Arse Doctrine of Polytheism - Sucks

I was thinking about the current state of my life this morning, after suffering some injuries inflicted by an inaminate object, and Toby Lamb's "Arse Doctrine of Polytheism" came to mind, more particularly this sentence:

"The (gods) that cause the most pain in your particular arse won't let you not talk to them, so just get on with it and quit moaning."

Why? Because I would like to know which of the gods I'm not talking to enough to deserve the gargantuan pains in my arse.

How far would you go?

This evening I found myself pondering just how far I would travel in order to find my spiritual home. I have travelled over 14,000 miles to feel more comfortable about my beliefs and practices. I know others who have emigrated, too. Its not an unknown thing.

I was unable to feel spiritually connected to my land of birth, so I felt I had no other choice but to leave. I wonder, though, how others on a similar path to me cope being in a foreign land? I know of several druid and other celtic style groups in Australia, but if they ever experience a feeling of being disconnected?

I know the Vikings tooks their gods with them, whilst the Roman would mix and match, sometimes bringing their own, but often appeasing the local gods. I am not sure how connected they felt to their own gods being such long distances from their home. I know they continued to honour and worship, but was that just out of habit, or did their gods really travel with them?

From my point of view, however, my gods had not been in my home country long enough to establish themselves, and the indigenous spirits had been in occupation for over 18,000 years, uninterrupted or corrupted. The local spirits were quite overpowering and knowledge about them was seldom shared with those outside the indigenous community. In order to know the genius loci of my birthplace, you needed almost complete comprehension of the ways of the local people - you couldn't apply western principles to the honouring of local gods. I had understood this even as a child in my interractions with local people.

I know some immigrants to my land of birth brought other gods and spirits and these did have an impact, but mostly in the cities and suburbs. Even so, those that you might encounter seemed out of place in the landscape.

I did feel it important to travel to the land of my forebears and to try and establish connections to them and to the genius loci of their birth place. Its important to me and something I put ahead of my work and even my family. I do wonder - is that going too far?

How far would the readers of this blog travel, I wonder.

Residential History

Someone posted a question at one of the fora I frequent about the impact where we grew up has had on our present life as a pagan. I have written about the effect of my past on this blog before in "On Revelations", but I have not thought about the areas in which I resided as being significant.

I was raised in the tropics of the southern hemisphere. I did not know what a cardigan, sweater or jumper was until I was eight years old, when we moved to the sub-tropical capital of my state and temperatures dropped below 20 degrees celsius. We had two seasons in the tropics: wet and dry. Even in the dry season, you could count on rain in the afternoon at least once a week - it was daily in the wet season - the type of heavy, hot rain that soaked you through to your underwear in under two minutes.

As a child, my family lived in a tin shed on a remote island in the Gulf of Carpenteria amongst the indigenous people, though I remember little of this, on a tropical island getting about on Mini Mokes (based on the Jeeps of WWII), on dusty, vast remote cattle stations, at my grandmother's house in a railway oasis on the tracks to a distant mining community in the desert and on the edge of suburbia in a large, armed forces town. Mostly, we were never far from bushland and the dangers that lurked within (fears my mother instilled in me), and we had the odd poisonous snake cause concern, plenty of jellyfish to keep us from swimming in the oceans and a few spiders who liked biting people in awkward places.

What I remember most the places we lived was the stifling heat - sticky and draining. I remember we did not have air conditioning and the temperature was frequently over 32 degrees celsius and you could wake up in a pool of your own sweat in the mornings. I don't remember the cyclones, even though I've seen the pictures of me on horseback with the flood waters lapping at my sandals, though I do remember our neighbours losing their roofs. I remember playing in the gutters in the pouring rain, making boats and watching them go down the drain, which was big enough to fit five grown men. How we never went down it ourselves, I don't remember.

When we settled down in the southern, sub-tropical capital, the heat was less intense (we had three seasons); it rained with less frequency and sometimes it drizzled; but the storms increased. They changed to aquamarine-coloured, hail infested, thunderclapping bursts. Instead of the rain lasting for hours, you'd get a flash storm - one caused just as much damage as the cyclone we had experienced in the north and, though our house remained untouched, we had the possessions of neighbours (near and far) strewn about our front and back yards - rather than continous, pelting rain that lasted for hours.

