Follow up Post to the time to Get over Crowley post
In her latest post on the Crowley movie, Psyche says:
“Ellwood seemed pleased the movie received a terrible review because he hates Crowley…I hear this sentiment [She's quoting my post where I mention his claim to fame is publishing the GD rites and also his showmanship] a fair bit from people who have not actually read much Crowley and are therefore unfamiliar or unaware of the influence he’s had on magickal thought and practice – “hero-worship” rather misses the point.”
In point of fact, I don’t actually hate Crowley. I just don’t think what he’s put out there is nearly as impressive as other people seem to think it is. I’m actually quite familiar with Crowley’s work, having read Gems From the Equinox, The Book of the Law, Book Four (Parts 1 – 4), Moonchild, Liber 777, Magick in Theory and Practice, and The Book of Lies. And even after reading all of that I’m just not as impressed as others are with his work (As is evidenced by my post where I showed the problems in his definition of magic). Do I think he has valuable things to say? Certainly. I also think he’s been dead for a long time, and other people have written works that are equally as valuable but often ignored or not known about, because in Western ceremonial magic, the buck seems to stop at Crowley. A good example would be Pascal Beverly Randolph who’s work, as I mentioned in my post about the movie review, was essentially plagiarized by Crowley with no reference back to his work (and yes I have heard actual Thelemites, and ex-Thelemites admit that this was the case).
I don’t hate Crowley. What I do hate is the often uncritical acceptance of him, and unwillingness to look at other works by other authors. What I hate is how so much focus is put on Crowley and how he did so much for magic, and how much other people and their contributions have been ignored because OMG Crowley!!! There are some people who even try to emulate his practices and life as much as possible, instead of developing their own practices. And this is where, yes there is hero-worship. Some people get so focused on what Crowley did and how wonderful they think his writings are, etc, etc…and I begin to wonder if they have original thoughts of their own, or have done anything with their practice which isn’t just an emulation of what Crowley did.
I know some people argue that Crowley defined magic and that no one can surpass his accomplishments, and that bothers me as well, because if seventies years after the death of someone, you haven’t seen genuine progress in a discipline, or people haven’t come along and offered something substantive that continues to push that discipline in new directions, then that discipline is dead. At that point, why bother doing anything new? And that’s what I hate…that people venerate him to such a degree that the potential for genuine progress is that much lessened…because hey if so and so is such a bad ass magician, I’ll never compare to him. They shouldn’t be comparing themselves to him in the first place. What they should be doing is getting what they can out of his works and ALSO reading and practicing what others did, while also developing their own practices.
I think Crowley was a person much like anyone else who has his share of experiences and occult adventures. I think he had a lot of courage to write what he did in the era that he wrote in. I also think that he did some questionable practices, such as plagiarizing the work of others. And in the end, I think that while it’s important to acknowledge that he’s had some influence on Western magic, and continues to this very day, it’s also time to start focusing on what others have done and written and learn from their works and experiences. Crowley was just one person, and unlike others I disagree that he’s defined magic or set an unsurpassable record. He’s offered a perspective on magic, but there are others. He did some impressive magical work, but if you’re doing it right than so have you.
I don’t hate Crowley. I just hate his influence. I hate that it discourages genuine progress. I hate that people are so wrapped in what he did that they can’t look at his work in a balanced manner, and they don’t look at the works of other people, because they think that nothing else that anyone wrote had value compared to Crowley. And they don’t try to do anything on their own, because they don’t think it has value, unless what they’re doing is what Crowley did. And that’s why it’s time to get over the hero worship.
I have to admit that your decision not to cite Crowley irks me somewhat – if because it contradicts what you are trying to do. I have not seen a single effective case of doing away with a sacred cow (or of what one considers to be a sacred cow) by ignoring it. I believe it is more effective to contextualize, to put the cow in a rightful place, by the side of someone you consider to be greater and better, and allow those you are trying to convince to make their opinion. Thus it struck me as odd that you would choose a tactic of ignorance.
