New To WitchCraft. [Wanna Help Me?]

[Calelith]

Brass Bell Doll

Would someone be willing to explain why Silver Ravenwolf isn't a good source on witchcraft? I understand why she is not a good source on Wicca by the standards here, and why some of her books and the things she suggests in them may be unethical, but what about her books on things like protection magic and prosperity magic?

As you were, I was

Erm, no.
Here.
Let me show you the kind of garbage that $RW puts in her books.

As I am, you will be

 

[ncsweet]

Brass Bell Doll

Would someone be willing to explain why Silver Ravenwolf isn't a good source on witchcraft? I understand why she is not a good source on Wicca by the standards here, and why some of her books and the things she suggests in them may be unethical, but what about her books on things like protection magic and prosperity magic?

I think it's one of those things where, even if there are parts of her work that might be worth looking at - at least in context to general witchcraft and/or eclectic neo-paganism - it comes down to a matter of just not wanting to support someone who we feel has done more "harm" than good to the community.

There are far better books for that sort of info, that there is not a lot of reason to look to her as a reference, unless one is specifically looking for a path that is all "rainbows and ponies". To be sure, there probably are people that are perfectly fine with that, but a good many here aren't.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Calelith

As you were, I was

Erm, no.

Part of the opening in this article states
"Differing theology is a matter of opinion. Ravenwolf's theology is not, however, what I object to. What I object to is her lousy history, lack of morality, and rampant religious bigotry."

I do not see anything in these that would make her books on the craft of magic bad.




Here.

This article has some fair criticism about the value of a single person trying to define anything in regards to paganism and witchcraft, but I feel it is worth noting that the criticisms address a single book and do not really comment on the practice of witchcraft- the author even quotes a section of the book where Silver Ravenwolf says "I've written scads of material on magick, and have read hundreds of books on the topic as well.", which would suggest this article doesn't intend to address my initial question since the author of the piece even quotes Ravenwolf saying that the book they are critiquing isn't about the practice of magic.

I feel it is also important to note that the author of this article allows for the possibility that Silver Ravenwolf's heart is in the right place.

There are parts of her books that I disagree with, but I feel that these disagreements should be explored by understanding another's reasoning.

Let me show you the kind of garbage that $RW puts in her books.

This is another article that deals largely with why she is not a good source on Wicca, both traditional and other more debatable applications, but I also feel it fell short of addressing my premise.

I am familiar with her writings. I've read most of them out of curiosity. I haven't found anything that has been raised that does not have a rational explanation- even if I disagree with it.

ncsweet

I think it's one of those things where, even if there are parts of her work that might be worth looking at - at least in context to general witchcraft and/or eclectic neo-paganism - it comes down to a matter of just not wanting to support someone who we feel has done more "harm" than good to the community.

There are far better books for that sort of info, that there is not a lot of reason to look to her as a reference, unless one is specifically looking for a path that is all "rainbows and ponies". To be sure, there probably are people that are perfectly fine with that, but a good many here aren't.

While I can understand avoiding an author by allowing your buying power to speak to your ethics, I also think that some of the concern raised about her work isn't given due consideration given the context.

May of the points I have seen raised in the articles that commonly circulate aren't as black and white as they are presented.

Don't misunderstand, I disagree with a lot of what she says. I also disagree with what I see as a sketchy presentation of words taken out of context and an absence of open and thoughtful discussion on what her positions actually are.

In the end, I also feel that she is at a disadvantage when it comes to these discussions because while we are able to elaborate and expound upon what she wrote once upon a time, there is no intelligent rebuttal offered. Usually when I see someone upset by criticism aimed at Silver Ravenwolf it's someone who is inexperienced. They may be inexperienced with how to argue a point or perhaps they are inexperienced with the wider range of information on magic- either way, the tools to explain and reason through the material isn't to hand.

I would like there to be more open discussion on the matter, more exploration of the principles that we have intense reactions to, and fewer article links, they serve to help someone else understand why someone might have a certain reaction, but they don't advance the discussion anymore than someone posting "Read her books."  

