The Four Color Media Monitor

I looked for more observations about the Neil Gaiman sexual assault scandal, and found, most interestingly, a site called The Wild Hunt, dedicated to news and other items about paganism, who have what to say about Gaiman's offenses, and how writers like him influenced their viewpoint:

Gaiman is a strange figure for contemporary Paganism; he has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be one of us, but his work has been incredibly influential on the movement. My own story is hardly unique – many, many Pagans I know have described how American Gods or, even more likely, The Sandman shaped their perceptions of the gods. It’s not that Gaiman’s work introduced us to Paganism per se, much less to mythology in general – we came to his work because we liked those things already. But he introduced us to a new sort of theology, a conception of gods that we could imagine walking on shattered glass in dirty alleyways as easily as through the halls of Mount Olympus, and it was irresistible. If you have ever seen a DeviantArt drawing of Loki grinning in a hoodie, you have seen an artist only a few links removed from Gaiman.

[...] A recurring theme in descriptions of Gaiman’s assaults is his insistence on being called “Master” and inflicting various kinds of humiliating, degrading, or violent sexual acts on his victims. As the Vulture piece notes, these acts can be done consensually, and indeed, many in the kink community may enjoy them. Gaiman’s representatives played on this in their response to the allegations: “Sexual degradation, bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism may not be to everyone’s taste, but between consenting adults, BDSM is lawful.” (Gaiman himself has remained silent since the accusations first came to light last year.)

As Shapiro explains, however, BDSM has a long-established code of community conduct to make sure consent and safety are maintained. If just one party consents, that isn’t kink – it’s abuse and potentially rape.

Even so, BDSM sounds very distasteful, and shouldn't be encouraged as a practice, since it only gives relations a bad name.

There are a couple things I am sitting with, that I have been sitting with since July, and are at the front of my mind today.

First, there will be two competing instinctive responses to today’s article. The first is to burn all Gaiman’s books and damn his name to oblivion; the second will be to declare our love for the art, if not the artist, and attempt to separate them. Neither of these are especially productive approaches in my mind. I don’t think it’s a worthy idea to spend money on new Gaiman projects or promote him as a cool author for new Pagans to read. But as I said at the beginning, he has had a profound influence on modern Pagan culture, and that influence will still be there even if we try to ignore it. We have to grapple with our heritage, even the awful parts of it, and figure out how to grow and evolve beyond it. That can’t happen unless we acknowledge our influences and understand the context in which they arose.

And secondly, and most importantly, is this: Pavlovich, Caroline, and the other women Gaiman has assaulted – and there are surely more than even the eight women documented by Vulture – are real people who have suffered real harm. I think there is a tendency to dismiss this point in favor of focusing on what was going on in the abuser’s head, or the reaction of fans to a fallen creator’s work. I don’t want to say those things should be completely silenced; I opened this editorial by engaging in a few paragraphs of the latter, after all. But as we discuss this news and move forward from it, we should remember their humanity, their reality as human beings, first and foremost. It matters more than our love for a novel or a comic book. Or even for a theology.

We may not see eye to eye on subjects like theology, but glad to see they recognize the gravity of the issue at hand. And yes, there's quite likely more than the number of victims known so far, and we must hope they'll have the courage to come forward as well. But a tale as crude as the Sandman series was serves as "inspiration" for anybody? I'll just never understand that. I don't consider book burning a good example, but I do think it would be good if anybody reevaluates the material and asks whether it was even worth all the trees cut down to print it up. It all felt so hollow, and again, like a leftist propaganda rag. Not to mention that, if the story around issue 40 or so was meant as a metaphor for drug addiction with no objectivity on whether it's a bad influence, that's a serious problem, and Gaiman will have a lot of explaining to do, but alas, likely won't.

