New Crowley Biography?

gregory

Crowley was always on the look out for spare cash. And sometimes people were stupid enough to give it to him. But considering the pocket-change sums involved I seriously doubt he would ever make it onto the list of the worlds greatest con-men and fraudsters. But of course, as in a lot of other areas, Crowley is a special exception. If it were anyone else no one would bat an eyelid.

But when you see the common "popular" reaction to Crowley's sex life you would think he murdered people after having sex with them. By today's standards Crowley sex life is nothing special. People today are doing way more crazy stuff then he ever did, and no one cares. But, as in a lot of other areas, Crowley is a special case.

Over the years I've been involved in loads of discussions about Crowley's character and behaviour. But I'm always surprised when liberal, tolerant and open-minded people I know well, suddenly transform into puritanical prudes when it comes to Crowley's sex life. I just don't get it.

Who hasn't at some time or another in their life acted badly and screwed someone else over to get their own way? But the common reaction is a pretence of being as pure as the driven snow. Next comes the feigned indignation and mock outrage with a hefty dose of moral finger wagging.

Oh you naughty boy, Crowley! I would never do anything like that. :rolleyes:

Crowley IS a special case and he WAS a remarkable man. That does not mean he was a totally good guy. I'm not saying people today don't do questionable things. But that doesn't mean what he did WASN'T questionable. And IF I were "judging him" - which I am absolutely not - I would absolutely "judge him" in exactly the same way as I would anyone else. What he and many others, then and now, do and did was often thoroughly dodgy. YOU are the one judging me by implying that I'm puritanical, a prude, mock-outraged, wagging a finger and the rest. Which I most certainly am not. I am not actually particularly anti anything he did, none of it shocks me, and I think he was great. But it was dodgy - a lot of it.

I am NO prude. Ask Lillie. }) And when have I for one MOMENT suggested any degree of intolerance. I think Al was very special indeed. His outrageousness was part of what made him who he was, for goodness sake. BUT - you are rather making my case about Perdurabo for me - I quote myself:
The whole thing feels like some kind of deliberate effort to try and rehabilitate, to make him look respectable - and respectability has nothing to do with this. He was what he was, which was something rather special. Trying to write him up as dry as dust, with ever such distinguished associates will not make his detractors any less detracting.

You seem, au contraire de moi, to be trying to suggest he was perfect, without blemish. That is far from the truth and detracts from everything he was and stood for. If you want to believe Uncle Al was as white as the driven snow - good luck to you. But that takes away most of what made him what he was.
 

Aeon418

You seem, au contraire de moi, to be trying to suggest he was perfect, without blemish. That is far from the truth and detracts from everything he was and stood for. If you want to believe Uncle Al was as white as the driven snow - good luck to you. But that takes away most of what made him what he was.
You've misinterpreted me, Gregory. (Not a difficult thing to do on an internet forum .:)) I don't believe Crowley was as pure as the driven snow. I simply accept that Crowley was the way he was, worts and all. I also think that much of what Crowley did to gain his supposedly "bad boy" reputation would go un-noticed today. This is why I am frequently surprised when people of today still view Crowley through the lens of Edwardian morality. Yes, back then he shocked them with his behaviour. But why is it still so shocking now? I don't know. And yet it still inspires the same finger wagging moralizing attitudes that it did in the past.
 

gregory

You've misinterpreted me, Gregory. (Not a difficult thing to do on an internet forum .:)) I don't believe Crowley was as pure as the driven snow. I simply accept that Crowley was the way he was, warts and all. I also think that much of what Crowley did to gain his supposedly "bad boy" reputation would go un-noticed today. This is why I am frequently surprised when people of today still view Crowley through the lens of Edwardian morality. Yes, back then he shocked them with his behaviour. But why is it still so shocking now? I don't know. And yet it still inspires the same finger wagging moralizing attitudes that it did in the past.

Just as much of that kind of behaviour shocks when it happens today. I don't think it WOULD go unnoticed.
Alice Cooper, anyone ? Johnny Rotten ? Sarah Ferguson having her toes sucked by a man to whom she wasn't married ??? O M G that was so too too terrible - the world as we know it ends.

Victor Nuberg said Crowley turned him into a zebra and sold him to a zoo. I think if Paul Daniels (lord help us :eek:) pulled that one today, he would be pretty roundly vilified too.

I love Uncle Al - but at least partly BECAUSE of his warts.
 

Aeon418

Just as much of that kind of behaviour shocks when it happens today.
That's because it frequently gets promoted as shocking. Stuff like that sells newspapers.

Remember a while back when Max Mosley got caught in a London sex dungeon. Oh the moral outrage! How shocking! How scandalous! How perverted! The tabloid papers had a field day with it. But away the media hype did anyone really care what he did in the privacy of his own sex life? I didn't.
Victor Nuberg said Crowley turned him into a zebra and sold him to a zoo.
It was a camel actually. And they both got off on it because they were involved in an S&M relationship. Viewed through Edwardian moral spectacles it's shocking. Today, who cares?
I love Uncle Al - but at least partly BECAUSE of his warts.
Edwardian warts may have looked huge back then. Today they're little more than pimples. Which makes many reactions all the more surprising.

