Dead Names, Dead Dog: The Spellbook Shuffle, Part 3

Last time, we examined the historical accuracy of “Simon’s” description in Dead Names of the events surrounding the Necronomicon Spellbook.  Now we’re going to examine another aspect of the same passage.

Over the past few years, I’ve both undergone and conducted a number of job interviews.  A key to good questioning that I’ve learned is to focus on concrete examples.  Most job-seekers want to present themselves as hard-working, honest, friendly, and knowledgeable about their field.  It’s when it comes to describing actual experiences that you can get a better sense for what kind of person they are.

“Simon” states repeatedly in his book that his purveying of the Necronomicon and writing under a false name have no nefarious motivations.  In fact, they actually are done out of a sense of deep obligation to his readers, who must have this vitally important information to become self-sufficient boddhisattva-generals who will save the cosmos from the forces of darkness.  How does this anecdote fit into this?

Well, it doesn’t.

Let’s get started.  Why was the Report  written?

The Report had been Herman’s idea, since felt that a “guide” to the Necronomicon was needed by of his clientele.

Thus, the book was written due to Herman Slater’s influence.

How did “Simon” feel about the reprint?

I had second thoughts about the Spellbook, if only because I felt that it would detract from sales of the Necronomicon itself.

Thus, “Simon’s” main concern is that the Spellbook will cut into the sales of the Necronomicon.  (I find this highly unlikely, but maybe “Simon” actually thought that.)  So, why did he change his mind?

…Larry eventually did reach me and was insistent that we sign the contract.

Was he concerned about its length?  After all, the work had been a twenty-four page pamphlet before.

While I was satisfied with the work… I thought it could have been expanded more fully.

Here’s a hint from an author:  you can’t be satisfied with a work and want to expand it.  It’s one or the other.  Nonetheless, how does “Simon” make the decision?

He doesn’t.  He lets someone else do it for him.

There was, however, no time to do this, and the publishers were happy with the Report as is…

Not even the title is his business, for either version:

When it looked as if Avon Books wanted to republish what Herman Slater had called the Necronomicon Report as the Necronomicon Spellbook

So, what’s the driving force behind all of this?

And, quite frankly, Larry needed the money.

What’s striking about this is “Simon’s” complete abdication of responsibility.  He can’t be blamed for its creation, its title, its contents, or when it was reprinted.  Everything is foisted off on someone else, as if “Simon” himself had no control over himself writing it, or revising it, or authorizing the reprint.  Everything stems from someone else did.

Thus, we are treated to the spectacle of a man who wants to take credit for aiding in the salvation of the world blaming the creation and publication of his own book on other people.

Next time, it gets worse…

Published in: on October 21, 2006 at 9:52 pm  Comments (1)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://danharms.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/dead-names-dead-dog-the-spellbook-shuffle-part-3/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. […] Dead Names, Dead Dog: The Spellbook Shuffle, Part 3 […]


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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