Hi Sabina...

You said...
>>Thanks for the fan letter!  It's always nice to know one's books are read
and appreciated, that they don't just go out there into the ether, or the
Romulan Neutral Zone of unread academic books, or (the worst of all
horrors!) the remainder bin at the used book shop.<<

I am very enthusiastic about academic works that are informative, in a new
way, about Neo-Paganism and broader subjects - for the benefit of
practitioners, as well as for those studying them. Without sounding like a
sychophant (how can a fan *not* sound somewhat sychophantic however!?!) I
think your book is on the level of importance for the Neo-Pagan movement's
looking-at-itself as is, say, "Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon" - your
book is different to his, sure, but still very informative in its
highlighting and analysis of components of Witchcraft-Neo-Pagansim that we
may have not seen, or looked at, or been aware of before. I liken it to
contributing to what I think of as "The Continuing Detective Story About the
Origins of Modern Paganism". Your folklore angle is really, really
interesting - I became interested in folklore's relationship to modern
Paganism a few years ago when I read that last chapter (I think it was) in
Hutton's "Stations of the Sun" and so I'm pleased to read something else
that is even more folklore, or folkloristics-informed (because I know hardly
anything about folklore but am interested in it). I was also led to Pagan
Reconstructionism in part via your Streghe & Aradia articles, it went
something like this... thinking about Wicca, thinking about C.G. Leland's
contribution, thinking about Raven Grimassi's claims, thinking about your
articles regarding Italian Witchcraft, thinking about Leland's Etruscan
book, thinking about ancient Roman religion, leading to ancient Greek
religion etc.

I notice in the Introduction in "Witching Culture", which I hadn't read as
of my last post but have now, that you mention aesthetics and creative
expression as some of what you're looking at regarding Neo-Paganism. (Now of
course can't find citation). I've been toying with the idea that religion,
so-called religious experience, is really aesthetic experience, an "art
experience" if you will - even when it involves aniconic religions, it's
still an aesthetic.... I need to think about this more to elucidate exactly
what I mean here.. but I am inspired in this by the grumpy atheism of
Richard Dawkins, which I find liberating, but my simultaneous attraction to
Pagansim which I think may be aesthetic, I'm not sure if it is primarily
aesthetic or not, and by "aesthetic" I mean not only visual, but literary,
bodily...

>>I've been enjoying your posts to the magic list, and I really loved your
essay in Laura Wildman's edited book, which I got for Christmas; you made
your experiences with birth and death very vivid and embodied, which is
something I strive for in my own writing.<<

Oh thanks. That book's got lots of interesting stories, with a lot of the
"miraculous" in them. My favourite chapter in that book is K.A.Laity's
"Ancient Texts and Venerable Tales". As for my chapter, (sorry to other list
members who might be bored by me talking about myself, I won't keep doing
it, but...). Yeah, it was a sad experience, very traumatic actually. I am
kind of self conscious about that chapter, because I don't want it to look
like I'm coming across as "poor me"... "pay attention to poor old me"... Its
not meant to be a "poor me" chapter, even though it sort of is. What I think
was interesting is how that experience led me to having a real "crisis of
faith" regarding some of what I'd previously believed regarding "women's
spirituality", and how that's kind of led me on to researching the gulf
between popular use of, and belief in, aspects of archaeology, like say,
paleolithic "Venus" figurines, versus academic approaches to the same
figurines - which are quite different to popular approches ie/ in academic
archaeology at the moment, prehistoric female statues are *not* regarded as
being Goddesses at all - sure they *might* be Goddesses, but they might be
something else entirely... There's no evidence for divinity etc.... Also, at
the time of that experience, I was genuinely baffled because I guess I'd
spent years kind of believing that being a "Goddess woman" ensured me to be
"biologically successful" in reproduction.. all that girly womb stuff which
I'd been under the impression about for years that biological female =
goddess worshipper = successful at reproduction... does that sound like it
makes any sense? I guess what I'm saying was that in the 1980's, when I
started mixing with Wiccan-types - mostly they were about 10 years older
than I was and they had children - they kinda believed (and conveyed to me)
that Wicca and Goddess stuff was *about* reproduction... I think its called
"biological determinism" these days...... Plus, I'm not really *that*
maternal anyway... Simon, who I live with, is more maternal than me. So
that's another thing... do I have to fit into this 'Mother Goddess' mould?

>>The Neoplatonic origins of Craft are something I may re-think.  It's one
of my HP's favorite rants, and part of his party line, and I do think there
are some common points, in the sense that Neoplatonism served as a
foundation for so much of late antique and medieval thought.  But there are
also significant differences, and the line of succession may be broken, or
mediated by the Renaissance magi -- something I only brushed past in WC.<<

Oh yes, most likely the line of succession would be broken, but an
interesting idea anyway. What do you think about the idea prevalent in a lot
of Wicca about "apostolic succession" from Gerald Gardner? Why should this
kind of "direct" succession be important?

B*B
~Caroline.