The all new 50 Books Challenge!
Title: The Witch's Guide to Manifestation: Witchcraft for the Life You Want by Mystic Dylan
Details: Copyright 2021, Rockridge Press
Synopsis (By Way of Back Cover): "HARNESS THE POWER OF MAGICAL MANIFESTATION TO LIVE THE LIFE YOU DESIRE
Manifestation is about channeling aspirational thought and manipulating energy to achieve specific outcomes―and pairing it with magic lends you additional power to fuel your intentions.
Learn how to combine magic and manifestation to get what you want from your life, with The Witch’s Guide to Manifestation.
Full of insight, instructions, and spells, this guide will help you tap into self-awareness and self-love to achieve your deepest desires, no matter how big or small.
DEMYSTIFY MANIFESTATION Explore what manifestation is, how to accomplish it, and how to use it alongside witchcraft to transform your life.
FOCUS ON SELF-DISCOVERY Dive deep into your own internal world, find your most magical self, and manifest the changes you want to see.
LEARN PRACTICAL SPELLS Discover how to construct an Elemental Power Charm, cast a Lady of the Lake Leadership Spell, and concoct a Witch’s Magic Manifestation Brew―as well as how to customize spells and create your own."
Why I Wanted to Read It: Wow, is this a year for Witch books! I can't remember the last time I read this many current ones, let alone one that came out this year.
I've been somewhat interested in manifestation and powers of positive thinking type things for awhile, although since I'm a Witch and operating from that mindset, I wondered how that would fit into that framework, which can sometimes be Christian or at least Abrahamic-centered. I'm glad to see I wasn't alone in trying to see how two approaches (Workings from a Witchcraft perspective alongside manifesting) could work together, as I hoped/assumed that's what I was getting.
How I Liked It: FIRST! A QUICK NOTE! UNLESS I AM QUOTING FROM THE DIRECTLY FROM THIS TEXT, I CAPITALIZE WITCHCRAFT WITH A CAPITAL W (meaning the religious/spiritual practice alongside the Workings of that practice) WHEREAS THIS AUTHOR DOES NOT.
While reading about the author of this book, I realized something. I've technically been "officially" practicing Witchcraft longer than he has. I started quite young, sure, but I want to stress that it was never a passive practice. Ever! In all that time, I was (and still am) eagerly studying, taking classes, reading (books, articles, posts, essays, ANYTHING), writing Rituals and Workings, practicing! I even studied with a coven for a time (nearly a year) with the high priestess and maiden being legal clergy and giving classes, before deciding that that particular coven wasn't right for me and going back to my solitary practice.
I don't know if all these years later I am now considered an adept yet, but I know I'm not a beginner, obviously. And the author doesn't go into specifics as to how long he's been a Witch, just "over a decade." But I still feel pretty confident in saying I probably have more experience than the author.
Which poses the question, can/should you read a self-help book (or any instructional book really) by someone with less experience can you?
Firstly, the book. The author opens promisingly with a quote from Doreen Valiente who does not get the historical credit she deserves, even now.
From there, he gives a basic overview of magic, Witchcraft, and manifestation, all generally geared at someone new to all of those things.
There's a joke that's not a joke that if you ask three Witches for their definition of Witchcraft, you'll get eight different answers. That means that a structure that's highly customizable, sometimes by design, and generally leery of any authority, is open to the idea that there's different interpretations of words that we use in our practice.
I too am open to this and that's why I try to acknowledge, particularly when I'm reviewing Witch (actual) and witch (fantasy) fiction, that the word "witch" can have a lot of meanings.
So that's why it's kind of frustrating to see something like this line fairly early on:
By now, you might be asking, "Well, what is witchcraft?" Witchcraft is the use and practice of magic. That's it. Despite what many people often assume, witchcraft is not a religion: it is a practice that may or may not be a part of a person's spiritual and religious faith.
Today the term "witchcraft" is often used interchangeably with "Wicca," a Neo-Pagan religion that started in England during the 20th century and was introduced to the public in 1954 by Gerald Gardner. Not all witches are Wiccan. The witchcraft that I practice and refer to in these pages is not to be confused with Wicca, and is more akin to traditional witchcraft and folk magic. (pgs 2 and 3)
Okay, strap in, it's history lesson time.
Since this author is addressing presumably beginners to all of this, if he had acknowledged the fact that there are absolutely people (including the woman whose words open his book, Doreen Valiente) who felt and feel Witchcraft was and is a religion, as Witchcraft is a word with many meanings, I would've cut him some slack. But he didn't, and that's incorrect.
