The Wicked Witch of the West is a fictional character from the novel "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" by L. Frank Baum. She is one of the main antagonists in the story and is known for her green skin, long hooked nose, and black pointy hat. Her appearance is often depicted as menacing and evil, with a cackling laugh that strikes fear into the hearts of those around her. When it comes to drawings of the Wicked Witch of the West, artists have taken various approaches to capture her sinister nature. Some choose to focus on her intimidating presence, emphasizing her tall and imposing figure.
Which leads me to another point: Stop Getting the Magus Wrong! There seems to have been a long tradition of confusion between the 1801 first edition and the so called facsimile or second edition of c.1875 because they are identical (well almost, as we’ll see…) right down to the same publisher and date of 1801. So, after spending years grumbling in the shadows like a Gollum obsessed with issue points instead of a ring, I will present you with ‘the keys of the kingdom’ (the sort of thing some book dealers would say when other book dealers are threatening to give their customers useful information…) and explain how to tell them apart and dispel a couple of myths:
So, after spending years grumbling in the shadows like a Gollum obsessed with issue points instead of a ring, I will present you with the keys of the kingdom the sort of thing some book dealers would say when other book dealers are threatening to give their customers useful information and explain how to tell them apart and dispel a couple of myths. Most firsts do just have the four Demon plates coloured, but some have Cassiel coloured too and this particular copy has another plate altogether coloured; something I haven t seen before.
Some choose to focus on her intimidating presence, emphasizing her tall and imposing figure. They might draw her standing tall with her broomstick in hand, ready to rain down chaos and destruction on anyone who crosses her path. Others choose to emphasize her distinct features, like her green skin and long nose.
Three books on sccult philosophy
In 1651 someone finally got round to translating Agrippa’a masterpiece of Renaissance magic: Three Books of Occult Philosophy into English . It was originally published in 1533, so no points for haste there. However the wait was even longer for the next compilation of esoteric knowledge and the star of this particular show: The Magus, or Celestial Intelligencer; Being a Complete System of Occult Philosophy… London: Printed for Lackington, Allen and Co., 1801.
A little worse for wear, but I’m all original like…
The title goes on and on (and on…)
The author, Francis Barrett, a much maligned hero of mine, has been wonderfully described by my ex-colleague (he’s not dead, I just don’t work with him anymore) Jonathan of Bibliodeviant fame, so I’m going to talk about the book itself and in this case, a truly wonderful example. It’s in a contemporary, possibly even publisher’s binding with gorgeous ‘come hither’ untrimmed edges and is clean as a whistle (though why something you spit drool through is clean I haven’t got a clue)
Will you take a look at those page edges…
Go on go on, have a closer look – lovely lovely lovely
I confess this make me go weak at the knees. This is easily the best copy I’ve seen of one of my all time favourite books of magic. It’s got the lot: size, breadth of content (including alchemy, kabbalah, planetary magic, ritual magic, crystal gazing, magical alphabets, biographies of famous Magi and lots more), plates, diagrams, tables and of course the famous hand-coloured portraits of demons:
Vessels of Wrath
Ophis and The Spirit Antichrist
Heads of Evil Daemons Powers of Evil
Which leads me to another point: Stop Getting the Magus Wrong! There seems to have been a long tradition of confusion between the 1801 first edition and the so called facsimile or second edition of c.1875 because they are identical (well almost, as we’ll see…) right down to the same publisher and date of 1801. So, after spending years grumbling in the shadows like a Gollum obsessed with issue points instead of a ring, I will present you with ‘the keys of the kingdom’ (the sort of thing some book dealers would say when other book dealers are threatening to give their customers useful information…) and explain how to tell them apart and dispel a couple of myths:
1. Well for starters the first edition comes in all sorts of bindings, often in not brilliant condition, while the vast majority of the second come in a publisher’s binding of half or quarter leather with this chap in gilt to the spine:
Cassiel, The Angel of Saturday. Bet Gabriel is jealous of the tail.
I’ve seen copies with various coloured cloth sides, red, green, black and there may be others. If the book you are holding has been rebound and you’re not sure if it’s a first or second fear not, you can check the paper.
