Getting to the <i>Fun Home</i> : A Blind Autoethnography of Graphic Narrative and a Call for Co-Reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article shares a personal history of a blind reader encountering graphic novels at different times in life. Following a brief review of the low-vision accessible comics and adaptation strategies currently available, it offers a critique of the emphasis placed on high-tech adaptation strategies for idealizing “independent” reading practices. In response to the potentially ableist pitfalls of high-tech adaptation, the article offers “co-reading” as an anti-ableist reading practice which enables access to comics for blind and visually impaired readers while encouraging sighted readers to interrogate ableist assumptions about dis/ability. With reflections on Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home , the author considers why blind readers might be interested in reading a conventionally visual medium; why the privileging of independent reading works to limit accessibility of comics to blind and low vision readers; and last but not least, how the practice of collaborative comics reading—co-reading—offers opportunities to engage in anti-ableist praxis of reading comics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".