Entries Feed
What is RSS?« Saturday Signal: Imaginary friends, sacred sex, Fallen Nation, Cthulhu crochet, and another round up | Main | Ouroboros Press to release volume two of the Picatrix in October »
“Celebrity” occultists
By Psyche | August 25, 2008
Stumble it!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Previously we’ve 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 place?
Recently on a forum someone inquired as to whether there were any “world renowned” LHP practitioners “like what Phil Hine is for chaos magick”. This struck me as odd on at least two accounts.
Certainly, Phil Hine has written several well received books about chaos magick (namely Condensed Chaos and Prime Chaos), but why does Hine, for this person, serve to represent chaos magick?
Within the admittedly niche subject of chaos magick2 there are a variety of influential authors who have published a number of excellent books on the subject, such as its founders Ray Sherwin and Peter Carroll, as well as Lionel Snell (under various pseudonyms) and Stephen Mace, to name a few. Why was Phil Hine singled out?
Is it the relative scarcity of available books/material on the subject that lead to his fame? The simple ease of his writing style? Or perhaps it his early and active participation in ‘zines, mailing lists, his website?
On another blog, Experiments of Magicians, Aleister Crowley is a recurrent target for Taylor Ellwood, who writes:
My original issue with Crowley essentially boils down to this: If after seventy years since his death, Crowley still represents the pinnacle of occultism, then occultism as a discipline hasn’t advanced at all, which then brings up the question as to why any of us even bother practicing magic at all, if all we’re trying to do is emulate him.
It’s only been sixty years, and I don’t think “emulate” is quite the right word, but it remain that here Crowley is viewed as the “pinnacle of occultism”.
Crowley certainly left a trail: mountaineering records, serving as the prophet of a newly defined religion, authoring more than fifty books on magick, as well as poetry, plays, political and philosophical commentary; further, he left various scandals in his wake. It’s easy to see where the initial infamy arose, and the endurance?
Ellwood frequently laments that his favourite authors are not half so well known. Why isn’t anyone talking, writing, lecturing about them, teaching their works?
I don’t have resolutions for the questions above. Hine and Crowley are wildly different. “World renown” and the distinction of being the “pinnacle of occultism” seem abstract, but the weight of authority carried is tenable. It’s a curious game.
I might have an answer, though, in regards to well known (if not quite world renown) LHP practitioners. Don Webb springs immediately to mind, and the late Christopher Hyatt likely qualifies. Anton LaVey and the current head of the Church of Satan, Peter Gilmore. Also the head of the Temple of Set, Michael Aquino. Stephen Sennitt, certainly.
Where do these names lead? Wouldn’t a recommendation for specific works to study, biographies to read, people to practice with be more useful than name dropping?
Footnotes:- See, “Too popular?“. [back]
- Often called the “fringe of the fringe” of occulture. [back]
Topics: Blogs, Books, Chaos Magick, Identity, Magick, Media, Satanism, Thelema | RSS Feed | Trackback URI
« Saturday Signal: Imaginary friends, sacred sex, Fallen Nation, Cthulhu crochet, and another round up | Main | Ouroboros Press to release volume two of the Picatrix in October »
August 26th, 2008 at 1:20 am
I think a few factors are at work here — including the fact that many occultists are glad to practice their craft without ever seeking fame or recognition for accomplishments or inventiveness. The thing is, if everyone’s supposed to be innovating, then in some ways there’s no innovation in innovation, you know?
At the same time, there are many well-known occultists — within occult circles — but many find it distasteful to be the kind of bombastic showman that Crowley was, or that LaVey was in more recent years. For that kind of “household name” recognition you need newspaper scandals, not reams of well-written grimoires. And I don’t think many want to go the Paris Hilton route, as it undermines credibility (in many ways, it undermines Crowley’s — to this day).
[Reply]
Psyche reply on August 26th, 2008:
True, but for those who have attempted to put something out there, what sort of recognition do you think might they expect or desire for their work and name?
Take yourself for example, you’ve published a well written comprehensive book about ley lines in Sonoma. Anyone interested in the subject who reads it will come away with a better understanding of Sonoma County and ley lines in general.
It’s a niche subject about a niche location. You could be a celebrity in your field without goat sex or blood drinking, but what tips the scale?
[Reply]
Beth W. reply on August 26th, 2008:
Specifically, I think it has a lot to do with the charisma and pushiness of the author — you have to have a pretty specific personality type to be a “celebrity,” and I don’t have that personality type. Nor the marketing team to make people think I am.
[Reply]
August 28th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
For comparison, let us consider that to many, the most famous ‘magician’ in Britain is Kevin Caerleon! Being competent - even innovative - is not the same as being a publicity hound. And being famous don’t mean you’re any good.
I suspect a lot of the truly able modern workers are famous as a side effect rather than a primary interest (unlike dear old Kev!).
Also, even the idea of a spokesperson/representative for Chaos magic seems a little… counterintuitive. Absolutely, recommending works rather than writers… even RA Wilson (for example) had his off days.
[Reply]
Psyche reply on August 29th, 2008:
I hadn’t heard of him before the piece posted on The Wild Hunt, but since then he seems to be cropping up everywhere! “Tacky” doesn’t begin to cover it.
I don’t know that Phil Hine sees himself as a spokesperson, but someone seems to see his work as such.
It does seem to miss the point…
[Reply]