Welcome to Gaia! ::

So, as with most books, LaVey's begind with a short preface. It is basically a letter from the author to the reader explaining a bit of what they're about to read and both why and how he came to write The Satanic Bible. However, I found that this Preface explained less about the book and more about LaVey's character (which I assume was not his intent).

He begins by saying that every other religious and magical text written before are nothing more than "sanctimonious fraud" and he elaborates with a handful more descriptors that are all equally dramatic and inflammatory. This opening paragraph made me suspicious of him and by extension his book because I have found that anyone who begins their musings/philosophy/what-have-you with an insult of someone else's is not writing because they have something insightful to say but rather because they are trying to irritate the one to whom their initial insult is aimed. In this case, every other religion in the world that is not his own.

(I would also like to add that Magus LaVey is also the king of run-on sentences which can become rather annoying at times. )



The above quote had me shaking my head from (what I perceive to be) the sheer hypocrisy of it. In this paragraph-long sentence he is condemning the works of older, more educated writers of religion and the occult while simultaneously calling his own single-view tome the only "true" authority on magic, religion and the occult. This, to me, is more telling of a highly developed ego (I might even go so far as to say narcissism complex) on LaVey's part and not anything about the quality of his book. He really comes off as an older male Ravenwolf rather than the enlightened liberator of "truth" he's trying to be.

But we shouldn't judge his book based on the author's supposed personality. So, lets continue on...



The prologue is a short, one page narrative that is fraught with dramatic imagery but seems to lack anything in the way of actual substance. It feels like a high-handed and preachy rant in some places and like a premise explanation for a Dungeons and Dragons campaign in others. Overall, the prologue is just plain confusing and feels rather pointless to me. It doesn't give any explanation or abbreviated summary of whats to come, and is really just LaVey throwing a solid wall of dramatic pros at us. If he really wanted to write fiction so much, he should just write fiction.

There also seems to be little purpose to having both a Preface and a Prologue.

Now we get into the meat of the book. There are four "books" in total, each "book" has a corresponding element and two titles. In this case "The Book of Satan" and "The Infernal Diatribe". The other three are "The Book of Lucifer" also called "The Enlightenment", "The book of Belial" aka "The Mastery of the Earth" and "Book of Leviathan" aka "The Raging Sea".

The Infernal Diatribe opens with a page of explanation (sort of like a mini-intro) all four books within the satanic Bible have them. This one annoys me greatly. Throughout his entire book so far LaVey has done nothing but fling insults and slanders at every other religion under the sun (or moon) and this one is no different. Here he makes several allusions to the works of Milton and Dante (those are the authors of Paradise Lost and The Divine Comedy, just so you know) as if they are biblical cannon and condemns Christianity based on statements made within them. Once again, he is showing more ignorance and hate than actual philosophy or substance.



After this irritatingly ill-researched intro the actual book begins, opening with yet more dramatic imagery and run-on sentences. In fact, the entire first part of The Book of Satan is so overflowing with meaningless imagery that it fails to deliver any actual substance at all.

It does, however, provide one of LaVey's most offensive statements in his entire work:
Its this kind of religious-bigotry that gives rise to all the common "misconceptions" about Satanism. I'm actually just a little ashamed I spent so much time defending this religion and its followers on so many message boards over the years.



Part two is when we get to read some actual substance, but its still a bit of a ways down there. LaVey doesn't say anything of value until 2:7 where he states that people who are willing to believe without proof are idiots and people who require evidence are wise. This is probably the first really smart thing he's said so far. However, this is not an idea exclusive to Satanism (or spirituality in general). Everything in section two prior to this statement has said that one should question everything and never take anything for granted, and that all religions need be tested.

This makes me wonder if he even bothered to question his own religion (Satanism) and put his own faith to the test. If one must question everything then one must also question ones once conclusions and answers. The more I read, the more hypocritical LaVey and his book become in my mind. In his own words:
So, he is not without his good points and valid observations. What I take issue with is the tone with which they are delivered and the implied hypocrisy of everything he says. He says you must do this, question that, etc, yet if he took the time to do the same with his own philosophy he would find a host of glaring flaws within it.

In the latter half of part two he takes the idea of questioning everything a couple steps further from questioning things to destroying things.
This sounds more like meaningless anarchy to me. Indicative of the "rebel without a cause" archetype rather than an actual spiritual philosophy. He also once again makes mention of intangible "truth", in this case "true nobility".

He then goes on to once again attack all other religions and the section ends with some more dramatic and violent imagery without saying anything with any real meaning. It seems to be his trademark to write long rambling pros that could easily fit in with Milton and Dante (whom he appears to loath so very much) while not really saying much of anything at all.



In part three of the Book of Satan LaVey calls the definitions of "good" and "evil" into question. This is a subject that I am very interested in as morality in general is subjective and changes from culture to culture and person to person. However, rather than discussing this most engaging characteristic of human-morality he instead spends the entire section ranting specifically about the Christian ideas of "good" and "evil" and Christian morality. This once again makes me think that this whole religion of his was created not out of any real belief but more out of a desire to spite Christianity. He has spent more time in this book so far flinging insults than he has actually explaining his own views and philosophies. Its always "I spit of Jesus because I'm angry!" Not, "I disagree with the church and here's why."

In this time instead of spitting on Jesus he's spitting on his words and the idea of "turning the other cheek". LaVey states that to forgive someone for wronging you is indicative of a "weak" person. He says that people should respond in kind or even escalate the situation. It is better to be feared than loved because humans are vicious animals that are more likely to prey upon each other than to help one another.

He asks his readers this question:
Yes! Yes, they can!

(Sometimes, I also wonder about what kind of childhood he had. He also seems to display characteristics of an abused child.)



Part four finally starts to display some of the concepts of individualism that I was lead to believe LaVeyan Satanism was actually about. Its a short section but is really the best of the entire first book. Its the most positive and uplifting at least. Less angry and more confident.



The fifth and final section of the Book of Satan is so disappointing. It is a page and a half of "blessed are [these people], cursed are [these people]." It doesn't say anything constructive but just makes LaVey seem like a xenophobic a**. (No xenophobic as in scared of foreigners, xenophobic as in scared of those that are different from you.) One line in particular REALLY pissed me off:
This quote really pisses me off because I have (or rather I used to have) someone very close to me who suffered from Familial Dysautonomia (FD) and she was, for all intents and purposes, feeble. I take offense to the idea of her being "cursed" because of a medical condition that she was born with. If his Satan really represents "kindness to those who deserve it" then why is she "cursed"?

I'm sorry, but the whole fifth section of the Book of Satan (and a great majority of the book as a whole) just seems to be nothing more than a justification for being a duschbag.

Props to you for reading the whole thing, especially when it was frustrating to read. From the excerpts you posted and the points you made, I think I'd agree with you, that this book seems more about lashing out at other religions than it is about teaching people anything meaningful. It bothers me so much when people do this. Great thinkers can make their own points and share their own ideas without mercilessly bashing others. It seems like he's convinced himself that he's writing something smart and meaningful, but really... well, he sounds like one of those people who just likes to hear himself talk. :/

Actually what you said about this book reminds me very strongly of a fictional novel I read recently (and got too frustrated to finish) called The Devil's Apocrypha, which was supposed to be the 'true' story of the Bible from the Devil's point of view. It was also supposed to be intelligent, scientific, and philosophical. In truth, it all boiled down to "God is a selfish a*****e, every Biblical hero who followed him was violently insane, his followers are all sheep, and Satan is the smartest, nicest guy ever." It was also poorly written, contradictory, and historically inaccurate. I could imagine a story of "What if God is evil and the Devil is misunderstood" being interesting if it were written much better, but the writer seemed so full of himself and more concerned with bashing Christianity than writing an interesting story.
...Maybe he and Anton LaVey are friends. xd

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to review this. It was a very thoughtful, thorough review, and it's good to see someone calling out people like this on their own ignorance and slander.

Yeah people's attention span is "obviously" too short as some of the comments I read from people in the M&R version of this post.

That is a big complaint I have with a lot of modern religious literature in that it seems to try to prove it's self correct by showing how wrong other belief systems are. While this methodology does work to some extent, it makes the religion being described appear to be "anti-comformist" in regards to it's supposed "rival" rather than a unique belief system which may or may not have similarities and/or differences to other other belief systems. In short it seems to destroy it's claim to uniqueness by being exactly the opposite of something else.

I hope I made sense XD.