A review by hrusewif
Wicca for Beginners: Fundamentals of Philosophy & Practice by Thea Sabin
5.0
If you want a legitimate book about the fundamentals of Wicca, this is it; though I can't quite speak to complete accuracy as I'm not a Traditional Wiccan initiate, it is the closest book that I've found to what I have been privy to from friends of mine who are legitimate initiates to properly lineaged Traditional Wiccan traditions. That said, from the non-initiated, historical, academic, practical, and realistic, etc, perspectives: It is, of course, not perfect (they're never going to be, frankly).
There are some inconsistencies here and there. There's also some oversimplification of certain events and bits of information that I'd've loved to've seen expanded on. But by and large the history is accurate and I appreciated the emphasis on the fact that Wicca is a modern religion, as well as the discussion of the fact that Margaret Murray's theories were disproven. There was also a staunch emphasis on the fact that witchcraft, proper historical Witchcraft, was Christian, and some discussion on the Church's changing stance on the matter, though this section wasn't altogether accurate. These are still several things never included in NeoWiccan, Eclectic NeoPagan (which masquerades as "Wiccan"), and related books- nearly all of which prefer to continue perpetuating the Pagan Persecution Complex™ borne of Victorian Romanticism, and these false myths about Matriarchal (pre+)History and "the Burning Times".
It also has your stereotypical insistences that "Wiccans don't believe in Satan". And while it's true that Satanism is specifically a Christian Heresy- which she does point out several times, rightfully- to wholesale assert that Wiccans do not (and cannot) even believe in Satan is absurd. It by proxy necessitates a lack of belief in the Abrahamic God, and the Abrahamic concept of Angels and Demons, as well as any other Abrahamic figures from any of the Abrahamic faiths at all- which is odd, and more than a fair bit baffling when most Pagans not only very much profess a belief in at least some of these figures and even work with them (Angels and Saints being most common) ... But also consider themselves some form of Polytheist- or, at the very least, acknowledge and even actively "work with" or worship multiple Deities who are much younger in age than the Abrahamic God when properly viewed within the historical timeline. Not to mention the fact that some Wiccans do, actually, very much in fact legitimately work with and worship Satanic figures and are open and vocal about doing so.
The assertion is largely a part of rose-washing of Paganism as a form of appeasement and pacification. If we're all Earth-Loving, nature worshipping hippies who have nothing to do with "black magic" and so-called "Satan" then maybe the Christians will leave us alone. But the absolute nonsense of the Satanic Panic barely even lasted 2 decades (and even during that time period, the bark was far worse than the bite, despite what Pagan authors fearmonger us into believing in our educational materials) ... It's far beyond time to stop catering to Evangelical fearmongering about "Satan Worshippers" and constantly throwing our own under the bus like this.
The other part, though, is also an unnecessary remnant of the "Christian Shoulder Chip"; the desire to distinguish Wicca (and almost any other form of Paganism, Witchcraft, and the Occult, really) from Christianity as much as possible- up to and including participating in the same nonsense assertions that "Wicca doesn't have a Dogma", wherein "Dogma" is silently (but obviously) defined as "having a book of rules and a religious hierarchy, etc, explicitly designed to tell you what to do and how to worship, and tell you you're going to hell if you don't do it all right". And this is done, of course, as most Wiccan books do it- including this one: Right before the book always immediately segways into a discussion of "Wiccan Ethics" and Wiccan beliefs in Divinity, Reincarnation, and the like ... All of which does, in fact, qualify as Dogma (the technical definition of which is only "an official statement of a religion's principle beliefs") despite the flexibility Wiccans are given to tailor such things to their personal tastes.
After 22 years of practicing, I'm legitimately getting tired of having to explain to Pagans that the proper difference between Orthodoxic and Orthopraxic is not that "Orthopraxic faiths have no Doxa at all", but that the Praxis is simply more important to one's membership within the religion than the cohesiveness of the religion's Doxa among its practitioners. Accepting deviations from established Doxa, however, doesn't mean that Doxa is nonexistent.
There is also some "weird" use of terminology in the book- such as her insistence on calling a strange combination of Guided Meditation and Astral Travel "Pathworking". While this is actually older, fairly standard terminology for this kind of work depending on the path, modern practitioners very likely won't likely be familiar with it as the preference for its use has dropped off significantly (and reasonably so, imo). I also have quite a lot of disagreements with her explanation of visualization in the book. Other areas of explanation elsewhere around the book are smaller than I'd like them to be in general, and very much should have been expanded upon.
