Notifications
Clear all

Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3972
19/06/2011 4:11 pm  

I'm delighted to say that, following discussions with Steffi Grant, the programme of republishing Kenneth Grant's Typhonian Trilogies continues with Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God which we expect to make available in Spring 2012. Thereafter, the republications will be in sequence, and at a faster pace than in the past.

I know that some were hoping that Beyond the Mauve Zone and The Ninth Arch would be the next republications. However, in my opinion the earlier volumes of the Trilogies are more readily assimilated and lay foundations which underpin the later volumes. All volumes of the Typhonian Trilogies will be brought back into print, and at a faster pace than previously.

More details of the republishing programme will be announced on LAShTAL.com, the Starfire Publishing website, and via our mailing list.

Best wishes,

Michael Staley,
Starfire Publishing Ltd.

website: www.starfirepublishing.co.uk
email: admin@starfirepublishing.co.uk


Quote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5315
19/06/2011 4:41 pm  

That's great news, Michael. I think you're absolutely right to work through them in sequence: those that stuck with it can always invest in the later copies but the important thing with Grant, it seems to me, is to get a proper grounding in the basics before moving on to the later material.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2466
19/06/2011 7:27 pm  

Looks like SOMEONE 😉 might be owning two copies of each Grant book in the next few years lol. Good news Mick! keep up the good work.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
19/06/2011 7:39 pm  

Although I am still looking for th last trilogy at an honest price, and will continue to do so until purchase, I think it is a great initiative to publish them in chronological order. This way, as Paul said, people can get a thorough grounding with the first trilogy before delving into more 'intricate' matters.
Cheers, Starfire!


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
19/06/2011 9:22 pm  

Personally, I hope there will be extras of some kind - and not just a straightforward reissue; so as to make the publication something special for the veteran collectors among us.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3972
19/06/2011 9:53 pm  

I appreciate your point of view, Michael. However, these republications are being undertaken not with collectors in mind - veteran or otherwise - but with making Grant's work readily available. As with the republications of Outside the Circles of Time and The Magical Revival, the text will be newly typeset, and any typographical and other anomalies corrected. The Skoob errata list, where it exists, will be incorporated into the text. Plates will be in colour where the original colour artwork is accessible, and new plates will be added where appropriate. I doubt that there will be any "extras", though.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/06/2011 2:05 am  

This is good news, and agree wholeheartedly about the need for general accessibility of Grant's work. I found a copy of 'Hidden God' in an obscure metaphysical bookstore in Montreal back around 1980, but at the time didn't appreciate the rarity of that discovery. Grant's works are very hard to come by in North American bookshops. Banyen Books in Vancouver, the single largest esoteric shop in Canada and one of the largest in North America (it's about three times the size of Watkins), carries no Grant books, and hasn't for some time. It's time this important figure in 20th century esotericism gets more general exposure.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/06/2011 4:29 am  

Like FraterLucius I've yet to acquire BTMZ and NA, but I am glad about the Trilogies being republished in order. I'm even happier to see that they now will be released faster than the past two volumes! Thank you, Michael and Steffi!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/06/2011 6:33 am  

This is great news. I am only missing "Hecate's Fountain", so hopefully I won't have to wait too much longer! My copy of "...Hidden God" is an older edition of a different size than the Skoob/Starfire versions, and a bit dog-eared, so I'm looking forward to replacing it with a pristine copy of the same size!


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
20/06/2011 11:06 am  

I appreciate your point of view, Michael. However, these republications are being undertaken not with collectors in mind - veteran or otherwise - but with making Grant's work readily available....I doubt that there will be any "extras", though.

Okay thanks. But I did say it was only a personal hope.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
20/06/2011 8:54 pm  

Fantastic news Michael. Glad to hear publications to follow in original order. I do feel for those who have yet to get hold of BTMZ and NA however I agree with the points raised above re the grounding of fundamentals before fitting the keystones.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3972
20/06/2011 11:16 pm  

I have a number of titles in various states of completion, most of which will be published by the end of this year. Thereafter I should be able to concentrate on republishing the Trilogies volumes at the rate of two or three per year, so Beyond the Mauve Zone[/] and The Ninth Arch will be along sooner than may be feared.

