The Empire's Old Clothes What the Lone Ranger, Babar, And Other Innocent Heroes Do To Our Minds
by Ariel Dorfman

From the Cover: "An exploration of our most popular cultural icons- and what they really mean.
"Why does the Lone Ranger wear a mask? Why do Disney cartoons teem with uncles and nephews but no mothers and fathers? How does a magazine like the Reader's Digest continually transform adults into children? Ariel Dorfman- already acclaimed by The Washington Post Book World as "a world novelist of the first catagory"- explores the hidden political and social messages behind the smiling faces that inhabit familiar books, comics, and magazines. In doing so, he provides a stunning map to the secret world inside the most successful cultural symbols of our time.
"Dorfman was one of the first writers to examine this timely, provocative topic, and The Empire's Old Clothes has become a classic on the subject. If you're fascinated by the mass media, or worried about what your kids are watching and reading- or if you want to understand the way ideas are produced and manipulated in the twentieth century- The Empire's Old Clothes is essential reading."

What it is: An attack/examination of Babar, Donald Duck, the Lone Ranger, and the Reader's Digest from the perspective of someone who thinks he's smarter than you or I. Also noteable is he kinda-sorta rewrote these 'essays' to fit more of a modern niche.

What I think: Oh baby, this was horrible. A snooze fest. A work of political attack and contradiction. If I didn't pay good money for this book I would've tossed it aside ten pages in (and that's me being generous).
Back story: Dorfman is a Chilean exile who points out this as often as he can, and blames the US government for a bloody change in power in his homeland (possibly true) which as result forced him into exile. So right off the bat the USA are the bad guys. It's noteworthy for my examination of his examination. Now, I'm not Mr.Patriot over here, and I don't like how we run things here in America, but hey, I know an unfair attack when I read one. But let's move on.
We start off with Babar. You know, the elephant king. I'm not going to go on a huge summarization of it, but let's basically say Dorfman says Babar is an imperialist's take on the European colonialization of Africa, a metaphor of a kinder, gentler conquest of 'savages'. Translation: if elephants adopt human clothes, human tech, and walk upright then they are more than they once were, but still not our equal. Now substitute 'elephant' with 'African', and that's Babar's topical metaphor. Who knew?
Now I'm not going to argue this (though I totally should), but my real problem is while focusing on Babar Dorfman takes an aside to hurl insults at Donald Duck and Disney. Focus!
Apparently Disney thinks adults are stupid, children are geniuses, and we should all strive to let our inner child run free (to Disney World?). Me, I think it is more of Donald's character has ALWAYS been a dumb, egotistical, feather-brained jerk (I mean, look at him trying to steal Mickey's thunder every ten seconds). Why? Because it's funny, and every animation studio needs a jerk of a character. And his nephews? They got their shit together just to further expose Donald as a jerkwad.
Mind you this is pre-Duck Tales era he's talking about, so maybe I'm off my mark a bit.
Next target: the Lone Ranger.I don't know what his problem with the Ranger is, because he kind of strays off topic again. Why does he wear a mask? Plot device and it's cool! Why does the Lone Ranger change with time? Because Clint Eastwood revealed how gritty the West really was and all other cowboys had to evolve or die. Besides all heroes have to become topical at some time, at least a little (even if it's not a popular topic). I think this chapter is where I, the reader, lost most of my interest.
Next victim: the Reader's Digest. Apparently it's a pro-Republican, anti-commie, silver-lining to every cloud mini-magazine. I don't know jack about the Reader's Digest except in it's name, and I'd like to keep it that way.
And finally he talks about a Chilean comic character & magazine called Mampato. Here's where Dorfman stops making sense, and starts showing off his anti-American view. Here's the deal: Mampato (apparently) is a propaganda magazine to help simplify (and get people on board with) they drastic change of power in Chile, by villianizing the then-President and glorifying those overthrowing him. Fine, ok. Here's the 2 things that irk me about it: 1) early in the book Dorfman points out how bad the change of power was to people like him, but here he is softballing it like he's cool with it like that, and 2) every other chapter is a viscous dissection of all characters (major to minor) invloved with Babar, Disney, and the Lone Ranger, but here the main characters of Mampato and Ogu get glossed over. In fact I know NOTHING about Mampato except he hangs out with a caveman (Ogu) and dates a chick 2 thousand years in the future. What the fuck?!
Somewhere I lost the point he was trying to make. Disney's evil? Maybe that's it. The USA is brainwashing people? Then why bother bringing up the French created Babar? Look out, we're industrailizing? I just don't know.
I think I should've saved the headache and put the book down.

Final Word: Maybe you'll like this book, maybe you won't. I went in expecting a good dissection of popular characters and walked out with theories that didn't really flow to what I've grown up with. It's entertainment, not propaganda... right? Maybe he's right and I just don't get it, but if you can get through half a chapter and not be irritated than hooray you.