Re: [mythsoc] Digest Number 791
> Danish. The Folio Society edition is still in print. Some of these superbIf I ever get rich, I'll get the Folio Society edition. I covet it. That and the green leather-bound edition I saw in Hildifons Took's home south of St. Louis a few years back. I don't know what it was, but it was wonderful.
> illustrations are reproduced also in _Eric Fraser, Designer & Illustrator_
> by Sylvia Backemeyer (1998).
> Wayne Hammond
>Message: 20This would be correct. However I think they are ignorant in their reactions to Rowling. She is subtle. And I am still thinking she is "getting past watchful dragons"
> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 00:59:11 -0600
> From: "Trudy Shaw" <tgshaw@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 785
> During the last few days, I've run across several articles and letters to the editor relating to the difference between Rowling and Tolkien as seen by some conservative Christians. My hypothesis (not enough evidence to make it a theory) is that the difference isn't so much the amount or type of "magic," as it is its source. The perceived danger of getting involved in the occult, etc., has always been fear of connecting with an evil power--purposely or unwittingly.
> Much of what can be called magic in Middle-earth can just as well be called prayer, spiritual warfare, Providence (in the strict sense of the word), or even the communion of saints (and angels). Even within LotR, there are hints of Tolkien's broader cosmology, and since the publication of The Silmarillion readers have been able to trace the source of any Middle-earthly power for good back to its source in Eru/The One.Indeed!
> I'm sure most of the anti-Potter lobby, if questioned, would agree that an inborn talent is a gift from God that should be trained and put to use for good, but Rowling just isn't as explicit about "her" magic having its source in God as Tolkien is.Yet. Of course, I would say that technology has its source in God, too. But in a rather circuitous manner. But yet nonetheless. There is a vast amount of truth in the poem _Mythopoeia_. Rowling is said to be a Chesterton fan (wish I could find a source for that) If so, one should not discount Mooreffoc and other subtleties. Most of the anti-Potter lobby is reacting to the _Onion_ satire, and the words "witch" and "wizard" (the latter being the opposite of dullard, which
they don't realize, and raises an obvious comment ;-) They also confuse European myth with the religion of Wicca, as if they were identical. Of course, it seems that Wiccans make the same confusion, but, ah well, anyway. What -do- they teach them in those schools these days. . .