Dead Names, Dead Dog: An Interruption of Our Regular Broadcast

I thought I was going to post on something else tonight.  I started re-reading Dead Names to make sure I was getting things straight, and…

I ask you to prove me wrong on this.

Necronomicon readers will know that the Watcher is a sort of guardian spirit the magician summons early in his career.  Simon begins this diatribe on pages 225-226:

The controversy among occultists, pagans, and “cult cops” over the subject of blood sacrifice and the Watcher of the Necronomicon is only comprehensible to a modern-day Westerner. To a Muslim, the idea of bloody sacrifice is a common one, and indeed, it is mandated during the performance of the hajj, the sacred Pilgrimage to Mecca (and the obligatory circuit of the Ka’aba) every healthy and able Muslim is expected to take at least once in his or her lifetime. Therefore, to find it included as a requirement for the invocation of the Watcher in a book penned by an Arab of the eighth century is neither unexpected nor somehow sinister. To those whose modern sensitivities are offended by the idea of sacrifice, I can only apologize for our bad taste in translating that portion into English (rather than have it appear in Latin in the manner of Victorian historians writing about the sexual practices of the ancient Romans!)…

Now, I'm more than willing to find a reason to condemn Simon, but even as a modern-day Westerner, I was having trouble figuring out what he was talking about.  I turned to the Necronomicon and found the following on page 69:

[The symbols] must be engraved upon the bowl with a fine stylus, or painted thereon with dark ink.  The sacrifice must be new bread, pine resin, and the grass Olieribos.  These must be burned in the new bowl, and the Sword of the Watcher, with his Sigil engraved thereupon, at hand…

I've looked back and forth through the Necronomicon, and I've even checked some of the Necronomicon web pages written by people who have made it part of their practice. I've yet to find any reference whatsoever to a blood sacrifice being made to summon the Watcher.

Thus, I have two scenarios.  I could be entirely wrong about this.  Or, Simon just spent half a page in Dead Names valiantly defending himself against, and mocking the prudishness of, a wide range of non-existent people who have taken a non-existent stance on a non-existent passage from the Necronomicon. It's like me being on the court, the ball in my hand, with the defenders engaged and a straight shot to the basket.  In short, it could never happen.

So, prove me wrong.

Published in: on June 18, 2006 at 12:09 pm  Comments (3)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Thanks for your great post i am doing a study on this and you really helped me out here



  2. ???? do you really want to be proven wrong, because it is fairly simple and uncomplicated, even for me only having a few years of occult research behind me. it does mention blood sacrifice to the watcher, but not directly. the whole fucking thing is written in code, have you not realized that yet???

  3. Utter joke of a book, know its an old post but thanks for this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s