Don't expect answers. Facts and smear don't often go together.

it is indeed a sensationalist steaming pile of shit full of inconsistencies and outright lies. nobody already into black metal and aware of the events back then needs to read it. it might be a sort of starting point for newcomers, but there are better books out there (some of which have been mentioned already).

It was the first book about extreme metal in general that i have seen and heard about. It is really Very interesting of a outer point of view and i couldn't expect more at the time. The "evolution of the cult" book in the other hand seems more impartial,less sensationalist and rich in information.

I have to admit, though, that back when it came out I found it really useful to compile a list of bands to check out. It's getting harder and harder to remember how difficult it was to actually gather info on extreme underground music if you didn't have any personal connections.

It's also hard to remember how obscure obscure things could be when you didn't have the internet.

Lord of Chaos is good. The info is there, it's well written, the authors knew what they were doing. There are good interviews and a nice timeline for satan and rock. Also, Moynihan is familiar with subcultures, as he is in bands and has spent time in counter culture himself. If anything, the book doesn't put enough perspective in what was basically a bunch of spoilt, problematic, uneducated and alienated kids of hyper-protective social welfare countries who don't really have real problems taking negative pop culture and horror films too seriously and killing each other/homosexuals/burning private property etc. To a degree, the book takes it more seriously than it deserves to be taken. Unbalanced Scandinavian middle-class teens in a subgroup listening to too much Venom and watching the Exorcist start to deepen their psychological problems and get into trouble. It's not as mesmerizing or mystic as it may seem, to the young,

...not to mention that the internet itself was teeming with false information and hearsay well into the 00s - remember those awful sites about the LLN projects?

In this respect, I think Lords of Chaos can also be useful for those who weren't there to get a taste of the mysteries and the hysteria that surrounded those events. The world wasn't as extremely desensitized and cynical back then; such news made quite an impression.

Glad to see some support for LoC. Obviously it's not perfect in any sense and it's also basic info you can find when you're digging around online. However, it's a good read and very comprehensive/interesting.

And in terms of Varg... Everyone (i.e. everyone but his fans) believe him to be a liar. His fans worship at the throne of someone who is openly racist and moronic. No need to debate anything there. I say this as a person who still listens to early Burzum. He found a sound that was incredible for the time. Doesn't mean he's not a twat.

At the very least, Varg is a shameless historical revisionist and crass self-aggrandiser.

Yeah but as everybody knows you are a known liar and a complete twat, people stopped buying your virtue signalling a long time ago as its so obvious what a moronic racist you are. There really is nothing to discuss here. Not that anybody would as you don't have any fans.

Aaah, so good, another argument won and claims proven by name calling.

Ha! Man, Varg's fans will never let it go... This is fucking funny.

As a person who still listens to the old school Burzum records, it's ok to admit that he sucks. Trust me.

Just tell me one lie he has told. Just one. Just to prove that you are not just a bunch of shit-talking cunts talking shit about others.

Literally the first words out of his mouth are "Lords of Chaos.....the book was crap."

How If the book was made by a 14 Years old or too mainstream for Varg and co.

The thing about lords of chaos is the author has a given agenda. He was a fan of the music particularly to the elements that intersect black metal with white power and NSBM. And in his work he wants to communicate across this idea of the genre as home to violent people set on racial dominion of the world. What Michael puts in his book and the way he portrays or denounces artists will be heavily focused on this agenda. He had a specific idea about what he wants the genre of black metal to be known as. His book is designed to portray that.

I dont see it as a good read because it cannot be impartial like any cultural study is supposed to be. For example, would it be constructive to read a book about North Korean cultural history if the writer of the book is a member of the NK military and takes great pride in his national identity?

It would be constructive from the point of view of learning about the author. In history and anthropology it's common to have to use biased sources which you must weigh carefully against others.

I can'y remember any of this. Don't think I bothered to read much of it at the time. Generally not the greatest fan of such books. I remember friends of mine loved the Marilyn Manson and Motley Crue books but I just felt that it was all crap. Maybe I'll check if the local library/ebay has a copy to give it another chance.

It’s not like any of that was a closely guarded secret - at the time the book came out Blood Axis had just released 2 albums that were about as huge as that style gets in terms of sales/exposure. Also, Feral House is not and has never been an an academic publisher, so expecting that kind of objectivity from a publishing house that specialises in books about UFOs and serial killers is a bit wide of the mark.

I’m not sure if I’m being redundant, but at the time there were significant cross overs in the circles I moved in between BM and the whole neofolk/tyr journal/right-wing industrial culture thing, so people knew what to expect.

Guess it depends on what you want. I'm happy as long as it's entertaining/informative in one way or another. One sided is no big deal for me as it's basically a fan writing about music and people he likes (I assume). I saw an old review by Varg online, he corrected a lot of things but generally wasn't really that negative about it back then.

My issues with Vikernes have more to do with his racist ideas than him being a proven liar. But, going to his YouTube channel, one of the first videos that popped up was "Am I a white supremacist?" - in which he answers "I'm not!" He explains in the video that he doesn't think whites are better than other races, just that whites are better fit for the European climate, and other races are fit for the climates they emerged from. He declines to mention believing that Jews aren't white, and believing that they are responsible for every vice, oppression, and effort to wipe out and/or dominate whites, as he has said plainly elsewhere. Seems like a bald-faced lie to me to claim he isn't a white supremacist with such vitriol towards the Jewish race.

I also think that Vikernes' claim that Euronymous planned to kill him, so he had to kill him first, is a lie, but I guess there's no way to prove that.

I want to echo raumr's question towards Lords of Chaos. People on here are saying it's full of lies, exaggerations, quotes being taken out of context, etc. Anyone have actual examples? Not just for something trivial but some important fact or point. I'm just curious for curiosity's sake, and making sure none of my thinking about the black metal scene is based on false info. I read the book years ago and it helped me get into black metal, but I don't have any feeling about it pro or con, just want to make sure I've got my facts straight. I'm generally aware that Moynihan exaggerated the influence of fascism/Nazism on black metal to fit his own fascist and racist thinking.

Vikernes claims that the book also incorrectly attributes Venom and LaVey/Church of Satan as influences on black metal. He claims that most people creating early black metal either didn't know or hated Venom, except for Euronymous. He also claims that they all hated LaVey and the Church of Satan (I guess because their Satanism wasn't real enough?). Are these claims true? Have people other than Vikernes verified those statements? They wouldn't surprise me if true, just want to make sure before I accept it that Vikernes wasn't the only one to say so.

Euronymous and Varg hated LaVey and the COS because they felt LaVeyan Satanism was too humanist and not extreme enough.

And perhaps also that the founder was of a certain background (real name Levey), at least in Varg's case? Which would make this church, following a certain logic, another Semitic sect, just like Christianity.

Then again, didn't LaVey supposedly take lots of his ideas from that red beard book?

He did, as well as from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".