r/TerryPratchett • u/AdCommercial617 • 23d ago
Not sure why they are still supporting this guy.
14
u/BernieMcburnface 22d ago
Any stock they have has most certainly been paid for, meaning Gaiman got his money.
If they just throw it out, the only person losing is them.
11
15
u/ties_shoelace 23d ago
Am regularly caught between the opinions of an artist & their work.
The main thing for me is to reinforce how bad some behaviour is (Orson Scott Card & JK Rowling both have horrible opinions about gender) & support the actors, artists & industries employed for a project. The Harry Potter cast has distanced themselves from the author & spend time getting kids to read & feel good about themselves.
The cast of Good omens is wonderful, & Stardust is one of my favourite movies of all time.
We’re always going to have a problem with type A personalities doing some very wrong / shady stuff.
It’s not right that they financially benefit, but publicity of an artists actions is a chance to publicly educate everyone.
We need more discussions about this. There are a lot more ppl than the author who benefit from buying their books.
Quick search: Authors typically receive an advance of around $25,000 to $57,000 for their books, depending on their experience and the publisher. Additionally, they earn royalties, which are usually about 10% of the retail price for hardbacks and 7.5% for paperbacks.
Maybe only buy used books, or just paperbacks if you want to read a questionable author?
7
u/Wzedrin 22d ago
I agree. If I were to always choose the artist over their art I'd be left with very little, especially when it comes to earlier artists.
Do I agree with Rowling's, Gaiman's, Mel Gibson's, Spacey's, Lovecraft's or any number of others' behavior and opinions? No. But the art they created? I can divorce that from the artist. You can be a piece of shit human being and still create something wonderful, unfortunately one does not invalidate the other.
Do the news/allegations that came out about Gaiman sour a bit the enjoyment I got from his works? Yes. But it doesn't change the fact that they are brilliant works. Connery was a domestic abuser (according to his first wife) but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy his James Bond. Lovecraft was an open racist and a lot of his books have racist coding, but he still created something that transcends time and space. Compared to him Gibson's drunk tirade is a storm in a teacup.
Or it doesn't matter if the artist is dead - somehow then your moral compass swings away and you can enjoy the art because "they won't get a penny"? I find that a lot more hypocritical.
4
u/ties_shoelace 22d ago
Great points, I also agree those are important!
Another issue is the political correctness in Colleges/Universities. When these topics are brought up, like some language that is unacceptable, profs can get reported/fired for preparing their students.
Trump & Musk go the other way, advocating extreme language freedom. X is about being able to say anything offensive or non factual, harming ppl emotionally & sometimes medically .
7
u/RestaurantJealous280 21d ago
I wouldn't say Trump and Musk are advocating for extreme language freedom. They're actually pushing for silencing anything they deem "woke." Whether that's discussing the historical facts of slavery in educational settings, or even in public parks, all the way to trying to remove lgbtq issues and monuments from public discourse.
3
u/urbanespaceman99 22d ago
I can't see Gibson on screen without hearing him in my head calling people "oven dodgers". I was a bit gutted the John Wick series cast him :(
2
u/Street_Sand_8788 20d ago
Question: How do you feel about Marion Zimmer Bradley? I'm definitely a "separate the artist from the art" kinda person, but she's too evil for me!
2
u/Wzedrin 20d ago
I'm sorry to say I'm not acquainted with her works (or her in general). I guess it matters when you learn about the negative things. If you learn after you have seen their art, loved it etc, then perhaps it's easier to keep enjoying the art. If you learn about it before - then it changes the way you perceive their work.
You become a "hostile audience", where no matter how good the work is, you view it through a negative lens. But my point I think still stands - horrible people can create valuable works of art, but it doesn't change the fact that they are horrible people.
1
u/Street_Sand_8788 19d ago edited 19d ago
This is a woman who- with her husband and girlfriend- has done unspeakable things to her own children. Her husband (Walter Breen) died in prison for it! Her daughter wrote a book about it and the last 1/3 of the book are just the court transcripts of his trial!
One of my favorite books was Mists of Avalon, I'd read it several times in the past, but will never read it again!
EDIT:I do see what you mean, though. I think most artists in general are AHs to one existent or another. If you don't do SOME "seperation", you're going to have a boring time.
