Summary
The writer doesn’t think that Hannah Montana or Miley Cyrus are impressive. She “get[s] that this show is wildly popular with teens [and]…that her 3-D movie made $29 million in its opening weekend. That doesn’t mean its good”. The writer isn’t bad-mouthing Miley Cyrus, she even says that “she’s cute and personable and she has a pretty good singing voice”. What the writer does not like is how engrossed everyone, and their mom (literally), is in “Hannah Montana”.
The writer doesn’t even think that all of the hype is worth it. She is disgusted with “all the public talk of virginity” and the way that characteristic has been used to encourage the public to like her more. She calls the act hypocritical too, saying that Miley “proclaimed her virginity” while dressing rather scantily. The writer starts to compare Brittany Spears image to Miley’s drawing a correlation between the two. The writer believes that “there is only one point to dressing sexy”, so it’s a little “insincere” to do that as a young girl who has “pledged [her] virginity to [her] father”.
The writer again compares Miley’s star-studded youth to the lives of previous child stars that “children idolize[d]”, coming again to the conclusion that Miley’s road to fame could lead to a disastrous future. That, along with the hypocrisy promotion of lacking morals, are reasons she feels children shouldn’t idolize these young stars in the extreme way that they do.
Analysis
The writer makes appeals to the audience’s ethics, logic, and emotion. The ethical appeals call into question the character of Miley Cyrus. The author does this by slyly making the readers mind connect the image of Miley with the notoriously vulgar images of Britney Spears, the guy who “dated Pamela Anderson”, and the like. She even goes as far as to say that Miley “ripped a page from Britney’s handbook” (diary?). This connection makes her look guilty by association (though she never has been known to associate with any of them).
She uses logic to support her argument. She tries to show the hypocratic side of Miley with the whole “virginity shtick” and the 30 dollar fan-club membership that the parents pay for but get nothing from.. When she alludes to other movie stars gone bad, it makes the reader believe that path could logically be taken by another, potentially Miley. Her statement towards parents that encourage their kids to “blow off an important obligation” to see Hannah Montana is also an appeal to logic.
Logically, a good parent wouldn’t let their kid eat “chicken nuggets” all the time. The problem with her logical appeals is that they are all slanted. She only provides stacked evidence, building a case up against Miley. The one time she says something good about her, she follows it up with a “But fascinating? Only insofar as she is the next most likely teen star to go Brittney Spear’s on us”. This is also an appeal to the emotions of the readers, most of whom are adult. They read about the parent’s behavior and see it as shocking that parents could be so inept. The problem with the emotional appeals is the writer’s assumption that these things concerning Miley and her pseudonym will lead to yet another "tween" sliding down a slope.
http://movies.msn.com/movies/PMG/teenidols?GT1=7701
No comments:
Post a Comment