The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets

Rating:
Summary: A frustrating mix of fact and fiction
Review: Women (and men) who are analytical readers will be frustrated by this book. It would be a browser's delight, except that some material is pulled out of nowhere and presented alongside verifiable facts (a tactic favored by the tabloids). Ms. Walker uses questionable sources in some instances and often goes out of her way to force-fit the square peg of the more reliable sources into the round hole of her belief system. The result is a lengthy New Age feminist tract passing itself off as a work of historical analysis.

The author's stance on religion is obvious. Christianity is derided at every opportunity, whereas pagan religions are spoken of in reverential tones--often ignoring the brutal realities of many "goddess religions" of ancient times. Indeed, Ms. Walker's personal bias so taints her writing that it grows tiresome even to the non-Christian reader.

A curious mix of factual data and fanciful revisionism, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets seems to be designed for the "Clan of the Cave Bear" crowd. It is simply too biased and unreliable for consideration as a reference book, though it might serve as a good jumping off place for further research. Given that it wasn't titled "The Woman's Encyclopedia of Facts", we should at least give the publisher credit for truth in advertising. I'll give it two stars--one for content and one for a very beautiful cover.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent and Fascinating Mythology Source
Review: My one problem lies in the title,however. The book itself is not devoted soley to females in mythology,so the title is fairly inaccurate. Also,why should only women scholars get to enjoy this book? Finally,the title is an excuse for opponents of feminism (gender equality) to peruse it with a fine tooth comb, looking for "proof" in their stereotypical arguments about feminist writers. While some may cry "fake!" for this weighty encyclopedia, I feel obliged to point out Walker's impressive research and well documented references,something that I find myself checking more and more, particularly in mythology literature. This book is great for reference,but it is no dull,dry read. The potential student can flip open to any page,or look up any topic and find esoteric and interesting information. My only complaint with this fine reference tome is the "women's studies" bent, something I find obnoxious and reminiscent of the "Steppin Fetchit" character that is akin to "throwing the dog a bone" to the oppressed minority. And, why, praytell, should only women have to learn about women? I seem to recall learning quite a bit about men and I'm not one. The "women's studies" bent ,possibly to enhance the marketing possibilites ,however,is fortunately confined to the cover and the jacket. Some accuse Walker of having a bias. Actually,I found the majority of her work amazingly level, except for discussing certain areas where her consternation is understandable(ritualized rape, the mysogynistic villification of Pagan deities,both male and female). In short,don't let the title fool you. This well-referenced book is enjoyable for any serious or potential student of mythology or religious studies.

Rating:
Summary: Different Take on History and Religions...
Review: Despite the title, this encyclopedia is not necessarily for women. This book reveals an incredible amount of information about myths, symbols, gods, goddesses, fairy tales and religious motifs from a feminist-historian perspective. The Women's Encyclopedia has aided me in countless occasions for research - but the book is so plentiful with historical anecdotes & the threads that brought about contemporary symbols that I often get lost amidst its propensity. The information within is interesting & rarely found elsewhere. Walker certainly did her research. This book is worth every penny.

Rating:
Summary: A Pagan's Encyclopedia?
Review: When Barbara Walker's 'The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets' was published, The Los Angeles Times called it 'a feminist-scholar's gold mine and a browser's delight.' The San Francisco Chronicle called the book 'a mountain of scholarship, a vast mass of supremely documented material.' The praise seems to be well-deserved. After all, Barbara Walker spent over twenty years researching the topic, distilling valuable information and deriving insights from hundreds of books and documents. I am therefore surprised at the very scathing criticisms of the book presented at the Readers' Reviews section of Amazon.com. To understand this, there are at least two possibilities. The first possibility is that the scholarship of the book is genuinely poor(and the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle reviewers did not do a professional job). Another possibility is that such negativity is a reflection of the unspeakable anger one feels when one's long-held beliefs and values are shaken.

Certainly, the encyclopedia does not offer any 'orthodox' or 'politically correct' views. Barbara Walker is not a crowd-pleaser. She does not have too many complimentary things to say about patriarchy, Christianity or the Church. I see the primary value of this book as a bold and unabridged documentation of the historical struggle between the sexes and between the religion of Goddess and the patriarchal religions. Walker does not shy away from controversial or uncomfortable topics. She does not self-censor. She is not afraid to talk about the darker side of Christian history'its intolerance of other religions, its appropriation of pagan myths into Christian theology, its conversion of pagan festivals into Christian ones and its demonization of Goddess and sex.

