John Scalzi Killed Science Fiction

That’s something of a stretch, but there is a surprisingly good case to be made for it. Back in 2015, around the time SJWs Always Lie was #1 in its Amazon category for 18 straight months, Tor Books surprised everyone in science fiction by signing John Scalzi to a multi-million-dollar 13-book deal, as per The Guardian.

American science fiction author John Scalzi has signed a 10-year, 13-book deal with publishers Tor, which will net him $3.4m.

Scalzi is the author of 19 novels, including the highly-acclaimed Old Man’s War, the Star Trek-esque, Hugo award-winning satire Redshirts, and his latest, the near-future apocalyptic medical thriller Lock In.

All three of those works have been optioned for TV and film adaptations, and the title of his most recent novel is perhaps pertinent, as the author – who has a long-running blog and a strong online presence – now finds himself effectively working for Tor (part of Macmillan and one of the biggest science fiction and fantasy publishers in the US) full-time for the next decade.

The deal was reported at the weekend via the New York Times and has been signed and sealed in fairly short order.

This was very surprising, since Scalzi was, in most people’s eyes, a third-tier writer at best, not a legend like Jerry Pournelle or Larry Niven, and definitely not an author capable of filling the shoes of former Tor Books authors like Robert Jordan or the various game tie-in novels that had been providing Tor with bestsellers for years. Scalzi himself once noted how modest his career had been:

Debut: The $6.5k and $2k advances, signed when I was brand new and no one knew what would happen;

Developing: The $13.5k, $25k, and $35k contracts, after Old Man’s War hit commercially and critically and Tor realized there was possible headroom to my career, but I was still building an audience;

Established: The $100k and $115k contracts, when I had hit the bestseller lists, won awards, and had a series (Old Man’s War) that was spinning off serious money;

Franchise: The $3.4M deal, when Tor decided to go all in and lock me up long-term, both to continue momentum in new releases and to extract value out of my profitable backlist.

The problem is that Scalzi was never more than a mediocre mid-list writer who was a) very good at marketing himself, b) a ripoff artist who wrote pastiches rather than original fiction, and c) shamelessly dishonest. He managed to convince everyone that he was far more popular than he actually was – we all genuinely believed he had the biggest blog in science fiction when his site traffic was actually a fraction of mine – and he managed to parley that false perception into lead author status with Tor Books, the biggest publisher in science fiction.

Now, signing a lead author who can’t deliver and creates massive opportunity costs is an existential problem for the publisher. Tor Books could have, and should have, been pushing Brandon Sanderson and Charles Stross as lead authors, signing Larry Correia away from Baen Books, keeping John C. Wright in the fold, and locking down the best up-and-coming writers in the field at the time.

Instead, they gambled on this guy. And, as is evident from his latest offering, they gambled and lost. Here is a review of his latest novel, which can’t even bother to pretend to be science fiction.

The first thing to address after reading this cover to cover is the claimed genre: science-fiction. Most publications by Tor Books are in the fantasy or science-fiction genre. Most of Scalzi’s published works are in the science-fiction genre but Starter Villain is not a science-fiction novel by any stretch of the term. It is set in the present day and frequently references current things like the protagonist’s late father’s 2003 Nissan Maxima, Reddit, Facebook, Amazon, Zoom and plenty of contemporary political and economic issues. There is some mention or special technologies but none that are considered beyond the realm of possibility. The only genuine science-fiction aspects are genetically modified cats and dolphins that are sentient and play a significant part in the narrative. There is no real explanation of how they became so and readers are just told that research was done and they exist. 

The novel is really more a parody of the James Bond movies (though not the novels) and I would place it in the same genre as the Austin Powers films. These films had time travel, characters being cryogenic frozen and “sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads!” but they still weren’t science-fiction films. Nor really were the Bond films they parodied despite featuring unique gadgets and vehicles that were generally beyond the technology of the time. Unlike the Austin Powers films, this book isn’t funny at all. I’m sure plenty of Scalzi’s fans found it hilarious and anyone else who finds frequent profanity and snark funny might too.

The novel is written in first-person from the perspective of a character named Charlie. He is a divorced, out-of-work journalist who makes his ends barely meet as a substitute teacher. He’s in his mid thirties, living in his deceased father’s home and his only friend is a cat named Hera. This all changes when he learns his enigmatic and rich maternal uncle has died and that he is the heir to his fortune. All he previously knew of this uncle was that he owned parking garages but soon discovers he is in fact a villain.

