Besides, her sea creature friends are loving and care for her, but she betrays their wishes as well. Could you expand on this a bit (the betrayal part, I mean)?
And yeah, I agree that she inadvertently endangered her father and the kingdom -- I don't think she realized that that was Ursula's endgame (I think Ariel probably thought of it as "human world or bust," as in, she'd be human or she'd disappear quietly trying -- it seems to me she honestly didn't consider the possibility that her dad would get involved and actually give up all his power and his whole self to save her), but yes, it was still foolish/short-sighted on her part. Honestly, I don't have an issue with people thinking Ariel is immature, obsessive, foolish, annoying, vapid, or illogical. My issue is when people say things like, "She gave up everything she had for a man!" because it's a huge reduction of the story to the point of gross inaccuracy. At the point she made the deal she had ALREADY lost a lot of things that were dear to her (relationship with her father, her belongings) and she didn't do it for a man; she did it for her own happiness (if you look at the days she spent as a human, she was on cloud nine). Selfish, I can understand. However, "gave everything up for a man" implies the exact opposite -- extreme selflessness. This doesn't make ANY sense to me given the story. Similarly, statements like "she left her loving family to be with a dude" or "she gave up her voice to be with a dude who ended up ditching her for another girl" are false (well, I mean the last one is true if we're talking about the original fairy tale, but we're not).
So while I sort of presented my own personal interpretation of Ariel at points (that she's a strong heroine, for example), that's obviously my personal interpretation and is not necessarily right. The only issue I have is when people have an interpretation of Ariel that is clearly wrong (indefensible) given the facts of the movie. (Not saying your interpretation is wrong, just the ones I see repeated all the time from people that seem like they haven't watched the movie in years and have no idea what they're talking about.)
Yes, but there's a bit of a difference between collecting (which is fine) and what she eventually does. XD It's like... hmm, there are European countries I'd likely fit in better than I would here (liberal, metal-loving countries where it's considered normal to be introverted? Hell yes), but I don't think my collection of Scandinavian metal albums is really going to prepare me for life in Norway... especially if I don't buy a better coat first. I'd want to be sure I had a good enough handle on the language first, study the cultural norms more beforehand, etc. In Ariel's case (assuming books on human culture don't just fall into the sea), I would've spied on human society more before actually joining them. She just got really, really lucky she wasn't locked up on insanity charges for doing things like brushing her hair with a fork... which definitely wouldn't have fulfilled her life much, since it was a huge risk for something she knew very little about. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a weaboo or something, so long as it's not to the foolish degree of "I only like anime! Therefore I am going to Japan where they apparently still have ninja and samurai and I can run around the streets in this cosplay outfit!" ... which is all kinds of headdesk ignorant.
And hmm, like many things, I think this comes down to a matter of interpretation. I find the whole she lost everything perspective interesting, as I never really saw it that way. She had other peop... uh friends/family (those sea creatures at least, and we never see anyone going "she's so weird! I never want her as a royal"), and was a princess who would one day inherit quite a lot... and, given her position, she would've been allowed to pursue just about anything other than the one thing she did. I would've gladly switched places with her when I was her age as I'd say it was better than my life then (to be a little more personal), haha, so I just thought she was over-reacting over objects when she still had plenty of other options. So the Eric thing just seems like more of a... "He's the one thing I can't have, therefore I must have him!" XD Like she was with all the trinkets and such as well.
Although yeah, I do agree that she thought it was some kind of fate, especially since this is Disney we're talking about here, heh.
As for the betrayal... As I recall, Sebastian went through great lengths to keep her safe and away from humans? I know he was also employed by her father, but they also seemed like friends. Flounder too, as he just seemed too shy to say something, but she still left him - who was more or less her best friend - behind without so much as a "goodbye, I'll really miss you!"
