Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00914)

At 10:01 AM 5/15/96 -0400, you wrote:

>	Well, actually, I ought to clarify. I skimmed "Celestine
>Prophecies" ... not really my cup of tea. And yes, he is writing fiction
>(which, as is well known by now, he admitted). My only point was that he
>is accessible. And he *wants* to be accessible. The TS not only does not
>seem to wish to be, but at least some seem to feel as though the small
>numbers and obscurity of the literature somehow makes Theosophy "more
>spiritual" (Which is what I was answering in Jerry's post). Whether
>Redfield is valid is a seperate question. He does nothing for me.
>								  -JRC
>
>
>JRC:

In this case, I think he wants to be accessible because he wants to make a
big profit on his book (and clearly has done so). He also will probably do
"movie rights" and "TV rights etc.). This is a continuation of the Shirley
Mac Clain phenomenon. Your comments vis a vis the Theosophical Society are
cogent, valid, and very true. I am beginning to have strong questions as to
whether organized Theosophy is at all "spiritual" or only pretentious. As to
Redfield, well, if I am going to read fantasy (and I do) I'll take Mercedes
Lackey, David Eddings, and Guy Gavriel Kay.

alexis