The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

So, I recently came into possession of a whole trunkload of witchy books, some good and some bad. I've been working my way through them, and thought I would share one of the awful ones.

How to Enchant a Man by Ellen Dugan. Now, I thought, that's a bad title. But so what if it's heteronormative and vaguely desperate sounding? Maybe that's what sells! ...and it's not like I'd read this crap in public. So, onward, maybe there's good shit inside!

No. No, there's not.

The author is very firmly in the "no manipulative magic" camp. That's very important to some people, so I can accept that. (Although it does tend to mean less awesomely bizarre folk magic traditions.) But her attitude is sort of... well. Warm and fuzzy. Goddesses/The Goddess are portrayed as always loving and kind. Which, you know, sure whatever... but then she later on advocates calling upon Lilith. That strikes me as a little weird and potentially dangerous.

Now here's the thing that really bothered me more than the toothless spells and the fluffiness... This book came out in 2008. But you know what it reads like? The Satanic Witch by Anton LaVey. If you watered it down with a gallon of rose water, anyway.

Dugan spends a whole book telling people not to do manipulative magic... but to basically manipulate people mundanely. At least if I'm reading LaVey he's being honest about his intentions. (And when a former carny is more honest than you? There is a problem.)

To sum up: Cosmo in witch form. Blech.

  I read the satanic witch.  I be interested in some honest male opinion on it.  Obviously, it was what LaVey wanted in a woman, but what about nonexcarny men?

Actually, her sources were very well researched and she lists all of them in Endnotes at the back of the book.

Sincerely,
Tim Parry, Jr., D.D.

 
Can you tell us what these sources were? The fact that one of them is from the 1800s doesn't really make me hopeful. Please do give me some citations, though. I happen to be a student at a large university, and would likely be able to access them in my school's library.

I have a Degree in Social Science from Chapman University, one of the highly prestigious archaeological schools in the USA....

 
I cannot, of course, directly confirm your claimed credentials, but one would imagine that, if you were an alumnus of Chapman, you would be aware that it doesn't even have an archaeological program.

This does not speak well for the reliability of anything else in your post.

Sunflower

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SunflowerP again.

 
The rep is always gone when we need it. :hdsk:

Anything by Anton LaVey or any of his followers.

His religion is nothing more than Randite Objectivism with added hedonism masked by pseudo-Crowleyite mysticism used for psychodrama with Satan as a symbol and nothing but.

I'd disagree to an extent.

With a lot of caution I think there is some useful stuff in LaVey.  You definitely have to filter for bias. I'm no fan of Objectivism (to put it mildly) and he's also appallingly sexist, but if you account for that there's some stuff worth thinking about, at least philosophically.


Which would be fine, but for two things.

First, he uses magick for psychodrama, unbelieving (or not, he wasn't very clear, but his followers cleary think this) in any actual power. Now, going through magickal ritual expecting nothing but a larf and some self-development does not strike me as wise.

This is where we part company.  I think your own beliefs are coming through here quite strongly.

I'm not as absolute on this as LaVey.  (I'm agnostic about whether magic has any external effect).  But I don't see an issue with "going through magickal ritual expecting nothing but a larf and some self-development", certainly not if you're seeing magic as a method as opposed to it being part of a religious practice.

And I think psychodrama is a highly useful technique in magic.  Actually, his sense of theatre is one of the main things I like about LaVey.  We could do with more of that, not less.  (Crowley was many things, but he was certainly a highly talented showman and self promoter).

Also, his symbology is screwy, such as using the word Shemhamforash in rituals. It means Unameable Name. Yah-yah's name, in other words. He advocates calling on the Abrahamic god in Satanic rituals. Oi.

I wasn't aware of that and it certainly suggests his research isn't to be trusted.  It's also highly hypocritical; he attacks the use of Hebrew names for demons in the Satanic Bible.

I can see that, from a Theistic Satanist perspective, calling on the Abrahamic god would be a really bad idea.  From an atheistic perspective however, it's probably not that important.  It's not like LaVey believes either Satan or the Abrahamic god exist.  It's what I meant before about it being important to understand where LaVey is coming from.  People need to know he assumes an atheistic perspective and decide whether they agree with it when they're reading him.

If you see him in the context of the wider occult circle as opposed to Satanist, using Judeo-Christian symbology is actually really common.

And worse? His bizzare attitude that Satanism is a religion he invented, and that no other use of the word is valid. He tried to bloody copywrite it! He even succeeded at copywriting his Baphomet pentacle, and its almost identicle to the one in La Clef de la Magie Noir, all he did was erase the names of Samael and Lilith! What a con man.

Oh, yeah, he's undoubtedly a prick.  But if I was to chuck out the work of any occultist who's behaved in a dickish manner, that would be denying myself access to an enormous body of work.

All that said, if we're looking at symbolic/atheistic Satanism, I think LaVey has been largely surpassed by The Satanic Temple.  They aren't authoritarian, have a great eye for stunts, actually have a sense of humour and are generally cooler in so many ways.

Likewise, (not published books but internet writings) the demonolatry system of Joy of Satan. They highly suggest a full on dedication to Satan first thing! And don't use and form of banishing ritual before magick or summonings.

And they think Satan is a telepathic alien and Jews are reptilians.

Sigh.

The latter in particular is an issue, because it's part of their wider worldview.  The JoS are a conduit for Neo Nazi ideas into Satanism.  I don't think that's overstating it.  Several of their leaders are active in the Neo Nazi movement.  While they sometimes try to hide it, you can see that it influences things like their false claim that Hitler was a Satanist.

Put it like this.  LaVey and his followers are frequently tiresome and mockable, but I don't see them as an actual threat.  They aren't my enemy.  JoS are.

Oh, yeah, he's undoubtedly a prick.  But if I was to chuck out the work of any occultist who's behaved in a dickish manner, that would be denying myself access to an enormous body of work.

 
I can't help but think we'd have no body of work at all if we did that.

I thought it might be useful to have a list of books people here have found highly questionable (along with why of course). I know when I first started to investigate non-mainstream religion I was lead by some overly eager amazon reviews into books that I promptly turned around and sold as they had little bearing on my interests and were often historically / logically dubious.

Any takers?

 
I just bought the book Deep Ancestors by Ceisiwr Serith and it was not what I need for my practice. I found the book on the ADF website on their recommended reading page. I went to Mr. Serith's website and read many of his articles and really liked everything there so I bought his book. I thought this was a book on the history of ancestor worship, but it is not. I read it quite quickly and am wondering how to use this information. I am entirely solitary and am not looking for anything group oriented and now I have a book on group ritual. I will keep the book because I may eventually join a group. I still like the author I just thought this book would be useful for me at the moment.