One of the thornier problems in grimoire magic seems to be the need to differentiate between emergent progressive practice and new age revisionism. Jake Stratton-Kent said something very interesting (as usual) not too long ago—that the current state of grimoire magic calls out for practitioners to go beyond "tools and rules." I agree. For something to live—a practice, a tradition, a movement—it has to evolve by opening up new areas and revealing new ways of seeing old things. But the more I think about it, the more I feel convinced that this shouldn't mean creating mass-market recensions of more demanding texts in order to provide shortcuts for those less interested in putting in the necessary work.
Right now, I think we are seeing both extremes: grimoire purists trying to adhere as much as possible to the tools and rules vs. new agers who want to make grimoire magic more accessible and, in the process, disregard much of what makes it unique and beautiful.
I'd be interested to hear thoughts on this from both sorts of practitioners here (and those who may not identify with either extreme, too!).