Apocalyptic Witchcraft

aw_rouge.jpg

How long can the moment stretch before climax? The vertiginous brink of consummation. Locks in the complex of concentric gates. Cryptographic tumblers meshed wet with the attar of roses. Exhortations spent. A hesitation held in the face of inexorable conquest. An intake of breath that must, finally, overcome, resisting, to the end, exhale. Transformed, the raw plasma of storm pours from the dragon’s mouth. The shockwave pulses out with the geometric driven precision of the heart, beat after beat after beat. It has begun. This atomic force, this raw force is Babalon. The storm breaks like a dropped glass whose shivering bell glimmers into infinity. The note remains ever distilling the same pitch. In the Sabbat it resounds becoming a quiver of cymbals as strike bears down incessantly met by rising counterstrike. This is the sound the dancer makes when she moves. The bells at wrists, ankles, hips, earrings, shaking. The noise of battle reverberates through the armour in the deep secret cavities of our bodies. Here amongst the threshing limbs, the slaughter, she walks.

This is the emblem of the unfolding of the rose amongst the flames. A million orgasms intersecting their petals through all space and time. A message comes through to those who would be present at such a sabbat: get rid of yourself.

But this endless moment, this bacchanal, can lead us away from the most salient fact of witchcraft. Though as Jack Parsons says, witchcraft is the oldest religion, that it lifts us out of ourselves and switches our bristling skin, the fact is that witchcraft arises from the world. It comes from the land, the people, the plants, the animals, the whole web of life. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Witchcraft is here in present time.

When I say apocalyptic witchcraft it is deliberately antagonistic because I see witchcraft being used as an excuse for solipsistic escapism when it is the exact opposite. I situate witchcraft in the world as it is. As radical changes cascade through the living systems of the biosphere, tradition must by necessity change. This fluid transformation is the beauty and strength that marks true craft. As such it will upset those who cling to form. So be it. There is not simply tradition, there is innovation, there is becoming and there is revolution. This is a woman’s truth, this is the goddess who has spun through history to be with us now.

Witchcraft has a history of remembering its radical heritage whether through Michelet, Jack Parsons or feminism, and also of inventing itself anew. Montague Summers writes: ‘Witches, satanists and the whole unhallowed crew were meddling with and mixing in politics from the first, and as their liege lord, the Devil, rebelled against God in heaven, so do they rebel against any ordered and legitimate form of government on earth.’ I say that it is on the cusp of doing so again, and with good reason. Though the sabbat itself arguably only dates from 1650, it connects to a far older tradition of nocturnal gatherings on the high places born from both celebration, and in response to attacks on the people, as well as a demonisation of such assemblies both to protect them from prying eyes and to criminalise the participants. It is in this renewal, and not the faux old or the endless inquisition into what is traditional, where witchcraft is to be found.

The bald heath has witnessed the dance of the atom turn volte-face. The splitting of the light in an apocalypsis that we have wrought. World’s end is not a threat from the pulpit, we have assembled it with dextrous and sinistrous fingers, bunkered our oblivion for the days of the final division of plunder now at hand. We will not follow the smoke to the stars until we are burned on the pyre of the earth. Love is the war to end all wars, and the war is upon us.

While our culture laments, what have we done wrong? Has no concept of sin, but only consumption. It still knows that something is going dreadfully awry. Infantilised it helplessly repeats, what, what have we done wrong? It is simple: Mankind has broken the covenant with nature.

Dee and the alchemists knew this, and sought to coax from their alembics a gentler reconciliation, an harmonious counterchange of the elements cross-matched. That window has closed. There is no gold that will buy us freedom from our fate, we are more fearsomely tasked. As our vaunted technological sophistication hits built-in obsolescence it is the deceptively simple acts and tools of witchcraft that will endure. I would trust my black-handled knife longer than my laptop. If more high magicians had, like Paracelsus, listened to the folk practitioners rather than their vanity we would perhaps not be at this point. Yet we are.

We must recognise that we are the horsemen that sheet upon the winds. We the angels pouring poison vials. We the seal breakers. We the elders of days revolving around an empty throne. We the daughters of Jerusalem, the Kings of Edom, the Cains and Liliths, the scorpion men. Before we turn our deserving ire on the class of the super-rich and their marauding corporations we must recognise that we too are the consumers. Our actions have added to the weight of disenchantment. We have let this happen.

The rape of the earth is about to enter a horrifying final phase where the last wildernesses are despoiled for the last resources. Should we weep? The words of Medea, daughter of the Sun and priestess of the witch-goddess Hekate, can be considered here, as an inspiration from the sharp pen of Seneca. Whilst her Nurse pleads caution, Medea responds as sorceress:

Medea: Light is the grief which can take counsel and hide itself; great ills lie not in hiding. ’Tis pleasing to face the foe.

Nurse: Stay this frenzied outburst my child; even silent calm can scarce defend thee.

Medea: Fortune fears the brave, the cowardly overwhelms.

Nurse: No hope points out a way for our broken fortunes.

Medea: Whoso has naught to hope, let him despair of naught.

Nurse: The Colchians are no longer on thy side, thy husband’s vows have failed, and there is nothing left of all thy wealth.

Medea: Medea is left – in her thou beholdest sea and land, and sword and fire and gods and thunderbolts.

Such is our state. Such is the goddess of witchcraft and the figure of the witch in the line of Medea. There is no escape. Witchcraft is already dead as a hag, as barren as the moon, as contaminated as the tar sands. Yet witchcraft is born again in this sacred despoiled landscape, and will be despised as an abomination by those who cannot navigate by the candlelight of guttering stars. Those who seek to escape the fates and furies will learn that they are inexorable. We celebrate this, wreathed in the afterglow with a half-life of a million million years. We the murderers, the poisoners, the tightening noose of curse, the fire on the mountain.

We have a reply to this savaged world, a confession that need not be racked out of us: It is we who have drunk from the cup. We who are drunk on the blood of sacrifice. We who flower from our wounds. We who celebrate Love and War. We who know mystery. We are the Witchcraft.

Witchcraft does not wait for deliverance. It kisses and kills with the same flushed bloody mouth. We cannot bridle her utterance, the whore speaks. We are not separate from the fate of the world. We are used to being unwelcome, hunted, blamed, raped, tortured, dispossessed, disappeared. Now we are an irrelevance, a harmless eccentricity, a fairy ball sporting stick on ears and dressing up box deviance, a social joke. Yet as witchcraft is filled with the spirit of the age we will become dangerous again, because witchcraft will have rooted meaning.

Apocalypse is not escapism as some suggest. It is being held in the jaws at the threshold of life and death. It is sacred confrontation and revelation. It is utopia and dystopia in eternal exchange. It sees through. In Christianity apocalypse is used by the world haters who argue for war, in the New Age as a panacea for those who long for ascension; I use it to awaken us from dream.

There is no other way to talk about apocalypse. I do not choke the inspiration in my throat. I will not simply watch the last dance or describe the dancers without losing myself amongst them. We must be brought to an awareness of the moment.

We have the power to destroy the world and we are doing so. Witchcraft must respond, as it always has, to the events which unfold around us with the gifts we have been given and those which we have won on the heath. Having entered into the moment, we can go back, but not a moment sooner. So we ask the looking glass our question, what is witchcraft?

In the search for origins we ask who we are. Not a miasma of deception to drape over the shewstone, rather a blood thread that spins into a mantle, a living web of connection.

What is witchcraft?

The answer is simple: Witchcraft is the work of the enemy. Witchcraft is the sex that other people have, witchcraft the drug that other people take, witchcraft is the rite that other people perform. Witchcraft is the magic that other people do. Witchcraft is the clothes that other people wear. Witchcraft is the words that other people speak. Witchcraft the goddess they venerate.

It is impossible to reach any other conclusion. For the whole of recorded history witchcraft has been malefica, venefica, incest and murder. The next village, the next town, the next country, the old woman, the young woman, the Jew, the leper, the Cathar, the Templar, the Ophite, the Bogomil. They do it. Not us you understand, them. You will find the witch at the end of a pointed finger.

To argue otherwise is a fatal mistake that opens us to divide and conquer. To prettify witchcraft is as ill-judged as to disfigure it. You cannot deny the goddess in any form of cast lantern light or play of shadows. You cannot say white witchcraft or black witchcraft without doing violence to Her complete being. It is time that we heal this wound. Consider the words of the Thunder Perfect Mind: I am the whore and the holy one.

So let us explore our definition with the aid of a book that means so much to us. The Malleus Maleficarum in defining witchcraft identifies three vital components: The witch, the devil, and the will of God. The witch as we have seen is the other, the foreigner and, more often than not, the woman. The devil is the double, whose worship is nocturnal, orgiastic and child-killing. The will of God is simply the power of the church and state to oppress, to accuse, and to enact the auto-da-fé.

