
Not the OP, but I agree. Specifics are generally useful. For example, J. K. Rowling is talking to nazis, is extremely transphobic, and has a direct impact on trans rights. Lawmakers creating transphobic laws are directly quoting her as a reason to make their laws. That’s not just problematic, that’s an active threat. Others problematic authors, such as Hanya Yanagihara, who encourages suicide, or Zionists like SJM or Rebecca Yarros, who help support Israel and its genocide against Palestine
The whole reason we call them “problematic” in the first place is because them being a problem hurts people in some way. Ex: transphobia, racism, homophobia, murder, rape, assault, plagiarism, scamming, supporting fascism, etc. It’s better to not just say “they’re problematic” but also to remind ourselves of how their actions and words hurt people.
exactly! I also think “problematic” can encompass both small things and horrific crimes, which serves to minimize the really messed up stuff that can exist in the book sphere (like any community). if someone is used to seeing “problematic” used to describe an author who likes writing age gaps, they’ll gloss over it when it’s used to describe a rapist. when you make your reasons for not supporting someone clear, it gives people the background to make that choice for themselves