Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
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.
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!
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.
I'm not throwing any stones, yo. I'm just pointing out you can't exactly say he's not problematic. I have a tolerance for problematicity so it's of no bother to me.
If he was still using the pseudonym and making excuses to keep using it, sure, but I’m of the opinion that once someone understands what they have done wrong and took the opportunity to learn from it and do better there is no more wrong doing. There are, of course, exceptions to this, but a pseudonym that someone came up with in their 20’s and had the wherewithal later to say, “That’s not ok, I need to stop doing that” and stopped doing that for the right reasons is pretty far from a reason to call them problematic, especially when it wasn’t a decision made under any form of duress and he has made no attempt at defending his choice to have used that pseudonym and stated it was not ok for him to have used that pseudonym.
Edit: Also, it was used in a narrative context of the main character trying to throw off his identity, if They’re looking for David Wong then they wouldn't assume it’s the burnt out white dude.
Why is that questionable?
Stolen Valor
Stolen valor refers to the act of falsely claiming military service or awards that one did not earn, often to gain respect, money, or other benefits.
?
How does being or not being Asian plays into this?
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.
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
Publishing opinions you disagree with - no matter how bad these opinions are - is categorically different from committing an actual crime.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I like the suggestion of piracy as an approach...
I hear Anna has an archive of said work...
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
I mean, I still love American Gods, Good omens and Neverwhere. I just stopped recommending them to people.
american gods, good omens, sandman.