MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324004978 · doi:10.1353/mat.2022.0048

Disfigured: On Fairy Tales, Disability, and Making Space by Amanda Leduc

2022· article· en· W4324004978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeana Jorgensen

Bibliographic record

VenueMarvels & Tales · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeStorytellingLiteratureHistoryDisability studiesArtSociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Disfigured: On Fairy Tales, Disability, and Making Space by Amanda Leduc Jeana Jorgensen (bio) Disfigured: On Fairy Tales, Disability, and Making Space. By Amanda Leduc, Coach House Books, 2020, 160 pp. Amanda Leduc’s Disfigured weaves together the many threads linking fairy tales, storytelling, and disability in a way that is both sensitive and informed. Although not from a university press and hence not as scholarly as other books typically reviewed in these pages, I highly recommend Leduc’s book to fairy-tale scholars nonetheless for its keen insights about the genre we study. After I had read and been blown away by Ann Schmiesing’s work on disability in the Grimms’ tales (Disability, Deformity, and Disease in the Grimms’ Fairy Tales, 2014), I figured that it was the seminal work applying disability studies to fairy tales. But Leduc’s book complements Schmiesing’s in truly wonderful ways. Leduc is one of the rare writers outside the field of fairy-tale studies who takes into account much of our existing scholarship (she cites Schmiesing, Jack Zipes, Maria Tatar, and others) when writing about her own approach to fairy tales, and that alone is a delightful novelty. Further, Leduc synthesizes existing work on fairy tales by putting it into dialogue with personal narrative and lived experience, sharing extensive portions of her own medical history and life as well as including excerpts from interviews with other disabled people. Leduc covers many of the basic tenets of disability studies—the medical model of disability versus the social model of disability, ableism, inspiration porn, and so on—thereby continuing Schmiesing’s quest of bridging the long-overlooked gaps between fairy-tale studies and disability studies. Leduc’s case studies overlap with Schmiesing’s to some degree; Hans My Hedgehog and the maiden without hands make appearances, but so do the Little Mermaid and other Hans Christian Andersen creations as well as modern-day superheroes, often the kind best identified as supercrips. Beast bride and bridegroom tales play a large role in Leduc’s analysis, in part due to Leduc’s framing mission of unpacking the longevity of symbolic connections between [End Page 133] beauty and goodness, ugliness/deformity and badness. I found much of value in these segments, for instance when Leduc reminds readers of a quotation from Villeneuve’s “Beauty and the Beast” wherein Beauty, not knowing she had initially disenchanted a prince, says: “When I accepted him . . . I believed that I was taking pity on something below humanity” (quoted at 140). Immediately after this segment, Leduc shares excerpts from her interview with a Canadian artist and activist who has a face that formed differently in utero, relating how she was dehumanized in school and how she used stories for escapism until she realized that she was different enough from the norm that she was not guaranteed a happy ending. This juxtaposition of tale materials with lived experience is striking, and Leduc does it throughout the book. As Leduc notes in her conclusion, the heart of her study is this: “If society is not used to seeing disabled people in stories, society becomes used to not seeing disabled people in real life” (230). Of course, representations that are so highly patterned as to become stereotypical are also problematic, and Leduc does a thorough job of exploring the nuances of disability representation in fairy tales and their popular culture forms (many Disney characters such as Scar and the Hunchback of Notre Dame are brought up throughout the book). Intersectionality informs Leduc’s approach as well, since she is careful to note how much a disabled person’s positionality can affect their access to resources that nondisabled people may take for granted. I can envision teaching excerpts of this book, as the language is accessible throughout, and I imagine students would be familiar with the more recent case studies, especially those drawing on Disney. But Leduc has done her homework and seems just as at home writing about the French conteuses and the Grimms as about modern-day pop culture phenomena. Even if you are not teaching a fairy-tale class anytime soon, I highly recommend reading this book, especially for nondisabled scholars...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarvels & TalesSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207