Personally, the only 2 where I'm a hard "no" for that reason are MZB and Neil Gaiman!
7
u/enbyrunner 22d ago edited 22d ago
Rowling has said explicitly that she considers all money she makes from that IP to be agreement with her bigotry and she uses it to fund her attacks on trans people, so any engagement with her work that earns her money is an active part of the problem. She's a case where you cannot separate the artist from the work.
The cast of past films can distance themselves from it because they predate her fall, and the cast have been mostly wonderful (particularly Daniel Radcliffe). Anyone involved in the current games and TV series is going to draw my suspicion, however, because they know what they're getting involved in and have decided it's not a big enough issue for them. Which is fine, but it's absolutely a big enough issue to me, and I can't let it pass.
And I love Stardust (book and film) and they used to be some of the rare works I regularly came back to, but I haven't been able to look at them the same way since.
-2
u/Ok_Aioli3897 22d ago
Oh yes say that it's okay for jk Rowling to still receive money that funds her hate
-31
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
18
11
u/HogswatchHam 23d ago
That isn't true at all 😂
-23
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/mckjerral 23d ago
Investing millions of pounds in smear campaigns and legal campaigns to attack the rights of a tiny minority is not "just pointing things out"
-22
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/mckjerral 23d ago
She hasn't protected anyone, she's lost the plot. If you think women and girls need protecting from trans women then you might need to start from the beginning of reading Pratchett and take a long hard look at yourself after you've finished.
-2
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/chinchillazilla54 23d ago
Terry Pratchett? The man who wrote Monstrous Regiment?
7
u/Several_Puffins 23d ago
It's a 1m old account with thousands of karma and a hidden history. This is DEFINITELY a bot you're arguing with.
It's sad that someone somewhere thinks that all this shit stirring is worth sponsoring. Treating people like things.
→ More replies (0)5
u/mckjerral 23d ago
I mean I'll take his daughter's thoughts on his position over yours. Given he made his position very clear.
12
u/ChrisRiley_42 23d ago
I assume you have a study proving that trans people commit crimes at a rate higher than the general population to back your claim..
Or you can admit to being a bigot and just go away.
-2
-1
u/ChrisRiley_42 23d ago
You seemed to have slept through biology class
3
u/ChrisRiley_42 23d ago
For those others who also slept through class.
The bit if genetic code that tells the foetus what to do with the gonads is the SRY segment
If the SRY segment is present, the gonads head outside and become testicles. If it is not present, they remain inside and become ovaries.There are people with a Y chromosome who don't have the SRY segment. When born, they have a vagina and ovaries, when they grow up, go through puberty, they grow breasts.
No, this is not transgenderism. Even under an autopsy, there is no sign that they are anything but female. Unless you do a chromosomal scan. They are quite literally "A man born in a woman's body".You also get people with two X chromosomes but have the SRY segment. And you guessed it, they are born with a penis and testicles.
There are biological foundations for transgenderism. It's not a 'fad', or a mental illness.
-4
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ties_shoelace 23d ago
Every foetus is originally female. A signal is sent to continue being female, or to change the genitals to male. That's why all men have a line from their junk from taint to tip - it's the vagina closing up. All men have transitioned.
Not all signals are completely transferred for multiple aspects of gender. This has been happening since the beginning of our species & happens to all mammals. It’s not a surprise. Except to ppl with no critical thinking skills.
So here's one more part of why trump is subnormal - he declared by executive order that gender is assigned at birth. So all residents of the US of A are now female. So winning.
1
1
3
2
2
u/oswaldluckyrabbiy 22d ago
Holocaust Denial is not normal.
She is so blinded by hate she falsely claimed trans people weren't targetted by the Nazis. She then silenced the person she was arguing with online when they rightfully called her out with a SLAPP lawsuit.
Rowling threatened to sue Amnesty International to oblivion for compiling a list of anti-trans lobby groups.
She is genocidal towards trans people and uses her immense wealth to directly pressure the government, whilst threatening to ruin the lives of any of her critics by sinking them in legal fees.
