Comments on: Neil Gaiman Nails The Neo-Pagans

By: Dennis

Dennis — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:04:49 +0000

I reply as a Pantheist;

Why does any religion need to “knock down another”? This is a problem I have with all fundamentalist, including Pagans.

By: Yvonne

Yvonne — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:41:02 +0000

The caricature is a pretty accurate portrait of a very few Pagans – the kind that most other Pagans refer to as “fluffy bunnies” and look down on for being insufficiently serious about their religion.

If you look far enough in any religion, you’ll find many people who just turn up on Sunday and fill a pew (or the equivalent in other religions). That doesn’t in any way undermine the religion or its more serious practitioners.

As my friends Makarios and Steve advise, please make a study of contemporary Paganism before you judge (and remember to remove the beam from your own eye before removing the speck from ours). And please don’t call us neo-pagans. I have had some excellent and enlightening dialogue with both Steve and Makarios, which enriched my faith greatly (and I hope enriched theirs in some way).

You might like to start here: http://pagantheologies.pbworks.com/

By: Low Key

Low Key — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:15:56 +0000

That goddess was Freyja in the guise of Miss Friday not Eostre. Friday is named for Freyja, Frey and Frigga.

By: Low Key

Low Key — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:13:17 +0000

That quote was not Neil Gaiman speaking his view of paganism, that was Odin in the guise of Mr Wednesday and if taken within context it makes perfect sense. The old gods lost most of their worshipers and consequently most of their power. Mr. Wednesday’s commentary was about this Wiccan’s worship of an abstract idea instead of a god.

Neil Gaiman has a very strong pagan following and he is aware of that. Do you think he would continue to have that following if he were anti-pagan? There are also other parts of that book that makes worse commentary about Christianity and the new gods.

By: Low Key

Low Key — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:12:48 +0000

Neil Gaiman has a very strong pagan following and he is aware of that. Do you think he would continue to have that following if he were anti-pagan. There are also other parts of that book that makes worse commentary about Christianity and the new gods.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:33:15 +0000

The interesting thing here, is that it is actually Odin (or a version of him) who is speaking to the waitress in this scene. One of the other characters in this scene is the goddess Eostre, from whom the festival of Easter takes its name. If I recall correctly Odin is attempting to rope Eostre into his war between the old and new gods by demonstrating that many so-called Wiccan’s (at least Gaiman’s portayal of them) know next to nothing about the old ways. I take issue with labelling Gaiman as a horror writer. I’d be more inclined to suggest that he is a mythological writer, providing a contemporary take on legends, fairy-tales and the supernatural.

By: Uzume

Uzume — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:24:43 +0000

There are pretenders and those who dip in and out is all faiths. The question is, why are you so concerned about showing them up? This is more a reflection on you than they, surely? People are free to believe what they want, how they want. I have researched many faiths including paganism and not yet found one I wish to subscribe to. My experience of Paganism has allowed me to meet people i find ridiculous and pretentious on the one hand to beautiful, warm, loving and generous folk on the other. The point about paganism, is that it can be as prescriptive and structured or as open and free and one chooses. A close friend of mine is a High Priestess in a UK Coven and I can assure you she could answer any question you care to ask her. Equally, a Christian friend of mine could do the same.

I am just not sure what you think an excerpt from a book actually means in relation to people’s real beliefs. No-one ran and hid from Christianity when seriously thought provoking and intelligent books were written by Atheists, no-one really cares about an excerpt from this book in relation to paganism either. It simply shows your lack of real research or interest in this particular field and really shows you up for your impetuous adherence to whatever anyone else is saying rather than offering anything original or of interest at all.

By: Sophia Marsden

Sophia Marsden — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:07:50 +0000

My parents are neo-pagans …ish.
I think it might make an apt description of some. But if you were to ask my parents who they worship, who is on their altars, my dad would say Maria Lionza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Lionza) and my mother the unpronounceable name of whatever her recently demoted Hindu guru asked her to chant (the Hindu’s are harsh with their guru’s – this guy gets sick and this proves that he is not actually holy apparently so all his followers abandoned him and he is shamed, my mum is rather upset about it all…).

And as for Asatru-ists. My word, the methodological archeological effort they go to in order to be “authentic”. It’s like ancient battle reenactment taking over your whole life except taken much more seriously!!!

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:43:08 +0000

Your post caused me to look in our library ofr works by Gaiman, and I found “Neverwhere”, which I’be just finished. A good read.

I asked my son, who works in a bookshop, to order “American gods” for me, and that has just arrived. Looks promising. Thanks very much for the tip-off.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:27:34 +0000

I agree with Makarios that Gaiman does not “deftly dispense” with modern American Wicca-neopaganism, but also do not think his description is a gross and insulting caricature.

It is a caricature, yes, but it is not gross and insulting. I haven’t read the book (though after reading your post I’d like to), so i haven’t seen the passage in context, but it seems to be a caricature of the kind of person who claims to belong to a religion they know little about.

My nephew was once in a relationship with such a person. She became pregnant, and before the baby was born she had arranged its baptism with the Roman Catholic priest at a church up the road from us — a church she never attended and she didn’t know the priest nor he her, so it wasn’t surprising that on the day of the baptism he didn’t turn up — he’d gone on holiday and forgotten the appointment. But she also wanted to arrange a “Wiccaning” for the child. She was the kind of airhead who thought that such ceremonies were interesting social occasions, and the more the merrier, no matter that their meanings might be incompatible. She was concerned with making decorations out of white satin tape and stuff like that. But isn’t that urban folk religion, the kind that may bother people with over-active frontal lobes, but doesn’t seem to bother people like my nephew’s ex-girlfriend? In other words, aren’t you trying to have your cake and eat it? To say damned if you do and damned if you don’t?