By Denise Dumars and Lori Nyx
Publisher: New Page Books, 2003
ISBN: 1-56414-693-6
Review by sunvenus, a.k.a. Rachael M. Roth
Edited by je_reviens
Originally posted on What To Read on December 14th 2008.
In the world of book reviewing, I’ve learned there are times when a reviewer is sent a book that they really want to like, but just cannot recommend as strongly as they’d hoped. It’s a bloody shame too, because sometimes from the titles, pre-reviews, author interviews, hype, and back-cover blurbs, the concept of the book seems so brilliant, so timely, so very needed. Then we open it up, start reading, and that sinking feeling kicks in. All those stars that one had hoped to bestow to begin to wink out as the light of reality dawns.
Unfortunately, this is what happened with The Dark Archetype.
One of the unfortunate facts about paganism is that quite often, newcomers are taken in by the new age myths, misperceptions, and outright lies about “all pagans” or “paganism is” flourishing nowadays. Myths like: all pagans are happy vegetarians who believe the exact same things... all pagans worship one great big goddess who is a girly version of Jesus... all pagans are peaceful eco-feminists with hippy clothes and drums... and my favourite, “paganism is nothing more than new age, multi-cultural mix and matching with a cool label and no real work involved.”
Only if newcomers move beyond the overabundance of misleading books published for the pagan market, and the idiotic, parroted websites slapped together on the internet, can they learn that “paganism” is actually an umbrella term for a countless variety of religions and spiritual paths, united only by diversity. Then these not-so-newcomers have to spend time unlearning those initial falsehoods, before hopefully moving on to meaningful relationships with the divine, in paths that truly speak to their hearts.
It is only after wading through all the claptrap can one discover that, not only do most pagan paths have a well-developed cosmology and structure, but these paths do in fact address some of the less pleasant elements of this life. Paganism is not all about a Jesus-in-drag universal goddess who never, ever corrects her children, and thinks we are groovy no matter what we do. Pagan paths do acknowledge, revere and honour deities some would consider “dark,” destructive, or scary.
So the impetus behind The Dark Archetype is a good one. The reader would expect an in-depth look at various “dark” deities (although as indicated by the title, not as separate and individual gods and goddesses) in such a book. Dumars and Nyx do cover various histories, legends, and myths of several deities, and the book does contain some very good information.
Nevertheless, I have a big problem with the authors’ approach to deities as mere “archetypes.” Obviously, the title makes it clear the book is about archetypes. I admit I am biased, being what many call a “hard polytheist.” I view the deities of all religions and cultures as real, separate, distinct, and non-interchangeable. I may not worship each and every deity of each and every religion, but I do neither view the deities of other religions and cultures as “non-existent” nor as merely bits of one big “ubersdeity.”
I know my view of deity is not the only one, and other views are valid for other practitioners, but hear me out. Even if you believe the axiom put forth by Christian occultist Dion Fortune that “all gods are one god and all goddesses are one goddess and there is one initiator”, if you are going to work with deities in a ritual context, you should at least act as if you think they are real entities. If you are going to “use” (a vile term, but one all too common in neopaganism today) a deity, you should at least take the time and energy to understand the background and history of said deity in order to build a working relationship. Why bother “using” a deity name if you do not really feel that deity exists, or has any power of its own?
In my opinion, this is where Dumars and Nyx miss the mark. In the very beginning of the book, the authors note: “The corners that were called had been dismissed...” (a bad idea – deities should be thanked, not “dismissed” like schoolchildren). [p.14] and then we are treated to directional calls to the elements where deities of various cultures are commanded to “be here now!” [p.16]
Not only is it very bad form to “dismiss” deities, it is also disrespectful to “command” them to appear at your whim. Deities are not cosmic lapdogs, invoked merely to do our bidding. Their names are not mere “pagan poetry”. Even if one does not “believe” in the deities as individual entities, one should at least have the integrity and intelligence to treat them as if they were as real and powerful as you would like them to be. After all, if the deities you “use” aren’t powerful or even functional, then why would you summon them?
Furthermore, in the aforementioned ritual, Dumars and Nyx tell the reader to “command” and “dismiss” a diverse cluster of deities from various civilizations and faiths, without any attention or respect paid to each deity’s cultural and historical preferences, or particular esoteric needs and practices. Nor do Dumars and Nyx consider (or instruct the reader to consider) that deities from different civilizations may not necessarily have good relationships with each other. Just because two deities from two different cultures have attributes in common does not automatically mean they will be the best of friends, or that they are the same deity. It certainly doesn’t work that way for humans, and deities are no different in that respect. (In many myths, even deities of the same pantheon have little in common, or have outright conflict with one another.) To my way of thinking, commanding various deities to appear and expecting them as a happy, cohesive team to do one’s bidding is not only dismissive, it completely counteracts the purpose of working with deity in ritual.
