7 ms·

Its curious, because I have pretty stark objections to The Little Mermaid (chiefly, the subtext seems to be "it's totally ok to change everything about yourself

Its curious, because I have pretty stark objections to The Little Mermaid (chiefly, the subtext seems to be "it's totally ok to change everything about yourself to win the affection of a boy you literally just met" and in light of that, the only moral becomes "read the fine print before signing a contract"), they are neatly addressed by the original text. The original is more an allegory about how changing everything about yourself is actually bad than the fairy tale romance that Disney pitches, which is not AT ALL what I expected. There's real benefit to exposing kids to darker themes (my eldest loves a book that kills its main character's father on the second page, and after she recovered from being a little weepy about it, it became one of her favorites), but there's also merit to letting the kids choose to hit pause on scary/disturbing/whatever themes until they're in a place to deal with it. Showing your kids The Two Towers might have a really positive impact on them at the right time, but only if they're mature enough that it doesn't lead to e.g. bed-wetting levels of dis-regulation.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> The original is more an allegory about how changing everything about yourself is actually bad than the fairy tale romance that Disney pitche I thought the main message of the original was "mermaids don't have souls". It doesn't really matter what she does or doesn't do.
- hedora 2y ago
  I’d suggest “The Little Mermaid of Innsmouth” to everyone in this thread, though it might be a bit less kid-friendly than the original: https://www.drabblecast.org/2015/09/13/drabblecast-370-the-little-mermaid-of-innsmouth/ https://www.drabblecast.org/2015/09/13/drabblecast-370-the-l...
  - savingsPossible 2y ago
    It even has the ultra-harsh punishment for misdeeds :P
sapling-ginger 2y ago
> but there's also merit to letting the kids choose to hit pause Why is there a "but" there? Nobody is implying that children should be strapped to a chair with their eyelids propped open with toothpicks so that they have to watch all the gory details of a horror movie.
- petsfed 2y ago
  Looking at the original article, that was for sure the subtext (especially in light of the fact that its coming from an unapologetically Christian source). Their pushback seems to be "parents are trying too hard to protect kids from disturbing images/themes", but also (quoting directly here) "have we swung so far in our attempt to protect children that we don’t tell stories that help them process dark things?" I resonate strongly with the idea that children today are sheltered too much from how the world really is. But I definitely disagree with the idea that we should force them to listen to those "truths" when they can tell for themselves that they aren't able to deal with them. The article expends a lot of words on the idea that good and evil are atomic unto themselves, and not at least partially determined by both outcome, intent, and method. I guarantee that kids in general, and my kids specifically, won't be helped by hearing about (as expressed in the article) Cinderella's step-sisters hacking off their toes and heels to fit into the glass slipper. There are loads of other tropes in classic fairy tales that I'm also uncomfortable with; physical beauty is a reflection of inner beauty, step-mothers are always cruel to their step children, princesses (or marriages in general) as prizes for the heroic feats of princes/knights errant/other adventurers, etc. Fairy tales often seem needlessly cruel given the current state of our society, and they also pack in a lot of warning messages that just don't apply anymore, and clinging to them is itself harmful to kids.
tpmoney 2y ago
> chiefly, the subtext seems to be "it's totally ok to change everything about yourself to win the affection of a boy you literally just met" I really object to this relatively modern interpretation of the Disney movie. For all the perfectly valid flaws in Disney movies, this one is far off the mark that I don't understand how it's become so popular, or why even Disney themselves leaned into it. Ariel in the Disney movie is obsessed with "land culture" long before she ever meets Eric or "falls in love". She has a massive collection of trinkets and artifacts, of which she only has as surface level understanding at best, and a flawed mistranslated one at worst. She's missing family functions for her obsession. She is basically a "weeb" for human culture. Yes, she gets herself love struck when she goes to the surface, but she already wanted to be up there. Her "I want" song comes before she's ever laid eyes on Eric. She's got plans to move, and she's already chafing under her father. Falling "in love" with Eric might be the instigating incident, but she already wants to make a change and get up there. Also bear in mind that she doesn't know anything about Eric at all, she's not "changing herself to win the affections of a boy she just met", they haven't met at all. She's obsessed and made up a fantasy in her head. Again to continue with the weeb analogy, this is like a hypothetical weeb going to an "Atarashii Gakko" concert and deciding they're in love with one of the singers and they're moving to Japan to be with them. It has nothing to do with "love" or "affection" and it's all about the obsession. Ursula leverages this and the recent fights Ariel has had with Triton to trick her into signing the contract, but again this is about fueling an unrequited (and unknown) obsession, not about trying to do something that she has any reason to believe Eric would be asking of her. And then the ENTIRE rest of the movie drives home the point that she doesn't need to change anything about herself. Remember, Eric is obsessed, with a girl with a pretty voice. He doesn't think Ariel is the girl he's interested in at all. But he falls "in love" with her, the person she is, no changes required. Her lack of voice isn't whats appealing to him. Her legs aren't what's appealing to him. It's her personality, her whole self and she's limited to only being able to express herself as herself via her personality because her captivating voice (and the thing Eric supposedly was in love with) she'd given up. In the end the message isn't "change yourself to win affection" it's quite literally "you are good enough as you are for the right person, even when/if your 'love at first sight' attributes (like your singing voice) are lost" If one's kids come away from Little Mermaid believing it's ok to change themselves for someone else's affections, one needs to make sure those kids are getting more critical media analysis practice, and maybe also a few sit down talks on their feelings of inadequacy.
epolanski 2y ago
> "it's totally ok to change everything about yourself to win the affection of a boy you literally just met" Meanwhile I always taught that the underlying message of The Lion King to be insane and it seems like I'm the only one: - don't do what you want but what society/religion tells you to do (Simba is happy with Timon and Pumba, but then they send other animals including the monkey shaman to tell him he has to fight his uncle) - your destiny is decided at birth - there are tier all tiers of living creatures (eating a pig => bad, eating insects => okay cause they don't talk) and genetics decide it I'm not against cancelling it by the way, I just find the message of the film...insane.
- savingsPossible 2y ago
  Not to mention quite a bit of divine right of kings... The land literally heals when 'the rightful king' is back in power
  - joshuahedlund 2y ago
    The story's pretty clearly borrowed from both Hamlet and Moses, so I bet that's where that sort of thing slipped in.
- joshuahedlund 2y ago
  > - don't do what you want but what society/religion tells you to do (Simba is happy with Timon and Pumba, but then they send other animals including the monkey shaman to tell him he has to fight his uncle) Interesting interpretation. I always saw it as being more about justice (i.e. don't live a blissfully ignorant life while your own kin are suffering when you can do something about it) Although maybe that's actually what you're saying too - the message is "don't do what you want" - but we disagree about whether that's insane or correct :)
  - LanceH 2y ago
    putting the hyenas in their place is justice being in charge because you were born to be is justice yea, being about justice doesn't improve it

