Unsure how to feel about the violent acts described as “that’s a female-male dynamic that unfortunately happens to be incredibly common”. “We all do bad stuff and we all do good stuff and he's done good stuff and he's done bad stuff”. I think this is absolutely appalling considering the allegations. Yes, humans do bad things, however some do evil things. While cancel culture has done nothing to protect the women who have been assaulted, the femicide is on the rise. Additionally, “these are the details people couldn’t get past in the NYTimes” (paraphrased) show that maybe the situation wasn’t in that much of a gray zone. I listened to the podcast when it came out, it made me sick as a survivor, but I’m curious that Rachel mentioned that some might think “maybe Neil is in the right”. Journalism thrives on ambiguity and freedom of thought but where’s the line? There’s always nuance but also there’s straight up sexual crimes. Thanks for this interview, though. Makes me rethink how the podcast was created.
You brought up an interesting element which is the credibility/popularity of the journalist breaking the story. It made me wonder what a difference it would make to legitimise an allegation depending on how you feel about the person sharing it. I'm a queer woman and parent of a non-binary child who is not in the business of listening to TERFs... and yet I did listen to the podcast when it came out last year. I was also a massive fan of Neil Gaiman but despite this, I believe in the importance of listening to people who are brave enough to speak up when they experience abuse. I would hope that others have learned this too.
This is such an interesting interview, thank you both.
I’ve not listened to the podcast (sorry Rachel!) but, like many others, read the article with a sense of absolute horror. I actually really struggled with the decision to include the child in the reporting. While it absolutely marks a line that most people cannot get past and no doubt contributed to the outcry, to have this information so publicly available and widely discussed for a young boy must be devastating.
I have followed Amanda Palmer for a while and have a daughter a few months younger than their son. I cannot fathom having to deal with the fallout either now or in the future. It’s bad enough for the world to know the intimate details of your father’s sexual activities and offenses but to be forever tangled up in that story as a child. It’s heartbreaking. An issue for actual courts to deal with rather than the court of public opinion. I say that as someone who has also grappled with the legacy of a deeply harmful parent. The complex feelings of guilt and complicity are hard enough without it being splashed across the Internet. He already has the curse of famous parents. My heart truly breaks for him and for the family trying to protect him from this.
I think it comes back to that question of consequences - wanting the story to be told but not necessarily wanting to drop a bomb on the lives of the entirely innocent. Which the article has undoubtedly done. When reading the piece I regularly felt that pull to black and white thinking when what it actually did for me was bring up the absolute murkiness of these kinds of abusive relationships. The muddiness which makes them so difficult to identify and prosecute. I felt like there was another more complex story sitting just beneath the article which I wanted to hear - perhaps the podcast is the place to go for it. Thanks again.
Fascinated enough by this interview I had to subscribe just to comment on it.
3 days ago in the London Evening Standard she also wrote a column literally titled "I broke the Neil Gaiman story, but I never wanted him cancelled like this" which she basically repeats in this article and I can't help but think that the mindset that leads you to this attitude had something to do with why the initial podcast didn't go further.
If you didn't really *want* repercussions, it seems like you can craft a story to achieve that. But then, what *did* she want her podcast to do?
I know it seems dissonant but I really do understand what she’s saying about that - as I say in the story a lot of journalists want to write whatever they want without there being consequences. It’s irrational but I recognize it.
It is true that once you've written something it's just out of your hands, and what people make of it isn't in your control. I am reflecting also on the things Rachel written about her mother and father - where she also keeps a strikingly even hand.
Anyway, I listened to the podcast and read the Vulture story, both with a great deal of distress. The podcast was a very important piece of work (as was the Vulture story). I would be interested in your views Jon but I think that for me even though I told many friends about the podcast I wasn't likely to tell anyone they had to listen to it because it audio is *such* an intimate medium, right into the centre of your head. It's a very intense way to hear women's testimony about sexual assault, and I didn't want to give that distress to anyone else. Text has more distance.
