Post

Tyler, from the Internet (Haunted)
@tylerfromtheinternet.com

When you try to take away a monster's talent after finding out he's a monster, you are tacitly making a claim that enough talent can excuse monstrous behavior.

Annie Craton@anniezard.bsky.social

A month or so ago I saw a post by someone saying "we should all admit that Neil Gaiman has always been a shitty writer." That whole knee jerk revisionism. No, man, that's part of the whole horror. He's an internationally recognized writer. Objectively a good writer. But he's also a fucking monster.

Tyler, from the Internet (Haunted)
@tylerfromtheinternet.com

Cosby has always been a good comic, one of the best. It's like hearing a carpenter is a rapist and saying "well he never made good tables anyway." Like??? I've always disliked Neil Gaiman's writing personally (just not quite my tempo) and I don't want to even say that anymore bc of this implication

Tasha Williams
@riseupwoman.bsky.social

Just like some people never found Cosby funny and it’s not bc he’s been revealed to be a rapist. GenX and younger generations may have liked the 80s TV show, but they typically don’t find his standup material amusing.

firmth.bsky.social
@firmth.bsky.social

Harry Potter has always been objectively bad writing, but before Rowling revealed herself it was hard to say that because people who grew up reading it were emotionally attached and you didn't want to insult or anger them

Lydia “Massive Prideful Female”
@petticoatshrink.bsky.social

I think HP is good and I didn’t read until I was an adult (because everyone expected me to and I was a contrarian lol). It’s not polished prose but I think it handles some things like trauma and grief in a nuanced way. I’ve had many clients who used it to talk about their own experiences in therapy.

Tyler, from the Internet (Haunted)
@tylerfromtheinternet.com

In many ways, it's about artists not profiting off your money when you hate what they do as people; NOT about them as artists. Because I'm also of this mind, in different contexts:

Tyler, from the Internet (Haunted)@tylerfromtheinternet.com

I am 💯 for not commercially/financially engaging with art that a horrendous artist can still profit from, but otherwise I cordially dislike morally linking art to artist or rejecting death of the author is because I don't like the implication that we can't make art that is better than we are

Tyler, from the Internet (Haunted)
@tylerfromtheinternet.com

It's a complicated thing to be honest. I do think a bad person can make a good table. And I don't want that bad person to get any of my money, but if that person is dead, or the table is second hand? A good table is a good table. That's okay. Social pressure is more about the NOW than the art itself

Elliot 🎃
@nameoftheyear.bsky.social

I agree with this especially. I think ppl lose the forest for the trees in that the goal of “canceling” someone is not to prove moral superiority, it’s to reduce longterm harm with the limited tools we have outside of any real judicial system —

Elliot 🎃
@nameoftheyear.bsky.social

Is their art/etc related to that goal? Not directly, but like you say, it’s complicated. The material effect their art has on the public (like popularity, goodwill, parasocial fans) are often relevant. The art piece itself? idk, usually it is merely an object

Thomas A
@binkytom.bsky.social

It's harder with singers or actors, because their presence is there forever, especially when the art asks you to empathize or even identify with them. A little easier to dissociate from directors, writers, and composers.