Too popular?
By Psyche | March 21, 2008
When someone asks me what they should read to learn magick, after sussing out their specific interests, a Crowley recommendation shortly follows. Crowley’s books remain among the most lucid ever written about the subject, yet, strangely, often seem to be the most underappreciated. 1
One of the more absurd excuses for feigning disinterest in Crowley is due to his notoriety. Deemed “too popular”, he’s dismissed without investigation. 2 I’ve actually heard people suggest this. It’s deeply disturbing.
The glamour cast over his life and character seem enough to suggest, to some, that there’s no need to actually read the books, do the work proscribed – it’s enough to assume there’s nothing worth pursuing.
John Crow recently wrote about a similar matter using an example of a teenage acquaintance of his, “Kevin”, in the mid-90s.3 Kevin seemed to determine the superiority of a thing solely on the basis of its exclusivity: if it was rare, it was deemed worth his while. He assumed this defined him as an “individual”.
Mark Kingwell captures the absurdity of this well when he writes:
The idea that something can be dismissed for being fashionable is a part of an unexamined moral code which is actually subservient to the fashion system, not superior to it…every puritan is a dandy of his own convictions – as well as vice versa.4
Kevin was equally obedient to the trends in his thoughtless dismissal of anything deemed “too popular” as those who flocked toward whatever was on offer. This reactionary response is not consistent with someone who has achieved even a modicum of self-awareness. 5
So what of those who find Crowley’s name too ubiquitous to burden themselves with investigating why his name has endured?6 Does this really determine their status as special and unique snowflakes?
Popularity: 8%
Footnotes:
- See “[cref 37]“, and also “[cref 43]“. [back]
- See “[cref 89]” for more on what Crowley’s being remembered for in secular culture. [back]
- See “Being Different for Different Sake” in Treasure House of Pearls. [back]
- Mark Kingwell, “The Theory Theory; or, The Fashion System Revisited”, in Descant 138, p. 233 [back]
- Peterson goes deeper still, see “[cref 99]” for a taste. [back]
- Perdurabo, indeed. [back]
Related posts:
- Stuff White People Like
- “You must construct your own Qabalah!”
- Perdurabo film
- Responses to Chemical Wedding film review
- “Celebrity” occultists
Category: Essays & Opinion,Occulture
Save & Share: Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Reddit Stumble it! Twitter
When someone asks me what they should read to learn magick, after sussing out their specific interests, a Crowley recommendation shortly follows. Crowley’s books remain among the most lucid ever written about the subject
I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. “Crowley” and “lucid” are not t2 words I’d use in the same sentence. Perhaps it’s my own personal occult history, but I just cannot stand him anymore (this coming from a former Thelemite). I don’t have anything inherently “against” him, other than the fact that his writings are, frankly, very difficult to make any sense of for most people living in 2008. His pretentiousness makes me ill after reading more than a few pages. He certainly has his good moments, but to merely learn “Magick”, there are a great many easier, simpler, and more efficient ways to do this than to slog through Uncle Al’s self-aggrandizing prolific writings.
Have you read Book 4 or Magick in Theory and Practice? I’ve never read a more lucid introduction to magickal practice – and that’s saying something.
I’ve you’ve anything even remotely comparable, I’d love to read it!
I know you’ll disagree with me on this, but I don’t find Crowley that lucid or for that matter all that innovative. I read his works long ago and found them a bit interesting, but moved on to other writing that was clearer and more focused.
I don’t recommend Crowley partially because I’ve encountered all too many people who have only read Crowley and treat his works as more important than anything else written in magic, which imo is a foolish mistake to make.
I think he should be read, but more importantly other less known magicians should also be read because they have a lot to offer on the subject of magic. A broad foundation is better than too narrow a focus.
Out of curiosity, what did you read?
I don’t recommend Crowley partially because I’ve encountered all too many people who have only read Crowley and treat his works as more important than anything else written in magic…
Why do you think they reached these conclusions?
I think he should be read, but more importantly other less known magicians should also be read because they have a lot to offer on the subject of magic. A broad foundation is better than too narrow a focus.
See my earlier post “Beyond the Books” for my position on reading voraciously – I’m adamant that it’s required for obtaining a well-rounded understanding of the world we live in.
However, I think you’re misunderstanding, I’m not suggesting that Crowley be read exclusive to other material, I’m merely suggesting that overlooking his works because his name is a familiar one is an absurd notion.
I ended up reading William G. Gray, Franz Bardon, and a variety of other authors. I had read Crowley’s Book 4, but it was until I read some of the golden Dawn Materials and the others I mentioend above that it really came together for me.
As for why I think people reached those conclusions…I think they get too caught up in the image of Crolwey, of trying to be like him. It strikes me as really odd that the OTO has not released much material by other people in their order, other than Crowley’s work. You ever come out to Portland, I’ll introduce you to Gerald del Campo, who could tell you a lot of stories about it.
And while yes I agree that you aren’t necessarily saying Crowley should be read exclusively, I think what you commented on in the OP is a backlash agaisnt people who do think that way.
Perhaps I’m not understanding your response? The only Crowley book you’ve read is Book 4? How did Gray and Bardon turn you off Crowley?
Well, for a start there’s J. F. C. Fuller, Francis King, Jack Parsons, Lon Milo DuQuette, Allen Greenfield, Christopher Hyatt, Richard Kaczynski and, of course, Kenneth Grant. But you’re confusing the OTO with Crowley – they’re not synonymous. I’m speaking specifically about Crowley’s work, and its enduring relevance to modern occultism.
One of the responses to my piece was that these trend followers were actually trend setters and the elite. I find this a somewhat convincing argument, but the trend setter must have some kind of internal compass or taste and not be led by the whims of the masses. Also there is the question of their influence. I read a recent white paper about this Understanding Influence, and Making It Work For You. One of the things we should look at with people like “Kevin” is what kind of influence do they have? Are they really leading the pack, or are they just influencing a few people at most. The latter can hardly be said to be the elite leading the pack.
Thanks for sharing that study, it’s intriguing, but it only looks at the influence average people have on each other. A similar study on what criteria are used to determine a source’s uniqueness and trustworthiness would be helpful, too.
I suppose, for me, the question is more about how value is determined or dismissed, and why.
[...] looked at the hazards of dismissing someone out of turn simply because they’re deemed “too popular“,1 but how do they get that way in the first [...]