Potter Books

Regarding the observation that the Harry Potter novels lack instructive scientific content, we would venture to say that James Pinkerton, like the good Muggle that he is, is asking for an egg in his beer (“Heavy on the Magic, Light on the Science,” Commentary, July 11). While we are at it, why not throw in some accounting and auto mechanics?

Pinkerton glosses over the fact that boys, who rarely read, are reading these books in droves! Every librarian in the country wants to kiss the hem of J.K. Rowling’s cape for this opus.

While we would agree that science is important, more important in our view is the notion that children are learning the absolute pleasure of reading, and that is encouraging a small step away from the TV and computer. While these technologies are great, so is the mind of a 12-year-old!

RALPH CASILLAS

SANDY CASILLAS

Los Angeles

*

Pinkerton derides the Harry Potter books, a series of fantasy adventures set in an imaginary school for wizards, because they do not teach children enough about science.

Pinkerton should not be surprised. This has been a dangerous trend in children’s literature for centuries. Case in point: Mark Twain’s “Tom Sawyer” and “Huckleberry Finn.” Aside from being appallingly politically incorrect, I don’t think there is a single algebraic equation in either of them. Lewis Carroll’s Alice books were woefully misleading about properties of larval metamorphosis. And Roald Dahl ignores the social implications of the tenuous political atmosphere in the Mideast.

I believe it’s all an insidious plot by children’s authors to dupe our unsuspecting youth into thinking that having an imagination will get them somewhere. Luckily we have Edwardian throwbacks like Pinkerton to set them straight.

CELESTE ROTHSTEIN

Lakewood