dwj-digest (Diana Wynne Jones) V1 #806

JOdel at aol.com JOdel at aol.com
Sat Feb 21 00:49:01 EST 2004


> Why should it be controversial not to hide the fact of religion, while it's 
> not (no longer, at least) controversial not to hide the fact of sex? Is 
> religion the new sex -- something one ought to be ashamed of so its mere 
> existence is glossed over or not mentioned at all?
> 

One can refrain depicting actual sex in a book marketed for children without 
having the yo-yos and members of the international confederation of horses' 
arses getting into an arguement about it. You cannot mention the fact that some 
people actually believe in their religions and expect them to let that pass. 
Ignore the subject altogether and they may simply mutter under their breath 
about you, which is about the closest you'll get to slippig past this 
particularly sticky wicket. 

Of course, where Rowling is concerned, the fundies have already turned the 
issue into a cause celebre. At this point for Rowling to actually bring the 
subject up in the books (rather than just to respond to it in her interviews) 
would place her into an even more totally no-win situation. Laying in a stock of 
10-foot poles would be a better strategy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.suberic.net/pipermail/dwj/attachments/20040221/4813f5cc/attachment.html


More information about the Dwj mailing list