196

I still enjoy his writing, but I'm not sure how to engage now. I want to separate the artist from the art and let the legal system do its thing as a separate thing and I don't know what 'right' looks like as a reader

The thing that really pisses me off re: Good Omens in particular is that it took Pratchett out with him. And we don't get any more of the TV show because of it, either. Even though it's only half-Gaiman, it got ruined anyway.

such incredible insight, Rowling as an anti-trans activist is engaged in a genocidal movement which has of course a much larger scale of both number of people harmed and the severity of that harm

I think a lot of us trans girls are in the same situation. I learned to read on HP books, and Hermoine was a deeply important character to me growing up 😅 It's hard for me, but I have gradually moved away from the series as it increasingly becomes associated with Britain's Top Transphobe.

Oh look, another barely concealed fetish!

Shitty people can make good art. Death of the author.

Just never give them money.

I would say it’s only possible, at least to the degree of Rowling, when the artist is dead. Someone can be a shitty person and not a monster, this is my regard for most actors, authors, and artists. cheat on your wife, have a drug abuse disorder, they're a pretentious asshole that’s hard to work with, or something like that and I can still appreciate their work, they’re not running some weird political agenda funded by their proceeds (Rowling), a cult (Jared Leto), or gross predatory sexual abuse and tape (Kevin Spacey, Diddy.) Anyone purposefully, knowingly, and actively doing harm to others is not something I'm willing to financially or artistically support. When they die and cannot benefit from the proceeds, the art can stand as an independent entity, but as long as it’s under their wing it will be problematic. Gwyneth Paltrow is a weird fucked up person, but I can still enjoy a performance from her, for example, but Cuba Gooding Jr. being involved with Diddy shit is a no go for me.

When it comes to J.K. Rowling, as far as I'm concerned, Death of The Author requires the actual death of the author, otherwise there is no negotiating that you are financially supporting her agenda outside of her art.

Edit: Another good example would be Orson Scott Card, as a human I despise him and his views, but he is simply outspoken about his views and never started a whole god damned foundation with the intent to try to codify his views into law, and I can still enjoy the works of his I enjoy with nothing more than “man, that guy is a bigoted asshole, how the hell did he manage to write such hard Sci-Fi?” If Rowling were simply outspoken about her views then that would be one thing, but she is actively trying to ruin people’s lives and cause social and political erasure of people she refuses to understand via the profits of her works.

Whether or not their work is good, do you really want to enable them to keep being rich pieces of shit by buying their works? The ultimate cutoff point is when their work becomes public domain, death only works if their heirs aren't also horrible people. Though some artists do reform in their later years, e.g. HP Lovecraft.

I like the suggestion of piracy as an approach...

I hear Anna has an archive of said work...

Agreed, Gaiman fans are not the average person, I think this partially accounts for the difference (as well as the difference between how culturally acceptable transphobia is compared to rape).

yeah, agreed - Gaiman's fans are far less willing to tolerate his SA, HP fans are more general public and transphobia is more socially acceptable than SA.

Basically this post is essentially saying, "it's a shame transphobia is so acceptable to people"