The Dark Lord, by Peter Lavenda

[Michael Staley]

Has anybody read this book? I'd be interested in reading the views of those who have.

[Paolo]

Hi Mick

i havent finished reading it yet, but my early impressions are that whilst not perfect and from an initial scan missing the point Grant made in Hecate's fountain that he was using the Lovecraft mythos as a vehicle to convey ideas - Lavenda seems to suggest that the Necronomicon is exactly what it says on the cover. As we know this is almost certainly not the case, there are no literary references to the Necronomicon prior to HP Lovecraft and Peter Lavenda is almost certainly the elusive Simon who was largely responsible for the creation of this instance of the Necronomicon in the first place.

I am also not sure that I agree with James Wasserman's comment in the preface "Certainly, readers of Grant will be delighted to have the mysteries of his writings made more clear by Lavenda's penetrating explication and high regard for Grant". I feel it is a bit insulting to members of the Typhonian order and I am left wondering why Lavenda did not approach a Typhonian for the introduction since that would make more sense and finally, high regard of someone does not make them a good person to comment. I am told that Charles Manson held Crowley in high regard, something which would have horrified Crowley I am sure.

Having said that it is fairly readable and interesting but needs an occasional pinch of salt. The lack of index is fairly damning though since it makes it useless as a future reference book.

Best Wishes

Paolo

[Michael Staley]

Thanks for your remarks, Paolo. I haven't read it yet, but it does look interesting and I was pleasantly surprised by some of the remarks by Wasserman in the preface. Grant did sign a contract with Weiser in the early 1980s for the publication of Hecate's Fountain. It went as far as the proof stage before Weiser acceded to pressure from the McMurtry O.T.O. to abandon it. Wasserman was editor at Weiser at the time, as he was I believe when they published The Magical Revival and Aleister Crowley and the Hidden God. How much he had to do at the time with the pressure on Weiser I don't know.

[Gregory Peters]

I'm still on the fence about even purchasing this one. On the one hand, books about Kenneth Grant are somewhat... nonexistent. On the other hand, was anyone that worked with Grant even consulted on this? Overall I guess it is a step in the right direction? Very interested in peoples reviews.

[Michael Staley]

So far as I know, the author didn't consult anyone who worked with Grant. It is his own assessment of aspects of Grant's work, and Crowley's too. There is some interesting material there, Gregory; definitely worth a read.

[Gregory Peters]

thanks Michael, that did the trick... Ordered a copy. If its miserable I'll complain

[Gregory Peters]

I've just finished reading the book, and I must say it was much better than I had anticipated. I would certainly recommend this unique (the first?) survey of its kind. I found his examinations of Grant, the Typhonian Gnosis (including the influence of Lovecraft and Necronomicon gnosis) well done and informative. His overviews of Kaula tantra and its role within the Typhonian tradition was well done, and the addition of laying out the 16 kalas in some detail was a great addition.

Overall, I think Levenda did a fine job of showing the role of Grant as a magical successor and heir to Crowley, pushing the Aeon forward with advances in magical technology. Well done and I would like to see more studies that look into the legacy that Grant has left us.

[azrael2393]

we briefly discussed this on the facebook group but I think it's good to raise the point again: any clues on why Levenda still wants us to believe that "Simon" is someone else than him?
Do you think there's something behind this, or simply it's a clever marketing tool?

[Michael Staley]

I don't know the answer to that, but surely it's the substance of the book which is more interesting and open to discussion here, rather than considerations of what identity or identities the author may be assuming.

[Marc]

I've just finished reading the book not too long ago. My first impression was a bit of a surprise with Wasserman's bit ...but then again, James Wasserman has been making a few interesting statements lately. We can see an example of this in his presentation on the history of the O.T.O. and specifically his alluding to Motta and the current lineage of Crowley's A.'.A.'.(on youtube).

As far as Levenda goes, he is definitely a scholar but there are some clear biases in the book. He does point out some interesting things along the way with regards to the human psyche and some of the material on sexual magic techniques. All in all, I would recommend the book to anyone who is a fan of Kenneth Grant's works, as well as the Cthulhu mythos, Tantra, or Thelema. Anyone working with any of these currents will always benefit from someone's thesis, even though it may only be one sentence that causes us to shift perception and view from a slightly different angle.

[remeavithanatos]

Just received the book and the first chapter is very good. A lovely addition to the canon of darkness perhaps.

[tf]

I read this a few weeks ago and I liked it.  It helped place Grant's work in the big scheme of things--it's relation with Grant's sources and with other occult traditions. 

An aspect I found fascinating was the biology/physiology as a cornerstones for the efficacy of Grant's work.  If a system works you can overlook a few inconsistencies here and there (for example some of the gematria found in Grant's books). 

This is suggests that the reader of the Dark Lord can overlook some of Levenda's weak points too, if there is something in it that works for them.  I'll reflect on that and post later.  Did this book give others new, practical working tools for working with the Typhonian current?

[Vadge Moore]

I loved this book and even recommended it on my face book page. Certainly would be great for those just diving into Grant's work.

[uranus]

I'd say Wasserman's contribution is based on his having helped Levenda with the Necronomicon and having written the introduction for that as well. I've not really seen Wasserman make negative comments on Grant's work at any point nor any other author he may have a disagreement, not even Motta where his statements have been more tinged with sadness than anger.

[Nalyd Khezr Bey]

I also read this book soon after it was finally published and enjoyed it very much as well. I was originally going to post my thoughts on it on the LAShTAL forums but changed my mind due to the predominantly negative nature of the discussion about it there. The Dark Lord didn't present a lot of information that was personally new to me but it did put a few things together in ways I hadn't considered before. A lot of it wasn't new to me because the book actually reads more like a companion to his older Stairway to Heaven: Chinese Alchemists, Jewish Kabbalists and the Art of Spiritual Transformation which is a study of "ascent literature" and an attempt to trace the Stellar Gnosis through various traditions. The Dark Lord is kind of like Levenda's way of interpreting Grant's body of work, as well as Lovecraft's to a certain extent, in light of his thesis in the previous book. Almost at the very end of Stairway where Levenda is discussing more modern (particularly 19th century) occult orders, The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light as one example, he briefly mentions Kenneth Grant in regards to a common "technology" that is veiled in the occult symbolism of a variety of traditions. He states that Grant's writings are:

...representative of this theme. For instance, he goes into great detail in describing the kalas - the essences of female exudation during the entire course of her menstrual cycle - from both an Indian perspective as well as a western, esoteric point of view. As such, the writings of Grant represent a modern refinement of this nineteenth century concept.

I only mention this because by reading Stairway it becomes a little more apparent why Levenda wrote Dark Lord and I highly recommend the former for those who enjoyed the latter.

[artilect]

The way I see it... being that Grant's works are fairly impenetrable as it is, any unpacking or deconstruction of the harder to grasp themes is better than nothing. I'm currently reading and enjoying this book and I thought both of the podcasts Levenda did early in the promotional run were worth a listen as well.

Early on in the book, it's interesting how Levenda questions Crowley's understanding of his own Book of the Law, lending some credence to the idea that it was a purely channeled or received text vs. a send-up of the typical religious screed.

What I'd like to see more of in analysis of Grant's work is an examination of the analogue between his ideas and the ongoing developments of the 21st century. Unlike Crowley, Grant always seemed to have been before his time and at times - in the Trilogies at least - he is almost intimating some strange future that may now be coming upon us. There is a particular passage in AC and Hidden God that I always come back to regarding this...

"...in the present age man will learn how to materialize thought and make it truly creative. Such methods will supersede the production of human children. By means of this magick … it will be possible to breed a race of beings in every way superior to that generated by the normal [method of reproduction].” (p. 71)

[msledespencer]

I tend to enjoy Levanda's writing. I think you have to approach it as a form of semi-fictional mythologizing which pulls elements of fact into the fray and connects them in interesting ways - a lesser form of Grant in some ways.

The introduction is another matter... Wasserman would have known and been friends with Levenda since the 60s. I worry some of  his comments in the introduction reinforce Levenda's "Necronomicon as fact" mythology and serve to dilute the understanding of Grant and perpetuate the misconception he was some kind of deluded "Lovecraftian cultist."

[PW PV 113]

I read this but was moving house between starting it and finishing it, which really messed up the flow. It is wide ranging - it would have to be, and it's quite personalized - as you might expect. Fair play to him for attempting what will be mistaken as a summary or introduction into Kenneth's work, which it isn't really. It's more of a tangential commentary, seen through the lens of his understanding, which dwells more on the Lovecraftian than Crowleyan side. Occult authors tend to freewheelingly speculate and make associations across time and cultures that anthropologists wouldn't dare to - but that's because their training enables them to see through complex masses of data and jump from symbol to symbol. Levenda does all that - he name drops, he throws in obscure references and he produces something entertaining and thought provoking, but it's not earth-shattering. It doesn't fundamentally pick you up and shove you into another dimension - he doesn't do what the Typhonian Trilogies do - this is a book about a series of books, not a book itself. It's nice though, as a reference point.

[Nalyd Khezr Bey]

Dec 3, 2013 11:26:56 GMT PW PV 113 said:

...mistaken as a summary or introduction into Kenneth's work, which it isn't really. It's more of a tangential commentary, seen through the lens of his understanding, which dwells more on the Lovecraftian than Crowleyan side.

Or perhaps more of a continuation of the theme of his Stairway to Heaven (as well as Tantric Temples) as I already mentioned above. Levenda seems to be using the works of Grant and Lovecraft in a very similar way as Grant himself used the works of Lovecraft and Crowley (among others); as a kind of template to model certain understandings of ideas and/or to pinpoint and trace the origins of our zeitgeist*. With his Stairway to Heaven in mind it becomes apparent that Levenda is very serious about there being a certain tradition that has been passed along since ancient times. Dark Lord reads like a tangential chapter from that book.

