Sign up to receive alerts when articles like this are published. Judge Pannell read both books and found that it was not. The sequel, he found, used far more from the original than could be justified by any claim of parody. Your position would destroy copyright. One could present the Harry Potter books from the Muggles' viewpoint, arguing that wizardry, seen in a positive light, is harmful to children.
Intellectual property is property.
The copyright owner has the right to control sequel rights. That is what this case is all about.