What do you think?
Rate this book
If You Want to be a Witch: A Practical Introduction to the Craft
Choosing the right book to learn about the Old Religion can be quite challenging. If You Want to Be a Witch is dedicated to those who want an easy-to-read, yet thorough, introduction to the Craft and its practices.
Filling in the gaps often found in other Wiccan guides, this primer explains the basic tenets of Witchcraft, detailing Wiccan history, philosophy, common traditions, and modern-day ethics. Learn about cyclical time, Wiccan magick and festivals, and how to keep a Book of Shadows. Soon, you'll discover if Witchcraft is the right spiritual path for you and the next steps you can take in the learning process.
Filling in the gaps often found in other Wiccan guides, this primer explains the basic tenets of Witchcraft, detailing Wiccan history, philosophy, common traditions, and modern-day ethics. Learn about cyclical time, Wiccan magick and festivals, and how to keep a Book of Shadows. Soon, you'll discover if Witchcraft is the right spiritual path for you and the next steps you can take in the learning process.
264 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 2004
7 people are currently reading
138 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 21, 2014
“As you study Witchcraft, read with a critical eye … for things that don't strike you as accurate.”
(p. 13, If You Want to be a Witch, Edain McCoy)
To start this review, I'd like to say that before I had started reading this book I wasn't aware the Edain McCoy had the giant mistake of talking about an Ancient Celtic Potato Goddess in another book. A lot of people use this to totally discredit McCoy as being someone that they want to read, and they have wondered why I was wasting my time to review this book here because it was clear to them that this author was not worth their time to read.
What I have to say to that is simply two things, the first is that I'm allowed to spend my time as I please – basically I do what I want. The second is that just because the author was discredited in this other place does not mean we stop checking the author's materials for accuracy and correctness. In this book there was no mention of the Ancient Celtic Potato Goddess, but the author does refer to “Witta” at least once on page 6 and once on page 7. But that doesn't mean this book was free from ANY problems at all. It is the checking behind the author and carrying out reviewing the material to hammer in the problems that this author has been propagating. By standing up and saying this wrong or this a problem, we keep addressing the issues to try to solve them.
Probably one of the most irritating parts about this book is that the author claims to have discovered material in their older books which is wrong – but yet does nothing to fix the problems that are in this book such as not having the material properly adjusted as well as continuing things about Witta that is still incorrect and still wrong.
Basically, don't turn a blind eye on authors that you know are bad – because someone else might not know that they are bad and might be accepting what the author has to say as fact. Always be there to correct someone's pisspoor behavior because if you don't, no one else will.
So let's start correcting some of the pisspoor behavior:
“Witchcraft is a Religion.”
First, allow me to address this thing that is really bothering me. Witchcraft is not one singular entity. There is no one witchcraft practice which is the ultimate thing. There are several different traditions which have their own origins and their own practices. They are not all synonymous and are not all religious. By treating Witchcraft as if it were a singular entity, you erase every single witchcraft practice that doesn't fall within the singular entity's prescription. Witchcraft is similar to Paganism as a term because they are both umbrella terminologies which describe a host of varied practices rather than a singular practice that has the same core functionality and belief system.
And because it's not a singular entity, all of the constraints that McCoy has shoved onto it in this book are meaningless and without context. It would be like saying that “Paganism is a religion which must worship a Pink Unicorn.” It doesn't have any context nor is it accurate nor does it actually describe paganism as a whole.
However, it is clear based on most of the material (such as referencing to hierarchical covens, to ritual language such as merry meet/merry part, to certain rituals and holidays) that McCoy is using Wicca and Witchcraft to be interchangeable. McCoy even says: “Witchcraft, sometimes referred to as Wicca or Eclectic Wicca, compromises the indigenous religions of western Europe, making it collectively one of the oldest religions on the planet.” (p. 6, If You Want to be a Witch, Edain McCoy). Not only is this quote wrong, it also steals the title of the oldest religion when that probably belongs to a variety of Asiatic religions, one for example - Hinduism, which has been stated to be the oldest (living) religion in the world.
