[stylist] Harry Potter

[Eve Sanchez]

Just to be clear; Wicca is not witchcraft. Not all witches are Wiccan
and not all Wiccans are witches. I am not saying that Rowling was
teaching the craft, but she did borrow lots from it. This also shows
how much care she took in learning truth to use in her fictional
piece. She gathered from many sources, not just one. And sorry, if you
learn the root history of the words used for one of the unforgivable
spells, you will find, with some Middle English manipulation, an
ancient spell. It did not have the same meaning as she uses it, but
there is an evolutionary link that she utilized. Yes, Harry Potter is
a fictional piece, but it has many elements that are taken from truth,
as has been said, like language, history, and witchcraft too. And
sorry, I see no dangers in it. Eve

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:32 PM, justin williams
<justin.williams2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay.  I didn't no if she had went and looked up stuff from wicca or not.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stylist [mailto:stylist-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bridgit
> Pollpeter
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:59 PM
> To: stylist at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [stylist] Harry Potter
>
> 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 and historical references to create the world of Harry Potter.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?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Writers Division web site
> http://www.writers-division.net/
> stylist mailing list
> stylist at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/stylist_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> stylist:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/stylist_nfbnet.org/justin.williams2%40gmai
> l.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Writers Division web site
> http://www.writers-division.net/
> stylist mailing list
> stylist at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/stylist_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for stylist:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/stylist_nfbnet.org/3rdeyeonly%40gmail.com