There Aren’t Bad Guys, Just Guys

I know I’m not here much any more. But I came by, attracted by an unrelated technical issue, and found the following comment from ‘sonofrojblake’ a few months ago that seemed worthy of a response, and that response grew big enough to be a post:

… time passes…

https://technopathology.substack.com/p/neil-gaiman-is-innocent-too-long

It seems there may have been a con perpetrated. But it seems it was perpetrated by, among others, the sister of former British Prime Minister Alexander “Boris” Johnson, a consistently anti-trans person who hangs around with Julie Bindel, and Tortoise Media, the people who recently took over the Observer.

While as I said it’s often (usually?) safe (as in the case(s) against Russell Brand) to accept allegations uncritically, especially if they pass a superficial “is this bullshit?” test (as the allegations against Brand definitely do), the case against Gaiman never really passed that test.

That said… once you’re cancelled, it’s usually too late. As with most media stories, the splash goes at the top of the front page in 72 point Futura, and the apology, retraction and admittance that it was 100% bullshit gets printed on page 94 in 6 point Times.

—————-

I’m put in mind of something Jimmy Carr said about Will Smith, when asked what he thought of him, post-slap. He said he thought Smith was the greatest actor of his generation… because for 30 years he convinced everyone he was a nice guy.

Was Gaiman’s “nice guy” act an act?

I don’t want to believe that, and I think the content at that website raises more than a reasonable doubt about a story I was never happy taking at face value anyway. I’d be interested in your thoughts, if you have any time to devote to this subject.

I rather think the case against him did indeed pass the bullshit test, and unfortunately that site is something of a masterclass in denials and deflections, “Why isn’t it criminal” and so on, mostly a version of the same old “What was she wearing” type thing.

The content of that site doesn’t change anything. We knew what Tortoise Media was like from go, and in fact it’s the major reason it took me a long time to come around. And if I were you I would be incredibly skeptical of that particular user, there’s some kind of axe to grind there.

But let’s assume he’s right, and the Scarlett claims are false. That does require ignoring how power dynamics work, but let it lie for now. What about the others? What about how he made them sign NDAs and sued over that? It’s too much. It’s not “he said, she said”; it’s “he said, she said, and also she said, and then she said, and then yet another she said…” and it beggars belief that that many women would be willing to lie about a powerful man, because we know what happens to virtually everyone who goes up against them, even with truth on their side, especially women, especially especially about sex crimes…

Was Gaiman’s “nice guy” act an act?

Here’s the bastard of it: I don’t think it was.

There’s an assumption that if someone does good things and has a good reputation, then also did bad things during that time, that the good part was lies, was just a cover story for the bad which was the truth. I don’t buy this; it’s not only the cynical way to look at it, but also the easy way. Cuts the world up into Good Guys and Bad Guys and if a Good Guy does Bad things, he was a Bad Guy in disguise all along.

But people aren’t like that. People are goddamn messy, and inconsistent, and inclined to be unreliable narrators to themselves, especially on the perennial topic of ‘Am I a good person?’. Both ways, in fact; some of the most decent people I know are plagued with feeling worthless or toxic.

So I believe Gaiman was telling the truth in public, that his advice and advocacy were sincere. And he still has to go. Not because they were lies, but because he’s utterly undermined them, likely all the while convincing himself he’s actually a decent person. Everyone has skeletons in the closet; how big and important they are varies enormously, but how we tell ourselves that THIS flaw or THAT one doesn’t matter or is tolerable or is made up for by the good stuff is pretty well the same, no matter if that skeleton was a mouse or an elephant.

Gaiman’s was an elephant, and that elephant is now standing in the room, and we can’t ignore it.

Regarding “… time passes…” however, it most certainly did.

Neil Gaiman and the OTHER Lie of Purity

A few years ago, I wrote a blog here, Neil Gaiman and the Lie of Purity. This was mostly about how he, and I, have an ethos about adaptations that does not at all resemble being a ‘purist’, but it did start with the following passage, which has aged not merely like milk but like diseased milk painted onto a clown’s corpse:

Gaiman occupies an unusual place, to me. He’s a middle-aged white British celebrity, which these days puts him in a demographic practically guaranteed to be hostile, but by all accounts he’s a good guy. Like, properly a good guy, of the understands-his-privilege and now supports the liberation of all minorities…

Of course he fooled me. I’m pretty sure he fooled virtually everyone who wasn’t in the actual circles in which he traveled (eg. high up in the convention circuit), and a pretty good chunk of the ones who were. It’s been months since this all started coming out, and former fans are still trying to figure out how to deal with it; the new even more horrifying exposé that came out today has touched off a new round of soul-searching and cynicism, so let’s talk about the two questions I encountered today that seem to sum it up. [Read more…]

Neil Gaiman and the Lie of Purity

Gaiman occupies an unusual place, to me. He’s a middle-aged white British celebrity, which these days puts him in a demographic practically guaranteed to be hostile, but by all accounts he’s a good guy. Like, properly a good guy, of the understands-his-privilege and now supports the liberation of all minorities – and I say “now” only because it naturally took a long while for him to even be exposed to a lot of these issues. I’ve never heard of him choosing to dismiss anyone.

What makes this unusual especially is I am a writer, aspiring screenwriter, currently working on several TV pitches, and it’s become palpably obvious to me that ‘Neil Himself’ has turned out to be the single biggest influence on the sorts of stories I like to tell. Sometimes even transitively, as certain other influences were themselves clearly influenced by him. That makes him, for me, the most dangerous sort of thing: a hero. [Read more…]

Darwintine Festival: ‘Natural Selection’, Part 4

Black-and-white art of a squid drifting over a desert of human skulls. Text reads: 'Natural Selection'This is part 4 of “Natural Selection”, FtB’s Darwintine Festival story chain. If you enjoy being part of our community and appreciate the work we do here at FreethoughtBlogs, please consider making a donation to our legal defense fund.

For the next few hours, everyone scrambled about on their assigned duties, trying to get something, anything, concretely understood before the blizzard hit. For security, it was a constant struggle to keep the creature – which the security personnel had taken to referring to simply as ‘That Thing’ – contained, while the scientists took inconclusive samples and measurements and racked their brains about what to do. The cephalopod squirmed constantly and flailed its arms whenever they got loose. An observer from above would think Beagle Station was doing much the same as pressure mounted on its desperate people. [Read more…]

“Good”, “Fun”, and Kim Jong-il

A portrait of a black, scaly, golden-eyed, horned, and very artificial looking dragon: North Korea's 'Pulgasari'.Given where I’m trying to go with my career at this point, I’ve had to build up (what I hope is) a deep and nuanced understanding of media. What I think of a given book or film is going to be a detailed opinion, with a lot of ‘this worked, this didn’t, here’s perhaps why’ for anyone who is interested in those details. I’m sure most or all media critics say the same thing, but there is one thing I refuse to do like the stereotypical critic, and that is be snobbish.

Specifically, I’ve realized that I think of any movie is to sort them into or out of three overlapping categories, and I mention this because I think most critics tend to collapse these into a single set: “Good”, “Fun”, and “I Liked It”. I’m going to talk about the difference a little, and then tell you what the truly amazing monster in the attached picture is. If, like me, you have a taste for the awful or absurd, I think you will need this guy in your life. [Read more…]