As I stated above, Witchcraft and Wicca are not interchangeable – there are many different types of Witchcraft and not all of them are religious. The fact that this author goes out of their way to make sure to repeat over and over and over again that “Witchcraft is a Religion” annoys me as someone who practices secular witchcraft – or non-religious witchcraft. While I'd be in agreement if the sentence was “Wicca is a religion,” I am not in agreement with this phrasing, “Witchcraft is a religion.”
Furthermore the author propagates that Witchcraft is “the Old Religion” linking back to the discredited Margaret Murray's Witchcult Hypothesis. This also needs to be removed since Wicca was created by Gerald Gardner under the guise that he was exposing the secret old tradition that Murray claimed existed in the UK. But he was just developing and forging a new practice all on his own with cultural appropriated elements from his time being an amateur anthropologist. But I digress, that's not the point of this review to educate people on the origins of that particular religion.
Likewise McCoy claims that Witchcraft is for worship and connection with deities, however beyond secular witchcraft there is also atheistic versions of witchcraft practices. Likewise McCoy makes claims that witches all have in common that they follow a nature or earth based religion – which is totally inaccurate. It's also quite clear that McCoy doesn't understand what a “Mystery Religion” is and what is being referred to when someone speaks about “Mysteries” and their context within a mystery religion.
Almost all of my complaints about the material in the book stem from the fact the author doesn't understand that not all witchcraft traditions are wicca. The book just keeps using this premise from start to finish – which I guess we should be proud that there's not any flipflopping of the context – but at the same time this book does not properly convey what Wicca is. Likewise, there are many flippant points that the author uses, for example calling the reader a dedicant - just because they read a book written by someone who I'm not entirely sure has made it through all of the hierarchy of a Wiccan coven, does not mean that they are dedicating themselves to that religion.
A personal note: This phrasing (Witchcraft is a Religion) has actually gotten me a lot of abusive language and threats to my person because I am a secular witch. It's supports some of the nastiest behaviors I've seen – to the point where people have ignored what I have to say both in person and not and also to the point where people have made it their mission to “convert” me to the religious side of witchcraft.
And the author is not better than any of these other people. The author condemns me for “stepping out of the bounds of religious framework.” Requiring that I must believe in this “wheel of existence” that the author has summed up to being the “cycles of life” in order to make my spells work – and because of that, I must submit to the author's culturally appropriative use of “karma” even going so far as to call it: “threefold karma” (p. 99). Except I don't have to submit to anything that is someone else's understanding of how magic, spells, or witchcraft works – because I'm not part of your tradition. So it doesn't matter how many excuses you make up for what “bad things” are going to happen to me, that's all your entanglements which have nothing to do with me.
Likewise the author does in fact misquote Sir James Frazer to provide natural laws to enforce that I, as a secular witch, cannot step out of these artificial bounds. Let me address Sir James Frazer and what he wrote before I address the misquote for the author's own gain. Sir James Frazer wrote The Golden Bough to show how ridiculous people were who believed in magic and to support the idea that scientists are ever better than anyone who would believe silly little lies about magic. In fact, he didn't even bother to go look into the cultures, first hand, to see if what he was describing about them made any sense or not. He was using material that others had written in order to write his own collection. I read the Golden Bough especially the parts about sympathetic magick, and it is pretty clear that he didn't understand what sympathetic magick was in it's entirety. Likewise, his natural law argument is totally under the basis that magic is, in fact, fake or a misunderstanding of these natural laws.
So this begs the question why someone would misuse his material, which clearly is a dictation to destroy any folk practices or any magical practices to justify their own magical practices? Does that make sense to anyone?
“Some try to mentally divorce themselves from the Craft, thinking this will allow them to escape the threefold Law. Remember those natural laws of the universe? They remain in place. So, can you bypass the karmic retributions of negative magick by placing yourself outside of a spiritual practice or religion, Wicca?
Absolutely not.
If you believe in the mechanisms that makes magick work, then you must also accept that, that same mechanism brings back energies other than your own.”
(p.114, If You Want to Be a Witch, Edain McCoy)
I don't have to believe in these mechanisms. Simple. And I don't believe in them. This was probably the weakest circular argument in the book (and there were several) and honestly, the most pathetic. I am extremely tired of people forcing their religious affiliations on me because they don't understand that they do not dictate for me what I do and what I don't believe in. Let alone how I practice.
