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

[azurelunatic]

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.)

Comments

[calligrafiti.livejournal.com]

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.

[azurelunatic]

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.)

[cissa.livejournal.com]

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

Re:

[calligrafiti.livejournal.com]

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