Anonymous wrote:What to do with his books? I haven't really read him in 20 years (i.e. when I was a college student). Recycle bin?

You already bought them but there's no point in keeping them if you havent read them in forever. Clean up some space. I love love American Gods. I always read it once a year. I think I'll keep that one in my memory box but I am donating/recycling the rest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I'm imperfect but it was never non-consensual, I recognize the need for growth etc. Formulaic response that sounds like it was written by a PR agency.

It is gross that he says “I'm far from a perfect person, but I have never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with anyone. Ever.” when one of the most serious allegations involves the presence of his child, who absolutely could not consent.

This.
He thinks it's acceptable to have sex in front of his son.
He picks vulnerable women, those he has financial power over.

Repulsive behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for the professionals working on projects based on his work right now who are going to lose their jobs. Not the big name actors, who I'm sure will be fine, but like the grips and caterers and assistants who will have to scramble for work because it turns out the project they were working on is based on art created by a disgusting pervert. What a crap reason to lose your job.

Much like Weinstein, I suspect this was an open secret in Hollywood.

I doubt it was the same. Weinstein preyed on people in the industy in places like hotels frequented by people in the industry. Gaiman preyed on vulnerable nannies in places hundreds or thousands of miles away from anyone else….people in the industry probably never even looked these women in the eye, and probably were rarely in the same physical locations. I’m sure he gave up a creepy vibe but when a guy writes stuff like Coraline, everyone expects a creepy vibe. Stephen King also has a creepy vibe but I think is considered a very nice guy underneath that. The acceptance of stuff like polyamory also makes it hard to trust your radar…. As someone said uptjread, he used that “alternative lifestyle” as a shield.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone involved is gross. These women all agreed to consensual sex with this man until at some point it went bad. What the heck did they expect, having sex with a married man while working as his babysitter? I’m not blaming them for instances of sexual assault but let’s not pretend these are upstanding young women. This man is disgusting. If he, as my boss invited me to take a bath in his garden, that would be a hard no. Where is common sense?

+100. These women are fully complicit in their own treatment. They agreed to participate.

I don’t think the evidence is there that they fully agreed to participate in everything that happened.

There's no "evidence" but circumstantial evidence shows it. Maybe they were overborne by his charisma - that means that it was consensual.

Some of these women were 18 or 22 at the time. One was his child's nanny. Another was a tenant on his property whose husband had recently left her and she was worried she and her children would be evicted if she didn't comply.

Also so many of these incidents took place in remote homes in the middle of nowhere. That really struck me, especially because the article talks about how Gaiman preferred being in more remote places. It's always some remote house on farm upstate or an island off the coast of New Zealand. He owns a house on the Isle of Skye. All of the worst stuff in these stories take place in locations where it would be hard for the women to flee. In some cases they didn't have cars and were driven to his location or he was their ride. That plus the age difference and the employment relationship with the nanny or the landlord-tenant relationship with the neighbor -- it's all very coercive. He clearly seems to have selected women who he thought would be more compliant because they have few other choices.

It's like how serial killers often target prostitutes because they tend to be easier marks plus everyone is happy to blame a prostitute for her own murderer. And yes that comparison is horrifying and I mean it to be. I don't think Gaiman's psychology is a whole lot different than a serial killer except he stopped short of murder -- perhaps too much to lose with his fame and fortune.

I had a friend who left an abusive marriage. They lived in rural isolation. She commented one time that people live like that so they can do terrible things without others' notice. I agree that his isolation was helpful to him and probably deliberate.

In the past, artists got a pass when their bad behavior towards women was revealed. People argued that you can separate the art from the artist. I am in the arts and have heard this idea forever. I think though that this was just a way for society to ignore the damage it caused women. As artists have historically mostly men and academics who defend them mostly men, it was accepted or ignored. Or more recently, blamed on "cancel culture." It's a systemic problem. I feel more and more like I cannot separate the art from the artist. Recently the Alice Munro family revelations proved her to be a monster. I felt so disgusted by this and I don't want to read her ever again.

To be really successful in the arts you have be ruthless. Gaiman described himself as otherwordly-confident when starting out. I'm not surprised. He also came from a very horrible background. I think a lot of successful artists do. Having nothing to lose and few family ties means you don't care what happens on the way. And then success means you have a lot of opportunity to exploit your faithful followers. Even middling writers do this in their college departments. Or they are people like Blake Bailey.

I think women having voices, being listened to, having women journalists like the one from Vulture to write the story, are upending business-as-usual, old interpretations and excuses for this behavior and that's a positive change.

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I'm imperfect but it was never non-consensual, I recognize the need for growth etc. Formulaic response that sounds like it was written by a PR agency.

It is gross that he says “I'm far from a perfect person, but I have never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with anyone. Ever.” when one of the most serious allegations involves the presence of his child, who absolutely could not consent.

What to do with his books? I haven't really read him in 20 years (i.e. when I was a college student). Recycle bin?

So, is he not canceled?

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I'm imperfect but it was never non-consensual, I recognize the need for growth etc. Formulaic response that sounds like it was written by a PR agency.

By a legal team.

Of course Gaiman was one of the loudest anti-Weinstein/pro-MeToo voices on social media.

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for the professionals working on projects based on his work right now who are going to lose their jobs. Not the big name actors, who I'm sure will be fine, but like the grips and caterers and assistants who will have to scramble for work because it turns out the project they were working on is based on art created by a disgusting pervert. What a crap reason to lose your job.

Much like Weinstein, I suspect this was an open secret in Hollywood.

Yup, I'm imperfect but it was never non-consensual, I recognize the need for growth etc. Formulaic response that sounds like it was written by a PR agency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gaiman hired a crisis management firm - same one Prince Andrew retained.

Meant to share link: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5259516/neil-gaiman-response-sexual-misconduct-allegations

This is what he posted. What a slimey weasel.

https://journal.neilgaiman.com/2025/01/breaking-silence.html

Exploitation and abuse of women in a progressive veneer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone involved is gross. These women all agreed to consensual sex with this man until at some point it went bad. What the heck did they expect, having sex with a married man while working as his babysitter? I’m not blaming them for instances of sexual assault but let’s not pretend these are upstanding young women. This man is disgusting. If he, as my boss invited me to take a bath in his garden, that would be a hard no. Where is common sense?

+100. These women are fully complicit in their own treatment. They agreed to participate.

I don’t think the evidence is there that they fully agreed to participate in everything that happened.

There's no "evidence" but circumstantial evidence shows it. Maybe they were overborne by his charisma - that means that it was consensual.

Some of these women were 18 or 22 at the time. One was his child's nanny. Another was a tenant on his property whose husband had recently left her and she was worried she and her children would be evicted if she didn't comply.

Also so many of these incidents took place in remote homes in the middle of nowhere. That really struck me, especially because the article talks about how Gaiman preferred being in more remote places. It's always some remote house on farm upstate or an island off the coast of New Zealand. He owns a house on the Isle of Skye. All of the worst stuff in these stories take place in locations where it would be hard for the women to flee. In some cases they didn't have cars and were driven to his location or he was their ride. That plus the age difference and the employment relationship with the nanny or the landlord-tenant relationship with the neighbor -- it's all very coercive. He clearly seems to have selected women who he thought would be more compliant because they have few other choices.

It's like how serial killers often target prostitutes because they tend to be easier marks plus everyone is happy to blame a prostitute for her own murderer. And yes that comparison is horrifying and I mean it to be. I don't think Gaiman's psychology is a whole lot different than a serial killer except he stopped short of murder -- perhaps too much to lose with his fame and fortune.

+1 They preyed on vulnerable women and exploited them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone involved is gross. These women all agreed to consensual sex with this man until at some point it went bad. What the heck did they expect, having sex with a married man while working as his babysitter? I’m not blaming them for instances of sexual assault but let’s not pretend these are upstanding young women. This man is disgusting. If he, as my boss invited me to take a bath in his garden, that would be a hard no. Where is common sense?

+100. These women are fully complicit in their own treatment. They agreed to participate.

I don’t think the evidence is there that they fully agreed to participate in everything that happened.

There's no "evidence" but circumstantial evidence shows it. Maybe they were overborne by his charisma - that means that it was consensual.

It sounds like he wouldn't let up and then they gave in because they felt he wasn't giving them a choice. Did you read about the woman who told him no even as he penetrated her while she had a UTI? How about the one he raped anally until she bled, even as she was saying no?

We weren't there. But at some point, when person after person tells a similar story about what happens when you are alone with a person, you might start thinking that the person is doing the thing they are accused of.

It does sound like, with many of these women, there were times thy did consent. Times they solicited his attention. And other times he r*ped them.

This.