Here's also an op-ed from the Indian Express, and it says:

What happens when a literary hero turns out to be a man with feet of clay? When all that he has spoken for — women and underdogs, the power of art to heal, of stories that offer hope and redemption — have been built on an edifice of lies? Gaiman is hardly the first writer with a character flaw. From Pulitzer Prize-winning Junot Diaz and Thirteen Reasons Why author Jay Asher, accused of sexual harassment, to the problematic politics of Ezra Pound, T S Eliot or V S Naipaul, or most recently, Alice Munro’s silence over her daughter’s abuse by her second husband, history is replete with writers with intractable blemishes. It is the fact of the power that they command, that can reduce or silence others into submission, that makes the difference. It also makes a man like Gaiman, with his vociferous support for women’s rights, the perfect perpetrator. When the first allegations came up, a barrage of friends spoke up for Gaiman as if his talent could explain away his occasional, perhaps consensual, profligacies.

[...] Gaiman’s story, or Munro’s, makes for uncomfortable truths, especially because of the integrity they bring to their work, the hope they infuse in it that holds so many of their readers steady, like a friend. But perhaps, that is the purpose of fiction — to offer a neat causality to explain away chaos. In life, people contain multitudes — outrageously talented and ridiculously vain, good and petty; generous yet mean. Life rarely conforms to patterns. Perhaps, that’s why fiction tends to.

Unfortunately, there's fiction stories out there that don't always explain away anything. Badly written stories, of course. And as far as I'm concerned, Gaiman's stories, if anything, are overrated tripe, elevated as they were by "progressives" who apparently know a leftist propaganda item when they see one, and actully think that alone makes it worth the while. Nope. What I read, again, seemed like such hollow tripe with unsatisfying conclusions that don't make them worth the bother. I'll never forgive Gaiman for the Eternals miniseries he wrote in the late 2000s circa the Civil War crossover, which made Sprite look like a scumbag, and ran the gauntlet of making youngsters who claim to have been sexually abused look like liars, and as though such lies are routine (Update: this Time article about one of the disgraced Bill Cosby's children's books makes a similar observation). That was even worse than the moment where Sersi told one the co-stars a gay man liked her because he thought she looked like a transvestite, which was basically saying she looked like a man instead of a woman. Instead of saying she's beautiful, we have to be hit over the head with that insult. It was so forced and contrived, and whatever one thinks of John Romita Jr. as an artist, to think he'd waste his talents on that desecration of Jack Kirby's legacy! A real sad head-shaker. One must wonder if Romita will have anything to say about Gaiman's scandal going forward too.

Next, here's an op-ed from Winter is Coming, where the writer takes issue with Gaiman's non-apology in the first public statement he's made in several months:

There's a little bit more in Gaiman's blog, but what's written above is the bulk of it. Now, I am obviously not positioned to weigh in too heavily on this, but I do want to point a few things out. One is that the timing of this post, which he titles "Breaking the Silence," feels a little transparent. These allegations were first made more than half a year ago, and Gaiman — who used to be notoriously chatty with fans on the internet — has gone radio silent. I suspect that the opening paragraph of his post, which mentions that he didn't want to "draw even more attention" to what he claims is misinformation, explains that.

According to The Bookseller, Gaiman hired crisis management firm Edendale Strategies and lawyer Andrew Brettler to handle his PR in relation to this story. If you're keeping track, that's the same firm hired by That '70s Show star Danny Masterson after he was accused (and later convicted) of rape, as well as Marilyn Manson following sexual misconduct allegations from multiple women. It seems to me that, obviously, Gaiman didn't want this sort of negative press, and was hoping it would go away. I don't think it's too surprising that he's only now responding once this news has reached huge outlets where it can't be swept under the rug as easily. This thing is going to be on news stands now:

Another thing I feel the need to point out is that Gaiman's response is pretty pale in comparison to the sheer breadth and depth of the allegations reported in Vulture, from multiple women with similar accounts, none of whom had ever met each other before their stories became headline news last year. A large news organization like Vulture/New York Magazine is also going to do a fair amount of legal vetting before running a story with such sensitive material, accusing one of the entertainment industry's most recognizable figures (with a lot of money for lawyers) of this sort of gross misconduct. I do not think they did so lightly, or without doing their due diligence.

