asksecularwitch:

The feel when a post about how “newer spells are 95% fake bc spells only work for the creator, except when its “older spells” because they are more tested” has replies like great wisdom! Good post!

Yikes.

(In case you are wondering what the issue is:

1. If you are saying 95% of the spells available today (which includes older spells), only work for the creator, it doesnt matter how old the spell is. It just works for the creator, because the argument in the post is that spells work because it becomes highly personalized.

I personally think “highly personalized” spells are useful when it comes to being inclusive and making the spell easier for the practitioner to match to their specific environmental, mental, and physical needs (ie not having to remember a 50 word chant while standing for 20 minutes holding a lit candle in the middle of the woods, nude)

But that doesnt say anything to me about whether or not that spell is more successful beyond if a spell technique is easy to do for the spell caster the more likely that spell caster is going to choose to do it.

Simply put: people are likely to do things more frequently when it is easy and accessible for then to do those things.

Based on my experience my success rate is not on personalized spells verses other creatoes spells, its based on a myriad of other factors including whether or not the spell is actually achievable.

2. Age = quality, wrt spells argument has been made for years. Yes, newer spells have not been performed as much as older spells might have simply bc they are literally newer. In addition to that, newer spells dont have the people willing to test spells, the same way that others do. A lot of people turn up their noses and dont bother with it. So that means they are guessing that a newer spell doesnt work without actually performing it.

So how can a newer spell become rigorously tested if no one tests it but the creator?

3. In addition to that, how the heck do you know that a spell was rigorously tested by anyone else besides the creator? Just because it is old doesnt mean it was wide spread and in common practice. The argument that age equates to commonality makes me question exactly… how the op thinks spells were shared without the internet? And if the op is discussing say the New Age section? Then thats a very specific influence of magic out of the Wicca brand to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, rather than the folk magic spells or culturally significant spells in other places. I MIGHT have missed this argument that they made because I noped out of the discussion too early. But the point I am making is valid, the equation of commonality with age is not true. Spell techniques across decades change. Regionally spell ingredients change.

So making it a “exception” to the rule seems strange and like they are trying desperately to cover their ass in a particular corner case that doesnt apply. Because if spells ONLY work for the creator, then what about all the experiences people have with a particular common spell such as some that come from buckland or cunningham. As well as the case that dont go looking into historic magic because the creator is dead and therefore the access to the creator’s ability to cast that spell is dead. It died with them.

Seems like we are trying to fit two beliefs that dont agree with each in a perfect bundle instead of spending time accessing and addressing why a particular subset of spells (ie: newer spells) arent working for you if you are actually performing them (bc if you arent, there is nothing I can help with there. I cant help the spell caster who refuses to cast) . Is it a mindset or a paradigm shift you need to get into? Is it a problem of ingredients? Is it an access issue? Adaption issue? Are the goals of the spells not something that applies to you?

But these questions aren’t limited to newer spells, but in fact all spells can be asked these questions.

)