From: Andrew Ogus <andbooks>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 11:26:32 -0700

I should perhaps state that I am NOT a science fiction reader, and read comparatively little fantasy. Most of it I find too poorly written to stomach. As others have said, what's best about the Potter phenomonen is that it gets people reading. But to continue this discussion, which I find fascinating and not at all harmful to the butterflies: In some of the Diana Wynne Jones books it is the JOB of the most powerful magician in their world to protect people without magic powers. She does everything Rowling does, but better, and did it first. In the Arthurian legends Merlin has in fact engineered Arthur's birth by the use of magic. Arthur's true identity is discovered by magical means. Much as I love DIckens his heroes and heroines are often (though not always) his weakest characters, cardboard personifications of all the virtues. Oliver Twist is a case in point. Whence (!) Harry's "modesty, friendliness, and readiness to learn what others have to teach him" derive? On the other hand, if we want to fall into the nature versus nurture argument, we could say that Oliver's and Harry's sweet natures have won out against any circumstances. And to blaspheme further, I find "Hogwarts" and "Muggles" just too cute as words.
Received on Sun 06 Jun 1999 01:26:32 PM CDT