![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Pretending With a Purpose
I recently made the mistake of buying a book online solely based on the concept, without a knowledge of where the author was really coming from. That book is Taylor Ellwood’s Pop Culture Magick. I plan on doing a more elaborate review of this book later, but suffice it to say, I’ll be happy to sell you my copy of this book, cheap.
Anyway, trudging my way through this rather bad book, I suddenly realized what it is that’s always disturbed me about the concept of ritual magick. Ellwood somehow accidentally made it really clear in his fervent desire to meld the world of pop culture to magick. I know this book hardly represents the field of magick in a larger sense, but what strikes me in this book is that this guy is basically trying to build a really elaborate vaguely spiritual defense of being an unabashed nerd.
Allow me to clarify that. The whole book is about using anime, video games and comic books for “magickal pathworkings” blah blah blah. I think the idea of mining pop culture for occult ideas is a great one and have spent a lot of time (outside of a ritual magick context) on that same thing myself. Really, what it seems like though is that this guy wants to be able to call himself a “mage” rather than the more culturally-appropriate term: big fat dork. Don’t get me wrong, I love comics and movies, etc as much as the next guy, but I think it’s absurd to try to make some kind of grandiose reason for being into this stuff. I mean, does it have to be so you can do a “magickal pathworking”? Can’t you just love the stories and how they make you feel? Seems more honest and direct to me.
Anyway, I guess the question I’m really getting at here is this: How much of ritual magick practice really just consists of an elaborate form of playing pretend? I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with playing or with pretending. I think they’re quite healthy. The thing I’m wondering though is how much of ritual magick is basically just an excuse to dress up and play? I’m guessing for most people it’s at least some of the appeal.
Intellectually though, it seems to ordinarily get dressed up in another way. For example, the commenter on my site who said that magick is centere around “actually doing things” or that is… you’re not just playing pretend - you’re playing pretend with a specific purpose in mind. In other words, as an adult, you don’t feel like you’re allowed to just play and pretend and have fun for no reason. It has to have some kind of ulterior motive of progress or advancement or productivity. It has to be goal-driven. But then this isn’t just a problem that manifests in ritual magick either. Seems to crop up in most spiritual disciplines. Everyone’s focused on advancement and taking it to the next level, achieving the next degree.
Here’s a great bit I found online which relates very closely to this:
When I was growing up, my parents got me a subscription to “Highlights Children’s Magazine.” One of my first reading memories is of my confusion about the magazine’s motto: “Fun with a Purpose.” I remember seeing the motto for many years and thinking nothing of it, but one day, when I was about nine, at my orthodontist’s office, a copy of the publication caught my eye. I really thought about the motto for the first time. It confused the hell out of me. I said “purpose”to myself in my head. I looked at it coupled with “Fun.” I thought about what Fun was. That was obvious to me. Things that make me happy: skateboarding, building forts, drawing pictures, and laughing with friends at the stupid adults all around us. And then I thought about what “purpose” could be. I had some idea that purpose meant doing things for a reason, with a goal in mind perhaps. I thought about the things I did at that age, and the only thing I did, which I rarely did do, with a purpose, was homework - the thing about childhood that I hated most. From my experiences of fun and purpose, I could not understand what “Fun with a Purpose” meant. It made no sense to me. It was like saying, “Homework while you Skateboard!”
I guess what I’m saying is, there’s really no need to do homework while you skateboard. If you want to get dressed up and do crazy rituals and play and feel like a kid, then do it. Let go of the idea that you need to have all these crazy goals and intentions and all this other shit. And just actually enjoy it. I guess that’s probably really hard though, since we’re all so conditioned to derive pleasure out of working towards and achieving goals. But I say fuck advancement. Fuck knowing where this is going. Let’s actually enjoy where we are right now.
UPDATE!
I’d just like to post a personal apology to author Taylor Ellwood, not for my disliking the book or the ideas, but for the personal attacks. Certainly they weren’t warranted as I don’t know the author in person, and I take all the “big fat dork” nonsense back regretfully. I was merely trying to spark debate, and went too far. Sincere apologies on my part Taylor.
- Prev: Rigorous Interview
- Next: Compartmentalization
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:34 pm
that bit about highlights magazine is brilliant. i can remember having the exact same reaction. i remember i would look the cover and just be like “…yeah, okay. grownups are weird.”
it always struck me as incredibly UN-fun, because i felt like they were trying to pull the wool over my eyes. i mean don’t try to trick me into thinking that studying phonics is somehow equivalent to eating ice cream or going for a couple rounds of of slip ‘n slide.