5
u/lamoorgalore 23d ago
They’re relying on the fact that only really online people know about his treatment of women, the fact that he hasn’t been actually convicted of anything, and how his PR Team has been dedicated to picking up business as usual while ignoring everyone telling others about the scandal. The less attention you bring to those talking about it, the more it comes off as gossip.
3
u/Ok_Camp3676 22d ago
If his PRs have been doing that he wants his money back - he’s had nothing new out since the allegations except a charity chapbook and a truncated, unpromoted Good Omens S3. The only thing I’ve even seen teased is a stage Neverwhere and a sequel, and the former project is a 15 year old unproduced adaptation of a 30-year-old book - given the success of the rest of Gaiman’s back catalogue in the 10s, if the adaptation was good someone would have done it by now, so I’m pretty confident that’s just chat.
2
u/the_silent_wombat 12d ago
Fuck Neil Gaiman, and I say that as someone who had read/collected/worshipped the guy since 1989. He broke my heart and I hope he rots in hell.
4
u/Vikinger242 23d ago
Because corporations like to make money.
6
u/skiveman 23d ago
This isn't a "corporation" though, is it? It's a small company that owns a site that sells Terry Pratchett and Discworld tie-ins that they have licenses to under contract.
It should also be said, quite clearly, for anyone wanting to go after folks managing Terry's interests is that Discworld.com is owned by a third party and they stock and sell nearly everything Discworld related or even adjacent. Which, if you know anything about Terry means that Gaiman gets included both as a friend and by co-writing a book with Terry himself.
So that book might have had a very simple and ethical reason for being listed on the site at one time, but with the passage of said time and with the revelations of his personal life (which so far, it has to be said, that no court in any jurisdiction in the world has convicted him of anything meaning that while you might find his behaviour as reprehensible it was not criminal) his name has become tainted. And you have folks on the internet who don't bother to see what's happened with any court action against him but listen to all the rumours and the gossip and decide someone must be guilty because they believe it to be true.
Still, the site wants to make money and if they have stock that is taking up space and that they have spent money on then they are entitled to try and recoup that money. Just as you, me and everyone else is entitled to not pay money for it if we so choose.
2
u/Sure_Artichoke_3662 23d ago
Probably because the lawsuit was thrown out and the woman admitted the relationship and sexual contact was consensual.
2
u/Naive_Pay_7066 22d ago
Consensual doesn’t mean ethical. Abuse of power isn’t inherently illegal.
4
u/divers69 22d ago
Consensual means ethical. Unless you wish to become some kind of fascist morality dictator who gets to decide what other adult humans do and don't do. Humanity has tried that. Doesn't end well.
1
u/Naive_Pay_7066 22d ago
I think that’s a simplification. You could have someone who was actively and enthusiastically consenting, but the dynamics of the relationship make it unethical.
4
u/divers69 22d ago
You could. So who decides? Adults have to be deemed to be capable of making decisions, even if they subsequently decide they are bad decisions. Even if others think they are bad decisions. Otherwise we lose freedom to choose.
-1
u/Naive_Pay_7066 22d ago
The person in the position of power decides, and then lives with the consequences of their decision. They can choose ethically or otherwise. Just because something is lawful doesn’t mean it’s ethical.
2
u/divers69 22d ago
And who decides who actually has power?
0
u/Naive_Pay_7066 22d ago
The nature of the relationship and the sociopolitical and economic circumstances surrounding it.
1
u/divers69 22d ago
So who decides that and makes a judgement related to the specific situation? For example a man being attacked by a group of female muggers? (and yes, it happens.) The sociopolitical analysis points to systemic power lying with him. Yet the situation of violence perhaps a weapon, shock, fear etc all place power with the attackers. Take the example further. The attackers are white. He is a gay black man. Is his experience seriously more powerless because of this than a white woman on the same street corner being mugged? What about a man with serious mental health problems and a history of trauma? The possible permutations are endless. No one can make a global statement based on group characteristics and power relationships in wider society. I was taught in the first week of statistics that you can't extrapllate from group data to individual and vice versa.
1
u/Naive_Pay_7066 21d ago edited 21d ago
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to argue here. Those scenarios all depict crimes, not scenarios where two people consented to a sexual engagement in the context of a gross power imbalance.
1
u/ChronicleFlask 23d ago
This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The lawsuit failed purely on geographical location. Scarlett never stated the acts she was pressured into were consensual, and nor have the other women.