I'll also add one last thing: reading the accounts of those women, perception and imbalanced power dynamics were a consistent theme that kept occurring in their stories. They often described Gaiman pushing boundaries, and themselves as going along with it for various reasons only to later have to grapple with the reality of their situations. So while I do not doubt that the text messages Gaiman has in his phone read a certain way to him, I also don't really get how that dismisses the first-hand accounts of these women and their lived experiences. Or the NDAs that he had several of them sign to keep their affairs quiet.

"I was caught up in my own story and I ignored other people's," Gaiman wrote in his response. And from the tenor of this post, and the way it centers him while spending very little time reflecting on the harm done to the women caught in his path, it sounds like that's still the case.

Well he hasn't really apologized, and certainly didn't do so convincingly. That he employed the same PR agency the now incarcerated Masterson did suggests Gaiman hasn't strayed very far from Scientology, which he was part of in his youth, and Masterson too was a Scientology member.

Also of interest is the following info from Richard Corcoran, a former Florida state representative:

https://t.co/XuzEtDuf5O
In May 2023, this guy spoke at the "alternative graduation" of the 2023 New College class, which was backed by those opposing New College's transformation under @GovRonDeSantis. Many faculty and students attending that "alternative graduation" applauded…

— Richard Corcoran (@richardcorcoran) January 14, 2025

Wow, so Gaiman attended a convention organized by liberals opposed to a conservative politician, is that it? Guess that says all you need to know what more is wrong with Gaiman's political conduct, which found its way into his writings years before too, as noted earlier.

And then, the Hindustan Times asks if the Simpsons episode where Gaiman made an animated appearance at least 2 decades ago will see a phasing out from circulation:

Neil Gaiman's sexual misconduct allegations have reignited discussions about his cameo in The Simpsons episode ‘The Book Job.’ [...]

While these allegations can hardly be deemed unimportant or unrelated to actual concern, they have also energised quite a debate regarding Gaiman’s previous participation in media, including his cameo on The Simpsons. Especially all fans are pinning Season 23 of the show, which is focused on the story of the episode ‘The Book Job’, including Gaiman.

‘The Book Job’ is a heist theme, fleshed out by Ocean’s 11, in which Homer becomes a part of a team responsible for writing a best-selling, yet worthless, fictional young adult novel. Here, the primary characters of the cartoon are Bart Simpson and Patty, Moe, Principal Skinner, and others. Gaiman is actually an uninvited man who tries to become the author’s consultant and takes the manuscript from them, pretending to be their friend. As a final punch line, he claims he cannot even read.

Gaiman denies any sexual harassment allegations

A similar precedent exists in the case of ‘Stark Raving Dad,’ the Season 3 episode featuring Michael Jackson. That episode was removed from circulation after allegations against Jackson gained renewed attention. Al Jean, a longtime Simpsons showrunner, explained to The Daily Beast in 2019 that Jackson’s episode was particularly problematic due to rumours that the singer used his guest role to “groom boys.”

However, there are notable differences between the two cases. Jackson’s alleged actions were directly tied to his appearance on the show, as his guest role was central to the plot. In contrast, Gaiman’s role in ‘The Book Job’, while substantial for a guest star, is secondary to the episode’s main story.

Well of course it's not a good example to just censor, but after all these years, I've been reevaluating the Simpsons, and wondering if it was really worth all the celluloid put into its making, based on what politics were brought to the table there, or how woke it's become even before Apu was dropped from the main cast several years ago because some would-be entertainer didn't like the idea Apu would be portrayed as a buffoon with an accent. So was it really funny? Well after 10 seasons or so, far less, and I eventually lost interest, and can't get into it anymore. So what's the point in watching it again? That the producers even hired Gaiman to begin with was bad enough. But the show hasn't aged as well as it could've, and having run far too long at more than 35 years, it's long past the time to retire it. And the saddest part of the TV stories featuring Jackson and Gaiman is that, what we know about the real life figures now will drain much of the humor from the episodes.

It looks like Popverse has finally published something about the affair, if they hadn't before, and it's written by none other than Graeme McMillan, who says:

During all of the above, Gaiman had been notably silent, even as Prime Video essentially cancelled his series Good Omens, replacing the announced third season with one final episode without Gaiman’s involvement, while Disney similarly put its planned adaptation of Gaiman’s novel The Graveyard Book on hold. With the Vulture story prompting new discussion of his disturbing and repeated misbehavior, however, that finally changed — although the author is surprisingly unrepentant. [...]