As such an apocalyptic witchcraft will contain these self-same elements: The Witch, as foreign woman, exemplified by Inanna-Ishtar and demonised in the Bible as Babalon. As populations are displaced by war, flood, fire and famine, we will see many more strangers in a strange land. To the witch, they are kindred.

The Devil as the mask of wild nature and the Goddess, giving us the choice to control our bodies, minds and destiny. We have already seen Baphomet as a cipher for Mohammed, and Islam will not be the only bedevilled enemy. Ecologists, feminists, psychonauts, shamans, will continue to be decried in these terms. We can choose to embrace the Devil that they deny.

The will of God is a clear understanding of and opposition to the designs of our enemy. This is not simply destroying the mythic structure of the Christian Church which gave man nature to despoil, just as it cut down the cedars of Lebanon, but the final ugly phase of Yahweh: corporatist fascism. We are the final line of resistance.

But what of modern pagan witchcraft? Why has it not risen to these challenges? The difficulty with modern pagan witchcraft is that it began with compromise. Gardner had one eye on the recent repeal of the witchcraft laws. And it harm none was rather more expedient than the hair-raising pronouncements of Cecil Williamson or the misanthropy of Spare. Yet it is foolish to simply attack Gardner or Sanders or Cochrane or Graves. They were responding to the spirit of their age. It seemed for an impossible heady moment that witchcraft was going to become the new religion of England. That project is in disarray.

Now Ronald Hutton says not simply harm none, but be harmless. Having seen the Nigerian witch killers and the Satanic Panic of the eighties, he argues that we are better off to live in a disenchanted world and escape on the weekends to our imaginal worlds of whimsical delight.

I say, fear us. I say that the power of the witch is in having every option open. Witchcraft will not lie beneath, will not be disarmed. Women know this. We do not want to be inside, having interfaith meetings with the hand-wringing monotheists whose holy books sanction our stoning, murder and rape. Witchcraft, and by that I mean malefica, is the strong face we show to this world. This is the merciless path.

An example of this is the solonaceæ, the family which includes mandrake and datura. Solonaceæ comes from the root solari, to soothe. Indeed, these daughters of comfort both cure and kill. They enable us to fight poison with poison. There is no way to separate the powers and no way we should be cleaved from our rights to exercise either.

So is there an alternative narrative to that of Gardner? One approach is that of traditional craft. Paul Huson neatly explains the difference when he writes:

Traditional witchcraft is what Margaret Murray – a British historian who during the twenties advanced the notion that Witchcraft was originally a clandestine pagan religion that had continued to exist alongside Christianity – referred to as “Operative Witchcraft,” to distinguish it from what she called “Ritual Witchcraft.” Operative Witchcraft, to use her words, encompassed all charms and spells, whether used by a professed witch or by a professed Christian, whether intended for good or for evil, for killing or for curing. Ritual Witchcraft on the other hand, embraced the religious beliefs and ritual of those who practiced what Murray referred to as the Dianic Cult, the worship of a deity that was incarnate in a man, a woman, or an animal, traces of which she believed were to be found in Italy, in Southern France, and in the English Midlands. The god was named Janus or Dianus, the goddess Diana. “Wicca” or “Wica” was arguably G.B. Gardner’s own personal take on the Dianic cult.

Huson’s Mastering Witchcraft is a key text of traditional craft, but Huson clearly states that he drew on the same material as Gardner from the folklore library at University College London. Plainly stated, they both cut it from the same cloth. It is fair to say that traditional craft, though containing earlier and folkloric elements, is as invented as Gardnerian Wicca, and by that I mean no disrespect to either.

Yet now we see the manufacturing of a schism between a supposed traditional craft and initiated Wicca. It is an attempt to separate the inseparable and rewrite a history of shared protagonists, as the example of The Regency demonstrates, and on an island of widely diverse practice that cannot be neatly embroidered into one gypsy myth. The new strands of ‘old’ witchcraft show where Wicca was remiss, namely plant lore, low magic and folklore. But to define oneself in opposition to your closest allies in a battle of authenticity seems fatally flawed, especially when most of our history is chronicled by our enemies and further spans the shifting landscapes of literature, poetry, vision and dream.

Furthermore, how is a Cain-Lilith myth any different or more valid than a Diana-Lucifer one? Who exactly enforces that Wiccans do no operative magic, or ensures traditional crafters have no religious or mythic underpinning? In fact, what we see now is a supposedly traditional craft enthusiastically fashioning exactly the kind of ritual witchcraft that they have decried the Gardnerians for. The reason is that they are part of a divided whole which is not only true of witchcraft, but our entire culture’s schism and denial of the complete goddess, whom we dare to know incarnate as Babalon.

This horizontal hostility between people who should share the same interests is exactly the tactic employed by cointelpro. It splinters, it dissipates, it prevents us engaging with the real enemy. There are more pressing issues than whether we work naked or robed. Enough. I say, my enemy’s enemy is my friend. When I say apocalyptic witchcraft I also mean the destruction of the false differences between the traditions.

Gerald Gardner’s witchcraft was not ultimately about the form, it was about the force. A culture crawling out of the bombed cellars of London into the new world of pill and possibility. The witchcraft of Jack Parsons was not about the form, it was about the liberating force of the bohemian sexual revolution and entheogenic drugs. Traditional witchcraft is not about the form, it is about the harrowing loss of folklore, rural life and, crucially, meaning in a postmodern world.

Apocalyptic witchcraft is about a world at war with the last remnants of wild nature, the last remnants of humanity, and so I am here concentrating on conjuring that force rather than entering into the trap of circumscribing it. Those who have read The Red Goddess will know that I am adamantly opposed to the imposition of orthodoxy. So when I say apocalyptic witchcraft I am describing a set of ideas that can be embodied in any witchcraft approach. We should celebrate every form of emergent heresy. Our emails are, after all, read by the same intelligence agencies. Our ritual sites photographed by the same military satellites. Our wells poisoned by the same fertilisers, fracking chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

We must never forget our enemy. However peaceable we believe we are, they define us with violence. Witchcraft was born in the torture chambers of the inquisition. Unclothed, bound, broken, taught to fly in strappado. In the 1200s the enemy was the Cathars who threatened the Catholic Church by espousing poverty. In the 1300s the enemy was heresy, exemplified in the destruction of the Templars. In the 1400s it became the figure of the witch that subsequently blossomed into an international satanic conspiracy. Why did this happen? Why did the sabbat obtain such prominence? Why did the witch become so reviled? Without understanding the enemy there is no answer that can be given.

The creation of a purely malefic figure of the witch was an attack on women, though men too were burned. Woman was attacked in this way to enable the state to enclose the common land. Woman was attacked to remove her control over her womb. Woman was attacked to divide the sexes and rend the social fabric. Woman was attacked to destroy the sense of the sacred in nature. Woman was memory of ancestor and clan.

We do not need to follow Marx, we need simply to follow the money. The process has continued because the enemy has inexhaustible greed and diminishing returns. It is not simply the commons that are enclosed, everything is being sold into the hands of the few. This means war, and the war is upon us.

The sabbat arose as a conspiracy to destroy the rotten edifice of church and state, meeting on the heath to avoid the gaze of the authority, guised in anonymity and foreboding. This revolutionised the nature of witchcraft, regardless of the pre-existence of the sabbat form. I do not simply refer here to the inspiring fantasies of Jules Michelet, but the important modern work of Silvia Federici.

We see the same attacks on freedom of assembly in the destruction of the free festivals, rave culture and the occupy movement. These have been met by the masked Anonymous, the faceless black bloc anarchists, the direct actions of the ELF. These are expressions of popular witchcraft and have been persecuted by the same inquisition that came for us. I do not say that these are examples of operative witchcraft, I say that we, the people who are the witchcraft, have a sacred duty to join this war. We need to celebrate sabbats again, infuse them with our witchblood, our cunning.

Here is my prophecy. Witchcraft is going to get both aroused and angrier. Nature will rise. We are not only coming for your children, we are your children and all those who will inherit the ruins of the world. Welcome to the apocalypse. This is the moment when we realise that the climate is broken. It’s all blood and roses from here on in. As witches we should prepare to fly on the wings of the storm.

This essay was originally published in Apocalyptic Witchcraft, Scarlet Imprint.

The Curse: On Female Bleeding

There are many superstitions surrounding a woman’s period that span across the globe, ranging from having menstruating women banned from places of worship or from preparing food, to having them segregated from their community altogether in a lodge until their period is complete. These practices serve only to subjugate women in varying degrees, but if we look back further to the ancient times, we will find that this wasn’t always the case. In fact, it was rather the opposite.