Unsure how to feel about the violent acts described as “that’s a female-male dynamic that unfortunately happens to be incredibly common”. “We all do bad stuff and we all do good stuff and he's done good stuff and he's done bad stuff”. I think this is absolutely appalling considering the allegations. Yes, humans do bad things, however some do evil things. While cancel culture has done nothing to protect the women who have been assaulted, the femicide is on the rise. Additionally, “these are the details people couldn’t get past in the NYTimes” (paraphrased) show that maybe the situation wasn’t in that much of a gray zone. I listened to the podcast when it came out, it made me sick as a survivor, but I’m curious that Rachel mentioned that some might think “maybe Neil is in the right”. Journalism thrives on ambiguity and freedom of thought but where’s the line? There’s always nuance but also there’s straight up sexual crimes. Thanks for this interview, though. Makes me rethink how the podcast was created.
You brought up an interesting element which is the credibility/popularity of the journalist breaking the story. It made me wonder what a difference it would make to legitimise an allegation depending on how you feel about the person sharing it. I'm a queer woman and parent of a non-binary child who is not in the business of listening to TERFs... and yet I did listen to the podcast when it came out last year. I was also a massive fan of Neil Gaiman but despite this, I believe in the importance of listening to people who are brave enough to speak up when they experience abuse. I would hope that others have learned this too.
This is such an interesting interview, thank you both.
I’ve not listened to the podcast (sorry Rachel!) but, like many others, read the article with a sense of absolute horror. I actually really struggled with the decision to include the child in the reporting. While it absolutely marks a line that most people cannot get past and no doubt contributed to the outcry, to have this information so publicly available and widely discussed for a young boy must be devastating.
I have followed Amanda Palmer for a while and have a daughter a few months younger than their son. I cannot fathom having to deal with the fallout either now or in the future. It’s bad enough for the world to know the intimate details of your father’s sexual activities and offenses but to be forever tangled up in that story as a child. It’s heartbreaking. An issue for actual courts to deal with rather than the court of public opinion. I say that as someone who has also grappled with the legacy of a deeply harmful parent. The complex feelings of guilt and complicity are hard enough without it being splashed across the Internet. He already has the curse of famous parents. My heart truly breaks for him and for the family trying to protect him from this.
I think it comes back to that question of consequences - wanting the story to be told but not necessarily wanting to drop a bomb on the lives of the entirely innocent. Which the article has undoubtedly done. When reading the piece I regularly felt that pull to black and white thinking when what it actually did for me was bring up the absolute murkiness of these kinds of abusive relationships. The muddiness which makes them so difficult to identify and prosecute. I felt like there was another more complex story sitting just beneath the article which I wanted to hear - perhaps the podcast is the place to go for it. Thanks again.
Fascinated enough by this interview I had to subscribe just to comment on it.
3 days ago in the London Evening Standard she also wrote a column literally titled "I broke the Neil Gaiman story, but I never wanted him cancelled like this" which she basically repeats in this article and I can't help but think that the mindset that leads you to this attitude had something to do with why the initial podcast didn't go further.
If you didn't really *want* repercussions, it seems like you can craft a story to achieve that. But then, what *did* she want her podcast to do?
I know it seems dissonant but I really do understand what she’s saying about that - as I say in the story a lot of journalists want to write whatever they want without there being consequences. It’s irrational but I recognize it.
what an interesting interview and reflections.
It is true that once you've written something it's just out of your hands, and what people make of it isn't in your control. I am reflecting also on the things Rachel written about her mother and father - where she also keeps a strikingly even hand.
Anyway, I listened to the podcast and read the Vulture story, both with a great deal of distress. The podcast was a very important piece of work (as was the Vulture story). I would be interested in your views Jon but I think that for me even though I told many friends about the podcast I wasn't likely to tell anyone they had to listen to it because it audio is *such* an intimate medium, right into the centre of your head. It's a very intense way to hear women's testimony about sexual assault, and I didn't want to give that distress to anyone else. Text has more distance.
Ah thank you Naomi and how lovely to see you here