This is one reason why I dislike the Symonds bio. While it may seem exciting, scandalous, and shocking, it's only because your forced to view Crowley through the little moral world view of John Symonds.
 

gregory

That's because it frequently gets promoted as shocking. Stuff like that sells newspapers.

Remember a while back when Max Mosley got caught in a London sex dungeon. Oh the moral outrage! How shocking! How scandalous! How perverted! The tabloid papers had a field day with it. But away the media hype did anyone really care what he did in the privacy of his own sex life? I didn't.
It was a camel actually. And they both got off on it because they were involved in an S&M relationship. Viewed through Edwardian moral spectacles it's shocking. Today, who cares?
Edwardian warts may have looked huge back then. Today they're little more than pimples. Which makes many reactions all the more surprising.

This is one reason why I dislike the Symonds bio. While it may seem exciting, scandalous, and shocking, it's only because your forced to view Crowley through the little moral world view of John Symonds.
Camel/zebra - whichever - yes people WOULD care today. And people DO make a fuss about people's private sex lives. One David Mellor in the UK will never been taken seriously as a politician angina because of his wearing a - was it Chelsea ? - strip. And Lembit Opik, too.... no hope any more, after his affairs with the Cheeky Girls...

I think you are being far too generous about today's moral outrages. They are as pathetic now as they were then. Towards him and towards people alive today. I realise SANE people (like you and me !) don't give a **** - but the same people who are outraged by Crowley are also outraged by what goes on today.

And I had no problems with Symonds. It didn't come over as scandalous; it was simply an interesting read that resonated with the outrageous - in the BEST sense - person that Crowley was.
 

Laura Borealis

From reading Symonds - I liked the guy and I would love to have met him. So it can't be all bad :D

I now know why I own Sutin :p Oh dear :(

Heehee :D No, it was more that I just knew I'd never read it a second time. And you'd been so nice to me with the greenie hex card and all. :heart:

What kind of iffy stuff?

For me it was the cats. The sex doesn't bother me (though some is on the gross side -- piss and sh*t stuff -- but hey, consenting adults, whatever). The neglect of the children is much more iffy to me, and then the cats. That was what tipped the scales. If it had only been the story from when he was a boy, I could have told myself he made that up as part of his "legend". But there was another one much later, during a ritual, and reading about that tipped the scales for me. You don't kill cats (in a very cruel manner, I might add) and stay in my good graces.
 

gregory

He's not out of my good graces exactly - but yes, that was TOTALLY unacceptable and still would be.
 

Aeon418

The neglect of the children is much more iffy to me
Can you be more specific?
If it had only been the story from when he was a boy,
Not having a fully developed moral sense little boys can be very sadistic at times. I grew up with friends who owned BB guns. There wasn't a bird, cat, or dog in the neighbourhood that was safe from them. The Crowley story is nasty, but I don't think it's in any way special.
I could have told myself he made that up as part of his "legend". But there was another one much later, during a ritual, and reading about that tipped the scales for me. You don't kill cats (in a very cruel manner, I might add) and stay in my good graces.
In principle I have no objection to animal sacrfice, provided it is done properly, quickly, and with minimal suffering. I find that many meat eaters who object to my opinion are completely ignorant to how horrific some slaughter houses are. When informed it still doesn't stop them tucking into a burgers though. (For the record I eat meat.)

A particular problem in Western societies is that we are separated from our food animals. We go to supermarkets and buy pre-packaged meat and give no thought to the animal it once was. But mention sacrifice and many people suddenly becomes very moral in a squeemish way. In my opinion a lot of people would benefit from living on a farm for a while. (It's an eye opening experience watching tomorrows dinner runnning around in the yard. :bugeyed:)

People in other cultures regularly catch, kill, and eat animals without a problem. They have respect for their food but aren't sentimental in the way that many Westerners are.
 

Laura Borealis

Can you be more specific?

Not without the book, which I don't have any more. I suspect you know anyway.

As for the cats, the point is it's CATS. Most people have a sticking point, and that's mine. If you're not a cat person you won't get it. It has nothing to do with animals being killed for meat or with animal sacrifice. There isn't any way you can apologize for him that will change my mind, so let's save some time here -- don't even try, okay? Thanks.
 

Aeon418

As for the cats, the point is it's CATS. Most people have a sticking point, and that's mine. If you're not a cat person you won't get it.
Actually I am a cat person. Until a couple of years ago I was a cat owner for over 20 years. (She had to be put down when the vet ruled she was too old to survive an operation. :()

But your objection to cats in general is a Western one. In other areas of the world they eat them along with dogs. Any sentimental views towards them would be regarded as a bit nuts.