I have been meaning to write a post about the strange double standard between engaging in JKR's work after her "controversy" and engaging in Neil Gaiman's work after his "controversy" but I just have not had the time/energy yet.
This is not to defend JKR's behaviour in the slightest, but I challenge you all to think about how people react when others say they still like harry potter vs how they react when people say they still like good omens.
When NG's allegations came out, everyone was saying it was still fine to like GO because "terry pratchett actually wrote most of it!!" -- but we need to see this for what it is -- a flimsy excuse to keep engaging in "problematic" media that you enjoy.
By the logic of what most people call "cancel culture" (I don't like this term) neither media should be allowed to be consumed, lest the person doing the consuming be deemed "problematic." So why is one fine and one isn't?
I think a lot of this comes from the fact that HP is viewed as "childish" and weird to enjoy into adulthood (I have actually seen several people say exactly this as another reason to not engage with the franchise), whereas GO is viewed as more "adult." As well as the fact that by the time JKR was outed as a TERF, most people had already stopped liking HP naturally as they aged. Whereas Good Omens was very much still in everyone's good graces.
Additionally, people are likely making these excuses for Good Omens because they want to still be "allowed" to like it without people getting mad at them on the internet. This is an emotionally driven decision, and is not logical.
There are other double standards at work here as well imo, but again, this isn't the full post I intend to write about this.
Anyway, just think about it. I'll fully explain my thoughts later.