Throughout modern history, women on their period have traditionally been regarded with a sense of misgiving and trepidation, so much so that the very word ‘period’ or ‘menstruation’ are seldom heard in discussion. It is no surprise then that there are so many substitutes for these terms. Aunt Flo. The Crimson Tide. That Time of the Month. These are but a few of the euphemisms I have encountered for a woman’s period, yet the one which perplexes me the most when it comes to discussing menstruation is: The Curse. The connotations of the word link it to malevolence and evil. To curse is to wish bad things upon someone. To say that women are cursed is to say that they are condemned, a wicked woman, damned, and yet periods are entirely natural and experienced by most female mammals in the animal kingdom.

An independent global study for The Women’s Health Coalition found 5000 slang terms for menstruation with many countries referring to periods in majority slang terms as opposed to speaking plainly about them. In German, there exists the word Erdbeerwoche translating to ‘Strawberry Week’ and in Finland, there is the much less flattering ‘Mad Cow Disease’ or Hullum lechman tauti. My favourite euphemism for periods comes from the Middles Ages where the term, “to bring flowers” has been recorded.

The frequency of slang terms when discussing periods is interesting, since we use euphemisms as a way of talking about topics that make us feel uncomfortable. Subjects which are taboo. A lot of what is considered taboo are things we consider unnatural. Death of children. Depraved behaviour. Scandal. Anything that veers away from societal standards for the natural order of things. The language we use to discuss periods exemplifies the ways in which women are demonised via their bodies or in this case, their bodily functions. 

The thread of female vilification as a result of fear, and ill-founded superstition can be followed back to 1612 Britain, where the famous Pendle Witches of Lancashire were accused and condemned to death under the rule of James I, a monarch who held strong beliefs about the supernatural and went as far as to pen a book titled ‘Demonology’, which in turn influenced the writing of what was effectively a witch finder’s handbook by Richard Bernard. Within this manual, details on how to obtain evidence of witchcraft include her presenting strange diseases and physical ailments, leading to the false accusation of these women. This is yet another example of women have suffered simply for experiencing an involuntary physical phenomenon, such as illness.  

Growing up in London to a Muslim family I was told that I was exempt from joining in with prayers during the week of my period. I didn’t choose to have a period, yet it came when I was eleven years old along with the latent knowledge that this event marked my crossing a threshold from girlhood to womanhood. Surely this was something to be celebrated? Being so young I did not question the reason I was unable to pray until much later when my mother told me that I couldn’t worship because I was ‘unclean’, and that was the reason I had to have a bath once was my period was finished; in order to cleanse myself – and that included washing my hair too or it didn’t count. As a girl this made me feel confused and ashamed of my body, but I also felt the beginnings of a deep-rooted, quiet rage that would swell into adulthood. 

The idea that periods cause women to be deemed ‘impure’ is present not only in Islam but in other faiths including Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism where some women on their period are prohibited from carrying out household duties or preparing food for fear that it will become contaminated. 

Menstruating women being excused from preparing food goes back as far as 1878,  where it is documented in the British Medical Journal that women on their period should not cure meat for fear of spoiling it, nor should they touch wine as they would turn it to vinegar. 

More food-related superstitions with histories from Argentina and France detail the discouragement of women on periods working with dairy such as whipped cream and mayonnaise as they will cause it to curdle. Menstruating women being perceived as noxious can also be seen in Nepal where, according to Clue, some women on their period cannot come into contact with anybody or even stay within their home. Other modern-day beliefs cause some in Romania to believe that if a woman on her period touches flowers that they will die more quickly. 

In some societies in India, the fear that a woman on her period will contaminate the food she touches exempts her from any involvement in preparing meals, thus ostracising her from her community since many socio-cultural events are underpinned by gathering together to cook and eat. Sadly, in all parts of the world including the UK, there are serious implications of how severely young girls and women miss out due to period poverty. The Journal of Family and Medicine and Primary Care found that “Large numbers of girls in many less economically developed countries drop out of school when they begin menstruating” due to a lack of provisions. 

Exemption from household duties is not a new idea. Ancient Roman naturalist Pliny The Elder describes period blood as ‘poisonous’ going as far as to say that “linen, touched by the woman while boiling and washing it in the water, turns the water black”. Pliny goes as far as to say that menstruating women have the ability to kills bees, ruin crops and dull the shine of mirrors. 

It is recorded in The Curse: A Cultural History of Menstruation that in the past, back in the day the French believed that sex during a period would cause deformities in babies. An interesting flipside to these superstitions is the fact that they speak to an arcane potency feared in women. The link between periods and sex is undeniable considering that periods are unique to female biology signalling fertility, and with that, the potential to create life. There is power in that. It is no wonder, then, that shame is often attached to periods given that the notion of female sexuality persists in causing discomfort even in these seemingly progressive times. A close friend recounted being slapped by her mother when she told her she had gotten her first period, to raise a blush, she was told, for her shame, the impact of which resonates with her to this day. 

Though it may seem as though women on their period have been feared and treated with contempt throughout all of history, this is not so. If we span back further to ancient practices, menstruation was sometimes revered. In many ancient cultures, menstrual blood was used to fortify potions, even if it was still often taboo. Ancient Egyptian Priests and Priestesses believed that menstrual blood was linked to female goddesses and this is echoed in Nordic religion where the blood is connected with the blood of a primordial goddess whose menstrual blood created a divine river. In these instances, blood is not impure or unclean but considered divine and potent. A symbol of fertility and therefore of creation. Even Neolithic people depicted their goddesses as bleeding and giving birth, so the association between menstruation and the divine existed as far back as then.

The idea of the Triple Goddess found in Neopaganism shows reverence for the three stages of a woman’s life: Maiden, Mother, Crone. The Maiden, the virgin, can only become a mother once she is fertile and a girl’s period was, Neo-Pagans speculate, celebrated as it aligned her with the goddess. This celebration of female energy and potency is far more empowering to me than believing that I am in some way unclean or potentially toxic to those around me.

With a daughter of my own fast approaching teen years, I have chosen to frame the narrative of her period around one of empowerment and awakening; that it is a time of celebration, not fear. That hers will be an experience of gain rather than loss. So much of what society tells women and young girls about the way we should relate to our bodies is embedded with feelings of guilt and shame. This is not a cycle I wish to perpetuate with my own child. Whenever she expresses anxiety about this coming transition, I tell her not to fear; I tell her she is coming into her power. 

Out Of The Shadows

“Come out, come out,

wherever you are,

come meet the young lady

who fell from a star!”

- The Wizard of Oz

Image © Kaitlynn Copithorne

Image © Kaitlynn Copithorne

“Come out, come out, wherever you are!” This phrase can either tickle our ears or chill us to the bone. Are we being summoned to play, or are we being sniffed out by demons on the hunt? The witch’s (broom) closet is a dark place—simultaneously cosy and lonely. “I am a witch” is something we might struggle to affirm to ourselves, let alone others. I know I fall into both camps. What’s worse, the coveted life on the other side of the closet door can be contrary to say the least.

Coming out is a question that has threaded throughout my entire post-pubertal life. As a person living with a severe mental illness, I’ve often felt alone, and am always primed for the judgements of others. Coming out as a mentally ill person (or mad, as I often gleefully refer to myself) feels simultaneously like a responsibility, a right, a risk, and a chore. I can count on my fingers the number of friends who know the shape of my experience, in tens the people who know the facts but not the form, and in hundreds the acquaintances who are none the wiser. Often any frankness is met with “oh but you seem so normal!”, as if there is nothing normal about me now that my nasty truth has been revealed. Coming out of the crazy closet is akin to stumbling out of the shadows and into the fire.

We might ask whether keeping aspects of our life secret (be it witchery, insanity, or otherwise) is tantamount to complicity with our closed minded oppressors. Are we duty bound, politically, to take the leap for the sake of others? For me, the simple answer is no - that is no-one’s personal responsibility. An example from the world of mental health is the UK’s Time to Talk Day. On this day we are encouraged to talk with others about our mental health. For those of us who struggle to live under the banner of a highly stigmatised diagnosis such as schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder, the invitation to just talk about it—largely for the benefit of the normies - is yet another demand in our already treacherous lives. Why should we be liable for removing others’ biases? And how can we guarantee that our talking about it won’t provoke a hostile response?

A decade ago, I performed my first solo public ritual. Certain Muggle friends in attendance expressed concern regarding my shift to the dark side, as if I’d forced them to stand at the Hellmouth for half an hour whilst my red eyes burned holes into their souls. “Be careful!” they whispered at the sight of such creepy witchery. I guess the ritual was a bit scary—it did, after all, attempt to summon Lilith for the sexual liberation of all women. I’m sure, however, that it wasn’t the content that struck fear into their pretty little hearts. It was the display of something not normal, something definitively outside of their experience.

