Padone Eretik

Neil Gaiman is one of the latest celebrities to be accused of sexual misconduct and assault in what appears to be a long string of people who have fallen from society's graces. Gaiman's fall has sparked discussions about the moral issues surrounding enjoying his works, such as Sandman and American Gods.

First is the question of why people respond in this way. I have a theory, one that is untested. In Western countries, consumerist cultures, we do not have many options through which to express our dissatisfaction. For the most part, a pointless email, whinging to friends or some other equally useless course of action is all that we can do. However, we can express such feelings through our purchasing choices, one of the few options that might actually have an impact. It also has the benefit of making us feel better about ourselves and making us feel like moral agents with some power to effect change. Whether it does affect change is questionable. There is no reason, as far as I can see, for Gaiman to be concerned about his financial situation.

Secondly, our culture seems to have a deep passion for personality cults. With the decreasing influence of some religions, the rise of celebrity over the last century or so has been given impetus by technology, among other things. The rise of the influencer is testament to this trend. When we step back and take a broader view, we can start to see some of the flaws in this tendency to elevate individuals. Society utter loves someone, until they don't. Take J. K. Rowling, for instance. She was the darling of fantasy fiction and built an empire on the broomstick of Harry Potter. News agencies fawned over her, people longed to be seen with her and bask in the glow of her presence. Then she became known for being gender-critical. Suddenly, she was persona non-grata for expressing an opinion and a belief that people did not like. Many have decided to boycott Rowling's books and products, but to what end? Will such action have a material effect on the author? Even by her own statements, she will be fine. She even acknowledges that people with normal jobs and financial worries have much more to risk than she does. Yet, boycotting someone seems to be a common way to help us give concrete reality to our indignation.

This brings me to a major point: we should not be surprised at all. ALL people are scumbag sinners. (Romans 3:23) You are a sinner. I am sinner. So is Gaiman, Rowling, and anyone else you care to mention. Sin comes in all shapes and sizes. Gaiman, allegedly, sexually assaulted a couple of women. Trump has a list of publicly known scandals that would make Azazel blush. The fact is that people are fallen creatures who not only love to sin, but also want others to endorse and partake in that sin. If others are doing it, it can't be all that bad. Sin is sin. It should then come as no surprise at all that people do some pretty disgusting things when they think no one is looking or they think their position and power protect them. No one does this stuff thinking they are going to get caught one day. Everyone thinks that will not happen to them. Your favourite actor turned out to be an utter douche canoe. Welcome to the human race.

Perhaps prime among douche canoes is H.P. Lovecraft. He is notable because of the resurgence in interest in his writing in recent decades, which has seen games, TV shows, companies and more arise around his ideas and stories.Lovecraft was racist to such a degree that he was an embarrassment to the all-white Rhode Island society of his day. I have read his poem On the Creation of the ***** and it is a disgusting, vile poem. What took Hitler a whole book to do, Lovecraft did in a few stanzas. Look up the name of Lovecraft's pet cat, and you will get a further sense of what this man was like. He was a complete and utter scumbag, racist turd. He also had significant emotional and mental issues, but these do not excuse the man's utter racism. While that racism is muted in Lovecraft's stories, it is still there and for all to see.

Charles Dickens, despite many admirable qualities, was a total dirtbag to his wife when, while married, he fell in love with actress Ellen Ternan, who was 27 years younger than he. Because a divorce would have impacted his position as a famed writer, he attempted to discredit his wife, Catherine Dickens (nee Hogarth), and then have her institutionalised. He had accused her of having a mental disorder, among things, and even those who knew him saw through the ruse. The scheme failed and Catherine split. Dickens, like the rest of us, was a sinner. What he did was repulsive, but not surprising.

Thirdly, what should our response be to the revelation of sin in celebrity's lives? In essence, it rather depends on your conscience and what you feel comfortable with. The crux is whether you can stand before God with a clear conscience or not. Let me elaborate. Neil Gaiman's sin is Neil Gaiman's alone. It is for him to bear any fruit for that sin and his alone. Fans of his work should not feel obliged to stop buying it or reading it on account of that, except where their conscience dictates otherwise.

I am a huge fan of H.P. Lovecraft and many of the products his Mythos has spawned. I acknowledge his many and deep faults and the racism that he espoused, but I am able to separate the man from his work. When that racism peeks through in his stories, I am able to acknowledge it and move on. To be honest, I find the racism and prejudice in the work of Hergé, author of Tintin, to be far more offensive and obvious. Something that Lovecraft has not achieved with me, and Hergé has, is to offend me to such a degree I cringe. For that reason, I no longer read Tintin. That said, if you enjoy Tintin, I say continue and have fun! If Hergé gives you that entertainment, there is nothing wrong with that. My choice is just that: a choice for me and me alone. As everyone else's choices are for them. At least, they should be.

Like many things in our society, our collective revulsion is very selectively applied. Only certain sins qualify for our censorship. If we were to be fair and apply the same standard to any misconduct by a celebrity, we would be able to count the books we read on one hand. Even the Bible would be out. Peter, Jesus' disciple, tried to murder a temple official to protect Jesus. John and James were self-absorbed power sluts for some of the time they were with Jesus. Paul was a murderer. And that is not even beginning to look at the First Testament. Knee-jerk boycotts are simply untenable. We would have very few books or movies to watch. The bonfires of books would be huge.

Boycotting authors or artists from whose works you gain a great deal of joy, seems to me, a pointless exercise. Gaiman's sexual misconduct has not, as far as I am aware, exhibited itself in any of his works (unlike Hergé). If a work disturbs you, then do not expose yourself to it. If you cannot stand before God, then do not buy it.

Finally, should someone buy a book by Gaiman, Rowling, Lovecraft, Dickens or any one else whom you have decided is persona non-grata, you have no right to rail against or abuse them. And this is something our society seems prone to. I have a copy of Malleus Maleficarum. For those unaware of it, it was written centuries ago and it is a legal handbook on how to find, prosecute and execute witches in the proper, legal way. For many, it is vile book, and I agree with them. However, I have no problem reading it for its intrinsic interest. As to J.K. Rowling, I also enjoy some of her writings, though I got bored after the fourth Harry Potter book. I simply do not disagree with the essence of her opinions, despite a concern on how she expresses them at times.

We are all sinners. There is no difference. The person is not always their art and, should you enjoy their art and it does not impact on your standing with God, enjoy and go in His peace.

This is a contentious issue, but it is one that can be discussed with mutual respect. It is one in which name-calling and bullying simply have no place. Our society needs to remember this.