[ncsweet]

I know you said less linkage... but I think this particular one actually address more of what you are looking for.

Is Silver Ravenwolf a practicer of religious bigotry?

Quote:

I've read "Teen Witch" cover to cover, and I must say that it wasn't as bad as I'd expected from all the hype. Unfortunately, that doesn't say much. The first overall disturbing thing that strikes me about this book is the way in which it is blatantly targeted at Christian teens. The author practically jumps through hoops to draw the reader to the conclusion that Witches worship the Christian God, relegating Witchcraft to Christianity with special effects, so to speak. Now, I understand that this is meant to be an introductory book for young readers and their parents. However, I fail to see how leading readers to incorrect conclusions at the outset is helpful. The whole book dumbs down and sugar-coats the practice of Witchcraft, while at the same time managing to further spread misinformation. I'll address some of that now....

 

[Brass Bell Doll]

ncsweet

I know you said less linkage... but I think this particular one actually address more of what you are looking for.

I do not mind links themselves, I dislike having three articles being used as "quick answers". What you have done is exactly what I was hoping for- rather than leaving a link, you have selected a portion of the article that we can discuss.

Quote:

I've read "Teen Witch" cover to cover, and I must say that it wasn't as bad as I'd expected from all the hype. Unfortunately, that doesn't say much. The first overall disturbing thing that strikes me about this book is the way in which it is blatantly targeted at Christian teens.

When the author of the article expresses that the book targets Christian Teens, I agree. Having said that, I don't consider it a valid criticism since I feel that not only does an author have a right to select their audience, but that since the majority of people who speak English are some form of Christian, it would make sense to write for them. Alternatively, if a family is already pagan, then there is a good chance the parents are already providing family practices for their children, thus giving children in a pagan household the advantage of not needing an introductory book like Teen Witch.

Quote:

The author practically jumps through hoops to draw the reader to the conclusion that Witches worship the Christian God, relegating Witchcraft to Christianity with special effects, so to speak. Now, I understand that this is meant to be an introductory book for young readers and their parents. However, I fail to see how leading readers to incorrect conclusions at the outset is helpful. The whole book dumbs down and sugar-coats the practice of Witchcraft, while at the same time managing to further spread misinformation. I'll address some of that now....

I feel that authors often bite off more than they can chew when they attempt to define therms and that more responsibility should be taken on their part to note that such definitions are held within their tradition- and aren't universal.

Gerald Gardner ran into a similar issue when he attempted to define who was and was not a witch as well.

Silver Ravenwolf clearly supports a very generic form of paganism that relies on a specific understanding of polytheism that is incompatible with other forms- but if it is a sincerely held belief, why would we not be able to agree to disagree? I myself disagree with her understanding of pagan gods, but I also acknowledge that there is no means by which to prove our position is more correct than hers.  

[oOGarrettOo]

The problem with SRW teachings on witchcraft is that she tries to make it something it's not and attempts to remove sense, responsibility, and personal involvement. Her idea of witchcraft is asking some deity to help them with their menial tasks and she pretty much tells her readers to use magic to get their way. At the same time she also goes on to say that only "good witches" do real magic and only "good magic" is involved with religion, everything else being "bad magic". She also insists that Wicca and Witchcraft are one in the same, and there can be no witch unless they're Wiccan, which is the greatest load of bull I ever did hear.  

[ncsweet]

Again I think it's a matter of "to each his own", but over all I think it hurts the community as a whole to have someone continually trying to make witchcraft into something that it's not. Yes, it is perfectly fine if a person only wants to focus on a specific aspect of the craft, but to pretend that the other parts don't exist, or worse that the other parts are "evil" or somehow less important is detrimental to the practice.

Life isn't all "love and light", and to pretend that it is I think can be very damaging to a person. Especially if one is telling this to young, impressionable kids, who later grow up to find out that the world doesn't actually work that way.  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

I think it's self-explanatory as to why Ravenwolf isn't a good source on witchcraft. I mean, maybe we could give her "barely mediocre" for the "Silver Broomstick" one and that's the best of a bad crop. It's not inspiring, it's not informative, and it tells lies - not just about Wicca, but about witchcraft. As in, "witchcraft is a religion". And she pushes her offensive bloody soft-polytheism. (Note: not all soft-polytheism is offensive. $ilver's is, because she uses gods like ingredients in a spell-recipe.