Other times, responses can be pleasantly surprising. I once found a moment of honest connection with my mother, as we compared manifestation practices with her own Christian belief in prayer and miracles. Even now I wonder whether she was in fact secretly horrified by my ideas. When you’re afraid of others’ judgements it’s sometimes hard to trust that they really do get where you’re coming from, regardless of what they might say.

Through admitting our witchiness, we might also find ourselves shouldering the burden of others’ ignorance and fear. We might be asked to define, for example, our relationship with Satan, or to attest as to the accuracy of The Craft. Another classic is “so do you actually believe in magic?” Sometimes these conversations can feel joyful, but for the most part they’re a burden some of us could live without. I like to ask in return, “well do you believe in magic?” Now there’s a question.

Divination is another case in point - millions find the notion of the tarot, runes, or I-Ching truly spine-chilling. Their pupils dilate at the mere thought of such devilishly occult activities. A moment later, intrigued about their fate, they’re positively desperate for you to read their fortune. (Next, perhaps, they’ll start learning a divination tool for themselves, as, you know, an art practice thing.)

The rapid increase in witches using social media reveals the vast numbers of crafters looking for connection—over three million have used the hashtag #witchesofinstagram. Both solitary witches and covens alike are connecting with one another, often under pseudonyms, and creating online communities where they can find kinship and even magical services. Podcasts such as The Witch Wave garner listeners from across the world who seek affirmation for their interests and identities. There is safety in numbers, especially under the cloak of the digital sphere.

There are many reasons why we come to identify as witches—personal, religious, political. For many of us, coming out is a choice, and to many more of us, a minefield. Sometimes I choose to out myself as a person who is mentally ill. Occasionally I choose to make public my witchy practices. You are allowed to pick and choose what you say, and to whom you say it. Explain yourself? No thanks.

I find wondrous solace and solidarity in the coven that is my weekly therapy group, and the spaces I share with like-minded witchy friends. Much like the language of both magic and the mind, I trace circles with my fingertips—circles within circles. My eyes dance between these borders and spaces, my words follow. To some people I’m mad, to some I’m ‘normal’, but most importantly, to those who truly know me, I am just their friend. I am a weird nutcase, a normal-crazy-normal witch, and I’m beginning to be cool with that.

How To Celebrate Mexican Day Of The Dead

unnamed (1).jpg

Loss is one of the most painful experiences in life. It’s unfortunately something most of us will have to go through. The pain doesn’t just disappear after the supposed five stages of grief; we will always miss our loved ones who are no longer with us, but in the West where death is taboo, we’re seldom given the opportunity to remember our dead and keep their memory alive.

Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) is a Mexican Holiday which remembers and celebrates the lives of deceased loved ones. Syncretising indigenous Aztec rituals with Catholic tradition, originally it was thought to fall in early August, prior to the Spanish conquest of the region, but moved to 31 October-2 November to coincide with All Saints Day.

In recent years, Mexican London Paola Feregrino has seen a surge in popularity in this Mexican holiday, but it’s seldom the joyful celebration she remembers from back home. Through cultural misappropriation it’s been re-branded and re-imagined as something darker and scarier, a counterpart to Halloween. ‘Dia de los Muertos is different to Halloween,’ she says, ‘it celebrates the dead rather than being afraid of them. Most people think of death as something depressing—something we shouldn’t talk about. For us Mexicans it’s different: of course we get sad when a loved one passes away, but we love remembering them at their best and honouring them, so on Day of the Dead that’s what we do.’

Scholars have traced the origins of the holiday to an Aztec festival celebrating the deity Mictēcacihuātl, queen of the underworld. The modern correspondence is believed to be La Catrina, the iconic tall skeleton lady, often deemed Mexico’s ‘Grand Dame of Death.’ ‘The Aztecs saw life and death as dual parts, as a natural part of our cycle,’ says Paola. ‘We don’t know what’s on the other side, but we can learn to accept it as something natural.’

How to celebrate Día de los Muertos without succumbing to cultural appropriation? Take this as an opportunity to learn and engage with Latin culture. ‘This can include visiting museums, watching documentaries, or attending local parades and events. If you want to go to a party, firstly find out if the event is curated by a Mexican, they will be on hand inviting you to remember, to see, to listen, and to connect with those in your heart that have passed.’

Every home has its own rituals and traditions for celebrating those who have moved on. Says Paola: '[My family] sets up a shrine at in a little corner at home with photos, flesh flowers, candles and personal objects of the loved one. We play the music they liked and we cook the dishes they most enjoyed. We put food and drinks on the shrine, as we believe that day their spirit comes to be amongst us, as long as they are remembered, they will be with us. We think about our best moments with that person. We then go out to join in colourful celebrations across town. We dance, write poetry and paint our faces to be with them for the day.’

The Day of the Dead puts great value in life, often so fleeting and seemingly insignificant in the greater scheme of things. By collectively remembering our dead, there’s no saying how long they will be around in spirit. Opening up the conversation about death also reminds us of our own mortality. We too will one day die—it’s the only given from the moment we are born. Sometimes we forget our lives are finite and postpone happiness to some later date. Paola says it’s a good reminder to ‘make sure we are living life to the fullest!’

The Day of the Dead typically falls between 31-2 November, but The Book Club in Shoreditch is hosting a traditional party, curated by Paola, on 26 October. Tickets are available here.

Other Worlds Within Our Own: Photographs By Nicolette Clara Iles

nicolette pitchcfrk2 copy.jpg

London-based artist Nicolette Clara Iles’s painterly photographs depict a world—or worlds—quite different from our own. ‘My main inspirations is, strangely, life itself,’ says the artist. 'There is so much more to life than we see or realise on the surface … I like to make the everyday seem a little more unusual, even magical at times.’ Their work also draws inspiration from Francesca Woodman, Imogen Cunningham’s early photographic work and the surrealist paintings of Leonora Carrington.


Shown here are photographs from two of Iles’s series, Pitchfork and Cornish Folk. The former is based on a daydream the artist had about a group of people rising up to bury those who hurt them in previous lives. It’s a scene plucked straight from the unconscious mind and made tangible. For the latter, they stayed at a tiny farm in rural Cornwall with a woman who kept sheep. Cornwall, with its pastoral landscape, rugged coastlines, Neolithic history and local folklore, seems the perfect magical setting. ‘The lady who owned the farm had seen some awful things in her time, yet being there felt healing." Near her home were the Men-an-Tol standing stones, shown here. "Legend has it if you can put your body through the hole of one standing stone, it can heal.’


Iles views creativity as a magical practice and likens it to ‘stirring a cauldron of ideas.’ They reclaim the word ‘witch’ as an artist, but also as an act of defiance against the oppressive forces of the modern world. ‘Witch to me means having a strong connection with yourself, your ancestors if you can, and the world around you. It’s a soul-bearing declaration, but it’s powerful; with it, you can harness a hidden power within and put it to good use.’ 


‘There’s more magic in our world than we realise,’ they emphasise. These photographs remind us there are still things in our reality we cannot see. Iles invites us to look for them.

nicolette 1Shot30.png
nicolette 81570003 copy.jpg
nicolette clara iles cunning 1 .png
nicolette cunning 3.png
nicolette 1Shot9.19.png
nicolette 2785infnimg.jpg

All images © Nicolette Clara Iles

On Divine Inspiration

photo-1530819568329-97653eafbbfa.jpeg

Where does inspiration come from?

“O Muse, recount to me the causes …" begins the Aeneid, a Latin epic poem written by Virgil between 29 and 19 BC. It was common for the poets of the ancient world to invoke the muse when seeking artistic inspiration; creativity was considered something external to themselves, a well that could be drawn from. Today, most people in the West believe inspiration comes from within.

Reading the journals of artists and writers, it seems the source of artistic inspiration is still difficult to pin down. Creativity is often portrayed as a deeply mysterious process. In pursuit of the elusive ingredients necessary to produce a masterpiece, some actively seek—or sought—external sources of inspiration through occult means. Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes consulted a spirit guide, Pan, using a homemade ouija board. These strange conversations resulted in some of Plath’s finest works. Artistic inspiration came naturally to Picasso, who said: “I don't seek, I find.” Some hint at divine provenance without attempts to locate it; after Bob Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 2016, Leonard Cohen said this: “I think that Bob Dylan knows this more than all of us: you don’t write the songs anyhow.” Divine or not, finding the source seems the ultimate cure for creative block. Artists and writers have been in contact with this strange realm—or entity—at least since ancient times.