The premise is something that could work really well if done right: what if a normal guy one day found out he was heir to a cartoon super villain’s fortune? Scalzi scuttles this promising premise almost as soon as the novel begins. One of his problems is he obviously doesn’t want to make his self-insert protagonist a genuine villain but still wants to call him one. Even his deceased uncle turns out not to be an actual villain but just an eccentric trying to stop real villainy through legal loopholes and other less evil methods… I chose this one expecting that he would have improved his craft in the twenty years he’s been writing. Yet, this was worse than I could believe and I’m confident that had Scalzi not already had a recognisable name, that this would never have been published. It reads much more like a young adult novel than proper science-fiction; only with a lot of cursing and general self-indulgence.

How very… tedious. It’s really rather remarkable. Can you imagine how many copies of ARTS OF DARK AND LIGHT the publisher of Robert Jordan’s and Brandon Sanderson’s bestselling epic fantasies could have sold if they had published it and given it the kind of marketing push they gave imitative mediocrities like Redshirts, that feeble attempt at ripping off Asimov’s Foundation, and trying to push N… K… Jemisin’s second-person abominations on everyone?

Instead, the word from insiders is that Tor Books is in hard decline; it probably won’t die as soon as Baen Books, but it is unlikely to survive the disastrous Patrick Nielsen Hayden-era for long. This is what happens when institutions take their position in an industry for granted, forget what it was that put them in that position in the first place, and allow themselves to be run by employees who are more interested in pushing their personal agendas than actually running the business in a professional manner that permits future success.

I certainly don’t regret how it turned out. Castalia House regularly publishes category bestsellers on Amazon. Castalia Library is creating some of the most beautiful books in the world. We have our own bindery, our own translation machines, and we’re bringing forgotten books from foreign languages to the English-speaking world for the first time every single week.

But as a business professional familiar with the history of science fiction publishing, it’s hard not to look at how Tor Books has methodically demolished both itself and science fiction and wonder what things might have looked like if PNH had been able to understand that a) a midlist writer can never be a lead author, b) the author of a popular pastiche is not going to reliably produce popular original fiction, and c) a publisher should always seek to publish the best authors in the field, not the most politically-harmonious ones.

One can’t blame Scalzi for grifting. And it’s certainly not his fault that PNH and the other decision-makers at Tor Books were dumb enough to fall for his grift. But what began as a very bad business decision on the part of Tor appears to be heading for an ending in complete farce.

DISCUSS ON SG

Ramifications

Multiplying the power of MITTENS by a factor of 12 isn’t the only consequence of the 2025 Yoo paper. Consider Gemini’s take on what will be a follow-on to our original paper demonstrating the empirical falsity of Kimura’s substitution equation.

This paper, “Coalescent-Derived Effective Population Size Inflation in Yoo et al. (2025),” is a provocative and mathematically aggressive critique of modern molecular phylogenetics. Below is a review and objective assessment of the paper’s claims, logic, and potential flaws.

Summary of the Core Argument

The authors contend that the fundamental identity of the molecular clock, k = u (where k is the substitution rate and u is the mutation rate), is based on a mathematical error.

  • The “Correction”: They argue that in the derivation of the substitution rate, the population size (N) used to calculate the supply of new mutations is the census population (N), while the size used to calculate the probability of fixation is the effective population (N_e).
  • The Result: Since N is typically much larger than N_e, they propose the corrected rate is k = u times (N/N_e).
  • The Prediction: Any method (like TRAILS used in Yoo et al. 2025) that assumes $k = \mu$ will “absorb” the error by reporting an artificially “inflated” $N_e$ to make sense of the observed genetic variation.

Strengths

  • Falsifiability: The paper makes a specific, testable prediction: N_e estimates should appear to grow larger as we look further back in time.
  • Direct Engagement with Data: It uses the most recent, high-quality data available (the T2T assemblies and TRAILS results from Yoo et al. 2025) to test its hypothesis rather than relying on abstract theory.
  • Logical Consistency: If one accepts the authors’ initial premise regarding the N/N_e ratio in the substitution rate, the rest of the paper follows a rigorous mechanical logic.