I mean, she uses DJ Conway as a source and recommended reading, for Chrissakes. She is so bloody rude about the poor Christians, too. It's repulsive. Seriously, what is this?

Silver Broomstick p 270

I believe one of the biggest problems Witches face today is the influx of Christianity and its "turn the other cheek" melodrama.

What is that. In one sentence she manages to imply neo-Pagans have copyright on witchcraft and insult an important tenet of a lovely religion. OMFG, Christians up in MY witchcraft?! NO WAI.

Silver Broomstick p 13

One cannot be a Satanic Witch because Witches don't believe in Satan.

Lie. I'm sure there are some theistic Satanists out there who practise witchcraft - and I'm absolutely certain there are witches who believe in Satan, whether they worship him or not.

p 23

Pagan/Neopagan: Follower of a nature-based religion.

I know at least three Pagans who would find this offensive. Personally? I just consider it incorrect.

p 23

Pentacles are never worn inverted in the Craft.

Never? I've heard of it in Wicca at least. I'm sure other witches are happy to wear an inverted pentacle as well, depending on what it symbolises for them.

p 19

Burning Times

Do not get me started.

p 8

Be sure that you reread the Principles of Belief [as per the Council of American Witches, 1979-ish] whenever you are in doubt of your position, either magickal (sic) or political.

Of couuuurse. Because that council was a strong one, lasted a LONG time and is representative of ALL witches, especially American ones. I do not think.

Also she has no idea what Drawing Down the Moon is. I know that's more Wicca than witchcraft but it's one of the things that seriously bothers me. Also she has a page on runes. One page. WTF. And she doesn't say "these require more study", she says "make your own, also you don't need to do anything nasty like cut yourself to blood them because OMG THAT WOULD BE BAD."

She doesn't say that. But she doesn't mention blooding either.

How can $ilver be a good source on witchcraft? She lies about the very essence of what witchcraft is. I say "lies" because I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, by the way, by assuming she knows what witchcraft is. It's always possible she's ignorant as to what witchcraft is, which doesn't make her a good source either. She's a source. She's just a shitty source.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

oOGarrettOo

The problem with SRW teachings on witchcraft is that she tries to make it something it's not and attempts to remove sense, responsibility, and personal involvement.

While I feel this is a good point, I would ask you to consider that her phrasing is representative of her understanding of Truth. While we may disagree with it, it does not mean that her perspective is worthless.

oOGarrettOo

Her idea of witchcraft is asking some deity to help them with their menial tasks and she pretty much tells her readers to use magic to get their way.

To my knowledge asking for help, even with what we consider menial tasks, isn't directly prohibited by her tradition. One of my teachers once said he approached God, saying that if God puts in the 99%, he'll give the 1%.

My first reaction was one of shock, but then I remembered a part of A Book of Pagan Prayer. It spoke of how offerings and gifts reflected status and ability, which got me thinking about the relationship that we have with our gods.

I still disagree with his approach- but I understand his position better, and am able to chalk it up to a mere difference of opinion- and perhaps a difference in my relationship with the Divine.

oOGarrettOo

At the same time she also goes on to say that only "good witches" do real magic and only "good magic" is involved with religion, everything else being "bad magic".

I agree that this is in error, but at the same time, she is defining her world view.

I have a question: do you feel she is being intentionally malicious or attempting to deliberately defraud her readers?

oOGarrettOo

She also insists that Wicca and Witchcraft are one in the same, and there can be no witch unless they're Wiccan, which is the greatest load of bull I ever did hear.

Unfortunately this is a product of early misunderstandings in neo-paganism that largely trace back to Gerald Gardner's work.

ncsweet

Again I think it's a matter of "to each his own", but over all I think it hurts the community as a whole to have someone continually trying to make witchcraft into something that it's not. Yes, it is perfectly fine if a person only wants to focus on a specific aspect of the craft, but to pretend that the other parts don't exist, or worse that the other parts are "evil" or somehow less important is detrimental to the practice.