Jhumpa Lahiri, author of The Namesake, spoke about the mysterious nature of creativity in an interview with The New Yorker:

“All writing, all art is just a wild leap off a cliff because there’s nothing to support you. You’re creating something out of nothing, really. No one’s telling you to do it. It comes from within, and it’s a very mysterious process, at least for me. I still don’t understand how I write a story or a book. I don’t understand how it happens. I mean, I know it takes time, I know it takes effort, I know it takes lots and lots of drafts and hours, but I still really don’t understand the internal mechanism of how it really happens.”

Cormac McCarthy wrote about this internal mechanism in an essay titled “The Kekulé Problem” (Nautilus, 2017), using a more scientific lexicon: “to put it as pithily as possibly—and as accurately—the unconscious is a machine for operating an animal.” Put like this, it sounds like the author, best known for novels including The Road and Blood Meridian, adopts a machine reductionist stance. But McCarthy still seems to regard the unconscious mind—and the dreams and metaphors it produces—an enigma worthy of our attention: “we don’t know what the unconscious is or where it is or how it got there—wherever there might be.” He poses questions but provides few answers: “and is it really so good at solving problems or is it just that it keeps its own counsel about the failures? How does it have this understanding which we might well envy?”

In an interview with Oprah, McCarthy said: “you can’t plot things out. You just have to trust in wherever it comes from.” Oprah asked him if he believes in God. "It would depend on what day you ask me. Sometimes I think it’s good to pray. You don’t have to have a good idea of what or who god is to pray. You could even be quite doubtful about the whole business.” The author doesn’t understand the source, but this openness to experience means he can draw from it.

McCarthy is also a respected senior fellow at the Santa Fe Institute (SFI). To introduce McCarthy’s essay, David Krakauer, president of the Santa Fe Institute described him as a research colleague, thought of in complementary terms, an aficionado on topics including quantum mechanics, and the nature of the conscious and unconscious mind. “At SFI we have been searching for the expression of these scientific interests in his novels and we maintain a furtive tally of their covert manifestations and demonstrations in his prose.”

Evident here is the potential reciprocity of art and science when dealing with things we don’t yet understand. We still know little about the unconscious mind, the muse, the divine, or whatever name we want to use for that which defies being known. But one thing seems clear for artists in search of inspiration: we need to be receptive to the voices that come to us from the great unknown.

Image by Unsplash

Sylvia Plath And The Occult

Sylvia_Plath (1).jpg

It’s legend that when Ted Hughes left her, Sylvia Plath took his left-behind notes and manuscripts, along with fingernail clippings and other debris she found on his desk, and burned them in a ritual fire. From the ashes, a scrap of paper with the name “Assia” written on it, landed on Sylvia’s foot. 

At various points in her writing Plath made references to tarot, Ouija, crystal balls, and astrology. It was Ted, in fact, who had introduced Sylvia to the occult. She found it to be “magnificent fun … more fun than a movie,” but Ted was more impressed with her seeming abilities, saying that “her gifts … were strong enough to make her frequently wish to be rid of them.” The two of them used a homemade ouija board to contact ‘Pan,’ their otherworldly muse, with a tipped over brandy glass as a planchette. Ted Hughes remarked of their spirit that “usually his communications were gloomy and macabre, though not without wit.” Sylvia wrote of Pan in her poem “Ouija”:  

It is a chilly god, a god of shades,

Rises to the glass from his black fathoms.

At the window, those unborn, those undone

Assemble with the frail paleness of moths,

...

The glass mouth sucks blood-heat from my forefinger.

The old god dribbles, in return, his words.

Hughes often wrote of his meeting with Sylvia as being fateful: “That day the solar system married us / Whether we knew it or not,” he writes in Birthday Letters. In interviews he said that the two of them had a “telepathic union.” Their relationship was violent and passionate from the start, when Ted emerged from the party they had met at with his face bleeding; Sylvia had bitten his cheek in response to him stealing her earrings. They were unarguably drawn to each other. Hughes read their horoscopes, believed in things beyond them. Plath took some more convincing. Belief in the beyond didn’t come easily to her, but learning did. Though Ted was the more familiar, Sylvia quickly overtook him. She excelled -- as she did in everything. 

Sylvia’s diaries note her wish to learn and get better at reading tarot. Hughes had given her a deck as a birthday present in 1956, and she had visions of them as literary fortune-tellers -- Hughes divining by astrology, and Plath with her cards and crystal balls. Published in Ariel, Plath later wrote “The Hanging Man” about her experiences with Electro-Convulsive Therapy, a treatment which left her unable to read and speak for some time afterward, and of which she was terrified of having to ever undergo again. With the added layer of some tarot knowledge, though, it is the waiting which is really striking -- the idea that the ECT was a step before enlightenment.

Many of her Occult-infused writings appear like this, with layers of intricacy laid over her poems, offering another angle; a different depth. 

Hughes claimed that “Dialogue Over a Ouija Board” was almost a transcript of a conversation he and Plath had with their personal guide; that Sybil and Leroy were thinly veiled alter-personas of the two of them. “Dialogue” was also, according to her letters, the first poem Plath had written in six months. She never showed the poem, and it was unpublished until her Collected Poems. She wrote to her mother that it was “supposed to sound just like conversation … both dramatic and philosophical.” The conversation goes back and forth as the querents try to decipher whether Pan is a true god or not, the “chilly god” of Plath’s earlier poem, or a figment of their imagination. Unnerved, Sybil and Leroy agree to smash the glass into the fireplace, destroying their link to Pan, and ending the game. Sybil is haunted by the whole affair, not only their interactions, but also the act of smashing the glass. 

Those glass bits in the grate strike me chill: 

As if I’d half-believed in him, and he 

Being not you, not I, nor us at all, 

Must have been wholly someone else.

She cannot come back for what she has found to be true. At the end of the poem, the couple hope to find themselves “two real people … in a real room.”

Hughes writes, again in Birthday Letters, that it was “always bad news from the Ouija board.” He was aware, as both Plath’s letters and Hughes’ own notes recount, that she was also trying to contact her father through the Ouija board:

… “spirits” would regularly arrive with instructions for her from one Prince Otto, who was said to be a great power in the underworld. When she pressed for a more personal communication, she would be told the Price Otto could not speak to her directly because he was under orders from the Colossus. 

(from “Sylvia Plath and her Journals”)

In her journals, Plath ponders the Ouija board’s messages for her; how many of them are her own subconscious, and how many are genuine communications from her father. As time went on, she began to give more credence to the latter. The Colossus, then, becomes a central theme for Plath’s writing. Indeed, it is the title of the only collection of her poetry published before her death in 1963, though not without much deliberation. In its titular poem, she writes:

Perhaps you consider yourself an oracle,

Mouthpiece of the dead, or of some god or other.

Thirty years now I have labored

To dredge the silt from your throat.

I am none the wiser.

“Mouthpiece of the dead, or of some god or other” hearkens back to Pan, once again, and with the addition of Ted’s notes, Sylvia’s poetry comes together once again; a constant conversation with another world.

Toil And Trouble

66652033_361812484482217_1403652224944439296_n.jpg

I was at secondary school before I’d ever set foot in a church. Having pacified my grandmother with a church wedding, my parents refused to christen myself or my sister, to more head-shaking than I imagine was really necessary. They wanted us to decide for ourselves what we believed in, and as a bookish, morbidly curious child, I don’t think there was much surprise when I sat my mother down and told her, aged 12, that I was going to be a witch. As far as I could see, witches were more interesting than any alternative; they always had the best lines (thank you Shakespeare) and the best hair (thank you Sandra Bullock).

In one of the drawers of the big wooden cabinet in the dining room of my childhood home was a small drawstring bag containing my mother’s tarot cards, which we weren’t allowed to touch. I used to open the drawer and look at the black velvet bag, intrigued but not rebellious enough for breaking any rules, let alone ones that might have Serious Occult Consequences. I collected crystals and made my own runes, painstakingly copying the meanings out of library books. I read about glamour spells, tried them out, got frustrated with the inability to test if they’d worked. At fifteen, a friend and I had a Beltane sleepover, complete with rituals and offerings and a rainbow of different coloured candles. Our knowledge was cobbled together from corners of the internet, and from books we pored over in corners of bookshops and never actually bought.

I tested out other things: eighteen solid months of Hillsong attendance, visits to Bhaktivedanta, too much reading for one person’s brain. The witching won out. 

Much as I understand that following any religion or rite depends on the person, and it’s a personal choice how involved to be, or how much of your life to invest, I think that there’s a certain type of seeking that comes with a belief in the occult. I’ve always been drawn to the work that comes with witchery. Tarot cards can’t tell you something you don’t, on some level, already know. Amulets can’t have power you don’t give them. There’s no devil to get you if you disobey, just your own choices (and perhaps that’s a more threatening prospect…). There’s constant learning, unlearning, and relearning (for instance, recent re-educating around the use of white sage). Witchcraft is feminist as fuck. It centres women. It’s POC and non-binary and trans and LGBTQI+ inclusive. It is not interested in old straight white men, unless it’s about binding them.

