[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kath

No they probably wouldn't Saucepan Man, but then it is not the children that ban the books it is the adults. The distinctions are made by 'discerning' parents who want what they believe to be the best for their children and while it is all well and good to want to protect them it is still ridiculous to think that not reading a book will do this.

Yes, but that's my point. When I first read LotR, there was (putting aside the obvious stylistic etc differences) little in essence to distinguish its treatment of wizards, magic and the like from the treatment of these subjects by the Harry Potter books today. So what basis would there have been for "discerning" parents to have treated them any differently at that time?

Originally Posted by Selmo

There are good reasons to be concerned about the effects some literature may have on vulnerable minds but the mainly American fundamentalist Christians who wanted the first HP book banned didn't reach a reasoned value judgement from the contents; they only looked at the cover.

This "knee-jerk" reaction appears to have been applied by some to LotR too. But at least they are consistent. What I don't get is people who think LotR is OK because it was written by a Christian and contains elements drawn from the Christian faith (although no overt Christian symbolism, as has been discussed on another thread), but that Harry Potter books are evil because the same considerations do not apply. Both books essentially portray a struggle by "good" protagonists against an "evil" force.