I also think the "list of Wiccan Traditions" she includes is fairly iffy compared to the rest of the information of the book; I think that might actually be the worst part of it, actually- although all things considered it could be a lot worse than it is. At least for the most part it does actually contain mostly adjacent traditions- though sometimes still questionably so- when compared to most books. Though I do take major umbrage with the "Celtic Reconstructionist" listing on all fronts; Celtic Recon is not, and has never been, associated with Wicca. You can make a vague sort of half-assed argument for Seax Wicca being semi adjacent given who its creator was, but you're still sailing down the wrong river in that regard. But Seax Wicca isn't Recon.
Reconstructionism is a methodology of formulating a religious and spiritual practice, specifically using the historical records of archaeologically dead cultures- and Celtic specifies which archeologically dead culture is being reconstructed. Other methodology includes Revivalism, and Reimaginism. The Wiccan religion belongs to the Reimaginist branch of methodologies. It has nothing to do with Reconstructionism, Celtic or otherwise.
That said, the concepts and exercises throughout the book are, overall, largely accurate. The book is well written, too. The structure flows nicely, and overall things are well organized in a manner that makes sense save for a few strange areas that buck the general trend. And for the most part, while it is overly simplistic in nature, she does provide just enough information in just the right way, without it ever seeming condescending- and without ever making it feel like you're being talked down to or treated like a toddler.
This really shines in the exercises that are given, all of which are incredibly solid, foundational exercises that any beginner can do fairly easily. The rituals, too, are likewise decently detailed and outlined, without a lot of superfluous language or instructions- but also without being so sparse that you can't figure out what she's telling you to do. I also enjoyed that she slowly increased the complexity of ritual work as you progress through the book instead of throwing it all at you at once, introducing the reader to new concepts with every ritual iteration, so as not to overwhelm them. It makes it much easier to learn the ritual structure, I felt, even if it does make the organization a bit head-scratch worthy at times, or limit the amount of depth she can pay to new concepts she introduces at some points.
It genuinely is a book of true fundamentals, well presented. And if you're looking to get into Wicca- whether that's to find a properly lineaged Coven later, or just to produce a more accurate version of NeoWicca for yourself- I would definitely recommend this as your true beginner's book, above anything else I've ever read to date.
There are some inconsistencies here and there. There's also some oversimplification of certain events and bits of information that I'd've loved to've seen expanded on. But by and large the history is accurate and I appreciated the emphasis on the fact that Wicca is a modern religion, as well as the discussion of the fact that Margaret Murray's theories were disproven. There was also a staunch emphasis on the fact that witchcraft, proper historical Witchcraft, was Christian, and some discussion on the Church's changing stance on the matter, though this section wasn't altogether accurate. These are still several things never included in NeoWiccan, Eclectic NeoPagan (which masquerades as "Wiccan"), and related books- nearly all of which prefer to continue perpetuating the Pagan Persecution Complex™ borne of Victorian Romanticism, and these false myths about Matriarchal (pre+)History and "the Burning Times".
It also has your stereotypical insistences that "Wiccans don't believe in Satan". And while it's true that Satanism is specifically a Christian Heresy- which she does point out several times, rightfully- to wholesale assert that Wiccans do not (and cannot) even believe in Satan is absurd. It by proxy necessitates a lack of belief in the Abrahamic God, and the Abrahamic concept of Angels and Demons, as well as any other Abrahamic figures from any of the Abrahamic faiths at all- which is odd, and more than a fair bit baffling when most Pagans not only very much profess a belief in at least some of these figures and even work with them (Angels and Saints being most common) ... But also consider themselves some form of Polytheist- or, at the very least, acknowledge and even actively "work with" or worship multiple Deities who are much younger in age than the Abrahamic God when properly viewed within the historical timeline. Not to mention the fact that some Wiccans do, actually, very much in fact legitimately work with and worship Satanic figures and are open and vocal about doing so.
