Curious about opinions on Ralph Blum

[Corvus]

My introduction to the Elder Futhark came years ago when my father bought Ralph Blum's The Book of Runes. I was fascinated, and spent more time with that pouch of runestones than he did. The book was a little over my head at the time, though. One thing I do remember is that Blum reordered the runes from the Aetts into five sets of five, and added in personal interpretations and a bunch of metaphysical imagery relating to a personal journey.

Since then I've learned a bit more, though in recent years I haven't done much work with them. I am curious, though -- what's the prevailing opinion of Blum's work? I've been thinking about trying to scare up a copy of The Book of Runes for myself to contrast with some of the other materials I have, and I was wondering if I would be wasting my time.

[LisaT4P]

The opinions of those who have helped me were not good where Blum is concerned. Most I know usually recommend Thorsson instead. :)

[S_Wodening]

Blum should be avoided like the plague IMO. He totally disregarded the Futhork order, and did not bother to reference the many things in the Norse and Germanic lore that help one develop interpretations of the runes. Thorsson too has his problems. A lot of his work is based on that of high ritual magic, and really has no place in rune work. I recommend Kveldulf Gundarsson's Teutonic Magic. It is probably the best book out there, even better than my own IMO.

[Corvus]

Blum should be avoided like the plague IMO. He totally disregarded the Futhork order, and did not bother to reference the many things in the Norse and Germanic lore that help one develop interpretations of the runes. Thorsson too has his problems. A lot of his work is based on that of high ritual magic, and really has no place in rune work. I recommend Kveldulf Gundarsson's Teutonic Magic. It is probably the best book out there, even better than my own IMO.

From what little I can recall of the text it seemed like Blum interpreted the runes almost from an Eastern perspective, with dashes of Buddhism and Taoism. Is that in and of itself offensive in your opinion, or is the problem more that he ignored the original lore while doing so? By which I mean, if he had blended the Eastern philosophical perspectives with the original lore, would it be more acceptible?

I'll keep an eye out for the book you recommended. I am curious as to what your book is, as well.

[Heart of All]

From what little I can recall of the text it seemed like Blum interpreted the runes almost from an Eastern perspective, with dashes of Buddhism and Taoism. Is that in and of itself offensive in your opinion, or is the problem more that he ignored the original lore while doing so? By which I mean, if he had blended the Eastern philosophical perspectives with the original lore, would it be more acceptible?


I bought a book by him (Not the Book of Runes...even more embarrassingly, it's called "relationship runes." I liked them because they were pink...). Anyway, he has this whole story in the beginning of how he bought these runes from this woman who gave him a reading, and he had a sheet of paper with the meaning of each rune on it. Then years later, he dropped it all out of order and didn't know the order anymore, so he put them all upside down and told them to go in the right order for him. So he shuffled them around. And then he used the I Ching to clarify the meanings for him. And then someone told him later that his alphabet was in the right order. And he added the blank rune.

I don't think the problem is that he blended in Eastern philosophical perspectives, so much as that he totally changed the original runic system and didn't advertise it as a modern creation based on the original runes.

[Corvus]

(Not the Book of Runes...even more embarrassingly, it's called "relationship runes." I liked them because they were pink...).

Okay, the concept might be... a touch silly... but hey, pink runes? Why not?


Anyway, he has this whole story in the beginning of how he bought these runes from this woman who gave him a reading, and he had a sheet of paper with the meaning of each rune on it. Then years later, he dropped it all out of order and didn't know the order anymore, so he put them all upside down and told them to go in the right order for him. So he shuffled them around. And then he used the I Ching to clarify the meanings for him. And then someone told him later that his alphabet was in the right order. And he added the blank rune.

I seem to recall something similar from The Book of Runes, but only because you mention it. I also recall him telling a story about driving down the road at something like 80 MPH, scribbling furiously into a notebook as these ideas came to him. Not entirely sure what such an act implies about Mr. Blum. I mean, come on, it's not that hard to pull over to write, is it?


I don't think the problem is that he blended in Eastern philosophical perspectives, so much as that he totally changed the original runic system and didn't advertise it as a modern creation based on the original runes.

I get the sense now that he did a number of different things which rub different people the wrong way. At the time I had contact with his book, I didn't know any better. I suppose I was looking back at the book more from nostalgia than anything else. Thanks for the responses, my curiosity is definitely satisfied.

[Rick]

what's the prevailing opinion of Blum's work?

It's crap.