Strangely enough, I come alive during a storm. I used to love watching them roll in over the ocean towards us, counting the time between lightening flash and thunderclap. Eventually, I would clamber home and listen to the tapping of rain on the galvanised tin roof. The smell was awesome, too. Heavy, thick and delicious. I never had a fear of them like others did.

The other place I felt alive was by the ocean. I have a fear of going in the water - the result of someone attemping to drown me once - but being on it or by it revives me. Most of my childhood was spent within 10 minutes drives of the ocean. Down south, there was only a wetland area between us and the beach and, if a storm was forecast, it was a two minute drive to the oceanfront. I still enjoy just wading in the sea, feeling the will of the waves as they hit my legs, listening to the sound of the ocean as it sings is soothing song. True, sometimes its loud when storms rip it up, but mostly its quiet and there is strength in its whispers.

For all of this, I never felt at home in the bush or natural areas of my homeland. Even less so in the cities, even though they have their own energies. I just knew I did not belong to that land; I was an intruder. Having watched many programmes made in the land of my ancestors, I knew that I had to try and emigrate in order to feel "at home". I wanted the experience of four seasons and the different energies of each. I wanted to spend time in those lush, green places and those wet autumnal woods, bursting with colour. I could almost sense the clean, crisp energy of frosty winters and I yearned for them. By the time I was fourteen years of age, I felt the overwhelming draw of the countries where my ancestors once lived. It would be eleven years before I made the journey, and another eighteen months before I found my footing, but I was home. Finally, I could start to seek out my true spiritual connections on the land of my ancestors.

So, did my childhood have an impact? Yes. Whilst I could work with the energies of the land of my birth, I always felt like I was stealing or intruding in some way; I felt alienated. I could never find a place where I was happy. Though there was one spot I felt to which I felt some connection, by the time I returned five years later, it had changed and, once again, I felt abandoned by the genius locii.

Once I travelled to England, Ireland and, finally, Scotland, I found the energies more familiar, and was able to expand my practices. That feeling of not belonging to the bush, the city and, finally, the country in its entirety was gone and I felt free to follow my own path without stepping on the toes of local spirits. Not only did I break away from the beliefs of my family, but I was able to explore my own spiritual leanings without feeling inhibited by place. I found myself opening up simply because of my location.

True, I work in the city, but I feel most at home in the countryside and more remote areas of the United Kingdom. Wild areas near the seas are still a favoured spot for me. If I can hear the waves, I am at peace. So, that connection from childhood remains, but I still prefer moodier weather, such as rain, mist, fog, freezing snow than the sun. Here, though, I am happier outdoors exploring the woods and wildlife than I ever was in my land of birth. The spirits seem to accept me.

I still get excited by storms, like the one of yesterday - so much energy just waiting to be absorbed - and I still feel the pull of the ocean and I know, one day, I will have to move so that I am right on the sea. For the moment, though, I can work with my current location.

My childhood experience has taught me the importance of place. I think I have an understanding of the sacredness of land, and the importance of relationships with the genius loci simply because of the disconnection I felt as a child to the spirits of my homeland. I think, too, that this alienation spurred me on to seek out the spiritual traditions of my ancestors, as well as the traditions of the area in which I live.

Labels

Just a short note, in addition to the rather lengthy posts on "Defining My Use of the Term, 'Fluffy Bunny'" and "Begging, Borrowing and Stealing", on labels.

Do we need them? Yes, we do. We need them in everyday life and we need them to define ourselves, our beliefs and our practices. Its no good saying, "Well, one person's polytheist is another's animist".

I am not a skyscraper just because I am taller than most erections. I am not a freezer just because I have been known to give people the cold shoulder. I am a human being, I am a woman.

Each word in the English language has a basic definition that most can comprehend, allowing for differences in dialect and dictionaries. Hence, I feel its important to keep those definitions when talking with other people. This is my reasoning behind not borrowing terms from other cultures and traditions. It just muddles things for those trying to understand the differences.

So, when someone says they are a druid, you can assume that they adhere to a broad spectrum of practices amongst modern druids, can't you? Well, no. Not in today's pagan circles you can't. I have my own definitions, based on what I know of history, archaeology, relevant texts, the Oxford dictionary and my experience of those, of my acquaintance, who are tryng to follow the path of the ancient druids. Unfortunately, my definition does not seem to be the same as others; thus giving occasion for my posts of last week.

So, when you seen the word "pagan" before any other word, do not assume that the definition of the latter word is unaltered. It ain't always what it says on the tin.