This tactic can be effective, with a very serious “But”. Influence may be destroyed in this manner – but only if the movement is massive enough, if the instigator has enough power and influence – names have been erased from history before. Luckily, the magical community is not so strictly bound together for this kind of thing to really happen. But this effect is exactly what your tactic, taken to a logical conclusion, aims for. But you don’t seem to be one for the destruction of any magician’s name.
What I’m trying to say is that I don’t understand why, if you’re trying to combat the influence and not the name, you put Crowley into such an exclusive position. This alone emphasizes not the magical practice, but the persona – exactly what you’re trying to avoid, as far as I understand. Moreover, you’ve read a lot on semiotics and psychoanalysis, you know that what has been repressed always returns. Even more importantly – you know this by experience, as your magical diaries show. Your work focuses on integration of experience, on putting it into its rightful place – why aren’t you applying the same approach to a social phenomenon you deem out of proportion?
I think fandom or hero-worship in the occult community (or really any community remotely centered around spirituality) is dangerous, and does not make for very good growth potential.
I have, admittedly, not read as much of Crowley’s work as others have, but I never was truly impressed with him either. I think its important to learn from those in the past–to build on the future, and to avoid past mistakes. Instead of regurgitating old rhetoric, how do you build on it, you know?
Have you actually seen the movie, btw? I’m just asking because maybe you can elaborate on these criticisms though. I plan on seeing it, if for nothing else than to satiate my curiosity on the topic.
Mythicanine,
I haven’t seen it. I probably will at some point when I can rent it on DVD or find someone around here who has a copy. And good points on fandom/hero worship
Werekat,
I initially chose not to cite Crowley because I felt it was more important to focus on the works of others, to draw people’s attention to lesser known magicians who had quite a lot to offer, but were usually not looked into. I think, initially, it was a good decision. Focusing on Gray, on Bardon, on Randolph, on Evola and others has been fruitful in terms of promoting them further. I find it really heartening, for instance, that some of William G. Gray’s work has recently gotten put back into print. Likewise people have greater access to the works of the other aforementioned authors.
But I think you bring up a valid criticism here, in terms of trying to ignore Crowley. This is why of late I’ve rethought some of my approach to the matter. When I see posts which don’t offer much in the way of a critical appraisal of Crowley’s work, it seems to me that perhaps a critical appraisal needs to occur, thus some of my recent posts about Crowley. Also I have an article which will be in print soon that carries of some of the criticisms I’ve written about Crowley into further detail.
So I’d say at this point I’m more inclined to start critiquing Crowley and his works, because I feel like the works of others are starting to get more attention.
You can actually read some of my critiques in the post I linked to, in this about my critique about his definition of magic
A good example would be Pascal Beverly Randolph who’s work, as I mentioned in my post about the movie review, was essentially plagiarized by Crowley with no reference back to his work (and yes I have heard actual Thelemites, and ex-Thelemites admit that this was the case).
So post an expose demonstrating this is the case.
Post something that demonstrates Randolph’s work is still relevant. Though I must point out if we’re being down on people for indecency of being dead, Randolph died in 1875 – the year Crowley was born.
I don’t hate Crowley. What I do hate is the often uncritical acceptance of him, and unwillingness to look at other works by other authors. What I hate is how so much focus is put on Crowley and how he did so much for magic, and how much other people and their contributions have been ignored because OMG Crowley!!!
Who’s deliberately ignoring other authors to slavishly promote Crowley? He’s cited where relevant – as with any author or cultural figure. If you feel others are more relevant, prove it by writing pieces about them – not in petty avoidance of acknowledging modern occultism’s debt to Crowley – but because their works have truly been an inspiration to your own.
I think your inferiority complex surrounding Crowley’s work is your own, I don’t know that anyone ought to compare themselves to another in this self-depreciating way. One defines one’s own principles and standards or is left to be defined by others, but ultimately the only benchmarks you use are those you create.
Again I must cite Mark Kingwell:
Hello Psyche,
First, I just want to thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your response and I think you bring up some interesting criticisms here.
