Your description of Neverwhere is pretty apt IMO. I never have been that impressed with Gaiman’s adult novels. They all have interesting ideas, but are not necessarily well-executed. American Gods might be the best of the bunch for my tastes and I still don’t think it is an unqualified success (the interesting concept carries it).
Coraline however is pretty good. He is, again IMHO, a lot stronger with children’s books and short stories.
This does not fully track.
Yes, there’s a bit of a legalistic “innocent until proven guilty” argument but it is disingenuous to say that DD himself has strictly followed that. He’s brought up his own made-up scenarios questioning why it takes so long for accusers to come forward and trying to find (legally) innocent ways things could play out.
Worse, as John Scalzi noted in his post on the topic, even the best case situation is not great - that there is nothing good about making moves on a woman 40 years his junior who was financially dependent on him and who he had only met a few hours earlier. Note none of those facts are even disputed by Gaiman.
The absolute best case scenario of what happened under those circumstances may be “legal” but still absolutely reprehensible and worthy of being called sexual predation and/or rape, even without the involvement of the legal system. And that’s the best case scenario.
That’s not just “skeevy” (a word DD used about this) and nobody else has tried to create daylight between the terms “rapist” and “sexual predator” (as DD has attempted in this thread without elaborating what difference that could be).
Which is what a good defence counsel, seeking due process, is entitled to do.
The arguments being made however are not that the artist should be held to a lower punishment than anyone else he believed was guilty. They could, and often do apply, to many other rape accusations that go unprosecuted and even unbelieved. It is not a different standard for a famous perp.
Oh, I agree with this.
My disagreement is that DD’s argument is really due process at all.
The first quote seems to gainsay the idea that criminal proceedings are required. If consent was clearly not given, a criminal conviction is not guaranteed, but somehow calling him a rapist them would be ok?
Likewise, there’s a difference between “rapist” and “sexual predator”?
So, sure, in a just world, the standard should be the same regardless of fame or wealth.
But, no, DD’s argument about labeling Gaiman a rapist has not been consistent with legal due process.
DrDeth is not in the employ of Neil Gaiman or the state. He steps in to defend him in a public forum because he chooses to. That’s a big difference.
Yeah, I’m not sure how you could really and truly judge a person by the fiction they write - maybe that person did suspect something, but that’s probably coincidence.
But there are sometimes behavioural factors I think you could probably infer things from; Jimmy Savile always seemed to me like there was something wrong about him - but that was behaviour - he was often grabbing hold of people and bodily moving them about, putting his arms around their shoulders, etc - mostly young teens.
The point though was is context of this post:
And even @DrDeth is not saying that. No one here is. @DrDeth just doesn’t believe that the actions described constitute a crime. But he would say that I think even if the accused was not famous. He is not saying that he should just be fined because he is rich but a regular person should go to jail. He doesn’t believe there should be any consequence to Gaiman with these accusations nor should anyone else be punished for that sort of sexual predation, which he fails to see as a crime. His being wrong about that is a separate thing.
The general buying public’s one tool in these cases is not doing business with the problematic person any more. And that can extend to preventively not doing business with the person unless and until the accusations are adjudicated one way or the other to their own satisfaction and then deciding whether to re-engage.
(Criminal penalties are the state’s purview and civil compensations are the harmed parties’, both to be handled in courts. We are not the courts and are not trying to usurp them.)
Here’s a really good commentary that discusses the nuances of consuming art in cases like this.
[Moderating]
Let’s please refrain from purporting to read others’ minds, as that is going to get way too personal, very quickly.
What you’re doing, in effect, is exactly what I’m complaining about. You’re acting like you’ve done something major to a rich artist, businessman, politician, or whatever because you’ve quit doing business with them (including buying their books). Most of those people are already rich, and can get by fine without your business. Furthermore, you have done no real investigation into what these people have actually done to the people who saying they are victims have done. You think that know a lot about the situation because you’ve read about on social media. You say that it’s the only thing you can do. How is it your business to investigate crimes?