On first meeting my boyfriend, he asked if I believed in my horoscope. I replied “more than I should,” a phrase he jokingly reminds me of if I suggest something that’s a bit too woo for him. I read tarot, I wear an evil eye and a big chunk of onyx every day (I’m a big believer in jewellery as armour; I never take any of mine off, and I don’t wear anything that doesn’t have some Big Significance). A lot of the little things I believe in are superstitions which have been passed down from my mother and become embedded in how my worldview fits together. You should salute a single magpie, not because it’s bad luck not to, but because it’s rude. Never stop a black cat from crossing the road, because he might have somewhere important to be. Spin an engagement ring three times around the finger of its new wearer for luck, and never carry a purse without a penny in it. I love the creativity of everyday witchcraft, and how magic plays into my projects in a myriad of ways. I love the main tenet that your purpose is to not cause harm. It seems logical to me to try to leave things better than you found them. But, also… Midnight Margaritas, right?




Animating the Inanimate

Art director Rachael Olga Lloyd animates inanimate objects for a living. We weren’t surprised to learn she believes there is more to these objects than that which meets the eye.

Image by Rachael Olga Lloyd

Image by Rachael Olga Lloyd

I grew up in a “fairytale gingerbread house,” as some of my childhood friends used to call it. My parents still live there today. It’s an old stone house built in an Elizabethan style, over 150 years ago. My parents loved old things so the house was decked out in Victorian style with tattered old chesterfields, oil paintings and antique carved oak furniture—things they picked up cheap from shops that sold bric-à-brac, back in the 70s when everyone else thought: “out with the old, in with the new.” My dad would never buy anything new, instead insisting on getting everything second or third hand from charity shops or the auction house.

This was great, except when it came to functional things like doors and electronics. I was used to the door falling off when opening that cupboard and that doorknob in the upstairs bathroom that always came off when I turned it; we had to use three different remote controllers to work the ancient TV. Only now I’m older do I fully appreciate what a magical place it was to grow up in. There is such a sense of magic in that house for me. I was fortunate to spend my whole childhood there and I can still return to visit.

Like my parents, I have a love of “old things.” When it comes to functional things and electronics, I try to buy new, with the reassurance of years of warranty. But there is something very special for me about something that has belonged to someone else previously. It had a past owner and a different life, even lives; it has its own history. I think there is also something similar in things that are handmade. When something has a history or imprint from the person who made it—a barakah if you will—it feels kind of magical.

I have an old chair that belonged to my grandparents. I didn’t know my grandparents very well but I have this chair that they probably would have used a lot. My dad must have sat in it growing up, and other family members. For me, the real value of objects is not how expensive or flashy they are but in the sentimental—the memories they recall as well as the memories the item itself has. I’m not a religious person, in some ways I’m quite the skeptic, but I feel there is something inherent to these items.

There’s something magical about an old tattered teddy bear that has been loved by different children over many years. It has protected and comforted many children through dark nights and endured many hugs and loose stitches. Yet bears you see sold new in shops today don’t incite the same feeling in me. It’s not just that they haven’t been owned before; I know that partly it’s their clean modern design and industrially manufactureness that kills any feeling for me. So am I just romanticising the past and feeling nostalgic? Or is it the old design and materials and that the old bear was made by hand long ago, and the fact this new one is made from plastic and was probably made in a factory in China.

I look at the £15 chair I got from Ikea and I know that it won’t outlive me, it definitely won’t be a hand-me-down, or be viewed by those who come after us in a museum. This kind of makes me sad; few people will have the magical childhood I was fortunate to have. Obviously part of this is me romanticising the past. I can’t however deny that old things hold sway with us.

The things we make well and use and love outlive us and are there years later in a family attic or behind glass in a museum. After we’re gone, the objects we use hold a part of us in a time capsule. We can picture people or old family members using them and wondering who once sat in this chair or wore that ring.

*As an editorial team we decided to write a series of blog posts that reflect on our personal experience of magic—perhaps our daily rituals. We’re also keen to hear about your own experience of magic. We don’t expect a long memoir or a comprehensive compendium of your beliefs or rituals—this is the opportunity to hone in on something that’s important to you and explore it. It could be something that has somehow shaped you, grounds you in the present, connects you with nature or gives you a reason to drive on. This is an informal conversation with yourself as much as it is a conversation with others.*

The Brief Lives Of Animals

Fairy and Fluffy, Glen Clova, Scotland

Fairy and Fluffy, Glen Clova, Scotland

Written on 3rd June, 2019.

Last night I lost a dear friend, Misty. We had to euthanise her to relieve her of the pain associated with advanced kidney failure. This was supposed to be a personal obituary, a way of remembering, but it ended up a little differently. In the process of remembering, I recalled the moments when I’ve been most aware of magic in my life, even if it’s still a difficult thing to define.

I grew up in the rural West Country, on the border between Devon and Dorset. We enjoyed green summers and our house was surrounded by yellow rape fields and tall deciduous trees. On a clear day you could see the ocean emerge beyond the woods. As a child, I spent most of my time among those trees and in the fields. I built dens in the woods, collected fallen leaves, traced the same old paths through the undercliff and found new ones. I found the ruins of old settlements. I made up stories.

Sometimes I encountered magic. I’d pick up fallen baby crows and try feebly to nurse them back to health; I prised voles and field mice from the mouths of our cats, Fluffy and Fairy (mother and daughter). Once I went to the sea and saved a beached fish. Seconds after returning it to the shallows, I saw it leap from the sun-dappled water further out. I perceived it as a thank you, a final goodbye. Closer to home, I’d climb trees with Fairy and Fluffy, who watched me with caution, meowing with the intonation of an anxious parent as I reached new heights. Fluffy would gently tug on the cuff of my jeans as I approached the goat in the neighbouring field, who she thought suspect, or the pond, which she thought was deep enough to drown in. Fluffy liked music. For some reason she particularly enjoyed Holst’s Jupiter, which I sang to her while she nuzzled close.

One night in autumn, the weather turned. It was one of those nights when tragedy seemed inevitable. The wind howled through our chimney and chilled the living room, I shivered upon hearing the rain filtering through the trees whose branches rustled against our windows. Fluffy never came home. After a day of searching, we found her on the country road near our house. Rigor mortis had already set in.

A year after Fluffy died, my mum arrived home with a new friend I would come to know as Misty. She was a tiny inexhaustible fluff ball, a Norwegian forest kitten. To begin with, she slept in my bedroom, though really she never slept and I’d wake up with scratches on my ankles, which she wrestled with as I tossed and turned beneath the sheets. I can’t believe this was sixteen years ago already.

I never forgot Fluffy, who was with me through the first third of my life so far. For many years, her daughter Fairy lived on, her legacy. Fairy had been the runt of a litter, small, neurotic, needy. I empathised with her, because don’t so many of us feel inadequate from time to time too, but go on to lead big lives?

Initially Fairy, who was slowing down, didn’t take to Misty. When they moved to the Cairngorms, in the Scottish Highlands, I think they became closer. They kept each other warm at night. They ran through the pine forests and across the highlands, uninhibited by walls, only by their own self-enforced territories. Misty was in her prime, (unfortunately) ravaging the Scottish wildlife, killing mice, baby rabbits, the occasional baby stoat for sport. During my weekend visits from university, the pair of them slept on my bed. Misty was a shoulder cat. Fairy needed to be held more delicately. Once, Misty caught her paw on a thorn. While it didn’t inflict much harm, it revealed the extent of her wanderings when she knew no one was looking; no kitchen surface was left untouched. On snowy days, Misty would sometimes sit on the windowsill staring out. It would be anthropodenial to say she didn’t feel something looking at the new world appearing in front of her eyes, that would melt away after a few days. I wish they could have stayed together forever there, the pair of them, but sometimes life gets in the way and it’s time to move on. That’s where I picture them though, adults in play, in the midst of a world so vast and wild. Together, they moved to Anglesey in North Wales, to live with my mother.

I didn’t see Fairy on her last day on earth. I’d left home, I was in London trying to make something of my life. She died hunched over her feeding bowl. Aged 20, she lived a long, I hope happy life, but I was sad all the same to have not said goodbye.

Misty lived for four more years. Though my trips to my mother’s house were infrequent, it was in these last years I got to know her best. It’s in old age that cats slow down, become lap cats and start revealing their accrued wisdom. Their lives are shorter but perhaps they learn faster. She stopped hunting (I can’t remember her last kill—I wonder if she could), and followed the sun around the garden. She slept on my bed, lay on my lap as I read and worked. She had these deep eyes that looked intensely into mine. It was an all-knowing look. Knowing what, I’m not sure, but I felt contented in that connection; I felt understood on some deeper non-verbal level. When not with her, I often dreamed about her. I loved her with an intensity that’s hard to describe. My husband and I planned to retire her to a leafy London suburb like Forest Hill. She would live out the rest of her days sleeping on our bed and sitting on the windowsill that looked out over the urban forest, or so we hoped.