No Sources
One of the other problems that I have with this book is that it is clear that McCoy is getting some information from some areas, but there's little to no sourcing in the material. While there is a “suggested reading list” in appendix five, that is not a sourcing mechanism. A sourcing mechanism would be to provide information in text where the author is retrieving this information. According to the amazon.com's bio of McCoy, this author has a degree in history – which begs the question of how much was the degree's knowledge and referencing for research was even used at this point? I can see that the author has the ability to source in text as they do so in at least one occasion in the book on page 26.
However, one source for one item is not enough. All the information based on the history of the church (which much of it is incorrect), the claims about witch torture, the claims about the holidays and what they mean and what was performed for them, and the variety of other content that is not under such a degree requires more substantial information than “I said so.”
No does the author source any of the folk lore or mythology that the author refers to in several places in the book. If you don't have a source for these items, don't republish them as facts. It actually is a huge hindrance to many people who are coming into various occult, witchcraft, and paganism traditions. Just because you write it doesn't mean that sourcing and giving actual cultural references isn't required. The author appropriates a lot of the content about these items from various cultures such as Celtic, West African, Native American Tribes, Asiatic religions and practice, and others here and there throughout the book. Why is it okay to take these items out of context when you're referring to what you call a “Western European” religion?
Sexism, Trans*phobia, and Homophobia
The Triple Goddess mythos (Virgin-Mother-Hag) in versions of outer court Wicca does have some inherent sexist problems – basically summing up the Goddess to her ability to produce children/her sexual life style rather than her wishes, her desires, or her agency. It's extremely one dimensional. It also keeps up the transsexist bullshit that a woman is defined by whether or not they have a uterus and ableistic bullshit about whether or not they can produce children.
It's a prevalent sexist problem in general that the worth of a woman (of any kind) is based on her ability to make children. It doesn't matter how intelligent she is, what job she has, what kind of money that she earns for herself, or any of the free agency that she has for herself. Instead her vagina is “transformed” magically by a penis (virginity) – to her uterus's job to be a birther (mother) – and her crone self is to be there with wisdom to teach the next virgins how to be mothers (Hag).
While The Horned Lord/God is not summed down to when his balls descended or the viability of his sperm, He has other attributes which are glorified such as being a Hunter – which is not attributes of his genitals nor based on the “transformation” of those genitals.
The author spends time discussion how “We are created in their images – God and Goddess, male and female...” Which is the binary gender/sex expression, likewise forces anyone who is outside the binary gender/sex expression into an artificial box. Does the author not know that intersexed people can exist? Or that not everyone is straight or wants to have sex or wants to have children? That not everyone has the same preferences? If we are made in the image of the gods, then it would beg the question where are all of the other gods that do not fit neatly into this cissexist, heterosexist guidelines?
Oh right they don't exist because it wouldn't fit into the rhetoric that is perpetuated in this and other practices.
Visualization and Spellwork.
I ran in to probably one of the biggest problems with this book, which is some seriously ablestic shit.
“Visualization is the single most important magickal skill you will learn, yet it seems to be the most understood. I receive many letters and emails from novices and initiates alike who claim they cannot visualize.
That's just not possible. If you're alive you can think, and if you can think you can visualize. When you read don't pictures appear in your mind? When someone tells you about their wonderful vacation, don't pictures of how it must have been pop into your head? Any mental picture that you hold onto is a visualization.”
(p. 120)
I'm not even sure where to begin with how wrong this is – so let's start with the simple – visualization is not the most important skill someone can learn. There are several, several, a lot of spells which do not require any kind of visualization within them. I found that many of the points where McCoy was attempting to explain how to do a spell (even a simple candle spell), visualization was forced into the discussion in order to keep up the illusion that visualization is so important to witchcraft.
Now let's cover the problematic behavior that it is to basically tell people who have a problem with mentally picturing things that “it's just not possible that they can't.” First, thinking is not the same as visualizing – which is an arrogant as fuck thing to say. There are all kinds of thoughts, in fact I can think without picturing anything at all. I can think my thoughts and visualize them as text, likewise I can think and visualize my thoughts as pictures. It's just an ability that my brain has.
