Aladdin comes off more negatively than I remember in the story. For a majority of Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp, he seems to be selfish and lazy, doing whatever is convenient and beneficiary to him. Usually, the protagonists in stories like this have some sort of strong quality despite coming from more humble backgrounds. In Aladdin’s case, nothing really stands out: there is nothing particularly evil about him, but nothing great either. I think that actually makes the story more interesting and less predictable.
Even when first introduced in the cave, it is clear that the lamp is not something to be messed around with. The fact that the genie is ugly makes it seem devilish. I thought that because of these dark qualities, something bad would happen to Aladdin at the end to teach him a lesson that he cannot just simply wish for whatever he wants. When the magician came back and took away the lamp, I was expecting that Aladdin would be done for good. However, the Sultan pardoned him and he was able to take back his perfect lifestyle. I actually enjoyed this plot twist since I am a fan of happy endings; this was interesting to see compared to the dark outcomes of the Grimm brothers’ fairy tales.
Aladdin’s growth into becoming a “good” person is pretty hidden. He blooms only after he marries the Princess and has his wealth - only after having a luxurious lifestyle, he grows. This situation is the opposite of what is usually seen in texts: characters usually have an awakening and grow after they lose their comfortable lifestyle.
I have definitely read commentary on this before, but there is such a large contrast between the Princess in the story and Princess Jasmine from the movie. The Princess is not even supposed to be seen at all in the story, but she is dressed in more provocative clothes in the Disney adaptation. I am not quite sure on whether or not I support this change; it would be interesting to read some criticism of it after we watch the film adaptation.
It is interesting that the Tor article talks about how when Galland “translated” Aladdin, he probably changed the story quite a bit. I was confused about how the story was set in China and Africa, and it makes sense that the other stories in Arabian Nights are set in other parts of the world with more Arab influence. I think Lang did well in his translation of Galland by downplaying aspects that he found particularly inaccurate. I am curious if the original story of Aladdin has messages of political and social power like Galland and Lang’s interpretations.
The article also talks about how the China in the story is a mythical land - this makes it a little more reasonable, but also still seems a bit strange that Galland chose to set the story in China when he could have placed it in the Middle East or South Asia. When reading the story, I automatically assumed that it was set in some sort of Middle Eastern colony in China.
Even when first introduced in the cave, it is clear that the lamp is not something to be messed around with. The fact that the genie is ugly makes it seem devilish. I thought that because of these dark qualities, something bad would happen to Aladdin at the end to teach him a lesson that he cannot just simply wish for whatever he wants. When the magician came back and took away the lamp, I was expecting that Aladdin would be done for good. However, the Sultan pardoned him and he was able to take back his perfect lifestyle. I actually enjoyed this plot twist since I am a fan of happy endings; this was interesting to see compared to the dark outcomes of the Grimm brothers’ fairy tales.
Aladdin’s growth into becoming a “good” person is pretty hidden. He blooms only after he marries the Princess and has his wealth - only after having a luxurious lifestyle, he grows. This situation is the opposite of what is usually seen in texts: characters usually have an awakening and grow after they lose their comfortable lifestyle.
I have definitely read commentary on this before, but there is such a large contrast between the Princess in the story and Princess Jasmine from the movie. The Princess is not even supposed to be seen at all in the story, but she is dressed in more provocative clothes in the Disney adaptation. I am not quite sure on whether or not I support this change; it would be interesting to read some criticism of it after we watch the film adaptation.
It is interesting that the Tor article talks about how when Galland “translated” Aladdin, he probably changed the story quite a bit. I was confused about how the story was set in China and Africa, and it makes sense that the other stories in Arabian Nights are set in other parts of the world with more Arab influence. I think Lang did well in his translation of Galland by downplaying aspects that he found particularly inaccurate. I am curious if the original story of Aladdin has messages of political and social power like Galland and Lang’s interpretations.
The article also talks about how the China in the story is a mythical land - this makes it a little more reasonable, but also still seems a bit strange that Galland chose to set the story in China when he could have placed it in the Middle East or South Asia. When reading the story, I automatically assumed that it was set in some sort of Middle Eastern colony in China.
No comments:
Post a Comment