[S_Wodening]

From what little I can recall of the text it seemed like Blum interpreted the runes almost from an Eastern perspective, with dashes of Buddhism and Taoism. Is that in and of itself offensive in your opinion, or is the problem more that he ignored the original lore while doing so? By which I mean, if he had blended the Eastern philosophical perspectives with the original lore, would it be more acceptible?

I'll keep an eye out for the book you recommended. I am curious as to what your book is, as well.

It was the fact he ignored the original lore. I would not mind blending, though I think there is no need for it. But to totally ignore the original sources relating to the runes to me is a crime.

[Corvus]

It was the fact he ignored the original lore. I would not mind blending, though I think there is no need for it. But to totally ignore the original sources relating to the runes to me is a crime.

I hear you. I didn't know nearly enough at the time to realize how disrespectful such a thing was. It's clear to me now that there are much better sources, so enough of Ralph Blum. Thank you very much for the informative answers. I would like to ask, as an aside, what about Donald Tyson? I acquired his "Rune Magic Cards" some years back, and while I'm not given to putting much stock in the little booklets that come with such sets, he did seem to do less "personal reinterpretation", keeping to the Aetts and so on. I know he's written a few books on the subject. Is his work worth anything, keeping in mind the book recommendation you made (which I fully intend to seek out)?

[Rick]

Tyson tried to rearrange the Futhark order with his "uthark" theory- Uruz being the first rune, and Fehu being last. This is based, I believe, on a single carving from Sweden showing the runes in this order... it's much more likely that it was a "typo", and ya can't exactly use White-Out to correct stone carvings... I never got past the "uthark" theory in his stuff, so don't know if the rest of it is worthwhile or not...

For what it's worth, he's on my "It's Crap" list... Lisa Peschel also comes to mind...

Here's a list you might find useful (it is intended as a starting place, not a be-all-end-all); it's in no particular order...



Rune Resource List
---
BOOKS


“Must Haves”


THE RUNE PRIMER by Sweyn Plowright


NORTHERN MYSTERIES & MAGICK by Freya Aswynn


The collective works of Edred Thorsson, including
FUTHARK and RUNELORE


TAKING UP THE RUNES by Diana Paxson


THE POETIC EDDA trans. by Lee M. Hollander


THE POETIC EDDA trans. by Carolyne Larrington


ELEMENTS OF RUNES by Bernard King


TEUTONIC MAGIC by Kveldulf Gundarsson
---


“Should Haves”


PRINCIPALS OF RUNES by Freya Aswynn


RUNE MAGIC by Nigel Pennick


HELRUNAR by Jan Fries (advanced)


TEUTONIC RELIGION by Kveldulf Gundarsson


RUNE CHARMS: PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
OF RUNE MAGIC by Rick R. Wilson
---


“Also Recommended”


RUNES by R.I. Page
---


WEBSITES


www.northvegr.org (http://www.northvegr.org) (lore)


www.irminsul.org (http://www.irminsul.org) (links)


www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=10509 (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=10509) (meanings)


www.mackaos.com.au/Rune-Net (http://www.mackaos.com.au/Rune-Net) (online learning resource-annual membership fee)


www.aswynn.co.uk (http://www.aswynn.co.uk) (Freya Aswynn’s home page)


http://www.runaraven.com (http://www.runaraven.com) (books)

[SilverClaw]

Tyson tried to rearrange the Futhark order with his "uthark" theory- Uruz being the first rune, and Fehu being last. This is based, I believe, on a single carving from Sweden showing the runes in this order... it's much more likely that it was a "typo", and ya can't exactly use White-Out to correct stone carvings... I never got past the "uthark" theory in his stuff, so don't know if the rest of it is worthwhile or not...

For what it's worth, he's on my "It's Crap" list... Lisa Peschel also comes to mind...

Here's a list you might find useful (it is intended as a starting place, not a be-all-end-all); it's in no particular order...



Rune Resource List
---
BOOKS

“Must Haves”

THE RUNE PRIMER by Sweyn Plowright

NORTHERN MYSTERIES & MAGICK by Freya Aswynn

The collective works of Edred Thorsson, including
FUTHARK and RUNELORE

TAKING UP THE RUNES by Diana Paxson

THE POETIC EDDA trans. by Lee M. Hollander

THE POETIC EDDA trans. by Carolyne Larrington

ELEMENTS OF RUNES by Bernard King

TEUTONIC MAGIC by Kveldulf Gundarsson
---

“Should Haves”

PRINCIPALS OF RUNES by Freya Aswynn

RUNE MAGIC by Nigel Pennick

HELRUNAR by Jan Fries (advanced)

