I've always been an avid reader of fantasy and Sci-Fi. Also a huge fan of Disney. But I have to say I am extremely disappointed in Mr. Bellairs disrespect, to Male Witches and Wiccans everywhere! As a practicing witch for over 45 yrs, I am deeply offended that Mr. Bellairs would even think to call any of our Brother practitioners "Warlock" Had he Googled the topic or even picked up a book on the subject written by someone who actually practiced the Craft, He would have know that a warlock is a traitorous bounty hunter that hunted our kind for years for money! Male Witches are called the same as female witches... Just that: Witches. This isn't something we call ourselves for whimsy or fun. This is our belief system, or if you will, our religion. So by constantly misinforming people in his writings, he is in essence making fun of us as a people. Why is it that people think it's ok to do this? Especially in this day and age where respect of others beliefs are constantly being harped on. Stop with the misinformation. Try writing with a little more respect to the practice of Witchcraft. It isn't evil you know.
I doubt Bellairs had any malevolent motives with his word choice. In The House with a Clock in its Walls (1973), Jonathan Barnavelt referred to Isaac Izard, and later himself, as a warlock, describing it as a male witch. Bellairs later used the word for the title of The Lamp from the Warlock's Tomb (1988), though I don't quite recall how often the word appeared within the text.
How do those practicing Wicca or Paganism feel about such word choices?
Is Bellairs' writing only a product of its time? We condemn H.P. Lovecraft for his racism while basking in the cosmic horror he made popular. I don't see any clear answer for this dichotomy. I do know that Bellairs certainly intended no offense to our religion when he wrote the emotive terms "Warlock's Tomb"or "Wizard's Bridge", but it also does not excuse making Voodoo, Santeria or Macumba synonymous with doll-poking malice.
ReplyDeleteBellairs was most certainly and quite effectively trying to recreate the gothic atmosphere of old haunted house and monster movies. Would we want a user of magic so filled with hatred, who contemplates such wicked deeds as say, Warren Windrow in "Revenge of The Wizard's Ghost," referred to as a Wiccan? The character was clearly not a follower of earth-based traditions, but fictitiously drew upon the power of Evil.
Some Neo-Pagans call themselves Witches to "reclaim" the term, to help society realize the difference between root workers, midwives, and folk healers and the popular culture images of the witch that evolved from the Middle-Ages when witches were seen as servants of the Devil. This is done with intent, knowing but not accepting, that fictional witches are often seen as a mythological figure from folklore like a vampire or werewolf.
In the "Bellairs Universe", a 'witch' is an undead crone, and an evil male wizard is an oath breaker, a 'warlock', decidedly not Wiccan. A good sorcerer like Uncle Jonathan or a benevolent witch like Florence Zimmermann would be closer to Wiccans, (though these characters were also not followers of the Rede,) but Bellairs saw the world through Christian eyes. Wicca, as we know it, only gained popularity in the late 1940s, and Bellairs did not have the Internet while he was writing scary gothics for kids back in the 1970s.
I'd like to believe that if John was still writing today, he would intersperse protective pagan or Wiccan characters amongst his monsters and evil cults, explaining the differences in their approaches to magic. But all literature is inseparable from the cultural period in which it was produced, from Shakespeare to Star Trek, and can offer opportunities for introspection while still delivering chills on a dark and stormy night.