However, not everyone has the same kind of brain – there are many different forms that the brain can come in and based on how that person is or what that person has been exposed to they may not have the brain formation which allows them the ability to visualize.
Also, visualization has a specific key word in there: visual. Not everyone is visual – and yes I am talking about the ability to see but also the ability to understand and make connections from visual information. Since not everyone is visual nor has the ability to see – it's extremely arrogant to imply that they aren't “trying hard enough.”
Just because you can do a thing does not mean everyone can do the exact same thing. And then turning around and denying that people have problems with visualization because it doesn't suit your claims? Fuck you.
No one should have to deal with that kind of shitty behavior. No one.
In addition to this form of ableism there as also a quip to mental illness on page 171:
“"Successful Witchcraft requires that you have a solid emotional and mental foundation on which to build. Negative emotions or a distressed mental state will send your energies awry and make you all the most desperate to succeed.”
There is nothing inherently wrong with someone having certain emotions – in fact in lots of spellwork, certain emotions are important as the foundation for why you cast those particular spells. And no, these emotions aren't “negative” that's a pejorative bullshit word. Someone is allowed to feel all of their range of emotions without being told that they have a problem. It's not okay.
Also, “distressed mental state?” Really.
No. Really.
Yeah... let's take a giant steaming shit on anyone whose mental states which are “distressed.” And imply that they could never be successful in their witchcraft practices.
Moving on to what I had problems with for spellwork:
With everything else, I shouldn't have expected some full grown explanations of things like raising energy or charging items or anything like that, but I did expect at least some explanations for points. But clearly the author decided that it was “obvious” or beneath them to be held up to the expectations that what they were saying would a) actually make sense and b) have actual content behind the sentences and meaning. While I was reading the 6 points of spellwork, all I pretty read was air. Oh sure, there was a bunch of text – and culturally appropriated chakra pictures, oh sure. That was there. But there wasn't an substance to the material because the author chose not to explain in detail what the author was referring to in much of the content.
As someone who understands – and has made attempts to explain in detail in other places – these items, I know when someone's just passing off that they know what their talking about when they truly don't have any clue how it's working or anything related to that. It was the same air that I read whenever the “wheel of existence” was brought up.
Also, you might want to check that little candle exercise the author gave about “controlling your personal power” (personal power conveniently not defined) and whether you're actually blocking the air flow around the flame to have it move around. It was pretty easy to manipulate the flame by adjusting the position of my hand. I must be the best fire nation warrior out there. Just saying.
Oh and lest I forget, negative spells? Really? Bagging on them? I see how it is, let's just make sure that we try to scare all the newbies back in line if they dare to do a single spell that is viewed as negative.
Also, the explanations about failed spells made me laugh. Almost no where does McCoy ever accept the fact that failed spells actually exist. If it wasn't over-explaining how the “spell really did work in the end.” It was blaming the spell caster for using a spell written by someone else (which by the way isn't a damn problem). Does McCoy never admit to having a single failed spell ever? If that's the case, then I'm sure McCoy wouldn't mind putting that up to the test with James Randy.
In summation:
The book was pretty much useless for any actual information, and was more an attempt to convert people to McCoy's choice ways of thinking about Witchcraft and Wicca rather than to educate people on how to practice witchcraft or how to be witches. If I took out most of the air and the problematic items out of the book, I am not sure I'd even have ten pages worth of good material to even begin to look at.
While McCoy does seem to understand certain things – I feel like McCoy is parroting them from someone else and does not really understand what they mean nor does McCoy enacted them into McCoy's personal actions or activities. I'm not sure really where I'd put this book on the scale of books I've read. ...
(p. 13, If You Want to be a Witch, Edain McCoy)
To start this review, I'd like to say that before I had started reading this book I wasn't aware the Edain McCoy had the giant mistake of talking about an Ancient Celtic Potato Goddess in another book. A lot of people use this to totally discredit McCoy as being someone that they want to read, and they have wondered why I was wasting my time to review this book here because it was clear to them that this author was not worth their time to read.
