Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!nntp-ucb.barrnet.net!well!heidrick From: heidrick@well.sf.ca.us (Bill Heidrick) Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.magick.chaos Subject: Re: Introductions to Thelema Date: 17 Dec 1995 15:14:34 GMT Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Lines: 68 Message-ID: <4b1c4q$c6v@nkosi.well.com> References: <47p36n$7ip@madison.tdsnet.com> <4akbgo$lic@news.acns.nwu.edu> <30D050A7.3080@ix.netcom.com> <4app7q$l75@news.acns.nwu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: well.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #1 (NOV) Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick:61745 alt.magick.chaos:6170 wabehun@merle.acns.nwu.edu (William Behun) writes: >93, Douglas! >I was defending Del Campo's text because it had been held up as >oversimplified, and criticised for parrotting Crowley uncritically. ... >I think that these criticisms are >not totally unfounded, and I agree with others here that it compares >unfavourably with Rodney Orpheus' _Abrahadabra_. ... >I am pleased that this thread continue to get attention, as the importance of >introductory texts is paramount, if Thelema is to continue to be a vital, >living culture capable of growth. This is a better approach, IMO, to new books on the subject. Nobody is going to come up with the perfect thing, and general aclaim of such perfection is impossible to human nature. If we do sensible reviews here, hitting on errors and omissions but otherwise crediting merit when found and offering reference rebuttal for buggerups, we stand a chance at getting better books and more of them. Gerald's book has problems in his account of Thelemic organizations and some particulars of expression of Crowley's stuff. It's originality is more in organization of the material, as is the case with Dion Fortune's _Mystical Qabalah_ on a more narrative and expanded level. Gerald's book is better for the newcommer with an interest in Thelemic Magick and a need to make a beginning with exploring mostly harmless Thelemic orders. Scott Cunningham and the Schulers have published books that rehash other extant material on a somewhat more in-depth level, with greater inaccuracies to the sources and a first impression of more originality. If A.E.Waite had used better English, his writing would be up to the quality of these modern authors. This sort of source is very good for second level reading on Magick, with a trip to primary authors like Crowley, Westcott, Mathers, Case and Dee for the corrections and the next level of the material. Many people would never understand those more difficult presentations without this level of text. Because the treatment is more in depth, more can go wrong with the detail. Thus these are natural workbooks like college level Physics texts -- "check the proofs, accept nothing at face value" --- there is no better way to learn from print! Lon's books are more advanced still, and shed perhaps more light on Crowley et al after reading of those texts. Again, errors and differences of opinion are to be expected; but in this case, be careful. Lon DuQuette is far more knowledgable in these areas than the other moderns cited to this point. Many of his points appear wrong simply because he knows Crowley better than even some of the long-term readers. Coz' Rodney's book is all too rare. It's a presentation of Thelema and Magick in almost conversational style, deep but accessible. Painless but productive. MORE! The cheapest form of literature is a trash review. Anybody can do it and feel superior in the process. It belongs in marginala more than in public expression -- except that a little now and then can be amusing. Crowley wrote obscenities in the margins of the Legge Yi King, but he prepared verse, discussion and extrapolation with re-casting to new insights for publication. It's valuable to attack an author page by page and line by line -- as you read. It's a waste of space to publish the attack without an improvement on the material. Best of all, do better and publish that. 93 93/93 Bill Heidrick