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> The original is more an allegory about how changing everything about yourself is actually bad than the fairy tale romance that Disney pitche I thought the main message of the original was "mermaids don't have souls". It doesn't really matter what she does or doesn't do.

hedora 2y ago
I’d suggest “The Little Mermaid of Innsmouth” to everyone in this thread, though it might be a bit less kid-friendly than the original: https://www.drabblecast.org/2015/09/13/drabblecast-370-the-little-mermaid-of-innsmouth/ https://www.drabblecast.org/2015/09/13/drabblecast-370-the-l...
- savingsPossible 2y ago
  It even has the ultra-harsh punishment for misdeeds :P

sapling-ginger 2y ago

> but there's also merit to letting the kids choose to hit pause Why is there a "but" there? Nobody is implying that children should be strapped to a chair with their eyelids propped open with toothpicks so that they have to watch all the gory details of a horror movie.

petsfed 2y ago
Looking at the original article, that was for sure the subtext (especially in light of the fact that its coming from an unapologetically Christian source). Their pushback seems to be "parents are trying too hard to protect kids from disturbing images/themes", but also (quoting directly here) "have we swung so far in our attempt to protect children that we don’t tell stories that help them process dark things?" I resonate strongly with the idea that children today are sheltered too much from how the world really is. But I definitely disagree with the idea that we should force them to listen to those "truths" when they can tell for themselves that they aren't able to deal with them. The article expends a lot of words on the idea that good and evil are atomic unto themselves, and not at least partially determined by both outcome, intent, and method. I guarantee that kids in general, and my kids specifically, won't be helped by hearing about (as expressed in the article) Cinderella's step-sisters hacking off their toes and heels to fit into the glass slipper. There are loads of other tropes in classic fairy tales that I'm also uncomfortable with; physical beauty is a reflection of inner beauty, step-mothers are always cruel to their step children, princesses (or marriages in general) as prizes for the heroic feats of princes/knights errant/other adventurers, etc. Fairy tales often seem needlessly cruel given the current state of our society, and they also pack in a lot of warning messages that just don't apply anymore, and clinging to them is itself harmful to kids.

