Gooding-Williams vs Morton Blog Post

When contemplating both arguments by Robert Gooding-Willliams and John Morton, it is easy to understand that both are broadly on the topic of the whimsical animated Disney feature The Lion King. Gooding-Williams, focuses more on the ramifications of the social class issues that are obvious throughout the film, and how it will affect the future generations political values. On the other hand Morton is also discussing his views on this scenario, but is directly addressing to numerous points in Gooding-Williams’s argument. However, it is quite clear that Morton creates a clearer and more convincing argument overall than that of Gooding- Williams, through various aspects of the paper.

One of the largest issues that stuck out to me when first reading Gooding-Williams’s Disney in Africa and the Inner City: On Race and Space in The Lion King was that the writing style was not clear. Some portions of the paper seem to be poorly organized such as the stingy usage of evidence, or the shallow interpretations of the block quotes that were offered as said evidence. His strangely arranged paper is at odds with the million dollar words/phrases (going as far as to throw a common french phrase in there “raison d’etre” or reason of being) that are thrown into the sentences that distract the reader from his claims, as they struggle to discern what is being said. Overall, Goding-Williams’s assertions also seem a bit far fetched in places, and it also does not address some questions, like why the topic of space in The Lion King matters enough to be placed in the title. To further cement this confusion, there seems to not be a clear conclusion, even though there is a portion titled “Conclusion,” and he does not further address the ‘so what’ of the topic. Why does this matter? This all leads to an unconvincing discussion.

In contrast, Morton’s Simba’s Revolution: Revisiting History and Class in The Lion King does an excellent job at the organization of his paper, having a clear road map addressing the claims brought up in Gooding-Williams’s paper. His writing style provides a clearer understanding of his argument without using language that is exceedingly difficult to understand. He also fully explains his understanding of each piece of evidence, and how it relates to his topic. This provides the readers with the necessary information that allows them to make an informed decision on the topic. Although he does not title a particular section ‘Conclusion,’ Morton provided a distinct concluding portion, that addressed why he considers this argument to be relevant to us nowadays, and reiterates his earlier statement on his opinion of Gooding-Williams’s paper. This altogether creates a more effective assertion of his opinions.

Due to these numerous reasons, Morton's paper provides the readers with a more convincing argument with its well thought out claims and clear layout. Therefore, clearly an easier read than disorganized paper by Gooding-Williams that Morton addresses.