TechnoPathology
Using a nom de Plume. It is right there in the link.
I understand what pseudonyms are. I was asking if the actual person who wrote this is known, to better assess their veracity.
Unless it is another pseudonym, his name is Donovan Volk. He’s a miderator and frequent contributer to this Reddit.
His argument seems to be that Gaiman is innocent because one particular reporter did a bad job of covering the case. This does not strike me as a convincing argument.
As I understand it Rachel Johnson fully expected the liberal establishment to do what the conservative establishment would do in these circumstances. Namely, rally round the accused predator, and (whatever the facts of the accusations) insist the whole thing is a partisan smear. She was quite upset when instead the accusations were taken seriously and has had actual reprucussions for Gaimen, regardless of how well regarded he was previously.
I’ll dig down that rabbit-hole of articles later. But what I will say is that what Gaiman has admitted to is problematic in of itself, legal or not. Much older man having even consensual relationships with much younger women in situations where there is a vast power differential even beyond age and celebrity (financially dependent employees) is gross. That it was often rough sex and he was not exactly loving, gentle or communicative about it even if it was technically consensual (he has admitted to all of that) is grosser.
If it comes out that folks like Pavlovich were either lying or at least can’t prove rape or assault, so be it. Good on Gaiman on not being a provable rapist. But it isn’t much going to affect my current view of him as a somewhat shitty person. I don’t much respect people that fuck their much younger, often easily manipulated fans (yes, Jimmy Page and Ted Nugent suck), I respect less people that fuck the help, and I’m even a little less keen on people who do the above in a rough, emotionally dismissive way.
No doubt. And I read those interviews- absolutely the writer was “leading the witness” to get a better story. But still, even with the victim maybe not really saying NO, what happened was uncomfortable and disturbing to her.
I think so- not a rapist, but still…
I think the writer Elizabeth Sandifer said it well on Bluesky:
I find the entire genre of “tens of thousands of words minutely refuting every point of an abuse clam” intrinsically unpersuasive. If any of the evidence were actually damning they’d just highlight that instead of doing a tedious Gish Gallop.
[…]
Past that, to my mind there’s very little refutation to be done here. Even if you disbelieve the more salacious details, you’ve still got a long term pattern of Gaiman adding a BDSM dynamic with poor to nonexistent safety measures to relationships that already have massive power imbalances.
I was disappointed to learn these things, though I’m not exactly a Gaiman superfan. But there was an episode of the Sandman TV series that highlighted a goddess who had been held captive and raped over the course of years for the rapist’s artistic inspiration. I was genuinely moved and impressed by how it avoided any salacious details while centering the experience of the survivor. It’s so rare to see.
I’ve never read the Sandman series, but my husband has, and he’s become so cynical about men who treat these issues. Between Whedon and Gaiman, it’s the revelation that oh, he’s not raising awareness, he’s writing his fantasy and trying to play it off as an act of feminism.
I don’t really care what anyone fantasizes about but in both cases it was reflected in their personal lives and how they actually treated women. And that’s a problem.
That bit is part of what makes it easier for me to just not bother consuming his material again. That he made me as a consumer part of his creepy fantasy. I’m not a fan of supporting creeps with my consumption choices in general, but this makes me want to throw up what I metaphorically just ate.
I know when I want hard-hitting journalism that only deals in the facts, I go to “TechnoPathology.”
I judge the art by itself, not what the artist does- especially is not actually illegal. I enjoy Wagner’s music, the art of Gauguin and Degas, and the Cthulhu stories by Lovecraft. That does not mean I think they are great wonderful people I’d like to have as friends.
Separating the art from the artist is another way of saying the behavior of the artist does not matter. It just dresses it up as a high-minded principle when it is no such thing.
The difference between Gaiman and Degas is, of course, that one is dead and the other is not. Consuming Degas’ work does not enrich him or burnish or tarnish his reputation in any way. Not now, so long after his death.
Provably illegal behavior or not, Gaiman’s behavior was ethically and morally problematic by his own self-claimed standards and consuming his work does benefit him, not least financially, at least while he’s alive. Just because it is implicit rather than explicit approval for his appalling behavior does not make it any less an approval of it.
This 100% encapsulates my feelings (and Gaiman was my favorite living author).
Do you understand the point of how this is impacting the art itself. That bit the @Spice_Weasel described now has to unable be recontextualized by me as my having read a rapist’s fantasy slightly papered over. I metaphorically ate something packaged as if it was, say wild boar, and find out that it was actually dog, and I didn’t want to eat dog. If you do fine. I’m not going to buy anything more from that vendor.
Mind you my own take is different than yours in general: to me the artist is entwined in the art produced. Art is a communication process, sometimes feeling intimately so, involving the artist and the consumer, and I have no desire to spend energy communicating in that way with creeps as a general principle.
Besides, if the artist doesn’t actually believe in what they’re saying, why should I? I don’t like it when people lie to me.
I am genuinely sorry. It’s really hard when you feel a deep connection with a creator to realize your values are miles apart.
I’m so glad that Le Guin died before we could learn about her dogfighting ring.
But that never happened.
But in real life Marion Zimmer Bradley died before we knew about this-
In this case her Husband- Walter Breen was convicted of 8 felony counts of child molestation involving a 13-year-old boy. So there’s more than just allegations.
My father (in his 80’s) knew her personally when he was a young man and said she was quite nice 
.
I mean, yeah - I wouldn’t buy any of her books either. Like Gaiman I’d read many already, so I unfortunately helped fuel her success. Luckily I had lost interest in her stuff before I learned about the whole Breen-doggle mess and long before I heard about her own worse abuses (which seem confirmed enough for government work from where I sit). But I wouldn’t have purchased anything further from her even if I did still like them - to the best of my knowledge her estate is not much helping anyone with that money (and it doesn’t go to her victims), so to hell with her rotting corpse.