Begging, Borrowing and Stealing

Following on from my Definition thread, I am curious as to why people feel the need to borrow terms or labels that don't quite fit. Is it the kudos of it? Is calling yourself Wica preferable to calling yourself a pagan witch? If so, why? I have always held respect for initiates of Wica and I would never presume to adopt a title I had not earned through hard work, discipline and dedication. I wouldn't have dared call myself a nun, just because I believed in Christ. Even when christened, baptised, and confirmed did I ever presume I was anything other than Catholic.

I have to wonder what Wica initiates have done to earn such disrespect from the pagan community at large?

Why, too, do people feel the need to borrow practices that have no real value, such as the use of words like "blessed be"? Is it really going to make all that difference to your life? I have to admit I am not fond of those people who use the term "Namaste", either. Having practiced yoga, I used the term in class with my teacher and fellow students, but never took it outside. It wasn't relevant to the everyday man on the street in a western civilisation.

I can understand borrowing magical techniques from other traditions, as I follow the maxim: "If it works, use it". But why the need for elaborate, high theatre ritual if its not necessary? Okay, if it gets you in the mood, so to speak, but still why not concoct your own based on your own experience of energy, instead of borrowing from others?

I've noticed, too, there are trends in pagan circles. When I first entered the scene in the United Kingdom, and on the internet, everyone wanted to be associated with Wica. So much so, that the term became interchangeable with witch. You just couldn't get away from the word or the practices. Traditional witchcraft seemed a dirty word - this might have been because of the release of Professor Ronald Hutton's book [who knows?] and everyone wanted to link themselves to Gardner or Sanders without being an initiate.

Recently, the trend turned more towards druidism, the most common reason for converting being because "it has less dogma". I find this a little laughable given the druids of old had to learn large tracts of law, history and poetry by rote and their training could be up to 20 years long. They were the keepers of lore and law for their clan, often judging what, when, where and how to approach matters. So, I presume there was a certain amount of dogma.

Over the last few months, I've heard reports from those that frequent pagan-lite boards, moots and events that there is an increasing propensity for pagans to claim to be atheist, and the numbers are rising. So, obviously this is the next big thing. I don't mind as I don't believe you have to believe in any deity, or even the possibility of deity existing to be a pagan.

What I do mind is the fact that these things seem to follow in trends. It was one of the reasons I completely ignored anything "celtic" (if you'll excuse the term being used outside of its strictly linguistic context). Everything appeared to be tinged with the celtic motif: reiki, Wica, shamanism ... and the list goes on. The majority of my own ancestors are Irish, but I took the Anglo-Saxon route and follow my English ancestors rather than delve into the apparently kitsch world of celtic pagan traditions; none of it seemed authentic to me anyways (and that's apart from the ancient potato goddess of Ireland), and the modern druids appeared to be too New Age for me, a scene I had long abandoned.

It was only an encounter with a particular entity that forced me to re-examine my beliefs and change tack. I was loathe to do it, but I dived in regardless. This time, however, I dove into a very different pool and came up breathing the air of my ancestors.

I don't call myself a druid, or even a druid-in-training, as I have no intention of going back to law school, or taking part in overt political actions. I do have every intention of learning the myths and lore of my ancestors as thoroughly as I can. I also don't call myself Irish, I'm not. I'm not Scottish either, though that is where my true interest lies. Nor do I align myself with the Brythonic traditions, though they also form part of my studies. [Note: If you want to truly get to grips with all the history, myth and folklore of any of the people defined as the Q-Celtic or P-Celtic cultures, you need to read the texts from the various countries in order to gain the right perspective, or so I am told.]

I refer to myself as a bog-standard pagan for the most part, adding (hard) polytheist for further definition. Depending on my audience, I might also use the label "(practicing) witch". That should be enough for most people to understand my point of origin.

On another note, why do so many authors think its okay to borrow the work of others, rework it and republish it as their own? Its quite obvious, in some cases, that they've not even practiced what they preach and the lack of experience shows. I recently read one post where someone claims a well-known authoress of wikkan books admitted to them that they had got all of the material for their first book from internet sources. I have never known so much plagiarism to be okay. One author of witchcraft books, Paul Huson, even has a link on his website to report those who are peddling his book around the internet illegally as "Mastering the Dark Arts: A Practical Grimoire for Witches, Warlocks and Covens" and, more brazenly, in its original format.