While this attitude is unusual from abusers newly outed — traditionally, statements about being imperfect and wishing to grow to be a better person are paired with apologies to those they have hurt; notably, Gaiman does not once actually apologize to his victims, instead choosing to outright deny their experience — it’ll be curious to see how Gaiman’s collaborators, in terms of both artistic and business enterprises, respond to such a blanket refusal to engage with the many very serious accusations against him in the weeks and months ahead… and whether Gaiman will find himself re-addressing the situation in a more serious, and ideally more humble, manner in the near future.

Considering McMillan's been an apologist for leftism in his own way, it's pretty amazing he admits Gaiman's response is flaccid and unconvincing. But if this is only the first time they actually reported on the affair, it's pretty late in coming, though certainly better late than never. Upon further searching, I also discovered Comics Beat finally covered the case as well, and say at the end:

None of Gaiman’s publishers, comics and prose, have commented on the accusations, or announced any actions, but with many fans publicly pledging to never read a Gaiman book again, this will obviously impact that side of things as well.

And until now, Comics Beat didn't comment on this either. Oh, and this specific article wasn't written by the credibility-lacking Heidi MacDonald, who, IIRC, worked for DC as an editor at the time Gaiman was there. Some of the commentors noted the lateness of their coverage. For example:

So now that the mainstream media is reporting on this, The Beat feels obliged to do so as well? We need an explanation as to why you have been silent on this for the last six months.

And:

Kind of funny how you guys were prompt to publish stories about Piskor and Ellis but waited like 6 or 7 months for this turd. And only after he issues a public denial lol

The writer himself answered:

I can’t speak to what happened several months ago as I wasn’t with The Beat at the time. For the record though, a version of this article was pending review before we saw Gaiman had finally written a statement, delaying it further: the original title was ‘More Neil Gaiman allegations emerge in New York magazine exposé.’

Well if they were that cowering, what's the use of taking a job with them? This failure to be prompt as possible with the news speaks volumes, and just goes to show why they're so irrelevant, and have been for a long time.

The Times of India points out the double-standard the woke crowd has when it comes to J.K Rowling, as opposed to Gaiman:

Social media has erupted with accusations of hypocrisy directed at liberals who have remained relatively silent about allegations of sexual misconduct against Neil Gaiman while continuing to vilify J.K. Rowling for her views on gender. Critics argue that Rowling has faced disproportionate backlash for her stance on biological sex, while Gaiman, a celebrated author with progressive credentials, has been met with tepid criticism despite facing serious allegations.

[...] Gaiman’s progressive credentials, including his feminist-leaning rhetoric and support for trans activism, have likely shielded him from the same level of backlash faced by Rowling. Critics argue this discrepancy highlights a trend where liberal figures are excused for their actions if they align with the "right" ideological causes, while dissenters like Rowling are relentlessly targeted for their views.

Accusations of hypocrisy have also been directed at the broader feminist and trans activist communities, with many questioning why safeguarding women’s rights, as championed by Rowling, is met with hostility while allegations of abuse by a celebrated male ally provoke muted responses.

See, this is one of the most disturbing parts of the whole scandal. Harvey Weinstein supported similar causes, yet in contrast to Weinstein, whose downfall came even more quickly, the downfall of Gaiman's career was slower, even though some sources were distancing themselves from him soon after the Tortoise Media coverage. This should make clear how dangerous it is when the world is turned upside down.

Book Riot says the silence from the publishing industry on this case is deafening:

On Monday, New York Magazine revealed this week’s cover story: Lila Shapiro’s deeply reported investigation into sexual assault allegations against Neil Gaiman. It’s a piece months in the making—news first broke of the allegations last July—and which many of us in publishing had been waiting for. Gaiman issued a response on his blog yesterday, which several of his accusers described as, “the same non-apology that women in this situation have seen so many times before.” This morning, the NYT‘s Elisabeth Egan and Alexandra Alter reported on the allegations and Gaiman’s response and noted that, “While some of Gaiman’s television and film projects were dropped following the initial allegations, the responses from his publishers, agents and professional collaborators have been far more subdued.”

“Subdued” is a generous description. Mainstream publications including The Washington Post, The Guardian, and NPR have all covered the story, but responses have been almost entirely absent from within the publishing industry and publishing media, with the exception of a paywalled piece at Publishers Lunch. Gaiman’s agents declined to comment for the Times piece, as did DC Comics. Norton did not respond to inquiries. And HarperCollins and Marvel, two of Gaiman’s most frequent publishers, noted only that they do not have new books coming from him. As for book media’s main players? Nothing from Publishers Weekly. Nothing from Shelf Awareness. Nothing from Lit Hub or the LA Times. I can’t presume to know what my peers at these publications are thinking or why they’ve chosen to stay silent. I’d like to believe they have their reasons. What’s hard to believe is that any of them are good. Readers deserve better.

Well that's certainly saying something, coming as it does from a left-wing feminist site.

STV reports St. Andrews University is backing the student who was victimized by Gaiman, but it's unclear if they'll revoke his degrees:

St Andrews University is supporting a student who has made a number of allegations of sexual assault against the best-selling author Neil Gaiman.

[...] The woman began studying an English literature degree at St Andrews University last year, where Gaiman was awarded an honorary degree in 2016.

The accuser claims to have asked the University to strip the writer of his award due to her experience, however, the honorary degree remains in place.

St Andrews University has confirmed it is providing counselling to the student following the allegations and is monitoring the case “with concern and close interest”.

However, the university did not confirm whether it was considering rescinding Gaiman’s honorary degree.

A spokesperson for the University said: “We applaud the courage of all survivors of sexual abuse, and especially those who have felt able to speak out about it.

“Our priority is the welfare of our student, to whom we are providing support and counselling. We will continue to monitor this case with concern and close interest.”

If they really want to prove they're serious, the university and all other sources who showered Gaiman with undeserved awards will revoke them. Hopefully, we'll never see a statue dedicated to him now.

Now here's an item from The Conversation, which makes an interesting note about the YA genre, but also bizarrely alludes to the 17th issue of the Sandman series as "romance":

Gaiman’s writing has also been criticised for the way it depicts romantic relationships. Shapiro cites the protagonist of Sandman, Madoc, a man who sexually assaults his muse (and, it should be acknowledged, is punished for it). The genre of fantasy more broadly is often criticised for the way it minimises abuse in romantic relationships.

Young adult fantasy literature has been criticised for its depiction of coercive control and how this may influence readers.

Wow, I knew the YA industry itself was rife with wokeness, and only now, somebody has the audacity to let us know it can be that bad? All that aside, the Madoc character may have been punished (but I don't think the Erasmus Fry character was), but the problem is that it still let the Madoc character off very lightly considering the severity of his offenses against Calliope, because he didn't get imprisoned by a court for his crimes. That this was a fantasy story is no excuse. But what's this they're saying? "Romantic"? There's nothing romantic in sexual violence where a man forces himself upon a woman without her consent and causes her only so much terrible pain. Rape is NOT "romance". Nor is sex slavery. As I said before, I saw little that could be considered romantic in what material I read from Gaiman's resume, and after what was told about him by New York Magazine/Vulture, one can wonder if the scandal explains why.

One more item I'll point to here is that Brooklyn Vegan announced Amanda Palmer issued a brief statement, noting that she's currently working on legal proceedings regarding her divorce from Gaiman and custody proceedings, and let's hope she recognizes that he can't be allowed near her son anymore if that's how he was going to behave in the little guy's presence. Their son will surely need psychological aid, considering what he was bound to have witnessed his disgusting dad doing. That a child was present during the sexual abuse Gaiman committed is what makes the incidents alarmingly scandalous, and Gaiman should be charged by police with child abuse for that. We can only hope a legal case is being filed against him now.

Labels: animation, dc comics, dreadful writers, golden calf of LGBT, history, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, violence