Notes on the Fandom: Clichés and Axioms

I adore Disneyland like little else in my life, but I have to admit that the fandom can be...difficult. For me, at least. It's a thing apart from every other fandom I have ever gotten involved with, probably because it's based on a fixed location rather than a piece of easily reproducible media, but my area of concern today is the way the discussions tend to go.

I'm only “active” on one Disneyland discussion forum, that being the one on Micechat, and the scare quotes are because I rarely find it in me to join the conversations there. They're just...so...repetitive. Trip reports (not much to add there), news items, requests for advice from people about to make their first visit (others have usually gotten there long before I see the thread), and the ever-popular debates about the sorts of attractions Disney should add to their parks vs. the sorts they do add.

That last category of conversations are the really frustrating ones, because they have possibly the highest potential for fruitful discussion, but the lowest actualization of that potential. Most of what I see is factions of people arguing past each other. As is usually the case when people are more interested in waving their opinions about like magic talismans than actually communicating with each other, there are certain stock phrases that appear over and over. Today I've chosen to highlight four that I think are especially poisonous and would be discarded by a wiser fandom. I've been guilty of using some of them myself.

Some of these clichés and axioms, I would like to banish from the overall conversation because I disagree with them, others because I feel they convey my own positions badly. But we would be better off without all of them, as a general rule, because they are less thoughts than substitutes for thought.

Anything about “E-tickets” (unless discussing the actual attraction coupon system that was discontinued in 1982)

I have an entire post explaining why I don't like the use of the term “E-ticket.” Short version: It has no consistent meaning and seems to be used to create the illusion of an objective five-point scale applied to something almost completely subjective (ride quality).

Beyond that, the emphasis on “E-tickets” seems to miss the fact that there is much more to a good theme park than its fastest and flashiest rides. Some of Disneyland's most iconic features and experiences were never E-tickets, or would not be considered such if bult today. And that's not even taking into account things like the area theming and background details that make Disney parks feel so much more authentic and “alive” than their competitors.*

An argument for “more E-tickets,” especially a proposal that a less thrilling attraction be removed to make room, is an argument for a less layered, less textured park.

“Disneyland is a business. Businesses exist to make money.”

This falls under the heading of “Statements that are true...so true, in fact, that they go without saying.” Is there anyone who has ever read this in a discussion thread, smacked their forehead and said, “I never considered that! Of course they should start charging for name stitching on hats!”? I doubt it.

No one who objects to a potentially lucrative development in the parks does so because they don't know Disney operates under the profit motive. They do so because they wish Disney would temper the profit motive with a more serious commitment to artistic merit/customer service/good treatment of employees/whatever else risks being compromised by the change.

Don't even get me started on the notion that a business practice is automatically justified because it makes more money than the alternatives. That's Gordon Gekko talk.

“Disneyland isn't a museum.” “You're just against change.” “Walt said Disneyland would never be finished.”

These three statements are grouped because they are variations on expressions of the same sentiment, which is that any and all changes to the parks come pre-approved by Walt (rubber-stamping proposals from beyond the grave?), and only hidebound curmudgeons could possibly object.

That's really not fair. I don't know of anyone who has never approved of any change to Disneyland that they witnessed. Objections to change can be fueled by nostalgia, of course, but first of all, nostalgia is not a worthless motivation (especially where a place like Disneyland is concerned), and second of all, it's not the only reason someone might have a problem with, say, the Tower of Terror being replaced by a cheap-as-possible Guardians of the Galaxy reskin.

Incidentally, a couple years ago my esteemed colleague at Yesterday, Tomorrow, and Fantasy made an eloquent argument for why Disneyland should be treated, at least in part, as a museum. I won't steal his thunder by repeating it here (that's what the link is for), but I will note that he counters one hoary old Walt Disney quote with another, less well-known but equally relevant. And that brings me to my final example of an arguing tactic that should go the way of the Canal Boats of the World...

“Walt would/would not do that!”

I close with this one because I see it trotted out on “my” side of the arguments more often than on the “other” side. Call it critical self-examination.

“WWWD?” attempts cuteness (and maybe a bit of fandom-specific virtue signaling), but these days I find it kind of creepy. No matter what your own religious leanings, you don't want to elevate Walt Disney to the level of a deity, even in jest. The man smoked cigarettes, for crying out loud. More seriously, I have come to the conclusion that “what Walt would do” is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining what the Imagineers and their bosses should do today.

Believe me, I understand how tempting it is to invoke his name and his intentions. He was the founder, and our culture has a sort of reverence for founders. On the more practical side of things, he was a creative genius, with a fearless heart and a miraculous instinct for what was right for his park and what wasn't, and his vision is what made the place into the fantastic work of art that it was and is. However...

Walt Disney's been dead for fifty years, guys. We have no way of knowing what he would have decided to do with Disneyland if he had lived into the Seventies and Eighties. Hell, maybe he would have gotten bored with it altogether and sold it off in order to raise funds for his next wild shot at the moon. His mind never did stand still.

We should not be concerned with whether Walt would approve of a given change to the parks. We should be concerned instead with whether we approve, and more importantly, why we do or don't approve.

That's what this all boils down to. We should articulate our actual thoughts and opinions instead of falling back on lazy clichés and axioms. Persuade rather than argue.

Be worth listening to.

It's not just each other we have to convince.

* Although I maintain that different theme park chains aren't actually competitors and would perform better if they didn't try to be.