This actually reminds me of some of the commentary that is exchanged between Orthodox and Reformed Judaism in the sense that both groups are perfectly sincere in their opinions about how one should practice, but they completely disagree on what proper practice looks like. A dear friend of mine named Noa pointed out that she finds it really funny that her father forbid her to study Jewish Mysticism because it would "Burn [her] soul", and yet she goes to a pagan friends home and there are all kinds of Kabalistic texts. In the same way, while even I disagree with Silver Ravenwolf, I cannot outright suggest that the sum of her writing is worthless- because I am not representative of the whole of paganism.

ncsweet

Life isn't all "love and light", and to pretend that it is I think can be very damaging to a person. Especially if one is telling this to young, impressionable kids, who later grow up to find out that the world doesn't actually work that way.

Is it possible that by creating a lifestyle that is an organic affirmation of ideas, she and those who respond favorably to her message are attempting to change the world around them?

Sanguina Cruenta

It's not inspiring, it's not informative, and it tells lies - not just about Wicca, but about witchcraft.

It is apparently inspiring to some, and informative to most people who are very new to paganism.

Sanguina Cruenta

As in, "witchcraft is a religion". And she pushes her offensive bloody soft-polytheism. (Note: not all soft-polytheism is offensive. $ilver's is, because she uses gods like ingredients in a spell-recipe.

Maybe she feels that Witchcraft is a religion, and that magic in general doesn't need to be considered witchcraft. My disagreement with such a position would be found in the etymology of the word- but etymologies do not always contain relevant social understandings.

Could you provide a reference to her using gods like ingredients?

Sanguina Cruenta

I mean, she uses DJ Conway as a source and recommended reading, for Chrissakes.

Could you explain why you feel that DJ Conway is not an acceptable source in general?

Sanguina Cruenta

She is so bloody rude about the poor Christians, too. It's repulsive. Seriously, what is this?

I feel this is largely addressing a group within Christianity, rather than Christianity itself. I agree it is phrased poorly, and that it works under the premise that if it doesn't describe a given Christian, it isn't addressing them.

Sanguina Cruenta

Silver Broomstick p 270

I believe one of the biggest problems Witches face today is the influx of Christianity and its "turn the other cheek" melodrama.

What is that. In one sentence she manages to imply neo-Pagans have copyright on witchcraft and insult an important tenet of a lovely religion. OMFG, Christians up in MY witchcraft?! NO WAI.

I believe I addressed above why her understanding of the word Witch is flawed, but accurate in a traditional sense.

If it is worth noting, Gerald Gardner expressed similar views in regards to the use of the word Witch.

She is also addressing a specific expression of Turn the Other Cheek. Ironically, one that was addressed by ncsweet's previous comment. When you continue to read the passage in context, it's talking about how one cannot let the fear that is ingrained in a person because of the tradition they were raised in prevent them from following their new path.

This is something I have seen a lot of- people afraid to practice witchcraft because part of them is still afraid that they will be smited. The passage addressed a specific kind of person- the one who is intimidated into inaction because of their upbringing.

To take it out of context doesn't seem to be doing a fair turn to the discussion taking place.

Sanguina Cruenta

Silver Broomstick p 13

One cannot be a Satanic Witch because Witches don't believe in Satan.

Lie. I'm sure there are some theistic Satanists out there who practise witchcraft - and I'm absolutely certain there are witches who believe in Satan, whether they worship him or not.

This largely stems from the understandings that came from the early pagan movement. Gerald Gardner, basing much of his opinions on what witchcraft should look like, drew heavily from Margaret Murray, including her book The God of The Witches, where in the first chapter she detailed the difference of perspective between Christians and her image of a Witchcult and their god.

To those ends, our disagreement with her is a novel idea that comes from outside her sphere of understanding.

Sanguina Cruenta

p 23

Pagan/Neopagan: Follower of a nature-based religion.

I know at least three Pagans who would find this offensive. Personally? I just consider it incorrect.

Unfortunately, this is again a product of previously held truths being revamped as the modern pagan movement develops.

I wonder if she would insist on these positions now.

Sanguina Cruenta

p 23

Pentacles are never worn inverted in the Craft.

Never? I've heard of it in Wicca at least. I'm sure other witches are happy to wear an inverted pentacle as well, depending on what it symbolises for them.

Once again her perspective is limited to the scope of her tradition and her opinion. She is clearly seeking to distance herself from Satanism in all it's forms, which is understandable given some of the attitudes towards Satanism amongst pagans and Christians alike.

Sanguina Cruenta

p 19

Burning Times

Do not get me started.

I would rather have an open discussion about a position than a single line.

Sanguina Cruenta

p 8

Be sure that you reread the Principles of Belief [as per the Council of American Witches, 1979-ish] whenever you are in doubt of your position, either magickal (sic) or political.

Of couuuurse. Because that council was a strong one, lasted a LONG time and is representative of ALL witches, especially American ones. I do not think.

I feel that the length of an organization's existence does not determine it's merit.

In referring a person to read a set of principles that was formed with a specific intent to gather a better understanding of their position, I see nothing wrong.

Sanguina Cruenta

Also she has no idea what Drawing Down the Moon is. I know that's more Wicca than witchcraft but it's one of the things that seriously bothers me. Also she has a page on runes. One page. WTF. And she doesn't say "these require more study", she says "make your own, also you don't need to do anything nasty like cut yourself to blood them because OMG THAT WOULD BE BAD."

I'm afraid I agree with her position that encouraging people, especially young people and those who are new to magic/k to engage in a behavior that could be triggering is a bad thing.

If at a later time through one's spiritual development they decide that Silver Ravenwolf's teachings no longer speak to them, and instead they take up a different practice that uses blood in ritual, that's fine.

Sanguina Cruenta

How can $ilver be a good source on witchcraft? She lies about the very essence of what witchcraft is. I say "lies" because I am giving her the benefit of the doubt, by the way, by assuming she knows what witchcraft is. It's always possible she's ignorant as to what witchcraft is, which doesn't make her a good source either. She's a source. She's just a shitty source.

Alternatively, she is a valid source that stems from a different world view than our own, and in the same sense that we can provide criticism on historic information she repeats from foundational works within paganism, we can still allow her the dignity of not assuming malicious intent, idiocy and ignorance- but instead examine the context with an eye to understanding her position before we criticize it.  

[Violet Song jat Shariff]

One of the other points on not suggesting SRW as a beginners' book is that while she does have a few nuggets of worthwhile information, that information is not worth all of the s**t a new person has to shovel through just to get it, especially when there are other books out there that provide the same information with less s**t, less "more-persecuted-than-thou", and less shady advice (i.e., encouraging children to lie to their parents that they're working with angels or encouraging teens to pester their local bookseller and/or parents until they are allowed to possess the book).

Quite frankly I'd rather recommend Scott Cunningham with the warning that while his book is labeled Wicca, it is not actually Wicca. There is still some of the "love-and-light" tone to his books though, but I don't think that it is to the same extent as it is in SRW's books.

Quote:

I have a question: do you feel she is being intentionally malicious or attempting to deliberately defraud her readers?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I think that it's really neither; I think it's a case of the Blind Leading the Blind. Giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she actually belongs to a cohesive "tradition," it is troublesome at best that she at times acts to speak for ALL witches while only really coming from the perspective of her "tradition." It would be like one of us trying to speak for all women, or all female Pagans. We could do it, sure, but it'd be pretty ineffective and piss off a lot of people.

Quote:

Unfortunately this is a product of early misunderstandings in neo-paganism that largely trace back to Gerald Gardner's work.

Still though...we have more accurate information now, most of it readily available. Why SRW would continue to further muddy this pool when more accurate information is available, I can't even begin to guess why.

Quote:

It is apparently inspiring to some, and informative to most people who are very new to paganism.

