At the same time, any good they do does not erase or counterbalance the harm. Jimmy Savile, the UK’s worst celebrity paedophile who abused hundreds of children, conspicuously did a lot for charities throughout his career. He said that he knew God would look at all the good he had done and it would make up for the bad things. There was a calculus in which he only had to do more good each time he did bad, and it would cancel it out. It’s a twisted view. Harm is harm and is not changed by any independent “good” act a person does. But apparent goodness can change its significance in the light of the harm that accompanies it.

Savile’s apparent selfless good acts were actually a calculated attempt to win license to do harm, and a psychological coping mechanism to allow him to believe in his own basic goodness before God. Plus the reputation for selfless goodness served as a smokescreen to prevent people seeing clearly what was really going on, and to win the support and protection of powerful people. Seen this way, while the charitable works may have had some helpful effects, these were not genuinely good actions but in large part self-serving and an integral part of the dynamics of this man’s abuse.

I think the same applies to men like Cosby and Gaiman: the overt charity or the overt feminism changes its meaning when you see how it serves them psychologically and reputationally, amd how it may be a functional part of the whole abusive operation.

Matt Bernstein in a recent video (it’s long) discusses men who act as outspoken self-avowed feminists but then abuse their power to treat women terribly. The feminism may be genuine, but it may also be their smokescreen, or a mix of each, and when a man is very loud about being a feminist you have to look carefully to see which is the case. Some are genuine, but you have to ask. Maybe Gaiman was doing the feminist smokescreen, or maybe he’s just so messed up that these two sides of his life - the feminism and the abuse - just didn’t really encounter each other.

This is why women choose the bear…

Speaking out against the rich and powerful often does not work out well for the person who does it. They would be fighting a very rich and very successful man with a legion of extremely devoted fans. Women who have been direct victims of powerful men have spoken out about it and been destroyed for it (see Anita Hill).

There is a big difference between knowing a persons reputation and knowing their actions. Sometimes a person with a bad rep does small things you pick up on that reinforces the feeling. But you still don’t actually know enough to accuse them.

It’s a big deal accusing a powerful person. They are usually going to deny it and people are going to ask for proof. If all you have is rumors and a feeling it only hurts you.

It took several women coming forward with what happened to them to get the public on their side. Imagine trying to accuse him when all you had was rumors.

Giving off bad vibes isn’t a crime.

That’s the logic of a witch hunt. I mean, obviously there are behaviors so suspicious you’d feel almost complicit not to report them. But a lot of the times all we have are the subtle impressions built up by our unconscious brain and it’s not until the answer is shown that it all clicks into place and what once was hidden is now so obvious.

That must be creepy³ :0

Is it awful that a part of me is glad Terry Pratchett is gone and doesn’t have to face this about someone who was a friend and co-writer?

Given how progressive Pratchett’s stories were I would have a hard time believing he was a bad person or could support bad people, and I imagine this would be hard on him. Then again perhaps I’m just selfishly glad that I don’t have to know if he didn’t respond appropriately by distancing himself.

Don’t know if I’m even making sense. This is just so disheartening given how many people I know absolutely loved Gaiman.

If you can do that more Power to you!

But I can understand that some People now look with diffrent eyes on his work or simply can’t make that cut between Author and his work.

In this specific case, it’s really difficult because, as the article talks about in the beginning, his stories were often viewed as being feminist (and progressive in other ways), but when you re-read them, you can start getting a sense of the monster that was hiding.

I find it difficult to reconcile how the writer of Speaker for the Dead is such a bigot. Dude took a hard swerve at some point.

But that doesn’t take away the fact that someone’s demons could be of this kind. It’s a built-in risk in every human.

100% it wasn’t my intention to imply otherwise. Just to point out that celebrities are still just people and people have pretty dark sides oftentimes. So many people get lulled into traps thinking that someone famous or well known is safe. They’re just like any of the rest of us.

Also he doesn’t get paid if you pirate them. So feel free to pirate them.

Part of the problem in Gaiman’s case is that he absolutely does not shy away from sexual violence in his stories. The perpetrator usually gets punished, often ironically, but how can you read about one of his villainous rapist characters and not think about how he’s got experience with what that character is doing?

That’s not a problem with stuff like Good Omens, which is more family fare, or even the stuff he does specifically for kids. It’s a huge problem for stuff like Sandman and American Gods.

ty for writing this. it actually helped a bit.

I was going to say this is so beyond someone being racist or your favorite musician turning into a conservative shithead… which, it is, but… that helped. thank you.

It also helped that he withdrew completely from public life, as opposed to doing the jkrowling thing where she repeatedly announced that anyone supporting her books support her views. Divorcing good omens from him is even easier because Terry Pratchett’s daughter stepped up and took over in his stead, but also because there is acutoff that is immediate instead of something lingeringly tainting every aspect of his stories the way the harry potter books and other media is.

This hits tumblr expecially hard because he’s a regular poster there and his comments are everywhere, but nevertheless he did inspire a lot of young writers and give good advice there, and you cannot argue that those advice did good when they were being offered, while admitting that asking him anything are not advisable now even if he didn’t go full silence.

Yeah he was racist, but also a New England resident in like 1910 who married a Jewish woman.

Consuming the media is fine; funding the bad people (or their heirs and assigns) is not. Sail the high seas, mateys.

I agree, but that’s not what Death of the Author means.

Idk how to format, but I want to save you from reading if you need that. So here’s a brief list of claims in the article:

• she frequently and repeatedly recruited homeless, impoverished female fans to provide childcare without any payment
• she repeatedly left these women alone with Gaiman, without the child present
• she warned Gaiman to “keep his hands off” at least one woman
• she said that at least 14 women had come to her for help with Gaiman
• she subsequently wrote a song about how much of a chore it was for her to deal with the multiple “suicidal mess”es Gaiman created
• she routinely controlled employment/housing of these women and knew Gaiman was, at best, sleeping with them (this cannot be consensual when housing/employment are in the mix)
• when notified of an assault that happened with her child present, only questioned whether the child was “wearing headphones”
• refused to cooperate with at least one police investigation
• refused any material help to assaulted women after repeatedly assuring them she would “take care of” them, get different housing/employment set up, etc.

Just…awful stuff, and this is best case scenario, FFS. She is fucking trash.

She was married to him and enabled him.