Bowdlerising the Narnia novels? How daft; James Boyle says the

A few years ago, Ted Turner had the incalculably stupid idea of "colourising" the classic black and white film Casablanca. He did it - and the new version flopped. The venture seems to have been motivated by a wish to make the film appeal to a new generation brought up on colour in the cinema. Well, stupid it may have been in its miscalculation, but the motivation was almost certainly pure: he wanted to maximise the return on the film archive assets he owned. Aesthetics did not play even a supporting role.

HarperCollins has a plan to publish the Narnia novels by CS Lewis without reference to Christianity. The aim, apparently, is to "publish the works of Lewis to the broadest possible audience and leave interpretation to the reader". This sounds like another fearful attempt to maximise an asset - the books - at the expense of the art within. If this is the case then it is as ill advised as the colouring of Casablanca - and also very odd. HarperCollins knows perfectly well about the status and value of Lewis's Chronicles. The company created an excellent website to enhance children's enjoyment of the Tales of Narnia and they quote the remarkable accolade of British librarians who, last year, voted The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe the Children's Book of the Century.

And it was only three months ago, in March, that the mighty publisher announced its pride in gaining from the Lewis Company the exclusive rights to publish the author in English. What sort of corporate aberration would persuade HarperCollins to fillet The Chronicles Of Narnia of their references to Christianity? That stretch target of the "broadest possible audience" implies, alas, that the aim is to make the material bland and easy. What a shame and how odd that the Lewis Company, the rights holders, have no view - though they did mention the matter of "maximising the reach of the books" when the last deal was signed.

Is Harper Collins scared of Christianity or envious of Harry Potter? If it is the latter then there is a further paradox. Only two years ago, there was hell to pay among parents' groups in the USA about the lack of Christian content in Harry Potter and, indeed, the corrosive effect of paganism. The tsunami of Potter-appreciation that subsequently swamped the world, also swept away this short-lived opposition to Harry. The Christian content of The Chronicles Of Narnia has never before been assessed as a limiting factor in its success, yet now, in the wake of the Potter bacchanalia, Lewis's faith is found to be an impediment to reaching the broadest audience rather than an advantage - at least in certain US markets.

What is the case for, shall we say, adapting the Chronicles for a more secular age? This series of novels was a very personal expression of what Lewis treasured and enjoyed. These were the books, he said, that he wrote because he was unable to find what he wanted to read. The Chronicles are the outpouring of his imaginative and religious experience; his witness of the life and faith he espoused. It is impossible to imagine that Lewis would have tolerated such a proposal. Does his estate have any view?

But interfering with literature has a long history. The attempt by Thomas Bowdler to "clean up" Shakespeare and integrate the rumbustious Renaissance verse comfortably into polite Georgian society endowed English with a verb associated entirely with humbug: to bowdlerise. Bowdler is an easy target for us but what about the universal success of De Witt Wallace and his Readers' Digest productions? Wallace condensed journalism and books for several generations in the Western world. The magazine was the world's biggest seller at one point and the formula was no secret. It was easy reading in an easy style.

It's no use being toffee-nosed about Readers' Digest; the piles of three-books-in-a-volume, now found at jumble sales near you, show that many people approved. Well, they may have enjoyed reading the material and they may have gained time; they also lost the author's singularity and turned down the invitation to engage not just with the plot, but the intellectual tasks set by the complexity of the text: the "chew" of the book. Entertainment is a vital factor in literature but it is not the sole constituent of a great work. In fact, our most memorable experiences of reading often stem from books which force us to reconsider our own experience. Literature that lasts makes no promises of comfort or ease within its text. But maximising the profit from assets is another matter. That may well involve surgery on the tougher aspects of a text. The removal of Christian references in the interests of turning more bucks is as daft as removing the Christian influences from, say, our music. We could easily have all requiems re-titled as "sad tunes from great guys" or "farewell fantasies from fabulous figures".

There is a better way for The Chronicles Of Narnia that is consistent with HarperCollins' usual standard of care of Lewis texts whether in print or on-line. They needn't compete with Harry Potter; they are the natural texts for Potter fans to take on next. But let's keep the complexity. The Children's Book of the Century doesn't need help to increase its appeal.

Copyright 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.