From: "Strong, Lee" <StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
To: "WSFAList (E-mail)" <WSFAList at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Anti-Potterism
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:33:02 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

	Sam had some very thoughtful and productive comments about why Harry
Potter and the Wizard of Oz are controversial while Frodo and Conan are not
(or, at least, are less controversial than the fomer pair).  First,
children's books are more likely to be controversial because many parents
believe that children are more sensitive and deserve a higher degree of
protection than adults.  Second, the worlds of Hogwarts and Oz are more
closely connected to our own universe and imply that magic works in the real
world, while Middle-Earth and the Hyborian Age are more clearly separate
from our own universe despite their common theory of being prehistoric eras
set in Earth's past, and therefore do not imply that magic works in the real
world.
	I find these arguments powerful, particularly the first one.
However, the logic of these arguments suggests that C.S. Lewis' The
Chronicles of Narnia should be very controversial but that series does not
seem to be controversial.  Narnia is explicitly aimed at children, the
Narnian universe is very close to our own, people travel back and forth
between mundane England and Narnia fairly regularly, and at least one of the
books has Narnian magic and characters operating in our own universe, very
much like Mr. Potter's parallel universe.  Yet, any attempts to ban the
lion, the witch and the wardrobe have escaped my attention.  So, why are
Hogwarts and Oz controversial while Narnia is not?

	In related news, The Washington Times and CNN.com carried a news
story that a Federal court ordered the Cedarville, Arkansas school board to
restore Mr. Potter to the general circulation section of the school library
after the school board had voted 3-2 to remove him.  The US Constitutional
system solves the problem.