I have had the book for a few years now. I must say that it has really opened my eyes. The book captures so much information'so many facts, speculations, conjectures, myths and legends that one simply cannot find in any other popular encyclopedia. Are there any error, omission or bias in this work? Probably. But no scholar is completely free of criticism. In the several years of owning the book, I have checked its accuracy on quite a few occasions. This book has stimulated me to do my independent research into history, anthropology, the pagan religions and other disciplines. I am happy to report that I have found no major error. More specifically, the general picture that Ms. Walker paints'that of the political struggle between the patriarchal religions and the pagan religions, that of the Church's role in entrenching sexism in the West, that of the Church's vilification of the Goddess and the sacredness of sex'is largely accurate.

On the other hand, I have engaged in several dialogues with other readers who are critical of this work, people who believe that Barbara Walker have been erroneous or misrepresenting the facts. I have spent many hours examining disputes and cross-checking for accuracy or factuality. What I find is that these critics are often much less knowledgeable of the subject matter than Ms. Walker and that their criticism is often a result of their ignorance or ideological bias.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in mythology, women study and the history of religion. Yes, this book, just like others, has imperfections. But as long as we read with a critical mind, this book can be invaluable source of information and research tool for Christians and pagans alike.

Rating:
Summary: A Brave New World
Review: Anyone who has the guts to write and publish such a revealing work, as Barbara G. Walker has done, deserves humanity's deepest thanks. I've only read a portion of her book, and all of the reader reviews about it on Amazon.com and must say it's what I expected to find. I'm a person raised in the Catholic religion, then exposed later in life to the Lutheran side. For years I've pondered the validity of Christian beliefs, afraid to openly question them, fearful of the reaction by the faithful.

After Sept 11 that all changed, instead of running back to religion, I sought to confirm my religious disbeliefs by studying and understanding the roots of Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm more thoroughly. What I found was shockingly clear; all of the major monotheist religions are based on writings and interpretations designed to suppress what was the truth. If we were taught the true history of these religions, most of us would never have continued wasting our time and money in their support.

Ms. Walker, as other authors have done, has provided us with information that everyone, not just the religious, should read. And readers shouldn't stop with this book, as many do with the Bible as their reference, but gather as much varied material as possible to make a wise decision on living their lives.

I don't believe Ms. Walker intends to resurrect any goddess religion, but merely inform readers about religious history (perhaps a little biased or inaccurate). After anyone studies religion enough, most should agree that it isn't necessary in our world today.

A New Humanist in the World

Rating:
Summary: Might as well be a novel
Review: One woman's anti-male fantasy passed off as scholarship. I'd list my problems with it, but the dozens of examples below should be enough to convince even the most casual reader that this is a book for the serious student of history to avoid. The inaccuracies are numerous and the bias obvious. It is disturbing to consider that a virtual work of fiction with about as much veracity as Harry Potter could find its way into colleges and high schools.

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic, Eye-Opening Scholarship
Review: As a classically educated archaeologist, historian, mythologist and linguist, I can attest that Barbara Walker is an impeccable scholar who obviously put an enormous amount of time into thoroughly researching and understanding her subject matter. She has reached far back into time and, through painstaking analysis, recovered lost and suppressed information that is invaluable to the enlightenment of the human species and the recovery of the role of women. She makes very few mistakes and is abundant in her references.

The criticisms of her work found on this "review" page are unfounded and specious. The "critics" themselves are obviously not scholars or academics, nor are they mythologists. Most likely they are religionists who are defending their faith. Walker's work, in the meantime, needs no faith but is based on sound reasoning and science, including the historical and archaeological record, which bears out her assertions quite abundantly.

I highly recommend this book to any and all who wish to know the hidden truth behind "modern" religions, which have their "pagan" roots in the hoary mists of time. Indeed, this book reveals the unity of human culture, reminding us that we are one planet.

Acharya S Author of "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" Member, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece

Rating:
Summary: I can understand...
Review: I can understand how hardcore Christians and anti-feminists would dislike this book. It is pretty pagan and feminist oriented. Every author puts their own spin on the things they write about, and it is quite obvious that Ms. Walker (the author of The Woman's Encyclopedia) enjoys both paganism and feminism- else she wouldn't write with direction toward these readers. I enjoyed this book very much. I still haven't gotten straight through from cover to cover since I get sidetracked by the cross-references. The Woman's Encyclopedia is very informative, giving wonderful theories and history, even many word origins.

