Kraig's Modern Magic Vs. Fraters High Magick, Two good books on a similar topic Options

Hey looking for an opinion,

As I have stated in other topics, Kraig's book seemed more like a manual than a guide to me. I really enjoyed Frater U.D's book as it seemed to "flow" more like a guide.

As I have stated in other topics, Kraig's book seemed more like a manual than a guide to me. I really enjoyed Frater U.D's book as it seemed to "flow" more like a guide.

Maybe my English isnt up to what it should be but could you explain the difference between a manual and a guide.
thanks (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


p.s. I did look in a dictionary to see if i was being super stupid
manual: a small book, esp. one giving information or instructions
guide: a book, pamphlet, etc., giving information, instructions, or advice.

Dictionary.reference.com

Maybe my English isnt up to what it should be but could you explain the difference between a manual and a guide.
thanks (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
p.s. I did look in a dictionary to see if i was being super stupid
manual: a small book, esp. one giving information or instructions
guide: a book, pamphlet, etc., giving information, instructions, or advice.

Dictionary.reference.com

I'm with you on this one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/diablo.gif) Both are good books each with it's own merits, both are great for beginner, and advanced alike. I do like both, but if I were teaching a course MM would be the course, HM would be require reading. As I've said before I wish this would have been available 30 years ago, I read Initiation into Hermetics in my begining studies, though very good, MM is more user friendly, and has a modern feel.( Go figure Modern Magick-modern feel? ha) Redhand (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wizard.gif)

This post has been edited by redhand: Oct 27 2006, 04:32 AM

When I think of the word "manual", it invokes images of a thick book loaded with info. Somewhere between an encyclopedia and a guide book. I should have been more clear on that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/worthy.gif)

thanks. All clear now (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I do like both, but if I were teaching a course MM would be the course, HM would be require reading.

Ave

I definitely agree with the above, but as for which is better, their aims aren't exactly the same, Modern Magick leans more to Golden Dawn/Wicca while U.'.D.'.'s book leans more to Chaos magick, but in the end, the best course would be to work them both.

Ad Scientiam

I started out with MM as a reccomendation but have found Fraters book a bit more 'indepth'. After a while I found MM to be a bit simplistic especially after reading other books.

Frater wins.

I have never heard of Fraters High Magick, I had Bardon, MM and every mangled Slone m.s. document copy from the British library I could get my little hands on here in Canada... now I must immediately collect it to review! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/book.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif) Happiness!

High Magick, for me. It's been a while since I've read Modern Magick, and it struck me as having a good set of directions for various rituals, but I'm liking High Magick for its exercises in developing magickal consciousness, and also for its explanations of the underlying ideas.

I'm working through High Magick and Bardon.

High Magick, for me. It's been a while since I've read Modern Magick, and it struck me as having a good set of directions for various rituals, but I'm liking High Magick for its exercises in developing magickal consciousness, and also for its explanations of the underlying ideas.

I'm working through High Magick and Bardon.

Agree, voted for both by accident and was a fan of Modern Magic at first but its obvious High magic is much easier to work from and is well formatted in general. Modern Magic just dosen't know where it is at times and only serves as a good manual.

High Magic wins hands down.

I am going for MM, mainly because it was my intro on the subject of ceremonial magick by about 10 years before I got HM.

I really want to establish that neither is best, both are very good at what they try to do and I know plenty of people who have gotten great results from both.

If starting today…I would only recommend MM over HM for people I know personally as I have done most of the exercises there and know the book much better. I would need to reread HM a few times to get to that same level of familiarity.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wallbash.gif) Yet another book needed to be added to my list.. Better get readin'!

So far i'm reading MM and it's pretty good so far, according to the poll HM is more "preferable". Thx for the poll