Now you’ve stated before that you would like to see a well-balanced criticism of Crowley’s work. You’ve noted that people either hate Crowley or love him, but rarely provide criticism of him. Now I’ve noted that when you write about him, you tend to praise his writing and what he wrote about to the skies. I find it odd, to be honest, because your reviews, in general, are very balanced. You note what works, but you also aptly note what doesn’t work. I have yet to see you write a word of criticism about Crowley’s writing. Maybe, for you, there just isn’t any criticism.
I, on the other hand, do have criticisms, and I have started writing them, and not just about Crowley’s writing, but also the resultant culture that has arisen around Crowley’s name and works. I find it interesting that you still haven’t addressed my critiques of Crowley’s definition of magic. You’ve claimed I’ve hated him, implied that I haven’t read his works, and now claim I have an inferiority complex, but you haven’t addressed my criticism of his work.
Now I’m going to address the points in your comment:
I actually have cited Randolph’s writing, specifically in Inner Alchemy, and also Kink Magic. I plan to draw on it again in several more works as I do find it relevant. Also, thank you, because you’ve given me a prompt on here for another post, which will be about the relevance of his work.
In fact, as you should know, having read at least a couple of my books, I always cite and reference other occult authors that I find inspirational to my work. I make it a point to do that. You say it’s in petty avoidance of modern occultism’s debt to Crowley, but in fact it’s because I want to present work I’ve found inspiring, while also presenting alternatives to Crowley’s writing and influence, because I think other contributions to the occult also need to be acknowledged. As I noted in Pop Culture Magick, Crowley is very well known, while are authors are not as well known. I further explained that in my writing I would promote those authors, because I felt they needed to be known about, while not writing about Crowley, because he already was well-known. I didn’t seek to pettily avoid acknowledging Crowley, but instead to acknowledge the work of others much less focused on. I can guarantee that you or I would be hard-pressed to find an occultist who didn’t know of Crowley. He’s even well-known in mainstream culture…the same can’t be said about the work of others, and I thought it important to at least start to remedy that by referring to those writers, and focusing on their work. I still feel that way.
Isreal Regardie, in the Preface to Magick without Tears, wrote the following about Crowley: “Crowley’s condemnation [condemning Krishnamurti] is cruel and harsh, perhaps because of his own ambition to be Logos Aionos, the Word of the Aeon, the World Teacher, and so he was a ruthless competitor who damned all other competition” (1994 p. xvi).
This was somebody who worked alongside Crowley, who knew him in person. Well Crowley realized his ambition, didn’t he? He’s thought of by many people as being the biggest influence on occultism. And yet what I don’t see is any attempt to critique that, to argue against it…so I decided long ago that I’d make sure that my writing acknowledged the debt to other occultists, the contributions THEY made, because in having read the work of others, I found it to be very insightful and inspiring, particularly because they offered perspectives that didn’t agree with Crowley and thus presented an alternative take on magic. I didn’t think they should be ignored and I made it a point to cite them, so that readers could find out more about those authors and balance that against all the Crowley advocates.
Just recently I had a conversation where somebody told me that any writing about Thelema that came after Crowley wasn’t valid, because no one could write about it the way Crowley did. So when you have that attitude in place, that kind of uncritical acceptance of Crowley’s work to the point where any other writing about the same subject isn’t considered valid, tell me how that’s a healthy or good thing. Tell me how it’s balanced…because I don’t see balance. You cite Mark Kingwell in an attempt to brush aside my criticisms. And yet if fashion is not critiqued, if fashion is not examined, if it is blindly accepted, I think that presents a deeper problem. I’m not trying to dismiss Crowley. I’m trying to present alternatives to his fashion, while also, as of late, critiquing the the trends in that fashion that I see.
And finally in regards to the distortion that I’m being down on Crowley for being dead…I’m not down on him being dead. I’m down on the fact that if after at least seventy years since the guy was around, you can’t come up with new definitions of magic that aren’t a variation of his definition, there’s a problem with that…it indicates, to me, a lack of progress. Obviously magic progressed after Randolph died. That doesn’t mean he isn’t relevant, and it certainly shouldn’t mean that Crowley isn’t relevant either, seventy years later…but neither should we stay static.
