Anyone read "Wicca for beginners" by Thea Sabin.

[SADERR]

I own the book, and I'm just curious if anyone else had read it, and whether they found it good information or not. I personally loved it, and encourage anyone interested in wicca to start with that book.  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

I've heard fairly good things, but I'm fairly sure it's about vaguely-wicca-based Neo-Paganism rather than about Wicca.  

[Tari_Leralonde]

This was actually the very first book I ever read at the start of my path =D It had so much good information in it, and it was easy to understand, which is perfect for a beginner. Sanguina is right, it is Wicca-based Neo-Paganism, but I think this is a good thing for a beginner. I mean, Wicca is a Neo-Pagan religion, is it not? Thea Sabin doesn't go super in-depth in the religion in this book because it's a beginner book, and some of the deeper aspects of Wicca are hard for a beginner to understand because Wicca is a path based on experience.  

[RubyLight]

I've read it. It's quite good for those starting out, though keep in mind that it's Wicca-based-NeoPaganism and not actual "Wicca." wink

I particularly liked the part corncerning the "kitty factor." It gave me some ideas on how to keep the furballs off my alter.  

[Blame Hoffmann]

This is one of the first books i ever bought. I enjoyed reading it.  

[GoddessAttuned]

I have read it, awhile back. It claims to be wicca but infact its a breed of neo-peganism and wicca. So not purely what it claims to be.
It was alright, as most books are for laying down the basics of the craft but, its a generic book and you need to find your own ground. A little eclecticism doesn't hurt.
Dig your roots deep down and grow outwards to find what is right for you.

 

[SADERR]

iHecate

I have read it, awhile back. It claims to be wicca but infact its a breed of neo-peganism and wicca. So not purely what it claims to be.
It was alright, as most books are for laying down the basics of the craft but, its a generic book and you need to find your own ground. A little eclecticism doesn't hurt.
Dig your roots deep down and grow outwards to find what is right for you.

Well said. I've just found alot of the basic theories in the book were very good for a beginner. I had actually been studying wicca for a year and a half (about) before I bought it, simply for the fact that I never have any money and when I do it usually has gone to other various things.

I personally liked the feel the book had. The personality the author used was very interesting. she wasn't very fake, like she was changing her words for a book. It came out generally like you were sitting there talking to the lady. I even giggled (yes, giggled.) a couple times throughout the book.


And you're right about eclecticism, but mind you that depends on the branch of Wicca you follow. I am an Eclectic Wiccan, so no doubt it's a given. However I believe some strands are much more closely knit and eclectecism is less common (which doesn't say much in wicca, as it's practcally a DIY religion), like Gardenian for example. (I know, this is so wrong, but i never actually liked Gerald Gardener).  

[Morgandria]

Jonathonn

nd you're right about eclecticism, but mind you that depends on the branch of Wicca you follow. I am an Eclectic Wiccan, so no doubt it's a given. However I believe some strands are much more closely knit and eclectecism is less common (which doesn't say much in wicca, as it's practcally a DIY religion), like Gardenian for example. (I know, this is so wrong, but i never actually liked Gerald Gardener).

There's no such thing as Eclectic Wicca. It's eclectic neo-paganism. Wicca is not eclectic, and is not 'DIY'. If you are not a lineaged initiate of a valid tradition, you aren't a Wiccan.

Which isn't to say what you practice is bad, or wrong, or less valid. It simply needs a different name. Wicca is a specific title your practices likely don't qualify for.

But...
If you don't like Gardner, why the bloody hell do you want to take the name of the faith he created - a faith, I might add, that is still only properly practiced in the way he created it to be?

If you don't like Gardner, it makes little sense for you to lay claim to his creation...especially when you have not earned the right to such, and are not automatically entitled to it.  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

Why no love for Uncle Gerald? gonk  

[Katsumi Aki]

Sanguina Cruenta

I've heard fairly good things, but I'm fairly sure it's about vaguely-wicca-based Neo-Paganism rather than about Wicca.

That tends to be the case more often than not.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Morgandria

But...
If you don't like Gardner, why the bloody hell do you want to take the name of the faith he created - a faith, I might add, that is still only properly practiced in the way he created it to be?

I can see why one would feel that Gardner's association with the religion wouldn't be more important than the call of the Lord and Lady.  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

Brass Bell Doll

Morgandria

But...
If you don't like Gardner, why the bloody hell do you want to take the name of the faith he created - a faith, I might add, that is still only properly practiced in the way he created it to be?

I can see why one would feel that Gardner's association with the religion wouldn't be more important than the call of the Lord and Lady.

Really? They chose him - apparently - to create their religion. It's important to recognise his faults (because he had quite a few) and it's fine to say "well, Gardner likes this, and we don't. It's not part of the Core so we'll change it slightly in our tradition". I think Morg meant that if you're going to steal a title you haven't earned, why steal one created by someone you dislike? It's not really to do with the Lord and Lady. Especially since his gods are most likely different than the gods of Wicca.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Sanguina Cruenta

Really? They chose him - apparently - to create their religion.

I feel this isn't the most accurate representation of the situation, since many people shaped the religion, by Gardner's words before him and after him.
But that seems to be neither here nor there.

Sanguina Cruenta

It's important to recognise his faults (because he had quite a few) and it's fine to say "well, Gardner likes this, and we don't. It's not part of the Core so we'll change it slightly in our tradition". I think Morg meant that if you're going to steal a title you haven't earned, why steal one created by someone you dislike?

Since theft implies it has not been given, and since it could be argued that the Lord and Lady have given it to them with the support of some Gardnerians and other traditions, it seems like this is less a statement of fact and more an attempt to use emotionally charged terms to manipulate others into agreeing with a specific position.

Sanguina Cruenta

It's not really to do with the Lord and Lady. Especially since his gods are most likely different than the gods of Wicca.

There is a chance that their gods are different, but there is a chance that the gods of a properly initiated coven aren't the real Lord and Lady either, which is why relying on a litmus test as a proof of fact can be flawed.