Lion, witch and censor? Unfortunately for all, yes
And adults are wondering why children don't read
Published 6:30 am, Monday, December 19, 2005
TEN years after I first read the novel, I went to see The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Before entering the theater, I had my doubts about Disney's screen adaptation of the children's classic, since it's almost a law of nature that the movie is never as good as the book. Instead, I was impressed by how true the film stayed to the novel, a childhood favorite of mine.
You may know the story. The four Pevensie children, evacuated from London during World War II, enter the magical land of Narnia through a wardrobe in their caretaker's home — a land they are destined to rule. The adventure that is now captivating movie audiences is the same one that kept me turning the pages as a young girl.
It's a shame that students in public schools today will probably never read it.
It seems that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, written by C.S. Lewis in 1950, isn't politically correct enough for groups like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. In a novel that has been enjoyed by millions of schoolchildren over the last half-century, this group sees only the potential for hurt feelings. They argue that because the lion, Aslan, may be interpreted by some as a Jesus-like figure — a metaphor that eluded me as a child — the book is inherently offensive to non-Christians. In November, when Florida governor Jeb Bush promoted The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as part of a statewide reading contest, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State quickly acted to ban it from public schools. The group's director justified the censorship by claiming that "[The book] is simply a retelling of the story of Christ."
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe isn't the first classic work of literature to be barred from classrooms by politically correct censors. In recent years, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn — often called "the great American novel" — has been banned from high schools across the nation. Why? Because the runaway slave that Huckleberry Finn befriends is referred to as "nigger Jim." Never mind that Mark Twain portrayed Jim as intelligent and sensitive, while many of the white characters who preface his name with the n-word are redneck ne'er-do-wells. Never mind that Huckleberry Finn ultimately rejects all institutions that promote slavery, including the church, and helps Jim to freedom in Illinois. In a politically correct world, the use of a racial slur negates the greater theme of the book.
Apparently, schools have better ideas about what students should be reading. Last week, my 12-year-old sister was assigned to write a report on a book of her choice. The novel she picked was Revenge of the Wannabes, written by an MTV developer. The summary on the back of the book reads, "Alicia Rivera has a wallet stuffed with credit cards and a closet full of Marc Jacobs, but does she have what it takes to start a clique of her own?" I don't blame my sister — virtually any seventh-grader would elect to read Revenge of the Wannabes rather than, say, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. What shocked me was that the novel, which is one step above the MTV show "Laguna Beach" in terms of academic relevance, was actually approved by a teacher.
This is the great irony of English literature courses today. On one hand, educators bemoan young people's apathy. They claim to be greatly disappointed that we'd rather gaze at a television or computer screen than pick up a novel. On the other hand, they banish from the classroom any literature that may make us uncomfortable.
Few classics are still considered suitable for the supposedly fragile minds that populate America's schools. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? Too Christian. Hamlet? Too anti-Christian. Of Mice and Men? Too violent. The Catcher in the Rye? Too vulgar. According to the Wikipedia encyclopedia, even Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl has been banned from some schools for being "a real downer."
Years ago, before political correctness became the dominant philosophy of schools, the duty of English instructors was to guide students through difficult material, not protect them from it.
Whether it's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or Huckleberry Finn, "classics" are so called because the lessons they teach us have withstood the changing values of our culture.
Part of becoming a mature student is learning how to make moral judgments about literature — learning to ask yourself: Do I agree with the author's main point? How does the theme of the book fit into my own values system? Some students are bound to be offended. That doesn't mean they shouldn't keep reading.
But if the PC censors have their way, millions of American students will never make those judgments. Soon, we might be reading books with no important social or political themes, in which all conflicts are trivial and no character dares to challenge our deep-seated personal beliefs.
The would-be censors don't realize that the lessons of classic literature are necessary to counter the junk values of popular culture, including out-of-control consumerism and self-gratification at any cost. They seem to think that young people are mature enough to listen to the cast of MTV's "The Real World" discuss their sexual proclivities but can't bear to read the word "nigger" in the Great American Novel. They've taken it upon themselves to shield us from hurt feelings in English class.
As a college student, I have a message for our self-appointed guardians: We're not that delicate.