2. As you can see from the pictures, the first is printed on glorious regency paper stock, which feels almost powdery to the touch. It is also watermarked. The second is a thinner and more shiny paper, without watermark.
This copy is just so clean…
3. Going back to our friend the Angel of Saturday, in the second edition he’s hand-coloured along with the four plates of Demons, making five hand coloured plates. This is often mentioned as a point between the two editions, but it’s wrong. Most firsts do just have the four Demon plates coloured, but some have Cassiel coloured too and this particular copy has another plate altogether coloured; something I haven’t seen before:
Mystic semaphore anyone?
4. Finally, the reason the second is not a straightforward ‘facsimile’ is the long ‘s’, the one that looks a bit like a tall ‘f’. This was already old-fashioned by 1801, which is probably why Barrett decided to use it. The second edition has the normal ‘s’ throughout, so somebody made a change at some point. I don’t know why exactly – the rest of the book is pretty much identical so why bother?
Folding table – even this big book was not big enough!
Like an advert for secret agent writing on the back of a comic
I’ve gotta sigil and I’m gonna use it…
There, the secret’s out. Probably not that secret anyway, but I feel much better for it. For some reason, some bibliographers have been a bit sniffy about The Magus – ‘it’s just a compilation of previous works’ ‘Barrett added little himself’ ‘inconsistencies and mistakes’ ‘blah blah blah’. They all miss the point. The Magus is exactly what most people imagine a magic book to look like, from the bookshelf of Faust or in the laboratary of Frankenstein to Anthony Head leafing through a tome in Buffy, this is the real deal. It also played a role in the Gothic Revival and without doubt set us on the twisting path to the formation of the Golden Dawn and the synthesis of myriad philosophies and systems of belief. And what the hell? Let’s look at those page edges once more:
Feels good, doesn’t it?
Ophis and The Spirit Antichrist
They might draw her with sharp, angular features, conveying her wickedness and cunning. Her eyes are often depicted as piercing and hypnotic, luring in those who dare to challenge her. In terms of her attire, the Wicked Witch of the West is typically shown wearing a long black dress with tattered and ragged edges. Her hat is also an essential part of her appearance, often drawn with a wide brim and a tall, pointed top. These elements help to further establish her as the archetypal witch. When it comes to the background of a drawing featuring the Wicked Witch of the West, artists often choose to depict a dark and ominous environment. This helps to enhance the overall atmosphere of her wickedness and danger. Dark storm clouds, lightning, and a desolate landscape may be included to set the stage for her wicked deeds. Overall, drawings of the Wicked Witch of the West aim to capture her malevolent nature and create a sense of fear and apprehension. Through careful attention to detail and the use of artistic techniques, artists are able to bring this iconic character to life on the page, allowing readers and viewers to experience the dread and danger she represents..
Reviews for "Discover the magic of drawing the Wicked Witch of the West"
1. John - 1 star - I was really disappointed with the drawing of the Wicked Witch of the West. The proportions were completely off, with an oversized head and tiny body. The coloring was also a mess, with random splotches of green that didn't make any sense. It looked like a rushed and amateurish effort, and I regretted buying it.
2. Sarah - 2 stars - I found the drawing of the Wicked Witch of the West to be quite lackluster. The details were poorly executed, with sloppy lines and shoddy shading. The overall composition was unappealing, and it didn't capture the essence of the character at all. I was expecting a more dynamic and iconic representation, but this fell short.
3. Michael - 2 stars - As a fan of "The Wizard of Oz," I was really excited to see a drawing of the Wicked Witch of the West. However, I was disappointed with what I received. The drawing lacked any sense of depth or realism; it was flat and uninspired. The artist could have done so much more with the subject matter, but instead, it felt like a half-hearted attempt.
4. Emily - 1 star - I was really dissatisfied with the drawing of the Wicked Witch of the West. The proportions were all wrong, making her look ridiculous rather than menacing. The lack of attention to detail was also evident, with sloppy lines and a general lack of quality. It felt like a rushed job, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.