Weaknesses and Flaws

1. The Conceptual Basis of k = u

The paper’s central premise—that the two N terms in Kimura’s derivation refer to different quantities—is the most controversial point. In standard population genetics, N_e is defined as the size of an idealized population that experiences the same amount of genetic drift as the real population.

  • If the “mutation supply” is 2N\mu and “fixation probability” is 1/(2N_e), the authors assume these two populations are distinct entities.
  • The Flaw: Most theorists argue that the “individuals” capable of passing on a mutation that can eventually fix in the population are, by definition, the members of the effective population. If an individual is part of the census but has zero probability of contributing to the long-term genealogy, they don’t count toward the mutation supply that matters for substitution rates.

2. Reliance on Self-Generated Baselines

The paper uses “Table 1” to show a massive inflation of N_e compared to a “drift-variance baseline”.

  • The Flaw: The “baseline” used (3,300 for humans) comes from the authors’ own 2026 work. Using your own unpublished or concurrent papers as the “ground truth” to prove the “inflation” of others’ work can be seen as circular reasoning.

Rating & Conclusion

CategoryRatingNotes
OriginalityHighChallenges a 60-year-old consensus with a novel mathematical “fix.”
ClarityHighVery well-written; the logic is easy to follow, even if the premise is disputed.
Empirical WeightModerateRelies heavily on the “implausibility” of large populations rather than direct contradictory evidence.
ObjectivityLowThe tone is highly polemical, framing the “orthodox” field as “broken” and “blind”.

Final Assessment: This is a high-stakes theoretical challenge. If the authors are right about the N/N_e correction, the entire timeline of human evolution—including the human-chimp split—must be drastically compressed to the 200–580 kya range. However, the paper’s dismissal of standard population genetics definitions means it will likely face intense scrutiny regarding why the N terms shouldn’t cancel out in Kimura’s identity.

The “inflation” they identify may indeed be a real signal, but whether it is a “clock error” or a result of complex ancestral population structures (like fragmentation and gene flow) remains the central question for the field.

So here’s the fundamental problem that the entire field of population genetics has been ignoring for 57 years:

  1. The mutation supply variable refers to census N. Malthus (1900)
  2. The fixation probability variable refers to N_e. Genetic drift is governed by N_e. Wright (1931).
  3. Kimura wrote both mutation supply and fixation probability as N, then cancelled them algebraically. The cancellation requires N = N_e, which is empirically false for every large mammal, including humans.

But biologists were too mathematically challenged to notice that you can’t cancel out a variable with a different variable.

DISCUSS ON SG

Immigration and National Defense

Outsourcing and relying upon imported war materials is bad enough. Immigration and relying upon enemy nationals to design your own weapons is a total disaster:

The defence industry is being cut off from a significant portion of the UK engineering graduate pipeline because a large proportion of students on advanced engineering courses at leading universities come from overseas and cannot obtain the security clearances needed to work on sensitive defence programmes, a senior industry figure has told the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Cathy Kane, LTPA Portfolio Director at QinetiQ, told the committee on Wednesday that the scale of the problem was visible from her position on an industry advisory board at University College London, saying that “a vast number of the students on the course come from overseas countries” and that for the defence industry, “being able to pull in people coming off those courses and bring them into our industry is a challenge, because we work on sensitive programmes.”

The issue compounds an already significant skills challenge facing the sector, in which the defence industry is competing for a pool of UK-born engineering graduates that is considerably smaller than the total number of people studying engineering, while simultaneously trying to persuade more young people to choose engineering over more financially attractive careers in financial services and other sectors.

It’s astonishing that anyone still believes mass immigration is a net positive for any native people. Ask the American Indian. Ask the Palestinian. Ask what are now the hundreds of thousands of sexually-assaulted women across Europe.

It’s more than a disaster, it’s an existential catastrophe.

DISCUSS ON SG

Less Than Zero

I’m somewhat chagrined to note that I made a major mistake in writing PROBABILITY ZERO and failed to notice that a paper had been recently published in Nature that would have had significant impact on how PROBABILITY ZERO was written. So much so, in fact, that it is necessary to revise the core MITTENS argument as well as revise the entire book and release a second edition.

