From: "Strong, Lee" <StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
To: "'WSFA members'" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Anti-Potterism
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:18:50 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

	An amusing interpretation of Oz, but I doubt that it's really what
the Royal Historian intended.
	Getting back to my original question, it appears that Harry Potter
is objectionable and the Wizard of Oz was perviously objectonable, but
Tolkien and the Hobbits, Earthsea, Conan, Frfhed and the Grey Mouser and
other fantasies are not objectionable.  I have a theory as to why, but I'd
like to hear from others before going further.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Walsh [mailto:MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 9:45 AM
To: WSFAlist at keithlynch.net
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Anti-Potterism

>StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL 04/18/03 09:38AM
>	Thank you.  What about _The Wizard of Oz_?  Anything on that
>front?

Nope; the furor of bimetallism has died down.
See: http://www.ryerson.ca/~lovewell/oz.html

mjw