forcibly kissed a fourth, and there are likely a lot more. But, you know, JKR said things.

Congratulations, Neil Gaiman, now you managed to be as bad as JKR.