Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 11:03:36 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
From: Samuel Lubell <lubell at boo.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Anti-Potterism
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

At 10:18 AM 4/18/03 -0400, you wrote:
>         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.

There were lots of objections to Wizard of Oz when they came out and for
quite a while later.  See http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs3024.htm which
states that "Some ministers and even educators of the day were not happy
with the series and blasted it for promoting witchcraft or for being too
fanciful. Others said the books were ungodly for their strong depictions of
female characters. Surprisingly, many librarians agreed." and "The
parallels to today's attempt to ban the Harry Potter series are striking."

There are two reasons why book banners have gone after Oz and Harry Potter
and not Tolkien Conan and such.  First, books for children are far more
likely to be challenged by would-be censors on the grounds that children
need protection.  The ALA's list of 100 most challenged books
(http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/Intellectual_Freedom3/Banned_Books_Week/Related_Links7/100_Most_Frequently_Challenged_Books_of_1990-2000.htm)
is almost all children's and YA books with few exceptions: The Adventures
of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, The
Color Purple by Alice Walker etc.  (And even these are in the list because
they are frequently assigned in high school).

SF and Fantasy on the challenged list includes:
Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz, Harry Potter (Series) by J.K.
Rowling, Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson, The Giver by Lois
Lowry, Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine, Earth's Children (Series) by Jean
M. Auel, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, In the Night Kitchen by
Maurice Sendak, The Witches by Roald Dahl, Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam,
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, Flowers for Algernon by Daniel
Keyes, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N.
Roquelaure (Anne Rice), Cujo by Stephen King, James and the Giant Peach by
Roald Dahl, The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende, Slaughterhouse-Five by
Kurt Vonnegut Lord of the Flies by William Golding, Curses, Hexes and
Spells by Daniel Cohen, Carrie by Stephen King, The Dead Zone by Stephen King

The other reason why some sf/fantasy is challenged while others aren't is
the links to the present day.  Both Oz and the Harry potter world coexist
with our own and people can move back and forth.    So these books are
saying that magic works in the real world.  Tolkien's world and that of
Conan etc. are set in a world with no connections to the real world so the
magic is less objectionable because it is not being used in the real world.

>-----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