Aeon418 said:
Unbiased ? Hardly. The article sets out to paint Crowley in a bad light right from the start and then finishes by saying that Crowley was psychologically wrecked after his 1909 experiences. The well researched published biographies beg to differ.
I think it's alright. By unbiased I mean "even-handed", as much as someone can be who is not steeped in Crowley's biography. It's not a full biography, but merely a chapter in the larger theme of his book. Owen is clearly not a specialist in Crowley's life and philosophy, but he has done good research on Victor Neuburg, perhaps more than just reading Fuller's "Magical Dilemma of Victor Neuburg".
His use of terms like "black arts" - to which he added "so-called" - seems to me to be just reflecting his sources in a mechanical way, not a personal judgement based on reflection. Crowley was in fact considered a "black" magician by most of his contemporaries, would certainly have been so considered by Blavatsky, and only in the last 20 years or so has that begun to change.
To what extent Owen understands Crowley's magical system is very much beside the point, which was merely to narrate an episode in turn of the century British occultism. He is trying to understand Crowley from the outside, not the inside. Overall, I think he has done a fine job, and given new insights.
Of course "psychologically wrecked" is completely wrong. Crowley doesn't seem to have suffered trauma from it. Perhaps I could call the article "relatively unbiased" instead.
Anyway, I found it a nice new take on the tale. I don't need my Crowley served warm, or by people either friendly or unfriendly to him.