OPINIONSrnM-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-Ernby J.O. Tatern”First grubs obscene, then wriggling worms,rnThen painted butterflies.”rn—Alexander Pope, PhrynernTinker Belles and Evil Queens:rnThe Walt Disney Companyrnfrom the Inside Outrnby Sean GriffinrnNew York: New York Universih’ Press;rn292 pp., $55.00rnMaybe I’m bewitched, but I’m notrnbothered and certainly I’m notrnl^cvvildered by Sean Griffin’s too divinelyrnimbelievable disquisition on one of everv’body’srnfa’orite topics, and I’m not goingrnto waste space by saying what that is,rnbecause you just read the title and subtitlernand you’ll know what I mean. Sorndon’t be a lazy little troll; just do yourrnhomework and I’ll do mine, and we’rerngoing to get along just fine, you and me.rnI mean, you and I.rnNow I am utterly —and I mean entirely,rntotally, and completely—convincedrnthat Tinker Belles and Evil Queens is a vitalrnwork of our time, for so many reasonsrnthat I simply can’t enumerate all of themrnin the stringent space limitation imposedrnon my freewheeling discourse bv thernrather bitchy editor of this section of thisrnrather retrograde journal (and believernme, my little chickadees, they could allrnuse some consciousness-raising aroundrnhere). But clutch my pearls, my extemporerneffusions are just exhausting my preciousrnspace —I’m caught in the glow ofrnmy own brilliance, just trapped by thernsound of my own dulcet tones! What’s arngirl to do?rnJ.O. Tate is a professor of English atrnDowling College on l^ng Island.rnI simply must pull myself together.rnBut where to start? Begin at the beginning,rnyou silly thing! So, in the first placernthen, this tome says a lot about the state ofrnthe academy de nos jours, being obviouslyrna doctoral dissertation in critical studiesrnat the Universit}’ of Southern Californiarnand afterward —ce/a va sans dire! —rnpublished by N.Y.U., making CrifFin bicoastalrnif notbi-anythingelse. Of course,rnas is only too well known, he’s teachingrnnow at Florida Atlantic Universitv. Hisrnsignificant other, Harry Benshoff, is thernauthor of Monsters in the Closet: Homosexualityrnand the Honor Film (1997), andrnalthough Benshoff was cited in the indexrnonly twice, I found him in the notes andrnbibliography more often than that: I justrnthought that it was so nice ‘n’ cozy thatrnriiey could be together in print that way.rnOf course, BenshofFs article, “Heigh-Ho,rnHeight-Ho, Is Disney High or Low?rnFrom Silly Cartoons to Postmodern Politics”rn{Animation journal. Fall 1992), mayrnhave just possibly suggested a teensyweensvrnsomething to Griffin about hisrntopic, if you know^ what I mean, and I justrnknow vou do. But this book is state-ofthe-rnart, and to confirm that I looked forrnthe de rigueur citations of Michel Foucaultrn—and there they were. So much forrnany pesky old academic credibility concerns.rnYou know, it takes me back, really.rnI used to hang out with Michel, but hernhad problems. (Did he ever have problems.rnQuelle horreurl)rnBut this book also has so much tornteach us about style and nuance and theoryrn—it’s a veritable bonanza, a cornucopia,rnif you’ll permit a frivolous flight ofrnfancy, of instructive examples. Figure-toi:rnHow on earth do we represent the dazzlingrninflections of our heightened, urgentrnspeech in the boring conventions ofrnordinary discourse? Griffin has shownrnthe way, and it just reminds me of Dr.rnEvil in those cute Austin Powers movies.rnYou remember how, with finger gestures,rnhe’d put “quotation marks” about thernwords he emphasized? Sean Griffin doesrnthe very “same” thing, only without thern”mimetic” image, by using “quotationrnmarks” around anvthing that has a “special”rnmeaning. I just got carried awayrnreading those “special” words and phrases:rnThey’re so exciting, and there are sornmany of them, and I sort of felt like I wasrnactually hearing his very own oral emphasesrnon examples like “queer appreciation,”rn”opera queen,” “something,” “gayrnAUGUST 2000/27rnrnrn