Chapter by chapter review of "The Real Astrology"

I got "The Real Astrology" by John Frawley today, so I decided to do a chapter by chapter review of this book as I read it.

Introduction by Victor Laude

The introduction starts out with a good selling pitch for the book. However in the second part that begins with "A word of warning", Mr. Laude starts to sound a bit mentally unstable.

Chapter I, Introduction to Traditional Astrology

Here Frawley starts out strong, and makes a good case. The Horary example is a good introduction to the subject. The handbag example is also very good.
However, when he tries to analyze Hitler's birthchart, he fumbles badly.
First: "Man - and more specifically, the male human - is the best balanced of all God's creatures,..." Right, a great example of male chauvinism, congratulations you just pissed off half of your readers.
Second: He claims that Hitler has a choleric temperament, but doesn't explain why. Really convincing, right?
Third: His criticism of modern astrology doesn't really work well. "... he would no doubt hear what a difficult childhood he had, how his creative drives are frustrated ..." Criticizing someone for making true statements aren't really convincing. Also, taking up the charming Libra ascendant prediction as false for a man who charmed a whole nation does not work.
The only things that are really convincing is the talk about dignities.

Overall score for this chapter: 6.5/10 (9/10 first part, 4/10 Hitler part)

(Review of Chapter II coming soon.)

Chapter II, The Rise of Modern Astrology

I'm not impressed by this chapter. It tells more about Mr. Frawley's world-view than it tells about modern astrology.
To sum it up:
- The modern world *****.
- Science is not science.
- Everything was better in the good old days.
- The truth is found in old authorities, preferably ones of the Abrahamitic religions.
- Psychology is useless for the average man.

Still, there are some points that I kind of agree with, mostly the criticism of "Centre for Psychological Astrology", and the kind of 'esoteric astrology' he mentions. (Undiscovered planets, bah - I call them Humburger planets)

In summary, the main value of this chapter is the insights it gives the readers about the world-view of the author. Caveat Lector.
Score: 6/10

Horary Astrology

Well, now we're cooking with fire. Here we have a good chapter.
The subjects of astrology discussion is good. The general principles discussed are clear. The examples are good.

However there are some stuff that I finds bad:
- He thinks that "As above, so below" is an argument for his theo-feudal worldview.
- Second, the criticism on the planet order in modern astrology is done in an awkward fashion, the arguments why should be presented at the same place as the criticism.
- Third, the introduction part of horary gets interrupted by some ramblings about the big beard in the sky.
- Fourth, the last part of the chapter is wasted on some paranoid rants against psychology. Oh no, the moral decadence of the 20th century is all the psychologists' fault.

Final score: 8/10, would have gotten 9/10 if he had stayed on subject.

It seems like I start to sound a bit like Frawley himself, when I'm reviewing him. Wonder if this is due to Mercury Pisces not having its own voice, and instead borrowing it by Parroting others?

Chapter 4, The Nature of Time

Well, this chapter is different. It started like a yawner, but got more interesting when we reached planetary hours. At last something really new and interesting to me. As for the rest of the chapter it was a criticism of linear clock hours, which I slightly agreed with. However, the ratio of astrological meat to non-astrological talk was not good.

So, valuable info with too much filler. Hard to grade. 7/10

Chapter 5, The Order of the Cosmos

Groan. Worst chapter so far. "It's not even wrong."
The only thing that this chapter did for me was to confirm that Frawley still lives in the year 1066, give and take a few centuries.
What's worst he contradicts himself, first he talks about malefic and benefic natures of planets, then he gives examples of the opposite.
Second, the great enemy of psychology suggest that we look inward.
Also, he gives the 3+4 formula as the reason for seven planets, but gives no 3 and 4 groupings of the planets.
"By taking a saint's name at, for instance, confirmation we share in the essence of that saint" - oh, the irony of my given names and my religious views.

Final score: 0/10, the book would have been better out without it.

Chapter 6, The Outer Planets and the Asteriods

What I learned from this chapter is that Frawley don't understand the symbolism of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, and don't want to study them seriously.
The chapter was a bit of hard reading since his rantings have become old.
Still, there are some valid critique mostly about the use of hypothetical planets, the fact the overuse of asteroids would tell everything and nothing, and the critique of the history-book method of finding planetary meanings.

Final Score 1/10, feeling a bit generous

Chapter 7, The Planets and Their Essences

This chapter starts a bit weak with the theory part which is not really clear.
However, it gets good when the more practical part begins with essential dignities.

Score 8.5/10

Chapter 8, Aspects

Best chapter so far. His claim that it's the planets, not the aspects that have orbs makes much sense. As for the rejection of minor aspects, well, they might symbolize something, but I have yet to see an astrological text to threat them with more than a paragraph at most. Also, his reason for the rejection of out-of-sign aspects makes sense.

Score 9.5/10

Been very busy today, so I only had time to read one chapter, sorry.

Chapter 9, Houses

A good solid chapter with much useful info. He did mostly a good job explaining stuff. The critique of equal houses was good, as was the critique of "the alphabet zodiac". A bit disappointing that he didn't identify the one true house system. (Of the two systems he discussed I would personally pick Regiomontanus over Placidus due to it being space-based.)

As for the discussion on general meaning of the houses, I found the discussion on the eighth the weakest, because claiming that it's just the house of death makes it too limited. What about the rest of the time, when we aren't dying?