What I have to say to that is simply two things, the first is that I'm allowed to spend my time as I please – basically I do what I want. The second is that just because the author was discredited in this other place does not mean we stop checking the author's materials for accuracy and correctness. In this book there was no mention of the Ancient Celtic Potato Goddess, but the author does refer to “Witta” at least once on page 6 and once on page 7. But that doesn't mean this book was free from ANY problems at all. It is the checking behind the author and carrying out reviewing the material to hammer in the problems that this author has been propagating. By standing up and saying this wrong or this a problem, we keep addressing the issues to try to solve them.
Probably one of the most irritating parts about this book is that the author claims to have discovered material in their older books which is wrong – but yet does nothing to fix the problems that are in this book such as not having the material properly adjusted as well as continuing things about Witta that is still incorrect and still wrong.
Basically, don't turn a blind eye on authors that you know are bad – because someone else might not know that they are bad and might be accepting what the author has to say as fact. Always be there to correct someone's pisspoor behavior because if you don't, no one else will.
So let's start correcting some of the pisspoor behavior:
“Witchcraft is a Religion.”
First, allow me to address this thing that is really bothering me. Witchcraft is not one singular entity. There is no one witchcraft practice which is the ultimate thing. There are several different traditions which have their own origins and their own practices. They are not all synonymous and are not all religious. By treating Witchcraft as if it were a singular entity, you erase every single witchcraft practice that doesn't fall within the singular entity's prescription. Witchcraft is similar to Paganism as a term because they are both umbrella terminologies which describe a host of varied practices rather than a singular practice that has the same core functionality and belief system.
And because it's not a singular entity, all of the constraints that McCoy has shoved onto it in this book are meaningless and without context. It would be like saying that “Paganism is a religion which must worship a Pink Unicorn.” It doesn't have any context nor is it accurate nor does it actually describe paganism as a whole.
However, it is clear based on most of the material (such as referencing to hierarchical covens, to ritual language such as merry meet/merry part, to certain rituals and holidays) that McCoy is using Wicca and Witchcraft to be interchangeable. McCoy even says: “Witchcraft, sometimes referred to as Wicca or Eclectic Wicca, compromises the indigenous religions of western Europe, making it collectively one of the oldest religions on the planet.” (p. 6, If You Want to be a Witch, Edain McCoy). Not only is this quote wrong, it also steals the title of the oldest religion when that probably belongs to a variety of Asiatic religions, one for example - Hinduism, which has been stated to be the oldest (living) religion in the world.
As I stated above, Witchcraft and Wicca are not interchangeable – there are many different types of Witchcraft and not all of them are religious. The fact that this author goes out of their way to make sure to repeat over and over and over again that “Witchcraft is a Religion” annoys me as someone who practices secular witchcraft – or non-religious witchcraft. While I'd be in agreement if the sentence was “Wicca is a religion,” I am not in agreement with this phrasing, “Witchcraft is a religion.”
Furthermore the author propagates that Witchcraft is “the Old Religion” linking back to the discredited Margaret Murray's Witchcult Hypothesis. This also needs to be removed since Wicca was created by Gerald Gardner under the guise that he was exposing the secret old tradition that Murray claimed existed in the UK. But he was just developing and forging a new practice all on his own with cultural appropriated elements from his time being an amateur anthropologist. But I digress, that's not the point of this review to educate people on the origins of that particular religion.
Likewise McCoy claims that Witchcraft is for worship and connection with deities, however beyond secular witchcraft there is also atheistic versions of witchcraft practices. Likewise McCoy makes claims that witches all have in common that they follow a nature or earth based religion – which is totally inaccurate. It's also quite clear that McCoy doesn't understand what a “Mystery Religion” is and what is being referred to when someone speaks about “Mysteries” and their context within a mystery religion.
Almost all of my complaints about the material in the book stem from the fact the author doesn't understand that not all witchcraft traditions are wicca. The book just keeps using this premise from start to finish – which I guess we should be proud that there's not any flipflopping of the context – but at the same time this book does not properly convey what Wicca is. Likewise, there are many flippant points that the author uses, for example calling the reader a dedicant - just because they read a book written by someone who I'm not entirely sure has made it through all of the hierarchy of a Wiccan coven, does not mean that they are dedicating themselves to that religion.