I have said she gave up her voice for a man she barely knew, which I thought was utterly ridiculous, since by that point... well, that is the focus for that bit of the movie, but I do agree it wasn't everything just for him. I can understand the selfish/selfless bit, as many actions can be perceived as both. You can donate money to a good cause, but it can be both out of the human need of community, which does help others without need of personal gain, and out of a more selfish desire to just not look "bad" by not donating. In this case, I think she can be seen as selfish as she didn't think... at all, about anything, and that indirectly hurt others because she was just thinking of her own need to have what she couldn't. Yet, since she does it for one person (to use their usage; I'm not saying she does), she seems selfless towards that one, while coming across as selfish to her family, as it's nearly impossible to please everyone at once.
"she gave up her voice to be with a dude who ended up ditching her for another girl" are similarly false (well, I mean the last one is true if we're talking about the original fairy tale, but we're not"
Semi-off topic, but I actually find the original interesting when applied to the author himself. The story alone I'm not a fan of, but it somehow becomes a lot more appealing to me when applied to the author's own severe unrequited love issues, which seems to be really reflected in that, heh.
And yeah, I get you there. XD I just felt like providing the opposing perspective since... I really don't like this movie aside from Ursula, lol.
Haha, I see your point. Basically, given the poor understanding Ariel had of the human world (because she relies on Scuttle's random made-up nonsense), it seems like a horribly bad/uninformed decision to go and live there forever. I can understand that. I do think that Ariel has the right personality to be able to thrive in a foreign culture, though. Like, from my experience, I think being adventurous and unafraid of making embarrassing mistakes is more helpful for acclimating to a new culture than being knowledgeable about it.
And yeah, I see what you mean that Ariel has a pretty cushy life in the grand scheme of things. But I'm actually not sure if Ariel would have inherited anything, since she's the youngest of seven sisters (no idea how mermaid monarchies work, though...). Hm yeah, I never thought of it as an over-reaction, although that interpretation does make sense too. I just find that scene really traumatic!
I don't think she really left Sebastian or Flounder behind. They both were like "NO ARIEL, don't sign that scroll!!" and she completely ignored them, but they still stuck around to help her out throughout the rest of the movie. Like, at first, Sebastian suggested they go to Triton and tell him everything and get the spell undone, but then realized that wasn't what Ariel wanted, and he actually took her side over Triton's. And I mean, Ariel presumably does leave them behind at some point, but she does kiss them goodbye at her wedding. I think it's a very bittersweet moment.
Hm yeah, I see what you mean about selfless and selfish being able to coexist.
Semi-off topic, but I actually find the original interesting when applied to the author himself. The story alone I'm not a fan of, but it somehow becomes a lot more appealing to me when applied to the author's own severe unrequited love issues, which seems to be really reflected in that, heh. I feel the same way. It's weird... Somehow, just knowing TLM was an allegory for Hans Christian Andersen's own unrequited love transforms the story and gives it another layer of meaning. It made me appreciate the story more for some reason -- maybe because it sort of provides some more reasoning as to why the mermaid has to suffer so much in the original story?
Besides, her sea creature friends are loving and care for her, but she betrays their wishes as well.
Could you expand on this a bit (the betrayal part, I mean)?
And yeah, I agree that she inadvertently endangered her father and the kingdom -- I don't think she realized that that was Ursula's endgame (I think Ariel probably thought of it as "human world or bust," as in, she'd be human or she'd disappear quietly trying -- it seems to me she honestly didn't consider the possibility that her dad would get involved and actually give up all his power and his whole self to save her), but yes, it was still foolish/short-sighted on her part. Honestly, I don't have an issue with people thinking Ariel is immature, obsessive, foolish, annoying, vapid, or illogical. My issue is when people say things like, "She gave up everything she had for a man!" because it's a huge reduction of the story to the point of gross inaccuracy. At the point she made the deal she had ALREADY lost a lot of things that were dear to her (relationship with her father, her belongings) and she didn't do it for a man; she did it for her own happiness (if you look at the days she spent as a human, she was on cloud nine). Selfish, I can understand. However, "gave everything up for a man" implies the exact opposite -- extreme selflessness. This doesn't make ANY sense to me given the story. Similarly, statements like "she left her loving family to be with a dude" or "she gave up her voice to be with a dude who ended up ditching her for another girl" are false (well, I mean the last one is true if we're talking about the original fairy tale, but we're not).
