u/NyxShadowhawk

I recently ran across Strix Craft: Ancient Greek Magic for the Modern Witch in one of my favorite occult bookstores. I'd heard of this book before. The main sub was not particularly complimentary towards it — two people called it "New Age trash." But I decided not to write it off so quickly. I'm an occultist first, and a Hellenic pagan second; I can't judge this author for combining ancient magical techniques with modern ones, when that's precisely what I do myself. (I also have a lax attitude towards blood magic.) If anyone's going to review this book, who better than me, a person who has a foot rooted in both worlds? I doubt I'll get anything new out of this book, but we'll see what it does.

https://preview.redd.it/2hzyzxl67neh1.png?width=706&format=png&auto=webp&s=34a1e216ab0cc819c169e4f1cd82eda15bfda51a

Strix Craft was published in 2020, but I'm reading the updated 2025 edition (pictured). The author, Oracle Hekataios (he/they) is a Wiccan priest and syncretic Hellenic polytheist who founded their own tradition of modern Hellenic mysticism. Not really sure what to make of that (but I initially confused them with George Lizos, who's a lot worse for a number of reasons). It's good that they have real experience in the occult field, though. I liked the introduction, too.

So, what have we got here?

Oracle Hekataios uses the word Strix throughout the book to refer to themself, the reader, or any practitioner of the techniques they set forth. I'm not sure how I feel about this. The word most often translated as "witch" is pharmakis, but that's a lot more specific. "Strix" better suits the kind of syncretic Greek-flavored occultist that Hekataios themself is, but the word refers more to a supernatural creature (or a literal owl) than to a real person. It's also too easy to confuse with Stregheria, which is a different tradition entirely. But Hekataios does acknowledge and discuss these definitions, so, I won't make a big deal out of it.

Part 1

Hekataios seems to approach magic from a distinctly Hellenist standpoint, not a New Age one. They describe the importance of kharis and xenia, and even miasma. I was kind of surprised to see miasma mentioned, since the apparent disregard for it was the main source of controversy on that thread. Hekataios understands ritual purification as saying to the gods, "Your house, your rules." That may be the best description of it I've seen so far! Like most Hellenists, Hekataios believes that the gods are real beings who control nature, who are inherently more powerful than we are, who deserve our respect, and whom we need to build alliances with to do magic properly. So far, so good.

Then we get this:

>...the Strix constantly find themselves surrounded by miasma. Not just by being mortal but becuase we work with techniques that purposefully incur it, such as working with the ancestral dead.

THANK. YOU. This isn't New Age tripe, this is simply true. Witches and magic-users deal with miasmic materials and circumstances — blood, body parts, poisonous plants, chthonic gods and other entities, etc. — almost by definition. (This is part of the "non-normativity" that Edmonds uses to define magic.) Pretending that miasma isn't part of what we do, or dismissing all magic as inherently hubristic becuase it involves miasma, is disingenuous.

Hekataios spends an entire chapter on Hekate, her history, and her relevance to Hellenic witchcraft. They describe her historical origins, particularly her prominence in the Minoan-influenced Anatolian city of Caria. (Though Hekataios depicts Caira as Hekate's undisputed point of origin, which does not seem to be the case; according to Wikipedia, the earliest evidence of her cult is actually in Sicily, which is all the way on the other side of Greece.) Hekataios explains that Hekate was originally a goddess of prosperity, politics, healing, war, and commerce, rather than strictly a witch goddess or "dark goddess." That's a very good sign! There's also this:

>How a deity was conveyed within the political spectrum varied from polis to polis (e.g. Athena in Athens, Hekate in Lagina, or Apollo in Phocaea). Cults, sacred days, festivals, and more were manifestations of the population's relationship between the land, themselves, and their specific patron's epithets and spheres of influence. This, in turn, bore the fruit of the specific theophany of the divine being, yet he deity was the same deity. For example, while Hekate of Lagina was a civic ruler, she was an Underworld being in Colchis. however, in Thessaly, she was related to the Strix through her association with being drawn down from the moon and her connection with baneful plants. While they were all different masks, it is the same Hekate. Such is the way of polytheism.

This alone is proof that this book is more on the Hellenism side of things than the witchy side of things. I dare you to find another beginner witch book that speaks of the gods in these terms! Most other witch books ignore the political side of ancient polytheism entirely, and don't seem to know what an epithet is, instead treating entire deities from different pantheons as "aspects" of a single God/dess. Most beginner witch books also reduce Hekate to her witchcraft aspect, and characterize her as the generic "Dark Goddess" archetype that you usually see in Wiccan spaces. I love that Hekataios goes out of their way to contextualize Hekate as a goddess of a specific time, place, and people.