A personal note: This phrasing (Witchcraft is a Religion) has actually gotten me a lot of abusive language and threats to my person because I am a secular witch. It's supports some of the nastiest behaviors I've seen – to the point where people have ignored what I have to say both in person and not and also to the point where people have made it their mission to “convert” me to the religious side of witchcraft.
And the author is not better than any of these other people. The author condemns me for “stepping out of the bounds of religious framework.” Requiring that I must believe in this “wheel of existence” that the author has summed up to being the “cycles of life” in order to make my spells work – and because of that, I must submit to the author's culturally appropriative use of “karma” even going so far as to call it: “threefold karma” (p. 99). Except I don't have to submit to anything that is someone else's understanding of how magic, spells, or witchcraft works – because I'm not part of your tradition. So it doesn't matter how many excuses you make up for what “bad things” are going to happen to me, that's all your entanglements which have nothing to do with me.
Likewise the author does in fact misquote Sir James Frazer to provide natural laws to enforce that I, as a secular witch, cannot step out of these artificial bounds. Let me address Sir James Frazer and what he wrote before I address the misquote for the author's own gain. Sir James Frazer wrote The Golden Bough to show how ridiculous people were who believed in magic and to support the idea that scientists are ever better than anyone who would believe silly little lies about magic. In fact, he didn't even bother to go look into the cultures, first hand, to see if what he was describing about them made any sense or not. He was using material that others had written in order to write his own collection. I read the Golden Bough especially the parts about sympathetic magick, and it is pretty clear that he didn't understand what sympathetic magick was in it's entirety. Likewise, his natural law argument is totally under the basis that magic is, in fact, fake or a misunderstanding of these natural laws.
So this begs the question why someone would misuse his material, which clearly is a dictation to destroy any folk practices or any magical practices to justify their own magical practices? Does that make sense to anyone?
“Some try to mentally divorce themselves from the Craft, thinking this will allow them to escape the threefold Law. Remember those natural laws of the universe? They remain in place. So, can you bypass the karmic retributions of negative magick by placing yourself outside of a spiritual practice or religion, Wicca?
Absolutely not.
If you believe in the mechanisms that makes magick work, then you must also accept that, that same mechanism brings back energies other than your own.”
(p.114, If You Want to Be a Witch, Edain McCoy)
I don't have to believe in these mechanisms. Simple. And I don't believe in them. This was probably the weakest circular argument in the book (and there were several) and honestly, the most pathetic. I am extremely tired of people forcing their religious affiliations on me because they don't understand that they do not dictate for me what I do and what I don't believe in. Let alone how I practice.
No Sources
One of the other problems that I have with this book is that it is clear that McCoy is getting some information from some areas, but there's little to no sourcing in the material. While there is a “suggested reading list” in appendix five, that is not a sourcing mechanism. A sourcing mechanism would be to provide information in text where the author is retrieving this information. According to the amazon.com's bio of McCoy, this author has a degree in history – which begs the question of how much was the degree's knowledge and referencing for research was even used at this point? I can see that the author has the ability to source in text as they do so in at least one occasion in the book on page 26.
However, one source for one item is not enough. All the information based on the history of the church (which much of it is incorrect), the claims about witch torture, the claims about the holidays and what they mean and what was performed for them, and the variety of other content that is not under such a degree requires more substantial information than “I said so.”
No does the author source any of the folk lore or mythology that the author refers to in several places in the book. If you don't have a source for these items, don't republish them as facts. It actually is a huge hindrance to many people who are coming into various occult, witchcraft, and paganism traditions. Just because you write it doesn't mean that sourcing and giving actual cultural references isn't required. The author appropriates a lot of the content about these items from various cultures such as Celtic, West African, Native American Tribes, Asiatic religions and practice, and others here and there throughout the book. Why is it okay to take these items out of context when you're referring to what you call a “Western European” religion?
Sexism, Trans*phobia, and Homophobia
The Triple Goddess mythos (Virgin-Mother-Hag) in versions of outer court Wicca does have some inherent sexist problems – basically summing up the Goddess to her ability to produce children/her sexual life style rather than her wishes, her desires, or her agency. It's extremely one dimensional. It also keeps up the transsexist bullshit that a woman is defined by whether or not they have a uterus and ableistic bullshit about whether or not they can produce children.