Dec 3, 2013 11:26:56 GMT PW PV 113 said:

...this is a book about a series of books, not a book itself.

I wouldn't go so far as saying it is not a book itself. The thing I was reading seemed like a book to me.

* Speaking of this zeitgeist, I remember reading an article a few years ago on the Spectral Light forums that I think was written by squareye/Jamie Gregory (he's a member here as well so if he's the one he may be able to elaborate or re-share it) that went over several events that made 1904 such a pivotal year, i.e. other events besides the reception of Liber AL that could also be seen as marking a shifting of the aeons. Interestingly Levenda starts off his Dark Lord by pointing out the parallel between Crowley's reception of Liber AL and Lovecraft's writing of "The Beast in the Cave" as if Lovecraft (being an artist, i.e. receptive) tuned into that event in some way and transcribed it as that story. And of course, as I'm sure readers of Dark Lord will know, Levenda draws parallels between some of Crowley's other "Holy Books" and Lovecraft's own output; times they were written as well as similarities in their themes.

[PW PV 113]

Yes, silly me, it had a lot of those black squiggles on a white background, must have been a book !
What I mean is that certain books are source texts - here we are discussing a body of work which includes Okbish and S'lba and within that Liber Al and LPP - these are source texts in the same way that other traditions have their source texts. Then later on, other commentators come and help enlighten us as to the meaning of these source texts by sharing their insights gained from experience and these are "books about books". I don't mean to devalue the contribution, he has taken on a formidable task and - hey, do you see me doing it ? Consider also the character of the karma of the type of individual who is an "opener of the way" and one who comes later to describe and further explain; I think they are quite different kinds of people.

[Nalyd Khezr Bey]

I knew what you meant and agree with your assessment. I was just having some fun with your wording.

[Hephatsus]

This is interesting, but I think Lavenders make-believe, about the Nec. etc, does tinge things. If he was straight up about everything the contents of the book could be looked at in a different light. As above, Wasserman helped with the Nec. so again, whats the real agenda. Speaking of Wasserman I think he has gone off the rails and he lack of any real and substantial Magickal training is really making itself known. Perhaps he and Pete should stick to makebelieve, maybe they could publish a Necronmicon based on Stephen King's work .

[Marc]

This could be true but from my perspective, even make-believe can trigger thoughts and emotions and act as a catalyst for reception of future transmissions and even being somewhat initiated into a current. For me, it doesn't matter if I'm reading Levenda, Lovecraft, or any other fiction or non-fiction writer for that matter.....it only takes one sentence to create a spark and shift me into a deep rabbit hole of non-ordinary thought (disturbing the mind?), which can essentially allow me to tap into occult currents that would not normally have been available to me prior to reading that one sentence and having had a reaction to my interpretation of it. It doesn't matter whether it comes from fiction or non-fiction. Anyone familiar with Lovecraft or even authors such as Clive Barker or Philip K Dick, Strieber, and many others...can attest to the powerful impact these tales of fiction have on them. We should not get too caught up with the author's intent so much as how the material affects us. In fact, I'm not really that much of a fan of Peter Levenda and don't really go out of my way to read his books, but The Dark Lord (even though it was a bit different than what I was expecting when I excitedly order the book), it does contain those few "trigger sentences" which have clearly shifted my thought on some of Grant's work as well as my own work. That is all I need. The book has served its purpose, and so has Levenda (in my subjective existence that is:)

All of these things are very subjective and personal and what resonates for one may not for another. As for Wasserman, well, unfortunately, there are always politics to be found everywhere and at the end of the day, he is a star just like you and I and I can only say that it is up to each one of us to find our orbit and proceed.

[Vadge Moore]

Well put, Marc. I had been concentrating on Voudon Gnosis for the last few years. This book triggered my mind into a long Grantian swim into his deep swamps, as it were...and I still have not come up for air. If this book does that for anyone...it is well worth the price.

[Gregory Peters]

Interesting... regardless of the historical or other veracity of things like the Simon Necronomicon, Lavenda's writings, and so on. I think the practical usage of this or any other material rests with what results one gets. Its comes back again to the "as if" mindset. Work "as if" something is "real", and the results may be rather surprising and often times extraordinary. This can be applied across the board; Grant's creative gematria, for example, works for me in profound and truly initiatory ways, despite it not making "rational" sense. The Necronomicon Gnosis of H.P. Lovecraft "works" just as well (for some, probably even far better) than Hebew divine names and hierarchies and Golden Dawn type rituals.

Does not all of this simply emphasize the underlying nature of reality? The dance of maya, the lila or play of consciousness is what we are really working with. Whatever it is you "buy into", that is what you will play with. It is playing with a very shy and playful goddess that is always just outside the range of your direct vision...