Ok, Neil Gaiman is an atheist Jewish writer in some kind of creepy open marriage. I get that. But a few things about this take-down bother me (not the Gamma label from VD, but the whole X mob). First, this feminist obsession with age differences seems idiotic. He may be a Gamma to the core, but he's a rich man, certainly better looking than George RR Martin because I saw Gaiman in an elevator once, and if he wants to date younger women who are prettier than he could get if he were poor, so what? Second, the charges from the woman he actually dated, not the nanny, are ridiculous. They were in some kind of dating relationship and one time she had a yeast infection and they had sex and it felt all scratchy and hurt. He apparently didn't stop which was mean and rude. Give me a break.
You're literally retarded. Furthermore, his wife has said that there are 13 other women that she knows of. There are also at least two DNAs that he's gotten young women to sign. He's also lied about the women having psychological conditions.
The entire publishing industry didn't go radio-dark on this overnight because they think he's being falsely accused.
"Where there is this kind of smoke, there is always a raging inferno. Remember that plenty of people tried to defend Jimmy Saville too, and did so for decades." I can't argue with that. Your comments give me plenty to think about. I just wish these MeToo chicks didn't sound so darn stupid.
It's just that these accusations are impossible to prove. I'm not saying these are great guys. It's that the MeToo accusations are not moral judgements, but rather demonstrations of intersectional power made after the fact. In Gaiman's case, this fan girl was having an affair with him, and a lot of the moral opprobrium seems directed towards the age difference, not the fact that he had a tacky open marriage and this girl allowed herself to be drawn into it. I understand that you are making a point that Gaiman's Gammatude made this bound to happen, and using him as a Bad Example for young guys.
No, they're not. For people who leap to a courtroom defense, you sure seem to ignore the fact that the conclusive evidence will come out over time.
And Gaiman is on record threatening to commit suicide if she doesn't agree to claim that the sex was consensual. He's also been caught lying about the other girl.
Where there is this kind of smoke, there is always a raging inferno. Remember that plenty of people tried to defend Jimmy Saville too, and did so for decades.
Why are you reporting things women have said as if they are true?
Women lie. They sleep with men when they are drunk, regret it afterwards, then say they were assaulted. They deliberately attack and destroy the reputations of successful men for the thrill, the attention, and the drama of it—or because they are sadists and psychopaths. Stop playing their games and encouraging their behaviour.
Because Neil Gaiman has already admitted that he cuddled naked in the tub with the young nanny of his children on the first day that he met her. That's not what "women have said", that's what HE said.
There will be more revelations about Mr. Gaiman. You can count on it.
You're pathetic and there is no "us". If you've ever read any Gaiman, then you know he is a freak, a Gamma, and a creep.
Already, his ex-wife has said that there were 13 other women that had complained to her about her husband's behavior. Gaiman has threatened to commit suicide to try to keep the women quiet and has already been caught misrepresenting the evidence.
But there is a principle of male solidarity that you are unwilling to be honour
There is an 'us', that is men, just as there is a 'them', that is women
Instead you are siding with his ex-wife, and his female
accusers
Again, EVIDENCE. If Gaiman has actually done something illegal, or wrong, and this is proven, then I'm happy to disavow him. But we shouldn't be attacking men's reputations on the basis of female accusations.
You are a servant of the Gynocracy. Buck-broken. Emasculated.
‘Two women have accused Neil Gaiman of sexual assault.’
Read: ‘Two women have asserted, without evidence, and with no risk to themselves or their reputations, that they are sufficiently attractive and desirable that Neil Gaiman, a high status and wealthy author, was willing to risk his resources and reputation to secure sexual access to them.’
No, you're not. You're a retard who doesn't understand that innocent until proven guilty applies only to the court of law, not the court of public opinion.
Ask yourself why this story has rustled your jimmies so much. Neil Gaiman admitted to the relations and, "In response to Scarlett's allegations, Gaiman informed Tortoise Media that he believes her claims stem from a medical condition related to “false memories.”"
This sort of reflexive incredulous lying, in this case about the girl having medically spontaneous fake memories, is 110% gamma and thus very on topic for this substack. Neil Gaiman does not have any major political enemies nor does he have an election or something coming up which has been a major factor in prominent sexual assault accusations. It's just a gamma being gamma and self destructing as usual and thus useful and funny.
Creepy and really weird. Got to side with Vox on this one.
