Crowley comes in for a bit of lashing in today's Times obituary for John Symonds. It does, however, raise an interesting point; why did Crowley appoint Symonds to be his literary executor?
1. Crowley thought he'd be the only person capable?
2. Crowley somehow suspected Symonds would create a scandal out of him, so instigating more media noise?
3. Crowley just fancied him?
There's an obit in today's 'Guardian' too:
I've resurrected this old thread after a dream I had last night. Does anyone know why Crowley made John Symonds his literary executor, or how long Crowley had known the man before he did so. Symonds only met Crowley a year before he died apparently. Did Crowley write any letters to his friends explaining his decision, or commenting in any way on Symonds? There's something ... 'off' about this.
::::: monitoring my blood pressure 😉 :::::
I was wondering if anyone has any new information on this topic, ie how Symonds ended up being Crowleys executer on what seems such a short aquaintance; or is this destined to remain a mystery to us all...
I don't think there's any mystery about it. Crowley knew he was nearing the final curtain, and was thinking about posterity. Along came a young man who Crowley thought was well-equipped to be his literary executor. Some might feel that in retrospect Crowley made a poor choice, but he probably felt that there were few options open to him.
Let's hope that Camlion's blood pressure has eased by now.