It looks like The Independent wanted a second opinion of Richard Rudgley’s new book “Pagan Resurrection” after it was thoroughly drubbed by David V Barrett back in October. Rudgley’s psuedo-Jungian meditation on the spirit of “Odin” in our modern age and how it empowers racist groups (even Christian racist groups) was labeled the worst kind of scholarship in the original review.

“…he is committing the ultimate sin of any anthropologist or historian, back-projecting from highly selective examples of unpleasantness today and photo-fitting them to a distorted image from the mythological past…a catalogue of racist individuals and organisations whose only connection with Odin, through very dubious links, is by assertion rather than argument.”

But the second review by Gary Lachman glosses over these criticisms and spends quite a lot of time talking about the smallest portion of the book, the 45 pages that detail the (potential) positive impacts of modern Paganism.

“The ecological and cultural aspects of the new paganism, Rudgely hopes, will promote a “global awareness”, which is different from “globalisation”, which he sees as the dark side of the web, threatening to reduce the world’s complexity to a bland uniformity. The jury is still out on that, but if our second Odin experiment isn’t to end like the first, then books like this will certainly be a help.”

Why these two very different opinions? A look at the authors of the two pieces will shed some light. The negative reviewer, David V Barrett, is a former teacher of Religious Studies and wrote a book on new religious movements. He is looking at this work as an academic, specifically an academic with an interest in modern Paganism. The generally positive review was by Gary Lachman, a former member of Blondie turned sensationalist writer on the occult. His most famous work is “Turn Off Your Mind” a look into the “dark” side of the occult in the 1960s.

So who to believe? While I don’t want to cast aspersions on Lachman or his work, I think it is telling that a negative review of his book makes this specific critique.

“Lachman further engages in questionable practices when it comes to trying to weave some of this together. He tries to connect various figures and ideas, but his links are tenuous, and he often engages in simple, reprehensible, guilty by association.”

Which sounds a lot like the criticism Barrett made of “Pagan Resurrection”. So while the Independent is willing to give us a second opinion, I think my opinion of this book will remain the same as when Barrett’s review came out.

“Rudgley has created and released a work that is sure to be avidly read by Christian apologists looking to erase the taint of racism from their own faith, and by pundits and public intellectuals looking to discredit the wider modern Paganism movement. A book to be avoided, or at best, read to better discredit its arguments.”

So remember to always check where an opinion is coming from, and when looking at books on modern Paganism written by outsiders, buyer beware!

Tags: Paganism