It's a prevalent sexist problem in general that the worth of a woman (of any kind) is based on her ability to make children. It doesn't matter how intelligent she is, what job she has, what kind of money that she earns for herself, or any of the free agency that she has for herself. Instead her vagina is “transformed” magically by a penis (virginity) – to her uterus's job to be a birther (mother) – and her crone self is to be there with wisdom to teach the next virgins how to be mothers (Hag).
While The Horned Lord/God is not summed down to when his balls descended or the viability of his sperm, He has other attributes which are glorified such as being a Hunter – which is not attributes of his genitals nor based on the “transformation” of those genitals.
The author spends time discussion how “We are created in their images – God and Goddess, male and female...” Which is the binary gender/sex expression, likewise forces anyone who is outside the binary gender/sex expression into an artificial box. Does the author not know that intersexed people can exist? Or that not everyone is straight or wants to have sex or wants to have children? That not everyone has the same preferences? If we are made in the image of the gods, then it would beg the question where are all of the other gods that do not fit neatly into this cissexist, heterosexist guidelines?
Oh right they don't exist because it wouldn't fit into the rhetoric that is perpetuated in this and other practices.
Visualization and Spellwork.
I ran in to probably one of the biggest problems with this book, which is some seriously ablestic shit.
“Visualization is the single most important magickal skill you will learn, yet it seems to be the most understood. I receive many letters and emails from novices and initiates alike who claim they cannot visualize.
That's just not possible. If you're alive you can think, and if you can think you can visualize. When you read don't pictures appear in your mind? When someone tells you about their wonderful vacation, don't pictures of how it must have been pop into your head? Any mental picture that you hold onto is a visualization.”
(p. 120)
I'm not even sure where to begin with how wrong this is – so let's start with the simple – visualization is not the most important skill someone can learn. There are several, several, a lot of spells which do not require any kind of visualization within them. I found that many of the points where McCoy was attempting to explain how to do a spell (even a simple candle spell), visualization was forced into the discussion in order to keep up the illusion that visualization is so important to witchcraft.
Now let's cover the problematic behavior that it is to basically tell people who have a problem with mentally picturing things that “it's just not possible that they can't.” First, thinking is not the same as visualizing – which is an arrogant as fuck thing to say. There are all kinds of thoughts, in fact I can think without picturing anything at all. I can think my thoughts and visualize them as text, likewise I can think and visualize my thoughts as pictures. It's just an ability that my brain has.
However, not everyone has the same kind of brain – there are many different forms that the brain can come in and based on how that person is or what that person has been exposed to they may not have the brain formation which allows them the ability to visualize.
Also, visualization has a specific key word in there: visual. Not everyone is visual – and yes I am talking about the ability to see but also the ability to understand and make connections from visual information. Since not everyone is visual nor has the ability to see – it's extremely arrogant to imply that they aren't “trying hard enough.”
Just because you can do a thing does not mean everyone can do the exact same thing. And then turning around and denying that people have problems with visualization because it doesn't suit your claims? Fuck you.
No one should have to deal with that kind of shitty behavior. No one.
In addition to this form of ableism there as also a quip to mental illness on page 171:
“"Successful Witchcraft requires that you have a solid emotional and mental foundation on which to build. Negative emotions or a distressed mental state will send your energies awry and make you all the most desperate to succeed.”
There is nothing inherently wrong with someone having certain emotions – in fact in lots of spellwork, certain emotions are important as the foundation for why you cast those particular spells. And no, these emotions aren't “negative” that's a pejorative bullshit word. Someone is allowed to feel all of their range of emotions without being told that they have a problem. It's not okay.
Also, “distressed mental state?” Really.
No. Really.
Yeah... let's take a giant steaming shit on anyone whose mental states which are “distressed.” And imply that they could never be successful in their witchcraft practices.
Moving on to what I had problems with for spellwork:
With everything else, I shouldn't have expected some full grown explanations of things like raising energy or charging items or anything like that, but I did expect at least some explanations for points. But clearly the author decided that it was “obvious” or beneath them to be held up to the expectations that what they were saying would a) actually make sense and b) have actual content behind the sentences and meaning. While I was reading the 6 points of spellwork, all I pretty read was air. Oh sure, there was a bunch of text – and culturally appropriated chakra pictures, oh sure. That was there. But there wasn't an substance to the material because the author chose not to explain in detail what the author was referring to in much of the content.