Typical, eh? You wait hours for a number 93 bus, and then 31 come along all at once . . .

Yours on the Clapham Common omnibus,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
panpsyche
(@panpsyche)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 14
22/06/2011 3:26 am  

I'm glad to think that I might be able to acquire some of Mr. Grant's titles that are missing from my bookshelf, but I'm wondering if we'll be waiting longer now to see Spare's two early grimoires which were set for publication in 2011?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3972
22/06/2011 8:28 am  
"panpsyche" wrote:
I'm glad to think that I might be able to acquire some of Mr. Grant's titles that are missing from my bookshelf, but I'm wondering if we'll be waiting longer now to see Spare's two early grimoires which were set for publication in 2011?

No, you won't. The Two Grimoires title will be packed off to the printers shortly. It will receive its international publication launch at the Esoteric Book Conference at Seattle this coming September, to tie in with a talk on Spare:

http://esotericbookconference.com/2011/events/presenters /"> http://esotericbookconference.com/2011/events/presenters/

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
22/06/2011 11:19 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
The Two Grimoires title will be packed off to the printers shortly. It will receive its international publication launch at the Esoteric Book Conference at Seattle this coming September...

Fantastic news on all counts!

S


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
22/06/2011 2:14 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"panpsyche" wrote:
I'm glad to think that I might be able to acquire some of Mr. Grant's titles that are missing from my bookshelf, but I'm wondering if we'll be waiting longer now to see Spare's two early grimoires which were set for publication in 2011?

No, you won't. The Two Grimoires title will be packed off to the printers shortly. It will receive its international publication launch at the Esoteric Book Conference at Seattle this coming September, to tie in with a talk on Spare:

http://esotericbookconference.com/2011/events/presenters /"> http://esotericbookconference.com/2011/events/presenters/

Best wishes,

Michael.

Excellent news all the way around!


ReplyQuote
panpsyche
(@panpsyche)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 14
22/06/2011 2:57 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
No, you won't. The Two Grimoires title will be packed off to the printers shortly. It will receive its international publication launch at the Esoteric Book Conference at Seattle this coming September, to tie in with a talk on Spare:

http://esotericbookconference.com/2011/events/presenters /"> http://esotericbookconference.com/2011/events/presenters/

Best wishes,

Michael.

Thanks Michael, that's good news! I'm afraid this Summer will now seem very long in anticipation. 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2011 1:36 am  

Welcome news, Thank you!, Mr Staley.
Another superb production from Starfire,
Thanks for the heads up on the publication order. I'm so happy we can get the typhonian set at a reasonable value.
Also, ecpyrosis was awesome.
Keep the the current flowing.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
23/06/2011 2:27 am  

So, Mick, will we be getting the new issue of Starfire and "Grist to Whose Mill?" before September?


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2466
23/06/2011 2:58 am  

Grist to Whose mill and starfire are my most exciting waits . Cuz I have all the Typhonian buddies. Which isn't to say I won't be buying the reissues cuz im nuts like that. Deluxes mmm


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3972
23/06/2011 9:59 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
So, Mick, will we be getting the new issue of Starfire and "Grist to Whose Mill?" before September?

The new issue of Starfire will be out by then. Grist to Whose Mill?, however, will be later.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/06/2011 5:42 pm  

Mick,

I just two days ago finished reading "The Magical Revival" for the first time. All my previous exposure to Grant's writings had been through later entries in the Trilogies and his Nightside Narratives. I'm anticipating the release of "Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God" as well as the increased output from Starfire, as I think (like some have already stated, and based on personal experience after just reading the first book) that the earlier books lay some important groundwork for understanding the later ones.

Keep up the good work - like many others, I'm looking forward to what Starfire has in store!