As a side note, Dumars and Nyx are guilty of a particularly annoying misuse of terminology. Could someone please explain -- in short words and with diagrams -- just where in a circle one will find a “corner”? As we all learned in kindergarten, a circle is round, without the meeting of sides in a sharp angle necessary to create a “corner.” If a circle has said meeting of sides then it is not a circle, it is a square. Or a rectangle. Or a trapezoid. Or a triangle. Anything but a circle. Interchanging the word “corner” for “quarters” just has to stop. It’s not poetic and it’s not clever; rather, it is illogical and intimates that one’s alleged “pagan” and “magickal” knowledge comes from insipid movies like The Craft rather than from any legitimate sources.
There may be some determined types who determinedly walk around in the circle desperately searching for those elusive “corners” in order to prove me wrong, and to them I say, “Enjoy the journey, and don’t forget to take some Dramamine.” As for the rest of us, let’s do our part to refer to the fourfold division by cardinal direction as “quarters.” Fight the fluffy tsunami!
Anyway....
Dumars and Nyx then offer examples of rituals to help “use” (again there is that vile term, but sadly applicable) the various deities. Though their rituals show a lot of creativity and thankfully do not necessarily attempt to pigeonhole these deities into a pseudo-Wiccan ritual framework, the authors certainly do not emphasize treating these deities respectfully. They rarely offer any discussion about building relationships with these deities; instead, deities are treated as mere names to bandy about when you want your oompah loompah right now! As I mentioned, the very minimum requirement for effective deific (theurgic) magick is to at least act as if you feel these deities are real and capable of the powers and favours you demand from them. Instead, Dumars and Nyx treat deities from rich, well-developed cultural paradigms as if they are simply the off the cuff choices of a bored teenybopper looking for some way to kill a dull Saturday afternoon.
That said, I did like a few things about The Dark Archetype. Dumars and Nyx did do some useful research, and a look at the bibliography shows that the resources were numerous and varied. The bibliography does include some problematic sources, such as Barbara Walker’s The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, but other than that some very scholarly books were consulted, and apparently, absorbed. A few of the authors’ UPGs (Unverifiable/unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis) are included in the book, but the text is not wholly reliant on those personal observations. This is a refreshing change from the deluge of silly books and websites insisting that some of the “darker” deities (e.g. Morrigan and Kali, to name just two) are merely misunderstood softies that are full of kissy-kisses and white light. The writing style is folksy, and can be a bit flippant in some places (the comment about “Uncle Al” really chapped my hide), but if you’re willing to overlook those few instances, you will still find this an interesting read.
Though I would not recommend The Dark Archetype to brand new pagans, this book can aid intermediate level pagans in approaching paganism as a bouquet of diverse and distinct paths gathered under one label. To those pagans who prefer hard polytheism and reconstructive practices, I’d suggest this book only as a light read for entertainment purposes, and for a differing point of view of deity and pagan theology. Newcomers to hard polytheism might this book helpful if they ignore the take-out menu style of deity name use, and might potentially incorporate some the ideas offered into some personal mediations or rituals.
Criticism notwithstanding, the idea behind The Dark Archetype is indeed timely. It would be so lovely to see another book like this one but written from the perspective of a hard polytheist or Reconstructionist. I am not knocking the authors’ inclinations to see all deities as aspects one big omniscient, omnipotent deity (as in monotheism or monolatry), and I do feel they have potentially opened the gates to more books of this nature, potentially from other pagan theological perspectives. For that aspect alone, a round of applause is given. Perhaps this will encourage other authors to quit going for the quick buck sugar-fluff market and begin writing more books that deal with the meat of paganism. I feel that this book has some protein & vitamins- some spiritually healthy components, although still not nutritionally complete for the soul- but it is a better diet than the spiritually unhealthy saccharine-coated pap of authors such as Cunningham, RavenWolf, Konstantinos, Conway, and Drew.
Official rating:
Two stars. Read it, you might enjoy it if only for the “generic pagan” point of view of deity as interchangeable & as mere archetypes.Copyright 2006 by Rachael M. Roth for Manifestation Publications, a division of Infinite Stars Designs (ABN #30 646 269 206 NSW Australia). All rights reserved. Do not repost or replicate this review in any form without the express written permission of the author. Copyright updated December 10th 2008 by Rachael M. Roth for publishing on The Magick Word and Paganism Australia. To contact the author, please email la235 @ hotmail.com (remove spaces).
Total BS. Avoid like the plague.