I think it's very rich she's blaming fandoms for not wanting to admit Gaiman's behaviour given the Guardian's extremely reluctant coverage when it first came out.
He was a luvvie favourite and the left British press wanted to largely ignore it.
I've been thinking Rachel Johnson seems like an odd choice of journalist to break this story, but the way the guardian has covered it makes me question if they already knew but didn't take the story because as you say, he was a luvvie favourite of the left.
Men like Baldoni and Gaiman have found the magic sauce of hiding sexual abuse - pretend to be an advocate on paper while being a predator in real life, so no one will believe your victims.
This is actually a really unfair article- not because of anything it says about Gaiman or other predators, but because it's the fandoms that HAVE been paying attention and reacting accordingly, as you can see from pretty much any online fan space. It's institutions that are ignoring this.
Same. I've seen some people suggesting you can still enjoy his work, but no one defending him as a person.
Personally, I'd find it quite hard to enjoy any of his work because I'll always be thinking about what he did. The exception will be Good Omens, because it reads like Pratchett to me.
Also the Guardian’s coverage has been really mealy-mouthed - nothing initially about the New Yorker article, but a whole article dedicated to his non-pology two days later
I’m not even a fan of Gaiman but when I read that article it compelled me to write to Masterclass everyday since demanding they remove him from their site.
Apparently if you have money say like trump, gaetz, hegseth, epstien, its ok to be a pervert and rape little girls and women. Then drive them into bankruptcy and homelessness so that they can continuously be reminded that that if you are not born with a money, you dont count!
In theory everybody's against SA, unless someone they like, value and identify with is accused, in which case they close ranks around the accused and attack the accuser with everything they've got. It's a universal phenomenon (like SA itself.)
Its relevant, because its another demonstration of using principles as tools to attack your political opponents/ enemy groups but not being willing to stand by them when the ones who violate them are your preferred political allies.
There's a misunderstanding here because literally ALL OF THE WEST, vast majority of the media, literally billions of dollars sent in aid have been mobilised on behalf of the Israeli victims. I don't think Gaiman's victims are seen as visibly as the Israeli victims.
I gave my copies if his books to Lifeline when the first round came out. I now think I should have binned them. I haven't seen a single fan defend him.
A lot of the current talk seems to be coming from TERFs, trying to say that JKR was treated worse.
Comments
He was a luvvie favourite and the left British press wanted to largely ignore it.
Personally, I'd find it quite hard to enjoy any of his work because I'll always be thinking about what he did. The exception will be Good Omens, because it reads like Pratchett to me.
All evidence points to the contrary - they get it wrong the vast majority of the time when dealing with sexual assault.
We need to look beyond the police and criminal ‘justice’ system to tackle these thorny issues.
A lot of the current talk seems to be coming from TERFs, trying to say that JKR was treated worse.