Welcome to Gaia! ::

Okay, I'm going to mention one of the more hated authors on this forum in this thread, but there's a good reason for it. Please hear me out.

I know Scott Cunningham's Wicca, for the Solitary Practitioner isn't real Wicca. I have read as much in the ED and here. But does that revelation void his work completely? I have two of his books on herbs and insence-making, and found them useful. because his definition of Wicca is wrong, does that make all his research on herbal magic (or crystals and metals) suspect to falsehood as well? Can a book be useful as a reference tool for magical uses if one does not subscribe to the author's spells (or method of casting, if that is in question), or is the entire foundation faulty?

Because someone has "bad" ideas about practice, does it mean their research into folklore is equally "bad"?

my theory is, take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt....process the ideas and if its crap then its crap, but i have a great many books that i use for reference that are good for NOTHING ELSE...

one book you read will tell you one thing, and the next book on the same matter is going to tell you something else, just as you think of things in different terms as i may...

it is a long tedious task of sifting through the crap to find the meaningful, but that all comes with the idea of studying anything....
(look at history...they change the text books every year, and why? not to add the new information, but to change the old)....

Do you extend this to Mythological collections that are Primary Texts beyond translation?