TEUTONIC RELIGION by Kveldulf Gundarsson

RUNE CHARMS: PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
OF RUNE MAGIC by Rick R. Wilson
---

“Also Recommended”

RUNES by R.I. Page
---

WEBSITES

www.northvegr.org (http://www.northvegr.org) (lore)

www.irminsul.org (http://www.irminsul.org) (links)

www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=10509 (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=10509) (meanings)

www.mackaos.com.au/Rune-Net (http://www.mackaos.com.au/Rune-Net) (online learning resource-annual membership fee)

www.aswynn.co.uk (http://www.aswynn.co.uk) (Freya Aswynn’s home page)

http://www.runaraven.com (http://www.runaraven.com) (books)

Hey Rick is that your book in that list? :D


Also in your post above you said:

For what it's worth, he's on my "It's Crap" list... Lisa Peschel also comes to mind... Ok so to clarify you are saying Lisa P's work on Runes is on your crap list? Then why in older threads in the rune forum is this found? Was there a particular book that changed your mind?


These authors are on Uncle Ricky's RECOMMENDED Rune Reading List (good stuff; only pass 'em over if it's a choice between one of these & one of the above):

Lisa Peschel
Bernard King
Nigel Pennick
Jan Fries
Ralph Elliott
Michael Howard
Karl Spiesberger
Donald Tyson
Guido von Listhttp://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=321358&postcount=4

[Rick]

Yes, that's my book... it's sorta cool to have your own book on the bookshelf as a reference (and sorta sad that ya have to refer to your own book to remember what ya wrote :hehehehe: )

Regarding L. Peschel... when that old post was posted, her work had been recommended to me (by someone who frankly should have known better). On that person's advice, I purchased her book, & read as far as the blank rune... ALL rune books that give serious consideration to the notion of a blank rune (other than to hold it up to ridicule) are on my It's Crap list. Same goes for Tyson and his uthark theory.

Live and learn.

[SilverClaw]

Yes, that's my book... it's sorta cool to have your own book on the bookshelf as a reference (and sorta sad that ya have to refer to your own book to remember what ya wrote :hehehehe: ) :hehehe:


Regarding L. Peschel... when that old post was posted, her work had been recommended to me (by someone who frankly should have known better). On that person's advice, I purchased her book, & read as far as the blank rune... ALL rune books that give serious consideration to the notion of a blank rune (other than to hold it up to ridicule) are on my It's Crap list. Same goes for Tyson and his uthark theory.

Live and learn.Ya I just came through the divination forum and found some other Rune threads where I noticed you left out her name out so I thought it was something like that :D And I do have a copy of her book (just got it two days ago) and I just ignored the Blank Rune stuff and used the stuff I needed :)

[Hærfest Leah]

Yes, that's my book... it's sorta cool to have your own book on the bookshelf as a reference (and sorta sad that ya have to refer to your own book to remember what ya wrote :hehehehe: )


Uh yeah me too, me too! Having Ricks book on my shelf I mean.

[Russ]

So Rick where can I buy your book? :boing:

[Rick]

PM me your email addy.

[windblown]

As a student of Taoism, I connect with Blum's book. The readings I get are uncanny and offer an immediate insight that I have never received with tarot, I-ching, or other divination methods I have used. Blum may not be historically accurate but that doesn't mean his book is junk. It is helping me.

[Rick]

As a student of Taoism, I connect with Blum's book. The readings I get are uncanny and offer an immediate insight that I have never received with tarot, I-ching, or other divination methods I have used. Blum may not be historically accurate but that doesn't mean his book is junk. It is helping me.
To a student of the Tao, his book may be helpful. To a student of Heathenism, the native religion of the runes, Blum's book is junk.

[SilverClaw]

Well Blum was how I started out with Runes but once I got the hint that other site information was not adding up out it went and I have not used that rune set for much ....

[windblown]

For Rick:


Argument Checklist

• Is this subject worth arguing about?
• Have I gathered enough evidence to make an argument?
• Do I represent the views of my opponents in a way they would consider fair?
• Have I developed my argument logically?
• Is my use of evidence accurate?
• Have I tried to prove too much?

Rules for Fair Argument

1. Argue about something meaningful; interest and commitment to a trivial argument is unlikely. If you consistently choose to argue over trivial matters, others soon will learn to pay little attention; then, when a legitimately important issue arises, your input will have been negated.

2. Argue in the present tense; do not unnecessarily drag in the past. People who save the past for another day are "gunny- sacking," an unproductive practice. This practice only invites reciprocal behavior on the part of others which degenerates your arguments into a mud slinging exercise.

