3w ago

rule away Rowling

303 comments

Notice how a lot of folks aren't aware of the disgusting things Gaiman did, specifically BECAUSE he went quiet. Rowling doesn't want to go quiet because she's a crusader: discriminating against trans people is a goal for her.
- yes, she sees herself as a kind of martyr and victim of a witch-hunt, which does change how she responds to the cultural backlash she receives for her behavior.
- Yeah, Gaiman keeps a low profile because he wants people to forget what he did. Rowling is proud of being a hateful cunt and invests time and money in proliferating hate.
- Also I actually have less of an issue with other people buying Gaiman's work. I have no love for the man and won't buy anything myself again, but if you buy something of his, the money goes to him, and stops there. Rowling directly funds bigotry; the money people spend on Harry Potter is in a direct pipeline to funding the suffering of innocent people.
  At the very least, before everything happened with Gaiman, he was known for having positive philanthropic ventures. Even if you gave him money, a sizable portion went to him, another portion went on to better the world. I'd presume he still supports these trusts and charities too.
- Yeah its a deliberate strategy by Gaiman, while in the background he goes after his victims that settled previously for breaching NDAs. Even if he doesn't win its money well spent to stop more accusations from coming out. He's going to wait this out and try to rehabilitate himself in a few years.
  https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/neil-gaiman-claim-accuser-caroline-wallner-nda-1235321848/
  
  I thought NDAs couldn't be used to cover criminal behaviour?

I mean, I still love American Gods, Good omens and Neverwhere. I just stopped recommending them to people.
- 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
  
  I can't separate artist and art. I feel guilty and angry. But I also don't want to. Money to them is money to their deeds. Paying for anything Harry Potter is paying for anti-trans movements. Paying anything Gaiman goes to the "fix your image" firm he has hired. Then I start thinking that firm is probably out there with messaging convincing people to separate art from the artist.
  
  Buying used copies and pirating his stuff so he never sees a penny, and talking about what a pile of shit he is. I do the same with David and Leigh Eddings. Who locked children in cages in their basement and beat them, among other things.
  
  tbh my feelings seem to be guiding things before anything like rational morality does - I feel cognitive dissonance about his art because of the association with him as a rapist, and that's enough for me to ditch his art without having to justify it as a moral necessity that others must do as well.
  
  Well ultimately you didn't do anything wrong, he did. So proceed how you wish. If you read some of his work nothing changes and that's the same if you choose not to.
  
  bury his name, rip the story and setting out of his creepy hands and reclaim it. Write fanfiction that specifically shits on rapey shitheads.
- 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.
- They’re great books, but I just can’t enjoy them anymore. American Gods was my favorite of the three.
- american gods, good omens, sandman.

Am I going to get rid of his works that I own? No, probably not. I love them. Which is why it sucks so much to never recommend them again, but that's the reality.
- Shitty people can make good art. Death of the author.
  Just never give them money.
  
  My 2c tho, the Harry Potter novels legitimately suck. This has been my opinion of them since I was in 8th grade when the first one came out. At the time I described Sorcerer's / Philosopher's Stone as a failed attempt at ripping off Roald Dahl (British author who wrote mean-spirited children's books that stereotyped characters with funny-sounding names based on their physical descriptions). I was frequently urged to and attempted to give the books a second chance, never got more than 20 pages back into any of them before I put them down in exasperation because to me they always felt very petty and derivative. I was not very surprised when JK started to peel off her mask to the public.
  
  Death of the author
  People here keep using the term as basically a synonym of "separating art from artist" but I always thought death of the author was a different thing. Analyzing the meaning of a book while ignoring what the author says they meant.
- I get what you're saying, but why not recommend them with the caveat that the other person should pirate them?
  
  This is a good moral compromise in that it allows you to enjoy the art without the moral complications of commercially supporting a rapist, but I think some people might argue that it doesn't go far enough and that we should essentially culturally boycott the art as well, that an artist's reputation rests partially on how their art is perceived, and by continuing to enjoy that art and share it with others, you continue to support the artist in some sense.
  Not sure I know how I feel about that argument, but I think it's an intuition some folks have or an argument they make.
  
  That's fair. I think because in Gaiman's case it's still fresh for me, and really came out of nowhere, so I don't like to talk about them much.
  With JK, it's so evident in her writing that she had some prejudice that it really didn't surprise me much, so I internalized that quickly and moved on.
  I don't provide either with my money, and pirate them whenever I want something.
- I think my cognitive dissonance was too strong, I got rid of my Gaiman. :-(
  But I feel you - his works were important in my life before, I've just been downsizing and even though it wasn't the best, I decided to get rid of mine (not because it's "right" but just because I don't like being reminded of him).
- I love HP and they were a big part of my life, made me enjoy reading and helped me a lot with English (and British) vocabulary. I still enjoy the books and movies that I already own from time to time but I cannot see myself consuming anything new knowing that it will give money directly to Rowling's pockets to fund his trans hating organizations

I’d only heard about Gaiman on tumblr, and they’re fairly socially conscious over there. Frankly, I’d be surprised if he had any staying power with the crowd that previously endorsed him.
“Sexually assault your fans” wouldn’t sit well with anyone, whereas “women aren’t real women” comes out of left field.
- 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).
  
  how culturally acceptable
  Both are treasured institutions.

Thing is Gaiman pissed off all feminists with the SA allegations so of course he has disappeared from the online world because the cross over between Neil Gaiman readers and SA-appologists is very small.
Whereas a sect of the feminists support her gatekeeping opinion that the only thing that can describe if you're a woman is being born with a cunt. This one very vocal audience is not unified.
On top of that Rowling is more mainstream than Gaiman is and the general public is more willing to ignore the mudslinging world of gender politics and not get involved if it means more content from a popular mediocre scribe.
- 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"
  
  Also, I think that the fact that Harry Potter was a big part of people's childhoods made them more reluctant to abandon it when the creator turned out to be garbage. See: Nintendo.
- GERM's is a better term I've seen around lately, stands for Gender Exclusionary ~~Radical~~ Regressive Misogynists.
  Edit: thank you for the correction!
  
  I've heard the R standing for Regressive since there's nothing rad about being a bigot
  
  oo, I didn't know about this, thank you - GERM is much better than TERF, lol
  
  I've also seen FART being used. Feminism Appropriating Ridiculous Transphobes
  
  I believe it was coined by Kate Nash for her song - https://youtu.be/q2MoQJP-PhA

Harry Potter is so ubiquitous that most people who consume it do so without really knowing much about the author beyond their name and then there's a decent chunk that don't care because it doesn't affect them and they think it's culture war stuff that doesn't matter.
Making people care about things that don't directly affect them is always the hardest task.

Supporting Gaiman is supporting a rapist; it will negatively impact a couple people directly.
Supporting Rowling is much worse.
- 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 hate Rowlings and her stupid and dangerous ideas, but I don't think it is genocide? Or is it some pro iseaeli stance that makes you say that?
  I'm asking because I think it's important to not use genocide for eveything bad because it just waters down the words meaning, and in the end when there is a "real" genocide people will compare it to lesser evils.
  Not saying you're wrong, but I would like to know the reason behind you saying it!
  
  It's just utilitarianism. Utilitarian generally seems to piss off a lot of lemmites though; I thought people would have a more negative reaction to it here.
  (Btw I agree the number of people harmed is larger but I think it's debatable whether or not the (per-person) severity of the harm is larger.)
- Does buying Gaiman's work after he's dead still benefit him or can I separate him from the art at that point? I don't wanna support him, but I do wanna read his work someday
  
  I would say so, yes. The only issue then being, can you enjoy reading their work knowing what you know ?
  
  Just dont buy it... his work is great but why give any more money to him OR his estate when there are way simoler options.
  
  Just pirate the books and read them now if you want to read them but don't want to give him money. Don't feel like you need to pass a purity test when it comes to your reading list, even more so when it comes to books he only co wrote like Good Omens.
  
  pay someone to print you an "illegal" copy, or to get you a DRM-free e-book copy.
  
