PCA/ACA Conference: Day 2

Alright, the new deadline for reports of a day’s sessions is the following morning, because I’m finding it hard to churn them out at 11 o’clock at night. Again, lots to talk about, so let’s get to it.


“’Hi, I’m a Mac and I’m Aristotle’: How the Ancient Rules of Rhetoric Influence the Mac Vs. PC Advertisements” and “iRhetorics: The ‘I’m a Mac, I’m a PC’ Campaign”

The first and last sessions I attended yesterday contained papers on the rhetoric in the “Get a Mac” advertising campaign. Both made pretty similar points, so I’ve combined them here. In short, both speakers confirmed that the commercial spots utilize classic Aristotelian rhetoric. The person representing the Mac (Justin Long) never belittles or insults the person representing the PC (John Hodgman). In fact, he takes a very Platonic and Socratic role, seeming to help the PC along in a way which, ultimately, reveals the flaws in his arguments and design. I spent a lot of these sessions thinking about the effectiveness of these ads. Clearly, they are very popular (and thus effective) and I think this is because of the simplistic nature of the ads which is partly because of the classic rhetoric. Additionally, Mac starts on inherently unequal ground because Mac is selling computers whereas “PC” is selling an operating system. The “Get a Mac” ads are directed at Windows, not Dell, HP, IBM or any of the other companies that make the actual hardware on which Windows runs. Remember that the next time you see “Get a Mac” advertisement. There aren’t many like this, but if they are talking about the short comings of hardware, they’re no longer targeting Windows.


“Spectacular Trash or Feminist Sport? The Mixed Messages of and Responses to Women’s Roller Derby”

This paper was right up my alley, so to speak, owing to my affinity for Roller Derby, thanks for which goes to my sister who first exposed me to the sport. I was glad to actually hear some new researched information (as opposed to analysis). I learned that Roller Derby started during the Depression and was originally just a race around a track featuring both men and women (the presenter didn’t say if there were separate leagues). Then, during World War II it became female-only, and this is the first time that reviews started calling it a “legitimate sport.” The first images many of us have of the beginnings of Roller Derby are of the televised leagues in the 70s which were more similar to pro wrestling. This was due to the influence of the shows’ producers trying to salvage poor ratings by scripting much of the action. Then, of course, the sport died out only to be resurrected as the semi-third-wave-feminist sport we all know and love. The speaker went over many criticisms of modern Roller Derby, but many of them boil down to the question of whether these women are merely a spectacle akin to mud wrestling. First, it's important to note that all televised sports are inherently a spectacle to some extent. Additionally, though, anyone who has been roller skating knows that this sport requires real athletic prowess. The ‘spectacle’ part of Roller Derby is a semi-parodic way of being able to question, enforce, destabilize, and poke fun at the norms of both femininity and feminism. Finally, the speaker asserted that Roller Derby is “not an imitation of men’s sports” but rather an arena wherein women can redefine athletic competition and teamwork instead of merely fitting in to sports which were created by men and in which men dominate. Also the athletes tend to fill the trope of the "unruly woman" and this persona, says some writer I don't remember, "breaks the unwritten rule that women should not make spectacles of themselves, and allows these women to gain back their ability to desire." I’ll probably write more about Roller Derby at a later date because I could go on forever.


“Wall-E Exploits Twentieth Century Sci-Fi Traditions”

More Wall-E! Everyone is doing a paper on Wall-E this year and this was the first I saw that actually expressed clear dissatisfaction with the film. The speaker did make it clear that she enjoyed the movie very much, but she also said that the ending almost ruined it for her entirely (the award-winning credit sequence saved it for her). Before I go on, although I feel that the ending of Wall-E cannot be “ruined” by knowing what happened because the satisfaction comes from seeing the whole film, I will say that I will be talking about the end of the movie and am therefore issuing a Spoiler Alert. Her basic problem with the ending was that it was too unrealistic and simple (the word ‘facile’ may have been said about a million times), even for a children’s movie. That these large, unhealthy and baby-like humans who seem to have almost no grasp of farming would never survive on an Earth which is still mostly ruined. She also drew many parallels to both Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Personally, I couldn’t help but think of Star Wars which, as my roommate said (I think), draws a lot criticism from sci-fi fans because it is actually a space opera and that the ‘sci’ part takes a backseat. Similarly, Wall-E is, to me, a story about love which also explores what it means to be human and thus the science takes a backseat and tends to be a little stretched or inaccurate. Even a great movie can’t be great in every way.