kaostar wrote:
> : ) many reviews consist of things the author has not done, rather
> than what they have.... i think it is symptomatic of the area, one of
> the first reviews of mine consisted of a bitter attack on why i had
> not researched magical group X, which i presume the reviewer had been
> a member of at some point...
>
> Dave E
Dave Agreed
But there again, history is the selection of facts, and that selection
can be v "political" - I like your own "selection" in history of
thelemic magick,
because it preserves the UK experience when you could so easily have
"americanised" the whole thing -
but there again I could have done without the emphasis on Amado Crowley,
who from my perspective seems irrelevant.
In contemporary "wiccan" history there is a tendency to ignore events
such as the Stonehenge Free festival -
and rave scene which others regard as much more central to growth of
modern paganism and witchcraft in UK -
Francis I wonder if you remember the contacts we had back then with
Starhawk and Pagans Against Nukes . . .
bb/93
Mogg
|