Reading between the lines of the full article she definitely seems to have either turned a blind eye or, in some cases, acted as a procurer.
Even more horrific accusations against Neil Gaiman revealed
- Thread starter Rich Watson
- Start date
It seems very Weinsteinian.......but unlike Gaiman, I disliked Harvey on other behavior flaws long before any allegations came up. Did Gaiman's begin this week?
Reading that article, it seems that Gaiman is saying that he didn't realize something that he thought was a purely sexual encounter meant something more to the people he was involved with, and he obviously denies that there was assault involved.
The problem with that is the similarity between the different stories the women told. In order for the stories not to be true the women would have had to coordinate their tales and that seems unlikely. He also seems to imply that Amanda Palmer had something to do with this, or at least a line in the article implies this is the case.
As much as I'd like to take Gaiman at his word, I find it very difficult to do so.
The problem with that is the similarity between the different stories the women told. In order for the stories not to be true the women would have had to coordinate their tales and that seems unlikely. He also seems to imply that Amanda Palmer had something to do with this, or at least a line in the article implies this is the case.
As much as I'd like to take Gaiman at his word, I find it very difficult to do so.
Yep, I remember when she outed him, and it was considered an icebreaker moment in that after his case, there were many against others that followed.
It depends on who you are. I found him to be something of a "polite bully", back when we were both on LiveJournal, who wasn't above weaponizing his army of fans. There has been a whisper network around him for as long as I've been an adult, and probably longer, I only know when I became aware of it. (Clarion West Writer's Workshop had a telling "Neil Gaiman Rule": Don't sleep with your students.) But he could "play nice" in public and let the terribleness come from other people in their defense of him and I'm honestly surprised that anything is sticking, finally. I wish I could say it was validating, but it isn't. It still feels awful.
John Scalzi wrote about this news and this particular paragraph stands out:
Why bring it up now? One, because I know other people who are being run through the same wringer with this, dealing with the person they knew and this other person they didn’t, but they’re actually the same person and now they have to integrate all of it into their understanding. I want them to know, from the bottom of my heart: fucking same. Some of these folks are friends of his. Some are fans. Some are both! All of us are sitting with it, and while, again, we are all on the periphery of harm here, it’s still something we have to work on. Some will do it publicly, some will do it privately, some will take more time than others to get where they’re going with this. They should be able to do it how they want. Maybe others should offer them some grace about it
He expresses here far better than I could how I've been feeling and I think this is important for everyone to keep in mind.
Neil Gaiman is a real wolf in sheep's clothing by the sounds of it and it's wild how his quirky, depraved Sandman villains (I've seen the recent Netflix show) match up to him and his Scientologist upbringing.
Though with hindsight, folks in the comic book industry who paid attention and had a ear to the ground, knew that Neil Gaiman had a rep as a creep by the very late 1980s and 1990s.
I always just found him a bit overblown and pretentious...
Though with hindsight, folks in the comic book industry who paid attention and had a ear to the ground, knew that Neil Gaiman had a rep as a creep by the very late 1980s and 1990s.
I always just found him a bit overblown and pretentious...
Another predator who wrapped himself in social causes to hide his activity.
Man, the Post is definitely a place that has seen better days.
Looks like Bell has worked for the Post since at least 2003 so at least Bezos can't be blamed for this one.
It is a shame stuff like this happens. It makes folks more leery of people who are associated with social causes. Making life harder for those who are part of and benefit from that work.
I'm sure Bezos has his own skeletons, most folks who make it to that level do.
I'm sure Bezos has his own skeletons, most folks who make it to that level do.
"wet streets cause rain"
Oh, no doubt. I'm sure it's no coincidence that he looks like the love child of Lex Luthor and Dr. Evil.
The other flip of the coin is that it seems very convenient that he was outed right when he was told the Post wouldn't be publishing a cartoon that was critical of Bezos and Trump, so there's definitely more to this story. It feels quite Orwellian.
Not to mention higher page counts. My delivery woman is a wonder, getting me my physical paper most mornings at 3:30. But I always peruse it online later, as they charge far more for much less physically.
Maybe? Without being on the inside of the investigation, I simply couldn't tell you. I take purported crimes against children very seriously.
There have been a decade of cartoons against Trump. Has any other cartoonist been arrested for any crimes?
Different cartoonist.