Is Disney's Version of the Little Mermaid Better than Andersen's Original?

As part of the suggested reading for this week's content, I read Kiss the Girls: Two Little Mermaids an Ocean Apart by Jack Heckel. Heckle argues that in Anderson's tale the little mermaid had a more legitimate reason to want to become human than in Disney's version, and therefore the story as a whole communicated a more valuable morality. While I do think that Heckle makes a valid point, I would like to also argue that the importance of faith and suffering as portrayed in the original story contradicts the current mainstream mortality in Western societies. 

Before we begin our analysis, we will first introduce the two different reasons that the Little Mermaid decided to become human in Disney's film and Andersen's tale. Here, I will use quotes that Heckle also used to illustrate the difference. In the Disney version, Ariel wants to become human due to her love for the prince, or as Ursula puts it: 

Now, then. You’re here because you have a thing for this human. This, er, prince fellow. Not that I blame you—he is quite a catch, isn’t he? Well, angelfish, the solution to your problem is simple. The only way to get what you want—is to become a human yourself.

In contrast, in Anderson's version, Ariel displays her wish to acquire an immortal soul:

“Why weren’t we given an immortal soul?” the little mermaid sadly asked. “I would gladly give up my three hundred years if I could be a human being only for a day, and later share in that heavenly realm.”

As a result of this difference, Heckle concludes at the end of his blog that

Both the Disney and Andersen versions of The Little Mermaid are about growing up and being willing take risks, but whereas Disney takes the easy way out, Andersen’s story is more subtle, and therefore richer.

Although I would agree that Andersen's story teaches better morals, I take problem with Heckle's conclusion for two reasons. First, the idea of pursuing an immortal soul is a very Christian ideal that I believe is slowly losing relevance in today's society. Second, I do not think there is anything wrong with the pursuit of love per se, though I would agree that love should not be anyone's only goal in life.

To elaborate on the first idea, let us inspect what Andersen describes that Ariel goes through to acquire her immortal soul. 

Every step you take will feel as if you were treading upon knife blades so sharp that the blood must flow.

This is a lot of price to pay for an immortal soul that may or may not exist. Moreover, we know also that mermaids in the story live for 300 years, and that Ariel gave up the majority of her life to become human. From at least my point of view, this was not a good decision; moreover, I would argue that there are many who would agree with me. A major change in our way of thinking from Andersen's time to now is that people have become less religious, and as a consequence, we have also stopped thinking about ourselves in a religious way. In Andersen's heavily Christian society, it may well be the case that suffering was seen as integral for life, since scripture and theologians alike suggest that early suffering was a test for our souls so that they may enter the kingdom of God. 

In contrast, today, some of us may or may not believe in an immortal soul, but most of us are not certain about its existence to the extent that we will give up 300 years of life to acquire it. Moreover, most of us would not attach the value of a person to the existence of a soul that we are uncertain about; rather, the basis for our rights are typically linked to our capacities to reason, to conscience, and to feel pleasure and pain. In short, the pursuit of the immortal soul, at least when interpreted literally, is a motif that is slowly losing its relevance. 

Now, compare Andersen's story to the plot of Disney's version, where the little mermaid, against the will of her father, signs a terribly unfair contract to become human in order to pursue a prince. While one can certainly argue that this perpetuates the idea that women's main goal is finding the right man, one can also argue that Ariel is simply exercising her free will to break free from the bonds of her family in order to pursue something that she cares about. Indeed, a quick search on google will reveal that Disney's little mermaid is a very controversial film among academics and fans alike. I would argue that the very fact that this film is as controversial as it is shows that its motifs are pertinent to our society. When viewed in the contemporary context, Disney's version of the Little Mermaid confronts us with hard questions such as 

Can women's pursuit of love be empowering, or must they focus on careers as men have done traditionally? What are the obligations of children to their parents? Is love always worth the risk that accompanies it? 

I would argue that these questions are much more important to our societies today than Andersen's concern with the immortal soul, and that as a result, contrary to the opinion of some, the Disney version of the Little Mermaid is, in fact, better than Andersen's Original.