As you point out, the assertions that Dr. Baehr makes about the Narnia series do not withstand a reading of the text. He tries to commute some “unconvenient” magic events to “law” whilst conveniently ooverlooking others.

As you’ve also pointed out, the assertions that Dr. Baehr makes about the Harry Potter series also do not withstand a reading of the text. Even within the first book it is clear that the use of magic – even by the most accomplished wizards – does not make everything alright nor make the individual all powerful. Even if this point – and the redeeming role of love – were not abundantly clear in the first book, it is expanded and re-emphasised in every susbsequent volume.

Rather than viewing these assertions as a series of “honest mistakes” – oops, Dr Baehr misread and mischaracterised both series’ at every turn – I’m inclined to see a pattern and a purpose here.

Let’s turn Baehr’s own spotlight back on him. He seeks to recast the books into a form that will serve his argument – a form which does not resemble the reality. It is therefore within Baehr’s own assertions that “things change shape; nothing is really real”. He has committed a sleight of hand worthy of any street shaman.

So I ask you: who will pay for the magic of Dr Baehr and address the consequences of his grave misdeed (or rather – *mislead*) ??!

Excellent additional thoughts. Right on.

Was Richard Corliss writing in response to Baehr specifically?

Does Baehr define the parameters of magic? Maybe talking animals doesn’t qualify as magic to some people, but it seems magical to me. I wonder what the varying definitions of “magic” are.

How about blowing on statues and turning them into life? Is that “law”? Seemed magical and it wasn’t the “Deeper Magic” incident either.

If the Witch freezes Narnia, that’s magic but if Aslan thaws Narnia that’s….”law”?

I guess I need him to define “law” in addition to “magic”.

What’s firewater cordial that heals wounds? Not magic?

Horns and wardrobes that transport people?

If I may paraphrase a line from Time Magazine’s Richard Corliss, Baehr’s article is a piece about magic written by a Muggle. Lawfully, of course.