From: "Strong, Lee" <StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
To: "WSFAList (E-mail)" <WSFAList at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Anti-Potterism
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:29:03 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

	Well, I believe that Cathy Green has pretty much put her finger on
the reason why Harry Potter and the Wizard of Oz are conroversial while
Tolkien and Lewis at least are not.  Rightly or wrongly, would be censors
tend to see Rowling and Baum as preaching one or more evil, anti-Christian
religions while they do not see the same problem with the Christian authors
Tolkien and Lewis.  Rightly or wrongly, the would be censors are reacting to
a preceived attack on themselves.  This, in turn, suggests a possible
solution.
	In particular, I believe that many "anti-Potterians" are reacting to
the terms "witch" and "witchcraft" which has a religious meaning that the
term "magic" does not have.  My interpretation of Harry Potter and other
"magic" oriented stories is that "magic" and "witchcraft" are intended as to
mean "an exotic technology that mimes medieval occult practices" (to borrow
a term from Isaac Asimov).  In the absence of a definitive statement from
Ms. Rowling herself, I believe that she intended Hogwarts to be a school of
exotic technology.  However, by chosing a trigger word such as "witchcraft"
for part of Hogwarts' title, she inadvertently labled Hogwarts as a "School
of Religion" in the eyes of many.  This is reinforced by the fact that
neither Harry nor the Wizard have any obvious religion in their parallel
worlds other than witchcraft.  Since some form of religion is the practice
of the overwhelming majority of humanity, it is more logical to assume that
the point of view characters have a religion [witchcraft] rather than having
no religion.
	This might be all well and good if everyone viewed "witchcraft" as
just another religion among many.  However, many people -- not limited to
fundamentalist Christians -- view "witchcraft" as Satanic and inherently
evil and objectionable.  Hence the protests.
	The counterexamples of Tolkien, Lewis and especially Howard's Conan
support this analysis.  Tolkien and Lewis are well known as Chrisitan
theologians and "magic" in their parallel worlds is clearly a form of
technology subordinate to a surrogate Judeo-Christianity in the former case
and an explicitly alternate Christianity in the latter case.  Howard's
Hyborian Age is an especially interesting case in point in that Howard is
not known as a Christian theologian but his imaginary world contains
pseudo-Christian and pseudo-Jewish churches in opposition to evil churches,
and magic is treated as a form of morally neutral technology.  SInce I am
not aware of any attempts to ban Howard, he obviously did something "right"
to make Conan non-controversial.  Therefore, I propose the rule that magic
is socially acceptable when treated as an exotic technology subordinated to
a benevolent moral system, typically a benevolent religion.
	This suggests that Ms. Rowling might spare herself a lot of flak if
Harry Potter occasionally went to church and or at least articulated a sense
of ethics more subtle than "I'm the designated hero and what I do is cute."
This would have the virtue of realism as well as avoiding bouts with would
be censors.  In addition, aspiring fantasy authors might consider avoiding
unnecessary trigger words and/or including explicit benevolent moral systems
in their works.  And, of course, aspiring authors who wish to court
controversy and spend their time on lawsuits rather than telling stories now
know what to do to achieve those ends.
	The soapbox is now free for others to use.