Mab's MA Blog

Still reading the Aidan Kelly book and had a rant about it on Witchgrove. I've been reading so much and trying to work out what is proved to have happened that I'm now intensely curious about the origins of Wicca. Before I started this research, I had always assumed that Gardner invented it, Sanders ran with it, and the modern variants are constantly being recreated. However, I keep coming across evidence to the contrary, then evidence which contradicts that evidence. The jury is now wide open.

The Kelly book is frustrating because he has some brilliant research, but then makes giants leaps for mankind. He'll speculate on one page, then a couple of chapters on treat that speculation as if it's now fact. That makes me question what he's put in as fact to start with. The trouble for me is that instinctively I feel like he's onto something, though I'm not 100% about some of his ideas.

An example? Early on, he makes the case that Gardner was dyslexic and therefore couldn't possibly have written anything on his own. Ok, fair enough, we can't double-check his sources because they are in Toronto and haven't been published, but he's seen them and those are his conclusions. Cool. But four chapters on, he's making the case that such and such was written solely by Gardner and presented back as arcane knowledge... in writing. Which one is it? Both support his thesis at the time, but if we're believing the too dyslexic to write theory over there, then we can't believe the able to write all of this on his own theory over here.

yours
Mab
xxxxx