Done with Part 3...

[J EdgeRider]

...of the new library book I'm the first to read. Requested they buy it, and had to make the case on paper; expected they probably wouldn't, with a much-reduced budget and all, so was excited to get an email that it awaited me. Library books can be good for a kick in the butt to get right down to reading something through due to the deadline imposed.

Also, I like many I'm sure, prefer when we do buy new books, to hold out for the more reasonable priced version. So, am wondering when BOTH is coming out in paper, cuz I think I'm going to have to have a copy of this. To Daniel--some pretty powerful and significant stuff in those first hundred or so pages I've read here, guy. Much in common, too, with my own journey in the past, but I bet you're heartened to hear that a lot.

Won't get too in depth right yet, but am wondering, having just finished the Burning Man account, and just now the Rudgley (sp?) critique you posted, what your review of the review is. He kind of takes you to task on a couple things... e.g., are the rituals at the Burn (haven't been yet) as ultimately empty as the 60s happenings you allegedly dismiss?

--JE

[J EdgeRider]

P.S. Sorry if I obliterated the new topic title for the recent "Independent" review; still getting used to this system. I see I could've posted my review as a reply to his, since I was writing about that too. Maybe DP or someone else can post a new topic referring to the review soon, so more people will notice it upon log in.

[daniel]

Hi J Edge,

The paperback comes out in August. No problem about the posting here - no need to add to the old post.

As for Rudgley's review, I thought it was strangely flat and disappointing. I feel like I have seen a bunch of reviews like this, from people who really weren't up to the challenge of dealing with the ideas of the book, so they resort to picking around the edges. I am surprised that someone like this, who has devoted his career to the subject, doesn't have a more impassioned response.

In the book I am suggesting that the entire basis of our current system is built on errors, on false "rationalism" that denies the truth of the spiritual or shamanic cosmology, and that this means our current order is going to collapse - not in hundreds of years, but imminently - as all the indigenous and mystical prophecies tell us. Shouldn't that get a rise from a reviewer? Isn't the essence of the matter far beyond "New Age" trinkets or disparaging 60s "happenings"? If this isn't important, what is?

At least he called the book a "modern Odyssey." That was nice.