If you've never met him in person, you're missing out because. . . well, not to give away all his dark secrets but secretly he's actually one of the kindest and gentlest people I know and he knows a lot about magic and talks about it in a direct, no bullshit sort of way. Like me, he's not afraid to talk about his fuck ups which is something I really truly appreciate because it's easy to become a photoshopped version of yourself on the intertubes but both our inclinations to regularly vomit up our faults and present them to you is what makes us endearing (probably just him but I'm going to keep doing it anyway).
We talk about glamour, the OTO, Feri, The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, love and divorce. I have a tendency to talk too fast and to be unable to contain myself from blurting things out while others are talking (if you live in New Jersey, you know it's just the way of my people) but RO is lovely and charming.
He has a new book out called The Seven Spheres which talks about the Hermetic tradition in a simple fashion. RO was the only person who has ever been able to describe Hermeticism in a simple manner that was interesting and engaging enough to me that made me research more deeply into the tradition and (finally) agree to do some Hermetic ritual work with Jow. If you know me, you know what a thankless Herculean task that was to accomplish.
Comments:
Deborah Castellano
2015-01-16 13:45:28
Thank you so much for your kind words! I do need to post about why I view glamoury as I do vs. the often used magical definition. I've gotten a couple snotty comments about it on W&P.
Andrew Watt
2014-12-03 21:07:29
I got the chance to listen to the podcast tonight, and this is what I said over at Rufus's blog: "I thought this was a great interview. Thank you both for taking the time to do it. I really liked the discussion about Jadis/ The White Witch, and the idea of taking up space, of having working room in the world. I also liked the way that artisanship — in the sense of being Makers — wove through the discussion without it being a prominent part of the interview. It's as natural to you both as breathing to be makers and shapers, and it didn't occur to either of you to explore that area consciously and deliberately (or maybe you had other areas to cover in your conversation, and chose to focus attention there). But it was still there, and I appreciated the undercurrent."
Let me add, though, that the discussion about love, divorce, communication, and using glamourie to get more of what you want out of life — to suck out the marrow, as it were — was particularly kick-butt. You have a way of thinking about this which is the opposite of the way-people-think-about-glamour, that is "the art of concealing who you are behind a masque of beauty". For you, glamourie is the art of bringing beauty to the foreground in order to enrich and magnify the foundation. Cake is wonderful — but why should it NOT be the Romanesque foundation of a soaring gothic cathedral of stained glass and fairy sugar? How much more magnificent is a life with glamour, than without? And I really appreciate that message — it shocks my Puritan ancestors to their starched white plain collars and pinchbeck shoes — but the Swedes of my mother's lineage look with approval at garland crowns adorned with burning tapers, and toasts with akvavit and cries of "God Jül!" and merrymaking in the dark.