So while I sort of presented my own personal interpretation of Ariel at points (that she's a strong heroine, for example), that's obviously my personal interpretation and is not necessarily right. The only issue I have is when people have an interpretation of Ariel that is clearly wrong (indefensible) given the facts of the movie. (Not saying your interpretation is wrong, just the ones I see repeated all the time from people that seem like they haven't watched the movie in years and have no idea what they're talking about.)
Reply
And hmm, like many things, I think this comes down to a matter of interpretation. I find the whole she lost everything perspective interesting, as I never really saw it that way. She had other peop... uh friends/family (those sea creatures at least, and we never see anyone going "she's so weird! I never want her as a royal"), and was a princess who would one day inherit quite a lot... and, given her position, she would've been allowed to pursue just about anything other than the one thing she did. I would've gladly switched places with her when I was her age as I'd say it was better than my life then (to be a little more personal), haha, so I just thought she was over-reacting over objects when she still had plenty of other options. So the Eric thing just seems like more of a... "He's the one thing I can't have, therefore I must have him!" XD Like she was with all the trinkets and such as well.
Although yeah, I do agree that she thought it was some kind of fate, especially since this is Disney we're talking about here, heh.
As for the betrayal... As I recall, Sebastian went through great lengths to keep her safe and away from humans? I know he was also employed by her father, but they also seemed like friends. Flounder too, as he just seemed too shy to say something, but she still left him - who was more or less her best friend - behind without so much as a "goodbye, I'll really miss you!"
Reply
"she gave up her voice to be with a dude who ended up ditching her for another girl" are similarly false (well, I mean the last one is true if we're talking about the original fairy tale, but we're not"
Semi-off topic, but I actually find the original interesting when applied to the author himself. The story alone I'm not a fan of, but it somehow becomes a lot more appealing to me when applied to the author's own severe unrequited love issues, which seems to be really reflected in that, heh.
And yeah, I get you there. XD I just felt like providing the opposing perspective since... I really don't like this movie aside from Ursula, lol.
Reply
And yeah, I see what you mean that Ariel has a pretty cushy life in the grand scheme of things. But I'm actually not sure if Ariel would have inherited anything, since she's the youngest of seven sisters (no idea how mermaid monarchies work, though...). Hm yeah, I never thought of it as an over-reaction, although that interpretation does make sense too. I just find that scene really traumatic!
I don't think she really left Sebastian or Flounder behind. They both were like "NO ARIEL, don't sign that scroll!!" and she completely ignored them, but they still stuck around to help her out throughout the rest of the movie. Like, at first, Sebastian suggested they go to Triton and tell him everything and get the spell undone, but then realized that wasn't what Ariel wanted, and he actually took her side over Triton's. And I mean, Ariel presumably does leave them behind at some point, but she does kiss them goodbye at her wedding. I think it's a very bittersweet moment.
Hm yeah, I see what you mean about selfless and selfish being able to coexist.
Semi-off topic, but I actually find the original interesting when applied to the author himself. The story alone I'm not a fan of, but it somehow becomes a lot more appealing to me when applied to the author's own severe unrequited love issues, which seems to be really reflected in that, heh.
I feel the same way. It's weird... Somehow, just knowing TLM was an allegory for Hans Christian Andersen's own unrequited love transforms the story and gives it another layer of meaning. It made me appreciate the story more for some reason -- maybe because it sort of provides some more reasoning as to why the mermaid has to suffer so much in the original story?
Reply
Leave a comment