Before You Cast a Spell has a number of very good points. For one, the author encourages people to respect magic. Right off the bat he acknowledges that magic utilizes power, which can, in fact, inflict damage if used improperly. He also puts a great deal of emphasis on the creation of one's own spells and the importance of personalization to effective magic, instead of promoting a dependence on the spells of others. I was extremely pleased when he discussed the Gods and spellwork, saying that They are not merely additional tools a magician uses to get something accomplished. They deserve respect, gratitude, and reverence. He also encourages a balance between magic and mysticism.

Having just documented its positive aspects, I am now going to point out something that bothered me immensely: his presentation and interpretation of the Wiccan Rede (and to a lesser extent, the Threefold Law). While I certainly do agree with his statement that "it's important that everyone in the magical community starts by taking ethics much more seriously, and begins to see the Rede and the Threefold Law as merely the starting point of ethics"(85). However, I do not believe he gives magical seekers even a good start with his discussion of the Rede and Threefold Law. I am glad to report that he does not claim to speak for all Pagans or practitioners of magic in terms of ethics, but I think he declares this a little late in the overall discussion, having already given the distinct impression that the Rede and Law of Return are strict statutes that apply to everyone regardless of whether one believes in them or not.

For example, on page 71, he interprets the Rede not as a piece of good advice (as the word 'rede' means 'counsel' or 'advice') that a Wiccan voluntarily chooses to live by, but as one of the so-called "key laws of magical ethics, both of which [i.e. the Wiccan Rede in addition to the Threefold Law] are non-negotiable." I feel this is a gross misinterpretation of the Wiccan Rede. The Rede is not a universal law, strictly speaking it is not a "law" at all, although some Wiccans do choose to regard it in that light. It is intended to be relvant specifically to Wiccans and whomever else chooses to follow it. Also, for Wiccans it is not simply a magical ethic - it applies to all aspects of life. He goes on to say, "the Wiccan Rede does not threaten us with any kind of punishment or payback. So what's to keep us from ignoring it and harming others anyway? This is where the Threefold Law kicks in [. . .]" (71). This statement is really discouraging. What's to keep us from harming others if the Rede does not promise retribution for our actions? Well, a respect and love for the Divine and its immanent presence in all creation for starters! Later on, he translates the Rede as "Magic must never be used to harm anyone" (77). The Rede does not say this at all. The Rede says, in modern English: if it doesn't harm anyone, do what you Will. It says nothing about what to do if an action may cause harm, and it does not say "harm none." This is contrary to what McColman claims in the glossary as well, where he asserts that the Rede means "Harm none, and act according to your will" (180). The word "an" as used in the Rede means "as long as" or "so long as" NOT "and."

Please don't get me wrong, I think it's great that Mr.McColman promotes ethical magic, and I heartily agree with him that most books on magic do not give as much attention to it as they should. But he seems to encourage ethical magic for all the wrong reasons: to avoid bad karma, and to rack up good karma. Since his target audience likely consists of a number of rash people only intent upon getting what they want through magic, it makes some sense that he addresses the potential karmic consequences of magical actions, but I feel he should have gone a bit deeper with the issue as well for his more mature readers.

I think this book would be of value to someone just starting out on a magical path, particularly if that path is Wicca. This is because the book appears to be written with the assumption that the would-be magician is also some sort of theist (i.e. he or she believes in some sort of conception of God/Goddess/the Gods) and it also takes a very Wicca-influenced stance on spirituality and how it relates to magic. A Wiccan influence is not necessarily bad, but it might render much of this book less useful or relevant to a practitioner who may approach magic non-theistically. Although I have some serious qualms with how the author presents and interprets the Wiccan Rede, I am happy that he puts a great deal of emphasis on ethics.

Each chapter begins with a series of quotations that I found very enjoyable and appropriate to the subject matter. Polson's writing is intelligent, yet not dry, and it is often tempered with humor and personal reflections. Each chapter provides a good deal of information, yet I feel that they could have really been expanded upon in more depth (especially in a book geared towards mature Pagans and magical pracitioners). Although in her defence, she does state in her preface that her book is not intended to be comprehensive but rather to exist as "a good cross section of some of the types of things being done by people all over the world at the moment" (xviii). The combination of relatively short chapters and the style in which it was written allows for a pleasant read. I actually finished reading this book of 172 pages in less than one day, so while it is intended for a more experienced audience, it is certainly not arduous to complete.

I was a bit wary when I became aware of some of her chosen topics. For instance, she claims to provide scientific proof of the efficacy (or at least of the potential for the efficacy) of magic - quite a task indeed. She goes about citing specific, scientific, controlled experiments that clearly tend to show that thought and perception affect the physical realm. I have come across a few other books which make fairly vague references to scientific findings and their relevance to a magical worldview, but never one that mentioned many specific studies and even quotations from the researchers. I was also nervous when the author approaches the topic of individials who claim they are Fae. I tend to agree with a statement made by R.J Stewart in his column in Pan Gaia issue no. 36:

If we set aside idle fantasy, what does it mean when a human is also, in part, a faery being? It means he or she is closer to the real living world, the world in which humans, faeries, and living creatures are merged together in harmony. Such a person is not in any way unusual, but is, in fact, a normal person of planet Earth. It is the isolated, antagonistic, corporate greed-driven human culture that is abnormal, not the soul married to the faery realm and the green life of Nature.

Even though this book seems to be marketed specifically towards Pagans, I believe it could be useful towards a broader range of magical pracitioners since magic is not exclusive to Pagan religions and since not all Pagans practice magic in a strict sense. It does contain information on working with Deities and the Veil itself, but one need not believe in Them as independent, seperate realities in order to make use of the information. In addition, the author includes many non-NeoPagan examples throughout including references to Sufi dervishes, Christian charismatics, and shamans of the Amazon rainforest. It is certainly not Wicca-centric.