In as much as I can condense centuries of history into a paragraph or two, in the early mid-20th century, Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant and occultist, attempted to revive what he felt were the ancient Pagan religions of old, basically taking some pre-existing folk practices (some of which pre-dated Abrahamic religion) and trying to formalize the practice by borrowing from other occult traditions, including ceremonial magic. Just how much he took and just how much pre-existed is still a matter of debate. The name "Wicca", from the old English term for Witch, Wicce, was used, although Gardner and his high priestess Doreen Valiente, called themselves Witches, not Wiccans, and their books referred to Witchcraft, not Wicca. As the popularity of this tradition took off both in the UK and in the States (and elsewhere; I'm speaking to those primarily since that's what I've studied the most), some people felt more comfortable calling themselves "Wiccans" rather than "Witches" due to historical perceptions of the term "Witch" and living in majority-Christian countries.
So there's a bit of a split, sometimes. You should never call someone who calls themselves a Witch a Wiccan, but you should also never call someone who calls themselves a Wiccan a Witch, either. (It's honestly not that hard.)
I prefer the term Witch for a number of reasons. Number one, it's the term Doreen Valiente used. Number two, and I suspect this is where I share some similarities with the author, I've noticed a watering-down, kind of "Christianization" of Wicca that's just harder to do when you call it Witchcraft. For one, to this way of thinking, the Wiccan Rede (also known as the Witch's Creed) about "Do what ye will but harm ye none" isn't seen as a moral guideline, but becomes a "golden rule" and even a "law" which it is not. Really, it's intended to be a suggestion, and frankly, it's a bit purposely ambiguous. Sometimes you have to hurt someone to help them or for the greater good. For example, there are rumors of British Witches hexing Hitler to prevent his gaining greater power in England. But calling it a "law" seems more acceptable to a majority Christian country. Trying to force the Rede into a law and otherwise taking a very Abrahamic, particularly Christian world view (Deity is your parent in the sky, angels are God's messengers, and there are very cut and dry rules about morality, et cetera) is unfortunately far more likely to happen with people calling themselves Wiccans-NOT-Witches.
It's not only for that reason I don't care for the term. Secondly, it's frustrating when you go about identifying your spiritual path/religion (however you want to look at it) and have someone unknowingly blurt out about how they went through that "stage" too. Imagine if the next time someone mentioned they were a Christian, a well-meaning person remarked that they were "into" that in their teens, or they knew someone who was, in the same tone you use for your emo phase (I'm not saying you can't try it and decide it's not for you, I'm saying be respectful to other people's spiritual practices). In my experience and my study of other people's experiences, that's just far less likely to happen with the terms Witch and Witchcraft.
I also like just plain circumventing the debate over it being "modern" religion. Here's my take: absolutely no religion exists unchanged from its original form for centuries, let alone millennia. Even within a hundred years, the Lord's Prayer alone has gone through some revisions. While you shouldn't be claiming something is ancient when it's not, something does not need to be ancient to have value. Whether this chant (or spell, or Ritual, or whatever) is from hundreds of years ago, or you came up with it this morning, it's if it works that matters. This needless quibbling and sniping (and don't think that Fundamentalist Christians don't use the argument that "Our stuff is real, this isn't something we came up with twenty years ago!") is an annoying distraction. If you can't prove something's origins, don't claim to prove its origins. Give what information you do have, to the best of your knowledge. But again, it's not how old it is that matters, it's if it resonates.
People like the author tend to over-correct to counterbalance some false claims of antiquity which is a good instinct, but still not entirely accurate (and beside the point, anyway).
The term Witch has existed as a generic word for "magic-maker" for a long, long time. I'm not going to tell someone that they can't use it to mean "magic-maker", although certainly better, more specific terms exist. But claiming Witchcraft isn't a religion (at least to some, including several people historically important to the modern occult movement) is plain false.
From the glossary:
Pagan: A non-Abrahamic person, possibly who adheres to old spiritual beliefs, and is not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim
[...]
Wicca: A recognized Neo-Pagan religion begun in the 1960s by British witch Gerald Gardner (pgs 152 and 153)
Probably be helpful if he had a definition listed for "Neo-Pagan" which he does not. That definition of Paganism is... uh, I guess technically correct by strict dictionary definition standards, but not appropriate for an occult book, especially one aimed at beginners.
Explaining a bit of the nuances of the term Pagan and what people generally mean when they talk about Pagans and Paganism (generally old religious/spiritual practices, usually nature-centered, presently the term includes Druids and Witches and more, including "unspecified") would be incredibly useful, especially in a book for beginners.
I feel the term "Neo-Pagan" is unnecessary. "Modern Paganism" is just fine if you need to specify.
I'm going to assume the "1960s" is a typo, since the author himself acknowledges Gardner's books published in the 1950s. We have evidence that it started at least as early as the 1930s, however, and the whole "begun" is a bit inaccurate for reasons I specified above. If he replaced "1960s" with "1950s" and "begun" with "popularized", that'd be pretty accurate on all counts.
These semantic issues aside, I realized that this is supposed to be a book for beginners. That's why it's a bit troubling that there's some key issues missing. There's absolutely no mention of any kind of energy raising, and the book is light on visualization and other mind-training. I also didn't see any talk about building a relationship with Deity (if you want that), although some of the spells clearly have a Deity in mind. To his credit, the author does mention centering, grounding, and shielding, all essential practices. He also goes some into the ethics of magic and trying to act for what you truly want and the greatest good in your life.
Something important though, especially for beginners, is this reminder that the author doesn't mention (at least that I found): literally the only thing you need to do magic is yourself. Period. So I side-eye a bit sentences like
The majority of magical practices, rituals, spells and rites used in witchcraft involve the use of tools, some of which can be sued individually or in conjunction with another practice. (pg 48)
While it's true you generally need a tool to help you with divination, say (Tarot cards, for instance), anyone can (theoretically) scry with nothing more than water (or dirty clothes, or sticks in a yard, or...). But the stressing of buying lots and lots of ingredients is troublesome (side note: if you ever go into an occult shop for help with something and it seems like the only solution costs lots and lots of money? LEAVE! I'm not saying tools can't cost money, I'm saying people would totally take advantage of a situation to sell merchandise).
Under the spell section, he has a section in the book called "What You Need" which begins:
You really don't need much to manifest what you desire; however, witchcraft tends to harness its magic from nature and the use of tools. Here are a few beneficial tools and ingredients to have on hand for your workings, spells, and rituals. I've broken down the tools and ingredients you'll need into "must-haves," which you absolutely need to carry out the spells in this book, and "nice-to-haves," which may be suggested but could be substituted. (pg 102)
For the inexperienced, what exactly do you think they're going to do? Anyway, the "must-haves" include candles (of various sizes and colors), salt, herbs (have vervain, lavender, bay leaves, thyme, mugwort, cinnamon, rose, and rosemary on hand), matches, an incense burner, incense (both sticks and resin), cords of various colors and sizes, a mortar and pestle, feathers of various sizes, crystals (quartz, hematite, amethyst, and citrine), mason jars of various sizes, scrap cloth and various bags, among other things like water and olive oil.
Interestingly, the "nice-to-haves" are figure/seven-day candles, other crystals, other herbs, other oils, and lots of altar supplies, plus Tarot cards, a pendulum, and a farmer's almanac, among many, many, many others.
While certain spells the author has written out can call for certain ingredients, I wouldn't recommend anyone take on these sorts of spells without doing visualization work first, and I can't tell you how important meditation is for training your mind.
Tools are lovely to have and when you're new to all of this, it's tempting to buy up a bunch of pretty things. And props can definitely help, especially to a beginner! But it's necessary to first do the groundwork, otherwise you're generally just left with a bunch of pretty ingredients. That's how so many people end up "giving up" on this (their "witchy stage" now over) and unloading all their supplies: they bought a bunch of stuff and didn't realize it was props to the mindwork that's essential. Again, I'm not saying you can't have pretty things or that it doesn't help to have certain tools. But handing a long list of "must have" ingredients to inexperienced people (rather than putting it as a spell-by-spell basis) is a mistake at best and ethically dubious at worst (the author has an occult shop he promotes in the book). For the record, I think in this case it's just an unfortunate bit of organizing on the part of the author rather than trying to coerce people into buying things. But I do wonder and feel bad for those inexperienced people running up a big shopping list without really knowing what to do with the stuff.
This also brings me to a kind of contradiction that I notice throughout the book. The author stresses, as he absolutely should, the importance of divination. I'll stress the importance of divination, too! This is crucial and so many people don't do it. But you'll notice on the "must-haves" list, no divination tools appear, instead, they're buried back in the "nice-to-haves". If divination is essential before spellwork, certainly a Tarot deck or pendulum, runes, or even just offering some help with scrying (which as I said, you can literally do with anything) would surely belong in the "must-haves" section, wouldn't it?
I was pleased to see this note of inclusion when discussing Witchcraft:
Anyone can be a witch and practice witchcraft and magic. While there is no bloodline you have to be a part of, we all have Pagan ancestors who practiced some sort of folk magic if you go back far enough. Witchcraft is open to everyone regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, ability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. However, witchcraft has no room for racism, patriarchy, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, etc., as those views and mentalities defy the natural order of unity and equality to which witchcraft and magic adhere.(pg 3)
While I wonder a bit at the choice of patriarchy rather than sexism, I've got no problem with it, and note he speaks about about transphobia there?
