A great number of abuses are being committed in the name of public domain and profit margins.

Remember Disney’s "The Little Mermaid"? Sorry to burst any bubbles, but the real story does not end with "Ariel" marrying the handsome prince and living happily ever after. In the original Hans Christian Anderson story, the little mermaid — gasp! — dies. (Her alternative was murdering the prince and his new bride.) Looks like Disney found the original too grim.

It also looks like Harper Collins has found C.S. Lewis’ "The Narnia Chronicles" too Christian. The publisher has made agreements with Lewis’ estate to publish a revised version of the classic children’s series without Christian references.

Andrew Greeley, writing for msnbc.com, rightly decried this as anti-religious, profit-driven insanity. According to Greeley, Harper Collins wants to ride Harry Potter’s coattails to the land of meteoric sales figures.

Some thimblewit in marketing apparently doesn’t think this is possible with titles from promising new authors (it might require some effort to make these into bestsellers, after all), and so, Harper Collins has chosen to monkey with classic titles like Narnia. By deleting the Christian imagery that permeates the Narnia books, Harper Collins hopes to capture a supposedly enormous market of "secularist" readers.

The publisher’s intent, as stated by spokeswoman Lisa Herling, "is to publish the works of C.S. Lewis to the broadest possible audience and leave any interpretation to the reader." The new books have not yet been written, and it is unclear whether Lewis’ byline will appear on the cover.

Ultimately, this is neither here nor there. Interpretation always has been up to the reader. Also, according to Greeley, the majority of Americans are at least nominal Chris-tians, and therefore, are "the broadest possible audience." And, at last check, people made up their own minds about what to read, quite without the assistance of editorial boards’ revisions. Most people are relatively secure in their beliefs and accordingly, do not take the authors’ religious preferences into account when purchasing books.

Harper Collins should realize that Narnia could sell readily "as is." Both it and Lewis’ estate should also realize that integrity is more meaningful to literary consumers than the bottom line, especially an imaginary one. Changing the very meaning of Lewis’ work compromises that integrity — no matter whose name is on the cover, and no matter who approved this change.

Readers doubtless wonder what’s next — editing the word "God" out of the Bible so as to not offend atheists? Or, to make the example more relevant for all those alleged "secularists": Shall we delete all references to wizards and magic from the "Harry Potter" series to suit non-secularists?

While Harper Collins has been most base in its worship of the Almighty Dollar, it hardly stands alone in literary tampering.

A case in point is a bygone book, "The Further Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." I cannot recall if Mark Twain’s estate turned a blind eye, or approved the book, or simply had no legal say, but the author should have left well enough alone. This attempt at a sequel twisted Twain’s tale of boyhood innocence and rollicking adventure into a ridiculous, violent, and fundamentally pointless romp across the sleazy underbelly of the Wild West.

At least Disney typically uses commonly-held myths and fairy tales, or takes the trouble to buy a story’s rights before muddling it. But Huck Finn is not a timeless legend, steeped in ancient mythology and obscure history (like King Arthur), or cultural lore held in common (like fairy tales), that anyone has the right to retell to his or her liking.