I've also noticed a propensity for members of pagan message boards to "cut and paste" huge swathes of texts from other sites in response to queries, rather than posting an original thought. The idea that message boards are full of armchair pagans was one I had dismissed until I saw all the links in posts being pasted.

Copyright issues seem to be side-stepped by administrators and moderators of these fora, too. The number of times I've brought this to the attention of those in charge only to have no action taken and, often, no response to my query. I've even resorted to contacting the authors and informing them of the breach.

So much for the honour that so many pagans purport to espouse.

So ends today's rant!

Sorry folks. Its been one of those months where some unsavoury practices have come to light, both personally and for friends. I prefer to write things down otherwise I can spend hours, days and weeks mulling over my thoughts. Thanks for being patient and keep the comments coming, please.

Scots Gaelic: An Introduction to the Basics

Author: George McLennan
ISBN: 1902831888

If only every language had a book like this you could read before undertaking a course in said language.

This is a slim volume, but packed full of useful information, including a brief history of the development of the Gaelic language, pronunciation, why letters are pronounced a certain way, and why it appears this language using more letters than others. Accents are explained as are long and short vowels, the changes for past/present/future tense, prepositions, counting (the old fashioned way) and differences in dialect and a likely explanation as to why they might occur. There is also explanations for words imported from other languages and their spelling and pronunciation.

All of which information gives you a head start when trying to read what's being spoken by your tutor, or sounded from your CD/computer. It all makes much more sense now and I don't feel so lost wondering where the sound originates.

Although this book is only 80 pages long, its a great reference and I will keep it close by whilst I learn Gaelic until I have its contents memorized and can fumble my way through written text, confidently sounding out the words using McLennan's explanations as a guide.

Rating: 5/5.

Defining My Use of the Term, "Fluffy Bunny"

I wrote as an addition to my post on intolerance the following:

"Note: My definition of a 'fluffy bunny' is one who only reads one author, or books from one publishing house, or one internet site and sets it up as the one and only authority, refusing to be challenged on fact or experience, and informing all others they are wrong to call themselves pagan/witch/druid/heathen/whatever if they don't follow the guidelines as defined by them. These are the people who scream louder when challenged, drowning out any reasonable discussion with cries of 'persecution'."

There are a few things I should add to the definition, as I read the comments left on the post about my intolerance of bicce and bitchcraft.

I would like to include those people who shove love and light down everyone's throats, or "blessed be", without realising this is used by Wica in address to or from the priest/ess. It is not a general greeting to be plastered at the end of every post and used in real life - something I have grown to despise. Same goes for "merry meet" and "merry part", which also have specific uses, but seem to have become a general greeting for all pagans.

Anyone who talks about the triple moon, or wears that symbol, or uses it in a post, also comes under the term fluffy bunny - it has four phases, not three. Full, waning, dark, and waxing. Of course, this might be because most people have no undergone second degree initiation in Wica and learned about dark aspects. They see the lovely Wica crowns for sale in shops or on the internet, adopt the symbol and have no idea what it means, they just copy it out.

Anyone who refers to casting a circle and then calling the four corners. Basic mathematics should help you figure out that there aren't four corners in a circle. People who believe you need 13 people to form a coven, or four (one from each element of the eastern astrological system), or any other tripe borrowed from the cinema, including those elusive eye/hair colour changing spells.

Anyone who bangs on about millions of witches being burned, also known as "The Burning Times" is definitely a fluffy bunny. In UK history, most convictions were not for witchcraft itself; witchcraft was the means to an end, such as theft, assault and murder. So, people would be convicted for murder (by witchcraft) and, usually, sentenced to hanging. In Europe, there were some burnings, I believe, but not in the numbers often spouted about on pagan sites.

There is a project underway where court records are to be examined and numbers collated, but estimates are in the region of 30,000 not millions. What's more, if you read some of the original documents in some of these cases, people were convicted and sentenced, but for various reasons, the sentence was never carried out. Some died awaiting their fate, some escaped and others just seem to fade out of history.

Fluffy Bunnies are those that insist that wicca is an ancient religion; its not. The term wicce/wicca was use in Old English to refer to a witch, but it was out of common useage (apart from Tolkien's use in the fictional Lord of the Rings series wherein he resurrected a lot of terms long out of use in common English) when Mr. Gerald Gardner adopted it for his faith. There is only the remotest chance that any ancient magical practices have survived the onslaught of the christian faith in the English-speaking world. Written records of the same are likely to be scarcer then hen's teeth.

