I am not too sure how to take this book: as a joke (laugh) as pitiful (cry) or as insult (anger), but all three adjectives are apposite. After delaying how I could best describe this work, its perpetual frustration (an all levels) has ultimately edged me more towards the anger part than anything else. So apologies to any of you who might think this is just a harmless, innocent foray into the world of fairies and angels and mystical spiritualism; it is much more aligned with ignorance and stupidity than anything else.
I have restrained myself (by being merely selective rather than comprehensive) to consider this book under three general headings: Confused, Stupid and Sloppy.
CONFUSED
This is particularly the case when the author is dealing with the more serious underpinnings of this work, particularly in ethics, philosophy, religion, etc. Black proudly pins his badge on the basic distinction between “materialism” and “idealism” — he is obsessively anti the former and very much pro the latter. For him, “materialism” means the belief that matter and only matter exists, while “idealism” means being convinced that all spiritual things (fairies, angels, mystical experiences, etc.) are a higher order and superior level of reality.
It would be nigh on impossible to deal adequately with what this “simple” distinction might mean. Philosophers and theologians have been writing vast tomes on the various implications of this subject, and I am not going to try to cover them here. Suffice it to say that Black is essentially wrong in so many interpretations that, if it did not actually offend them, would at least send any serious thinker, theologian, philosopher, etc. into gales of derisive laughter. This doesn’t bother Black in the slightest: he even admits that he can’t prove anything he says anyway! He’s just “convinced” that he is right… Apparently, Black is more or less completely besotted by his ideal and mentor, the mystic Lorna Byrne (the book is dedicated to her, and she is constantly referred to throughout in glowing and unquestioning terms). Ms Byrne sees angels everywhere.
Black’s “argument” seems to be based on literature: so many people in so many different cultures, over millennia, have written about angels, fairies, ghosts, demons, ghouls, mystical and spiritual experiences, etc., that this must mean they are true repositories of wisdom and knowledge. Stories, of whatever shape or hue, whether ancient, religious, poets, novelists, filmmakers, modern artists, Eastern, Western, psychologists, or whatever, all of these ultimately are the revealers of “truth”; and Black wants to express this specifically through his retelling of carefully selected parts of these stories (usually in a childlike and naive way, as if writing for children, and always eliminating the more salacious and/or gory sections of the original tales). He believes that by merely juxtaposing these stories (it is hard to determine the criteria for his linkages) the connections and “revelations” will become obvious… His chapters are also full of illustrations, some of which might be relevant to the text as such, but including others which are not so clearly linked at all (much to the confusion of the reader). Black feels free to mash all these things together unabashedly.
Consequently, he also feels free to combine some of the most outrageous story parts with others (just read through the titles of each chapter to see what I mean). Throw in a couple of mystical, creative concoctions (the idea of a Cosmic Mind, from which myriad angels emanate; a bit of Gnostic “clarification” of levels of spiritual advancement, with Mediaeval variations of these; suggest spiritualist and religious interpretations as well; refer to Plato’s concept of the Ideal, and Berkeley’s idealism; throw in Manichaean (mis)interpretation of Zoroastrian Dualism; all the while decrying that nasty Matter materialists always talk about; mix it all together with a bit of fairy dust and the wave of a wand or two, and Bob’s your Uncle!
Black wants to present these as a sweeter, more natural way of looking at the world, and one which is the correct and preferred way for the sake of humanity to survive and prosper. He has to admit, however, that there are of course malignant and well as beneficent spirits, but does not dwell on the bad ones too much. He fails to point out that even so-called “protective” and “guiding” spirits (such as the guardian angels in Western Christian tradition) seem unable ultimately to fully protect their charges from dying, often times in spectacularly painful ways. And what about those malevolent spirits: are they also emanated from a Cosmic Mind? The same Cosmic Mind? Another one?
STUPID
I limit myself to two chapters — but all are contaminated similarly…
Chapter 5: Isis and the Mystery of the Perfect Fit
This is supposed to be the telling of the Isis/Osiris/Seth/Horus complex of stories from Egyptian mythology. Selected portions are presented and retold in simple, childlike writing. Black then attempts to connect these excerpts with the comparatively modern fairy tales of Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Sleeping Beauty. Cinderella is Isis; the “perfect fit” of the coffin in which Seth traps Osiris is related to the perfect fit of Cinderella’s glass slipper; Horus is Jack the Giant killer, with Seth as the Giant; and Osiris is just like Sleeping Beauty, dead but not really… Black feels that all of this is “obvious”. In my opinion this stance is ignorant, and really stupid…
Chapter 33: Joan and the key to the small door
The Joan of the title is Joan of Arc and the main text is about her (and her visions of angels) and her battle protector and companion Gilles de Rais. Interspersed throughout this story there is included another, provided in italics, which turns out to be the story of Bluebeard (the Chevalier Raoul) whose seventh wife uses a forbidden key to discover the bodies of Bluebeard’s six other wives in the basement. Why these two stories are interconnected here is anyone’s guess. A mistaken association, perhaps, between Bluebeard and Gilles de Rais? The title of this chapter links Joan with the key of the small door to the basement of the chevalier — but there is no connection.
SLOPPY
This is obviously a redundant category, as the above comments on writing, composition, and illustrations have pointed out. Here there are three chapters I noticed (I’m sure there are probably more) which add to the mounting confusion. These have to do with editing relating to footnotes.
Chapter 36: The cobbler has another way of knowing
There are 6 footnote (fn) indications in the text but only 5 endnote (en) entries at the back. It appears that fn 1 (p. 318) has two titles included at en 1, so fn 2 (p. 318) should probably refer to the second title mentioned in en 1. That means that fn 3 (p. 319) should really refer to en 2, fn 4 (p. 322) to en 3, fn 5 (p. 322) to refer to en 4, fn 5 (p. 322) to en 4, and fn 6 (p. 323) to en 5. If this is confusing to read here, imagine how confusing it is when trying to relate an incorrect endnote to a particular footnote in the text!
Chapter 40: Abraham and Bernadette
There are 3 fns in text: fn 1 (p. 357), fn 2 (p. 363), fn 3 (p. 364), and there are 3 ens associated with them; but then fn 6 appears (p. 365) — (fns 4 and 5 are missing), but the ens finish at 3 (there are no ens 4, 5 or 6).
Chapter 42: The Great Secret of the World
Here we find that fn 1 (p. 381) and fn 2 (p. 382) and the associated ens 1 and 2 seem ok; but then we find fn 3 (p. 383) which refers to ‘rattan’ in the text, but en 3 seems to be still on the subject of fn 2 and en 2!; there appear to be no other fn references in the text beyond fn 3, but we do have an en 4 which refers to ‘ratten’ (sic) — a misspelling (the text spelling is correct…), which then should really be en 3 (and that means that en 3 should be part of en 2…)
IN THE END, the composite of all these problems can lead one to only one conclusion: this is a stupid, ignorant, childishly written and sloppily edited book that does not deserve any attention from any intelligent reader. Caveat emptor!