[stylist] Harry Potter

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

No, it's fiction, fantasy fiction, and doesn't attempt to be *real* in
any way. Many conservative Christians claimed that Rowling was using
real *spells* in the series, but anyone who has read the books knows
this is nonsense. Rowling does use real Latin terms for many of the
spells in HP, but even when using Latin, it's silly things like 

I'm not sure what you mean by *real witchcraft.* When I said witchcraft,
I meant she borrowed popular and literary references along with
mythological and historical references to create the world of Harry
Potter. It's a complete work of fiction and nothing is intended to be
considered *real* or imply such a thing.

Rowling was raked across the coals when HP first was released, though
many of those opposing Rowling and the books praise Lewis and Tolkien
who created similar pieces of fiction including magic. Yet they can't
handle Rowling and Harry Potter for some reason.

So again, I'm not entirely sure what your question implies, but the term
witchcraft was used as a term most recognizes a prototype for a literary
character or plot and not as a term implying something real. By
witchcraft, I mean magic and didn't intend to imply Rowling was using
so-called witchcraft, or Wiccan, ideas or spells. We are after all
discussing fiction and fantasy and not a historical discussion on magic
and witches, or pontificating on the dangers of witchcraft.

Bridgit
Message: 31
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:35:22 -0400
From: "justin williams" <justin.williams2 at gmail.com>
To: "'Writer's Division Mailing List'" <stylist at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [stylist] Harry Potter
Message-ID: <007401ce44f7$8bda8d50$a38fa7f0$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

So, her stuff pertains to real witch craft?