That does sound right. I’m gonna file that away to think about next time I do read something of his. I get in moods where thinking about why I don’t really like what I’m reading seems way more important than just reading something I like…and if I do like the next thing of his, considering it under this lens should also be illuminating.

I’m currently reading Days of Shattered Faith and I have zero complaints so far. Other than with my memory, since I can remember just enough from the first two books to be sure that I’m missing a lot of references/resonances (like “oh, this character is actually that character from the first book! What was his deal? Nope, don’t remember” only it takes a lot longer for me to work through that

I have Something Extraordinary up next and that whole series has been such a mixed bag of stuff I wanted to like conceptually mixed with stuff I actually like rather a lot but peppered with stuff I just don’t care for at all. I don’t know whether I hope I like it or look forward to hating it at this point

I really liked Redshirts. Starter Villain was fine.

Huh. I loved the Old Man's War series and pretty much everything else he's written.

I'm glad people like his stuff! I keep trying to like it and it just... doesn't take.

After today's article about Gaiman (it's basically expanding on the stuff that came out last year, so I do not recommend anyone force themselves to read it), I'm thinking about the books on my shelves. I know this is something we've been through before and will again, and I think any approach is valid.

I don't want to get rid of my Sandman books, but am I ever going to be able to read them again? If the argument is that other people were involved in its creation--artists, letterers, colorists, etc.--then can I put it in the same bucket as the Good Omens TV show, or even the Good Omens book, where other people were involved in its creation? If that's the standard, do I get rid of my copies of Neverwhere and Stardust and Coraline? Even books have editors and copy editors and cover artists.

As far as Whedon and Rowling go, I decided not to let them take the work from me, but I was more involved in those fandoms. Am I still able to read and enjoy fanfic for Good Omens or Sandman?

I know this is a debate that will never end, and I'm not saying anything new.

I've been thinking the same things, Dana. I did get rid of my Harry Potter books, but that decision was honestly 50% "Well, I need the room on my shelves anyway, so these can go." I'm keeping my Good Omens book for now. I feel like I can't throw Pratchett out with Gaiman.

And that is a rough, ROUGH article to read.

The fact that we're getting ready to move is also prompting me to consider getting rid of them. But I guess I would give them to the library, and that feels a little icky because people who borrow or buy them probably won't know the context. But they probably also wouldn't lionize him.

I haven't read the article YET, but Pete has, and told me it's an extremely rough read.

He also said that, after reading the article, he realized that I was somehow very lucky in the mid 90s when I met Gaiman and hung out with him at conventions, because I was the sort he preyed on.

Seriously, if you have any concerns at all about reading the article, don't. It's really bad.

It's very, very bad. I didn't know the specifics of the article before I read it, and it's triggered me pretty hard (I don't mean "grossed out;" I mean "almost called my therapist." But I'm feeling steadier now.). In the interest of preventing anyone else from being triggered like that, I want to be really clear about the content of the article; I am going to whitefont the trigger warnings (because, again, they are just that bad; this way if someone doesn't want to read even the trigger warnings, they don't have to). The article contains graphic descriptions of: sexual assault/rape, nonconsensual activity involving more than one type of bodily fluid, child abuse (which is separate from), child sexual abuse (in the form of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child).

Again, it's very very bad.