Anyone referring to Wica as a nature-based religion. Its not. Its a fertility religion. Oh, and while we are on the subject, modern druids say their religion is nature-based, but it was not exactly so for the historical druids. Their role was less religious and more about upholding the lore/law of their people; even the kings were answerable to them.

I don't do crystals, but I can understand some people's attraction to them. Yes, I wear them in jewellery, because I wear silver, not gold and semi-precious stones are routinely used by silversmiths when crafting jewellery, the more expensive stones being reserved for gold. I am fully aware most of these will have been blasted out of the earth's crust in a rather violent manner. That's why I don't consider crystals good for magic and/or healing; they are part of the earth's destruction. However, anyone that says they left a crystal as an offering, either at a megalith or other sacred site, or as payment for some gift, also gets termed a "fluffy bunny". Think about it? Leaving a crystal that has been blasted out of the earth in South America is not, I repeat not a suitable offering for a local diety or spirit.

And, while we are on the subject, neither are those tealights. The aluminium is rubbish and should be taken away with you, in case it causes harm to local wildlife and, quite apart from taking millenia to break down, the wax can cause damage if it melts and hits the grass below; in some instances, can damage stones, too. Flowers, not picked locally aren't suitable either. Actually, forget flowers as the chemicals they release upon breaking down can also be damaging to historical sites. Its always best to observe the maxim: "Leave it as you found it", i.e. take away everything you brought with you.

Actually, even some thoughts and energies are unwelcome. The number of times I've heard of outsiders infringing on local areas thinking they have a right to them. Then begins the warden wars - arguments as to who are the true protectors of a particular site or area.

Have to say, too, that those that wear those lovely velvet, fairy tale dresses for ritual, as opposed to living history displays, etc. mostly fall into the "fluffy bunny" category. Look, I don't mind if you enjoy wearing that style of clothing - I would if it suited me and I was going to a fancy dress party - but its hardly suitable for ritual, certainly the kind of ritual a velvet-clad group are likely to perform using candles, cauldrons, incense, etc., as all those long sleeves are likely to catch fire (and, I've certainly heard of this happening to the odd HPS and HP at public rituals). [See "Coarse Witchcraft: Craft Working" and "Coarse Witchcraft: Carry on Crafting" for accounts of mishaps in rituals.] While we are on the subject of dress, wearing a pentacle the size of a saucepan will get you labelled "fluffy". I do have a small, silver, pentacle charm that sits amongst many other charms on a bracelet, which generally goes unnoticed. Its only meaning for me is that it is associated with witchcraft through the ages, as are all the charms on that particular bracelet, but may soon be removed in favour of charms with a more personal connection to my personal beliefs.

Dressing in black does not make you a dark pagan, either. It makes you a goth and, in some instances, a "fluffy black bunny", especially if you follow one particular author on night magic(k), whom shall remain nameless.

This bring me to my next point. Using the spelling magick, as opposed to magic, whilst neither a follower of Crowley or numerology, but rather to distinguish the term from sleight of hand magic, would render you a "fluffy bunny", too. Actually, spelling in general can be a problem. The use of fae and/or faerie when referring to fairies or the sidhe is also rather odd, as are misspellings like wytchcrafte. Fake olde worlde spelling does not make you any more of a witch or pagan, it does make you more of a prat. If it's a question of a user name on a message board or url address, I can understand it as names are quickly snapped up - I've had to resort to it in the past - but misspelling in posts, emails and/or general text is just ridiculous.

In my opinion, so is anyone who believes that fairies are those elegant, sweet, small, winged creatures of Victorian or Lady Cottington's storybooks. Think of the fairies in Episode 5, Series 1 of Torchwood ("Small Worlds") and you getting closer to the truth, those the design was a bit crass.

Those that say they are a witch, but don't practice magic, or those who state witchcraft is a religion (it's not) I also consider fluff bunnies . Witchcraft is just that, a craft, a practice. Wicca is a religion and, even if you are American, do not use the terms witchcraft and Wicca interchangeably; it confuses everyone. Anyone who says they are Wica, Wicca, or Wiccan without being an initiate of a valid, lineaged (Gardnerian/Alexandrian) coven is also a fluffy bunny. Fact: unless you are an initiate of such a coven, you are merely a follower of practices derived from published materials on Wic(c)a, you are not a Wiccan yourself.