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:40 pm
I always found Highlights profoundly boring. Except for the cover, which had a different color every issue. I kinda dug that.
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:48 pm
wow i’m remembering stuff. didn’t highlights come with all those weird smiley face stickers?
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:53 pm
What about “Goofus & Gallant”? What a couple of assholes.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:00 am
YES !!!!! TERRIBLE !! wow, highlights wasn’t fun AT ALL!
i can actually remember having this vague sort of unarticulated feeling of distaste every time it showed up in the mail, but i guess i just kind of resigned myself to it and hoped that maybe there would be some moderately okay stickers.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:07 am
i got highlights. i had absolutely no memory of whether i enjoyed it or not (so i was assuming probably not) until i just read the words “goofus and gallant”. oh. my. god. i did hate highlights, didn’t i?
July 4th, 2005 at 12:11 am
this is hilarious, all these smart people hated highlights.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:23 am
I don’t think anybody liked Highlights, except maybe pediatricians.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:33 am
the entire magazine had this weird condescending vibe.
yeah i can definitely remember seeing it in the waiting room at the pediatrician. wow i HATED going to the doctor when i was little, except that they gave us dum dums when we left. my doctor was really nice though. he looked like santa and there was a big framed poster of the spaghetti scene from lady & the tramp in one of the exam rooms.
i feel nostalgic now.
July 4th, 2005 at 2:10 am
I actually remember enjoying Highlights, but I was pretty young when we stopped getting it. And god, I hate people who take their fun way too seriously. I write fantasy for fun, and sure, I want my writing to be good, and I want it to be somehow meaningful, and someday I’d like to get published, maybe, so I take it somewhat seriously, but I do remember that I’m not going on a spiritual journey to another plane to tell the stories of whateverthehell, which will reveal the way everyone should live their lives. I just have weird ideas.
July 4th, 2005 at 7:12 am
Well, I for one have never had much truck with that dressing up in robes and burning of incense nonsense. The few times I have tried my hand at some more ceremonial magick stylings, I came away with a sense of … “Why the fuck would I want to do this?”
I tend more towards the chaotic, Austin Osman Spare school of magick, if one could indeed call it that. I can still evoke some of that childish joy one feels when playing, and that is magick - no need for that pompous, hierarchical bullshit (unless that’s your thing, of course).
The underlying purpose behind it all is simply the same as when playing when a child; because it’s fun, and it gives me pleasure. Because, let’s face it, if magick isn’t fun to do, it’s not being done right. (Sometimes it can seem like drudgery, but what doesn’t?)
So putting the emphasis on making things happen, is, for me, to partake in that joyous process and experience when things undergo what Alfred North Whitehead called “the formality of actually occuring,” that is, making thought and ideas condense into physical reality. That’s what magick for me is all about. Whatever props or symbols I might use to this end is just happenstantial, and not the main focus of the magickal workings.
July 4th, 2005 at 7:26 am
I haven’t read Pop Culture Magick, but I think the real point may be in trying to pull everything around you into your spiritual path. Video games (for example) are fun, but we generally categorize them as mundane–but find a way to synthesize it with your kabbalistic/magickal/whatever stuff, and it gains a whole new dimension of personal meaning.
Maybe it’s not necessarily about achieving a particular end, but uniting the sacred and mundane elements of life to make things more exciting.
July 4th, 2005 at 9:51 am
there are big fat dorks everywhere trying to make thier shit vital and interesting. i think it`s healthy to pump things up to make them more interesting. we have to talk ourselves into a lot of things to get them done. why not just use the strongest magic(language) we can summon up?
and there are plenty of fit healthy athletes doing exactly the same thing.
but fun with purpose? transparently jingoistic, even to kids. if you apply that same evaluative process to advertising jargon in the media you will get the same feeling. try saying (or singing) some of the shit we ae exposed to on t.v. to sell air fresheners or theme park admissions. they effect me so adversely that my girlfriend can`t watch t.v. with me because i`m yelling “bullshit” every few minutes.
we have become so immersed in logo culture that we can`t think without it. pass me the kleenex.
July 4th, 2005 at 10:43 am
I think magic is, to some degree, playing pretend, but perhaps not in the sense you mean.
