Why must people portray Harris as an "unsung heroine?"

[Zephyros]

I found this thoroughly annoying article about how Crowley used Harris, collected the royalties of the deck himself and then left her to die in poverty.

http://www.ps-magazine.com/People_91/Unsung_Heroine_of_the_Esoteric_Lady_Frieda_Harris_564.shtml

Now, I know this was not the case, she didn't die in poverty (he did), he didn't collect the royalties (there were none to collect) and it is all in all an article filled with annoying inaccuracies and outright lies. Perhaps most infuriating of all is the insinuation that they were romantically involved. But this isn't the only one, so many articles online make the same point that Harris was a weak and foolish woman seduced and manipulated by Crowley, who then discarded her when he had no longer any use for her.

I take personal offence at this, as she was at his bedside when he died, and they did have a real and true friendship. In trying to raise Harris at the expense of Crowley, this is actually doing her a great disservice and causing the opposite reaction. Angeles Arrien even had the gall to state that Crowley actually supplied "interpretations" to Harris's work, thus actually slighting her even further, as if she painted a series of pretty pictures and then the evil usurper came along and took credit for them. Even a cursory glance at their letters show she was not his wide-eyed disciple, but an equal friend, each bringing their own talents and shortcomings into the relationship and the work. Knowing his reputation, she was even adamant that his name not appear on the gallery catalogue, only hers.

So, why would anyone disparage such a great woman and wonderful relationship in this way? I feel this is actually the opposite of feminism, to portray a strong woman as a victim just to make a point.

 

[Always Wondering]

I have the same issues. I went on a rant here once before. I used to think it was mainly people who can't deal with Crowley. But now I am thinking people just can't handle strong women, even if they say they can, or think they should.

At least not here in America. There is a war on women here and now.
Don't get me started.


AW

 

[ravenest]

Who knows? people are weird. Probably for the reasons mentioned above.
She certainly isnt unsung in my hosehold or Hermetic study group.

I think she should be cannonised as a saint in the Gnostic Catholic Church! Cummon H.B., get cracking on that one!

 

[Always Wondering]

Who knows? people are weird.

I noticed in The Mystical Magical System of the AA, Eshelman protrays eight woman magicians in his introduction, but leaves out Harris. I can't figure it. Not all the women listed were in AA, so it isn't that.


AW

 

[Saker]

I think people like to perpetuate the idea the Crowley was some kind of monster and misogynist. He was flawed, just like all of us. But when it came to his relationship with Lady Frieda, from everything I've read it sure sounds like they worked together on the art, and that she had a lot of input from her own studies and knowledge. She wasn't just some hack painter who fell off the turnip truck. She was an occultist on her own, and Crowley obviously respected her - you can read it and feel it in his correspondences to her.

I agree, there is a real "movement" right now to discredit women and their abilities in anything but cooking and having babies. Frankly, I'm glad I'm not a young woman in these times. Lady Frieda was about 60 when she met Crowley -- come on, are they trying to convince us that they were flirting around and giggling while they were working on the Thoth? Please. They were both more mature than that. Sometimes I really hate these "modern" biographies written by people who do such piss-poor research.

 

[Always Wondering]

I enjoy their correspondences too. Wish we had more of Crowley's letters to her to read.

And welcome.


AW

 

[Zephyros]

I agree, there is a real "movement" right now to discredit women and their abilities in anything but cooking and having babies.

I agree, but what bothered me about that specific article was that in taking a feminist tone, it actually proved the opposite. In making a point against the patriarchy, it portrayed a woman as a victim, just to make a point. I don't mind people ragging on Crowley, just that it is too often done as a type of falsified propaganda, with Harris's achievements minimized so that the "big bad man" would seem all the more evil. Harris wasn't an example of a victim, but rather a great role model, and I would think that that aspect of her would be emphasized in a good way, rather than the hate for the man taking precedence over admiration for the woman.

 

[Aeon418]

This sort of junk has been floating around for decades now. I've said this before, but I see it as a feeble attempt by certain "new age" types to try and assimilate the Thoth Tarot into the new age (Borg ) collective. Unfortunately for them Aleister Crowley was such and outrageous character that he can't be given a coat of new age white wash and welcomed into the fold. He simply has to go! *snip!*

But that leaves an unresolved problem in the shape of Frieda Harris. She painted the cards. But she is the one who suggested to Crowley that they collaborate on a Tarot deck. She is also the one who urged Crowley to write the Book of Thoth. The usual way around these inconvenient truths is to portray Harris as a silly old woman who got duped by the nafarious Crowley. This also creates the "excuse" that the Book of Thoth can be safely ignored in favour of some crap like Angeles Arrien's book.

 

[Parzival]

Why Must People Portray Harris...

I posted some years ago that the Thoth is a collaborative dynamic between Crowley and Harris, not an either he or she, not an Artist or an Occultist, but a great Communion between the two. It could be so. This seems too difficult to fathom , because we exist in a world of differentation rather than Tiphareth/ Harmony. Clearly, she painted brilliantly, he thought brilliantly --and they converged in a Great Work. It lives on with them and beyond them. The Thoth points to the three phases of Isis, Osiris, Horus, by way of the combined inspirations of Crowley and Harris. Beauty-Truth realized. And yet individual interpretations converge with their convergence, out of the free exercise of meditative meeting of their images out of who we each are. Universe XXI ? Nothing but how we see it, realize it, in its particulars, in its Whole. Not New Age fluff but Now as we see deeply into and meditate through 78 worlds. Take your own look and begin to see.

 

[Richard]

I posted some years ago that the Thoth is a collaborative dynamic between Crowley and Harris, not an either he or she, not an Artist or an Occultist, but a great Communion between the two. It could be so. This seems too difficult to fathom , because we exist in a world of differentation rather than Tiphareth/ Harmony. Clearly, she painted brilliantly, he thought brilliantly --and they converged in a Great Work. It lives on with them and beyond them. The Thoth points to the three phases of Isis, Osiris, Horus, by way of the combined inspirations of Crowley and Harris. Beauty-Truth realized. And yet individual interpretations converge with their convergence, out of the free exercise of meditative meeting of their images out of who we each are. Universe XXI ? Nothing but how we see it, realize it, in its particulars, in its Whole. Not New Age fluff but Now as we see deeply into and meditate through 78 worlds. Take your own look and begin to see.

That is true. Our linear way of thinking is based on a two-valued logic. Every proposition is either true or false; every switch is either on or off; the computer is god, and all of its computations boil down to a manipulation of zeros and ones.

The real world doesn't coordinate well with that oversimplification. There can be harmonious contrast without conflict. Crowley was a brilliant occultist and Harris was a brilliant artist. There is no reason to fabricate a conflict where there was none.

So much of what we read is copycat disinformation. Some presumed expert says that snakes can't climb trees, and it is repeated ad infinitum. I once saw a blacksnake coil up and swish its tail in dead leaves to imitate the sound of a rattlesnake. When that didn't scare me off, it climbed a sapling and assumed the angular pose of a tree branch. I took its picture, blew it a kiss, and walked on down the trail.

Why do people want to believe negative things when the truth is staring them in the face?