I wouldn't say that inspiring is actually educational at times though. Inspiration is good, yes, but having good, solid groundwork is just as important.
I would question the value of her works' informative-ness, given the muddying of terms she perpetuates, as well as other faulty information. Especially as I've already stated that the things she actually manages to get right can usually be found in other, less s**t-filled works.

Quote:

Maybe she feels that Witchcraft is a religion, and that magic in general doesn't need to be considered witchcraft.

I don't think it matters one way or the other if she "feels" witchcraft is a religion. If her "tradition" uses witchcraft as an expression for religion that is one thing. But to write books that talk about ALL witchcraft as being a religion....really now?

Quote:

I feel that the length of an organization's existence does not determine it's merit.

Except that it attempted to speak for all witches in what they do and why when not all witches practice the same way nor hold to the same code of ethics. That is where the organisation loses merit usually.

Quote:

I'm afraid I agree with her position that encouraging people, especially young people and those who are new to magic/k to engage in a behavior that could be triggering is a bad thing.

If at a later time through one's spiritual development they decide that Silver Ravenwolf's teachings no longer speak to them, and instead they take up a different practice that uses blood in ritual, that's fine.

But you're okay with the mysteries of the Runes being relegated to one page with no further encouragement to study and explore them?

Quote:

Alternatively, she is a valid source that stems from a different world view than our own,

Questionably valid.
I would say that not every single different world view out there is automatically a valid one.

Are you somehow under the impression that it is just a small handful of people here that think her work is crap?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Violet Song jat Shariff

One of the other points on not suggesting SRW as a beginners' book is that while she does have a few nuggets of worthwhile information, that information is not worth all of the s**t a new person has to shovel through just to get it, especially when there are other books out there that provide the same information with less s**t, less "more-persecuted-than-thou", and less shady advice (i.e., encouraging children to lie to their parents that they're working with angels or encouraging teens to pester their local bookseller and/or parents until they are allowed to possess the book).

Unfortunately, I feel that these comments continue to address a small selection of her work that was published the better part of a decade ago. This may be a result of unfamiliarity with her other work and thus an inability to cite examples, or it may be that there aren't the problems people take issue with in all of her books- in which case quality information may be discarded out of hand because of the name of the author.

Violet Song jat Shariff

Quite frankly I'd rather recommend Scott Cunningham with the warning that while his book is labeled Wicca, it is not actually Wicca. There is still some of the "love-and-light" tone to his books though, but I don't think that it is to the same extent as it is in SRW's books.

I personally have no qualms with Scott Cunningham, though I disagree on some of his moral commentary.

Violet Song jat Shariff

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I think that it's really neither; I think it's a case of the Blind Leading the Blind. Giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she actually belongs to a cohesive "tradition," it is troublesome at best that she at times acts to speak for ALL witches while only really coming from the perspective of her "tradition." It would be like one of us trying to speak for all women, or all female Pagans. We could do it, sure, but it'd be pretty ineffective and piss off a lot of people.

I know she engages in flawed rhetoric when she attempts to speak on behalf of all witches, since her usual position resorts to excluding people who do not do as she does from the title of witch. She isn't the first to do so, and I do not feel that she is justified. At the same time, I can understand how such rhetoric comes into being. Part of it is social, there is a reason subcultures exclude people who are not enough like them to fit in the defined category they hold for themselves. Gerald Gardner was rather infamous for this in many respects. The other reason is largely literary. Well written pieces need a sense of conviction if they are going to be received well.

While they do frustrate people, the rhetoric needed to publish a non-fiction text isn't as simple as we might first think.

Violet Song jat Shariff

Still though...we have more accurate information now, most of it readily available. Why SRW would continue to further muddy this pool when more accurate information is available, I can't even begin to guess why.

I feel it is likely because what you and I call accurate, she calls incorrect. Our issues with the historical validity of claims about how many people died when or the use of certain terms rely on a level of research that isn't part of our overarching culture.

