<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Fabulous book
Review: I absolutely loved this book and am suggesting that the visiters to my online bookstore (an Amazon Affiliate) buy this book. It discusses various aspects of Wicca, along with stressing the fact that you should practice it however you see fit, which is something people of Garderian background often do not speak about.
Rating:
Summary: Fabulous book
Review: I found this book rather interesting but it wasn't for what I was looking as a solitary witch. It talked mainly about the Gardnerian tradition, which I don't follow, but accept, as any witch should. :) It's a good book from which to learn, but make sure you know the basics of witchcraft, and an idea of the different traditions as a beginner, or you may become discouraged with the structure of this one tradition! We must be open-minded, People! Blessings, Guinevere
Rating: 
Summary: Nothing in this book is true (well, almost nothing).
Review: I'll just come right out and say it. The picture of history this book paints is almost completely inaccurate. Buckland references few of his claims about the "ancient" origins of witchcraft, and where he does list references, they're to sources that are questionable at best. He takes scraps of historical evidence out of context and twists them to fit his concept of pagan history, which is that Wicca is, quite literally, the religion of the Stone Age Celts. In the 1970s, when the book was originally published, his wilful misinterpretation of history would be understandable as a product of the times, but to republish it today and endorse it as "valid" is unforgiveable when there is so much good scholarship now available on the history of paganism. If you want to know what the ancient inhabitants of Britain *really* believed, try Ronald Hutton.In addition to the glaring inaccuracies, I didn't see how whole sections of the book even related to the topic at hand. Buckland concedes that very few of the people burned as witches during the "Burning Times" were actually practitioners of Wicca, but then spends dozens of pages describing the witch trials (and especially the specific ways in which "witches" were tortured, with illustrations), using the confessions of these "witches" as evidence of the way in which Wicca was actually practiced! He then continues to refer to the "Burning Times" throughout the book as an era of widespread Wiccan martyrdom, even though, as he admitted previously, most of those killed *were not Wiccan*, or even witches for that matter! He concludes the book with a chapter on "Witches and Fairies," making the rather lame claim that "many people associate witches with fairies" and going on to talk about the nature of fairies as if that was enough to relate them to the history of witchcraft. In short, I would not recommend this book as a guide to history, or Wicca, or witchcraft, or anything but the inside of Raymond Buckland's head.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing in this book is true (well, almost nothing).
Review: I'll just come right out and say it. The picture of history this book paints is almost completely inaccurate. Buckland references few of his claims about the "ancient" origins of witchcraft, and where he does list references, they're to sources that are questionable at best. He takes scraps of historical evidence out of context and twists them to fit his concept of pagan history, which is that Wicca is, quite literally, the religion of the Stone Age Celts. In the 1970s, when the book was originally published, his wilful misinterpretation of history would be understandable as a product of the times, but to republish it today and endorse it as "valid" is unforgiveable when there is so much good scholarship now available on the history of paganism. If you want to know what the ancient inhabitants of Britain *really* believed, try Ronald Hutton. In addition to the glaring inaccuracies, I didn't see how whole sections of the book even related to the topic at hand. Buckland concedes that very few of the people burned as witches during the "Burning Times" were actually practitioners of Wicca, but then spends dozens of pages describing the witch trials (and especially the specific ways in which "witches" were tortured, with illustrations), using the confessions of these "witches" as evidence of the way in which Wicca was actually practiced! He then continues to refer to the "Burning Times" throughout the book as an era of widespread Wiccan martyrdom, even though, as he admitted previously, most of those killed *were not Wiccan*, or even witches for that matter! He concludes the book with a chapter on "Witches and Fairies," making the rather lame claim that "many people associate witches with fairies" and going on to talk about the nature of fairies as if that was enough to relate them to the history of witchcraft. In short, I would not recommend this book as a guide to history, or Wicca, or witchcraft, or anything but the inside of Raymond Buckland's head.
Rating: 
Summary: okay for newcomers
Review: There is not a lot in this book that hasn't been rehashed over by other authors. This book was probably more impressive when it first came out; but I didn't find any major revelations about the Craft. One can get the same info from Gardner, the Farrars, Valiente, or Patricia Crowther. If this is one of the first books on Wicca you pick up, then it could serve as a good starting point. Including essays from other famous Pagans was a nice touch. I thought the ending chapter on trying to prove fairies existed was a bit much, though.
Rating:
Summary: okay for newcomers
Review: There is not a lot in this book that hasn't been rehashed over by other authors. This book was probably more impressive when it first came out; but I didn't find any major revelations about the Craft. One can get the same info from Gardner, the Farrars, Valiente, or Patricia Crowther. If this is one of the first books on Wicca you pick up, then it could serve as a good starting point. Including essays from other famous Pagans was a nice touch. I thought the ending chapter on trying to prove fairies existed was a bit much, though.
<< 1 >>
|
