Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't like this idea of establishing a banned books list. Or if we're going to do this then specific reasons should at least be listed and supported rather than "These books/authors are considered fluffy and bad influences on the pagan/witchcraft community."

"I don't like the color pink so you should avoid using it in spellwork." Same sort of thing going on here.

What do I know though? I'm just a fluff that worries more about making it work then whether the author actually is a Wiccan High Priestess of the Triple Moon Coven or whatever.

Let people read what they want. Encourage people to read everything. That's the only way they're going to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Not been seen as worth it by who? And for what reasons? That is what I'm getting at. If we're going to throw down the gauntlet on what's good and what's not then there needs to be some rationalization aside from "People don't like these authors."

Some one who spent years erasing their religious practice which was based on those books when shown historical evidence otherwise

From what you've heard? That's what I'm talking about. If the authors or books are crap I want to know why, specifically, with examples. If we're going to trash someone for not being historically accurate or whatever then I think we should at least provide specific examples with citations. That's all I'm saying. If we're going to bag on people for not being academic enough then it's hypocritical not to be academic ourselves.



If your practice worked then why would you erase it just to conform to historical evidence? I realize there's a difference in perspective between us on this subject, but if what I'm doing is working then I don't really give a goddamn how historically accurate it is.



This sounds like the realm of ambiguous morality and opinion rather than serious crime. I don't really see how it takes from the efficacy of whatever practices she's teaching.



Again, if it works then who cares? If I'm reading a magic book it's to learn magic and not history. This is where critical thinking on the part of the reader comes into play. If the student can't be bothered to question the teacher then they are as responsible for being duped as the teacher.



I think that accusations like that deserve specific citations and references if we're going to insist that people avoid those books.

I'm pretty sure I've read most of that stuff before but I'm sure other people haven't. That's my point. Thank you for posting that. Still though, if Ravenwolf's magic is solid then I see no reason to tell people to avoid the book. Historically inaccurate sure, but is it complete trash? I don't think so. I don't believe in banning books or discouraging reading regardless of what the content is.

If it's a phase then why bother wasting time trying to educate someone on something they don't have their heart in? If it's something they're going to stick with then they'll figure it out and do the research themselves.

This is just my personal opinion, but anyone who isn't careful with their history may possibly not be careful with their spell work.

While I regard all spells as valid (because they are), I still would not use or readapt spells made by people who don't care enough to fact check behind themselves in other areas.

I would rather use a spell from Chaucer's drunken Miller any day over Ravenwolf. A person who has sloppy history, sloppy writing, and sloppy behavior modifications is not a person whom I would want to learn from.

/Beeep DF out/

My personal number 1 reason for discouraging people from buying the $ilverRavingfluff book is this:

In advising teens how to deal with their parents who don't want their child exploring witchcraft and paganism she writes :



It is irresponsible to cause emotional teens to believe themselves entitled to act and behave how they wish when they are under the care and protection of their parents. To suggest to force the issue, or alternatively to lie is utterly irresponsible, immoral and in some places, illegal. The better course of action here for her would be to explain to the child that, while it might be difficult for the teen to comprehend, the Parents are behaving responsibly within their perception of right and wrong. For example, who is a Child to force a parent to break their oaths to their church such as a Catholic parent would have made at their Wedding and at the Childs Christening. It is considered impossible to come to agreement when the major premis of the syllogism of the parent conflicts with that of the child. As such, it may well be a no-win situation for the parent-child relationship.
Then there is the straight up issue of encouraging children to lie to their parents.
I suppose selling a book to her target audience is more important to her than ethical, responsible advice to often emotionally confused teens.


As for the other one, I've not read it but at least Conway pulls herself a touch higher than Ravingfluff where, in her introduction she says


A downside is her instistance that the Abrahamic religions, or any religion where the primary deity is male are opressive.


She muddies the waters


Her definition of Karma is wrong plus she makes sweeping genralizations about the beliefs of Witches, Wiccans and Pagans :


In her 'History of Wicca' beginning on page 8 she attempts to state that Wicca is as old as human existence. Equating Wicca with ancient cultures and the veneration of Deities in general throughout antiquity. She suggests a false history in that :


That's just 8 pages worth from the amazon preview. I could go on and give more reasons, but it's time for dinner.