Unfortunately, this plan never came into fruition. Due to a series of difficult circumstances, including my own ill health, we never found the right place in time. I got a call from my mum one day in late May to say Misty’s health had severely declined, that she could no longer walk and wasn’t eating, that I ought to come quickly.

We came immediately and spent three days hopelessly watching her deteriorate. On the second day, she managed a fish breakfast. She seemed to perk up, she looked at me voicing her soft trill and I thought that maybe she might pull through. But that was her last meal.

The following day, I witnessed her rapid deterioration. She lay miserably for the most part, limbs ineffective. Bruxism signposted she was quietly in pain, though she became louder as the day wore on. I took her outside to see the sun, where she looked for a moment at peace. I realised how thin her body had become compared to her voluptuous former self. The foxgloves, hollyhocks and meadow grass framed the path where she lay. The trees swayed behind, teeming with life. I became sadder and sadder, conscious that our world is much like Jeff VanderMeer’s dream world in Annihilation; there’s so much life, but there’s also so much death and dying. Cue existential crisis: why live such a vivid life only to die?

We put her down that night. On the long drive to the out-of-hours vet, she looked at me, failing to vocalise a soft meow or trill; I’ll never know what she meant to say. Her eyes looked deep into mine. The choice presented to us was, attempt to prolong her life by putting her through three nights on an IV drip in hospital, or euthanasia. The prognosis for good life quality was poor, however, as her bloods were off the scale, indicating kidney failure and all the rest. She was 16, geriatric in cat years, so the odds were against her. I imagined her being alone in hospital, anxious, scared, only perhaps to gain days or weeks of life while her appetite and legs still failed her. I realised there was only one choice really. After an agonising half-hour, I made the heartbreaking decision to give her a quick and peaceful way out. In her shoes, I would probably have had enough. I wish though she had more of a voice through which she could communicate her own desires and needs. Birth and death are made of something similar; a reminder of the unknown from which we emerge and to which we go. Both can feel vertiginous, though the latter in its finality is crushing.

What I can’t go into detail about here is the stability Misty, Fairy and Fluffy offered me, the unconditional love. I learnt so much from them all. I learnt to be kind, resilient, to be myself in spite of a societal drive for homogeneity. I learnt to respect nature. They helped me through grief and instability and major upheaval. They anchored me to who I once was, and set the seeds for who I would become. They are among the most important persons I’ve been fortunate enough to know. We understood each other without understanding each other. (I realise these might seem like the ramblings of a crazy cat lady—so be it.)

Other animals, and plants for that matter, may not have a means of communication that is easy to interpret, but we need to start trying to listen. We need to read the signs, to stop dismissing connections with animals as anthropomorphism when anthropodenial is likely more harmful. If we recognise ourselves in the world, perhaps we won’t destroy it. Perhaps if we recognise ourselves in each other, and extend our definition of ‘each other’, we might be able to live more harmoniously. It’s a long way off and at times a pipe dream, but I hope we can get there someday.

I don’t want the memories of the animals I’ve loved to fall into oblivion. That’s the expected goal for relationships between humans and other animals. Move on, find another companion animal to love briefly. Their lives are idle, but then so are ours, despite our illusions of grandeur. We are so productive, but often that productivity seems unconducive to the kind of world we want to inhabit. We are animals too, and our own lives are also fleeting, especially if we compare our average life span to that of the Greenland shark or the oak tree, both of which can live for hundreds of years. Mary Oliver said this in “The Summer Day”?: “Doesn't everything die at last, and too soon?” I’ve been thinking about that poem in the past couple of days. Life is made of shadow but also light. Just as we see the light of burnt out distant suns lightyears after their demise, I hope that Misty’s light will never go out. I endeavour to hold onto the wisdom I have learnt from my time with her and pass it on.

This afternoon we went to my mum’s friend’s garden. Their garden is actually their home—they live in a caravan set in several acres of land they’ve fenced off to create a nature reserve, living as self-sustainably as possible with a compost toilet, renewable energy, and homegrown food. Their days are spent growing the forest. We buried Misty beside Fairy, whose grave has already been overtaken by nature.

For me, this is re-enchantment: re-connecting with the others with whom we share this world. Seeing the sameness beyond the outward differences. Looking into the eye of another and recognising each other as kin. Being compassionate to those who are alive today while honouring those who came before us by learning from their lived experience. Realising, or hoping, that there is more to the world than this tiresome cycle of living and dying. There is love and there are dreams and there is accrued wisdom; there are languages we are yet to understand and there are still things we have not illuminated in the darkness. I close with the words of Leo Tolstoy, for I can’t say it better: “Here, indeed, outwardly, are we met but inwardly we are bound to every living creature. Already are we conscious of many of the motions of the spiritual world, but others have not yet been borne in upon us. Nevertheless they come, even as the earth presently comes to see the light of the stars, which to our eyes at this moment is invisible.”

*As an editorial team we decided to write a series of blog posts that reflect on our personal experience of magic—perhaps our daily rituals. We’re also keen to hear about your own experience of magic. We don’t expect a long memoir or a comprehensive compendium of your beliefs or rituals—this is the opportunity to hone in on something that’s important to you and explore it. It could be something that has somehow shaped you, grounds you in the present, connects you with nature or gives you a reason to drive on. This is an informal conversation with yourself as much as it is a conversation with others.*

Why Magic Matters

In modern times, it can seem hard to reconcile science and magic. But we can benefit from both, says Bw Bach.

65094208_414743856036654_1772000762121945088_n.jpg

We live in an age of miracles. We can speak to our friends and loved ones from thousands of miles away. Our fields are fruitful, even in winter. Humans today live for literally generations longer than our ancestors. With a couple of clicks, all the collated knowledge of humanity can be at your fingertips. Diseases that have killed millions are now easily cured. We can fly. And all these feats are made possible through science. 

And we have all been given a history, for this time of scientific wonderment. We are told that, long ago, before science began, mankind lived in darkness—in an age guided by trickery and superstition. They—wrongly— imagined the world was controlled by gods and stories, rather than natural laws and mathematics. People looked to practices based upon such mistaken beliefs—ritual and magic—to solve their problems. These techniques rarely worked, but blind faith, and a lack of any viable alternatives, kept them in place. Then, during what is now called the Age of Enlightenment, there was an intellectual revolution. People began to realise the world worked like an enormous machine; and started to work out which levers to pull to make the machine behave in ways they wished for. Technologies based on this very effective mechanistic science started to become commonplace. In this way, the scientific worldview began to permeate our lives, so we left spells and mythology behind. 

This entire history rests on two basic assumptions; the first is that magic is basically an alternative to science, albeit a flawed one. Because they were less effective in creating change in the world, magical theories and practices were abandoned in favour of scientific ones. The second assumption is that magical practices— like spells and rituals—rest on specific magical beliefs about how the universe works. If you hold to these fanciful theories to be true, then it’s only natural that you’ll act in ritualistic ways.

These assumptions were popular amongst 19th century anthropologists—like Edward Tylor and James George Frazer. Frazer in particular—in his famous masterpiece, The Golden Bough—argued that all magical rituals relied on two basic theories: the Principle of Contagion—that two objects that were once in contact with each other, retain a connection even once they are separated—and the Principle of Sympathy—in which symbolic resemblances have causal effects in the real world. A voodoo doll or poppet captures both these principles. A poppet being made from the hair or clothes of a person relates to the first principle. The practice of damaging the poppet in order to harm the person reflects the second. Frazer and his contemporaries argued that all magicians held theories like this to be true, and practiced magic as a result. This state of error was gradually dispelled because of technological progress, they said, and magical thinking evolved into more scientific worldviews.

This “evolutionist" school of thought in anthropology was enormously influential, and helped shape how many modern people think about magic today. In fiction, magic almost always works in the same way that science does—mechanistically, with spells always yielding predictable outcomes, so long as the correct procedure is followed—something that reinforces the idea that magic and science are simply two sides of the same coin. Indeed, this is such a prevailing trope that author Arthur C. Clarke described this as a law.

Convinced that magic is simply erroneous science, many people today regard magical practices—like astrology, making offerings to spirits, casting spells, or treating the natural world as enchanted—with scepticism, even disdain. Such practices are seen as foolish, and unnecessary. Our society might be riddled with exceptions to this attitude, but such exceptions often map onto existing tensions between the powerful and the powerless. People of colour, for example, are often expected to have “irrational” customs, even by those who see the folly of such customs as obvious. This betrays the deep-seated racism of 19th century evolutionism; in which only those wrongly deemed to be “less evolved”—such as children or people of colour —were thought to be likely to practice magic.