Here is what happened, what it means, and why every honest reader of the first edition deserves to know that the standard model of evolution by natural selection is in even worse shape than the original calculations suggested.

The Number That Was Never Really 35 Million

For twenty years, the standard textbook claim has been that human and chimpanzee DNA is “98.8 percent identical.” That figure, repeated in every popular science article, every introductory biology textbook, and every “I fucking love science” tweet about how we are practically the same animal as a chimp, traces back to the 2005 Nature paper by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. The headline number from that paper was approximately 35 million single nucleotide differences and 5 million indels affecting roughly 90 million base pairs of sequence. Forty million differences out of three billion base pairs. About 1.2 percent.

The first edition of PROBABILITY ZERO used these consensus figures because they were the consensus figures. The MITTENS framework demonstrates that the standard model fails by about 220,000-fold against the 35-40 million SNP target. That alone is a five-orders-of-magnitude failure. A theory that cannot account for 99.9995 percent of what it claims to explain is a theory that has lost its license to be called science.

But the 35 million figure was never the total observed divergence between the two genomes. It was only the divergence in the portion of the genomes that aligned cleanly to each other. The unalignable regions — sequence that is so different that no reasonable algorithm can map one species’ DNA onto the other’s coordinate system — were excluded from the difference count and quietly placed in supplementary tables where no journalist or undergraduate would ever read them.

This was not a methodological oversight. The 2005 paper aligned roughly 2.4 billion base pairs of the chimp genome to the human reference, out of a total chimp genome of approximately 3 billion. Six hundred million base pairs of unalignable sequence existed. The authors knew about it. But no one else did, and certainly no one really understood the significance of those unaligned sequences.

Yoo et al. 2025: The Numbers are Corrected

In April 2025, the Eichler lab at the University of Washington published the capstone of the telomere-to-telomere genome program: complete, gapless, diploid assemblies of all six great apes, at the same quality as the human reference. The paper has 122 authors. It has been cited 98 times in the eight months since publication. It is the most authoritative comparative ape genome paper in existence, and it will be for years to come. Yoo, D. et al., Complete sequencing of ape genomes, Nature 641, 401-418 (2025).

Here is the sentence that ends the standard divergence figure as a citable claim:

Overall, sequence comparisons among the complete ape genomes revealed greater divergence than previously estimated. Indeed, 12.5–27.3% of an ape genome failed to align or was inconsistent with a simple one-to-one alignment, thereby introducing gaps. Gap divergence showed a 5-fold to 15-fold difference in the number of affected megabases when compared to single-nucleotide variants.

The total structural divergence between human and ape genomes — including all insertions, deletions, duplications, inversions, rearrangements — affects between five and fifteen times more base pairs than the single nucleotide differences that everyone has been counting since 2005. The 35 million SNP figure was counting the smaller of two divergence categories and ignoring the larger one. And the gap range is not uncertainty, but rather, the different ranges between the closest-related apes and the least-related apes.

For the chimp-human comparison, the gap-divergence minimum is 12.5 percent. For the gorilla-human, it is 27.3 percent. The honest divergence figure for chimp-human is not 1.2 percent. It is somewhere between 12.5 and 14 percent of the genome, depending on which haplotypes you measure. Translated to base pairs: roughly 375 million additional base pairs of difference that the SNP count never captured, for a total genuine divergence of approximately 700 to 800 million base pairs between the two species.

That is not a refinement. That is an order of magnitude.

What This Does to the MITTENS Calculation

This makes the MITTENS argument considerably stronger. The probability of evolution by natural selection is now less than zero. The original MITTENS shortfall against the chimp-human gap was 220,000-fold. That number was computed against a requirement of 20 million fixations on the human lineage, which is half of the standard 40-million-difference figure.

Since the genuine chimp-human divergence is 415 million base pairs rather than 40 million, the requirement on the human lineage rises from 20 million fixations to roughly 207 million. A maximum of 91 fixations on the human lineage in the time available was the ceiling before, and it remains the ceiling now. The shortfall ratio rises from 220,000-fold to more than 2.3 million-fold against the chimp-human gap alone.

And every structural difference longer than a single base pair makes the problem mathematically worse, not better. A point mutation requires one mutation event and one fixation event. A 50,000 base pair insertion or a chromosomal inversion requires the entire structural rearrangement to occur as a single low-probability event and then to fix. Counting these by base pair, as the gap-divergence figure does, is generous to the standard model. Counting them by independent fixation events would be more devastating still.