Score 9/10

Chapter 10, Electional Astrology

Great chapter, he stays on subject and explain this branch of astrology very well. The example is also very well explained, with good points on how to take a not so good timespan and making the very best of it.
For any aspiring authors: Examples, examples and examples - One of the best teaching methods on how to make use of that theory.

This is the first chapter I'll award full points:
Score 10/10

Chapter 11, Natal Astrology

This chapter is not so good. The first third of it is spent ranting about modern psychological astrology.

It picks up a bit when he starts to explain the interaction between natal chart, progressions, return charts and transits. I like his comparison of returns and progressions to loading a gun, and transits pulling the trigger.
From his descriptions it's clear that he uses secondary progressions, however I'm missing a discussion on the subject of secondary vs. solar arc progressions.

The final pages of the chapter discuss some general principles, but the absence of examples makes it weak.

Score: 7/10

Chapter 12, Mundane Astrology

A very good introduction to this complicated subject.
The example is very well done, although I spotted some things he didn't take up that adds to the picture painted. (For those with the book check the Part of Fortune in the foundation, eclipse, solar return and full moon charts. Also check the position of Transiting Pluto relative to founding chart.)

However the last part about comets feels tacked on and not really convincing.

Score 9/10

Chapter 13, Astro-meteorology and Horticultural Astrology

A fair chapter, although the subject doesn't really interest me.
The explanation of the weather effects of planets and when to cast charts are useful.

Score 7/10

Chapter 14, Medical Astrology

A fairly good chapter, with a well done example. Here I agree with his criticism of modern medicine.

Score 8/10

Chapter 15, Synastry

Synastry is a complex subject, and the few pages that he has dedicated to it is not enough for more than a cursory treatment. However the idea to focus more on how two charts complement each others, instead of just looking for strong aspects is useful.

Score 7/10

Chapter 16, Astrological Magic

Well, he told us what it is.

Score 6/10

CJN, I hope you continue to review books for us!

If you are ever in Vancouver, BC, I highly recommend Banyon Books: really one of the best metaphysical book stores around. I was there some months ago. I thumbed through a copy of Frawley's book and decided not to buy it--with much disappointment. I really hoped for a good hands-on introduction to traditional astrology, but this book wasn't it. In all fairness to Frawley he didn't set out to write the kind of book I wanted. But his constant snide misrepresentations of modern astrology--presumably as his means of bolstering traditional astrology--just didn't cut it. It is one thing to criticize modern astrology, but he used far too many glib over-generalizations and "straw man" fallacies for me to pursue the kind of book he apparently did set out to write.

If you or anyone else can direct me to a good how-to (i. e., applied) introduction to traditional astrology I would be most appreciative. I am familiar with Skyscript and own one of Deborah Houlding's books, BTW.

waybread said:

CJN, I hope you continue to review books for us!

If you are ever in Vancouver, BC, I highly recommend Banyon Books: really one of the best metaphysical book stores around. I was there some months ago. I thumbed through a copy of Frawley's book and decided not to buy it--with much disappointment. I really hoped for a good hands-on introduction to traditional astrology, but this book wasn't it. In all fairness to Frawley he didn't set out to write the kind of book I wanted. But his constant snide misrepresentations of modern astrology--presumably as his means of bolstering traditional astrology--just didn't cut it. It is one thing to criticize modern astrology, but he used far too many glib over-generalizations and "straw man" fallacies for me to pursue the kind of book he apparently did set out to write.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words and the recommendation, Waybread. Too bad that it's unlikely that I travel as far as BC for books. I agree about Frawley, but I don't consider the book a loss. As for future reviews, it requires quite a mental effort to get my badly placed Mercury going, but I might feel inspired some day.

Back to the review:

Chapter 17, A Guide to Practice

A meaty chapter that would have fit better earlier in the book. It presents a lot of useful info, but there are annoying holes in it. Does a planet in mutual reception by sign get 5+5 essential dignity? Where do I find a table of all factors to use to evalute temperament? Is Mercury masculine, feminine or neither?, and so on .... The examples is as ever the parts when he is at his best.

Score 8/10

Chapter 18, Appendix: Some Popular Fallacies

A Q and A part, which I mostly agree with. It's only in the question with the outer planets that I totally disagree.


Final Summary

The Good:
- Frawley is good at presenting examples.
- The book contains a lot of meaty info about traditional astrology.

The Bad:
- He use his world-view too much to justify his criticism.
- His ignorance of modern astrology is too great, which makes some of his criticism sound outright silly.
- The book is badly organized, the tools should come before the examples, the most blatant is that you need to read the last chapter to understand the first.
- There are missing and glossed over stuff, that would annoy anyone trying to learn from the book.

Average chapter score: 6.9/10
Score for whole book: 7.5/10

Do I regret buying the book: No

Did I get value for my money: Yes, but it was slightly on the pricier side.

Do I recommend it: Meh. There is valuable info, but he's a reactionary not just in astrology. I'm more worried at the non-astrological influence his propaganding of his Abramitic world-view might have on the weak-willed.

CJN said:

It seems like I start to sound a bit like Frawley himself, when I'm reviewing him. Wonder if this is due to Mercury Pisces not having its own voice, and instead borrowing it by Parroting others?

Click to expand...

"It’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential." - Barack Obama

Edit: Dont be confused Im not talking about Frawley, just Mer in Pis, hahahaha.