Referring to yourself as a vegetarian Norse Wiccan will also get you lumped into the fluffy bunny league. Why? Because Wica is separate from Norse Heathenism and I don't know many heathen vegetarians myself; it appears to go agains the historical grain (if you'll pardon the pun). Same goes for things like Celtic Reiki and/or Celtic Shamanism. Professor Ronald Hutton has done a rather nice book on what shamanism is and isn't. Oh, and otherkin and their ilk are also quite fluffy, not to mention delusional.

Just to be clear: I do not refer to newcomers to witchcraft, Wic(c)a, druidry, heathenism or other paths that fall under the umbrella of paganism as fluffies. When first starting out along a pagan path, there is an array of misinformation in various forms of media that is hard to bypass. However, during interactions with the general pagan community, people will inform a newcomer that the path they are on is usally based on facts (historical and scientific) and substantiated personal gnosis ("SPG") and offer a critical assessment of the newcomers's beliefs and/or practices, challenging the newcomer to learn and grow. If said newcomer then proceeds to ignore the valid information offered to them, choosing instead to spout the inaccurate statements they've read or the unsubstantiated personal gnosis they've adopted, then, to my mind, they are also fluffy. If someone cannot accept reasoned, factual arguments, choosing instead to opt for misinformation and delusions, then so be it.

I don't believe pagans have to be tolerant. Albeit the Romans adopted local gods, so as not upset them when travelling in their territory, and heathens and celts often traded alongside one another, not every pagan was tolerant of every other pagan's views, practices or gods. For instance, the path I have chosen holds truth above all else. So if I encounter people who are not willing to accept a proven historical fact in place of some pseudo-feminist BS, then I'm not going to waste my time on them. I'll argue to a point, and then give up and leave them to their own stupidity and me to mine (I'm not perfect and make no pretence of it, either; I'm as ignorant as anyone else).

Things I don't consider fluffy:

1. being eclectic;
2. mixing pantheons;
3. observing a goddess only;
4. all newcomers to witchcraft, Wic(c)a, druidry, heathenism or other paths that fall under the umbrella of paganism; and
5. tree hugging;
6. a belief in sidhe;
7. New Age enthusiasts;
8. vegetarians and/or vegans;
9. any of the exceptions of mentioned in my text above; and
10. [anything I might like to add at a later date].

I am quite aware that many people will be upset by this post. Remember, though, its only an opinion - my opinion. I do not delude myself that the opinion I offer on the definition of fluffy bunny is anything other than prejudicial and based on my own assumptions and experience. I am open to criticism about facts (provided sources are cited), and open to rebuttals.

[Note: Any initiated, lineaged (Gardnerian/Alexandrian) Wic(c)a are welcome to comment on the correct use of words and/or symbols as I am no expert.]

Penelope

Saw this on DVD last week and was pleasantly surprised. All I knew about the movie was that it was about a young woman with a pig's face. I vaguely recalled seeing interviews (around the time it was released at the cinema) wherein Reese Witherspoon talked about its message as one of self-acceptance.

So, I sat down to watch it. The first thing I liked was there were no previews or adverts, the DVD going straight to the main menu. I selected play and an old-fashioned fairy tale started. Christina Ricci starts in voice over mode about her ancestors and the curse they brought upon themselves and their descendants, wherein the first born girl to the family would have the face of a pig and only the love of one of her own kind would set her free.

And, so we go along several generations of boys until we reach Penelope. In her attempts to marry off Penelope, the mother (Catherin O'Hara) enlists the help of a matchmaker (Ronni Ancona) to find blue bloods to help lift the curse. Penelope stays behind a window and interviews them, showing herself at the last only to have the chaps run away screaming, wherein the Butler chases after them and gags them.

That is, until Edward escapes ...

The movie is very sweet, without being sickly. The costumes are amazing as are the sets, although everything is rather eclectic, including the accents with a mix of American and British casting and scenery. I have to give kudos to the prosthetics department, who disfigured Penelope so beautifully - she really is cute (in its original definition of ugly but attractive).

Overall, Penelope has a sumptuous feel and, despite the curse, the witch is not altogether berated for her actions, in fact, the witch comes of pretty justified in the end. So, not exactly bad PR for wtiches, which goes against the usual fairytale stories.

