Scan barcode
A review by kalira
Grimoires: A History of Magic Books by Owen Davies
informative
slow-paced
3.5
I found this book interesting, but also incredibly dense. It took some time to get through each section, to be sure!
While there was promising reference to discussion of written magic all over the world early in the book (and the introduction regarded all manner of written magic), it failed to be realised; it is overwhelmingly Christianity and generally Euro-centric. Africa and parts of the Middle East and very occasionally Asia are mentioned, but only in terms of Western grimoires and religion.
As a history book, with heavy leaning on developments in Christianity as well as books and printing, it was quite interesting. In the light of what it promised I felt it fell a bit short.
There was more space given to discussion of Lovecraft's fictitious creation of the Necronomicon than the entirety of written magic in all of Asia, for example. And about the same amount of space given to Western TV and movies presenting magic with a relation to the written word.
The history portions jinked oddly at times between whether to relate stories in terms of provable reality (e.g. 'claiming he believed himself under the auspices of the Devil, he murdered [...]') vs. presenting the supernatural as fact (e.g. 'he signed a pact with the Devil in [year], before a cadre of angelic witnesses, gaining demonic servants'") and it was a bit jarring.
I also personally found myself unsatisfied or put off by Davies' conclusions such as brushing off the created-for-fiction (indeed, books that only exist in fictitious references and were never written) nature of several grimoires (such as the Necronomicon, most recognisable among them) as being fake creations and therefore real grimoires. Um? Regardless of belief or lack thereof (and many historical grimoires were faked to be sure), being created as part of a fictional narrative (indeed, only as a reference within such stories!) certainly seems to be to be rather different!
The discussion of Gardner and his creation of Wicca (and various falsities that led to it) was interesting (though much of it was already familiar to me), but I was also irritated at Davies' dismissive summation that all modern paganism is necessarily and obviously Wiccan. Likewise with his attitude towards . . . religion in general, perhaps? (Though that was not entirely how he stated it, the framing certainly led to that conclusion.) As something less prevalent in the modern Western world because of advancements in technology, medicine, and similar. It likewise felt irritating and dismissive, but also rather tone deaf and removed from reality.
While there was promising reference to discussion of written magic all over the world early in the book (and the introduction regarded all manner of written magic), it failed to be realised; it is overwhelmingly Christianity and generally Euro-centric. Africa and parts of the Middle East and very occasionally Asia are mentioned, but only in terms of Western grimoires and religion.
As a history book, with heavy leaning on developments in Christianity as well as books and printing, it was quite interesting. In the light of what it promised I felt it fell a bit short.
There was more space given to discussion of Lovecraft's fictitious creation of the Necronomicon than the entirety of written magic in all of Asia, for example. And about the same amount of space given to Western TV and movies presenting magic with a relation to the written word.
The history portions jinked oddly at times between whether to relate stories in terms of provable reality (e.g. 'claiming he believed himself under the auspices of the Devil, he murdered [...]') vs. presenting the supernatural as fact (e.g. 'he signed a pact with the Devil in [year], before a cadre of angelic witnesses, gaining demonic servants'") and it was a bit jarring.
I also personally found myself unsatisfied or put off by Davies' conclusions such as brushing off the created-for-fiction (indeed, books that only exist in fictitious references and were never written) nature of several grimoires (such as the Necronomicon, most recognisable among them) as being fake creations and therefore real grimoires. Um? Regardless of belief or lack thereof (and many historical grimoires were faked to be sure), being created as part of a fictional narrative (indeed, only as a reference within such stories!) certainly seems to be to be rather different!
The discussion of Gardner and his creation of Wicca (and various falsities that led to it) was interesting (though much of it was already familiar to me), but I was also irritated at Davies' dismissive summation that all modern paganism is necessarily and obviously Wiccan. Likewise with his attitude towards . . . religion in general, perhaps? (Though that was not entirely how he stated it, the framing certainly led to that conclusion.) As something less prevalent in the modern Western world because of advancements in technology, medicine, and similar. It likewise felt irritating and dismissive, but also rather tone deaf and removed from reality.