azurelunatic | *shudder* OK, I see the point already. (Book disrecommendation for a certain few-to-several)

Back on-List a while ago, someone said that they disliked Mercedes Lackey's writing because of a certain stylistic and themeatic habit. Namely, (paraphrased because I can't remember the exact bit of wit), "I can understand authors who have an axe to grind. She, however, leaves off grinding the axe and begins bashing readers over the head with the blunt end of it."

A profound disrecommendation of The Serpent's Shadow to anyone who's fond of Crowley. I only have a passing acquaintance with his works, and was not disturbed by a bit of axe-grinding in The Fire Rose (it came off as "historical fiction with a physically-distant contemporary in an ideological disagreement thinking he's a crackpot" to me, and Mr. Big Bad Wolf was the exact temperament to have firey grudges), but The Serpent's Shadow is clearly the blunt end of the axe, with vague-in-detail-yet-specific-in-venom references that make me wonder whether she has researched more into the opinions held of him by his contemporaries than I have (I get the vague impression, by reading about him in other places, that at least Muggles thought he was pretty damn bad, but I'm not sure what the wizarding world thought), or is just waving the axe around for effect.

When I thought that Lackey didn't necessarily have a grudge against Crowley, I hadn't read this book yet.

(As a Wizard or a Muggle, I don't know how much credence I would give a contemporary of mine who was in and out of drugs, and it looked, in and out of sanity, who claimed that they were the most wicked person on the planet. Even if they wrote brilliantly, I would still likely take pains to avoid them, because only a Lunatic would hang out amongst dangerous crackpots.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Uncle Al generally painted himself as an evil crackpot to try to dissuade people from just taking his teachings wholesale. He frequently dispaired since people would take ideas and things that worked for him and apply it verbatim to themselves. When his first declaration was that people needed to customize anything and everything that he did for themselves, it got frustrating when people try to be exactly like he was.
He kept being more and more excessive and finally fell into his own trap as he started believing his own ad copy. Oops.

That would be a bad thing to have happen.

Crowley's good. It's really interesting what he did, and the most interesting thing about it was that it was deliberate.

Crowley set up what is called a Dead Teacher. He deliberately encouraged all sorts of stories about him. His childlike delight in the most outrageous exagerrations, slanders and outright fabrications spread about him is a matter of historical record.

Meanwhile, his books are chock-full of excellent information about all sorts of esoteric subjects. The stories spread about him and his reputation, which has not faded with the years, serve quite adequately to keep people who would not benefit from this information away.

.

Thanks.

You are most welcome.

.

She has a major fetish for a clear distinction between good and bad. Like really clear. Like here are the nice pure proper people who wreck their bodies and their sanity to save other people and here are the people who giggle about raping and torturing thirteen-year-olds. You can also tell the good people because the magic plot device points them out as good. It's overall a very fluffy bunnies and shiny angels worldview.

I have now got the name "Aleister Crowley" mixed up in my head with the song "Officer Krupke", so I'm stopping now. Eep.

I like shiny angels, and I like slightly grubby ones too. Rodents and I don't get along.

It's odd. I've never looked at it this way before, but the books of hers that have people behaving in ways that are morally ambiguous to them are my favorites.

I'm a Yeats fan. And, while Yeats certainly had his own issues, he also was instrumental in getting Crowley kicked out of the magical studies group Yeats was in, saying that the group was a place to study magic, not to encourage juvinial delinquents. This may have inclined me to an unreasoning prejudice against Crowley.

That said, I think Lackey uses Crowley as a scapegoat for all that she doesn't like in modern magic work. All the good, Gaia-loving, light-bearing pagans are on one side, and all the cynical, weird sex loving, bad sorcerers are over there, on Crowley's side. As a Gaia-loving fan of weird sex, I'm not entirely sure where I fit.

Now I can see where it's a good thing to point out that pagan groups as a whole don't sacrifice babies and curse the cows. But instead of the Christians vs. Evil Pagans, Lackey just ends up with the Light worshippers (Good Christians and Sweetness and Light Pagans) vs. the Designated Bad Guys (Bad Christians and Pagans Who Do Squicky Things). I don't really see that it helps understand the wonderfully chaotic, contradictory creatures that make up most of humanity.

Oh! And don't forget the Satanists, who are just icky and wussy for the most part, but every now and then there are a few Really Bad Ones hiding in the reputation...

(Yes, I've been acquainted with several. The LaVeyan Satanist from work was a really sweet guy with religious political views on the other wing from the Christians. My ex BJ was just a dick, and couldn't pick one religion and stick with it. My other former-Satanist friend was a nasty piece of work while involved with it, and still isn't one to be messed with in dark alleys, but is otherwise a really assortedly-sweet person.)

*snort* Nicely put. I wouldn't fit into those categories, either.

Thank you. By the way, your icon is lovely!

shudder OK, I see the point already. (Book disrecommendation for a certain few-to-several)

Re: OK, I see the point already.

Re: OK, I see the point already.

Crowley

Re: Crowley

no subject

Crowley isn't her only axe

Re: Crowley isn't her only axe

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: