Aloha,
On 1/8/2006 at 3:32 AM Caroline Tully wrote:
>I think the criticism of modern "pop" pagan / magical practices
>revolves around its perceived lack of depth, difficulty, research, effort
>involved - just read the majority of Llewellyn Wicca books to get an idea
>of modern magic's "blandification"!
I'd add to your list of characteristics that pop wicca is repetitious to
the
point of repeating itself again and again. Book after book, article after
article,
sidebar after sidebar. At least one reason pop wicca seems bland is that
so many different resources say pretty much the same thing.
I'm a fan of genre, but I'm not talking about different works within
genre conventions. It's more like all these works are the same pot of
paste with different labels.
>There are lots of great sources available on ancient magic / religion and
>I personally find them more evocative than say "The Idiot's Guide to
Paganism"...
I prefer the great sources, myself. But if you aim to do a ritual you may
have to use a step-by-step guide.
>but then again I'll
>find modern authors such as say, members of the British "Sabbatic
>Witchcraft" scene, or Chaos Magician, Phil Hine, very evocative too... So
>maybe its personal - what actually expands your mind as opposed to what
>clogs it with dullness.
I prefer the works by no matter who or when that extend my awareness,
thinking, or practice, too.
Musing Pop Goes The Wicca! Pop. Pop. Pop. Rose,
Pitch
<<Never play strip Tarot.>>
--anonymous, from *How to Be a Cultist*
|