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.
Gaiman is quite obviously a gamma, which women take to be weakness as well as creepy...I doubt he made any serious overtures to these women, doesn't have the guts...But they spotted him as a perfect victim to pry some of his cash loose....
Neil Gaiman is/was on Tumblr which is induction enough. John Green is also on Tumblr. Both of their books have that weird giveaway in the romance area.
Which is funny. Romance books written by females have the hero interested in the heroine wholly and completely, including being intimate with them, whereas books written by males have the romance be just as described: a strange 'I don't want to dishonor her with the vulgarity of sexuality' aspect. It's fundamentally dishonest and worrisome to deal with.
The idea of “Seduction” is evil on a lot of different levels. For one thing it’s a euphemism for lecherous and/or deceptive behavior. For another, it externalizes the locus of control for the object of the seduction—they are not giving in to their own sin temptation, lust or concupiscence—no, the framing it that they are either the victim of trickery or else defenseless against some irresistible charm. “He seduced me.” It’s just a “gay” thing to say. Wish I could articulate that better. No, there is no seduction. It was either there in the first place or it wasn’t. When the devil tries to seduce 3 times Christ, how’s that go? There was nothing there. If you’re “seducing” you’re stoking the fire of the evil that was already there within another person. That’s not good. Ramble ramble.
A burning enthusiasm for that guy or that girl that's medically healthy. God created everything, including both boys' puberty and girls' puberty. A complete lack of sexual interest is one of the screening tests medical staff use to spot depression. And a married man who doesn't wake up with a raging desire for his wife is usually too fat, too hungover and lifting too little. When his wife hasn't been too interested in cookies, of course.
If you've not got the desire, you're not healthy. If you've got that, and you've not gone to jail for lechery or ridiculously clumsy attempts at seduction, then you're doing fine. The desire is healthy. Doing it clumsily, that's at least, socially frowned upon.
Most of the time in my experience you're not seducing a given girl even if you think that's what you're doing. If you unwrap her later at night in your bedroom and she's wearing matching special occasion lingerie, she planned this. She likely made the decision on that within 10 minutes of meeting you the first time.
I think that’s gotta be one of the main “gamma things”—the need to explain what you’re doing instead of just doing it. “I must be understood.”<stompy feet>
It’s immature. It’s also really arrogant. Been down that road. You don’t never find what you’re looking for. Best case, you find out what you’re really after and backtrack.
This is such bs and so so so autistic
judging by the cover of this book (referring to his face) i'm guessing his moral compass is that of gavin newsom.
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.
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.
Gaiman is quite obviously a gamma, which women take to be weakness as well as creepy...I doubt he made any serious overtures to these women, doesn't have the guts...But they spotted him as a perfect victim to pry some of his cash loose....
Neil Gaiman is/was on Tumblr which is induction enough. John Green is also on Tumblr. Both of their books have that weird giveaway in the romance area.
Which is funny. Romance books written by females have the hero interested in the heroine wholly and completely, including being intimate with them, whereas books written by males have the romance be just as described: a strange 'I don't want to dishonor her with the vulgarity of sexuality' aspect. It's fundamentally dishonest and worrisome to deal with.
If you want a good male oriented Romance story. Look no further than "Xenogears" which is a JRPG by Squaresoft before it became Square Enix.
The "Supreme Gentlemen" trope.
The idea of “Seduction” is evil on a lot of different levels. For one thing it’s a euphemism for lecherous and/or deceptive behavior. For another, it externalizes the locus of control for the object of the seduction—they are not giving in to their own sin temptation, lust or concupiscence—no, the framing it that they are either the victim of trickery or else defenseless against some irresistible charm. “He seduced me.” It’s just a “gay” thing to say. Wish I could articulate that better. No, there is no seduction. It was either there in the first place or it wasn’t. When the devil tries to seduce 3 times Christ, how’s that go? There was nothing there. If you’re “seducing” you’re stoking the fire of the evil that was already there within another person. That’s not good. Ramble ramble.
A burning enthusiasm for that guy or that girl that's medically healthy. God created everything, including both boys' puberty and girls' puberty. A complete lack of sexual interest is one of the screening tests medical staff use to spot depression. And a married man who doesn't wake up with a raging desire for his wife is usually too fat, too hungover and lifting too little. When his wife hasn't been too interested in cookies, of course.
If you've not got the desire, you're not healthy. If you've got that, and you've not gone to jail for lechery or ridiculously clumsy attempts at seduction, then you're doing fine. The desire is healthy. Doing it clumsily, that's at least, socially frowned upon.
The point of a seduction is that only one of the two people know it is occurring. Otherwise, it is something else.
Most of the time in my experience you're not seducing a given girl even if you think that's what you're doing. If you unwrap her later at night in your bedroom and she's wearing matching special occasion lingerie, she planned this. She likely made the decision on that within 10 minutes of meeting you the first time.
That’s true. They’ve got all the angles covered.
Good point man.
I think that’s gotta be one of the main “gamma things”—the need to explain what you’re doing instead of just doing it. “I must be understood.”<stompy feet>
It’s immature. It’s also really arrogant. Been down that road. You don’t never find what you’re looking for. Best case, you find out what you’re really after and backtrack.