Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00123)

Daniel Caldwell:

> > Perhaps we also need a simultaneous reminder that Paul's book was
> > exceedingly well received outside of TS circles ...  and that
> > only two people seem to have been critical, one, a person that
> > seems to have some personal vendetta, and the other, the
> > President of the Wheaton TS - who, in his role as critic, blasted
> > a book he refused to publish in his role as TPH chief.  The ideas
> > in the book may or may not be true - but they certainly deserved
> > discussion in TS circles, and attempts certainly seemed to be
> > made to try to squelch this.
>
> Are you trying to tell us, John Crocker, that Dr.  Algeo and I
> should not have been critical of Johnson's books and of his
> various assertions?

No.  I have never said, anywhere, that people did not have the
right to express their opinions about the book.  Of course, I
also reserve the right to express my opinions about nature and
motives of those criticisms.

> You are a person known to be very critical of things, for
> example, various policies of the T.S.  Wheaton and various ideas
> put forth by Eldon Tucker.

I'm also known to be very supportive of other things.  I do far
more than simply critisize.  And Eldon Tucker has been very
critical of many of my ideas as well.  So?

> I have even heard certain people say you had a "vendetta" against
> Wheaton! Whether that is true or not, the question to be answered
> is whether your criticisms are valid or not.  Do the criticisms
> have merit regardless of the person making them?

I'll be happy to have such an examination ensue.  But please, if
you are to look at whether my criticisms are "valid" or not, look
at what I've *said*, not what you seem to find implied.  (And
yes, I *do* have a bit of a "vendetta" against ...  not
*Wheaton*, but against the *behaviour* of some of the current
Wheaton leadership.  However, that is like saying that one
political party has a "vendetta" against another ...  )

> I certainly have not made any attempt to squelch discussion in TS
> circles (or outside of them) of Paul Johnson's ideas as found in
> his books.  In fact, I have repeatedly told people in person, on
> the phone and even on Theos-l that Theosophical students need to
> read his books! All I have done is to point out what I think are
> fallacies and weaknesses in his arguments and research.  Would
> you want me to refrain from that?

Actually, no.  And I don't believe I accused *you* of trying to
squelch conversation about the books, did I? Where, precisely,
did I say I wanted you to refrain from doing anything? Someone
posted a message accusing KPJ of "martrydom" ...  and said that
maybe he didn't want to look at the fact that he might be wrong.
I pointed out, as an answer, that the only two critics of Paul's
book seemed to be you and Algeo ....  that the book was well
received by both the general public as well as professional
literary critics of a stature far higher than you or John Algeo.

> Good god, John, people can think for themselves, can't they?

Yes ...  of course they can ...  and a good number of
Theosophists, non Theosophists, and literary critics seem to
think the book is *good*.

> In my critique HOUSE OF CARDS I have pointed out evidence,
> testimonies, which I believe readers of Johnson's books need to
> know about in order to be in a better position to assess the
> validity of his ideas and arguments.  I have also pointed out
> mistakes in his statements about the Theosophical Masters.  Is
> that so bad? Do you want to "squelch" my criticisms? Would you
> want YOUR criticisms squelched? I hope you don't have two
> standards here? One for you and your "buddies" and another one
> for those you perceive on the "other side" of the fence? : )

Once again, where exactly did I say *you* attempted to squelch
anything? It wouldn't even occur to me to think such a thing ...
in fact, your "House of Cards" is only meaningful to the extent
that Paul's book is read.  (Very few people are gonna bother with
a critique of a book they haven't read).  I did say that, upon
reading it (or most of it) I found a curiously personal tone in
it, and I'm certainly not the only one that perceived that ...
but, so what? Just as people may choose to accept Paul's ideas or
dismiss them on whatever grounds they choose, so they may also
choose to accept or dismiss your criticisms on whatever grounds
they may choose ...  yes?

And so far as the "buddies vs.  the other side of the fence" ...
there seems to be very good evidence that that double standard is
used in publishing decisions at the TPH - which was my point.

You want to have discussion of  some of Johnson's ideas?

> Okay, John, let's have a discussion of Johnson's views as given
> below in my article.  Answer my questions.  Such discussion will
> maybe get you, me and other people actually THINKING about the
> "ideas" and "issues" involved.  Come on, John, if you are so much
> for discussion--- verbal give and take--- and actually want to
> give your point of view AS WELL AS listening to the "other" side,
> give us your honest answers to the following questions that I
> pose.  Maybe, just maybe, you and I (as well as others reading
> this) will learn something!
>
> Is that possible? Is that so bad?

I'm sorry - I really have absolutely no interest (myself) in
Theosophical history, and my own personal view of the Adepts has
almost nothing to do with what either Paul or you have written.
Actually, I'm really not sure such a discussion would get people
thinking anyway - the topic has pretty much become a tired one
for almost everyone on the theos lists ...  I `spect most posts
having to do with it are pretty much deleted by most listmembers
(I may be wrong, but I think not ...).

The *topic* of my post was simply to answer that of someone else
- that person implied Paul might be wrong in thinking that
Wheaton (or at least a couple of people there) wanted to supress
his ideas because they didn't fit the party line.  I simply
wanted to make the point that there was evidence that he might be
*correct*.  Agree with it or not, the book had a considerable
amount of research in it, and was found by well respected
literary critics to be even handed, interesting, and worthy of
both scholarly and literary note.  Further, it was quite
readable, and sold considerably better outside of TS circles than
most TS books do.  Yet the TPH (i.e., John Algeo) refused to
publish it.  Now with most books about something as obscure as TS
history, the refusal to publish by the TPH would reasonably be
expected to kill the book ...  the person could either
self-publish, or shelve the manuscript - either way, the ideas
would be effectively "squelched".  But surprise! Not only did
Paul find another publisher, but the book started selling, and
getting reviewed in well known publications.  My point was, there
appears to be some authors that have no trouble getting published
by the TPH ...  even if the stuff is of highly questionable merit
both in terms of literary quality and potential sales (a lot of
the stuff wouldn't be touched by any other publisher, and sells
little more than a few hundreds) ...  while not only was Paul's
book not published, but was then criticised - *by the person who
turned it down* - in the TS national publication.  In fact it is
this sort of concentration of power - where the same person that
makes publishing decisions also has control of the national
publication in which those works are to be reveiewed - that is
one of the things I've been critical of.

As a matter of fact Daniel ...  I'm kinda curious ...  do *you*
think Paul's book should have been published by the TPH? In fact,
I actually think you probably *did* want to see the thing
published ...  as someone who may have looked at it closer than
many, I suspect you do think the opportunity to discuss the ideas
was probably a good thing for Theosophy.

To close (this long and probably tiresome (-:) post ...  it
appears as though you are defending yourself against a charge I
did not make against *you* ...  (*please* read my post carefully)
...  and wouldn't even think to make - in fact I think you have a
vested interest in the book being widely read ...  as the degree
of interest in your criticisms is virtually wholly dependent upon
the degree of interest in that which you critique.