From an Oblique Angle
  • Blog
  • THINK TO NEW WORLDS
  • Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend
  • The Fire Ant Wars
  • Articles

Satan: Anton LaVey, part I

2/10/2010

4 Comments

 
A few posts down, I mentioned Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, and noticed that I did not have a tag for him, which makes me think that dropping his name there might have been confusing.  So let me explain his connection.

As far as I know, LaVey was not a Fortean, at least not explicitly.  But, he did have a collection of the works of Ben Hecht, a writer who ran in Tiffany Thayer's circle and was a founding member of the first Fortean Society.

By itself, that doesn't say much: lots of people read Hecht.  But, LaVey was also in San Francisco by the 1950s and spent time with George Haas, Robert Barbour Johnson, and Clark Ashton Smith.  There's a semi-famous picture of them together, which LaVey titled, "Headmasters in a School for Ghouls."  By the 1960s, Haas told Ashton Smith's wife that he no longer heard from Lavey--"since he became Satan."

But, it's clear there was a substantive connection between LaVey and the Bay Area Forteans and so understanding something about LaVey--who has more written about him--helps explain the Forteans.
4 Comments
Loren Coleman link
5/31/2010 04:19:19 am

Oh, Josh, this is rather disappointing to read. I had high hopes your book on the early history of Forteans would be worthwhile.

But this business, "so understanding something about LaVey--who has more written about him--helps explain the Forteans," is like saying that "understanding Hitler - who has more written about him - helps explain the Germans."

LaVey was an exaggerated personality who had little or nothing to do with the worldview of being a Fortean. I hope you discover that before your book goes to print.

Bucky Fuller was a Fortean. Ivan T. Sanderson was a Fortean. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a Fortean. There are plenty written out there about the other Forteans, as opposed to using LaVey as your pivotal example.

~ Loren Coleman

Reply
joshua buhs
5/31/2010 01:49:14 pm

Thanks for your note, Loren. I think that you misunderstand the nature of my interest in LaVey. I am focused on his activities in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when San Francisco Forteanism seemed to be at its peak. LaVey was undoubtedly hanging around with Forteans at the time. That is not true of Fuller, Sanderson, or Holmes.

I think your Hitler comparison is quite apt. It is, indeed, possible to find out something about Germany in the 1920s, say, through the life of Hitler. Before he became THAT Hitler. The same is true of LaVey, who in the 1940s and 1950s seemed to be on the fringes of society, but did not become Satan, and start developing the myth of himself, until the 1960s--long after my interest in him stops. (I make no claims that there is a connection between Forteanism and the Curch of Satan.)

Reply
Paul
6/13/2024 08:17:11 am

What I find odd is that LaVey knew Johnson and Ashton Smith, but didn’t seem to be aware of that most Satanic of American scribes, Benjamin DeCasseres, who was known to both Smith and Johnson. That said, this was before LaVey “became Satan”, so maybe the topic of DeCasseres didn’t come up. I am sure that had he known of him, LaVey would have included him among the dedications in the early editions of either The Satanic Bible or The Satanic Rituals.
In any case, Adam Parfrey informed me that LaVey did keep the Dover edition of Charles Fort’s Complete Works on his shelf.

Reply
Joshua Buhs
6/28/2024 02:33:45 pm

Oh that’s interesting—but not surprising—about LaVey keeping The Books on his shelf. Thanks for letting me know!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo from Marcin Wichary