11-24-2011, 12:00 AM
I agree, who cares if he was a con and it was all fictional...who cares about the intricate details about his life? There was a deeper knowledge in his books (at least the first 3 or 4) and I walked away the better for. Never once did I take the story to be anything other than a story written by a man to sell books...I didn't have to in order to get something out of it.
Now one could question why Castaneda felt the need to wrap that knowledge in a story like he did. However, one only has to look at the nature of audiences...audiences like stories. So what? I think that would be a topic worth discussing.
Why do you (EL) feel that you need to disregard peoples experiences of the books and add insult to injury by bumperstickering details about his sex life over them as if that proves anything?
Now one could question why Castaneda felt the need to wrap that knowledge in a story like he did. However, one only has to look at the nature of audiences...audiences like stories. So what? I think that would be a topic worth discussing.
Why do you (EL) feel that you need to disregard peoples experiences of the books and add insult to injury by bumperstickering details about his sex life over them as if that proves anything?