A Problem of Self-Identity
What would possess a Gamma to hide his greatest influence
The Dark Herald debuts at the Arkhaven substack with a compelling contemplation of why Neil Gaiman refused to acknowledge the obvious influence of Tanith Lee on his works of derivative mediocrity.
Gamma males live in a world blanketed by their resentments and can never bring themselves to give credit where it’s due. It’s too painful a truth to acknowledge. How can I be the secret king when there is all too obviously a real king? John Scalzi has never given credit to Joe Haldeman for his influence on his early work, although it’s clearly there. Neil Gaiman’s disdain for Tanith Lee went all the way back to when he was doing literary reviews…
This does leave the question of why Gaiman never gave credit for his inspiration. Being a Gamma male was a serious component of that, but upon reflection, I think there was something more.
There was always some snickering behind Gaiman’s back because appeared to be publicly presenting himself as Morpheus. Unruly black hair, black shirt, black trench coat, black everything, it was an image he deliberately fostered. It was the way that he wanted everyone to see him. It wasn’t just an affectation to garner publicity.
It was his stolen identity.
He was still called Neil Gaiman, the child of an empty legalism that used to be a religion and born into a cult that believed a person could become super-powered by channeling former lives. But it’s becoming clear to me that in his heart, he wanted to become not Morpheus (almost a public personae) but Azhrarn the Prince of Demons, the vastly cruel who could do whatsoever he liked with people.
How could he possibly acknowledge Tanith Lee as creating what he had to view as his self creation?
This is a keen observation. In retrospect, it’s quite obvious that while Morpheus represented the public face that Neil Gaiman showed to the world in his absurd posturing as a master storyteller, Azhrarn was much closer to his true self.
At this point, I suspect it’s only a matter of time before we learn that Neil Gaiman lied about Terry Pratchett changing course and asking him to continue the Good Omens television series on his own; it’s also very clear that they were not at all the good friends as which Gaiman seeks to portray them. To the contrary, Pratchett clearly saw through Gaiman’s pretenses, although the full extent to which he did so is unknown, as his damning quote about Gaiman either being a very nice guy or a very good actor indicates in the aftermath of all the sexual assault accusations.
Remember, the Gamma always thinks his transparent behavior is opaque to everyone else, and that as long as he’s not being directly called out for it, he’s not only being permitted to get away with it, but that no one even realizes what he’s doing.
While Neil deserves -- has earned -- his measure of loathing, mockery, and shunning, it's the enablers who deserve a great measure of the anger and flames from this.
The publishers, the promoters, and the Media.
But most of all for me, the fellow travelers in the writing community who behaved as did those who watched as Marion Zimmer Bradley and Walter Breen do something similar in the field of SF -- they also earned immolation in those flames.
They lied about Gaiman and covered up his actions, they made the field clear for him to act. Did his targets have some complicity here, and did they lack proper awareness of human nature? Likely. But, how much more so when others are telling them that the negative stories about Gaiman are false, that he is "safe". These people earned Perdition for sacrificing others to Gaiman for their own desires, whether monetary or political.
That photo of Tanith Lee reminds me of billboards of Billie Eilish. They both think they look tough, but to me they look like they need a hug.