tpmoney 2y ago

> chiefly, the subtext seems to be "it's totally ok to change everything about yourself to win the affection of a boy you literally just met" I really object to this relatively modern interpretation of the Disney movie. For all the perfectly valid flaws in Disney movies, this one is far off the mark that I don't understand how it's become so popular, or why even Disney themselves leaned into it. Ariel in the Disney movie is obsessed with "land culture" long before she ever meets Eric or "falls in love". She has a massive collection of trinkets and artifacts, of which she only has as surface level understanding at best, and a flawed mistranslated one at worst. She's missing family functions for her obsession. She is basically a "weeb" for human culture. Yes, she gets herself love struck when she goes to the surface, but she already wanted to be up there. Her "I want" song comes before she's ever laid eyes on Eric. She's got plans to move, and she's already chafing under her father. Falling "in love" with Eric might be the instigating incident, but she already wants to make a change and get up there. Also bear in mind that she doesn't know anything about Eric at all, she's not "changing herself to win the affections of a boy she just met", they haven't met at all. She's obsessed and made up a fantasy in her head. Again to continue with the weeb analogy, this is like a hypothetical weeb going to an "Atarashii Gakko" concert and deciding they're in love with one of the singers and they're moving to Japan to be with them. It has nothing to do with "love" or "affection" and it's all about the obsession. Ursula leverages this and the recent fights Ariel has had with Triton to trick her into signing the contract, but again this is about fueling an unrequited (and unknown) obsession, not about trying to do something that she has any reason to believe Eric would be asking of her. And then the ENTIRE rest of the movie drives home the point that she doesn't need to change anything about herself. Remember, Eric is obsessed, with a girl with a pretty voice. He doesn't think Ariel is the girl he's interested in at all. But he falls "in love" with her, the person she is, no changes required. Her lack of voice isn't whats appealing to him. Her legs aren't what's appealing to him. It's her personality, her whole self and she's limited to only being able to express herself as herself via her personality because her captivating voice (and the thing Eric supposedly was in love with) she'd given up. In the end the message isn't "change yourself to win affection" it's quite literally "you are good enough as you are for the right person, even when/if your 'love at first sight' attributes (like your singing voice) are lost" If one's kids come away from Little Mermaid believing it's ok to change themselves for someone else's affections, one needs to make sure those kids are getting more critical media analysis practice, and maybe also a few sit down talks on their feelings of inadequacy.

epolanski 2y ago

> "it's totally ok to change everything about yourself to win the affection of a boy you literally just met" Meanwhile I always taught that the underlying message of The Lion King to be insane and it seems like I'm the only one: - don't do what you want but what society/religion tells you to do (Simba is happy with Timon and Pumba, but then they send other animals including the monkey shaman to tell him he has to fight his uncle) - your destiny is decided at birth - there are tier all tiers of living creatures (eating a pig => bad, eating insects => okay cause they don't talk) and genetics decide it I'm not against cancelling it by the way, I just find the message of the film...insane.

savingsPossible 2y ago
Not to mention quite a bit of divine right of kings... The land literally heals when 'the rightful king' is back in power
- joshuahedlund 2y ago
  The story's pretty clearly borrowed from both Hamlet and Moses, so I bet that's where that sort of thing slipped in.
joshuahedlund 2y ago
> - don't do what you want but what society/religion tells you to do (Simba is happy with Timon and Pumba, but then they send other animals including the monkey shaman to tell him he has to fight his uncle) Interesting interpretation. I always saw it as being more about justice (i.e. don't live a blissfully ignorant life while your own kin are suffering when you can do something about it) Although maybe that's actually what you're saying too - the message is "don't do what you want" - but we disagree about whether that's insane or correct :)
- LanceH 2y ago
  putting the hyenas in their place is justice being in charge because you were born to be is justice yea, being about justice doesn't improve it