No subject

Nat Case ncase at
Wed Jun 20 10:31:17 EDT 2001

>Nat wrote:
>>And, I think religious fundamentalists of any stripe might have a 
>>problem with her open-minded, agnostic view of all things cosmic. 
>>She doesn't treat any being, god or otherwise, with respect due 
>>simply to position, and that is a fundamental premise of all the 
>>fundamentalisms I can think of.
>Hallie replied
>I was assuming that sf of any type would be avoided by most 
>religious fundamentalists in the first place, but this was a really 
>interesting point.  I'd never thought about either DWJ or 
>fundamentalism in that precise way.  I'm not totally sure I've got 
>it though - wouldn't the concept of a Crestomanci, in charge of 
>overseeing the use of magic throughout the worlds, simply due to a 
>fact of his (or her, though we haven't seen one yet!) birth, rather 
>go against this idea?  Or not?

I should probably modify what I said to "fundamentalists, religious 
or otherwise, of any stripe."

Chrestomanci is not a godlike authority, it seems to me, rather he is 
more of an irritable, overworked greatuncle. His authority is almost 
never based on "Do what I say or risk my wrath." This allows him to 
remain a human character, which visions of real God almost never are.

DWJ's  off-hand view of any "Authority" would rub against the grain, 
if your world view is based on obedience to an overarching Law. 
Compare DWJ's gods in, for example, "Sage of Theare", to Diane 
Duane's or Orson Scott Card's characters' coming to the Divine. DWJ's 
view of self-declared divine authority seem to me to be deeply 
suspicious... if someone says "I am the all-powerful!" you can be 
reasonably certain someone will find a curtain and haul out a humbug 
before the end of the story.

To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at

More information about the Dwj mailing list