Which is why it's kind of frustrating to see something like this in a book published in 2021:
The moon is said to hold sway over the tides, as well as mental health and the female reproductive system. (pg 70)
This is why it's great to say you're inclusive, but even better to show it. A simple correction to this is "The moon is said to hold sway over the tides, as well as mental health and the menstrual cycle."
And there's some more historical head-scratching:
While candles have become a staple in modern witchcraft, their spiritual origins have roots in Judaism and Catholicism, which may be appealing to those practitioners who come from a religious background. (pg 51)
Candles have existed since ancient Rome and spiritual practices with candles are probably as old as candles themselves (candles weren't just present at the Pagan Roman festival Saturnalia, the ancient Greeks used candles on moon-shaped cakes to honor the Goddess Artemis).
Also, I hate for obvious reasons when "religious" is used interchangeably with "Christian" as it so often is in this country. In a Witchcraft book of all places, I was certainly not expecting that (although the specificity of Catholicism and the inclusion of Judaism is at least different and appreciated). This is something else that would've been super easy to fix, both historically and culturally:
"While candles have become a staple in modern witchcraft, their spiritual origins also have a place in Judaism and Catholicism, which may be appealing to practitioners who come from those backgrounds."
In the spells section, there's one called "Witch's Delicious Devil's Food Cake":
While it is a common misconception that witches worship the Judeo-Christian figure known as Satan, in traditional witchcraft and folklore, they do work with an entity or spirit often referred to as "the devil." However, he is a teacher of wisdom, and mostly a modern re-imagining of different ancient Pagan gods. (pg 128)
Okay, keeping in mind how this author defines Witchcraft, as largely folk magic, that can be true, especially as Christian tradition took over and "the devil" took the place of trickster Gods and entities. But an abbreviator would not be out of place ("some work with an entity").
But "Judeo-Christian" should be "Abrahamic", especially in this case, as the devil is also a figure in Islam.
The spell itself is somewhat strange, as it's for loosening up if you feel "afraid to really practice magic and witchcraft", although presumably baking a cake for the devil and asking for help is kind of a big step if you're afraid of magic. (I get that it's a light-hearted spell about loosening your inhibitions, it's just a sort of odd direction, for me anyway.)
Lastly, the author has correspondence tables: for candle color, for herbs, for oils, and stones. This is apparently a much-derided part of occult books for the reason most authors (including this one) don't tell you why those colors or that herb or that stone are associated with that property. Even just an acknowledgement of the fact it's generally based on folk practices and referencing/recommending a book that goes into it in greater detail with sources would help a lot.
Also, any talk of correspondences has to address that while plants and stones have innate properties, your own associations also play a critical part. If you're doing something to help a friend and you strongly associate them with, say the color gray (maybe they always wear that gray hoodie?) or tulips (maybe it's their favorite flower or they have them growing in a pot), by all means, those can help too.
While I have a lot of complaints (and I think they're fair), the book isn't without value. It offers a lot of useful suggestions about wedding Witchcraft to manifestation (the whole reason you'd presumably be reading the book in the first place). The book also makes a point of tackling some issues still floating around occult communities, including cultural misappropriation and the whole racist concept of "black and white magic":
As mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as white or black magic. Those concepts are racist, outdated, and if we're being frank, tacky. Nature is neutral, and outside of Abrahamic religions, there isn't much need for the concept of good and evil. (pg 30)
I'm far more concerned with fact it's racist (seriously, a practice that goes by your associations and "black" magic is negative and bad and "white" magic is positive and good? Get help) than "tacky" but it's good to ditch the term as well as shedding oversimplified concepts about ethics, when the truth is far more complex.
All in all, the book for its flaws is pretty useful and a decent execution of the concept (Witchcraft AND manifesting), although I wouldn't necessarily recommend the book to a beginner for a number of reasons. For what you can take from it though, it's not a bad addition to your shelf and as far as I'm aware, it's the only book on manifesting from a Witchcraft angle.
Should you read a self-help book from someone with less experience than you? OF COURSE! Not only can you learn something new (and the most skilled people understand they're lifelong students), but it's also a great opportunity to examine what you already know.
Notable:
Spirit work is also recommended, as the veil between the worlds grows increasingly thin and is thinnest on October 31st, known as Samhain (pronounced Soh-in), or the Witch's New Year. (pg 75)
Pronounced "Soh-in", this is one of the best times for magic and manifestation. (pg 79)
This pronunciation is incorrect. From the Witch groups I've worked with and in, to the Celtic anthropologists discussing this term, it's pronounced "SOW-in", with the first syllable rhyming with "pow".
Take it from someone who pronounced "athame" phonetically (the correct pronunciation is ATH-a-may) to an occult shop proprietor within my first two months of practice (they were kind and helpful about it).
Final Grade: B-
No comments:
Post a Comment