"Fat and the Land"

The amount to which I did not like this article was  extensive, largely in part because I did not understand half of it. The major frustration I had with her argument was the overall lack of development in her thoughts and ideas. I feel as though she tried so hard to come across as deep and philosophical, she ended up losing her reader along the way. I had an unusually difficult time pinpointing the thesis of her claim.
From my understanding, what she begins by describing Pixar's relationship with producing "fat" characters, and importantly, how they label and describe the body size. Her thesis follows as "Up’s strategic ambiguity is supported by the film’s visual iconography, particularly as it pertains to the landscape, because that iconography constructs both intriguing departures from, and adherence to, size stereotypes.", which would imply that she is going to discuss the film's strategy in keeping the ambiguiguity around Russell's weight. However, rather than being able to follow her argument along the lines of landscape-associated iconography and size stereotypes, she consistently goes on tangents about Carl representing a patriarchy and America's national identity. 
Although there were several opportunities for the author, Kate Flynn, to attempt to tie these irrelevant ideas into the repercussions of obesity portrayal, she instead tries to recreate additional arguments built onto these claims that she's making. For example, when trying to relate Russell's size with his inability to "associate with the land", rather than explaining how Pixar capitalizes on the incongruity of a non-physically fit individual being thrown into rugged terrain, she instead decides to discuss Puritans. 
....Puritans? 
Apparently, the "slender" and "lean" shape of Ellie is supposed to represent a natural relationship that Puritans had with the natural land around them. Because Russell isn't shaped like a Puritan, his connection to a frontier is contrived and therefore a contrast to Carl as well. 
Somehow, this is supposed to be a trail of thought that the audience is expected to follow. 
Overall, I don't have a strong aversion to Kate Flynn's argument. I believe that there is a lot to be said about how body image is represented in Disney films, and the idea of examining their portrayal strategy was a refreshingly original idea.  However, rather than making her argument clear and easy to comprehend, I believe that Flynn's desire to emphasize the metaphysical aspect of her position ended up alienating her readers.