許丙丁在創作《小封神》的過程中，不僅續衍、改編中國神魔小說的敘事傳統，以及挪用與轉化民間文化對神明的信仰，並以「在地化策略」，將台南一地的寺廟神佛納入小說之中，進而達到消解迷信的啟蒙目的，這也是歷來研究者關注的焦點。然而，眾多策略的運用，是造成了文本意義的一致，充分達到批判迷信，啟蒙讀者的效果？還是意外地造成文本的開放與對話，而讓迷信書寫與原本的啟蒙論述交匯並置，使文本的意義更加地分歧、多元，有不同的訊息從啟蒙論述的罅隙中流露出來，甚至是陷入原欲批判的意識形態之中而進退維谷？究竟我們該如何理解，《小封神》啟蒙論述與民間信仰書寫（或是許丙丁所認為的「迷信」）之間的關係？因此，我們將從以下幾個面向，觀察許丙丁原欲批判的迷信與啟蒙論述之間的關係：首先，是《小封神》對《封神演義》等神魔小說的承衍情形；接著，是《小封神》與神明或台南當地傳說、群眾心態之間的關係；最後，是讀者閱讀《小封神》後的反應。而相關版本在啟蒙論述上的差異亦將一併討論。

Hsu Ping-den not only continued and adapted the narrative tradition in Chinese fantasy novels, but also appropriated and transformed folk belief in the process of writing ”Xiao-Fengshen”. At the same time, he fitted temples and deities of Tainan into the ”Xiao-Fengshen” by using localizable strategy. He used these narrative strategies in order to enlighten audiences. However, these narrative strategies really attain to the aim that criticizes superstition and enlightens audiences? On the other hand, these narrative strategies maybe cause the textual meanings divided and multivalent; make other messages display from the enlightenment discourse's gaps accidentally. Even these narrative strategies slump into a dilemma? However do we understand the relationship between folk belief and enlightenment discourse in Hsu Ping-den's ”Xiao-Fengshen”?Accordingly, this paper tries to research the relationship between folk belief and enlightenment discourse in Hsu Ping-den's ”Xiao-Fengshen” from three faces. The first face is the relationship between ”Xiao-Fengshen” and ”Fengshen-Yanyi”. The second face is the relationship between ”Xiao-Fengshen” and deities or legends of Tainan. The third face is audiences' reading responses. This paper also discuss differs of enlightenment discourses in different editions.