The assertion is largely a part of rose-washing of Paganism as a form of appeasement and pacification. If we're all Earth-Loving, nature worshipping hippies who have nothing to do with "black magic" and so-called "Satan" then maybe the Christians will leave us alone. But the absolute nonsense of the Satanic Panic barely even lasted 2 decades (and even during that time period, the bark was far worse than the bite, despite what Pagan authors fearmonger us into believing in our educational materials) ... It's far beyond time to stop catering to Evangelical fearmongering about "Satan Worshippers" and constantly throwing our own under the bus like this.
The other part, though, is also an unnecessary remnant of the "Christian Shoulder Chip"; the desire to distinguish Wicca (and almost any other form of Paganism, Witchcraft, and the Occult, really) from Christianity as much as possible- up to and including participating in the same nonsense assertions that "Wicca doesn't have a Dogma", wherein "Dogma" is silently (but obviously) defined as "having a book of rules and a religious hierarchy, etc, explicitly designed to tell you what to do and how to worship, and tell you you're going to hell if you don't do it all right". And this is done, of course, as most Wiccan books do it- including this one: Right before the book always immediately segways into a discussion of "Wiccan Ethics" and Wiccan beliefs in Divinity, Reincarnation, and the like ... All of which does, in fact, qualify as Dogma (the technical definition of which is only "an official statement of a religion's principle beliefs") despite the flexibility Wiccans are given to tailor such things to their personal tastes.
After 22 years of practicing, I'm legitimately getting tired of having to explain to Pagans that the proper difference between Orthodoxic and Orthopraxic is not that "Orthopraxic faiths have no Doxa at all", but that the Praxis is simply more important to one's membership within the religion than the cohesiveness of the religion's Doxa among its practitioners. Accepting deviations from established Doxa, however, doesn't mean that Doxa is nonexistent.
There is also some "weird" use of terminology in the book- such as her insistence on calling a strange combination of Guided Meditation and Astral Travel "Pathworking". While this is actually older, fairly standard terminology for this kind of work depending on the path, modern practitioners very likely won't likely be familiar with it as the preference for its use has dropped off significantly (and reasonably so, imo). I also have quite a lot of disagreements with her explanation of visualization in the book. Other areas of explanation elsewhere around the book are smaller than I'd like them to be in general, and very much should have been expanded upon.
I also think the "list of Wiccan Traditions" she includes is fairly iffy compared to the rest of the information of the book; I think that might actually be the worst part of it, actually- although all things considered it could be a lot worse than it is. At least for the most part it does actually contain mostly adjacent traditions- though sometimes still questionably so- when compared to most books. Though I do take major umbrage with the "Celtic Reconstructionist" listing on all fronts; Celtic Recon is not, and has never been, associated with Wicca. You can make a vague sort of half-assed argument for Seax Wicca being semi adjacent given who its creator was, but you're still sailing down the wrong river in that regard. But Seax Wicca isn't Recon.
Reconstructionism is a methodology of formulating a religious and spiritual practice, specifically using the historical records of archaeologically dead cultures- and Celtic specifies which archeologically dead culture is being reconstructed. Other methodology includes Revivalism, and Reimaginism. The Wiccan religion belongs to the Reimaginist branch of methodologies. It has nothing to do with Reconstructionism, Celtic or otherwise.
That said, the concepts and exercises throughout the book are, overall, largely accurate. The book is well written, too. The structure flows nicely, and overall things are well organized in a manner that makes sense save for a few strange areas that buck the general trend. And for the most part, while it is overly simplistic in nature, she does provide just enough information in just the right way, without it ever seeming condescending- and without ever making it feel like you're being talked down to or treated like a toddler.
This really shines in the exercises that are given, all of which are incredibly solid, foundational exercises that any beginner can do fairly easily. The rituals, too, are likewise decently detailed and outlined, without a lot of superfluous language or instructions- but also without being so sparse that you can't figure out what she's telling you to do. I also enjoyed that she slowly increased the complexity of ritual work as you progress through the book instead of throwing it all at you at once, introducing the reader to new concepts with every ritual iteration, so as not to overwhelm them. It makes it much easier to learn the ritual structure, I felt, even if it does make the organization a bit head-scratch worthy at times, or limit the amount of depth she can pay to new concepts she introduces at some points.
It genuinely is a book of true fundamentals, well presented. And if you're looking to get into Wicca- whether that's to find a properly lineaged Coven later, or just to produce a more accurate version of NeoWicca for yourself- I would definitely recommend this as your true beginner's book, above anything else I've ever read to date.