Personally, it doesn’t make or break my CV if I promote this book or not; but that’s a privilege not everyone shares. I am all ears, if you’ve made it this far in the thread — what is the ethical balance on this?

It's Still half the works of the wonderful man that Terry Prarchett was. We don't know if Gaiman was like he was before success (People can turn bad). I still read Lovecraft knowing he was a racist (but since he's dead, it's easier).

I personally do not cite the work of abusers once known. Yet agree with others that Good Omens was collaborative - it is not just Gaiman. Also critical examination is not necessarily promoting. Next volume should center around a woman author and biblical themes - Octavia Butler or Ursula Le Guin?

I agree with everything you said. My only thought on ethics is that as an editor perhaps you should see how the contributing scholars are feeling, it is not impossible that this has now become painful or career-problematic for them.

I sympathize. A number of years ago, long before we knew about his abuse, I edited a collection on music in Whedon’s work.

My opinion - The co-authors of Good Omens always insisted that it was a joint project. Pratchett has not been accused of anything. And in promoting the book you are promoting the scholarship of the contributors, not endorsing the activities of Gaiman.

Personally, I think you should promote it - you're promoting your scholarship and the scholarship of others, rather than his work. I think there's a difference between critical engagement with media/culture and direct support of an abuser (once the truth comes out). 1/

Edit: ran out of space but for legal purposes the word “alleged” goes in front of this.