Somebody got outed as a deviant. A smart deviant would not have confessed something like that. A deviant who had lost his grip on reality might relate an anecdote like that to others, thinking it amusing.
That's the final level of Mountain Dew-drinking whacko to admit to that.
I had other things to say but HOW TO TALK TO GIRLS AT PARTIES just blew me away. I grabbed the ePub. Right at the beginning, more rape:
"The times I had kissed my sister’s friends I had not spoken to them. They had been around while my sister was off doing something elsewhere, and they had drifted into my orbit, and so I had kissed them. I do not remember any talking. I did not know what to say to girls, and I told him so."
I had other things to say but HOW TO TALK TO GIRLS AT PARTIES just blew me away. I grabbed the ePub. Right at the beginning, more raping:
"The times I had kissed my sister’s friends I had not spoken to them. They had been around while my sister was off doing something elsewhere, and they had drifted into my orbit, and so I had kissed them. I do not remember any talking. I did not know what to say to girls, and I told him so."
Another big tell with Gaiman is the metaphysic behind almost all of his writing. His writing deals almost entirely with the supernatural, while either tacitly or explicitly rejecting God & Christ, or referring to them in absentia as, essentially, the big mean jerk who lets bad things happen in the world so really it's all his fault. It's the ultimate "I don't believe in sky daddy, and I hate him! I would make the world so much better than he did!"
Granted, a lot of writing set in worlds with other gods, etc., would be essentially nullified if the authors made room for the true God. Gaiman makes room for him, but then renders him either irrelevant or impotent.
I agree, it's an explicit rejection of Christ. It's entirely a jewish mythology with no room for God the Father.
Many of Gaiman's stories are about ergegores, enough people believe a being and it's real, yet Jesus Christ never shows up. In Sandman you can have Coca Cola and Thor in a pantheon. In American Gods you can have the collective belief in the CIA or cars turn into gods. Surely enough people believe in Jesus Christ that, even if he is not real in Gaiman's stories, some representation of this belief would show up if even the god of paved asphalt and Santa Claus show up? Nope, nothing.
In the ergegore world the absence of Christ means it's a world that denies even a rumor or story about Christ. Yet the stories ostensibly happen in the real world but spookier and ruled by gammas. That's simultaneously Hell and the world jews want to tikkun olam us into. It really sucked the fun out of the stories for me when his settings doesn't have enough people who believe in redemption to spawn such a deity - they deserve every bad thing that happens to them.
That's a great way of describing it. Something I didn't recognize when I first came across Gaiman's work, but as I got older and recognized what was rather dramatically missing, I put his books aside and never looked back.
Ironically, his writing actually helped open my mind to the possibility of God, but having been opened seeing his blatant rejection of God made his work extremely unappealing and I've never since wanted to read anything of his.
I don't know about you guys, but I always got the creep vibe from Neil Gaiman. I mean watch the "children's" movie Coraline. Major red flags in the mind of the creator.
I heard that he was offended, insulted or something that Rorschach turned out to be the most popular character in the movie The Watchmen. He had an entirely different goal when he wrote Rorschach. I remember that he was the typical main character, as Rorschach is the moving force of the story. While the other characters either played too passive or reactive roles. When they weren't above it all in pure indifference.
Mea culpa, I shouldn't have said anything. Rather rude of me, akshully.
To your point, though I don't think I saw the Watchmen movie I always thought Rorschach was one of the most interesting characters in the book. If Moore was upset about the character's popularity, that says a lot more about him than it does about the audience.
Ego to absolvo. Of those the women I've shared dorms with, I'm grateful for those who spoke. 'The master's eye fattens the calf'. I never believed that I would miss and value their seemingly pointless comments so much.
I never liked Jack Vance or Gaiman but the same pattern occurs throughout the SF con authourrs. I am our of shelf space. The old books and poetry stay. The other will go, so I have room for Castalia.
I usually hit Vox Popoli first, then wander over to Sigma Game. But did the reverse today so was surprised to find out that the book cover was real and not another one of VD's AI images for humor. It was a real story, and that was a real cover?! WTAF, man.
I would love to hear your thoughts on female authors. There was series I loved as a teenager called the Farseer trilogy written by Robin Hobb. The main protagonist is the bastard child of the king who gets hidden away and trained to be his Assassin, he captures the heart of a serving girl but is far to busy being an assassin to make her his wife, I guess she's writing about "the one that got away". Instead meeting her in secret for amorous activities before finally as an old man quitting the life to hunt her down and live happily ever after.
