The Death of the Author: What the Neil Gaiman case means to readers

As allegations of sexual misconduct against Neil Gaiman resurface, readers are once again faced with the question: how should we respond? This question has become in the forefront of many readers’ minds with the recent publication of New York Magazine’s There Is No Safe Word
which unveiled four new victims of Gaiman’s sexual abuse, totalling eight victims. It was revealed that Gaiman’s 22 year old babysitter, Scarlett Pavlovich, was allegedly sexually assaulted by Gaiman on her first day of the job while she was facing the threat of homelessness.

Another victim was his fan. Across all the victims, there were clear power imbalances between
them and Gaiman. But what can readers do to protest against despicable artists?

Righteous Capitalism: Is it effective?
Amongst the growing controversy, Gaiman’s career has rightly taken a hit, several adaptations of
his works have been cancelled or halted. Disney has adapted Season 3 of Good Omens to just
include a final 90 minute episode with Neil Gaiman no longer in the production team, and The
Sandman will conclude this year. By removing Gaiman’s platform through the cancellations of
these adaptations, these companies serve as an important symbolic statement that Gaiman’s
actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated within the industry.
While the industry has responded by cancelling Gaiman’s projects, this raises a larger question:
can financial boycotts truly hold powerful artists accountable? It is estimated that Gaiman has
accumulated a net worth of $18 million in the 40 years of his writing. Perhaps more significantly,
he has achieved great cultural renown. His works span across many genres, winning countless
awards, and being adapted to the screen. When faced with such success, it seems daunting for
readers to make a financial impact on his life. Boycotts do have their place, especially in the
symbolic act of condemning abusers. However, we must consider whether it can really impact
the lives of millionaires, and thus whether it can really count as social justice.

The Fallacy of Ethical Art
Time again, there is a tendency from readers to critique the works of a controversial writer in the
light of new allegations and scandals. We have seen it with the JK Rowling controversy, and we
are seeing it again. A current point of conversation in readers has been about Gaiman’s ironic
image as a feminist within his books and in his online persona, encouraging men to “believe
survivors” in 2018.

Gaiman similarly condemned sexual misconduct within his works. For instance, The Sandman
DC comic book series condemns the actions of a writer Madoc who rapes a woman he keeps in
bondage, whilst claiming to be a “feminist writer”. Recent connections have been made between
Gaiman and his comic book villain Madoc ever since his allegations first surfaced, especially
due to his image as a feminist in online spaces. Whilst this is indeed an ironic parallel, projecting
morality onto art risks missing the point – an artist’s work is not necessarily a reflection of their
character, and vice versa. In Gaiman’s case, he was beloved as a public feminist and fantastical
writer, yet behind closed doors he abused his power for sexual misconduct. It is important to
recognise the discrepancies between the public image of a notable figure and their true nature. As
such, it is pointless to critique and dismiss art without addressing the deeper issues that lie within
the abusive artist themselves and with an industry that enables abusers to operate covertly.
A point which exacerbates the allegations against Neil Gaiman is the vulnerability of his victims
in contrast to his position of power. His victims spanned from being his son’s babysitter to being
his fan. In all of the allegations, there lies a common thread – he exploited vulnerable people to
ensure an imbalance of power. By scrutinising his works rather than him as a person misses the
essence of why Gaiman’s allegations are so alarming. This case is not about literature. It is about
the perpetual exploitation of power within creative industries.

So what can readers do?
Holding authors accountable means more than boycotting their works, it requires a questioning
of creative industries which protects abusers and exploits vulnerable people. As readers, we must
keep this conversation alive and amplify the voices of the victims. There is indeed a place for
boycotts, but I encourage you all to go further with your activism. Consider donating to charities
which support victims of sexual assault. And most importantly, use your voice to question the
power structures which enable powerful abusers to exist within creative industries.