Neil Gaiman (criminally) sexual deviant?

[Lynx-lynx]

I was going to also include the web archive version link in the OP, but couldn't recall the Mobileread policy surrounding that.

I note that a member has recently posted that link, so that seems to clarify it is allowable.

[Lynx-lynx]

Gaiman has posted re the matters raised in Vulture:
https://journal.neilgaiman.com/2025/...lence.html?m=1

Also, the guardian has posted an article commenting on the matters raised in Vulture, and Gaiman's web site response.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...agazine-ntwnfb

The Guardian reports that some screen adaptations have ceased as a result of the allegations:

Spoiler:

Since the allegations came to light, three screen adaptations of Gaiman’s works have been cancelled or had their production paused, including Netflix’s Dead Boy Detectives, the third and final season of the Amazon drama Good Omens, and a Disney adaptation of The Graveyard Book, which was in development.

None of the streaming services has confirmed that these decisions were taken because of the allegations but Deadline reported that Gaiman had stepped back from his involvement in Good Omens due to the allegations.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Am I supporting the villains in their vile deeds if I continue to buy their works? Yeah, I guess so.

Many of us know how an author's contract with a publisher works, so we know that buying a book often does not result in any additional money hitting the pocket of the author.

They already have their advance, and until it is paid off, they get nothing more. And, because of the publishing world version of Hollywood Accounting, it's not uncommon for even wild best sellers to not make back the advance.

[JSWolf]

But the question, is Gaiman correct when he says he's never does anything without consent? If not, then he's (IMHO) guilty,

BDSM & S&M are not illegal and as long as consent is given, then there should be no issue.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

Many of us know how an author's contract with a publisher works, so we know that buying a book often does not result in any additional money hitting the pocket of the author.

They already have their advance, and until it is paid off, they get nothing more. And, because of the publishing world version of Hollywood Accounting, it's not uncommon for even wild best sellers to not make back the advance.

Thank you, that's good to know.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

Many of us know how an author's contract with a publisher works, so we know that buying a book often does not result in any additional money hitting the pocket of the author.

That depends on how many copies of the book are sold. Once the author earns their advance, then they earn royalties on the copies sold. And someone like Neil Gaiman is going to earn the advance back -- there are lots of copies printed (and sold) as well as multiple editions.

Originally Posted by nabsltd

They already have their advance, and until it is paid off, they get nothing more. And, because of the publishing world version of Hollywood Accounting, it's not uncommon for even wild best sellers to not make back the advance.

If a bestseller doesn't earn back the advance, that means the publisher screwed up and either paid an overly large advance or didn't publicize the book correctly.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

John Scalzi, who was called for comment when the Vulture article was being written, reposted one of his old essays yesterday in response to the whole thing.

John Scalzi has now posted an article on the subject at his blog: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2025/01/15/taking-leave/

I think he says it very well: "the absolute best case scenario is still terrifically bad".

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Critteranne

If a bestseller doesn't earn back the advance, that means the publisher screwed up and either paid an overly large advance or didn't publicize the book correctly.

Or they are using Hollywood accounting to add exorbitant expenses that come out of the author's share, but which are never paid to anyone outside of the people involved in the production company.

[The_Enobee]

I believe the problem is that we can't just give a pass because someone isn't convicted in a court of law. There is almost no chance someone with no power accusing someone with money, power, prestige, and privilege can get a fair shake. Even if they reported it immediately, the chances of conviction are chancy at best. If they report it later, forget it. It's not fair.

People in power do not play by the same rules, and those taking advantage of people with less power in a sexual way, to my way of thinking, are the scum of the earth. Did Gaiman do something illegal? I don't care, he took advantage of those he could, and that cuts his legs out from under him and I can't ignore that when approaching his books.

I'm not telling others how to feel or act, but I don't think a lack of conviction in a court of law should be the litmus and exonerate the artist or the art.

[DNSB]

Considering the numbers of the accusations during the height of the Me Too! movement that were proven false, I do feel that accusations alone are not enough to criminalize someone.

Too many people believing that where there is smoke, there must be fire so the mere whisper of an accusation of sexual harassment is enough to ruin a career. If there is enough evidence, let the courts deal with the issue otherwise leave Judge Lynch to nap.

[astrangerhere]

Well, this thread certainly pays truth to the adage "When people tell you who they are, you should believe them."

Also, of interest, I was at my local indie yesterday and someone had brought a box of Gaiman in to try and offload it and they were just recycling them.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by The_Enobee

Did Gaiman do something illegal? I don't care, he took advantage of those he could, and that cuts his legs out from under him and I can't ignore that when approaching his books.

And you know this because you read an accusation on the internet? Is that the new standard we should all go with?

[ Generic response ]

I hope I never end up involved with a jury where "accuse = guilty" without even hearing a defense. I never want to be ON a jury like that, nor be JUDGED by one.

And to think, this crowd presents themselves as above others in the righteousness category.

FWIW, I've never read a Gaiman book. I have heard his name, most probably that was a side mention somewhere on this forum. That's all. I'm not defending - or condemning - the guy. I'm not sure that anybody reading this thread has the knowledge to do either either (is that proper English?)

[DNSB]

From quite a few articles that I have read, it appears that innocent until proven guilty does not apply to accusations of sexual harassment or misconduct where the accused is male. There it appears guilty until proven innocent applies and even an innocent verdict is not enough to remove the stigma of being accused. After all, where there is smoke, there must be fire.

If you are so foolish as to suggest that innocent until proven guilty should apply, you are "enabling" those sexual predators and "belittling" the victims suffering making you equally guilty.

[Karellen]

Originally Posted by Critteranne

Fans are distraught because of this article, and they have every right to be. In many cases, they loved Gaiman because no one else was writing stories that reflected their lives or moved them that much. They have to wonder if he was being fake.

Umm, as far as I am aware, Gaiman writes Fantasy. At least that is what I experienced with Good Omens and American Gods and the disastrous sequel to it. How can you suggest that he was writing stores that reflected the lives of fans. Are there gods roaming this planet that I am not aware of? As for being fake... of course it is fake. It is fantasy.

Originally Posted by Critteranne

One of the victims was a young woman from an abusive family who was essentially homeless. The perfect victim.

Are you suggesting that the young woman should remain at here "station" in life. She is homeless so she can only have sex with other homeless people? Here is another narrative... Maybe she jumped into the sex hoping for a free ride, and when it came to an end, she convinced herself, or others convinced her to believe she was somehow raped, and her initial consent was forced?

Originally Posted by meeera

Consensually. Hope this helps

Until its not.

Originally Posted by DNSB

From quite a few articles that I have read, it appears that innocent until proven guilty does not apply to accusations of sexual harassment or misconduct where the accused is male. There it appears guilty until proven innocent applies and even an innocent verdict is not enough to remove the stigma of being accused. After all, where there is smoke, there must be fire.

If you are so foolish as to suggest that innocent until proven guilty should apply, you are "enabling" those sexual predators and "belittling" the victims suffering making you equally guilty.

Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned

[DiapDealer]

Moderator Notice
I'm not at all comfortable with the introduction of blatant misogyny. You can argue innocent until proven guilty without out it. Please discontinue immediately.