I doubt that Margaret Lazarus ever subjected her over-protected children to any sort of non-sterile environment again after The Lion King. Answer me this: how would a child full of innocence ever make such negative social connotations to the content of such a beloved animated classic as has Lazarus? Following this argument, how exactly does such a movie become harmful to an innocent child's mind? In my mind, only through exposure to similar negativity as Lazarus describes to then transpose upon the cherished childhood memory! Okay, so the animals and landscape have their own character. Gosh forbid! What, is the "good lion" suppose to not be a natural golden lion-like color? Yes, in life, animals of good and bad aren't color differentiated, but I don't see Lazarus attacking the entirety of children's animation with similar claims of stereotyping or trying to better society by any means. To the best of my recollection, the power of story is manifested through sound and imagery not through our perceptions of how we think a story ought to be told. Not that I'm saying that the movie might not be of the utmost purity!! Reading her article has forever tainted the memorable story that I so remember now that I have more than the story to take into consideration. I think maybe Lazarus should stop writing and focus on her apparent inborn talent as an animator and story teller just to ensure the audience can be as socially correct and full of strife with society as she.