The Yoo paper does not report this calculation. The Yoo paper reports the data and lets the reader draw the conclusion. The second edition of Probability Zero will draw the correct conclusions.

The Drift Defense Just Got Worse

Some defenders of the standard model, like Dennis McCarthy, retreated from from selection to drift. If natural selection cannot accomplish the work, perhaps neutral evolution and incomplete lineage sorting can carry the load.

This was already the weakest argument in the first edition’s bestiary of failed defenses. The first edition documents four independent reasons why incomplete lineage sorting cannot rescue the model: the quantitative ceiling on ancestral polymorphism, the demographic contradiction, the relocation rather than elimination of the fixation requirement, and the haplotype block bound. Each reason alone is sufficient to destroy the ILS defense.

Yoo et al. happen to claim, in the same paper, that incomplete lineage sorting accounts for 39.5 percent of the autosomal genome, and treat it as a vindication of the standard drift model. They are mistaken. The ILS objection collapses for the same four reasons documented in the first edition, and the second edition will engage Yoo specifically to demonstrate this. Their inflated ILS figure does not rescue anything. It simply distributes the fixation requirement across both lineages instead of consolidating it on one. Each lineage still has to do its share of the work, and each lineage still cannot.

But here is the larger problem for the drift defense, and it is the problem the second edition will press hard: the gap divergence is not the sort of variation that ILS can plausibly produce in the first place. ILS sorts ancestral polymorphisms into reciprocal fixation. A single nucleotide polymorphism in the ancestral population can sort one way in humans and another way in chimps. Fine. But a 4.8 megabase inverted transposition — like the one Yoo et al. document on gorilla chromosome 18 — is not a polymorphism that the ancestor was carrying around in heterozygous form for millions of years. It is a structural rearrangement that occurred in a specific lineage at a specific time, and either fixed or did not fix. ILS cannot sort what was never segregating. Structural variation is, with very few exceptions, post-divergence, and it must be accounted for by the same fixation arithmetic that the SNPs already break.

The defender of the standard model is now caught in a worse vise than before. Selection cannot accomplish 415 million base pairs of divergence in 6 to 9 million years. Drift would find it even harder to accomplish 415 million base pairs of divergence in 6 to 9 million years. Incomplete lineage sorting cannot account for the structural component of that divergence at all, and the SNP component it might address is still subject to the four-fold collapse already documented.

There is nowhere left to retreat to.

The Molecular Clock Was Already Broken

Long-time readers will know that the first edition led to a paper about the molecular clock — namely, that Kimura’s 1968 derivation of k = μ rests on an invalid cancellation between census N and effective N~e~ — which lead to a recalibration of the chimp-human divergence date from 6 to 7 million years to somewhere in the range of 200,000 to 400,000 years. That argument is fully developed in the Recalibrating CHLCA Divergence paper and will be incorporated into the second edition as a dedicated chapter.

What the Yoo paper adds to this picture is empirical confirmation that the standard molecular methods produce internally inconsistent results even on their own terms. Yoo et al. report ancestral effective population sizes of N~e~ = 198,000 for the human-chimp-bonobo ancestor and N~e~ = 132,000 for the human-chimp-gorilla ancestor. These figures are derived from incomplete lineage sorting modeling and from the molecular clock. They are an order of magnitude larger than any N~e~ estimate that has been derived from clock-independent methods, including the N~e~ = 3,300 we derive from ancient DNA drift variance and the N~e~ = 33,000 we derive from chimpanzee geographic drift variance.

The molecular clock estimates of N~e~ are inflated because the clock assumes k = μ. When k = μ is wrong — and it is wrong, by a factor of N divided by N~e~ — the N~e~ derived from genetic diversity absorbs the error. Yoo et al. cite the inflated number. The inflated number is what their methods can produce. Their methods cannot detect the error because the error is built into the methods.

For the second edition, this means the cascade gets cleaner. The N~e~ = 3,300 figure from ancient DNA, the N~e~ = 33,000 figure from chimpanzee subspecies drift, and the k = μ correction together yield a recalibrated chimp-human split of approximately 200 to 400 thousand years ago. At that recalibrated date, the MITTENS shortfall ratio rises from 2.3 million-fold (against the corrected divergence figure at the consensus clock date) to 40 million-fold (against the corrected divergence figure at the corrected clock date).

