I find myself still contemplating the idea of deconstruction. I think I understand on the surface what it means. I just can’t stop thinking about the implications of it in a more metaphorical sense.

It helps me to think of deconstructionism as viewing words like puzzle pieces. Each puzzle piece holds a little bit of information, but it only means something when it connects to another puzzle piece, and that one to another, and another, and so on. This is understandable to me. Except you’re not putting together a complete puzzle; there is no complete puzzle. You just have the text: a box full of puzzle pieces. It presents no one true meaningful satisfying picture at the end. The puzzle pieces are signifiers and the “whole” puzzle is the signified. The signifiers give each other meaning in that you can tell each puzzle piece is distinct from the next, but the whole picture is ambiguous. There is no universal picture uniting the puzzle pieces except that they all came from the same box and are meant to fit together. You can interpret the whole puzzle in any way you want, but those interpretations will contradict each other, and ultimately, the puzzle will fall apart. 

Deconstructionism, to me, appears to say that any meaning set up by a text will inevitably fall apart into nothing, net zero. And as life is one big text, life falls apart into nothing, too. I don’t know how to feel about that.

It’s fascinating how Disney strives to make their princesses relatable to young girls, and it’s understandable that they do so! Representation (of many different kinds) in media can mean the world. It’s unfair for me to expect happier endings from The Little Mermaid, although up until now I think I might be anticipating them unless I see the words “Brothers Grimm” somewhere.

Besides this, I can’t seem to figure out what is this story trying to teach children. I struggle with analyzing it, and the only conclusion I can come to is that the moral is we shouldn’t be greedy or obsessed with “other-worldly” (a very well-fitting term here) things. Ariel’s personality and attitude in the story is not unlike those of other female protagonists, in fact she acts exactly how one might expect a teenager to, yet she still doesn’t get the happiest ending.

Imagine being impressionable (or maybe not, depending on you personally) and a young teen again, and you are read this story from a guardian or parent. Does it not discourage risk-taking and curiosity?

Of course not all of this is healthy, and the Disney ending is almost too happy, but what does the version we read teach young girls? To never leave home and venture out? To stay submissive and never explore?

I believe the Disney adaptation of the Little Mermaid wants the audience to view Ariel as adventurous. We feel bad that her father is controlling, and we want Ariel to live out her dreams and be with Eric. We see this specific chemistry she has with the prince, and we feel pity for her since this evil sea witch tempted her through the invitation of two eels. But in the Hans Christian Andersen version, I did not feel the same type of pity for the Little Mermaid. I felt there was a lack of passion, and overall, the main character seemed foolish. Throughout her time with the prince, she is treated as a pet. Then has to endure the guilt that her sisters provide. I think that is a significant theme change since her sisters were barely present in the Disney adaptation. The Anderson version made the story more about feminine relationships by giving the sisters and the grandmother more prominent roles, while the Disney adaption was more strictly about Ariel having daddy issues. Also, I feel like the audience does not feel the same empathy for the little mermaid because she does go to the sea witch, but she never has anyone who needs to persuade her to go. Yes, severe pain is inflicted on her, but it’s her own fault, and I don’t think the sea witch is the villain in this adaptation.