  Sail the high seas.
  Buying Gaiman's work after he's dead won't benefit him, but it could have the second-order effect of giving the impression to people that people broadly don't care about boycotting rapists. It's a lesser sin than supporting him now.
- "Being a rapist is better than being a transphobe"
  lemmy.ml everyone
  
  You have scope insensitivity. What's worse, one person being raped or one million transgender people being denied civil rights? A typical bigot is less harmful than a typical rapist, but JK Rowling is not a typical transphobe; she's many orders of magnitude worse.

some googling later
Well, shit. Glad I buy secondhand books at every opportunity, otherwise I would have given money to a human sized pile of shit.
- yeah learning about gaiman was hard, his work meant so much to me.
  
  The Sound of Her Wings was an incredibly important story for me. It still is. But goddammit, Gaiman certainly tainted that memory.
  
  The work didn't do anything wrong

rowling is a transphobe, but gaiman is like weinstein a sex pest. she played it carefully for decades before coming out, when she had built a large amount of fans and support, much like lewis CK, the cancelling dint end his career so to speak, he moved all online before it got worst.
also transphobia has massive support from right wingers.
- “Rowling is a transphobe AND Gaiman is like a Weinstein sex pest” Fixed it for you.
  She’s actively pushing hard, with a large platform, against trans people and her product is not some necessary thing but rather just a book series. It is so easy to just drop her, especially if you’re now an adult/young adult with a higher reading level and can take in better content from better people.
  People need to drop her, she’s a horrid lady with incredibly mid-to-decent books and there is no excuse for hanging onto her.
  
  ok.
  no need to play villain Olympics, they are both horrid in different ways.
  but I think the differences is that more people will be grossed out by rapy acts, than being a bigot, because there are more bigots than rapists in the public
- Rightwingers don't like Rowling because she still considers herself a feminist and uses feminism as the basis of her transphobia.

People got into Gaiman at an older age than they got into HP. So HP is more deeply ingrained
- At 13, I read Ender's Game and was absolutely obsessed. Read a ton of other OSC books at that age and it took me decades to rid myself of all the veiled mormon morality in his books.
  As an adult, I never had one hesitation about disavowing him. I re-read the Ender saga a few years back to see how it held up (it didn't hold a candle to my teen-self's impression), but I had no problem not paying for new copies of anything that would pay OSC.
  
  The saddest thing about this story you’ve told (which is very familiar to me) is that OSC, while heavily influenced by his Mormonism, didn’t need to be the homophobe he is.
  Brandon Sanderson, who is also a Mormon, has multiple LGBT characters. They are mostly supporting roles so far, but they’re there. He even has an ace character (though mentioning who might be a spoiler for some). Then there are the Kandra, who change gender at whim. And there’s the Reshi king who was born female, always identified as a king and not a queen, and when he gained Radiant powers his body naturally reformed male to reflect his self-image (Investiture naturally reshaping a highly Invested physical form to fit the person’s self-image was well-established already, I think most clearly spelled out in Warbreaker but has had a few examples in Stormlight Archive).
  Anyway my point is we can act like Orson Scott Card is a homophobe because of his religion, and certainly that probably helped inform his views, but anyone as traveled and informed as he is should have had those views challenged enough to rethink them by now.
  
  OSC was the first author I read who conveyed OCD on the page (the wood grain lines in Xenocide). Hard to completely disavow that.
  
  Classic must read:
  https://peachfront.diaryland.com/enderhitlte.html
- To the kinds of people who never moved beyond children's books maybe
  
  even as a kid i recognized HP as slop and it feels vindicating that society is finally catching up
- Yeah, I don't know, I read a lot of good books as a kid/teenager, and I didn't become obsessed with any of them as an adult.

hp was a big part of my pre transition life when i was in the closet. i hate jk so i dont buy new things but i still do reread my existing books. leaky, pottercast, and starkid were the first places i fit in.
but i dont actively seek out pro rowling hp fandom tho. fuck rowling.
- 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.
  
  Dunno if you know dimension 20 and their Misfits & Magic mini-series, but it was basically a satire of Harry Potter, really attacking some of the unquestioned tropes in that series.
  Anyway, this is a beautiful clip of Erika Ishii, who is NB, at the start of the series, saying what they think of TERFs:
  https://youtu.be/4GiVpELykaE
  
  same! i also got into chris colfers land of stories which is infinitely better too (and he's a better person too!)

I'm out of the loop. What happened with Neil Gaiman?
- Credibly accused of being a rapist, iirc.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman
  Check out the Sexual assault and misconduct allegations section for an overview. With how hard it is to get convictions, believing multiple accusers who have allegations across a long period of time has to be good enough. Especially when they are willing to be identified, knowing they will get punished for speaking up.
- You can read about it here: https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html
  Massive content warning, very disturbing.
- He's a predator
- Just Google "Neil Gaiman" and "scandal" for more context, but basically he used his position as a popular artist to do some gross, sex pest stuff.

The Sandman books were a massive part of my teenage years, one thing my sister and I agreed on back then and a source of endless conversation with my crush. Really gutted that I can't look forward to introducing my teenagers to them.
- this is actually the main sadness I have re Gaiman, I never finished the Sandman series and I just never will now.
  I know there's plenty to be said about separating the work of art from the moral judgement of the artist, but tbh it's just like a taboo, psychologically the association turns me off whether there is a rational justification for it or not.
  
  check out Night's Master by Tanith Lee
  I've heard Gaiman lifted a lot of Sandman directly from it
- i still love stardust and own the movie/still watch it but i wouldnt buy it now </3

If anyone is looking for some ~~good~~ fucking amazing books by an awesome and genuinely fun and good natured dude, check out Jason Pargin, he is awesome and not problematic and his books are all bangers, and he also enabled and actively supports the careers of many other super awesome and creative people. Also, listen to Bigfeets.
- If we're recommending authors, my favorite is Jasper Fforde. He wrote this book called Shades of Grey (which unfortunately came out around the same time as that book) that's about people who can only see one color (sorry, colour), and the hue that they can see determines their social standing. I have been waiting over a decade for the sequel and he just released it (Red Side Story) last year. My brain has been bad at letting me read books, so it sits on the shelf but I loved the first one.
  I really hope there's no problematicism around him (as that's the subject of the thread), but reading his books it's hard to imagine there could be.
  
  I also love Jasper Fforde, and it is because he was guest of honour at a Jodi Taylor event that I also got into her books. She writes a series about time-travelling historians which I would recommend.
  She also writes at a much faster pace than Fforde does these days, so that's a plus. I was never half as annoyed waiting for GRR Martin to write A Dance With Dragons as I was waiting for Red Side Story!
  
  Thats a really cool concept, thanks for the rec, I’ll check them out.
- not problematic
  I love the guy but I'm sure you could find an instance of him being problematic. Like his pen name, David Wong, is questionable given he's not asian.
  
  He stopped using it for that very reason, and took accountability. People are allowed to self correct, if he understands the problem with what he did and course corrected without being called out for it what would throwing more stones accomplish?
  Edit: Also, not a big enough deal to say you shouldn't read his books. Especially considering the narrative reason as to why he was using it.
  
  Stephen King is Scots-Irish and he used the pen name Richard Bachman despite not being German.
  
  Why is that questionable?
- I've been wanting to read his books for a while. I have quite a few that I own and still need to read, though. Any particular book recommendations from him? John Dies at the End? Zoey Ashe series?
  
  There really are no wrong answers. The JDATE books are cosmic reality bending lovecraftian horror, and the Zoey books are a Bladerunner-esque sci-fi about a future you can see from here. The first thing i read of his was John Dies At The End, and I think that is a really good place to start.
- The tiktok guy?
  
  The very same
- Oh John dies at the end is in my top ten all time favorites possibly even #1 and I don't even like horror.
  
  That whole series is as good as it gets for me, hands down. John, Dave, and Amy are the mother fuckin’ GOATS.
  Edit: The Zoey Ashe and The Suits series is every bit as good if you’re into sci-fi, and Black Box of Doom is a fantastic stand alone story set in the modern world. Neither are connected to the reality or events of [UNDISCLOSED]. He’s also currently working on the next book in the JDATE series which will release next year.

Sort of off topic. I think learning new things about an author can make re-reading their works interesting.
- Oh look, another barely concealed fetish!
  
  I misread this as accusatory to the commenter lol
- yeah people love to bang the "death of the author" drum and i think it's because they're just lazy and hate thinking about stuff. it's a valid way of reading but it's also the most low-effort and least insightful imo.
  
  I've always felt that if you really subscribe to the ethos of death of the author then you should just consume all your media without learning anything about anyone who made it. And that is unbelievably dumb imo

You see, the difference is... Supporting Gaiman makes you seem like a rape enabler.... And anything related to rape is bad.
You want to discriminate against gay/trans/black/brown people? It might be distasteful, but it's not universally considered bad. There's lots of people out there willing to vote a Nazi into the white house and cheer him on as he breaks the law to deport anyone and everyone he wants to just because they're "not from here" (or they think they're "not from here").
See, they're ~~not~~ the same thing.
- Yeah but Agent Orange was convicted of sexual assault too, so that argument doesn't hold.
  
  Maybe, but he had already spun the fake news narrative to his deciples, so it was easy for them to hand wave all of the convictions away as fake news based on absolutely no evidence.
  Given the relative intelligence of each set of followers, I'm not surprised that they could do the mental gymnastics to disregard such a verdict.
  Meanwhile, I'm not even sure Gaiman has been convicted, but he's being treated like he's guilty by the public, so here we are.
  I just haven't bothered to keep up to date with his situation because, though I previously enjoyed things with his name attached, I've never been "a fan" so to speak, of the man himself. I neither liked, nor disliked him. Now I have reasons to dislike him. IDK. I'm just some guy.

didn't i just see any new sandman season announced though?
I feel like we have to be able to separate artists' bad behavior from our evaluation of the quality of their work.
Maybe there's a time limit? Maybe they have to be dead so they can't benefit from their work being sold.
Are there any non problematic artists/creators from 500 years ago who we nevertheless find their work product valuable to society today? What about science? Especially medicine with all the body snatching.
Neil Gaiman is almost certainly a sex pest based on all the women reporting. So I get not wanting to give him money. He hopefully gets it, too.
I like the suggestion of piracy as an approach...
- 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...
- I think the moral arguments aside, there is just the practical matter that having read what he did, I cannot stomach to consume content made by him. The association is naturally aversive, I don't need a rational argument about how it's immoral to support a rapist - I just don't like it.
- i'll call it death of the author when they're actually dead, until then it's self-excused support.

There's just so much entertainment and incredible creativity out there. I genuinely don't understand allegiances like this.
I love Sandman but tbh fuck that dude and I'll go read one of other million alternative stories that often are just as good if not better.
The competition in creative industry is just insane and switching is basically free compared to any other industry. Like, good luck switching from John Deere if you're a farmer but Harry Potter fans have zero barriers and still can't do it. Spineless, weak people.
- My friend has a significant portion of his sleeve tattoo dedicated to sandman so in his case O really get it
  
  yeah, that would put me in full cope mode too, lol

I'm so disappointed in Rowling. I loved Harry Potter and would've loved that videogame.
- i told my kids they are free to enjoy it, not were never buying official merch, want merch but from artists. or when they wanted wands, i gave them a stick, a sharp knife and supervision and they made their own.
  
  I hope you also explain to them that slavery isn't good actually.
- From what I've read, the game was a barebones RPG with a suspiciously racialized plot, anyway.
  
  I played hundreds of hours of the GameCube chamber of secrets game just flying around the castle on a broom

Maybe not the most popular idea here, but I think there are a lot less Rowling fans, and a lot more Harry Potter fans. After all she didn't really write anything noteworthy after the Harry Potter books. And the HP themed stuff like Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts she did after the main series is let's call it controversial, she's a one hit wonder. Gaiman wrote a lot more and had a lot more different main characters in different settings, as far as I know, I didn't read anything of his stuff.
- I've read a bunch from both authors and think your point checks out. Gainan has much more variety. I'm not sure it matters though.
  My guess, worthless as it is, is that Gaiman's best works celebrated the marginalized. Loved them and taught you to love them. Respected them. His work taught people that his actions are terrible.
  On the other hand, Stardust. Maybe my guess is totally wrong. Shrug

The worst of us ruin it for everyone else. It's just like how everyone reasonable hates microtransactions in gaming, but enough unreasonable people love them that microtransactions are still more profitable than traditional income streams so they're shoved into every game.
Reasonable people didn't want to pay for the deeply mediocre Hogwarts Legacy, but enough dumb motherfuckers ruined it for the rest of us by making it one of the most popular games the year it released.
Note: I only know it's deeply mediocre because I pirated it so I could critique how bad of a fucking game it is without putting money into JK Rowlings pockets. Seriously, I do no understand the love for that fucking game, it's narratively and gameplay-wise a pile of shit for real.
- Pure nostalgia injected into the first parts of it from what I heard. It was many people's fantasy to travel to that world, from both casuals and terminally online people alike. Mediocrity doesn't matter when the presentation fully exploits deep personal connections people have with the material.

I was picking out books for my daughter at the library and saw a Neil Gaiman children’s book, I perked up then remembered he’s a piece of shit and kept on browsing.
- If you don't already have them, Terry Pratchett's "The Amazing Maurice," "Equal Rites," and "The Wee Free Men" are all good books for daughters, plus the rest of the Tiffany and Witches books as she gets older, leading on to the entire canon. If she's not yet a reader (or even if she is) they're also great for reading aloud at bedtime.

Jfc I missed this one. Is it bc we glorify them? Or do they get where they are bc they're always like this deep down?
- Partially it's that we glorify them, which gives them opportunity. Plus, decades of fame goes to their heads.
  Partially, it's also that average nobodies are abusive shit heads too, we just don't write articles about them.
  
  Yeah... I think this is just the water we swim in now.

What did Gaiman do?
- overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman#Sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations
  some reporting: https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html
  note: content warning, NSFL
- sexualized assault
  
  I'm sorry, I know it's a simple mistake and english might not be your first language (it's not mine either), but sexualized assault really made me laugh for some reason
- turns out he's not a gay man

If you're an adult and you're still a fan of Harry Potter, you should try reading some novels written for adults.
I know this sounds snarky, and I guess it kind of is, but it is true...
You're obsessed with books written for literal children.
- A) many harry potter adults are still proud that they read a book once when they were kids, they haven't read much since.
  B) "Kids" literature can be for everyone, just because they are kids, doesn't mean it has to be shit. The Hobbit was written for kids and it is among my favourite books. And the little prince is still amazing and a must read for every adult who never read it.
  I really hate when "Stuff made for kids" is an excuse to make shitty slop. kids deserve and need quality literature.
  Ever since I can (abusive ex didn't allow it), I'm reading my kids at night, and we're reading good stuff, we done: The Hobbit, Psalm for the Wildbuilt (not aimed at kids, but I think everyone needs to read it, even children), the Wild Robot series... and they love it.
  PS: I really hate when children are treated as a target for slop.
- Why do people literally only say this about Harry potter lol. "Read an adult book!" OK sure but why aren't we saying the same thing about the millions of Anime fans, bronies, Stephen Universe, Gravity Falls, or other kids cartoon fans? It's just disingenuous
  
  Put Marvel and most of Star Wars also in the same category.
  
  Harry Potter wasn't very good, but if you read it as a kid and got invested in the setting it's easy to forget that the writing was kinda shit. The argument that it's "for children" is a (possibly unintentional) misdirection, but following it up with a recommendation to actually good fiction is valid and worthwhile.
  Meanwhile, I'm a grown ass man and watched Gravity Falls a few weeks back, and it was fucking good. Good fiction is still good even if you're not the target age range.
  I think I'm agreeing with you.
  
  I mean, I am. Bronies are an embarrassment.

i pity anyone who was named after a Neil gaiman character, like caroline
- At least Caroline was already a name before the book and movie. Coraline on the other hand...
- Oof for anyone named Hermione.

Doesn't season 2 of the sandman come out in a couple weeks? Doesnt really seem like he's being boycotted.
- The 2nd season was already in production when the allegations/proof came out, and I guess Netflix did not want to just burn all that money for nothing. But they did cancel the 3rd season
  
  Yeah, that's just what Netflix does. They cancel shows. I'm skeptical that the cancelation decision was made because of gaiman's allegations. If it was I don't see how continuing production on season 2 after the fact makes any sense.
  
  Not defending him in any way, but has there been more proof released? Last I saw he was investigated by authorities and there wasn't enough evidence to prove a criminal case. And I get not enough to prove a criminal case doesn't mean he didn't do it, but it also means there isn't much evidence. Again, not defending him. This kind of behavior is gross and unacceptable.
- I can't tell if I'm allowed to be excited about it because I love Sandman but Gaiman is a creep.
  
  I love the sandman. I have yearned for an adaptation for years. Then we get one and it’s actually good. Not good for comic book TV. Actually GOOD good.
  And then the show goes and gets himself and the show cancelled because he’d a fucking sex creep. Fuck you Neil.
  Also, fuck you Amanda fucking Palmer. It took a while before we found out, but you’ve been complicit in this fucking stuff for ages.
  Honestly, I’m developing massive trust issues, I’m starting to reflexively fear liking stuff because I’m pretty sure one of the people involved with it is going to turn out to be a massive predator any minute now.
  
  it's easy to complain about death of the author when you don't care about their work.
  but even you do, even just enjoying it a bit, it's a bit harder.
  you can pirate it, you get to enjoy it and they get no revenue from it. but then engaging with the content is free advertising, so just watch it and keep it to yourself.
  
  While still a bad person, what Gaiman did limited to a number of people, not a number of countries, also his work is actually good, not half-baked garbage only held up by nostalgia.

He isn't entirely gone, the second season of The Sandman is about to release on Netflix in a few weeks...
- ick, I wouldn't be surprised if that fails commercially ... I mean, I watched the first season before all this stuff came out and I'm certainly not returning for a second season - I doubt I'm alone.

not up to date.. what’s the haps with gaiman?
- overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gaiman#Sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations
  some reporting: https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html
  note: content warning, NSFL
  
  thanks for the links!

Fuck these fuckers. Also thanks for their contribution to our culture. But again: fuck them
- gaiman is at least actually brilliant and well-studied. rowling is a hack and her work sucks.
  but yes, fuck them both. they are monsters.
- no thanks for their contributions, take the contributions but don't thank them for it.
  You made this? nope, you've forfeited your right to claim authorship of it, it's ours now, get fucked
- I wonder if there is any real relationship between influence and immorality, or if it's just a salience error (those with influence are more likely to be scrutinized and immorality brought to everyone's attention, and we just don't notice the people who aren't a problem while we do notice those who are).

Publishing opinions you disagree with - no matter how bad these opinions are - is categorically different from committing an actual crime.
- She's also spending money on hate movements so it's not just opinions. What she's doing is not a crime, but honestly it should be. She ends up influencing policy which hurts an entire class of people.
  
  This is called plutocrcacy. When the wealthy elites determine how policy should govern the people without the people in question actually getting a say.
  Before trans rights became a 'culture war' issue, most people didn't give a shit what your identity was or what you wanted to do in private - that was just between you and your doctor.
- She's the reason why the UK has ruled that transgender people are not equal in protection to the law.
  So she hasn't committed a crime, she just enabled people's existence a crime. So she's totally absolved now!
  
  she was also cited in multiple court rulings against trans rights in the us too.

303 comments