MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4244961419 · doi:10.13110/marvelstales.31.2.0421

[sans titre]

2017· article· W4244961419 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brittany Warman

Notice bibliographique

RevueMarvels & Tales · 2017
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLyricsComicsPoetryLiteraturePopular cultureHistoryComic stripFace (sociological concept)ArtArt historyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Fairy Tales in Popular Culture ed. by Martin Hallett and Barbara Karasek Brittany Warman (bio) Fairy Tales in Popular Culture. Edited by Martin Hallett and Barbara Karasek. Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press, 2014. 217pp. In Fairy Tales in Popular Culture, editors Martin Hallett and Barbara Karasek face the task of assembling “a new anthology that reflects the evolution [End Page 421] of the fairy tale over the last half-century” by providing examples of—or at least discussing—relatively recent prose, poetry, lyrics, comic books, graphic novels, illustration, art, theater, film, television, advertising, and new media that draw on the fairy-tale form (11). The volume begins with a preface, an introduction, and a short essay called “The Art of Retelling.” Each of these concise pieces sets up the rest of the book nicely, but several significant mistakes distract the knowledgeable fairy-tale scholar from enjoying them completely. How can one describe fairy tales as “memes,” for example, without at least mentioning Jack Zipes’s work (14)? How, after the abundance of scholarly discussion on the topic, can a text of this kind earnestly use the word original to describe a fairy tale (27) and then note that the word should not be used later in the text (120)? These issues unfortunately continue into the “Prose” section’s introduction, an otherwise well-done, if somewhat brief, overview. The first two parts of the book, “Prose” and “Poetry and Lyrics,” each feature several examples of attempts to retell particular fairy tales. The editors note in the preface the risk inherent in choosing fairy-tale adaptations that could be described as “radical revisions”—they believe that some readers will feel that such selections destroy “treasured memories of childhood” but hope that they will open their minds to them (11). Unfortunately, this worry seems to have prompted restraint with their choices, resulting in a somewhat confusing selection of prose, poetry, and lyrics for an anthology of this type. The editors favor retellings that do not seem to transform the tales much at all or those that do so only in gimmicky ways—for example, using the voice of Bugs Bunny, as in Tim Seibles’s poem “What Bugs Bunny Said to Red Riding Hood” (1999), or exchanging pigs for penguins, as in Gregory Maguire’s short story “The Three Little Penguins and the Big Bad Walrus” (2004). Part of the issue is that the editors seem to have thought it necessary to include short pieces from certain authors who do not primarily write them, such as Gregory Maguire and Robin McKinley, whose fairy-tale novels are exquisite but whose short stories in this volume do not do their skill with the form justice. There are notable gems among the selections of course—Neil Gaiman’s “Snow, Glass, Apples” (1994) and Kim Addonizio’s “Ever After” (2006) are both excellent twists on “Snow White” (ATU 709)—but for those of us well versed in fairy-tale adaptation, the choices are, if anything, far less subversive than they might be. Why not include some of the contemporary authors who twist their short story retellings of fairy tales in truly new and exciting ways? Catherynne M. Valente and Nalo Hopkinson come to mind. The sections devoted to theater, film, and television are, understandably, quite short and almost perfunctory. Full-length monographs and essay collections have been devoted to these topics and, though I would have appreciated a [End Page 422] little more depth regarding theatrical productions in particular, the brevity of these essays clears the space for what is perhaps most notable about this particular anthology: the editors’ attention to still visuals—comics, graphic novels, illustrations, artwork, and ads. The book features several full-color pages, and it is wonderful to be able to actually look at examples of the kinds of advertisements, paintings, comics, and so on being discussed. Each of the essays on these topics explores numerous texts that were new to me and that I now hope to read. Although I am not as well versed in the media of these sections, the essays seem quite comprehensive, and I was delighted to find a large variety of texts discussed. That said, in...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,657
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0310,016
Communication savante0,0170,004
Science ouverte0,0040,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,274
Écart entre enseignants0,234 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMarvels & TalesMême sujetFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesTravaux en français237 207