Terrible person = terrible at job

Well said OP. I've seen in it in countless threads here, sometimes when someone who has been feted for being believed to know what a woman is says something that proves they've drunk the TRA Kool-Aid, and immediately everything they've ever done and any skill they've ever displayed is rubbished.

Tennant is a misogynistic arse in thrall to his wife's child-harming stupidity. Nevertheless, the original incarnation of his Doctor Who is still one of my favourites, and his portrayal of Dennis Nilsen in Des is brilliantly chilling.

(I've never read any Gaiman, despite loving Terry Pratchett, so I can't comment on his skill as a writer.)

To be crystal clear I am not suggesting DT or NG abused young men.

Sorry my post be been seen to infer that.

Well the classic case is Michael Jackson.

Incredible talent. Singer, songwriter and dancer.

As a human being, repulsive.

Does it change the way I feel about his work?

Yes it does. I can still say some of his work is technically incredible but I don't enjoy in the same way I used to, simply because his treatment of vulnerable young men is the first thing it reminds me of.

Same with DT and NG now.

Their views/actions don't make them less talented but for some people (including myself) I simply can't enjoy that talent anymore.

I liked David Tenant very much in several things especially There She Goes and The Escape Artist but now I know his views I can’t watch him anymore which is a shame.
A bit like Michael Jackson although obviously for a very different reason.
Both are/were still talented people though.

I loved Neil Gaiman when I was a teen (was a massive sandman fan) and I still think he’s a very talented writer. I do think it’s pretty natural to view work more cynically/ critically when you discover someone is an awful person but I agree it does cloud the issue.

I like fantasy and enjoyed the first Neil Gaiman novel I read, with only slight misgivings. But the more I read the more I noticed a level of coldness, even cruelty, that put me off. It makes sense to me now, knowing his attitude to women.

I try to separate my feelings about a work (book, artwork, film etc) from what I think of its creator. But I don’t want to support people who have deliberately caused harm, eg those authors calling for a boycott of gender-critical writers, so I don’t buy any of their books. That is a small but practical action. Anyone calling for an unfair boycott deserves to be boycotted themselves.

Think you put it very well, OP. The number of formerly rabid HP fan TRAs asserting that JKR is a rubbish writer... Yeah luv, that's why you got those tattoos then?

I loved Gaiman's books, and Joanne Harris's. I no longer believe in them as decent human beings but I can't deny their talent.

I can't fully enjoy it any more, though. Their awfulness is the poo in the pool for me.

Interesting. The entirely black and white all good or all bad splitting of people into two groups (and you're all good until you do something the person disliked, at which point you are in the bad camp and everything you've ever said or done will now be re interpreted through the lens of you're bad and it was obviously with malicious intent) is a known feature of dysfunctional thinking. In extremes it's often part of a personality disorder.

I think when someone in the arts is revealed as holding particular views or behaving badly, it is natural to look for tells in their work.

I certainly found myself looking back at the sandman comics and thinking were there signs. Writing is so personal. It must be well nigh impossible to write without revealing parts of yourself. There are certainly a few authors I've read where I've felt the writer is taking way too much pleasure in their descriptions of torture or nonconsensual sexual things and would not be at all surprised if things came out.

I've seen TRAs do it about Rowling too, sometimes with a "I'm a better writer than her" which is hilarious. They are /desperate/ to find transphobia in the Strike books. Where in fact she doesn't shy away from era appropriate representation but also doesn't express much interest. Robin reacts in character as Robin would, Strike reacts as Strike would. Move on. Just one suspect of many.

Gaiman has written some excellent books. Tennant has been great in a number of roles.

I can love what they do and still think they are being twats in other spheres of their lives.

This is a really interesting subject. If we judge art by the morals of its creators we risk losing a lot of good stuff AND we risk making artists afraid to think or behave independently of the establishment. But it's also true what you say, that success in the arts gives people moral licence that can cause other people to be hurt and also erode necessary norms.

I think Gaiman is a good writer but years before his behaviour seemed bad I found I steered away from his books. I'd begun to read Fragile Things and found the misogyny in it really disturbing - gratuitous and vicious. I loved Good Omens as a book but barely made it to the end of the screen adaptation, the absence of Pratchett was very noticeable. I do find it interesting that NG fell so heavily for transactivism when it's so reminiscent of the Other Mother in Coraline and Pratchett's Fairy Queen in The Wee Free Men - seems like glamour and kindness at first and is really a very dark unhealthy thing.

Tennant can be very good - eg Hamlet - but he has become a caricature of himself - eg Crowley.

I think there is a difference between presenting someone else's ideas (actor) and presenting stuff from in your own head (author).
An actor can believe anything they choose, although I don't understand why any one gives more credence to their views than they do to the greengrocer.

I heard a phrase, 'decent (insert role or job), indecent person' which I tend to apply to people like DT and NG. So, seperate their 'day job' which as you say, they may be good at, from the person's belief system which I may not agree with.
Especially if an actor has played a part I really enjoyed it sympathised with: I need to remind myself; they are playing a part, they are not my pal.

I liked 'Good Omens', which NG wrote with T. Pratchett. I also have NG's Greek myths, which are well told. He is good at those things. As OP says it is being good at something that allows transgression.
David Tenant is not a bad actor.

I haven't seen this with DT or NG tbh. Most people seem to be saying either 'I was a fan. I'm disappointed in his behaviour', 'I like his work but always thought he was an arse/potentially dodgy' or 'I was never a fan of his work and am not surprised he's turned out to be an arse/dodgy'.