Aeon418
The final line of your signature probably sums up the entire Crowley biography question. Every biography is essentially someone else' opinion on another persons character and life. And there are many shades of opinion when the subject is Aleister Crowley. But being "selective" with the facts is a different thing altogether. In some cases the biographer is almost an artist. As they paint a picture of their subject they emphasise some facts and down-play or omit others, all in line with their own biases and prejudices. (Sometimes they're a bit more creative. )gregory said:I LIKE IT ! (and I didn't find it hostile at all ! which as I recall was one objection of yours !)
This is why every Crowley biography presents us with a different Crowley, even though the story is substantially the same in each case. In this sense every biographer acts like a lens. We are forced to see the subject through their eyes. But the best biographers know how to keep themselves in the background as much as possible. This is one area where I feel Kaczynski has been more successful than any previous Crowley biographer to date.
While reading, The Great Beast, I was painfully aware of John Symonds presence all the way through. But I can understand that some people might like the "picture" he paints.
65p + p&p!!!!! I'd get in touch with Trading Standards if I were you. That's daylight robbery.gregory said:Mind - I paid a whole 65 pence + postage for mine