Thanks again for your comments.
Hello Psyche,
I thought of an additional point that I believe will again illustrate why the culture that has sprung up around Crowley needs to be critiqued. Over the years I’ve practiced magic I’ve met many ceremonial/hermetic magicians. In a few cases, those magicians had read or heard of authors such as William Gray, Franz Bardon or Stephen Mace. In the majority of cases, they had not and what they had access to or worked with was either GD material or Aleister Crowley’s material. The majority of thelemites I have met have usually exclusively read Crowley’s material on the quabalah, as opposed to any other material out there. And while it could be argued he was just that good of a writer, I find it odd when people don’t do thorough research into what others have to say about a particular subject.
It’s not just Crowley’s works that need to be critiqued against what others have written…it’s the resultant culture, the belief that what Crowley wrote was so defining of magical practices that nothing else needs to be looked at. Maybe you’ve never encountered people like that, but I have. It’s only recently that I’ve seen more awareness of some of the other names that came after Crowley, let alone before him.
Now I’ve noted that when you write about him, you tend to praise his writing and what he wrote about to the skies. I find it odd, to be honest, because your reviews, in general, are very balanced. You note what works, but you also aptly note what doesn’t work. I have yet to see you write a word of criticism about Crowley’s writing. Maybe, for you, there just isn’t any criticism.
I’m unclear about where or why you think I’ve “praised his writing to the skies”, but I don’t expect you would have read specific criticisms unless you follow the same blogs I do and participate in the same forums or were stalking me. The negative comments are there, when relevant. Though, it’s true, I do believe that dismissing a man’s work out of hand because it’s “too popular” is severely misguided.
Further to your second comment, for clarity, it might be simpler in your essays/posts if you these specific issues rather than make blanket statements for which it is quite easy to provide ample contradictory evidence.
I find it interesting that you still haven’t addressed my critiques of Crowley’s definition of magic.
I find your take on his definition to be misinformed and therefore pursing this matter is all but impossible as bringing you up to speed on Crowley’s intent would require an attentive reading of several of his books, which you seem reluctant to bother with.
Your sense of occult history, the lineage of ideas and magickal philosophy seems limited, which is a shame, because I believe it’s vital to understand where we came from to see where we are now and better position ourselves moving forward.
While Crowley certainly did not arise out of a void – he was very much a product of his culture and period, as were his predecessors in the Golden Dawn, the fin de siecle occultists and the French occult revival, and so on – neither did, for example, Wicca (Gardner bought an OTO charter from Crowley) and today’s resulting neo-paganism, or chaos magick (Carroll’s books riff off Crowley’s to the extent that some examples are given almost word for word).
Occultism is far from static, but there’s no reason to for it to be ignorant of its heritage either.
It’s interesting that you assume that my sense of occult history is limited, or that I’m ignorant about it’s heritage, because I don’t agree with you on Crowley’s role in that history. I actually do agree with you that we need to know our past in order to position ourselves to move forward. It’s a consistent theme in my writing. I just don’t think Crowley’s effect is as notable as some people make it out to be.
You claim you’ve amply answered my criticisms, but you haven’t remotely done that at all. You’ve offered ad hominem arguments, claiming I hate him, claiming I have an inferiority complex, and claiming as of late that I don’t have a good grasp of occult history. You have yet to deal with my criticisms, and when challenged on it, you have offered an excuse for not doing it.
You feel my take on his definition is misinformed, that a more careful reading of his work would yield a different understanding of his place in history…and while I actually am quite willing to re-read his work, and actually have re-read some of his work (such as when I made my argument against his definition of magic), I’m not convinced that doing so will cause me to feel much different about him or his overall effect on occultism. But hey, I’m willing to actually go through and re-read it again, just to see if I feel any differently than I have before. If nothing else, my recent conversations with you has made it evident that I shouldn’t continue to not reference his works on the occult.