Neil Gaiman (criminally) sexual deviant?

[The_Enobee]

Originally Posted by haertig

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

I read a vetted piece of investigative journalism. Would the article be more true if I bought a print copy of the magazine?

Scalzi said what I'm getting at quite well:

"... the absolute best case scenario of this whole situation was that he didn’t have the sense or wisdom to understand that making a move on a woman 40 years his junior, economically dependent on him, and whom he had met just literally hours before, was an extremely questionable idea."

There are major consensual issues with this behavior, and Gaiman himself admits to this behavior. That's enough for me, and unfortunately spoils his writing for me as well. As others mention, I just can't compartmentalize or support the dude.

[Lynx-lynx]

Amanda Palmer has made it clear she can't comment:
https://https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/jan/16/amanda-palmer-profoundly-disturbed-by-sexual-assault-allegations-against-ex-partner-neil-gaiman

Spoiler:

Posting on her Instagram account, the American singer wrote: “As there are ongoing custody and divorce proceedings, I am not able to offer public comment. Please understand that I am first and foremost a parent. I ask for privacy at this time.” Palmer and Gaiman, who married in 2011, and have one child together, are currently in the process of getting divorced.

NME also reported that, in reply to its request for comment after the most recent allegations against the author of The Sandman in New York Magazine, a representative for Palmer said that she is “profoundly disturbed” by the allegations, but that “at this time her primary concern is, and must remain, the wellbeing of her son and therefore, to guard his privacy, she has no comment on these allegations.”

[haertig]

Originally Posted by The_Enobee

I read a vetted piece of investigative journalism. Would the article be more true if I bought a print copy of the magazine?

Not at all.

You seem ready to convict based on an allegation with no rebuttal or defense allowed. Whether that allegation is on the internet or on paper makes no difference. My point was "allegation with no defense". I thought this was quite obvious. I am surprised that "internet vs. paper" is what you took issue with in my post.

[The_Enobee]

Originally Posted by haertig

Not at all.

You seem ready to convict based on an allegation with no rebuttal or defense allowed. Whether that allegation is on the internet or on paper makes no difference. My point was "allegation with no defense". I thought this was quite obvious. I am surprised that "internet vs. paper" is what you took issue with in my post.

Or you could try reading the rest of my post. I'm not convicting anyone. Gaiman has made a rebuttal, and he has admitted to problematic behavior. A lot of glossing over going on in this thread.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by The_Enobee

Or you could try reading the rest of my post. I'm not convicting anyone. Gaiman has made a rebuttal, and he has admitted to problematic behavior. A lot of glossing over going on in this thread.

Great Ghu and little golliwogs! How your goal posts have moved since the post quoted below! Could you explain the change in your posts from claiming that someone who has been accused should not be treated as innocent until proven guilty together with a shot of whinging about people who have "money, power, prestige, and privilege"? That opinion seems rather different from the way you are now trying to portray yourself as not convicting anyone. Did someone force you to write "Did Gaiman do something illegal? I don't care"?

I had to admire your honesty when you admitted that you didn't care if Gaiman did anything illegal. For you, the simple accusation was enough. Combine that with what appears to be a healthy helping of class envy and I feel that was enough for any person in possession of a moiety of their senses to conclude that you feel Gaiman is guilty until proven innocent. Again, your post quoted below makes it rather clear that you are convicting someone.

And while Gaiman's behaviour that you—and likely most of the other posters in this thread—find repulsive does not make that behaviour criminal acts until such time as he is found guilty by a court of law.

Originally Posted by 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.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by The_Enobee

Or you could try reading the rest of my post. I'm not convicting anyone. Gaiman has made a rebuttal, and he has admitted to problematic behavior. A lot of glossing over going on in this thread.

Did you even read his rebuttal? Here it is:

https://journal.neilgaiman.com/

It doesn't sound like he's admitting to what you are alleging.

Here's his closing:

At the same time, as I reflect on my past – and as I re-review everything that actually happened as opposed to what is being alleged – I don't accept there was any abuse. To repeat, I have never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with anyone.

Some of the horrible stories now being told simply never happened, while others have been so distorted from what actually took place that they bear no relationship to reality. I am prepared to take responsibility for any missteps I made. I’m not willing to turn my back on the truth, and I can't accept being described as someone I am not, and cannot and will not admit to doing things I didn't do.

I think I'm going to mark you down in the "allegations alone are enough to convict" group, despite your protestations of that.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by Karellen

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.

Of course, most characters in fantasy stories are people. (Even in a talking animal story like Redwall books, they are relatable as people.) These stories have many aspects that are based on humanity and not the fantasy elements. Neil Gaiman's Death was based on an actual person. Dream was probably based in part of Gaiman himself.

Most people didn't see themselves in Odin. They saw themselves in some of the first positive portrayals of Goth subculture. (And that's just one aspect.) Or in the portrayals of other subcultures.

Originally Posted by Karellen

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?

That's what you get out of this? That I think she should only have sex with homeless people? What you should get out of this is the importance of consent.

