@csolisr I think the absence of evidence there is in large part because he died before the public allegations, and after years of battling dementia prior to passing. Abusers tend to constantly test the waters as to who they can include and who they have to hide their abuses from, which is exactly why most men "don't know" any rapists but numbers suggest somewhere over one in twenty are offenders. I doubt Diana Wynne Jones knew what he was up to when she dedicated one of her books to him as a former student, for instance. The man was connected to nearly everyone in genre publishing at the time, and Pratchett was a valuable bridge I doubt he'd have wanted to burn (though iirc they were sending the manuscripts back and forth by mail at the point of collaborating?) Presumably more people would have shunned Gaiman if he wasn't making at least a token effort to hide it from anyone who might actually bring consequences down on him; in his very own words: "writers are liars."

But also, unlike Gaiman, Pratchett can't personally benefit from the books even if he were secretly a similar monster - he's passed away. So the only implicit risk there is if he HAD been some sort of terrible soul (which I personally doubt) that his heirs might benefit from the library fees. Death of the author is literal, in this case, so the work must stand on its own; unlike Gaiman's writing, which occasionally gave me a bit of an off taste years ago, I haven't seen anything in starting Pratchett's recently that had me concerned.