First, I will argue for who I believe wrote their argument
better. It seems very obvious to me that Morton is much more talented in
explaining his side than Gooding-Williams. Gooding Williams jumps around in his
piece and it can be quite difficult for the reader to follow. Gooding-Williams
bases his entire argument off the casting of the voices of two of the three hyenas,
which is far-fetched and points to the larger problem of Gooding-Williams not
having enough evidence to properly explain his beliefs. At one point in the
article Gooding-Williams just writes the argument of Hegel, and did not seem to
explain any part of the put in any analysis (if he did I could not understand
it because it was so jumbled). One of the things that we have talked about in
class is the use of quotations as evidence and the problems of hanging quotes. Gooding
Williams would benefit from sitting in on that lecture. Morton, however, explained
his argument very clearly and it was well laid out and easily read. Morton
begins his argument by trying to explain Gooding-Williams’ which is an
effective strategy. Funnily enough Morton explains the argument in a more
concise and clear way than Gooding-Williams, which as we have discussed is an
effective way to build ethos in an article. As Morton writes out his argument
he does so in a clear manner that addresses every point with very specific
evidence and analysis. This made the article easier to read and allowed me to
understand the argument.
I may be biased because Morton argued his point much better,
but I truly stand by Morton’s side. The idea that The Lion King is some complex metaphor for poverty, and segregation
in the United States seems to be a large reach to me. Furthermore, I think that
the fact that Gooding-Williams clearly struggled to find evidence to back his
claim shows how little basis there is in support of the argument. On the other
hand, Morton’s less complex, but smooth, argument is in no way a reach, but
much more believable. While we have read pieces by Giroux and Zipes that implore
us to look for the deeper meaning in Disney movies, the reality is that a
person can only look so much deeper until they are grasping at straws, which is
where I believe Gooding-Williams goes wrong. In my opinion, Disney movies are
children’s movies. They are designed to entertain children and while there are
definitely valid arguments for significant deeper meaning in some films, I do
not think Gooding-Williams’ argument is one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment