hey can we not do the, "well actually neil gaiman's stories sucked actually when you think about it" thing? because a) that does shit all to support the victims that came forward and b) it's not fucking true. similar to jkr or any other acclaimed or well admired creative who has shown their true shitty colours, the issue with them is NOT the quality of their work. the issue is the material harm they cause and have caused real people. I get it. You feel bad. you wanna kill whatever fondness you have in your head for what these people have made. You feel guilty, hurt even, that something you care about was made by someone who did awful shit and it's hard to hold that in your head. believe me, I get it. But when you project that insecurity and anger onto the "quality" of the works these people make, what you're implying is that there's a secret threshold of "quality" that would make these creatives' harmful behaviour excuseable. you're also giving moral value to the "quality" of art. there are people who have made terrible art who are practically saints and there are people who've made near perfect masterpieces who are monsters and everything in between. this is not a defence of either author. what they've done is disgusting. I'm just pointing out that if a person came up to you and said, "the person who wrote that book hurt me and all I'm asking is for you to believe it" you wouldn't respond with, "omg I KNEW the author sucked because the logic of the world building lacked consistency".
Loading...
