New Book By Simon Options

I just wanted everyone to know there is a new book coming out by our old friend Simon. Yes the same author of the Necronomicon.

The title of the new book which is Dead Names : The Dark History of the Necronomicon has been out for awhile and it is still not released as of yet BUT they have finally released a picture of the book and a quick overview.

Here is the picture of the new book:

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Frater_Nero/newbook.jpg)

and here is the Book Description:


The most feared, fascinating, and dangerous book in the history of humankind . . . Necronomicon

An ancient Arabic text -- a powerful book of spells that could, in the wrong hands, create unimaginable and irreversible devastation -- the Necronomicon featured prominently in the stories of legendary horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. For many generations, few believed it to be anything other than pure fiction.

But in 1972, a young man who, for his own protection, must be known simply as "Simon," stumbled upon an old, handwritten manuscript that ultimately proved to be an authentic edition of the unholy work.

Dead Names is the startling true account of the dark and violent history of this most fearsome of books: from its Middle Eastern origins to its reemergence centuries later; its role in pivotal events of the twentieth century, from the JFK assassination to the Son of Sam murders; and the terrible fates that befell those who helped bring the Necronomicon out of the shadows and into the light of day.

The above might sound harsh, so let me give an example. BTW, if you want a response of mine to a particular piece in either book, please let me know.

Dead Names, pp. 287-88:

Page 134-36: In this section, Gonce attacks the entire idea that there is a “Sumerian Tradition” in modern magic, a patently untenable position that flies in the face of the (documented) facts... Although they claim to be familiar with the works of Kenneth Grant, Gonce and Harms fail to note in their tirade against the Necronomicon that Grant refers to the Sumerian Tradition himself many times over the course of his body of work... Jack Parsons, one of the members of the OTO’s Pasadena lodge in the 1940s, refers to the Sumerian Tradition several times in his own writings, thus demonstrating that it was not unknown to the “mages” of that time and that Order.

Simon's conclusion?

I cannot imagine what sort of occult experts Harms and Gonce had contacted, or of what books their considerable libraries consist, but these references to Sumer are in Parsons, Crowley, and Grant.

It's a pretty damning indictment, no?

Maybe looking back at the first few sentences to the section covering pages 134-36 of The Necronomicon Files will help:

In the introduction to his Necronomicon, SImon claims that H. P. Lovecraft and Aleister Crowley met (at least mentally) on the "common soil" of Sumer. Simon also quotes Aleister Crowley as saying: "Our work is therefore historically authentic; the rediscovery of the Sumerian tradition." So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?

The section goes on to discuss the references to "Sumer" and "Chaldaea" in Crowley - not Grant, not Parsons, and certainly not modern magic in general. I'm not certain why anyone would have expected otherwise.

The above might sound harsh, so let me give an example. BTW, if you want a response of mine to a particular piece in either book, please let me know.

Dead Names, pp. 287-88:

Page 134-36: In this section, Gonce attacks the entire idea that there is a “Sumerian Tradition” in modern magic, a patently untenable position that flies in the face of the (documented) facts... Although they claim to be familiar with the works of Kenneth Grant, Gonce and Harms fail to note in their tirade against the Necronomicon that Grant refers to the Sumerian Tradition himself many times over the course of his body of work... Jack Parsons, one of the members of the OTO’s Pasadena lodge in the 1940s, refers to the Sumerian Tradition several times in his own writings, thus demonstrating that it was not unknown to the “mages” of that time and that Order.

Simon's conclusion?

I cannot imagine what sort of occult experts Harms and Gonce had contacted, or of what books their considerable libraries consist, but these references to Sumer are in Parsons, Crowley, and Grant.

It's a pretty damning indictment, no?

Maybe looking back at the first few sentences to the section covering pages 134-36 of The Necronomicon Files will help:

In the introduction to his Necronomicon, SImon claims that H. P. Lovecraft and Aleister Crowley met (at least mentally) on the "common soil" of Sumer. Simon also quotes Aleister Crowley as saying: "Our work is therefore historically authentic; the rediscovery of the Sumerian tradition." So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?

The section goes on to discuss the references to "Sumer" and "Chaldaea" in Crowley - not Grant, not Parsons, and certainly not modern magic in general. I'm not certain why anyone would have expected otherwise.

Dan, the next line in your book after "So, how important was the Sumerian Tradition to Crowley?" is: "Daniel and I have both searched diligently for this quote and haven't found it yet, though we have sifted painstakingly through our considerable libraries and enlisted the help of mages on the alt.magick newsgroup on the Internet, many of whom are dedicated Thelemites with a knowledge of Crowley's writing that exceeds our own." (p. 134)

I then go on to show that this quote, which no one in your circle could find, is standing right there in the same book by Grant, the Magical Revival, that was cited in yours. It is a quote by Crowley. Not Grant, not Parsons. I think it is a pretty damning indictment, if you ask me, of your painstaking sifting.