3. Argue about one event, behavior, want, need, expectation, or statement at a time; do not try to link items -- separate each one -- this is truly hard to do and it takes time; but it is a worthwhile strategy.

4. When an argument is over, agree that it's over -- done for good, never to be heard of again! Never try to reopen an old argument -- this is not only not fair, it is suicide; if you allow one old argument to be restarted, then your adversary is free to open others too. This cycle never ends!

5. Finish each argument you start -- do not leave an argument in mid-stream. Leaving an argument unfinished leaves parties vulnerable to it being reopened at a most inopportune time, place, and manner.

6. Argue without the aid of coaching, without employing allies. Otherwise, your arguments become "team" efforts. Such teams tend to grow and eventually you are just a pawn.

7. Argue honestly -- make no false or misleading claims, use no phony evidence, nor employ exaggerations.

8. Find a time when all parties are calm, available, and willing to argue -- some delay is OK to calm emotions, but not an elongated or manipulative delay.

9. Argue face-to-face; using phone calls, memos, letters, or third parties is not ethical nor are these tactics usually effective.

10. Avoid cheap-shot emotional tugs (ie: crying, shouting, threatening others, threatening suicide, and name-calling).

11. Keep your talk personalized (ie: use "I," "me," "my," "mine" not "you," "they," "them," "everyone,").

12. Keep argument subtopics relevant -- do not get sidetracked or try to change the subject.

13. Do not monopolize the argument; give others a chance to be an equal part.

14. Do not play guilt trips with the other party.

15. Directly respond to accusations; do not minimize, catastr ophize, or ignore them.

16. Describe, don't express emotions during the argument; if you cannot control yourself emotionally, call a time-out.

17. Claim and admit to your own feelings -- do not generalize or externalize them.

18. Label inferences as just that -- inferences are not facts, observations, or experiences; they are guesses, no matter how skilled.

19. Supply open, complete, and honest support for the claims that you make -- do not be evasive, coy, or "fuzzy" about what you mean.

20. Don't argue about everything. If everything is subject to a fight, then there is no real priority for the really important occurrences.

21. Do not start another argument right after one is over. This is not fair nor is it productive. It is likely to produce resentment.

22. Do not gloat over a victory or catastrophize a loss. Your behavior in other arguments is bound to influence how open and honest others are with you in future arguments.

23. Do not belabor points; when a point is made, agree on that and go on to the next point.

24. Avoid negatively charged and personally attacking terms (ie: fool, idiot, stupid, lazy, weird, crazy, ass-hole, free-loader, etc.)

25. Keep your language as clear, concrete, specific, and neutral as you can. If your adversary fails to do this, ask for clarification.

[Rick]

I don't argue about runes. I regularly discuss runes, here and on a myriad of other message boards and e-lists. I teach runes to any that are willing to learn, I learn something new about runes virtually every day, and have written a book on the subject.

When you have A) studied the subject matter of the discussion (arguing, by the way, is done in the political forum, but I wouldn't advise posting any sort of rules there) as long as I have, and B) been a member-in-good-standing of this community for as long as I have, then you may make any rules you like. However, at that point, I'll still be A) 40+ years, and B) 7 years, respectively, ahead of you, and will still be ignoring any rules that you post.

[~Elise~]

Rules for Fair Argument


Mysticwicks has its own rule. Respect. Please do not be making up new rules for the site

[windblown]

I must apologize to you Rick, I confused you with someone in my past on this site whose name I won't disclose but whose arrogance and aggressiveness was so abrasive in matters of 'Heathenism'...(not runes) that I quit coming here.

I have been off and on this site for the last 7 years... I was first aquadreamer and after that...fallingwater. (i've moved a lot in the past 5 years !)

Rick, I remember you. You have helped me much in the past and I respect your work with the Runes very much. I mixed you up with a hammer wielding 8 legged horse that ruffled my feathers long ago.

Please accept my apology.

[Rick]

I must apologize to you Rick, I confused you with someone in my past on this site whose name I won't disclose but whose arrogance and aggressiveness was so abrasive in matters of 'Heathenism'...(not runes) that I quit coming here.

I have been off and on this site for the last 7 years... I was first aquadreamer and after that...fallingwater. (i've moved a lot in the past 5 years !)

Rick, I remember you. You have helped me much in the past and I respect your work with the Runes very much. I mixed you up with a hammer wielding 8 legged horse that ruffled my feathers long ago.

Please accept my apology.

Accepted, no hard feelings.