I think it’s playing pretend is the sense of “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut”, and the goal of magic is, frequently, to “become” something else. Which is why I’ve always thought the “fake it till you make it” motto was subversively occultic.
But as far as “playing” itself, I agree completely with what I think you’re saying about the inanity of purposeful or scheduled fun. Whatever happened to just playing?
[And those damn kids need to get off my lawn too!]
But I do think finding a way back to that emotional clarity of play that we all seem to have as kids is in and of itself a magical act. Maybe that’s what some magicians are trying to do, without knowing it - returning to that authentic emotional state.
And for the record, I remember reading Highlights in the dentists office. I remember liking the “finding the hidden objects in the picture” bit….
You think that says something about me, personally?
July 4th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
I don’t even know where to start on this. Your ignorance of modern magical practice seems, from what you have written here, to be almost total. Instead of reviewing one book which is way out on a branch of the tree, you need to start reading from the trunk up, until you have a notion of why that branch is there.
Pick up some Francis King for history, everything you can find by Israel Regardie, Triumph of the Moon for the history of “modern Pagan witchcraft,” one of the biographies of Crowley (you’re on your own for making sense out of Crowley, or ask your friendly local Thelemite), and then some Carroll and Hine for the Chaos Current. Get drunk with Grant Morrison if you get a chance.
Anyway, read enough of this stuff that you at least begin to suspect that there are modern mages who are not just foolish dilettantes and “big fat dorks” who play at magick because they suck at life. That may help you put the “big fat dorks” you do meet in perspective, and tell them apart from serious people.
July 4th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
AGH! You found me out! I’ve only ever read one book ever! And since I’ve read less books than you, I must not know as much. However, I appreciate the book recommendations.
In all seriousness though, I’m sorry you seem to have been offended by my line of inquiry. It’s all questions questions questions. That’s what’s important to me right now. Maybe not to you. Who knows? Questions aren’t ever wrong. That’s the beauty. I don’t obviously know you or what you’re about. Maybe you rule. Maybe you break all the rules. I’m happy to admit my ignorance and put it on display. Are you?
July 4th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
If you don’t want to utilize pop culture in your magick, that’s your prerogative. But to give a book a horrible review basely completely on your biases is highly unprofessional. Rather than focus solely on symbolism, you also should have gone into more basic structure, such as techniques and practicality. A good reviewer is able to place hir prejudices aside and gauge the book’s success or failure in how well it completes its intended purpose, not whether or not it meshes with your own chosen paradigm.
All ritual is is a way to distract the conscious mind while the subconscious goes to work. If pop culture icons are a successful method for some, so much the better. If it’s not your cop o’ chai, no harm in that. But you gave PCM a bad review simply because it wasn’t a flavor you liked. Its like saying that nobody should try chocolate just ebcause you don’t like it.
July 4th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Why do I have to be professional? I’m not a professional book reviewer. I’m just a guy trying to figure things out. Is there really such a thing as putting your biases aside - especially when reviewing something?
Didn’t I say I was going to come back and write a more complete review?
I asked this elsewhere, but is it a good habit to be trying to trick yourself all the time? What kind of life does that turn into?
What’s wrong with that? Maybe nobody should try chocolate? I don’t know.
July 4th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
freeman, i think the umbrella of “magic” is a pretty broad one, and i think there’s enough room under it for your booklist AND the ideas and opinions and speculations of tim and everyone else here.
different people approach different ideas from different angles. if you like to do things systematically, good for you, i’m sure there’s something to be said for that. however i don’t think you should assume that just because other people are coming at it from a different perspective they are necessarily “systemless” or in some way off the mark.
lupa.. what’s wrong with saying you don’t like something, if you don’t, in fact, like it? i would sympathize more with your comment if this blog were titled “Tim Boucher’s Occult Book Reviews.”
July 4th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
Hmm…where to start. First, you can’t even spell my last name correctly and yet you have a copy of my book with my last name on it. Seems pretty idiotic that you misspell my name, when you’re doing an informal review of my book. Please at least get my name write when you do a formal review. Secondly, feel free to visit my website and look at the picture in the bio page. You’ll note carefully that I’m not a big, fat dork. I am happen to be in excellent shape. Regardless one should be careful of making judgements of another person, and making those judgements public. I don’t really care that you dislike my book. That’s your perojative, but insulting me is a low blow and libelous.