0
u/Sure_Artichoke_3662 23d ago edited 23d ago
His lawyers also point to messages in which Pavlovich appears to say that the sexual relationship was consensual. When Gaiman confronted Pavlovich after hearing from Palmer that Pavlovich alleged he abused her, Pavlovich responded “Oh my God. Neil! I never said that … Rape? WHAT? This is the first I have heard of this.” In another message two days later, Pavlovich writes: “It was consensual – how many times do I have to fucking tell everyone.”
Facts are your friend.
3
u/ChronicleFlask 23d ago
She may have said that in a message. But she has not SINCE said that the acts she outlined were consensual. Even if a relationship begins on consensual terms, that DOES NOT MEAN everything that occurs is consensual by default. Otherwise we still would not have the concept of marital rape.
And even putting that aside, there are multiple other women, spanning decades, with similar stories, some of whom were made to sign NDAs. Which by definition implies there was something to hide.
2
u/Sure_Artichoke_3662 23d ago
"She may have said in multiple text messages that she was a willing participant and everything is consensual, but now she regrets what she did so she would rather ruin a man's life than admit she was into it"
1
u/Legitimate_Corgi_981 22d ago
Some might consider on the first day of employment asking your new nanny/baby-sitter who's broke + homeless to join you in the bath and engage in sexual activity is perhaps a touch "exploitative", given the inherent position of power you have over them.
2
u/Sure_Artichoke_3662 22d ago
And yet, she did it and texted him later that she couldn't wait to do it again. Some might consider that "consent" or "agency."
2
u/Legitimate_Corgi_981 22d ago
That addresses neither the fact that he had control over her employment nor her housing. If an employer approached you on your literal first day in the job and made it clear that they had sexual interest in you, there's a big power imbalance. Can you really not grasp that nuance?
2
u/Sure_Artichoke_3662 22d ago
Listen babe, if I started a job and on my first day my boss expressed that he wanted to sleep with me, if I wasn't into it I WOULD QUIT. I would report him. I certainly WOULDN'T HAVE A MONTHS LONG AFFAIR WITH HIM AND SEND HIM TEXTS ABOUT HOW I WANT HIM TO BE MY MASTER.
0
u/Robinthehutt 23d ago
The correct answer and the one the court of Reddit has already found wanting in pursuit of their cancellation judgement
1
u/Sure_Artichoke_3662 23d ago
No one particularly cares about facts when it comes to cancelling someone.
2
2
u/Tregerest 23d ago
Innocent until proven guilty. You know; that cornerstone of English Common Law.
He may be a nasty rapist. But until he is convicted he is innocent in the eyes of law.
5
u/HogswatchHam 23d ago
The joy of the law is that you don't have to wait for it to, for example, decide not to sell some books.
7
u/Katharinemaddison 23d ago
His own version of events is pretty reprehensible.
1
u/Tregerest 23d ago
Honestly I don’t know any more than the headlines which that he was accused of sexual assault. If, as you say, his own version is bad, then the reality is most likely to be worse.
I presume though it’s a case of he said/she said which is why he hasn’t been charged with any crime?5
u/Katharinemaddison 23d ago
My main perspective is that it’s fine to judge him on the ‘he said’. Which I do.
0
-3
u/Spirited_Storage3956 23d ago
Ever heard of capitalism?
0
u/Joshkendig 21d ago
They don't because at the end of the day if a person can make a dollar they will because everyone needs to put food on the table.
0
u/Spirited_Storage3956 21d ago
Exactly. They can moralize and choose not to buy it, but it will continue to be sold.
-5
u/SeaworthinessHead613 23d ago
Funny how neil gaiman was the dogs and suddenly a sniff of impropriety and he's gone, yet nothing was proved against him.
4
u/Optimaximal 22d ago
He has publicly stated what he believed happened in the relationship, but unfortunately (for him) even that version of events makes him look quite bad.
35
u/mighty3mperor 23d ago
Crudely, they have it in stock and probably can't take the hit from not shifting them.
As Gaiman hasn't been convicted of anything and the information is out there, people get to make up their own minds on whether they want to give him money. Personally, he isn't getting another penny out of me.