When I look at the work of Margaret Murray, I know it is faulty because I read contemporary authors and the critics of her era that outlined the flaws and produced enough convincing arguments that I formed an opinion. This style of reasoning isn't common- if we're lucky, we're trained in High School or more often college to examine claims like this. It's also only one way in which people process information- and it's only addresses a certain kind of need. Not everyone needs to have all information in their life be hard and fast facts. Whatever our personal drives are- we're not the only kind of people in the world. I like my information factual, but I do not feel that it gives me the right to disparage someone who needs a more metaphorical ideal.

When the burning times was mentioned earlier it reminded me of a style of thought common to Eastern Philosophy and some children's playgrounds. Eight Million is a symbolic idea in Japanese culture that is not literal, but instead reflects "A Lot". Similar concepts can be found in Judaism now that I think about it.

In a similar way, a person may use the figure of "nine million women" to address a feeling of immense loss of life. Reactions to having this sense challenged in an analytical way will often be met with hostility- not because a person wants to be factually incorrect, but because the reason for the figure isn't being addressed in the correction.

I'll grant though, this is largely personal experiences.

Violet Song jat Shariff

I wouldn't say that inspiring is actually educational at times though.

I completely agree.

Violet Song jat Shariff

Inspiration is good, yes, but having good, solid groundwork is just as important.
I would question the value of her works' informative-ness, given the muddying of terms she perpetuates, as well as other faulty information. Especially as I've already stated that the things she actually manages to get right can usually be found in other, less s**t-filled works.

I feel I explained this well above- when it comes to terms, as cut and dry as some of us would like them to be, certain traditions do not agree, and that faulty information is a symptom of a difference in value.

If you wish me to expand, please don't hesitate to ask.

Violet Song jat Shariff

I don't think it matters one way or the other if she "feels" witchcraft is a religion. If her "tradition" uses witchcraft as an expression for religion that is one thing. But to write books that talk about ALL witchcraft as being a religion....really now?

Unfortunately there is no central authority on what makes witchcraft witchcraft. I tend to side with the obvious etymology and consider it the craft of witches. I can just as easily understand how someone like Silver Ravenwolf would agree- and then define witches as people who practice the religion she is speaking of, not unlike other authors who have come before her.

Violet Song jat Shariff

Except that it attempted to speak for all witches in what they do and why when not all witches practice the same way nor hold to the same code of ethics. That is where the organisation loses merit usually.

I would agree, but that would make the criticism about it's length of standing irrelevant.

I feel it should also be viewed in the context of the era it was created in. When we think about how many pagans there are now compared to how many there were two or three generations ago- I feel that a body as large as that one was sought to make a similar representation as a culture that say- The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does. While there is no central authority in paganism that could be likened to the Pope, the ability for a sizable number of pagans to come together to discuss their culture in the United States strikes me as a very reasonable step in developing a community.

Violet Song jat Shariff

But you're okay with the mysteries of the Runes being relegated to one page with no further encouragement to study and explore them?

I am okay with presenting simplistic information as an introduction. I feel that the theme of most of these books addresses that this is a starting point and that people need to read and learn more as their path develops- and I would not expect any author to bog their reader down by restating this on every single page.

Violet Song jat Shariff

Questionably valid.
I would say that not every single different world view out there is automatically a valid one.

Are you somehow under the impression that it is just a small handful of people here that think her work is crap?

I am under the impression that most people who think her work is crap rely on the same rhetoric that has been provided in the links above- and that their information is taken out of context as I explained when I addressed the comment about turning the other cheek.

In a similar way- I feel that often people represent their disagreement with her as proof that as an author she has no value, ignoring outright other books she has published and repeatedly focusing on one or two.

I am beginning to feel that much of the criticism that is applied to her is lauded in other authors when it supports the position of a given group, but I would think it fair if people wanted to address that issue elsewhere.

I am curious. How many people here have read a book of hers cover to cover that was neither Teen Witch nor To Ride A Silver Broomstick? How many have read her books on Prosperity Magic or Protection Magic and what criticisms do you hold in them?  

[Tirissana]

I have a major problem with Silver Ravenwolf because she teaches kids that it's okay to lie. I mean sure yes I do lie, but that's because I have a severely horrid relationship with my mom. Which is something I don't want to get into too much detail about it.