Do you truly want to decrease these sorts of crimes? Then insist that law enforcement does a much better job of investigating and prosecuting crimes on an equal basis for both rich and poor people. As it stands now, they often give up on investigating and prosecuting rich people who are accused of these crimes. They often decide to insist on long prison terms for poor people. What they are saying among themselves is that rich people always have top lawyers. They do a lot of getting victims and witnesses to sign non-disclosure agreements for which they’ve paid them a lot of money. The rich people don’t care because it doesn’t take away most of their money. On the other hand, often law enforcement concentrates on cases against poor people. They know that the poorer they are, the less good their lawyers are. That way they can claim that they prosecute these crimes to a large extent and get guilty verdicts.
Incidentally, I don’t think I’ve bought books or otherwise contributed financially to any writer after they were accused of these sorts of crimes.
I like this idea in principle, but in practice, to whom are we supposed to be directing such insistence?
I, too, don’t think anyone has been saying or even implying what you quoted.
But I’m leaning toward the view that that impact is so remote that it’s not worth worrying about. I don’t think I’d avoid buying an anthology I was interested in where he was one of many contributors, or a book by another author where he contributed an introduction, just because a few cents of mine might end up in his pocket.
Vote for politicians who say that they will prosecute rich people as much as poor ones. Contribute to organizations who give legal help to poor people. Run for office with a platform of fairness toward people regardless of income.
I don’t think that’s in the least what this discussion is about. If Gaiman can in practice be charged, of course he ought to be; if charged and convicted, he should be penalized just like anybody else. But sending him to prison doesn’t touch the entire question of what people should do about his existing artwork (or even about any he might do in the future, whether in prison and/or if released after serving a sentence.) That issue, which is what’s primarily being discussed in this thread, doesn’t go away if Gaiman goes to prison, and it doesn’t disappear if he doesn’t go to prison. It’s orthogonal to the prison issue.
That’s what I took you to mean and that’s what I answered. I think somebody else in the thread did mention leaving a book there.
They pretty much all say that. What they do about it may be another matter.
I would, if I had the money. I am a poor person and do not.
I’ve got to ask: are you doing so?
I’m old, broke, in poor health, and partly faceblind. I’d be a terrible campaigner; and town planning board is as much as I can handle.
But again: this is all orthogonal to the question of what to do about the art when the artist does something terrible.
Clearly this is a pet issue for you. But literally NO ONE in this thread has supported the concept that a rich famous or even beloved artist should be less subject to prosecution and punishment than anyone else.
Whether or not we each believe Gaiman is guilty of a crime or “just” of being a sexual predator, or possibly even being framed? Sure that’s been discussed. What the legal consequences might happen both criminal and civil? Yes.
How we each respond as individuals to his art and projects that he is attached to, given what we each as individuals are concluding about him? Definitely. Even how businesses respond.
But not a soul has stated that if guilty he should get off easy because of his fame wealth or talent. That would be a different thread maybe?
Correct. The accusations could certainly lead to criminal charges, and a trial, with a jury deciding guilt or innocence. But so far, they have not. I really think charges should be brought in fact, I would like to see what a trial and jury says- and if guilty, he should be punished properly.
Correct. I am not defending him. I am defending the current legal system of Innocent until Proven Guilty. I find several accusations quite disturbing.
I view this the same way as I view voting in Federal elections. Individually, my vote means very little (except for the edge cases). But if enough of us feel the same way and all vote alike (in this case, with our money) it can actually have an impact. Now, the analogy breaks down because an author like Gaiman isn’t going to get the same attention as, say, Bill Cosby did, so in all likelihood there will not be enough people aware of the situation to realistically make a financial impact. He’s more likely to feel that from publishers and platforms.
But, for me, I’m going to not contribute to Gaiman’s income any more than I already have.
I don’t even understand what “separate the art from the artist” even means, let alone whether it’s even possible, or what is even the point of it. That phrase sounds nonsensical.
All I know is that from this point forward Neil Gaiman is dead to me. I’m shutting him and his works out of my life. Not because I think that would be any kind of punishment or would affect him in the least. I’m managing my own mental economy. There’s no room left in me for him. Out with him all at once. It’s simple. Nothing to ponder. I can’t run the world, but I can manage my own mind.
The story “Calliope” is about an evil author who pretends to be feminist, while he is enslaving and raping a woman. It’s so close to Gaiman’s crimes, the only possible reaction is a nauseated “Ick!” This is my whole point: You can’t separate the ick from the artist. You can’t separate the ick from the art. One of his victims sat in the shower for an hour after he raped her. I wish I could do that with my brain after having watched “Calliope” in TV.