If anybody got a free ride, it's the well-known couple who got free babysitting out of this woman. From what I read, Amanda Palmer is known for getting aspiring musicians to perform for free. For exposure, I guess.

The Little Match Girl died of exposure.

[hildea]

The title of this thread is silly. Who (apart from publishers of click bait articles) cares if an author is "sexually deviant"? As others have mentioned, what consenting adults do in private is no skin off my nose. And "criminal" can be anything -- heroic (Gandhi), trivial (stealing a pair of sunglasses) or horrible (most murders). Neither "criminal" or "sexually deviant" would deter me from reading and supporting an author.

But I do prefer to not support people and organizations who cause serious harm to others. I don't think that's an extreme view to have.

I've bought, read, and loved a lot of Gaiman's books and comics, bought them as gifts for others, and watched several of the TV series based on his works. I'm disappointed and sad about the news about his behaviour, and I'm not going to buy any more of his works. There are many, many great authors, I won't run out of things to read by avoiding those who are known to have severly mistreated others.

When this story first broke last summer, I read the interview with the woman who had worked as a nanny, and I read Gaiman's rebuttal of her story. Even if I disregard completely everything she wrote, and only go by the events as described by Gaiman, the story is damning: He initiated sex with someone who worked for him, and lived in his house, the first day he met her. That he was in his 60s and she in her (I think early?) 20s makes it even worse. But even without the age difference, it should be clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that this is a situation where it's impossible to be sure that the employee is consenting freely, and not just accepting the advances because she is in a vulnerable situation. If they had known each other for a long time, and she had reason to trust that she could say no without losing her job, the situation would be somewhat closer to ok. But as it is, I have no problems condemning his behaviour based on his own account of what happened.

I'm especially disappointed because he has written with compassion and insight about people who are victims of sexual assault before, and with condemnation of people who misuse their power to hurt those that are more vulnerable.



For those who write about "innocent until proven guilty": If Gaiman is innocent of wrongdoing, then the women who accuse them are guilty of gross slander. Do you also consider them innocent until proven guilty? How does that work -- do you just suspend judgement about the whole situation?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle:

Originally Posted by Some English jurist in the 1700s

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

But in everyday life, where most of us don't wield a government sanctioned monopoly on violence, that principle is hardly appropriate or useful. If a babysitter shows up acting like they are high, you're not going to presume that they are innocent and leave them alone with your children, you'll cancel your plans, send the babysitter home, and never engage them again.
If you are planning a party, and a friend tells you that one of the people you were planning to invite got terribly drunk at a party last week, started a fight, and threw up in the living room, you'll not think "Better that ten guilty people ruin my party than that one innocent person gets unfairly excluded."
In most aspects of life, we consider the information we have, and act based on what we deem most likely.

[Deskisamess]

Men in positions of power are very good at making sure their "victim" doesn't know they are being victimized, until after the fact. I knew 2 men like this, snakes they were, and very good at manipulation and getting what they wanted. They were charming, most everyone in their orbits loved them. Until later when it all came out. While I didn't fall victim to the sexual manipulation, I did think the one guy was just the nicest guy, never saw what he really was until after the crap hit the fan. My hindsight is 20/20, but boy I missed it for many years.

When the victim is much much younger, it's even more distasteful. The men I knew didn't break any legal laws, but they sure broke some moral ones.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by hildea

For those who write about "innocent until proven guilty": If Gaiman is innocent of wrongdoing, then the women who accuse them are guilty of gross slander.

IF he is innocent of wrongdoing, and he is being falsely accused of wrongdoing, then yes indeed - his accusers are guilty of slander (or worse).

Do you also consider them innocent until proven guilty?

Yes.

How does that work -- do you just suspend judgement about the whole situation

That is exactly how it works. You don't judge either side right or wrong until evidence is presented. An allegation is not evidence. A denial is not evidence. So you suspend judgement until you have evidence. Which none of us here do, BTW.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by haertig

You don't judge either side right or wrong until evidence is presented. An allegation is not evidence. A denial is not evidence. So you suspend judgement until you have evidence. Which none of us here do, BTW.

And I would add that not all of us care or are interested in either way. Whether Gaiman is completely innocent, a known rapist or just a dickhead who took advantage where he shouldn't have, is of no interest to me in the least. I don‘t know the guy or the girl he allegedly had sex with; I have no personal stake in this; and Gaiman's behavior doesn't have any bearing on my decision to consume or not consume his content. So I just don't have any opinion on the matter as things stand now, and am not likely to ever have, unless I stumble upon some future piece of news about this. Which again is not likely, as I don't use any social media except for MR.

Yes, it's entirely possible to not have opinions about people you don't know.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by hildea

For those who write about "innocent until proven guilty": If Gaiman is innocent of wrongdoing, then the women who accuse them are guilty of gross slander. Do you also consider them innocent until proven guilty? How does that work -- do you just suspend judgement about the whole situation?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle:

I do suspend judgement. Both sides are innocent until proven guilty. If you hold that Neil Gaiman is innocent until proven guilty, it follows that his accusers are also innocent until proven guilty. That's what the courts are there to decide.

There have more than enough cases of sexual, child, whatever abuse where the accusations lacked enough evidence to be supported in court and/or were proven to have been made with malicious intent that hopping on there's no smoke without fire bandwagon is risible. You do remember the time period where accusations of child sexual abuse were overly common in divorce cases? Perhaps you may even remember the "recovered memory" scandal?

Originally Posted by hildea

But in everyday life, where most of us don't wield a government sanctioned monopoly on violence, that principle is hardly appropriate or useful. If a babysitter shows up acting like they are high, you're not going to presume that they are innocent and leave them alone with your children, you'll cancel your plans, send the babysitter home, and never engage them again.
If you are planning a party, and a friend tells you that one of the people you were planning to invite got terribly drunk at a party last week, started a fight, and threw up in the living room, you'll not think "Better that ten guilty people ruin my party than that one innocent person gets unfairly excluded."
In most aspects of life, we consider the information we have, and act based on what we deem most likely.

Oddly, my spouse and I ran into that once. The babysitter showed up with blown pupils, giggling and an odd speech pattern. We did tell her that we had our plans fall through and would not need her that evening. We also called her parents and let them know about the situation.

We did not suggest on social media or any communication medium that she had shown up flying high on drugs.

As for the person fighting at a party? Been there, done that. We (my spouse and I) did invite the person to our next party but we monitored her drinking and sent her home in a taxi when we felt that she was drinking too heavily. We already knew that she was not a nice drunk especially when she was on the outs with her male companionship.

One common thread is that those were people I had personal contact with and first hand knowledge of the situation. Something which neither you nor I can claim about Neil Gaiman or his accusers. Or are you claiming to have been present on several of those occasions and so able to give an eyewitness account?

As for your statement about "a government sanctioned monopoly on violence", what relevance does that have to this discussion? Just a phrase that you felt would add gavitas to your post?

Though it does make me wonder why you are claiming that there is no right to self-defence? If you go out for the evening and someone attacks you, you are claiming that you are not permitted to defend yourself?

Seems a bit strange since in at least one case in Norway back in the 1980s, a woman was found not guilty of murdering her abusive husband on the basis of self-defence. This seems in line with the Norwegian permissive attitude towards acts of self-defence as long as they are proportional to the threat and contrary to your statement that the government has a monopoly on violence.

[John F]

Originally Posted by hildea

...

But in everyday life, where most of us don't wield a government sanctioned monopoly on violence, ...

Condolences on your government being so f'd up.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by John F

Condolences on your government being so f'd up.

And sadly untrue since the poster shows Norway as their location where the legal system has a very permissive attitude towards self-defence as long as it is porportional to threat. So pulling out a knife and stabbing someone for saying your nose looks funny would not fly but doing so if they attacked you with a chunk of wood being used as a club would, likely, be an acceptable action.

[jackm8]

A complex case. My familiarity with Gaiman is minimal. I know of him, and I've at one point tried to read one issue of his comics. It was a long time ago, I don't even remember what it was about, so at the point of delving into this issue I had an entirely neutral opinion of him.

I've read the article, in my opinion it appears as truthful as it can be. There are things said between the lines, and a lot to be learned from Gaimans responses. I've tried to read as much as I could on all the points presented, and I've come to two major points.

The first one is that the Nanny is a gold-digger. It may seem a harsh word today, but I think that it fits her well. She hoarded evidence from the first day, and only started to present them as soon as she learned that she won't be getting as massive pay-off as she hoped. Her picture evidences are telling, and her assessment of rape at a much later date is a plausible tell that it was consensual at the time it happened. I do think that her claims of suicidal thoughts are credible, and that the base of her story is truth. At the same time, she did have an ulterior motive in pursuing her relationship with Gaiman. Most possibly she was led to believe that she would replace his wife, or be able to lead a life of well-to-do mistress. That she was discarded, with no gains at all, must have been crushing.

The second is that Gaiman indeed is a man with a twisted moral code. He did try to burry the issue immediately under NDA agreement, and bribes. That bribes were of such low value speaks further against his character. One even wonders if this story would ever become known, if he did pay the nanny a lot of money. Worst of it all are claims from other alleged victims. Their experiences are of much higher credibility to me. They picture a life of a rock star persona that is used to getting his way. Undoubtably, his actions were affected by the environment he was in. It was the age of groupies, after all. That does not excuse them, though. Sins of the past are still sins, until one truly repents from them. The actions described are of such horror and depravity that they really could put a few vulnerable women over the edge. What's nearly as bad, is that Gaimans actions speak, that he never did understand his wrongs. His initial response was bribes and NDA.

What will happen now, is another issue. British judicial system can be often very protective of people of power, it's one of the reasons for Scientology thriving so well UK. It's hard to say if anything will happen to him on that part. Even though, Nanny is a formidable actor, with what appears to be substantial amount of evidences on her side. At the same time, justice tends to find its way eventually, no matter the obstacles presented before her. This exposure, even if it's based on duplicity, may well lead in fair a just comeuppance eventually.