As for the Hamblin reference, you are focused on that but I wasn't. It wasn't important. What was important was the relation of the Arabic -- and Quranic -- khadhulu to Cthulhu. It's still important, whether brought to my attention by Hamblin, Ryan, or Milton Berle. I gave Ryan his due, as was only proper, then went on to investigate it myself from the original, primary source: the Quran. I then went and referenced other works by Islamic scholars on the same point. I figure that was better than looking for Hamblin. I think that's scholarship, not relying on the Internet and some unidentified "mages" who couldn't find an important quote by Crowley on Sumer.

But ...I could be wrong.

I also don't want to sound harsh, but The Necronomicon Files were an extended attack on me and my contribution to the field so I feel entitled to a little harshness! Anyway, no hard feelings. Life's too short. I stand behind my statements regarding Crowley and the Sumerian tradition, and how it was picked up and amplified by Parsons and Grant. I also stand behind my research concerning khadhulu/Cthulhu and, yes, even KUTU-LU. I feel that the research presented in Dead Names more than adequately answered the objections in The Necronomicon Files; of course, I don't expect you to feel that way. C'est la vie. I am perfectly willing to respond to other criticisms as best I can, though.

I was quite surprised to find the Book of Dead Names in Barnes and Nobles in the east 40's of Manhattan NY. It is well written and a good read. I think its pretty apparant from the introduction that Simon says alot of people have died in connection to the book. He says.

" I hope that when the reader is finished with this account -this memento mori this confessio, this summa necronomica- that he or she comes away with the certain knowledge that no matter what the necronomicon is or isn't it is most definitly not a hoax.

It seems like Simon is trying to get it off his chest. Alot of his friends connected with the book are now dead. So it must be bothersome for him to hear the babbling of idiots which does not exclude postings on this syte.

Whatever whatever anyone who has ever read the Necronomicon files from cover to cover without vomiting is most notably and outstandingly a dork wad. I love Lovecraft but lets not compare apples to bannanas.

This post has been edited by smasher666: Apr 15 2006, 09:47 PM

Hi Simon,

and thank you for a thrilling read. I picked up dead names a week ago, and it is the first book which has kept me up half night because I couldn't put it down for a long time.

I also look forward immensely to the gates. Having had a brief brush with your nec I have not wanted to touch it since :-) but given even more info that may very well become an option. My only complaint is that I shall have to wait until september before I can get my hands on the gates.

Sometimes I have had the feeling that it is - will be with these two books that the fondly nicked Simonomicon current will entrench itself as one of the stronger currents of contemporality.

I guess I _may_ have hundreds of questions when/if I start working with it, so I really hope you will be online after the publication of gates. But for now I only have one, which is more the idle curiosity kind: since the publication of dead names I figure your anonymity will be pretty much gone - I mean, people must be able to identify you given the new data.

Noxlux

This post has been edited by nox: Apr 16 2006, 12:50 PM

Hi Simon,

and thank you for a thrilling read. I picked up dead names a week ago, and it is the first book which has kept me up half night because I couldn't put it down for a long time.

I also look forward immensely to the gates. Having had a brief brush with your nec I have not wanted to touch it since :-) but given even more info that may very well become an option. My only complaint is that I shall have to wait until september before I can get my hands on the gates.

Sometimes I have had the feeling that it is - will be with these two books that the fondly nicked Simonomicon current will entrench itself as one of the stronger currents of contemporality.

I guess I _may_ have hundreds of questions when/if I start working with it, so I really hope you will be online after the publication of gates. But for now I only have one, which is more the idle curiosity kind: since the publication of dead names I figure your anonymity will be pretty much gone - I mean, people must be able to identify you given the new data.

Noxlux

Thanks for your kind comments. I hope Gates lives up to its reputation!

As for my identity ... well, people will assume they know who I am, and they may be in for a surprise! In any event, I am not the first writer to use a pseudonym and I won't be the last. Some very famous authors use them, just to keep their identity secret when they try a new genre, for instance. No one complains to them! And guys like J.D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon don't use pseudonyms ...but then they disappear completely anyway. In the past few decades we've learned that writers such as Anne Rice, Stephen King, and many others have written and published books under other names. Somehow, though, when it comes to the Necronomicon and Simon there seems to be this cottage industry in revealing my identity. Weird, huh?

Let the book stand for itself. Who I am is not important at all. Think of me as just a means to an end for getting the Necronomicon to the public.

I am willing to answer any questions you might have, though, insh'allah.