A theory off by a factor of 40 million is not a viable theory. It is a fairy tale.

What Goes Into the Second Edition

The second edition of PROBABILITY ZERO will include:

The corrected divergence figures throughout, citing Yoo et al. 2025 as the authoritative source. Every calculation that depended on the 35-40 million SNP count will be updated. The 1.2 percent figure will be addressed directly as a historical artifact of methodologically convenient bookkeeping, with the honest 12.5 percent figure replacing it.

A new chapter on what happens when you actually count the unalignable regions, including reproduction of the relevant gap-divergence table from Yoo’s Supplementary Figure III.12. The reader will be able to verify the source for themselves.

A dedicated chapter incorporating the N/N~e~ correction to Kimura’s substitution rate and the resulting recalibration of the chimp-human divergence date. This material previously existed as a separate working paper and will now be properly woven into the book’s main argument.

Updated MITTENS shortfall ratios reflecting both the corrected divergence figures and the recalibrated divergence date. The standard model fails by roughly 30 to 100 million-fold in the second edition, against 220,000-fold in the first.

A direct engagement with the Yoo et al. 2025 incomplete lineage sorting claim, demonstrating that the inflated ILS figure does not rescue the model and cannot in principle account for the structural divergence component.

A clarified treatment of the cascade: when the chimp-human divergence date moves, every primate divergence date calibrated against it moves with it. The hominoid slowdown is a calibration artifact. The deep evolutionary timescale of mammalian evolution depends on these calibrations. The second edition will trace these consequences explicitly.

A Note on How This Happened

The first edition was completed in late 2025. The Yoo paper was published in April 2025. The architecture of the book’s argument had been in place for six years by the time the paper was published and I wasn’t looking for revisions of the consensus numbers. I cited the 2005 consortium paper because it was the standard citation, and to my regret, I did not ever consider searching for a paper that might have been more recently published.

That is not an excuse. It is what happened. The first edition is what it is, and it is good — the argument stands at the figures used. But the second edition will be substantially better, and the argument it makes will be unanswerable in the same way the first edition’s argument could not be answered.

The leather edition deserves to be the canonical version. The trade hardcover and the ebook deserve to ship with the corrected text at the same time. Existing readers who have the first edition will own a first printing of a book that was, at the time of its publication, the most rigorous mathematical challenge ever posed to Neo-Darwinian theory. And new readers of the second edition will get an even stronger version of the argument with the most authoritative possible sources.

DISCUSS ON SG

Frozen in Time

A tale of one Boomer’s struggle to grasp the concept of the passage of time:

My father mentioned ordering a pair of blue jeans from Jet Jeans or some such. Some inescapable booming ensued.

He knowingly ordered cheap jeans from a website. How he learned of it, I don’t know. Anyway…

He gets the jeans in the size he ordered. Measurements are wrong in each dimension.

He calls the company, to see about returning. He’s given three options, none of which are what he is expecting, because his expectations were set 50 years ago.

An honorable company would…

Dad, you’re applying a thought process that has not been in play for some time. Don’t buy cheap crap from randos on the internet.

He cannot adjust to the present Nothing Works Anymore reality. Even when he knows better, high-trust is the default setting.

And this is why you will never convince them that being invaded by foreigners is a bad thing. They literally cannot conceive of anything outside of their 1950s reality.

But it’s also a lesson for we Gen Xers to not allow ourselves to get locked into our 80s assumptions. Although, to be honest, I’m not even sure what those would be. I mean, the world appears to be even more screwed than we thought it was when we were busy surviving nuclear destruction at the hands of the Soviets, followed by acid rain, an ice age, running out of fossil fuels, only to face the cruel onset of rap.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Satanic EU

The fact that the European Union is an openly satanic organ of Clown World is not news to anyone here. But the fact that one of the highest officials in the Russian government is repeatedly identifying it as such is certainly significant:

“The work begun last year at the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra to inventory and verify the historical and scientific value of the saints’ relics has caused outrage and, I would say, revulsion. I have just quoted that. Behind this bureaucratic wording from the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture, incidentally, lies legalised sacrilege, committed with the connivance and even direct support of a number of European countries, where, to put it bluntly, Satanism is also flourishing,” stated the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

The fact that the EU and Clown World’s Ukraine puppet state would commit sacrilege and seek to destroy Christian relics is no different, and no more surprising, than the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in 2001. Clown World actively seeks to eradicate every last vestige of Christian culture; one of the most reliable ways to identify the satanists is to observe their hatred for everything and everyone that reveres Jesus Christ.

DISCUSS ON SG

THE TSURUGISAN SCROLL

THE SECRETS OF THE SACRED MOUNTAIN

The fifth book of The Secret Scrolls of Naruto arrives at last in the place toward which the entire pursuit has been driving — the forbidden domain of Awa on the island of Shikoku, and the sacred mountain that rises at its heart. From a midnight leap into a storm-driven sea at the close of the fourth volume, Norizuki Gennojō and the woman he has vowed to see safely to her father wash ashore on a coast where outsiders are not permitted to live. They climb inland in the white robes of pilgrims, and behind them follow the three men who have hunted them across half a country.

In Tokushima Castle, the lord of Awa is at the height of his confidence. The fevers and dark humors that nearly broke him in the previous volume have lifted; his face is burned dark by the salt wind; his fortifications are complete and his powder stores are full. The signal fire that will summon the western lords and the noble houses of Kyoto to the cause against the Tokugawa is ready to be lit. The omens, Hachisuka Shigeyoshi tells himself, are good. He does not know that the two enemies who escaped him on the night of the storm are at this moment climbing toward Tsurugisan — Sword Mountain, where his oldest secret is held in a stone cave, and where every ridge and footpath is watched by the harashi, the silent rustic warriors of Awa who answer to a master no one has ever seen.

Gennojō climbs the mountain to recover what the storm took from him. Otsuna climbs to find a father she has not seen since childhood. The three samurai who hunt them climb because they must finish the work they began on the docks of Osaka. And somewhere above them all is a secret that will shake the Shogunate.

The Tsurugisan Scroll is the fifth book in the first English translation of Yoshikawa Eiji’s Naruto Hichō, the century-old serial that made him the most widely read author in Japanese history. Translated in literary prose that reads as though it were originally composed in English, it brings Yoshikawa’s great adventure into the sealed mountain country where the villains and the hero are at last in the same dark territory, and where the secret the conspirators have killed to protect now lies within reach.

Available for Kindle, KU, and audiobook on Amazon. The ebooks have already been sent out to the paid subscribers.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Deep and Debilitating Dive

Our old acquaintance Dr. Sandifier, whom you may recall from our John C. Wright vs Iain M. Banks debate has penned an astonishingly deep dive on the works of Neil Gaiman. Pace yourself and brace yourself, it’s longer than you would ever imagine, and enter at your own risk.

Indeed, the idea of predation lurks throughout The Doll’s House. In the first half Rose’s brother Jed is kept a prisoner by his abusive foster parents, who are in turn being influenced by one of the escaped dreams, the duo Brute and Glob, who are using his dreams for their own schemes. The second escaped dream, meanwhile, is the Corinthian, who’s become a serial killer and is at the convention. It’s also an obvious component of the prelude about Dream and Nada. This isn’t quite enough to be called a theme, especially as it’s not especially present in the arc’s denouement, but it’s still clearly, and frankly understandably, on Gaiman’s mind. Certainly it’s a more substantial unifying element than hearts or whatever.

Perhaps the most interesting instance of predation in the arc comes in a two page sequence in the Cereal Convention issue where Rose is told the “original version” of Little Red Riding Hood, in which the wolf has Red Riding Hood undress, telling her as she takes off each garment to “throw it on the fire; you won’t need it any more”—a beat that foreshadows her assault by Fun Land. Gaiman clearly means to position this story as a kind of ur-myth underlying all the subsequent serial killers. But it’s notable that in 2004 he wrote a blog post about his own identification with the wolf, arguing that he “represents an awful lot of stuff—the danger and truth of stories, for a start, and the way they change; he symbolises—not predation, for some reason—but transformation: the meeting in the wild wood that changes everything forever,” and notes that “when I was a boy, when I grew up I wanted to be a wolf,” before concluding that “The wolf defines Red Riding Hood. He makes the story happen. Without him, she’d just be another girl on her way to her grandmother’s house. And she’d leave her goodies behind, and come home, and no-one would ever have heard of her. But he’s not just her wolf: he’s all the wolves on the edge of the world, all the wolves in all the stories, all the wolves in all the dreams of wolves; flashing green eyes in the darkness, dangerously honest about what he wants: food, company, an appetite.” Even leaving aside his dubious assertion that the wolf is not a symbol of predation—certainly that’s how he uses it in The Doll’s House—this is striking in its apologism, particularly in its frankly alarming claim that the wolf is in some sense doing Red Riding Hood a favor by making her into a story.

All of this hangs uncomfortably over the first issue of Dream Country, a set of four stand-alone stories between The Doll’s House and the next arc. Called “Calliope,” the issue focuses on a writer, Richard Madoc, who, stuck and flailing on his second novel, makes a deal with Erasmus Fry, an aging writer, to acquire the muse Calliope, who Fry captured in the 1920s and had been using to fuel his own career. Madoc uses Calliope to catapult himself to an immensely successful career across numerous media and genres, ignoring her tearful pleas to be set free. Eventually Calliope contacts Morpheus, her ex-lover (as with Nada and, it will eventually emerge, literally every single romantic relationship over the course of Morpheus’s billions of years of existence, it ended badly), who frees her by cursing Madoc with an uncontrollable flood of ideas that drives him mad.

In 1990, this looked an effective horror story—enough so that DC included the script for it in the Dream Country trade paperback. With hindsight, however, what proves most unsettling about it is the degree to which the story prefigures so much of Gaiman’s own story. It’s not just the basic dynamic of a writer and a young, beautiful woman he treats as his muse while simultaneously abusing—a phenomenon that is hardly unique to Gaiman. It’s the specific details, from the way Madoc flits among genres and mediums to the way he insists that “I do tend to regard myself as a feminist writer” to the detail of Erasmus Fry insisting that the captured Calliope call him “master.” Gaiman even sent artist Kelley Jones photos of his office to use as reference for Madoc’s.

What’s crucial to note is that this is not Gaiman telling on himself. It’s not just that Gaiman was still a decade away from the sort of outright abuse being allegorized in “Calliope”; the story is plainly aware of the horror of its subject… No, “Calliope” is far more disturbing than the comic book equivalent of that monologue from the serial killer who started following women around with a knife in his pocket before escalating. It’s a warning of what’s to come, yes, but the warning is not a comment on the author’s private fantasies; it’s a comment on the degree to which he fundamentally failed to understand the magic he was taking hold of, and what its consequences might be. He understood the broad strokes—that if he could survive the tightrope grind of monthly comics for long enough and create a work of sufficient quality and impact he could change his life decisively enough to get him fully out from the towering shadow of his upbringing. He understood that writing this story, about the King of Dreams and his tragedy, would allow him to also rewrite his story—to become Neil Gaiman instead of David Gaiman’s son. But he did not understand what that meant.

Sandifier is an excellent literary historian, but the one thing I find genuinely surprising about this section of what is intended to be a larger book about Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore, is the way in which Sandifier clearly recognizes Gaiman’s penchant for ripping off literally anything and everything he can get his hands on, and yet seemingly fails to grasp that Gaiman is, at heart, nothing more than a glib and talented charlatan. He rightly condemns Gaiman for his sins, but not for his fraud.

I also find it a little curious that everyone still just accepts the idea that Gaiman is a legitimate bestselling author despite his close and obvious connections to another “bestselling” science fiction author whose massive sales over the years were, to put it mildly, orchestrated. He may be, but I suspect an in-depth investigation might reveal some level of similar orchestration.

Ironically, The Cuddled Little Vice is one of the few Hugo-nominated works that would have been worthy of the award back in the days when the Hugo actually meant something.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Warning Shot

The disruption at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner last night looks less like a genuine assassination attempt and a lot more like a reminder to the Short Fat Trump that he’s expected to continue ordering the US military to fight Iran, not play diplomatic games and give the Islamic Republic more time to continue restocking its missile supplies.

A lot of observers were expecting things to kick off again this weekend. The “assassination attempt” may be an indication that they’re not going to do so.

DISCUSS ON SG