Rating:
Summary: Not at all accurate...
Review: Barbara Walker has an obvious bias against all things male and/or Christian. She rewrites myth and history to make everything female-supreme, Goddess centric, anti-male, and full of sexual womyn power.

Now, before someone dismisses me as 'obviously anti-female and deluded by patriarchy' or some such, I should state that I am a female neo-pagan with no love for the Church and/or the views it supports towards women. That said - I don't like made up or revisionist history, even if it does stroke the ego a bit. She bases everything on the supposed Pre-historical Matriarchy - which has little to no archeological evidence to truly support in the grand scale she portrays it.

But besides that, her Encyclopedia and Dictionary are a mish-mash of cultural hodge-podge! She acts as if gods and goddesses from varying cultures are generally interchangeable, offering nothing for the cultural differences which give birth to their own representations of deity. She has butchered myths, made up "alternate versions" which have no founding anywhere except her own imagination, ignored important details of myths which don't mesh with her agenda, and basically perverted the symbols she pretends to represent.

Bad scholarship is bad enough... but her fabrications and invented history and myths are just a disgrace to the pagan community, and, in my opinion, an insult to women and to the goddess and gods which exist without the clap-trap found in this book. It does not present women as strong and/or empowered to rely on revisiont psuedo-history, no matter how good it may sound.

There are many strong female figures out there... many strong goddesses of all ilks. This book does not do them justice.

Rating:
Summary: More fantasy than fact
Review: There are a lot of people who want to believe this book is an accurate source of information about mythology and history. Unfortunately, wishing does not make it so. One of the reviewers below claims she is a mythologist and can back up the accuracy of this book, and that people bashing it must be doing so out of their religious beliefs. It appears to me that the supporters of this book are the ones doing it out of faith and dogma, and I say that as a mythologist who has tried to find evidence to support her statements and can't.

As others have pointed out, all you need to do is follow her footnotes. It may look impressive when she makes three statements in a paragraph and cites three references to back her up, but it's a lot less impressive when you actually have those books and they don't say at all what she claims they do. I've done it (I have a large library of mythology books), but so can you. Go to a library and pick a few to look up. You'll probably be shocked at the differences in what she claims those sources say and what they really do. The only ones that I have found so far that seem to be at all similar are a handful of others also in the neo-pagan movement (Graves, "Merlin" Stone and Gimbutas being the main three).

Here is just the highlights of a few of many errors in just one entry:
"Mara
Exceedingly ancient name of the Goddess-as-Crone"

The first sentence isn't even done yet and already it's got the crone theory that she tries to push on everything (none of the figures of Mara have anything to do with crones) and capitalizes the term for no good reason. And, to top it off, all but the relatively recent (last 500 years or so) references to Mara say that it is a MALE figure, not female. So this exceedingly ancient name isn't a crone and isn't even a goddess.

Then we have: "The gypsies, with their traditions rooted in Hinduism, knew Mara to be the death goddess who trapped the soul of the Enchanted Huntsman in a mirror and caused his death--" I bought the book she references, guess what... Mara is a gypsy girl, not a goddess, the one doing the magic is the Devil (called as such, the typical Christian male one) and Mara loved the huntsman and didn't want him to die. The sentence ends: "a myth that paralleled ancient Pelasgian stories of the death of Dionysus" (in another reference in the book she outright calls Mara's huntsman "Dionysus" and doesn't claim it's a parallel but the exact figure -- the book isn't even internally self-consistent). So I go look up that myth, and they aren't related at all, except by the loosest of wishful thinking interpretations.

And then later in this entry she references supposed related goddesses like Mari, etc. that *no other source anywhere* (excepting those who borrowed from this book) has any records or even hints at. She must have just made them up, assuming that if a word exists with some feminine sounding meaning (with a lot of twisting and misunderstanding of linguistics) then it must have originally been a goddess because she says so. That's kind of like saying that there was an ancient god Testicles because it sounds close to Heracles and it's extremely masculine so must have been a truly important god.

I have nothing against pagan beliefs, and I think they are probably one of the most healthy religious faiths that exist. Pointing out that this book is horrible isn't attacking a belief system, it's attacking incredibly flawed and biased scholarship. There are enough real historical goddess beliefs that nobody should have to make them up if they want to look to them for personal growth and religious faith. It's a shame that Walker was so insecure that she felt the need to twist everything all around, and it's even more of a shame that some people feel the need to defend her. Walker was wrong, which doesn't make paganism or feminism any weaker. You are only weak if you insist upon basing your own personal self-image upon the delusions of a highly discredited author.