Andrew Shin: Aladdin Response

It is surprising to me that this particular story was chosen to be the inspiration for a children's fairytale, yet this seems to be a common trend among many of the source materials. Several points of this story stand out as either ethically wrong or just elements of what I would consider to simply be a bad story. Aladdin, the boy who would become king, is nothing but a fraud, liar, murderer, and pervert. He lacks even the slightest indications that he is capable of being redeemed. The introduction of the story was quite amusing. Aladdin's father dies of grief because his son likes to hang out with his friends. The cause of death is interesting to say the least. Then, enter the mysterious uncle-magician from "Africa" who is in reality not as clever as the story seems to portray. He just guesses that a random boy happens to have an uncle and goes through the trouble of having to act like said uncle in front of Aladdin's mother. Why not just offer a bit of bread? Surely that would have sufficed instead of parading Aladdin around the nation in fancy clothes?

Once Aladdin obtains the genie, it is also interesting that the first thing that he asks for is food. His desires seem oddly unimaginative until he lays eyes on the princess. And even then, they lack creativity. Why not eternal life or godhood? No such restrictions seems to exist in this story as they do in the Disney version. Then, there is the part when Aladdin the pervert decides to peep on the princess, instantly falling in love. The princess, once again, is an object in this story. The methods that Aladdin uses to win her initially are both creepy and inefficient. I'm also confused about how the princess actually developed feelings for him, but then again, objectification translates to a compliant and air-headed princess. She blindly gives away the magic lamp, and is later completely willing to commit murder alongside her kind-of lover. She lacks even the slightest depth of character, making this an extremely androcentric story.

Lastly, entire story revolves around material things. These tangible riches are the one and only thing that makes someone a person in this world. One's status is communicated by the number of slaves one owns or the size of one's treasury. Furthermore, if the end result is becoming rich, any actions that lead up to that goal seem to be labeled as noble or heroic. Aladdin, after murdering not one, but two people to secure his riches eventually reigns as sultan and lives a long and happy life. There are no morals or lessons in this story other than "greed is rewarded." Aladdin is no better than the pair of brothers that he kills. In fact, he is actually worse in terms of morality and is still rewarded. The concept of a rags to riches story is not a new one, but this translation of the original Aladdin story goes way past that. All I can say is that I am impressed that Disney was able to pull a sing-along children's film out of this mess, culture insensitivity aside.