Anyways the way she treats people who aren't witches or pagan is disgusting. Sure Christians have treated pagans badly but not all of them are like that.

She plays the persecution, victim complex card way too much.

Thankfully I am an adult and I can probably get away with buying her books and say I'm going to write a satire based off of them. Which is an actual idea I've had ever since I wrote a satire based off of Christianity for Journalism.  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

Brass Bell Doll

I have a question: do you feel she is being intentionally malicious or attempting to deliberately defraud her readers?

She absolutely has to know better because she'd have to be living in a box on Mars not to know that some of the things she writes are outright lies. So yes, I think there is some malicious intent, but I'm unsure of the purpose. I think she values money and fame over reality.

Quote:

It is apparently inspiring to some, and informative to most people who are very new to paganism.

It's not bloody informative to those new to Neo-Paganism. These poor newbies will go out into the world and say utterly offensive and ignorant things regardling the threefold law, witchcraft as a religion and so forth. Someone will be offended and yell at them. Poor newbie. Yeah she's informing them, but she's informing them with a whole heap of stuff that's not true.

As for "inspiring". There's anecdotal evidence from someone from her own tradition who was plenty inspired. Then later realisation of the lies that were told to him led him to abandon his religion and practises. It's terrible to realise that something you'd believed in and loved was lied about, to realise that a person you'd trusted and followed genuinely had lied to you. These are painful experiences, happily avoided by giving them a book likewise inspiring but full of less bullshit. Ravenwolf inspires to to treat Christians badly and view everyone else as inferior because they're "once-borns".

Quote:

Maybe she feels that Witchcraft is a religion, and that magic in general doesn't need to be considered witchcraft.

I don't care if she wants to re-define witchcraft. It's a bit different if she then turns around and says "alright, none of you others are witches now because I say so". If she honestly thinks witchcraft is a religion she doesn't know s**t about it and shouldn't be writing books as if she did.

Quote:

'm afraid I agree with her position that encouraging people, especially young people and those who are new to magic/k to engage in a behavior that could be triggering is a bad thing.

Here's an idea. Maybe she shouldn't have mentioned the Runes at all if she wasn't going to be honest about them.

Silver Broomstick was aimed at adults. I know that seems amazing, given that she uses language that makes one think she must be speaking to a five year old, but it was.

I don't give a crap if it's "triggering", you either do it properly or you don't do it at all. It's not some massive sacrifice, so man the ******** up. If you can't bring yourself to bleed a little, the runes are probably beyond your mental and emotional strength anyway. Next time, impale yourself on a tree for nine days instead. A little blood isn't much sacrifice in comparison, yeah? Christ.

Quote:

If at a later time through one's spiritual development they decide that Silver Ravenwolf's teachings no longer speak to them, and instead they take up a different practice that uses blood in ritual, that's fine.

Here's the thing: you do need to blood your runes. If you don't, they're not finished. They're not runes. It's not about different practices with the runes. They have to be blooded to be finished. They should not by any stretch be using her teachings in regards to runes. Ever.

Quote:

Alternatively, she is a valid source that stems from a different world view than our own,

She's a valid source for her own tradition. I'd warn people away from her tradition, as her tradition is full of lies, wankery and, if her work is any indication, religious bigotry. If you have explored every single other Pagan path in the whole world save that of the Frosts and still can't find one that works for you, then, and only then, would I suggest looking into Ravenwolf's crap.

Ravenwolf's world-view sees anyone who isn't of her tradition as non-witches, apparently. It sees Christians as evil and small-minded and non-magical practitioners as inferior. It's a worldview where stealing things from other religions and cultures and perverting them for one's own purposes is okay. It's a worldview where lying to others is not only okay, it's encouraged. I'm entitled to think that her worldview is shite.  

[Amara Verdandi]

It probably isn't my place to say this, and I'm sorry if it comes across as bitchy (its not intended to). I feel that this SRW argument belongs more in the SRW thread. This is kind of off topic from what the OP was asking for. I'm all for debates, but this member is looking for advice, and guidance, and I think this has gone too far to continue here.