A definitive argument and preemptive strike

Ok, I have an argument that I think I can actually back up and write a paper on, etc.  Ahem...

WATCO: Disney's specialized output on ability to innovate

Claim: Disney's specialized output has lost its ability to innovate

Reason: Because Disney's specialized output caters to a very conservative, easily angered group.

Assumption: Whatever caters to a very conservative, easily angered group loses its ability to innovate.

Audience: I am writing to the people who always want Disney to try new and progressive things, like adding homosexual couples to fairy tales.  Disney cannot be that progressive, because it is playing to perhaps the scariest audience in the world-over-protective parents.  Let's face it-kids watch Disney.  Why?  Because their parents trust it to be as nice and not-indoctrinating, and warm-fuzzy as possible.  If Disney suddenly came out with an R-rated movie, no one would ever watch it.

Aha!  Now for a preemptive strike by showing that I know all the counter-arguments that will be raised against me:

Parents are criticizing Disney for being too Conservative.  Their first black princess came out less than a year ago!  Parents aren't complaining about that.  They are complaining about old stereotypes that Disney has not changed since 1937.  Pixar is new and progressive, and they aren't getting angry parent's picketing.  Disney's specialized output should help it to innovate.  They don't have to worry about pushing a language or violence barrier, so they can focus on social commentary.  Knowing your audience helps you talk to them better.  What do you mean that parents are conservative and easily angered?

No, no clue at all

So, I'll probably have to push my media plan back another week, since I am only now sure of how to rhetorically analyze something. 

Work-"Are Disney Movies Really the Devil's Work?" by K. Marling (I've tried everything to link it, and it just won't, so you can find it on BYU's library website)

Argument-No, Disney is not of the Devil (dang, looks like I was wrong).  Disney is responding to the surrounding culture.

Audience-The people who always find reasons to think that Disney is of the Devil.  (You know...Ariel is teaching children to hate authority...Why are all the girls blonde...Maybe even, ahem, that Disney, sort of, hurts families, ha ha, etc)

Goal- To help them recapture their ability to see Disney like children seeing for the first time, and help them see movies in their cultural context.

How- The author starts with humor and a sticky story to get attention, then makes herself credible by giving lots of examples as to why her view is correct.  She is also very moderate in her views, never calling those with different opinions idiots.  She shows change over time, making herself more credible and moderate by showing how any black and white view is wrong in this situation.

Effective-Yes.  She cites some of the most popular and classic disney movies everyone knows by heart, and then introduces the context people might miss.  For example, Snow White was being put out during the Great Depression, so "Whistle While you Work" is more about people's desperation to have a job than female subservience.  And just compare Cinderella to Mulan.  Not just in story line, but in looks, too.  What?  We're saying that you can be a Disney protagonist without blonde hair and blue eyes?  Looks like it. 

Do I actually have a clue about Rhetorical Analysis?

I tried a new approach this time-find a source I'd like to cite and see what it tells me about Disney.  So I found a few sources, and what I got out of them was this: Disney was able to make just what it wanted at one point, but now it is like Mc Donald's responding to carb crunch and making a salad.  Disney is now accountable to the public. 

So here's a new idea that will probably be discarded by me before the end of this blog:

The commercial success of Disney has made it more dependant on the likes and dislikes of the public, not the other way around.  Ooh, I can even tie Pixar into it.  When it first started out, no one really knew what it was, so no one cared.  Now that it is wildly successful, the public is telling it what to make.  Like sequels.  Instead of a window to the future, Disney has become a magic mirror, only capable of reflecting, and slightyl jazzing up, the real world.

A good source for me to rhetorically analyze is this commentary by K. Marling.  It argues what I am now (yes, just for now, since I will probably not stick to it, but you never know...) thinking, that Disney is merely following what it sees in society.

The article is pretty sticky, starting out with an anecdote, and not fully giving away its position until readers are hooked.  The author actually starts out by arguing the opposite side of the argument than what the paper tries to prove is correct.  This is a good way to get the proper audience to read the rest of the article.  It starts out with very familiar images, then gives a few unexpected twists to interest people.  However, it does get technical and detailed in the middle, where it is most dangerous.  Readers, like myself, are liable to get over our first interest and then despair when we see that we are nowhere near the end.  We can just barely hang on with the help of her chronological arrangement, and her very logical argument.  A is followed by B in a clear manner that won't confuse anyone.  The work cites very familiar Disney movies to prove its points, which is something I want to do in my paper. 

In fact, this paper is a lot like something that I could write and turn in for this class.  It has some ideas about stickiness and the rhetorical situation, though it is not perfect.  It is comforting to know that not even professors know how to write the perfect persuasive paper.

No way, no how

Yeah...so this week was insane!  I'm just gonna push my media plan back a week, and worry about it then.  No post this week.