zlacker

>>dale_h+(OP)
I found it hard to reconcile his charming and witty comic strips with some of the ugly things he wrote elsewhere. I would never usually throw a book away, but I made an exception for one of his books, because I didn't want anyone to see it on my bookshelf and I didn't want to give to anyone else.

>>hermit+US
I have a personal convention for books like that - I don't have any Dilberts on the shelf but a lot of Neil Gaimans, plus an artsy TTRPG book ("Maze of the Blue Medusa") that's also made by someone who is now widely considered a serial sexual assaulter - I don't (always) remove them from my shelves but I turn them upside down, like a flag indicating distress.

>>john-r+he1
The problem with taking them out of circulation is one less copy at the used book store and one more potential sale of a new copy.

>>hinkle+Hi1
This is why I've sold or will sell many of my more controversial books/authors for relatively cheap because, yeah, an extra used copy in circulation is possibly one or more fewer new book sales that author won't profit from. Some of them I don't mind if someone else enjoys that book itself for what it is/was at the time it was released, but it's nice to think that it next sale(s) might be a dollar or three the author won't see when they read that.

>>WorldM+9w1
Most royalties are calculated on the initial sale of books to the store. This pettiness will have zero impact on the original author. You might harm some book stores by making it harder to move their purchased stock for which the royalty has already been paid.