The series is written in the first person the whole way through from the perspective of the protagonist.
She wrote about 4 trilogies in the same universe and all including some version of a brawny, heroic male figure, always a pirate, assassin or some form of outcast. Looking back now I'm certain they would all be Sigma.
I'd love to hear yours and others opinions on the main differences between female and male authors.
That just sounds as if the author was an alpha widow.
The SSH is only about men, not women. While it might be interesting to analyze male characters in novels from female authors, depicting a female perspective of different SSH rank men, it doesn't make sense to analyze the female author herself from an SSH perspective.
This is such bs and so so so autistic
Ok, Neil Gaiman is an atheist Jewish writer in some kind of creepy open marriage. I get that. But a few things about this take-down bother me (not the Gamma label from VD, but the whole X mob). First, this feminist obsession with age differences seems idiotic. He may be a Gamma to the core, but he's a rich man, certainly better looking than George RR Martin because I saw Gaiman in an elevator once, and if he wants to date younger women who are prettier than he could get if he were poor, so what? Second, the charges from the woman he actually dated, not the nanny, are ridiculous. They were in some kind of dating relationship and one time she had a yeast infection and they had sex and it felt all scratchy and hurt. He apparently didn't stop which was mean and rude. Give me a break.
You're literally retarded. Furthermore, his wife has said that there are 13 other women that she knows of. There are also at least two DNAs that he's gotten young women to sign. He's also lied about the women having psychological conditions.
The entire publishing industry didn't go radio-dark on this overnight because they think he's being falsely accused.
Ok, well, then I'm retarded. I'm not a fan of Gaiman's writing, but also not a fan of Me Too.
"Where there is this kind of smoke, there is always a raging inferno. Remember that plenty of people tried to defend Jimmy Saville too, and did so for decades." I can't argue with that. Your comments give me plenty to think about. I just wish these MeToo chicks didn't sound so darn stupid.
Just Harvey Weinstein, then?
It's just that these accusations are impossible to prove. I'm not saying these are great guys. It's that the MeToo accusations are not moral judgements, but rather demonstrations of intersectional power made after the fact. In Gaiman's case, this fan girl was having an affair with him, and a lot of the moral opprobrium seems directed towards the age difference, not the fact that he had a tacky open marriage and this girl allowed herself to be drawn into it. I understand that you are making a point that Gaiman's Gammatude made this bound to happen, and using him as a Bad Example for young guys.
No, they're not. For people who leap to a courtroom defense, you sure seem to ignore the fact that the conclusive evidence will come out over time.
And Gaiman is on record threatening to commit suicide if she doesn't agree to claim that the sex was consensual. He's also been caught lying about the other girl.
Where there is this kind of smoke, there is always a raging inferno. Remember that plenty of people tried to defend Jimmy Saville too, and did so for decades.
judging by the cover of this book (referring to his face) i'm guessing his moral compass is that of gavin newsom.
Why are you reporting things women have said as if they are true?
Women lie. They sleep with men when they are drunk, regret it afterwards, then say they were assaulted. They deliberately attack and destroy the reputations of successful men for the thrill, the attention, and the drama of it—or because they are sadists and psychopaths. Stop playing their games and encouraging their behaviour.
Because Neil Gaiman has already admitted that he cuddled naked in the tub with the young nanny of his children on the first day that he met her. That's not what "women have said", that's what HE said.
There will be more revelations about Mr. Gaiman. You can count on it.
Yeah, that's a weird thing to do. But it's not sexual assault (a crime).
You are indulging in feminine behaviour (joining in group denunciations of someone more successful than you to enhance your own relative status).
Stop this.
You're pathetic and there is no "us". If you've ever read any Gaiman, then you know he is a freak, a Gamma, and a creep.
Already, his ex-wife has said that there were 13 other women that had complained to her about her husband's behavior. Gaiman has threatened to commit suicide to try to keep the women quiet and has already been caught misrepresenting the evidence.
You're damned by your defense of him.
I don't like Gaiman's work
But there is a principle of male solidarity that you are unwilling to be honour
There is an 'us', that is men, just as there is a 'them', that is women
Instead you are siding with his ex-wife, and his female
accusers
Again, EVIDENCE. If Gaiman has actually done something illegal, or wrong, and this is proven, then I'm happy to disavow him. But we shouldn't be attacking men's reputations on the basis of female accusations.
