After reading "Aladdin and the Magic Lamp," decide whether or not Aladdin deserves his good fortune and explain why.

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2004

Answers

Actually, it's rather inconclusive. Really, it is. There are two different characterizations of Aladdin in the story. It starts with he is a stupid, worthless, lazy streetrat, and ends up with him being gentle and honorable, I suppose because he falls in love with the Princess. I would say the Aladdin before he fell in love did not deserve his fortune, but that the Aladdin afterwards did.

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2004

Aladdin does not deserve his good fortune. He is only driven by materialistic desires (at least at first), and he has little regard for others. For example, when Aladdin's "uncle" starts making the ground tremble, Aladdin wants (and tries) to escape until he realizes that the magician wants him to get a special treasure (the lamp). Also, Aladdin works to marry the princess only through material means (by using the magic lamp).

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2004

Just to let you guys know, John isn't going to be here friday, so you don't have to post - we're going to give our presentation on Aladdin in two weeks.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2004

Well, since I just read the story I'm going to post anyway. I think Aladdin is totally undeserving of his good fortune. He is lazy, and completely paralyzed without a genie. Whenever he thinks he is going to die, (in the cave and after his palace dissaperes) he spends days crying and wandering about "like a madman." The genie does everything for him execpt kill the African magician, and he uses poison for that which does not take a lot of skill or courage. Aladdin is a not extraordanary in any way except he had the good fortune of being dim witted enough for the African magician to pick him out of the crowd.

-- Anonymous, October 13, 2004

Well if this post counts towards when we have it actually assigned, I'm gunna do it now. I think Aladdin is unworthy. I was very disturbed by Aladdin's means of "persuading" the Vizier's son to leave the princess. I would say he is not noble nor heroic and like the captain in The Bronze Ring, he is worthless without that lamp.

-ror

What's a roc's egg?

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2004

This is just a response to Rory's question. It's from Wikipedia.

Roc or Rukh: a mythical white bird of enormous size and strength such that is reputed to have been able to lift and eat elephants.

The origin of the myth about the roc is unknown, and it is possible that the myth originated from an actual bird, with references to it being known from early as the 8th century from Arab authors. There are reported sightings of this bird as recently as the 16th century by an English traveller who visited the Indian Ocean. There are also the Thunderbirds of Native American legends, which may be related to rocs, and some sightings are still reported to this day.

Another source could be the enormous Aepyornis or elephant bird from Madagascar, an extinct flightless bird like a three-meter ostrich.

The Rook chess piece may originally have been based on a roc, although the dominant hypothesis is a siege tower mounted on an elephant.

The legend of the roc, popularized in the West in the 1001 Arabian Nights' tales of Sindbad the Sailor, was widely spread in the East; and in later times the home of the bird was sought in the region of Madagascar, whence gigantic fronds of the raffia palm very like a quill in form appear to have been brought under the name of roc's feathers (see; Yule's Marco Polo, bk. iii. ch. 33, and Academy, 1884, No. 620). Such a feather was brought to the Great Khan, and we read also of a gigantic stump of a roc's quill being brought to Spain by a merchant from the China seas (Abu Hamid of Spain, in Damiri, s.v.).

The roc is hardly different from the Arabian `ankd (see phoenix); it is also identified with the Persian simurgh, the bird which figures in Firdausi's epic as the foster-father of the hero Zal, father of Rustam.

When we go farther back into Persian antiquity we find an immortal bird, amrzs, or (in the Minoi-khiradh) slnamrü, which shakes the ripe fruit from the mythical tree that bears the seed of all useful things. Sinamrtt and simurgh seem to be the same word. In Indian legend the garuda on which Vishnu rides is the king of birds (Benfey, Panchatantra, 98). In the Pahlavi translation of the Indian story as represented by the Syrian Kalilag and Damnag (ed. Bickell, 1876), the simurgh takes the place of the garuda, while Ibn al-Molaffa (Cal-ha et Dimna, ed. De Sacy, p. 126) speaks instead of the `anl~a. The later Syriac, curiously enough, has behemoth -- apparently the behemoth of Job transformed into a bird. The ziz of Jewish tradition is also a giant bird.

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2004

Thanks Ranjan, so a roc is some sweet bird, but why did the genie get mad at Aladdin, and why did he mention having to kill his master? It's all crazy and maybe we'll discuss it wednesday.

ror

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2004

See, I agree with Angie's preliminary statement in that the story doesn't really make it clear which way to go on this question.

Personally, I don't think he deserves it, as he never really worked for any of it. His initial role as a lethargic bum relieves him of worth, and the general "Hey, i need this, do it" attitude he takes towards the genies kind of adds to the effect.

-Bains

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2004

I do not think that he really deserves the good fortune he recieves. Aladdin does not seem to do much work and is very lazy. I do think however he improves in the story and witnessed by his later acts. This is odd because usually absolute power corrupts absolutely, not absolute power makes you a better person.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2004

Aladdin really doesn't undergo any of the heroic struggle that we associate with the hero of a fairy story. He's not even originally in love with the princess. Its not his personal talent, purity of heart, etc. that gain his rewards. He does it all just by the fact that he possesses the lamp of the genii. Instead of any underlying trait of his personality its just happenstance. So no, he doesn't deserve it.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2004

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to conform here. I agree that Aladdin did not deserve the fortune he received. He's not hard worker, doesn't even try to get work (even little Jack tried that). On top of that, he can't even tell who is own relatives are. Geez! I envy him, however, because he leads a relatively easy life with little effort.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2004

I agree. He is a slacker and is able to get the princess, a magic ring, and a magic lamp without effort, merely by being lazy. He lives by his wishes and that's about it. Aladdin gets better as the story progresses and even comes to rescue the princess and kill the magician, and becomes the Sultan. However, he does not deserve his good fortune.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2004

I agree with everyone else that he does not really deserve his good fortune because he is lazy, a slack, ect... The more I thought about it though, it seems to me that there aren't really any people that truly "deserve" to have such riches bestowed upon them for no real reason. But all in all, I guess he would be less deserving than others who don't even deserve it themselves.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2004

Alladin seemed to deserve everything he got. THis story seems to be antihero versus antihero. The only significant difference between Alladin and the "evil" sorcerer is that the sorcerer was willing to commit murder. Alladin is just a lazy good for nothing.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2004

I think Aladdin does not deserve everything he gets. It compares very closely with Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk. Aladdin is worse even. Jack at least goes through the effort of stealing things and using trickery. The only thing tricky about Aladdin is his questionable judgement. Though Jack receives everything he needs, he puts effort into it, and then kicks back and lets the chicken lay the gold eggs. Aladdin just wishes for it. Anyone could do that...

~Tibbleznbits

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2004