The technical aspects are rather good: cinemaphotography is beautiful, set and constume design luxurious, the lighting is soft complementing the harshnes of the storyline. The only exceptions were some very minor continuity issues, the odd accent slip and some sloppy voicing pick-ups in post-production.

Its an enjoyable movie and I have already watched it twice and its hard to find fault.

Rating: 5/5.

Intolerance

I have to face up to it: I am intolerant. Having read Bo's thread, "The Enregies of Jupiter", gone to the BBC Pagan Boards and had a look at the various postings of the members, I have to admit I'm intolerant of fools.

I have to admit here that I did once upon a time frequent lots of pagan-lite boards in the past. Time being scarce, I have recently reduced my surfing to those boards where I am challenged and, as a consequence, expand my knowledge, deepen my practice and grow as a pagan. So, it has been a while since I've seen the bicce & bitchcraft that is out there in the ether. Thus it was, with great dismay, that I saw the offerings of the various posters (apart from one or two brave souls) and felt so angry I was ill. I was desperate to have a crack at the sheer idiocy of some of the posts, but, alas, it was not to be. The BBC boards have me on moderation (does my reputation proceed me?) and it was too much to tolerate to write all those posts and not have them seen because of some mod's overzealousness.

I had thought that with the growth of more serious discussion boards and fora in the pagan community that the general state of knowledge in the pagan community might have improved. People would see the wikkan misinformation, relabelled and recycled continously in a never ending loop, for what it is: new age, hippy trippy tripe. From what I can see at the BBC, a board open and readable by the general public (not just pagans), this is not the case and people appear to be getting a rather pitiful view of pagans. If you're reading the BBC Pagan Boards, you might end up believing pagans are freaks, uneducated, dyslexic, overweight, covered in tattoos, judgemental, intolerant, delusional (i.e. prone to "seeing things"), argumentative, ill-informed, vicious, vegetarian, vegan and carnivorous - all at the same time and, frankly, a very mixed bag of angry fruitcakes.

The recent troll incursion at the fora where I moderate, some posts from pagan friends of mine, at a different forum, on the subject of fundies of the "bessed be" bunny kind and the trouble they cause, has come to remind me why I don't: (a) go to moots; (b) attend a lot of pagan events (and why I get so sick after a few hours at pagan events and have to go home and rest for about a day to recover); (c) why I don't (pay to) join any pagan organisations; and (d) why I generally don't mix with many other pagans, choosing instead to keep contact with a very select few.

I just don't have the tolerance levels for it any more. It has come to a point where I feel I don't want to even refer to myself as a pagan, for fear of being lumped in with the general mêlée. Perhaps I should just stick to calling myself a polytheist and leave it at that?

In the meantime, I have realised I am intolerant of those fluffy bunny (yes, I use that term), wikkan, fundie, IRAB (I read a book), "more pagan/witch than you" wannabes and, should they get in my way, I will have no hesitation in cutting them down to clear the path for those that seek spiritual/religious truths. That said, I will not go out of my way to meet them, ever again. I just don't need the aggro.

While I'm at it, I should also admit to being judgemental, prejudiced, unforgiving, grumpy and tired. Ah, I guess I am a pagan after all!

***********

[Note: My definition of a "fluffy bunny" is one who only reads one author, or books from one publishing house, or one internet site and sets it up as the one and only authority, refusing to be challenged on fact or experience, and informing all others they are wrong to call themselves pagan/witch/druid/heathen/whatever if they don't follow the guidelines as defined by them. These are the people who scream louder when challenged, drowning out any reasonable discussion with cries of "persecution".].

Trolls

If anyone out there who owns a forum wants a particularly pesky troll to play with, or if you just want the pleasure of killing one, I've just encountered one in my new role as a moderator that I will be happy to send your way.

I have to warn any trollhunters who may be interested that this one is underage (being 16) and so its awfully clumsy in its attempts to gain access to closed fora. It does leave a trail in other fora wherein it positively states its is underage and living at home. However, it claims that this is a typographical error when told its too young for most occult fora and that this is a legal matter in some countries.

It also moans a lot about how difficult it is to learn anything [about traditional witchcraft] from the internet. This one is particularly annoying in that it continously changes its IP address in order to avoid being banned. Unfortunately, it doesn't change its spelling errors, syntax or remove its profiles from other fora thereby making it easy to catch out. Oh, and its tries to be tricksy in that it says its leaving your forum, it will leave you alone and within 24 hours its trying to get back on.

So, any troll hunters willing to take this one on?