World News

will be heartbreaking for any fans of his

ISHYGDDT

This article from 2017 is worth a read for anyone trying to figure out whether/how to separate the art from the artist.

What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men? By Claire Dederer, Paris Review, November 20, 2017 https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/20/art-monstrous-men/

Gross. I'm glad this particular milkshake duck wasn't one I cared about. I still won't spend any more money on JK Rowling's stuff ever again.

I'm just going to assume all authors are creeps from outset from now on.

That's some sad reading. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion, from the point where the train crashes back to where the company forces an engineer to cut corners on the design.

Legal classification: probably rape, definitely sexual assault.

An enabling factor: wealth (he was in a position to influence other's well-being economically, offer hush money and sign non-disclosure agreements).

“‘I’m a very wealthy man,’” she remembers him saying, “‘and I’m used to getting what I want.’”

An excuse: BDSM. The author of the article is correct to note:

BDSM is a culture with a set of long-standing norms, the most important of which is that all parties must eagerly and clearly consent

As for the search for the origin of his behaviour... I think they're on the right track. Like a former child soldier who carries a war inside them, Gaiman has probably been carrying a lot inside.

In 1965, when Neil was 5 years old, his parents, David and Sheila, left their jobs as a business executive and a pharmacist and bought a house in East Grinstead, a mile away from what was at that time the worldwide headquarters for the Church of Scientology. Its founder, the former science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, lived down the road from them from 1965 until 1967, when he fled the country and began directing the church from international waters, pursued by the CIA, FBI, and a handful of foreign governments and maritime agencies. David and Sheila were among England’s earliest adherents to Scientology.

/.../

Palmer began asking Gaiman to tell her more about his childhood in Scientology. But he seemed unable to string more than a few sentences together. When she encouraged him to continue, he would curl up on the bed into a fetal position and cry. He refused to see a therapist.

Reading this, it seems obvious that Gaiman developed his behaviour due to trauma during childhood and youth - and has been exhibiting behaviour patterns that became normalized for him during time in the cult.

As for people whom he assaulted, it seems that they too carry a pattern - they were vulnerable at the time. Some had already experienced violence on themselves. Which, it seems - often hadn't been resolved, but had become normalized. They were not the kind of people whose "no" is followed by physical self-defense or the full weight of legal options - and Gaiman understood enough to recognize: with them, he could get away with doing things.

She didn’t consider reaching out to her own family. Her parents had divorced when she was 3, and Pavlovich had grown up splitting time between their households. Violence, Pavlovich tells me, “was normalized in the household.”

Well, what can I say about it...

...it is customary that accusations be investigated by cops (who hopefully cannot be bought) and presented as charges to a court of law. The defendant should have a chance to deny or excuse their actions, but if deemed guilty, is required to give up time or resources either as compensation or punishment. A court could make lesser or greater punishment dependent on taking action to fix one's behaviour traits - seeking assistance and not offending again. Those harmed should be offered assistance by their societies.

Yup, big fan of his work, really pissed off to find out he's such an asshole. But I'm glad we live in an era where creeps can get their due. Fuck this guy.