You are a servant of the Gynocracy. Buck-broken. Emasculated.
I side with the truth, not a sacred band of homosexual men.
Go away now.
‘Two women have accused Neil Gaiman of sexual assault.’
Read: ‘Two women have asserted, without evidence, and with no risk to themselves or their reputations, that they are sufficiently attractive and desirable that Neil Gaiman, a high status and wealthy author, was willing to risk his resources and reputation to secure sexual access to them.’
I have no doubt women have accused you of being a loser and a creep.
I don't derive my sense of personal worth from what women think of me
I haven't faced these kinds of accusations
But if I did, it wouldn't matter to me
And this is the problem facing us as men
Women are acting as a group, advancing their interests, using the power of the state and reputation destruction
While men play into their hand, attacking each other and taking their words at face value
There is no us, Gamma.
No, you're not. You're a retard who doesn't understand that innocent until proven guilty applies only to the court of law, not the court of public opinion.
Banned for retardery.
His tub cuddle defense didn't quite come across that way.
Ask yourself why this story has rustled your jimmies so much. Neil Gaiman admitted to the relations and, "In response to Scarlett's allegations, Gaiman informed Tortoise Media that he believes her claims stem from a medical condition related to “false memories.”"
This sort of reflexive incredulous lying, in this case about the girl having medically spontaneous fake memories, is 110% gamma and thus very on topic for this substack. Neil Gaiman does not have any major political enemies nor does he have an election or something coming up which has been a major factor in prominent sexual assault accusations. It's just a gamma being gamma and self destructing as usual and thus useful and funny.
He admitted to a tub cuddle.
Creepy and really weird. Got to side with Vox on this one.
Somebody got outed as a deviant. A smart deviant would not have confessed something like that. A deviant who had lost his grip on reality might relate an anecdote like that to others, thinking it amusing.
That's the final level of Mountain Dew-drinking whacko to admit to that.
My feeling he was always overrated is confirmed.
I had other things to say but HOW TO TALK TO GIRLS AT PARTIES just blew me away. I grabbed the ePub. Right at the beginning, more rape:
"The times I had kissed my sister’s friends I had not spoken to them. They had been around while my sister was off doing something elsewhere, and they had drifted into my orbit, and so I had kissed them. I do not remember any talking. I did not know what to say to girls, and I told him so."
I had other things to say but HOW TO TALK TO GIRLS AT PARTIES just blew me away. I grabbed the ePub. Right at the beginning, more raping:
"The times I had kissed my sister’s friends I had not spoken to them. They had been around while my sister was off doing something elsewhere, and they had drifted into my orbit, and so I had kissed them. I do not remember any talking. I did not know what to say to girls, and I told him so."
Wow, that's so disturbing.
A book named "How to talk to girls at parties" certainly seems to be useful for how not to do it. But thanks, I puked a little bit.
Go grab your preferred format online somewhere. I did. I'm dying inside at how it isn't a disappointment. It's gamma gamma from page 1.
https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/neil-gaiman-is-a-gamma-creep/comment/61003146?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=hoh1z
Another big tell with Gaiman is the metaphysic behind almost all of his writing. His writing deals almost entirely with the supernatural, while either tacitly or explicitly rejecting God & Christ, or referring to them in absentia as, essentially, the big mean jerk who lets bad things happen in the world so really it's all his fault. It's the ultimate "I don't believe in sky daddy, and I hate him! I would make the world so much better than he did!"
Granted, a lot of writing set in worlds with other gods, etc., would be essentially nullified if the authors made room for the true God. Gaiman makes room for him, but then renders him either irrelevant or impotent.
Secret King Wins again.
I agree, it's an explicit rejection of Christ. It's entirely a jewish mythology with no room for God the Father.
Many of Gaiman's stories are about ergegores, enough people believe a being and it's real, yet Jesus Christ never shows up. In Sandman you can have Coca Cola and Thor in a pantheon. In American Gods you can have the collective belief in the CIA or cars turn into gods. Surely enough people believe in Jesus Christ that, even if he is not real in Gaiman's stories, some representation of this belief would show up if even the god of paved asphalt and Santa Claus show up? Nope, nothing.
In the ergegore world the absence of Christ means it's a world that denies even a rumor or story about Christ. Yet the stories ostensibly happen in the real world but spookier and ruled by gammas. That's simultaneously Hell and the world jews want to tikkun olam us into. It really sucked the fun out of the stories for me when his settings doesn't have enough people who believe in redemption to spawn such a deity - they deserve every bad thing that happens to them.
