In 1994 I became aware that some well-known "New Age" works popularly thought to be true, were, in fact, bogus. The first was not the author's fault. In 1953, French author Jean Giono wrote a totally fictional short story; but it was written in a very realistic style, as if it were a true narrative. It appeared a few years later, translated into English, under the title "The Man Who Planted Trees." It told the story of a hermit who hiked around the desolate, deforested area where he lived, planting acorns, year after year. When the story's narrator revisits the area many decades later, he finds a massive oak forest, the region transformed by the persistent efforts of one man. The story was so inspiring, evidently fulfilling the wishful thinking of so many, that it was reprinted over and over, recorded on tape and film, etc. More often than not, it was retold as a true story. Eventually, to correct this misimpression (and maybe to save himself from the thousands of inquiries from people wanting to visit this miraculous region), the author wrote a letter to a French newspaper, declaring his innocence of any deception, that he was a writer of fiction, and had never represented his story as anything else.

The other two writers were not so innocent. Marlo Morgan's MUTANT MESSAGE DOWN UNDER presented itself as being a true account of the author's encounter with the mystical teachings of some Australian aborigines. It was in print only a short time before Australians, aboriginal and white, started protesting that it was a complete fabrication. Aside from that, it was horribly written. I put some scathing comments about it in our CROW newsletter (a monthly multilogue among a group interested in mythology, poetry, psychology, and assorted matters of spirit). Some others thought the book might have some merit despite its being a fiction. I responded:

"I'm not sure Ms. Morgan's book deserves such protracted discussion, but since Jon P. wants to continue the inquiry, I'll play my part. Jon seems to posit these two questions:

1. Even if the author pretty much concocted the whole improbable story, can some ultimate good come from people's probing into whatever the truth of the matter is? Well, I suppose it could, if people really do their own investigation. But I don't think that happens very often. Most of the book's enthusiasts seem to take it literally. And what about those who first believe the story then discover Morgan made it all up? Isn't there enough cynicism and mistrust already in the world?

2. Even if the book is a fraud, is there not still some potential intrinsic value to the "world outlook" that it conveys? I pretty much agree with the Australian who was quoted in New Age Journal: it's just a "lot of rubbish." The author's mangling of the aboriginals' mythology is totally spurious. Carlos Castaneda did a similar hack of native American shamanism, but surely came up with some wild tales and ideas that, like psychedelics, really challenged our rational mind-set. And Castaneda wrote brilliantly, so that, even as fiction, his books were delightful to read. MUTANT MESSAGE IS SO HORRIBLY WRITTEN IT SEEMS LIKE A PARODY OF ITSELF. [Key sentences in CAPITAL LETTERS helped the reader to identify Ms. Morgan's crucial "messages" throughout the book!]

For me, the quest for spiritual knowledge could be a meaningful one, but only if the aim is to find the true inner nature of things. What could be the point in chasing delusions? I don't see how these ersatz, inauthentic teachings we find sprouting in the marketplace can be of any lasting value; and it seems they could have potential for harm as well. How many confused, mentally unstable seekers have tried to follow the "teachings of Don Juan" with drugs and pseudo-magic and just got themselves in more of a mess?

I realize my position is too simplistic. Our path through life is so complex and paradoxical that even a fictional book, a poisonous drug, a severe accident, or encounter with a fake guru could become a positive transformative event. But those mysterious turns of fate do not convince me that you can lead people along the path to the truth by intentionally deluding them.

Since I'm on this Truth campaign, I'll relate another New Age "myth" I've found out about lately. Most of us have heard of a "letter" that Chief Seattle wrote to President Pierce in the late 1850's in which he foresees the environmental ravages to be brought by the white man's industrial machine -- comparing and contrasting that to the sacred bond that his people felt with their "mother earth." It turns out that this letter never existed, and the words we've heard were another concoction written in 1970 by screenwriter Ted Perry for a TV program. Now, there reportedly was an actual speech given by Chief Seattle (Seathl) in 1854, transcribed and translated later by Henry Smith and first published in 1887. Smith's version of the speech, in rhetorical Victorian English, nonetheless conveys some power and eloquence that are very moving. But it has nary a word about the environmental issues that are at the core of Perry's so-called (after the sham was revealed) "adaptation." Seattle himself spoke mournfully about the passing of the red-man beneath the tide of white civilization, and about the connectedness the red-man felt to the earth and all life, especially his ancestors. So you can sort of see how Perry got inspired to write his "adaptation;" but beyond that there's little resemblance of the two texts. (Full account in Gifford, 1992)

So, if Ted Perry's concocted "letter" touched and awakened peoples' sense of environmental responsibility, does his lofty goal justify his corrupt means to achieve it? Does it matter that he used Seattle's name to give legitimacy to his mutated message? In my view, both Ted Perry and Marlo Morgan are guilty of willful deceit; their own corruption can only add to peoples' mistrust of what may be legitimate causes." [end of response to Jon P.]

I suppose the subtext for this unfortunately pervasive disregard of the "truth" is the postmodern notion that there is no such thing as real truth, only a person's subjective reading of a text or event, according to his own "agenda," personal mindset, or (alleged) supra-human level of perception! Here's that very thought, from one who misrepresented his works as factual, but was eventually unmasked:

I told don Juan what I had thought up, or maybe remembered. He said, "Don't think about whether you remembered it or made it up. Such thoughts fit men only. They do not fit crows, especially those you saw, for they are the emissaries of your fate. You are already a crow. You will never change that. From now on the crows will tell you with their flight about every turn of your fate."

-- Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan

References:

Giono, Jean, THE MAN WHO PLANTED TREES, Chelsea Green Pub. Co., 1985.

Morgan, Marlo, MUTANT MESSAGE DOWN UNDER, M.M. Co., 1991.

Gifford, E., HOW CAN ONE SELL THE AIR, Book Publishing Co., 1992.