And finally, a bit of advice: Read up on chaos magic. If you had read up on this particualr field of magic, you would find my approaches in PCM to be far less “pretend” than you think. The real key to ritual magic is to use what works for you, something I believe I wrote in that very book. I wonder, did you even do the exercises in the book, or did you just read it? If you did just read it, then perhaps you should go back and do the actual exercises before making further judgements. Certainly, the people who have picked up my book, in general, have enjoyed my approach and found it workable, as the book is written from a descriptive stance, as opposed to a prescriptive “this is how you have to do magic.” In the end though, magic is about what works for the individual practitioner. I’ve found that my approaches to pop culture work well, for me and for the majority of peopel who’ve read my book and worked through the exercises.
Incidentally, my next book Space/Time magic is coming out. You should check it out and tell me again how I’m making such a “big, fat dork” of myself. After all, I must be “nerdy” to be interested in pop culture and science and everything else I’m into. Heavens forbid that I should actually think that approaching magic from new perspectives might be a good thing to do, as opposed to sticking with what everyone else has done.
July 4th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
LJ, it’s not a matter of his not liking it. It’s that the entire review was based solely on his not liking the paradigm.
July 4th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
LJ, if you catch me trashing something you’re into in such a way that it is clear I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion, feel free to whack me with a clue-by-four, most especially if I’m wallowing in ad hominem or other fallacies when I do it.
Tim, if I “put my ignorance on display,” I try to do it in the form of a question, even when I am not playing Jeopardy. Ignorant assertions just invite refutation instead of productive discussion (although there does not always have to be a firm distinction between the two).
July 4th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Taylor. I apologize for the personal attacks and most certainly the misspellings. I don’t know you and have no right to judge you as a person. My heartfelt apology on that.
July 4th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
[…] lly when you do something stupid and decide to call somebody you don’t know a “big fat dork” strictly for rhetorical purposes, not because you act […]
July 4th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
lol…
no such thing as bad publicity… as long as you spell the name right!!!! lol.
After all, I must be “nerdy” to be interested in pop culture and science and everything else I’m into.
um, well, yeah….
are you just reading this blog for the first time Mr. Ellwood? Tim is pretty nerdy too..
so am i… shit, i never heard of your book, and this review at least makes me want to check it out…
Ellwood…. what do you think of “Serial Experiments Lain”?
one
human?
July 4th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Does it strike anybody else as ridiculous that we’re having an online ARGUMENT ABOUT MAGIC amongst a bunch of people who have never and may never even meet in person? Because it strikes me as a silly thing to get really pissed off about.
July 4th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
the way i see it.. this is tim’s blog, and the purpose of a blog is to have a place express your ideas/feelings/whatever. period. it’s free speech.. people are bound to get offended. i really do believe that everyone who posts here is sincerely interested in the ideas being discussed.. to me that’s the most important thing, not whether or not we all agree or or who knows the most.
July 4th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Apology accepted and for the record I have no problems with asking the tough questions, when it comes to magic or anything else. It’s something I do a fair amount myself.
To answer your question as to why one might take something fun and focus on using it for a goal, I’ll just say that I find a lot of ceremonial magic extremely boring. Don’t get me wrong I’ve used ceremonial magic, but I’d much rather have fun when I do magic. This is the main reason I use pop culture in a lot of my magical workings, though I will also say that I don’t always use pop culture when I do magic. sometimes a kiss is just a kiss and game is just a game. All the same, the idea of using something that’s not normally associated with magic has always motivated me, because I think magic as a discipline needs to evolve and I frankly don’t see that happening much. I will say though that PCM isn’t just about magical pathworkings. That’s one aspect among many. I guess it all depends on your take as to what ritual magic is.
To answer Human’s query, yes I am familiar with Serial experiments Lain and looking forward to picking up Technolyze as well. I loved Lain. I thought the idea of an egregore of the internet was exceedlingly cool. I may even do some work in that direction with Lain at some point, using her as an information egregore.
July 5th, 2005 at 12:03 am
[…]
Pop Culture Magick by Taylor Ellwood
Since my informal review of Pop Culture Magick by Taylor Ellwood was such a big hi […]
July 5th, 2005 at 4:04 am
[…] ;blasted” me, whatever that means. Actually, here’s what he thinks that means. This is the comment he left in defense of Ellwood. I donR […]