Personally, I have found the historical and "witchy" sides of Hekate difficult to reconcile (even after having done so much work with The Hekataeon). The latter is what initially appealed to me, but it's become hard to separate from all the things I find grating about the Wiccan model (e.g. "Maiden, Mother, Crone," haphazard syncretism, generic "archetypes," fluffiness). On the other hand, learning more about Hekate's history hasn't made her "click" for me in the way that Dionysus did. I keep looking for that "click," so, I appreciate any books that synthesize these halves of her nature.

The last chapter of Part 1 concerns magical ethics. I gotta say, I rolled my eyes at first, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that Hekataios says, "...humans are also animals of passion. [...] The ethics of the Strix lie in the pursuit of pleasure and happiness." Wow! No argument! It's rare to find witch books, or any books at all, that prioritize pleasure as a moral imperative! No complaints from me! The rest of the chapter concerns hubris (here defined as wilful ignorance of the laws of nature), and Hellenic virtues like arete, xenia, eusebia, etc. Again, this is all looking pretty Hellenic Polytheist to me...

Part 2

Part 2 is structured like a typical beginner witch book: magical tools, altar construction, herbs, deities and spirits, etc.

Like Jack Grayle, Hekataios describes their tools as being ensouled with a living spirit. (I struggle to think of my tools this way, but I'm trying.) Again, I'm not seeing much that's New Agey here — Hekataios uses Greek terminology throughout this chapter, and while they do include most of the basic Wiccan magical tools (wand, chalice, censer, blade), they also include some that are specific to Hellenic magic (e.g. a lamp to represent Hestia, and a bowl for khernips). They also include historical and/or mystical justifications for the use of each tool.

Now comes the most controversial part of the book: The use of blood to consecrate tools. This was the thing that most of the people in that thread were particularly upset about. I've shared my thoughts on miasma, and I genuinely think that blood magic is appropriate in rituals involving specific gods (Dionysus, Artemis, Hekate). Also, it's magic. Magic involves taboos, that's part of what makes it magic. You don't have to use blood magic if you're not comfortable with it, but if you're gonna clutch your pearls about it, maybe don't study magic.

Using blood as a means of consecration also makes sense according to magical logic, because blood is literally the essence of your life-force. Blood creates the strongest type of sympathetic link; if you use it to consecrate your tools, then the tools have some of your essence in them, and can only be used by you. If the tools are living spirits, the blood binds the spirits to you. That's a useful method for a witch to use to create and control their tools! At the same time, you have to be very careful with blood magic, because anything you use your blood for is bound to you (i.e. don't use it for contracts). Blood also has all kinds of mystical significance — why do you think Christians make such a big deal of drinking the blood of a god?

However, considering how controversial blood is in Hellenic polytheism, I wish that Hekataios addressed that controversy. It would be easy for them to say what I just said, "Blood magic is usually a taboo in Hellenism, but in this magical tradition, we use it, and here's why." Instead, Hekataios just treats it as a given. That's not great, especially because many people are squeamish about blood for unrelated reasons. But only two of the tools are consecrated using blood, anyway, so what's the big deal?

I don't have many major complaints about the tools section. Except that the Green Cube is weird. (Just use a pentacle, they were a Pythagorean thing!) And that Hekataios puts a lot of emphasis on scourging. There is mystical precedent for that (e.g. the Fury depicted in the Villa of the Mysteries frescoes), but still... emphasis on scourging screams "Wicca" to me.

On to herbs. This chapter lists a bunch of different herbs related to witchcraft (Cunningham-style), and the Greek lore associated with them. I think the poisonous herbs should have been listed separately from the others, because of how dangerous they are, but there were plenty of warnings and disclaimers (and suggested substitutions). One chapter really isn't enough to discuss herbalism in any depth, especially concerning the poisonous plants, but pharmakeia is so significant to Hellenic witchcraft that it needs to at least be touched on. As is, this chapter is mostly fine. I think myrtle should have been listed, though. And the section on Rose describes a myth in which Chloris creates the rose from the body of a dead nymph, and the plant is then blessed by Aphrodite, Dionysus, and the Kharites. That didn't sound familiar, and I haven't found it anywhere except on a few random websites. I checked Ovid's Fasti, and nothing. I don't think it's a real myth. That's a bit irresponsible.

Next is the section on deities and spirits. This is... interesting. This is where the Hellenism-centric approach begins to fall apart, because Oracle Hekataios' "Strix Craft" tradition has an almost completely unique theology. This section opens with a unique creation myth, in which Nyx is the First Cause. Hekataios describes her as being almost like the Force, a goddess who enables life and binds the universe together, and we all have the essence of Nyx within us. Okay??? That's an interesting idea, but it's kind of baseless. It's not bad, it's just... where did that come from? Wouldn't it make more sense to apply that concept to Hekate as the World Soul, Phanes, Dionysus, or Aphrodite Ourania, than to Nyx? Unless Hekate is being syncretized with Nyx? And then the first two gods born in this theogony are Eros and Thanatos, two hermaphroditic twins. Okay??? I'm not saying that a modern mystery tradition can't have a unique theogony, but... what???

>Eros is envisioned as a blue-skinned deity who plays his flute sitting upon a blue lotus.

Okay, syncretism is fine, but... what??? Pretend I'm a beginner who doesn't recognize this iconography... you gonna say whom you're syncretizing Eros with?

Yeah, this is where Hekataios lost me.

There's nothing technically wrong with including UPG like this, especially in your own tradition. The problem (IMHO) is that I can't follow the logic of it. I have no idea where Hekataios is getting any of this from, or why. It's neither traditionally Hellenic, nor Wiccan, nor based on Orphism or any other mystery tradition I'm familiar with (though it definitely takes some cues from the Chaldean Oracles). They sort of invent a god called "Ericapaios," who seems to be a fusion of Eosphoros, Aither, and Hemera. Erikapaios is actually an epithet of Phanes and Dionysus — I guess it's their version of Phanes? And then the descriptions suddenly become conventional when we reach the Olympians! I'm not going to dissect everything in this section, becuase this post is already long enough, but there's plenty of weirdness here.

Also, this is just a pet peeve of mine, but Hekataios refers to the Protogenoi as "Primordials." That really grates on me, because "primordial" is an adjective, and they're called Protogenoi. I don't complain about it over on the Greek Mythology sub (because I'm enough of a zealous, pretentious asshole as it is), but I'm gonna complain about it here. Call them Protogenoi! Hekataios usually goes out of their way to use the Greek names, so what's with this "primordials" shit?

The final chapter of Part 2 describes altars and shrines, the difference between them, and how to build them. Hekataios explains that a shrine is like a "house" for a god, and I think that's the best way to understand it. They tell newbies that they need to start simple, that they don't need "a seven-foot wand alchemically mixed from St. Germain's ashes," which made me laugh! There's a section on purification and miasma (still no discussion of the blood magic?). I like that they mention the Agathos Daimon! But it's a short chapter, there's not much to say.

Part 3

This is the practical part of the book. There are three major sections: Healing magic, love magic, and baneful magic. This is the part of the book that I'm most interested in, because I'm always looking for ways to make folk magic more accessible. All three section involve consecrating tiles with ceremonial-magic-style sigils representing the relevant gods (Asklepios, Aphrodite, Pan, Hekate Brimo, Persephone Praxidike, the Erinyes). All three sections involve the making of wax poppets for their respective purposes, which is both solidly traditional and — in the case of love magic — archaeologically attested! (Is kolossos the Greek word for poppet? I thought it only referred to large statues, like the one at Rhodes.) The Orphic Hymns to Asklepios, Persephone, and the Erinyes all appear in full. The invocation to Aphrodite uses her secret name from the PGM! The chapter on baneful magic includes a full-scale purification ritual before the ritual to summon the Erinyes, and it also includes a discussion of katadesmoi (curse tablets)!

Overall, the rituals themselves are... fine? There were fewer PGM references than I would have liked. The verses aren't anything to write home about (especially compared to The Hekataeon's). And the sigils are full pictures, not just glyphs, which are hard to draw on a small surface, which kind of defeats the purpose. But the techniques are solid, and they all feel very doable, which is the important thing! Folk magic has a high barrier of entry, so, anything that makes it more accessible is useful in my book!

However, I do have a number of issues:

In the chapter on healing magic, Hekataios quotes Nestor in the Iliad as saying, "a leech is the worth of many other men," and then they add, "A leech is the old word for physician." True, it's the Old English word for physician. It's definitely not the word Nestor uses; it's a strange choice on the part of the translator. It doesn't really undermine Hekataios' point, but it's still important to specify that. Chances are, the average reader isn't going to know that leech is an Old English word for "doctor," and walk away thinking it's a Greek word. There's also no citation of the translation, so I can't even check it. This doesn't really matter, but I found it especially grating.

Hekataios says that there is "no mention of any godhood conferred" to Asklepios, which is simply false. Asklepios is a god — he had his own temples and priests and even an Orphic Hymn, which actually appears in full in this book! So, Hekataios knows that Asklepios is a god! And then they write,

>The tale written by [Apollodoros] seems — in my opinion — to be part of an oral tradition since Apollodoros is a son of one Ascelpiades Pharmakion. I suspect this latter individual is probably from a lineage of priests in the Asclepion traditions.

All mythology is an oral tradition! Seriously, you don't need to be looking at Apollodoros' lineage to figure that one out! (Also, the Bibliotheka was written by *Pseudo-*Apollodoros, which — you know what, never mind.) And this also isn't cited!

There's also this, from the spell to create a serpent wand for healing:

>If you own a snake, laying it on the body will also work. The illness will not harm the creature, as it has the innate ability to shed and release the illness on it.

Please do not put your pet snake at risk.

There are a few things that might be controversial in the chapter on love magic: 1. that Hekataios recommends practicing love rituals while naked, which is very much a Wiccan thing (recons might take issue with that), and 2. sex or masturbation as an offering to Pan. For what it's worth, I think it's absurd to assume that Aphrodite or Pan, of all gods, would be offended by sex. But later, in the purification ritual, Hekataios makes a big point of abstaining from sex before summoning the Erinyes, for miasma-related purposes. That's a ritual for which you would need to be especially scrupulous, but it comes across as inconsistent, especially since the Erinyes ritual involves offering drops of your own blood. I don't have a problem with this, but it bothers me that Hekataios doesn't address this.

The love magic chapter also has a small section on the iynx, which is titled "The Wheel of Torture." Hekataios opens this section with a long disclaimer about how our ancestors used blood magic and animal sacrifice, and recommends you use the effigy of a bird for this spell. Or... hear me out... you could use a wooden wheel! You know, the toy named after the iynx bird! Does Hekataios seriously not know what an iynx wheel is? They do suggest attaching the bird effigy to a disc, so... maybe just use the disc?

In the section on baneful magic, Hekataios uses the story of Medea to justify it:

>What does this have to do with personal power? Simple. Medea was not ashamed to feel sadness, betrayal, and pain. She had reason to. She insisted on using what she knew, and that was her magical skill.

They conveniently leave out what Medea did with her magical skill, which was burn her husband's new wife alive with a cursed robe, and murder her own children. I agree that baneful magic is important for a witch to know how to do, but that's a bad example.

The baneful magic chapter has a lot of disclaimers about its usage, and about how "Love and Light" isn't a useful sentiment for people who have really suffered. This all suggests to me that Hekataios wrote this book for witches, not Hellenic pagans. Witches will be concerned with the ethics of baneful magic (maybe Hellenic pagans will be, too, but they're less likely to use "Love and Light" as the argument). Hellenic pagans will be more concerned with miasma, and consistent application of the concept. Again, I think that Hekataios' suggested usage of sex and blood magic makes sense according to magical logic, but they don't explain that logic at all. I shouldn't have to do it.

(Also, do we really need near-identical instructions for making a poppet three separate times? That just feels like padding.)

The penultimate chapter is on nekyia, or more specifically, ancestor worship. (That's good, we need more ancestor worship in baby witch books!) Part 3 ends with a chapter on seasonal festivals, which — I swear to Zeus — is only there because every witch book needs a Wheel of the Year. It's even structured the same way, with Esbats and then Sabbats. The moon festivals listed are real Hellenic ones, e.g. the Noumenia and Hekate's Deipnon, but... still. The first annual festivals listed are equinoxes, which were not acknowledged in Ancient Greece. Hekataios said that "our religious New Year" is the Spring Equinox. That might be true for their own Strix Craft tradition, but definitely wasn't true in Ancient Greece (the New Year is in summer; around now, actually). The vague wording makes it sound like Ancient Greeks acknowledged the Spring Equinox as the New Year. The actual celebration Hekataios attached to this festival is a phallic Dionysian one, which is perfectly fine, just a weird justification. Then the Summer Solstice is dedicated to Hestia, then the Autumn Equinox is for reconsecrating icons, and the Winter Solstice is a Samhain-esque feast of the dead, which repeats the nekyia ritual again. Only at the Winter Solstice does Hekataios say, "the Ancient Greeks did not celebrate this, this is very much a modern take." *sigh*

Then, in the "Other Festivals" section, we finally get mention of a few real festivals, like the Anthesteria and Aphrodesia. But not the Nemoralia, funnily enough. Instead, we get a mention of the "Night of Hekate" on both Nov. 16th and Nov. 30th. Mentioning the "Night of Hekate" is usually an instant red flag for me, because there's no actual source for it at all. It's a completely modern thing that witches just invented one day. Hekataios does say that it's modern, but only for the Nov. 16th date. Oh, well, if people decide to honor Hekate on in November, who am I to stop them? A modern festival is real if people acknowledge it. Hekataios' tradition uses the Nov. 16th date as a day for initiation, so they provide a self-dedication ritual. Kind of ironic to see an initiation ritual as almost the last thing in the book.

So yeah, this is a bastardized Wheel of the Year that's about as haphazard in its approach to syncretism as the original Wheel of the Year. And what's with all the scourging? Why do all the festivals involve scourging?!

Final Thoughts

My opinion of this book is decidedly mid. It's not New Agey, I can say that much — though it takes some cues from Wicca, most of its framing is very much Hellenic, and the magical techniques it recommends are mostly real folkloric techniques. On the other hand, it's weird, and not in the way that mystical books are typically weird. It's theologically absurd and conceptually inconsistent, with lots of little mistakes.

This book is pretty well-sourced, with quotes from primary sources, and footnote citations of (mostly) scholarship. That's a low bar to clear, but it's important that it clears it. However, they uncritically cite writers like Marija Gimbutas, and also sources from as far back as the 1930s. It's generally best to cite recent scholarship. I can't expect every neopagan author to be a scholar, so I really should be more forgiving of this, but... there were a number of times when I really wished that Hekataios had cited something.

I have a few more general critiques: 

One, Hekataios runs through all this a little fast, without much detail given to each definition or concept. All of the chapters in this book are quite short. If I were completely new to these concepts, I'd want them to spend a little more time on them.

Two, the weird UPG lore drops. I don't have any problem with UPG being included in witch books on principle, and to be fair, Hekataios does specify their UPG. (That's the most important thing.) But... For example, Hekataios is convinced that the epithet Liparokredemnos, "bright-coiffed," actually refers to a veil? Because... they don't think that "bright-coiffed" makes sense as a hairstyle??? Okay??? There's no evidence that the epithet refers to a veil, it means exactly what it sounds like, regardless of whether that makes sense to you. And then there's the whole Nyx thing, and the unique theogony, which I still can't get past.

Three, I have no issue with syncretism, but I wish Hekataios was clearer about where they're getting each thing from: What applies to Hellenic paganism or Hellenic magic as a whole, what's taken from Wicca, and what's specific to their unique tradition of Strix Craft. To be fair, the book is called Strix Craft, so one might assume that it's all that specific tradition, but... it's not. Plenty of the information in this book applies generally. A newbie is going to have a very hard time telling the difference, and probably will just accept all these ideas and rituals as Things (Hellenic) Witches Do.

Finally, this is minor, but Hekataios keeps referring to Thessaly as a "magical" or "mythical" land. "Magical land" might just refer to its ancient reputation for magic, but "mythical"? They... they know that Thessaly is a real place, right?

Would I recommend this? Maybe. I think I'd recommend it to a person who just converted to Hellenic paganism from witchcraft, because that's who it's for. It's a Hellenic baby witch book. There aren't that many books of practical magic geared towards Hellenic pagans; of them, The Hekataeon is probably the best, but it isn't very accessible (in terms of money or of practical magic). Then there's the PGM, which... is the PGM. It's easy to say that primary sources are always the best, but it's taken me six years to make sense of it, and I don't think newbies should be using it at all. And while I usually direct newbies to Edmonds' Drawing Down the Moon, that book doesn't include the practical aspect. In light of that, Strix Craft fills a very important niche. I wish that there were more books like it, say, a version of Household Worship directed at magical practitioners. Because this one gets gradually weirder as it goes, and that turns me off. It's up to you to decide whether it's useful or not.

So I finally saw The Odyssey. I went in with the lowest possible expectations. And… I was impressed! It was a lot better than I expected!

They made a big deal of “Zeus’s Law,” Xenia. That won me over almost immediately. That means that Nolan was paying attention to the actual themes of the epic! And correctly attributing that virtue to Zeus! I was most worried about the portrayal of the gods, and that wasn’t as bad as I feared. The gods were treated with real religious reverence, complete with a scene in a temple. Seeing a populated Greek temple made me cry! The gods didn’t personally appear that much, but I would rather not have the gods appear then have them be treated as petty assholes.

As for the plot, it was a pretty by-the-book adaptation of The Odyssey! No Lotus-Eaters, but that was referenced in the scenes with Calypso, which I thought was a good substitute for the Phaeacians (which would take too long to set up). The scene with Polyphemus was terrifying — he reminded me of The Pale Man from Pan’s Labyrinth. And I actually liked the Sinon subplot. They also worked in parts of the Oreista! And I liked the Trojan Horse scenes. (What’s the primary source for that? I realized I don’t know.) And Eumaios was in there! EPIC didn’t include him!

I have only a few complaints:

1. Circe. This scene was my biggest issue. She came across as a village witch, not a goddess. We got a run-down cottage, not a palace. No Hermes, not even moly! He just kind of talks her out of it??? (To be fair, that’s a pretty Odysseus thing to do.)

2. Having the Trojan War be responsible for the Bronze Age Collapse, and Odysseus and co. as the Sea People, is an… interesting choice. “Our Age of Bronze is collapsing!” LOL

3. I mostly didn’t have a problem with the costumes, but Agamemnon’s helmet is so fucking stupid.

4. Slaughtering people in a temple is a “the gods curse you, your family, your city, and the ground you walk on”-level crime. That just… wouldn’t even happen. At least not without being a big fucking deal.

5. Sirens are mermaids. Fuck. Loved everything else about that scene, though!

6. Odysseus’ mother didn’t show up in the Underworld. (That was one of the most emotionally impactful parts of EPIC the Musical.) And the ram sacrifice should have been black, but that’s really nitpickey.

7. Helios’ cattle, not Apollo’s. (Though Apollo is also a herdsman… is there a connection there?)

8. Why was Odysseus exiled in the end? After all of that???

It really touches me that we’ve been telling this same story for three millennia. I think Nolan gave it the gravity it deserves. The adaptation isn’t perfect, but it was good, and that was more than I thought I would get.

View Poll

We talk a lot on this sub about how the gods aren't mad at you, but I think it goes a little further than that. Here's something that I think many people on this sub really need to hear:

You don't have to ask for permission.

You don't need permission or confirmation to begin worshipping a particular god. You don't need permission or confirmation to stop worshipping a particular god. You don't need permission to worship more than one god at a time, or to worship a god from another pantheon. You don't need permission to petition or invoke a god. You don't need permission to set up, take down, change, or move an altar. You don't need permission to offer a particular item. You don't need permission to do magic, or to not do magic. You do not need permission, from the gods or the community.

There's only one exception that I can think of: You do have to ask for permission to handle things that belong to the gods. You cannot take back votive offerings, just as you can't take back gifts that you give your friends. Once you offer something to a god, it belongs to the god. (The other exception may be miasma, but I've shared my opinions on that.)

I think part of this need for permission might be latent Christianity, or kids being used to asking their parents for things, but most of it seems to come from TikTok. I'm not on TikTok, so I don't really know what it's like, but apparently, TikTok Hellenists make worship seem like a minefield. The algorithm favors controversy, so any video that's like, "If you're doing this, you're doing it WRONG" is sure to garner clicks. But it creates an online climate of anxiety around worshipping Greek gods in particular*.* Entering into this religion with a great bucket of shame from TikTok Hellenists is not going to help.

In my experience, it's very hard to do it "wrong," as long as you respect the gods and your intentions are sincere. There are practices that are and are not related to Hellenic polytheism specifically, as a religion, but the gods will not care. And worst case, you make a mistake. That's fine! You're not expected to know everything right out of the gate! The gods are not going to smite you with lightning for not knowing something. And honestly, I'd rather you came here with a misconception that we can correct, instead of asking us for permission for something that was never a problem anyway.

In my experience (as a magician), the gods respect people who are confident, direct, and sure in their intentions, especially people who aren't ashamed of who they are or what they want. If you were raised Christian, you've probably been taught that you need to humble yourself before God and draw attention to your faults and unworthiness, but in this religion, nothing could be further from the case. All the heroes with divine favor were powerful, confident people who knew what they were about, even when they were making costly mistakes. They received help from the gods because they weren't afraid to ask for it. Audentes Fortuna iuvat. It's not just Tyche who will favor you if you are bold!

I see a lot of people asking about which gods are ouranic, which are chthonic, and so on. With some, it's pretty obvious, but plenty of others are less clear, and some change their orientation depending on the context. (The big-name gods in particular are likely to have multiple orientations, since they're worshipped in so many different contexts.) So, here's a quick list of which gods are in each category in most cases:

Ouranic Gods: Zeus, Hera, Athena, Ares, Apollo, Hermes, Hestia, Aphrodite Ourania, Themis, the Horae, Asklepios, Hygeia, the Dioskouri (Kastor and Polydeuces), the Mousai, Leto, Hebe, Herakles, Eros (or Phanes), the Erotes, Psyche, Aither, Hemera, the Kharites, Iris, Nike, Kratos, Bia, Zelos, Aiolos, the Anemoi, Selene, Helios, Eos, Tyche, Ouranos, Dike, Eirene, Ganymede, Eileithyia, Eurynome, the Hesperides, Eosphoros, Hesperos, the Nephelae, the Pleiades.

Einalic Gods: Poseidon, Amphitrite, Aphrodite, Pontus, Thalassa, Okeanos, Proteus, Nereus, Thetis, the other forty-nine Nereids, all fifty Okeanids, Kalypso, Phorkys, Keto, Leukippe, Palaimon, Triton, Tethys (?).

Chthonic Gods: Hades, Persephone, Demeter, Dionysus, Hermes Khthonios, Zeus Meilichios, Gaia, Hekate, Nyx, Erebos, Tartaros, Kharon, Thanatos, Hypnos, Oneiros, the Oneiroi, the Erinyes, the Keres, the Moirai (?), the Lampades, Melinoë, Makaria, Styx, Akheron, Kokytos, Phlegethon, Lethe, Askalaphos, Eurynomos, the Judges of the Dead (Minos, Aiakos, Rhadamanthys), Mnemosyne (?), heroes (who haven't apotheosized — chthonic by default).

Nomic Gods: Pan, Demeter, Artemis, Hermes, Dionysus, Hephaestus, Kheiron, Rhea/Kybele, Attis, Ploutos, Silenos, Ariadne, Semele/Thyone, Priapos, Aristaios, Autonoe, Ourea, the Kouretes/Korybantes/Kabeiroi, the Potamoi, most nymphs, satyrs, other nurses or companions of Dionysus.

There are some gods that I don't know how to categorize. Mnemosyne is the mother of the Muses, who are ouranic gods, but she has a spring in the Underworld, so maybe she's a chthonic god or has a chthonic aspect. Kronos was a sky god, but is now the king of Elysium, in the Underworld. Tethys is a freshwater goddess — does that make her an einalic god or a nomic god, like naiads? Eris doesn't have a clear orientation, though she's (usually) a child of Nyx so that would imply she's chthonic. The Moirai are sometimes the children of Erebos and Nyx, making them chthonic, and sometimes the daughters of Zeus and Themis, making them ouranic. Some of these may be up to interpretation. Also, I have no idea where to put some household and civic gods like the Agathos Daimon; maybe they need their own category, though most gods have some kind of civic association.

In my opinion, you don't need to change your ritual structure that much for each category of god. You may want to address your chthonic supplications downward, and avoid eating chthonic offerings (due to an association with death), but beyond that, you don't need to do anything special for each category of god unless you want to.

I hope that this is helpful!

Trying to jump onto his hand feels impossible, because the hand itself blocks my view of Wander’s position. I keep blindly leaping and missing by a mile, falling all the way to the bottom. It happened enough times and I just quit.

What am I doing wrong? It feels like it isn’t supposed to be so hard.

Dammit, I really want to like this game! It inspired so many other games that I love (FromSoft’s, Journey, Solar Ash), and it looks gorgeous, but the boss fights are tedious and there’s not enough else to do to balance them out. Maybe I just don’t have the patience for it. But I’d still like to finish!

Does anyone have thoughts about the concept of a personal daimon? I've seen it compared to the modern occult concept of the Holy Guardian Angel, a personal divinity who represents one's higher self and acts as an intermediary between the self and the divine.

The concept of a "personal daimon" is mostly associated with Socrates, who claimed to have his own daimon that gave him advice. That's not necessarily an esoteric concept. But PGM VII. 505-28 is a ritual to arrange a meeting with "your own daimon," which seems similar in concept to the Abramelin Operation.

I have a spirit that I call my "personal daimon" for simplicity's sake. I'm not sure exactly what he is, or the degree to which he's me vs. an external entity (or whether that distinction even matters). But a significant amount of my magical practice revolves around work with him, so, I'm interested to know if anyone else has a similar experience.

This book has been on my radar for a long time, but I finally got the opportunity to read it. I also had the pleasure of meeting the author!

https://preview.redd.it/zjufgvp5xr3h1.png?width=1400&format=png&auto=webp&s=ae26d9a5c41ff1569f5363b2b3f27eca7393140b

​The premise of this book is essentially that men need a new mythological model of masculinity. Instead of idolizing big buff solar heroes who slay dragons and dominate women, we should trade that image in for the trickster god, the poet, the sorcerer, the sensual and earthy hero who exists in concert with the rest of the world. As examples, Strand discusses Dionysus, Orpheus, Attis and Adonis, Merlin, Osiris and sometimes Biblical figures. She opens by suggesting we replace the sword with the wand — a gentler phallic object that represents spiritual potency and life-force rather than violence and destruction.

There's also a lot about mushrooms. A lot about mushrooms. Lots of discussion of mycelial networks, both literally and metaphorically. It was actually pretty interesting; I definitely learned things about mushrooms from this book! Strand looks at mythology and religion through a distinctly fungal lens, which is a personal spiritual connection on her part. She said in her talk that she stopped writing about it because it's so personal to her, and she doesn't want to see it twisted into a buzzword. Fair, tbh, though it kind of surprised me to hear her say that. Overtime I started rolling my eyes at the constant mention of "mycelial," as though it were a buzzword. What does that say about me?

There were a few more things I rolled my eyes at (like "women and pagans killed during the Inquisition" — cringe), and a few mentions of prehistoric matriarchies here and there, but I've definitely seen worse. This book also isn't scholarship, and I went in with that expectation, which is part of why I'm going easy on it. I think that mystical reinterpretations of myth are interesting, and that we need space for them in addition to scholarship. The problem is that Strand's presentation of her interpretations is inconsistent: She tries to claim that her interpretation of the Minotaur as a star god is the "original" (prehistoric) version, which was by far the most egregious chapter. But she presents her (very interesting!) interpretation of the Narcissus myth as her own modern reframing, which is a lot better. Why doesn't she do that for all of them? There were also multiple chapters I would have rearranged for flow and coherence.

One of the things I really liked about this book was Strand's evocative description of Major Arcana cards in terms of scenery and sensory details, like you're entering a physical "realm" of each card (similar to The Arcana visual novel!). She even had a chapter relating Dionysus to XIII The Devil, a lot like my own essay on the topic! But I wish it were a little more involved. I wish that each of the essays was longer. There's a lot to say about each topic, and they deserve more thorough examination.

My biggest problem with this book was the execution of its premise: Presenting a new mythological model of masculinity for men to adopt. I love that sentiment, and I think it's really needed! But, it was only about a paragraph's worth of connective tissue in each essay. I think Strand might have the same problem I have of struggling to bring each individual topic back to the main point. I would love more discussion of what this mystical mycelial masculinity looks like in practice, how men are really supposed to emulate and/or define themselves based on the figures she discusses. Honestly, it needed a man's touch! One of the last essays was about how Strand used to hate male heroes and other patriarchal mythological figures until she found a new way to look at them, and that chapter should really have come first — this book reads like a woman's journey of coming to understand and relate to male mythological figures, not any advice for real human men. And that's fine! There's nothing wrong with that (and I can relate in some ways), but that book advising men about how to adopt a new narrative of masculinity is still really needed. The men who most need to hear that message are unlikely to pick this book up. On the other hand, the male friend whose copy I borrowed made a lot of notes in the margins, so clearly it was resonating for him!

Despite my problems with this book, I got a lot of really cool insights out of it. The biggest one was this: If I prefer this version of masculinity that is dark, earthy, visceral, sensual, and... "wet," for lack of a better word, then maybe — in the spirit of androgyny — I would prefer a version of the divine feminine that is bright, solid, civilizational, "Apollonian." Why haven't I considered that before?! If I'm beyond tired of the "earthy lunar Mother Goddess" feminine divine, I should do the same swap! Which goddess would that be? Athena is the obvious choice, but she lacks a sexuality, which means she can't help me address the specific issues I have with divine femininity. (Or maybe she does, and Ancient Greeks just didn't have a framework for it?) I'll have to think about this one.

This is a vibes book, make no mistake. But I don't think that's a bad thing! Sometimes you need a good vibes book to get you to think about gods and mythology in a new, unique way. I also have a lot of respect for Strand; her talk was interesting, and she's very well spoken. I might pick up her autobiography! I did enjoy reading this book, and I would recommend it to people with the caveat of knowing what to expect going in. It's fine for what it is.

Rating: 🍇🍇🍇🌿(3.5)/5