And yet I find it somewhat fascinating that he seems to admire GK Chesterton.
That's a great way of describing it. Something I didn't recognize when I first came across Gaiman's work, but as I got older and recognized what was rather dramatically missing, I put his books aside and never looked back.
Ironically, his writing actually helped open my mind to the possibility of God, but having been opened seeing his blatant rejection of God made his work extremely unappealing and I've never since wanted to read anything of his.
I don't know about you guys, but I always got the creep vibe from Neil Gaiman. I mean watch the "children's" movie Coraline. Major red flags in the mind of the creator.
I heard that he was offended, insulted or something that Rorschach turned out to be the most popular character in the movie The Watchmen. He had an entirely different goal when he wrote Rorschach. I remember that he was the typical main character, as Rorschach is the moving force of the story. While the other characters either played too passive or reactive roles. When they weren't above it all in pure indifference.
Watchmen was Alan Moore, not Neil Gaiman.
I was wrong. Thank you for correcting me.
Gaiman, Morrison and Moore are often lumped together as some sort of vanguards of high comic book storytelling so it's a common confusion.
Mea culpa, I shouldn't have said anything. Rather rude of me, akshully.
To your point, though I don't think I saw the Watchmen movie I always thought Rorschach was one of the most interesting characters in the book. If Moore was upset about the character's popularity, that says a lot more about him than it does about the audience.
Ego to absolvo. Of those the women I've shared dorms with, I'm grateful for those who spoke. 'The master's eye fattens the calf'. I never believed that I would miss and value their seemingly pointless comments so much.
I only saw the I think Red Letter Media review; but that looks like a horror flick dressed up as fun kids' movie.
Anyone know if Quentin Tarantino is a gamma? This post reminded me of these two gammas I knew and who liked Tarantino's movies just a bit too much.
Well, he makes no secret out of his foot fetish, so...
Here’s a YT clip of his behavior that might offer a clue: https://youtu.be/6mzqahILpAs
Wow, what an awkward dude
Ha, good one.
Brilliant Omega. Who thru wealth fame and fortune is now situational alpha. That is my hack at him.
Keanu Reeves?
Interesting, I feel Keanu is more the Omega turned situational Alpha.
I definitely need to think more on how to differentiate Gammas from Omegas.
Don't know if he's gamma, but he always struck me as a creep, so...
Thanks Julie, yeah if he creeps you out, he most likely is a gamma.
I never liked Jack Vance or Gaiman but the same pattern occurs throughout the SF con authourrs. I am our of shelf space. The old books and poetry stay. The other will go, so I have room for Castalia.
Gamma or no, I wish I had his editing staff...
This and the Jack Vance article articulate what I noticed a long time ago, and have been seeing more and more of.
Most creators of content like books and movies are either horrible people or gamma's. Look at 80's romcoms.
Which is why men are trending to more non fiction. Gaiman was always hard to read, American God's was horrible, but now it is even worse.
I usually hit Vox Popoli first, then wander over to Sigma Game. But did the reverse today so was surprised to find out that the book cover was real and not another one of VD's AI images for humor. It was a real story, and that was a real cover?! WTAF, man.
I am exhausted from reading this. Gammas are tiresome people more than anyone else.
Then why read and follow this site?
Morbid curiosity.
I would love to hear your thoughts on female authors. There was series I loved as a teenager called the Farseer trilogy written by Robin Hobb. The main protagonist is the bastard child of the king who gets hidden away and trained to be his Assassin, he captures the heart of a serving girl but is far to busy being an assassin to make her his wife, I guess she's writing about "the one that got away". Instead meeting her in secret for amorous activities before finally as an old man quitting the life to hunt her down and live happily ever after.
The series is written in the first person the whole way through from the perspective of the protagonist.
She wrote about 4 trilogies in the same universe and all including some version of a brawny, heroic male figure, always a pirate, assassin or some form of outcast. Looking back now I'm certain they would all be Sigma.
I'd love to hear yours and others opinions on the main differences between female and male authors.
That just sounds as if the author was an alpha widow.
The SSH is only about men, not women. While it might be interesting to analyze male characters in novels from female authors, depicting a female perspective of different SSH rank men, it doesn't make sense to analyze the female author herself from an SSH perspective.