TO AMAZON READERS: I work with Douglas Monroe as a long-standing partner at New Forest Mex. In fact, I have trained with him for eleven years now. Throughout this long time, I have watched with a sort of morbid fascination, the controversy surrounding his work escalate until, with the publication of the final book in the Merlyn series in sight, I finally asked him `why he didn't directly address the points of greatest controversy?'
His answer was not surprising, having been one that I had heard in several forms over the years. And, simply put, it is this: Anything I would ever answer in my own support, has already been written into my books--- those readers who have looked deeply enough, will have found it; answers sufficient to see-through any storm of detractors. Those who have not, were not primed to use the book in the first place. But, once again, this has all been said in-context, and nowhere more clearly than in the closing paragraph of the Prologue to book one.
He suggested that I read it again, and so I did. And he was right--- it was there. I quote from the suggested source:
"...lastly, let the reader be aware that the world outlined in this book is not intended for everyone... its views on religion and sexuality will only be appreciated by those for whom it is destined... and to those persons skeptical of such an approach, try it and see..."
Clearly, then, Douglas was aware from the very start that his work would subject him to criticism on many different levels, such as faulty scholarship, myth-making, misplaced sexuality, financial enterprising and so forth. Clearly, he expected that the Merlyn books would run contrary to today's mainstream paganism, contrary to the way in which human sexuality is viewed in today's social structure. From the very beginning back in 1990, he expressed his intention never to address the...
"...arena of English social soap--- those who live in a world of media-showmanship: the Web being the new tool for personal venting and rampant railroading--- those who basically `cry wolf' at the top of their lungs to any audience who has the same sympathetic insecurities. Cry wolf to self-validate themselves." (In short, his intention of never entering what he foresaw as an out-of-control soap box opera).
Yet his method of dealing with this has always been consistent to my knowledge: to distance himself from it, letting his work speak for itself.
And, looking back, this approach seems to have been a wise one. Readers of the Merlyn series are sharply divided into two clear factions: I call them the "competitors" and the "sympathizers."
The competitors are just that: those who have their own set views of what they believe the world to be; those whose reputations and [in the case of neo-druid re-constructionist CEO's] their finances depend upon their own up-held versions of Druidism. These are the Amazon.com "one-stars."
The "five-stars" are those who sympathize, who resonate, with the inner messages secreted within the Merlyn volumes: "those few for whom the books were written." Personally, I find it interesting the many times Douglas has mentioned his surprise at the sheer high numbers of triggered readers [his term], far surpassing what he had anticipated. Bottom line: Douglas is not in any way concerned with critics.
And, to me at least, this well explains his consistent reaction to public position. Let me here mention that Douglas' public silence is in no way due to an inability to address points of criticism, (he has done so effectively to me and my associates countless times during our own course of training), but to a seemingly wiser disinterest in dealing with those not resonant to his work. He will never engage in soap-box futility and baited word-bantering [his own words from an email].
Lastly, I would like to re-quote a few lines from the THE LOST BOOKS OF MERLYN, a rare instance where the author published a personal reaction to critics of his work:
"...here we tackle a question [of authenticity] which has become, for some, paramount in regards to my work... let it here be stated in the records that [these] questions are without value to [me]... because my concern is not how authentic my sources are (this, one may only guess at), but how effective their philosophies and methodologies... I merely state that the [Pheryllt] manuscript, forged or original, ancient or recent, exists as an absolutely fascinating collection of writings, and that their framework works... historians and library scholars will never understand the essence of Druidism by examining mistletoe dust and monks' renditions--- only a true poet stands this chance today." [Prologue, xii/xii]
Another example of web-hype I have constantly read about: Monroe advocates poisonous Mistletoe and deadly herbalism. An amazing statement, considering any 5-second Yahoo search under "Mistletoe herbal" will reveal countless sites specializing in Mistletoe tinctures/powders and pills, which have been used for ages to treat arthritis, heart and blood problems, etc. A good example is at Mountainroseherbs.com.
And pumpkins (squash-like gourds) were absolutely imported into Britain as foodstuffs during their long occupation, a fact a small amount of web-search will reveal. These two examples go a long way in showing me how short-sighted Douglas's critics can be.
In summing up, I think my favorite novelist (no, it's not Douglas Monroe!) William Styron had a good response to critics of his own work, which applies equally well to Merlyn critics. He said:
"Writers have a duty to meditate on history and bring understanding through imagination."
For us, Douglas has always been an honest man with a clear message. I welcome this final book #3.
Francisco "Frank" Trias
less
0 comments
Post a comment