- Jon


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
24/06/2011 7:07 pm  
"defile959" wrote:
Mick,

I just two days ago finished reading "The Magical Revival" for the first time. All my previous exposure to Grant's writings had been through later entries in the Trilogies and his Nightside Narratives. I'm anticipating the release of "Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God" as well

- Jon

You won't be disappointed. It was the first one I read and I retain a certain fondness for it each time I delve.


ReplyQuote
AdoniaZanoni
(@adoniazanoni)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 72
26/06/2011 3:34 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I appreciate your point of view, Michael. However, these republications are being undertaken not with collectors in mind - veteran or otherwise - but with making Grant's work readily available. As with the republications of Outside the Circles of Time and The Magical Revival, the text will be newly typeset, and any typographical and other anomalies corrected. The Skoob errata list, where it exists, will be incorporated into the text. Plates will be in colour where the original colour artwork is accessible, and new plates will be added where appropriate. I doubt that there will be any "extras", though.

Best wishes,

Michael.

Michael,

While I welcome the idea of Starfire republishing Kenneth Grant’s works, I wonder if you may be missing an opportunity of not adding extra components. Such as introductions by you, Steffi Grant, Michael Bertiaux, Nema, Grant Morrison or even Alan Moore in future editions explaining the changes in the edition or the impact these works had on their lives.

Also, in Nightside of Eden and Hecate’s Fountain rituals were used to developed the source of these works. Kenneth Grant described that in Nightside of Eden he did not want to publish repetitious rituals for Liber 231. While I have no plans to explore the Qlippoth, it would be interesting to see what methods were written down if any. It would be pleasant surprise to see if there are any ritual workings of the Nu-Isis Lodge that reflect Hecate’s Fountain that could be published as an addition. These works may not exist or the shroud of secrecy must be kept. If they exist, perhaps in another future publication they might appear.

I can understand the goal is to keep the price of production minimal, but still it would be nice to have surprises to people who already own all the trilogies.


ReplyQuote
tc
 tc
(@tc)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 40
26/06/2011 8:54 am  
"AdoniaZanoni" wrote:
I can understand the goal is to keep the price of production minimal, but still it would be nice to have surprises to people who already own all the trilogies.

It seems to me that Starfire are showing a great deal of respect to those people fortunate enough to already own them, rather
than adding a few bits and bobs in the hope that they'll all cough up again for what to all intents and purposes are the same books.
In these times of cynical marketing I find this wonderfully refreshing. Faith restored! Thanks Mr Staley.


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
26/06/2011 9:57 am  
"tc" wrote:
In these times of cynical marketing I find this wonderfully refreshing. Faith restored! Thanks Mr Staley.

Well put tc. I rather like the fact that Starfire is releasing definitive corrected editions of the original books. I would rather not have new material shoehorned into the flow of the book. I am perfectly happy with the best presentation of the original materials.


ReplyQuote
AdoniaZanoni
(@adoniazanoni)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 72
26/06/2011 10:22 am  
"einDoppelganger" wrote:
"tc" wrote:
In these times of cynical marketing I find this wonderfully refreshing. Faith restored! Thanks Mr Staley.

Well put tc. I rather like the fact that Starfire is releasing definitive corrected editions of the original books. I would rather not have new material shoehorned into the flow of the book. I am perfectly happy with the best presentation of the original materials.

I was referring to introductions and appendixes for new material if even possible. I would still want a definitive corrected edition of the original books. I did not mean to imply changing the contents of the original text. No one seems to have a problem with the Alan Moore introduction for the new edition of the Book of Pleasure. But I still respect TC and your perspective; it was just a thought.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
26/06/2011 11:57 am  

It seems to me that Starfire are showing a great deal of respect to those people fortunate enough to already own them, rather
than adding a few bits and bobs in the hope that they'll all cough up again for what to all intents and purposes are the same books.
In these times of cynical marketing I find this wonderfully refreshing. Faith restored! Thanks Mr Staley.

The majority of Grant fans are going to be just as likely to ''cough up again'' - as you so eloquently put it - for any new edition anyway... especially seeing as the artwork is likely to be re photographed and the text corrected. I, for one, will be purchasing the new edition whether new material is included or not.

I don't think one should take quite such a cynical or resentful view of publishers who choose to include new material. I am always happy to see new and expanded editions of works whether I can afford to purchase them or not. I find your attitude rather ''if I can't have it, no one should be able to have it''......

I was referring to introductions and appendixes for new material if even possible

I would not see anything wrong with an introduction by a more contemporary occultist writing about, for example, the influence of the book over the past 40 years, and how it may have influenced their own occult work.
Moreover, in places, I think Grant's writing would benefit from a good deal of commentary and explanation, as he isn't the most fluid of writers in the world - and that in no way detracts from the quality of his work in general.

By the way, I am just expressing a wish and am certainly not making any demands on anyone.


ReplyQuote
spartacus_mills
(@spartacus_mills)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 27
26/06/2011 3:31 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
Moreover, in places, I think Grant's writing would benefit from a good deal of commentary and explanation, as he isn't the most fluid of writers in the world - and that in no way detracts from the quality of his work in general.
By the way, I am just expressing a wish and am certainly not making any demands on anyone.

Personally I don't think the reissues should include commentary and 'explanation' after all it would only be adding one person's interpretation...
You're right that Grant's writing wasn't 'fluid', I think that's part of the point... On first reading his books can appear dense and incomprehensible but I find that by returning to them every couple of years that I 'understand' more each time... I think they're really designed for the reader to find his/her own meaning in them and more importantly to take inspiration from them, they're not intended as practical grimoires. For example just look at the records of workings inspired by 'Nightside of Eden' such as 'Typhonian Teratomas' and 'The Shadow Tarot'. These works were not the result of slavishly following rituals detailed in the Grant book as he didn't include any!

Having said all that I look forward to Michael Staley's survey in the forthcoming issue of 'Starfire'! 😉

Now I'll go back to lurking as I don't really like talking about that ol' magick publically! 😉

Steve


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/06/2011 4:20 pm  

I'd rather see Grant's books stand on their own. If he himself had written a new forward for any of the forthcoming republications before his passing then sure, I'd like to see them, otherwise I'm fine with any other writers' comments or interpretations published in Starfire.

My approach to Grant's work is that he uses the scatter method. Upon first (second, third, fourth, fifth...) reading it might not be apparent, but at some point it became evident to me (either through delusion or intuition) that there's quite a bit in the Typhinian trilogies regarding rituals. It helps plenty if one constructs their own tables of correspondences over the course of reading and rereading and rereading Grant's work. The process of divining this stuff on my own (and who's to say I'm right?!?) was much more rewarding than I could imagine simply reading anyone else's interpretation. Scratch that: the only other person's interpretation I'd want to read is Jhonn Balance's. 😉


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/06/2011 8:28 pm  

Fantastic news from Starfire. Somehow I can't see any of these books ever remaining out of print for long.

The "commentary and explanation" requests make me smile. That's what the reader is for, surely.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
26/06/2011 10:45 pm  

The "commentary and explanation" requests make me smile. That's what the reader is for, surely.

Why did Grant see fit to add notes to Crowley's Magick, which in some ways is a lot more consistent and clear than most of Grant's own efforts?

I think some readers would benefit enormously from some kind of commentary and explanation, although I accept that there will always be some who enjoy the ambiguity & incoherence.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/06/2011 10:57 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:

The "commentary and explanation" requests make me smile. That's what the reader is for, surely.

Why did Grant see fit to add notes to Crowley's Magick, which in some ways is a lot more consistent and clear than most of Grant's own efforts?

I disagree. Crowley's work is absolutely full of "inconsistencies", although it makes far greater pretensions to rationalism (which you seem to confuse with 'consistency').

Perhaps what you mean is that Crowley spoon-feeds his readers and Grant doesn't seem to be interested in doing so. I won't deny that. Grant takes pains repeatedly to state that his books are not 'manuals of practical occultism', presumably because Crowley and others already covered that territory sufficiently. I think Grant's aims differed from Crowley's in some (but not all) respects, and I'm sure Crowley (and Grant) would agree on this.

I think some readers would benefit enormously from some kind of commentary and explanation, although I accept that there will always be some who enjoy the ambiguity & incoherence.

Perhaps those who seem so upset by the fact that Grant doesn't make sense to them at the moment should stick to material they find less challenging, and work up from there.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/06/2011 11:13 pm  

I often find myself wondering if Grant's critics have ever read any Kenneth Grant. He states in a great many places in quite plain English what his books are, and what they're not, to whom they are addressed, and how they are best approached.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
26/06/2011 11:14 pm  

For what its worth, my first book of Grant's is "Nightside of Eden" which I'm reading now, and I'm having no problems with it. I personally wouldn't want comments or elucidations of his material since part of the power of his work is in connecting new 'dots' to the old 'dots' already filed away in the mind of the occultist. The benefit comes from the reader making these connections for him/herself and following Grant down the rabbit hole.

I think the only thing that's needed is a strong foundation in occultism, mysticism, magick, qabalah and of course Thelema, which Grant obviously assumes the reader already has. I think, like others have noted before, that this is the audience Grant was writing for: people who are well grounded in these subjects and who are looking to take the "Next Step" as it were (beyond AC's "Next Step").

With that said, I agree that without my years of prior study and practice, I would be at a total loss with his work. Most readers lacking this foundation in the occult and especially qabalah would of course benefit from some sort of commentary or explanation. But in my opinion that's a bit pointless since it would be like university-level textbooks with massive footnotes explaining high-school level information the student should have already been versed in.

Oh yes, my first post. Hello everybody. 🙂


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
26/06/2011 11:22 pm  

Hey, hello, Pharos, welcome to Lashtal.com!


ReplyQuote
einDoppelganger
(@eindoppelganger)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 915
26/06/2011 11:40 pm  

One of my favorite things to do with Grant books is read the Glossary as a chapter itself. I also like to note how some words get different definitions between the books. I find some insights in how the terms are defined in the context of the book, and how that definition changes through the course of the trilogies.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/06/2011 12:10 am  
"alysa" wrote:
Hey, hello, Pharos, welcome to Lashtal.com!

Hello, thanks for the welcome. 😈


ReplyQuote
stanforda
(@stanforda)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 112
27/06/2011 12:20 am  

Perhaps those who seem so upset by the fact that Grant doesn't make sense to them at the moment should stick to material they find less challenging, and work up from there.

I couldn't agree more Noctifer.

It really annoys me when people try and criticise Kenneth Grant and his writings. I've noticed that the majority of those who try to do so come across as possessing very little to no knowledge of the Typhonian Current.
IMO all of his writings make perfect sense, and to someone who is experienced they should be easy to read. As you said, people who find them otherwise should work up to them.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
27/06/2011 8:13 am  
"stanforda" wrote:
It really annoys me when people try and criticise Kenneth Grant and his writings.

93!

Hm, although I think I understand what you mean, the way you worded it seems to say that Kenneth Grant's works are totally uncritisizable or in a way infallible. I can't imagine he wrote with that intention.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
27/06/2011 8:18 am  

I disagree. Crowley's work is absolutely full of "inconsistencies", although it makes far greater pretensions to rationalism (which you seem to confuse with 'consistency').

I mean consistent in the editorial sense.

Perhaps those who seem so upset by the fact that Grant doesn't make sense to them at the moment should stick to material they find less challenging, and work up from there.

That's one point of view - but it depends on the intention of making this book available again. Is it, for example, to bring the work to a wider audience?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/06/2011 11:45 am  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
I mean consistent in the editorial sense.

What do you mean?

That's one point of view - but it depends on the intention of making this book available again. Is it, for example, to bring the work to a wider audience?

I can't speak for its publisher, but one would presume that the book is being made available again to, as you say, "make it available again", as it is presently out of print. I don't imagine a radically different audience would be intended than originally, but I could be mistaken.

I don't (myself) see how altering or expanding its contents to pander to uncomprehending critics who seem to wish that it was something other than it is, would be an improvement in line with its author's original publishing intentions, which, presumably, is the whole point in "making it available again".


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
27/06/2011 12:45 pm  

What do you mean?

That it isn't well edited. I feel that Grant is lazy sometimes, and just relies upon the fact that the book is 'occult' to make his point; sometimes moving between chapters, even paragraphs, can be a very clunky process. But I do accept that there will be those who think that part of the ''experience''.

A lot of writers hide behind frankly bad writing, and are not capable of making themselves clear; partly because they lack a good grasp of writing and partly because their ideas are not that interesting. I would not include Grant in that category - but there are occult writers alive today who are producing very clear work in which the mysteries themselves are dealt with, as opposed to the discussion being about anything else. It's quite hard to discuss Grant's work without having to discuss Grant, his organisation and his intentions as a writer - the conversation isn't about the mysteries alone.

I don't (myself) see how altering or expanding its contents to pander to uncomprehending critics who seem to wish that it was something other than it is, would be an improvement in line with its author's original publishing intentions, which, presumably, is the whole point in "making it available again".

Fair point, but those people choosing to follow Grant, and his style of occultism, is hardly a growing number....


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/06/2011 1:04 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
Fair point, but those people choosing to follow Grant, and his style of occultism, is hardly a growing number....

That's exactly the point. Grant doesn't have to appeal to everybody. Why alter his writings or try to make them clearer? If someone doesn't like his work, he should just let his work be. He will not be a less honorable thelemite for doing that.

To each his own, I'd say.


ReplyQuote
spartacus_mills
(@spartacus_mills)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 27
27/06/2011 1:23 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
Fair point, but those people choosing to follow Grant, and his style of occultism, is hardly a growing number....

Don't you think so? His out-of-print books are highly sought after and command high prices and I believe Starfire titles sell well...


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
27/06/2011 1:36 pm  

That's exactly the point. Grant doesn't have to appeal to everybody. Why alter his writings or try to make them clearer? If someone doesn't like his work, he should just let his work be. He will not be a less honorable thelemite for doing that.

That's okay - it just depends on what the publishers and what the members of the TOTO want. I just happen to think it worth discussing, of course if I am not allowed to.....

Don't you think so? His out-of-print books are highly sought after and command high prices and I believe Starfire titles sell well...

I don't doubt that speculators ask high prices, but that is not necessarily a reliable guide to demand.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
27/06/2011 1:39 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:

What do you mean?

That it isn't well edited. I feel that Grant is lazy sometimes, and just relies upon the fact that the book is 'occult' to make his point; sometimes moving between chapters, even paragraphs, can be a very clunky process. But I do accept that there will be those who think that part of the ''experience''.

A lot of writers hide behind frankly bad writing, and are not capable of making themselves clear; partly because they lack a good grasp of writing and partly because their ideas are not that interesting. I would not include Grant in that category - but there are occult writers alive today who are producing very clear work in which the mysteries themselves are dealt with, as opposed to the discussion being about anything else. It's quite hard to discuss Grant's work without having to discuss Grant, his organisation and his intentions as a writer - the conversation isn't about the mysteries alone.

I'm not particularly impressed by your own clarity, if I may say so.

This cracks me up, michaelclarke18. It's up there with your posturing over Spare as an 'inferior' artist. I simply don't know where to begin. Firstly, perhaps, it is in fact possible to discuss Grant's work in isolation of him as a man and of his organisation, absolutely it is. The works can absolutely be taken on their own terms, in isolation, in exactly the way that any other artifact can be, consideration of its context is supplementary although it provides depth and definition. But that's a mere theoretical abstraction and needn't concern us.

Then you talk about crap writers as though that's somehow relevant to this discussion, before saying you don't include Grant in their number, even though you actually do, going on your remarks here, and then you talk about "occult writers alive today who are producing very clear work in which the mysteries themselves are dealt with", as though this is in contrast to Grant.

Would you care to name some of these lofty avatars for us or is this a special secret?

those people choosing to follow Grant, and his style of occultism, is hardly a growing number....

That's hilarious and appears to be an intentional insult to his legacy and to the intentions of Starfire in their re-issuing of his work, which obviously wouldn't occur if interest in his work was declining. Just because you may not be personally aquainted with people who are interested in it, or because you don't get it, doesn't really matter. Just look at these forums. Every second new member - more like two out of three, probably - expresses a sincere practical interest in Grant and a desire to commune with others who share this interest. Just look at this very thread for evidence.

Simply absurd!


ReplyQuote
spartacus_mills
(@spartacus_mills)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 27
27/06/2011 1:57 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
I don't doubt that speculators ask high prices, but that is not necessarily a reliable guide to demand.

I guess that the fact that the trilogies are being reprinted, the first four for the third time, isn't a reliable guide to demand either?


ReplyQuote
stanforda
(@stanforda)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 112
27/06/2011 3:08 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"stanforda" wrote:
It really annoys me when people try and criticise Kenneth Grant and his writings.

93!

Hm, although I think I understand what you mean, the way you worded it seems to say that Kenneth Grant's works are totally uncritisizable or in a way infallible. I can't imagine he wrote with that intention.

Love=Law
Lutz

Sorry, it did come across like that didn't it, but no, of course his writings are not infallible. I meant that from what I've seen, especially on LAShTAL, the majority of those who try and criticise his work just don't seem to have any understanding of the current, and the kind of argument they put forth usually doesn’t seem to make any sense. But a healthy and intelligent criticising is fine, and I'm sure that Grant would appreciate those who understand and enjoy his work intelligently criticising and discussing all aspects of it.


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
27/06/2011 3:13 pm  

This cracks me up, michaelclarke18. It's up there with your posturing over Spare as an 'inferior' artist. I simply don't know where to begin. Firstly, perhaps, it is in fact possible to discuss Grant's work in isolation of him as a man and of his organisation, absolutely it is.

Spare maybe an inferior artist, but that has nothing to do with this thread. Of course, if you wish to prejudice your response in this discussion - which you clearly are - with ones that have taken place on other threads, then that's a matter for you. I simply don't think it relevant.

I get the impression that you seem to think that Grant is well above any form of criticism, is that how you see him? Do you just read things without questioning or doing any other form of research, take everything at face value - it certainly sounds like it.

before saying you don't include Grant in their number, even though you actually do, going on your remarks here,

They are your words, I have both read and collected Grant's books over many years and there are lots of positive things - but I still think that Grant's work would be benefit from elucidation in places - not to mention removal or corrections to some of the examples cited that are wrong. Moreover I was actually thinking of another writer in particular and, before you ask, I am certainly not going to name them here.

Would you care to name some of these lofty avatars for us

With respect, if you don't already know who they are then I'm not going to tell you.

That's hilarious and appears to be an intentional insult to his legacy and to the intentions of Starfire in their re-issuing of his work, which obviously wouldn't occur if interest in his work was declining.

Once again, you are trying to put words into my mouth; I would like to remind you that a small interest group is no guide to quality. There are lots of small organisations that have go on to have a large and enduring influence - though at this time it's quite difficult to assess Grant's legacy - although I have not seen many indications of his following growing.

Every second new member - more like two out of three, probably - expresses a sincere practical interest in Grant and a desire to commune with others who share this interest. Just look at this very thread for evidence.

Perhaps you would like to start a Grant website elsewhere, as this one specifically relates to Aleister Crowley and Thelema. However, I would say that the degree to which Grant's work relates to Thelema is highly debatable. I think a lot of new converts miss that point.

I guess that the fact that the trilogies are being reprinted, the first four for the third time, isn't a reliable guide to demand either?

That's a better guide, than the prices asked by speculators, but that also depends upon print run, uptake by booksellers, sales and subsequent editions. 1992 or 1993 was the last time this book was published.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: