Neil Gaiman accused of sexual assault

[WandsOut]

www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sandman-writer-neil-gaiman-denies-142813982.html

Story still unfolding in the news

I thought it was very creepy and weird. Liked the imagery. Have a soft spot for stories about fake mothers. I also have no objection to writers riffing off of old tales and folk tales - many do so wonderfully. Angela Carter being a case in point.

As I say, of course people like what they like. But my point is more the comments about how he's a shit writer as though his victims should have somehow known, or as though it all makes sense now - they never liked his writing and it must be because they're such sensitive and perceptive people, unlike those silly women who loved his books and had no idea what a creep he is. I just find whether or not someone liked/likes his books is kind of irrelevant and just seems like a way of elevating that person, or maybe a kind of self-protection (it couldn't happen to me type of thing).

I wouldn't wish the experiences that heightened my perception on to other women and children, but wish they could get the awareness in some less painful way.

I also think that taking doubts that are expressed seriously, and encouraging people to trust their gut feelings despite the voices of the 'authorities' is important.

I disagree that it's victim blaming to say he's a shit writer. I have never read him, so I don't know what his writing is like. But he did seem very much into his image and stardom and fans and one of those writers who likes the hat more than the actual work. His work is obviously readable and popular and appealing and I guess he ha(d) a certain charisma, but to my mind the best writers are so busy writing you don't see them much on social media. They tend to live fairly quiet lives. I mean Hilary Mantel wasn't pissing around on Twitter, she was too busy using the time she had. I was never convinced by him as a writer. I didn't know he was such a creep, but I am glad I don't ever have to 'get' him now. Having said that, his victims are utterly blameless. It's clear from the podcast and his bath selfie message that he's highly manipulative and a very focussed predator. They had no way of knowing that.

I disagree that it's victim blaming to say he's a shit writer.

That's not exactly what I said. My point really is that I wish people would disentangle the two things. Whether you like his books or not is completely irrelevant and the comments about how some people can tell he's a predator because of his writing are a bit unhinged imo and could easily make victims feel blamed for not seeing what some people apparently (after the fact) found obvious. (I didn't notice anyone posting about how they suspected him of being a creep and a predator because of his writing until after this all came out, so forgive me for being sceptical about the current claims that it was all so obvious. As I say, hindsight is 20/20.)

his victims are utterly blameless. It's clear from the podcast and his bath selfie message that he's highly manipulative and a very focussed predator. They had no way of knowing that.

Yes, exactly.

Are you saying I'm unhinged?

backatcha

No. This is what I said: "the comments about how some people can tell he's a predator because of his writing are a bit unhinged imo"

And yes, I might be a bit unhinged, personally. I've found this whole thing immensely triggering. Listening to the testimony from his victims has been very hard and I'm frustrated that he has maintained his gaslighting silence.

I was a big fan of Neil gaiman in my younger days. A lot of his stories showed their influences in a way I could relate to. Without debating whether his writing was superior to the works that inspired them, I have to acknowledge his skill as a writer. Unfortunately that skill was most effectively used on social media to fool the world including me.
His writing on social media gave such a cosy impression and encouraged a sense of imaginary friendship. In hindsight he groomed his fans and I can't believe how I missed the huge red flags.
I feel queasy looking at his stuff now. It's all on its way to be sold and I think I'll donate the money to a women's charity that knows what a woman is. Might take some research to find a suitable recipient these days.

I've never really been a fan, but I don't think of him as a shit writer. To me, he's always been a writer who had interesting ideas but the execution was a wee bit pedestrian. I think he's always been best doing graphic novels with an artist who can really make those ideas pop.

There's an interesting question there about more literary male writers and how they handle female characters. I love me some John Le Carre, but I have to admit that in a very long career he created three, maybe four, rounded female characters, at least two of whom were based on people he knew. Most of his female characters tend to fit into easy categories like victim, totty or shrewish wife (the last much in evidence when his first marriage was collapsing).

I'll cut him slack for being a man born in the 1930s writing about a very male world, but even he admitted he struggled with female characters. And from the way he wrote women, I wasn't at all surprised to find out he was a serial adulterer.

I think it's a definite blind spot for male literary authors. I can think of plenty of pulpy genre authors who might seem more sexist on the surface but have little trouble creating smart and capable female characters.

In hindsight he groomed his fans and I can't believe how I missed the huge red flags.

You had no way of knowing. No one warned you, and on the contrary, everyone acted like he was a hero.

I think it's becoming more obvious now that any male who presents himself as a heroic male feminist is likely to be some kind of a creep. But looking back only a few years, loads of women were talking about how 'men can be feminists too' and 'this is what a feminist looks like' and calling on men to speak out about male violence and so on. So it was easy for NG to present himself as a safe and good person.

I have a large NG collection and was wondering if I’d be able to separate his work (which I have always enjoyed) from what I now know.

Turns out I can’t. Every time I walk past his name I have a visceral reaction, it’s involuntary. I can’t imagine I’ll be able to pick up his work now without it being polluted. I really like @romola’s idea about selling it and donating to a women’s charity.

I think it's a personal tolerance issue. I still say that Marion Zimmer Bradley was an objectively great writer, and there can't be many women writing fantasy who don't owe an enormous amount to The Mists of Avalon.

But I would really struggle to read her after the posthumous revelations of what she was really like. Not least because all of her books seemed to have some kind of rape or incest storyline, and that looks like hiding in plain sight now.

I don't know how any of that completely managed not to permeate my bubble 😢 It's so awful, very much reminds me of the current Alice Munro revelations.

It always feels like a much worse betrayal when it's a woman. To me, anyway. Maybe it's because it is so in contrast to what being a woman and a mother is supposed to represent 🤷🏻‍♀️

I think a female perp feels like more of a betrayal because we expect women to have some sense of solidarity with other women about sexual assault, which is almost always male-perpetrated with female victims. Also a feeling of "you do realise that acting like men won't exempt you from their misogyny, right?"

Was just talking to a writer acquaintance who says that it looks like this has been an open secret in Neil Gaiman's circles for quite some time. He's been stopped from teaching on certain writing courses for young people, for example. My acquaintance says that in the television industry, his behaviour has been known about for a long time.

So that means a lot of people knew, and a lot were complicit. And it also means that this is not something that he's going to be able to make go away by hiding for a few weeks or even months. This isn't going to go away.

Yep I’ve heard this from several sources now… 😕

At this point I'd be wary of anyone who's worked on Doctor Who. The more stories you hear, the more it sounds like Ambush Alley.

It isn't, but surely those complicit people are going to be busy covering THEIR arses, and thus, Neil's?

I mean,Michael Sheen's busy tweeting away about Good Omens like nothing has happened. (Just imagine what the reaction would be if the writer of Good Omens was A WOMAN who didn't believe TW were actually W, say? There would be heartrending "guilt and contrition" posts, there would be open letters...) No, I don't know if MS or DT knew about NG (Tho I expect so, seems everyone else did). But as you say, it's apparently been common knowledge in those circles for a long time. But strangely this is like "No, nothing to see here." That would NOT be happening if a woman had said even a single word deemed as "Not Okay". Look at Amanda Abbington's treatment.

Yes, definitely, and I think that goes a long way towards explaining how he's managed to keep this from blowing up so far.

But his celeb friends are not going to save him in the end. Hopefully, anyone who actively helped and supported him will also get their comeuppance.

At some level I think most men see access to young people for sex as one of the perks of fame. Predatory behaviour by famous men just doesn't flag as a big deal.

I don’t use twitter (it messes with my anxiety) - is anyone replying to his tweets, asking him about NG??

No, not as far as I can see.

@hihelenhi 😕

Also, I haven't forgotten...

This last week I’ve been learning that it’s apparently an open secret that Mr Beast’s sidekick Chris Tyson was dodgy but, until it became too big to ignore, a lot of people were looking the other way and using them (and their successful YouTube channel) to try and get ahead.

Until keeping in with Gaiman becomes less advantageous than turning on him, I think things will stay as they are and people will cover for him or look away. It’s disgusting how self-centred some people can be, particularly in the arts and media

@notathenabutcassandra there are a couple of comments about NG on Sheen's post but they're buried.

Here's the link if anyone wants to have a rummage through or add a comment themselves: x.com/michaelsheen/status/1817615517286367545

The trouble I have with drawing a line from a writer's ability to see things from a female (character's) perspective to the chances that they are abusers is that there are almost no male authors who would pass the test. All male authors I read have massive blind spots when it comes to understanding what it's like to be female in our world. It doesn't actually correlate with perpetrating sexual violence against women. All you can conclude from a male author's (in)ability to truly empathise with their female characters is there's a possibility any one of them is an abuser.
I said upthread that I've always been wary of Gaimen since reading his Snow White adaptation. But I love The Ocean at the End of the Lane. It's still one of my favourite books, even knowing what I do about him. I think I've never read something that conveys the truth about the darkness that filled my soul being abused as a child. It's a very dark book. Maybe I'll move on to a place of healing where it looks like it's wallowing in the unhealed, still dark place. I'd love that, if that's in store for me. Gaimen acted from that evil place in his soul and I never want to do that.