But in reality, magic is far more than the primitive cousin of science. Magical systems are vast and elaborate, with other effects that are often far more important than their practical outcomes. When the Evolutionists were writing, it was widely assumed that magic and religion as a whole would disappear within a few short decades. However, 100 years later in the 1980s, anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann turned her attention to the fact that it had not. In her study of British witches and ceremonial magicians, Luhrmann demonstrated that the practitioners she studied were perfectly normal, rational people—who often worked in scientific or technical professions. Why, then, did they continue to cast spells and attend sabbats under the full moon? 

As an answer, Luhrmann characterises magic as a kind of “serious play”; an enjoyable and deeply meaningful activity in its own right. Luhrmann found that it was largely pursued at first for its own sake. The experiences people who had during ritual could result in practitioners adopting “magical” beliefs, that deviated from scientific orthodoxy, but also provided practitioners with an enhanced sense of wellbeing, purpose, and connection in their lives. The beliefs magicians did express were often adopted strategically and provisionally —with no particular commitment being expressed to any one set of magical ideas. Unscientific beliefs about magic, when they do emerge, are speculative rationalisations about personal experience; not an organised set of teachings opposed to science. Magical rituals preceded theories of magic—not the other way around.

Magic is a kind of playing. This is no bad thing—play is, after all, the dominant mode of learning used by human beings. The time spent in unstructured, imaginative play helps children develop a sense of who they are, and of what the world is like, facilitating creativity, social awareness, and motor skills. It also comes with a wealth of positive effects upon their emotional state, too. Luhrmann’s research helps us to realise that magical acts—aside from any causal role they might or might not play—are an opportunity for adults to play; gaining access to all the psychological benefits that play provides. 

This draws a very clear distinction between magic, as practiced today, and science. Although they were once closely intertwined—the alchemy of the Renaissance being a notable example—what has taken place since that time is not a conversion of magical beliefs into scientific theories, but rather a separation of what was once a single practice into two, distinct spheres. Given its creative, emotional, and performative aspects, it might be helpful to consider magic as an artform, rather than a science. This shows that dismissing magic because it isn’t scientific is totally nonsensical; just as one wouldn’t evaluate a Picasso based on its physiological accuracy, you wouldn’t judge a spell based on how well it performs under double-blind control trials. Denying ourselves access to this entire sphere of creativity, then, is as foolish and short-sighted as to ban or dismiss dance or film. Magic is the aesthetics of the soul, an artistic mode where the human heart is its medium; with playfulness as its central discipline. 

After all, they don’t call it the “Dark Arts” for nothing.

Labyrinth and the Occult

“What was I doing?”

“Why don’t you look where you’re going young woman?”

“I was looking.”

“And where were you going.”

“I don’t remember.”

As a child, the rubbish scene in the film Labyrinth unsettled me. It also really spoke to me. It still does today. Like all good fiction, it’s in some ways truer than the truths we’re told in real life, albeit stranger on first inspection. In the words of Albert Camus, “fiction it is a lie through which we tell the truth.”

For those unfamiliar with the film (do you even exist?), the protagonist, Sarah, is on a quest to rescue her brother Toby from Jareth—the goblin king (David Bowie)—who lives in the centre of the Labyrinth. “He’s the dark fairy in folklore—[who is] meant to be tempting,” said grown up Toby Froud, who played his baby namesake in the film. Jareth tries to distract Sarah from her purpose. He is a master of disguise and mind control—he can create illusions and dreams which make Sarah forget.

In the scene in question, Sarah is under Jareth’s spell after biting into an apple. She temporarily forgets her quest and appears in the midst of a rubbish dump. Lost and confused, she is lured into her bedroom—re-created in said rubbish dump—by a goblin. The goblin attempts to keep Sarah distracted, comforting her with things that are familiar but inanimate. But Sarah is conscious there is something she is forgetting. She just can’t find the words. All the while, the goblin intensifies her mission to distract Sarah, to maintain her ignorance. The goblin does so by piling on top of her toys from her childhood—things she once associated with security.

“There was something I was looking for.”

“Don’t talk nonsense. It’s all here. Everything you’ve ever cared about in the world is right here.”

Sarah remembers the words of a story she read at the beginning of her journey, and begins to recite it like a spell:

“Through dangers untold and hardships unnumbered, I fought my way here to the castle, beyond the goblin city, to take back the child that you have stolen.”

“What’s the matter my dear. Don’t you like your toys?”

“It’s all junk!”

She throws the carousel music box across the room. It breaks down the walls of this hypernormal reality and reveals it for what it really is: a fiction reminiscent of a Hollywood studio. Useless rubbish, attractive but overall hollow and unsatisfying, much like the things we hoard to remind ourselves we exist in a capitalist society. “I have to save Toby” she remembers, re-connecting with her true will.

This scene is the perfect allegory of the way we've built up a world full of material distractions—and social constructs—that keep us from the things that really matter—and from truly connecting with our will. We’re born into this reality and have little opportunity to carve our way out of it.

But which reality are we living in? Our reality is what we have built around us, physically, socially and culturally. We're conditioned to think that normality or reality is the cultural context in which we find ourselves, but that reality can seem quite absurd if you take a step back and dismantle it. Men in suits shaking hands and saying “how do you do?”, filing your tax return, board meetings, convoluted mating rituals dressed as something else, bullshit jobs. It’s the kind of absurd realism the writer Richard Yates depicted so well in novels like Revolutionary Road.

I think it's this baseline state of mind (thinking that reality is absurd) that makes me unfazed by things others might think weirder, and thus open to imagining different realities. Is anything weirder than what is deemed normal, though?

When I see people convinced we all share a static, absolute reality, the opening lines of Shirley Jackson’s novel The Haunting of Hill House come to mind: “No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream.” Then I imagine going into the houses of those who do attempt to survive under conditions of absolute reality and seeing framed inspirational posters that say things like: "live, laugh, love.”

@doththedoth articulated it nicely on Twitter:

“If you know someone who has ‘live, laugh, love’ quoted anywhere in their house, that’s a demon. You’re in the home of a demon.”

Adam Curtis expressed it well too, in his BBC documentary HyperNormalisation. Focusing on the political, he considers how we have come to live in a strange, constructed “fake world”; this fake world, he asserts, is a simpler version of the real world—it sustains itself because people find simplicity reassuring. “This retreat into a dream world allowed dark and destructive forces to fester outside,” he says, mentioning some of the issues with which we’re confronted in modern times, including the waves of refugees, Brexit, and Donald Trump.

Losing ourselves in a simulation—aka the simulation hypothesis—is a recurring motif in cinema and literature, The Matrix and The Truman Show being two of the more recent portrayals of this fear. But it is nothing new. One of numerous ancient examples can be found in Ancient Chinese literature, in the "Butterfly dream” of Zhuangzi. Zhuangzi dreams he was a butterfly, wakes up and cannot be certain whether he is a butterfly dreaming of being a man, or a man who dreamed of being a butterfly. We fear mistaking dreams for reality or reality for dreams, perhaps because we want to be assured we are investing in the right reality. This fear has become more prominent again in science fiction as developments in technology and artificial intelligence allow us to immerse ourselves in more convincing simulations—but through immersion could we lose ourselves?

Needless to say, humankind has never been wholly convinced of the stability of reality or our place in it; as a consequence there’s reassurance in the trickery inherent in hypernormality. It’s why the Dursleys in Harry Potter, who so passionately rallied against magic and clung to hypernormality, were such convincing characters. Most of us know people like that. But awareness of the social constructs that restrain us also means we can dismantle the mythos that sustains them. It also leaves a lot of space for creative world-building, where we can imagine and build new and better worlds. Speaking with Pam Grossman recently, she said something that really struck a chord: “I do believe that magic is a really great alternative for world-building.”

Those who practise magic, a spiritual path or occultism, are often dismissed as “people who have taken fandom too far.” But tell me, which reality would you live in if you had a choice? A world you’ve read about or dreamed about that inspires you, or the hypernormal world we’ve created and collectively reside in currently? And what of your reality are you really certain of beyond the language and customs and virtues we have inherited, beyond arbitrary borders and the walls that contain us?

In the climatic final scene in Labyrinth, it’s the words of a story—and the suspended sense of disbelief it provokes—that allow Sarah to ultimately imagine and manifest a new reality of her own making, at the same time shattering the oppressive one in which she is entrapped:

“Through dangers untold and hardships unnumbered, I have fought my way here to the castle beyond the Goblin City to take back the child you have stolen. For my will is as strong as yours, and my kingdom is as great. You have no power over me.”