Hey there,Just figured I’d add in my two cents on this.Pop culture is, in many ways, the mythology of modern culture. While deities and spirits may have their own independent existences (or not, depending on who you ask), the information about them is largely disseminated through storytelling, both on a secular and religious basis. When Taylor said what he said about the ancient gods being obsolete, he was speaking in a broader, cultural sense; the quote, as you placed it, was rather out of context, so your readers weren’t able to get a feel for the surrounding material. Yes, pagans today still worship pre-Christian deities. However, if you equate attention and belief with power, then pop culture entities are a lot more powerful than deities that few people even speak of any more, let alone worship on a daily basis.Also, readers are not limited to the examples Taylor used; the point of the book is to work with entities that are relevant to you, and for some people, that includes modern mythology. For example, as I’m sure you read in Fang and Fur, I have worked with San from Mononoke Hime as an aspect of the Huntress. I still work with Artemis, who is my matron deity, but I have had just as much success with San. That is because San speaks to me on as fundamental a level as Artemis. “Pop Culture Magick” is about using the elements of modern mythology–the stories and entities that stem from post-industrial culture–that are relevant to the reader. Not everyone’s cup of tea, to be sure, but then again there’s no such thing as one-size-fits-all magic.As for book length, yes they’re compact. However, I wouldn’t say they were full of filler–if you’ll notice, he didn’t include a bunch of prefabricated spells, or tables of correspondences, or other things that many authors fall back on to try to increase page count. His works are primarily theory backed up with examples of his own work with them, and then a few exercises at the very end of each chapter to help the reader give the concepts a try. Neither one of us is into the current trend of spoonfeeding the reader with a bunch of predigested material; the point is for the reader to take what s/he has read, and then work with the ideas hirself.Additionally, the books do have a relatively focused approach topic-wise; there’s only so much you can write on pop culture magic, for example, without relying on prefabricated material. However, when you start working with material beyond the basics (and I would not consider this to be 101 material; it requires a working knowledge of magical concepts) using the 101 formula of skimming the surface of a number of widely divergent topics isn’t as effective as delving into the nuts and bolts of different facets of one particular approach.Also, by your own admission magic is not your primary focus. That’s not a bad thing, mind you. It’s just where you happen to be coming from. However, I think it may be safe to say that this particular background affects your interpretation of material that is primarily focused on magic rather than spirituality. However, my own comments aside, I did want to thank you for taking the time to review our books. I know it’s my turn tomorrow, and I’m rather curious to see what you have to say. I understand, as I’m sure Taylor does, that not everybody is going to like a particular book–regardless of genre. But then again, the thing about reviews is that you get a variety of perspectives on your work, not just the ones that praise it to the skies.So we shall see what tomorrow brings, and thank you again Lupa

Lupa,Thanks for the reply. In truth I could have gone on much longer regarding these books, but I didn’t want to overwhelm my audience with endless paragraphs regarding my theories on pop-culture and magick. I’m critical of these works only because I think they could have gone further than they did. As to pop-culture, like I said, I’m something of a study on the topic and I feel Taylor doesn’t go deep enough into the kind of magic he is proposing in that work. I find some of his “mythic” connections in the book to be somewhat superficial and haphazard (Britney Spears is a “unique” bubble-gum popstar?), and his understanding of the history of pop-culture seems to stop somewhere in the early 1990s (though this could have been due to space limitations).Let me also say that I feel there are some real weaknesses to the idea of “pop-culture” magic. My personal opinion is that any decent book on such a subject would discuss in-depth the possible shortcomings of invoking these “forces”. But as I said in my review, that is an entry for another time.I do think Taylor is a talented fellow, and there were likable things to be found in both his books. It just didn’t “click” entirely with me and my personality, as I said, I’m not a “magick” kind of guy.PS – I really would have enjoyed an index, you should think about adding that to future editions.

Hi again *nods* Well, Taylor has extrapolated more on the material from both PCM and STM in the current manuscript he’s working on (tentatively titled “Media Magic”, but that may very well change). I think that’s part of the issue when you write your first thoughts on a topic–there’s always more than can be covered, but we do our best to cover what we can at that point in time. Tay wrote PCM in 2004, and he’s done a lot since then; same thing goes for STM. And in my own case, less than a year after FFBB came out I’m already expanding on a second book on animal magic. There is the idea of just expanding existing works, but we choose not to A) because the older works represent, to us, a particular time frame in our own practices, and we prefer to preserve them that way. And B), we don’t want to produce a book where half the material is the same stuff from before. Taylor has just completed a revision of PCM, but it is largely the same material; he’s updated some of the references and streamlined his writing style more to his current preferences, but there aren’t extra chapters in there.For both Taylor and me, magic is a large part of our lives, and so we’re constantly expanding upon what we’re working on. Sure, earlier works aren’t as refined as later ones; I’m already looking at FFBB every now and then and wincing at things I wish I could go back and change. Isaac Bonewits was right when he wrote in the preface to the 1989 edition of “Real Magic” that “The process of dissastisfaction begins within a few days of the book’s first publication, and gets worse as the years roll by”. But, as we said, we opt to leave our older works as-is because of what they represent to us. We do, however, take the praise and criticisms of them into account with later works.And, again, as to the specific examples of pop culture he used, it’s filtered through his own observations. However, part of the reason for the second edition is because pop culture does get so quickly outdated, and he has attended to that. As to the rest, he’s at work right now so I don’t know when he’s going to make his own comments, but I did pass along the review to him. Again, thank you for the quick reply, and I’ll be curious as to your FFBB review–you mentioned some of the more controversial topics, which makes me wonder what your take on them will be Lupa

Jason,First, I identify as an experimental magician, not as a chaos magician.Second, since you opened this review with a comment that you’re not much into magic, I’m going to address your review with that perspective in mind.The quote you drew from PCM was out of context. In PCM I did mention that for some people working with ancient gods works for them and is a successful approach for them. I also raised some cultural issues as to why working with ancient gods didn’t work for me, namely that I don’t speak the original language and I’m not from the original culture, which necessarily, in my mind, changes the interaction that occurs with ancient gods. The examples I provided in PCM were just examples, some derived from my work and a few used just as theoretical examples (like Britney Spears). You charge that my books were filled with filler and again I must disagree. Examples are provided as a way of fleshing out the theory and showing its practical implications. Additionally the exercises are provided as a way of engaging the reader to work with and personalize the concepts with whatever they consider to be pop culture. My philosophy on magic and on writing, as a practicing magician, is that people must work through their own processes in order to attribute value to the goals they have. At the same time without a clear process in place there is no value attributed to the goal. As such my writing is focused on description over prescription, with the goal being to insure that a process is described so that the reader can see how it works and experiment with it. The purpose of the examples and exercises is to make sure that the process is thoroughly explained as opposed to just theorized about. Your other complaint is that my work hasn’t broken much new ground. And yet while I see tons of Wicca 101 books available in the market, I have yet to set another book on pop culture magic or space/time magic. Although there has been work written about both subjects, neither subject has been covered exclusively or extensively in a book. In addition, I also focus on incorporating multimedia into magical practice, which is something I haven’t seen in other occult works, beyond the occasional article.All that said I’m currently working on a sequel to PCM, where among other things I focus on pop culture past the early nineties and also some of the dangers that I perceive in pop culture magic, when it’s taken too far. I knew when I published PCM that there was more that could be done with it, but at the time I wrote it, I also knew I needed to do a lot more research and experimentation to take it further, which is what a lot of the last three years has been focused on.I also have a sequel in the works for Space/Time magic, again because there is more that can be done. But I write my books in process. In other words my books are written with the idea that no system of magic is ever complete and that there is always more

Last paragraph should read as:But, I write my books in process. In other words my books are written with the idea that no system of magic is ever complete and that there is always more to explore. I write what I do know of and what I have done, but always with an eye to show experimentation as an on-going process, subject to revision as needed, as opposed to what I consider a push button, cook book approach to a lot of the books available on magic.

Taylor, thanks for your response. Let me say that while I did a critical review of your books, they were not meant to be mean-spirited or hostile. I do think you are a talented writer, and I respect the fact that you have gotten these works published.To address a few things, you say in your response:“The quote you drew from PCM was out of context. In PCM I did mention that for some people working with ancient gods works for them and is a successful approach for them. I also raised some cultural issues as to why working with ancient gods didn’t work for me, namely that I don’t speak the original language and I’m not from the original culture, which necessarily, in my mind, changes the interaction that occurs with ancient gods.”You go a bit further than that actually. But I’m not going to argue the point. So let me apologize if you think I have misrepresented your work.“You charge that my books were filled with filler and again I must disagree.”Hey thats cool. I still think that both of these books would have made better long-form essays, but that is my opinion of what I read. Obviously you disagree or else you wouldn’t have published it as a full-length book. But perhaps “filler” is too loaded a term. Maybe if I said I felt the content was “stretched” a bit? I would have preferred less examples of how you apply your theory to different media and more thought into why you think “Pop-culture” is valid.“Your other complaint is that my work hasn’t broken much new ground. And yet while I see tons of Wicca 101 books available in the market, I have yet to set another book on pop culture magic or space/time magic. Although there has been work written about both subjects, neither subject has been covered exclusively or extensively in a book. In addition, I also focus on incorporating multimedia into magical practice, which is something I haven’t seen in other occult works, beyond the occasional article.”I wasn’t trying to claim you aren’t unique in getting a full-fledged book to press. Just that your theories aren’t “new” in regards to magic(k). But then I have done some reading of the intersection of pop-culture and magick. Its a bit of a hobby of mine. So no doubt other people may have a entirely different opinion than I did. Finally, let me say that if I didn’t think your books had any merit I wouldn’t have even bothered reviewing them. I generally don’t like spell books. So take it as a compliment that I bother to read the books and give them thought.BTW, have you read “Generation Hex” edited by Jason Louv? I think you might find it interesting.

I read and reviewed Gen Hex. I had fairly mixed feelings about it when it originally came out, more so now that it’s been out for a while and I’ve seen the occulture rise around it.I think it has some interesting perspectives, but I don’t agree with most of them.I do appreciate the review, but I’m also never afraid to debate with a reviewer when I disagree with them. I think in this case, that you and I have rather different perspectives on the subject, but there’s nothing wrong with that.So what sources have you read on pop culture and magic and what are the citations? Other than Grant Morrison and some chaos magic references I didn’t find much in the occult arena. I’ve done some research in more academic directions and found some interesting sources there (they don’t really deal with magic, but they do flesh out pop culture quite a bit).Taylor

Taylor, Healthy debate is always fine with me. If I had more time I would devote a whole series of posts to the subject of pop-culture and magic. As for ideas of pop-culture and magic, I have read essays by Grant Morrison (and “The Invisibles” which is packed with pop-culture magic), some RAW, Subgenius stuff, and the Principia obviously. Other texts that I have found useful on the subject include “Trickster Makes This World” by Lewis Hyde, “Last Night a DJ Saved My Life” by Bill Brewster and Frank Broughton (it will change the way you think of DJing). There are some good things lurking within the V. Vale edited “Modern Pagans” and “Nation of Rebels” by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter has ended up shaping some of my ideas regarding counterculture. Lets see, what else, “Inside the Music” by Dimitri Ehrlich, “Art Objects” by Jeanette Winterson, and looking into Dada was something I found helpful.I’m currently digging deeper into the early Industrial movement and their involvement with ritual magick (I’m in the process of doing my own research in relation to modern Pagan music). I recently read “Industrial Evolution” by Mick Fish and I’m eagerly awaiting my chance to read “England’s Hidden Reverse: Coil-Current 93-Nurse With Wound” by David Keenan. Finally, I have read a ton of books analyzing the history of popular music in America and England (with an emphasis on Punk, post-punk, and goth), quite a good number of books analyzing popular/youth culture, a smattering of stuff on the Beats and a hint of Hippie culture in addition to some feminist and queer theory.I find (as you said) that most of the insight I gain concerning magic and pop-culture have been coming from academia. If you want I can post some more titles I found helpful later.Oh, and speaking of comic books dealing with pop-culture and magic you have to pick up the comic “Phonogram”. Seriously, run, don’t walk to your nearest store. The first three issues are already out from Image comics.