Aeon418
I've been too close to the subject for too long. If someone relatively new to Crowley asked me for a biograpy recommendation I would find it very difficult to recommend one of the more negative books.Haha, why do you consider yourself biased?
One reason is that the more negative books seem to go hand-in-hand with shoddy, half assed reasearch. If I'm responsible for introducing someone to Crowley, I would prefer it to be a reasonably level and factually accurate introduction. Frankly I would be distraught if I soured someone's initial exposure to Crowley or Thelema.
Now don't get me wrong. I can fully understand how that might sound a bit nanny-ish. I have no objection to anyone reading the negative biographies. (I've read nearly all of them myself.) If anyone were determined to start their Crowley adventure with one of them I would reluctantly say good luck, but caveat emptor. I just think it's better to tackle them with a firm foundation already laid. That way you can spot instances of authors using negative spin, axe-grinding, and distortion of the facts.
I know that Gregory likes the Symonds bio. And she has every right to. But in all honesty it would gall me to recommed that one as an introduction to Crowley. To me John Symonds biography reads like a little man passing judgement on great man. The whole book exudes jealousy and contempt. Even Frieda Harris in a letter (to either Yorke or Germer?) said that she felt betrayed by him.