I find Tony Horvitz's writing extremely annoying because he is so full of himself (data set: two books, one on a subject I know something about).
That 1968 "black arts" book could be lolariously bad (that was the AGE OF ALEISTER CROWLEY being REDISCOVERED sort of), and IMO the best you could get from it would be that it hasn't dated badly. Scholarship in that area has been ongoing. Checking the listings, it seems to have been reprinted regularly since its original appearance, at times by respectable publishing houses, but there is no sign that it was updated. If I ran across it, I'd try a sample chapter and check the notes and bibliography. OTOH, no matter how outdated or silly it may be, as a freewheeling inspiration for fiction, it's probably just fine.
no subject
That 1968 "black arts" book could be lolariously bad (that was the AGE OF ALEISTER CROWLEY being REDISCOVERED sort of), and IMO the best you could get from it would be that it hasn't dated badly. Scholarship in that area has been ongoing. Checking the listings, it seems to have been reprinted regularly since its original appearance, at times by respectable publishing houses, but there is no sign that it was updated. If I ran across it, I'd try a sample chapter and check the notes and bibliography. OTOH, no matter how outdated or silly it may be, as a freewheeling inspiration for fiction, it's probably just fine.