As someone who understands – and has made attempts to explain in detail in other places – these items, I know when someone's just passing off that they know what their talking about when they truly don't have any clue how it's working or anything related to that. It was the same air that I read whenever the “wheel of existence” was brought up.
Also, you might want to check that little candle exercise the author gave about “controlling your personal power” (personal power conveniently not defined) and whether you're actually blocking the air flow around the flame to have it move around. It was pretty easy to manipulate the flame by adjusting the position of my hand. I must be the best fire nation warrior out there. Just saying.
Oh and lest I forget, negative spells? Really? Bagging on them? I see how it is, let's just make sure that we try to scare all the newbies back in line if they dare to do a single spell that is viewed as negative.
Also, the explanations about failed spells made me laugh. Almost no where does McCoy ever accept the fact that failed spells actually exist. If it wasn't over-explaining how the “spell really did work in the end.” It was blaming the spell caster for using a spell written by someone else (which by the way isn't a damn problem). Does McCoy never admit to having a single failed spell ever? If that's the case, then I'm sure McCoy wouldn't mind putting that up to the test with James Randy.
In summation:
The book was pretty much useless for any actual information, and was more an attempt to convert people to McCoy's choice ways of thinking about Witchcraft and Wicca rather than to educate people on how to practice witchcraft or how to be witches. If I took out most of the air and the problematic items out of the book, I am not sure I'd even have ten pages worth of good material to even begin to look at.
While McCoy does seem to understand certain things – I feel like McCoy is parroting them from someone else and does not really understand what they mean nor does McCoy enacted them into McCoy's personal actions or activities. I'm not sure really where I'd put this book on the scale of books I've read. ...
January 19, 2015
I snapped this up from a local Goodwill despite its super cheesy cover. I should have listened to my gut and left it there. I only made it to chapter 3 before giving up. I value my time and this book was extremely problematic right from the start. Despite the author's insistence, witchcraft is not a religion. Wicca, sure, but practicing witchcraft can be a secular practice. Ano problem I noticed are a lack of citations. Kind of important for a supposedly beginner book. Not recommended.
June 6, 2020
What a pile of crap.
Read Secs review for more detail
Read Secs review for more detail
March 30, 2019
Loved this book. Took a lot of notes and learned so much from it. Will definitely be recommending and reading again. If your new to Paganism, Witchcraft, or becoming Wiccan this is definitely a book I recommend for you to pick up
December 3, 2024
Quit. "The three phases of the moon represented the Triple Goddess—virgin, mother, and crone"?
This is nonsense. There are not "three phases" of the moon. New, waxing, full, waning. If you are spouting this immediately, I have no more time for you.
This is nonsense. There are not "three phases" of the moon. New, waxing, full, waning. If you are spouting this immediately, I have no more time for you.
June 8, 2015
When I first began my pagan path over as decade ago, I found this to be extremely helpful. It was my first witchy book, and have me as lot to think about. Ten years later, I hardly resonated with this book at all. It leans heavily to Wicca (which I'm not), and is really quite a shallow, simplified overview of the path. Also, a number of her statements, which were presented as facts, seemed questionable at best. If you read this, do so with a grain of salt, and please research further!
December 14, 2008
Just started this one and I'm liking it so far. Good on this history and description of this very old religion.
-Joe-
Excellent book. Strong on history and what witchcraft (wicca) is and is not. Overview of some of the rituals. Well written and easy to understand. I really liked it.
-Joe-
-Joe-
Excellent book. Strong on history and what witchcraft (wicca) is and is not. Overview of some of the rituals. Well written and easy to understand. I really liked it.
-Joe-
March 8, 2009
An amazing book for first timers! I don't know how many books I purchased before this one, but if you are interested in Wicca/Paganism then look no further. This is the first book that really told me everything I needed to know and answered all my questions. I still refer to this book from time to time.
Read
September 3, 2008Its not as good as Scott Cunninghams book for the solitary practioner, but it is good read coming from the female aspect of Wicca as well.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews