Young Adult Gothic Fiction: Monstrous Selves/Monstrous Others ed. by Michelle J. Smith and Kristine Moruzi (review)

IF 0.1 0 LITERATURE
Tiffany Morin
{"title":"Young Adult Gothic Fiction: Monstrous Selves/Monstrous Others ed. by Michelle J. Smith and Kristine Moruzi (review)","authors":"Tiffany Morin","doi":"10.1353/chq.2022.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Children’s Literature Association Quarterly between the perceived requirements of mass audiences and the promise of additional credibility and cachet associated with cult cinema” (145). This chapter considers The Nightmare Before Christmas, Corpse Bride, Coraline, ParaNorman, Frankenweenie, The Boxtrolls, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Isle of Dogs, Rango, 9, and Kubo and the Two Strings, which generally challenge the doll-like conformism depicted in mainstream animation. One interesting pattern Brown considers that is especially prevalent in horror is a type of psychological diversity often excluded from discourses focused on race and gender. These films challenge the notion of innocent or idealized childhood via their engagement with death, trauma, and violence, all of which are mostly excluded from mainstream animation for children, despite being a real part of many children’s lives. Further, the child characters in these films celebrate individualism, as these characters do not socialize with popular cliques. In other words, these films likely cater to audiences outside of the mainstream, both socially and stylistically, the latter of which, as Brown demonstrates, often increases the movie’s appeal on the international market (176). Throughout this review, I have mostly avoided including the specific films Brown uses to support his claims, and this decision is only because he includes so many. Brown’s use of primary sources is meticulously balanced, never relying solely on one or two films for support. Instead, he discusses more than 100 movies throughout his text, proportionally balancing his analysis across the major studios he introduces in the first chapter: Disney, Pixar, DreamWorks, Illumination, Blue Sky, Sony, Paramount, and Laika. Although Disney and Pixar do receive much critical attention, a major strength of the text is Brown’s discussion on how the business practices of these studios influence tone, style, diversity, and narrative.","PeriodicalId":40856,"journal":{"name":"Childrens Literature Association Quarterly","volume":"47 1","pages":"124 - 127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Childrens Literature Association Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/chq.2022.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Children’s Literature Association Quarterly between the perceived requirements of mass audiences and the promise of additional credibility and cachet associated with cult cinema” (145). This chapter considers The Nightmare Before Christmas, Corpse Bride, Coraline, ParaNorman, Frankenweenie, The Boxtrolls, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Isle of Dogs, Rango, 9, and Kubo and the Two Strings, which generally challenge the doll-like conformism depicted in mainstream animation. One interesting pattern Brown considers that is especially prevalent in horror is a type of psychological diversity often excluded from discourses focused on race and gender. These films challenge the notion of innocent or idealized childhood via their engagement with death, trauma, and violence, all of which are mostly excluded from mainstream animation for children, despite being a real part of many children’s lives. Further, the child characters in these films celebrate individualism, as these characters do not socialize with popular cliques. In other words, these films likely cater to audiences outside of the mainstream, both socially and stylistically, the latter of which, as Brown demonstrates, often increases the movie’s appeal on the international market (176). Throughout this review, I have mostly avoided including the specific films Brown uses to support his claims, and this decision is only because he includes so many. Brown’s use of primary sources is meticulously balanced, never relying solely on one or two films for support. Instead, he discusses more than 100 movies throughout his text, proportionally balancing his analysis across the major studios he introduces in the first chapter: Disney, Pixar, DreamWorks, Illumination, Blue Sky, Sony, Paramount, and Laika. Although Disney and Pixar do receive much critical attention, a major strength of the text is Brown’s discussion on how the business practices of these studios influence tone, style, diversity, and narrative.
年轻成人哥特式小说:Monstrous Selves/Monstrous Others编辑:Michelle J.Smith和Kristine Moruzi(评论)
儿童文学协会季刊,介于大众观众的感知要求和与邪教电影相关的额外可信度和声望的承诺之间”(145)。本章考虑了《圣诞节前的噩梦》、《僵尸新娘》、《Coraline》、《ParaNorman》、《Frankenwenie》、《盒子巨魔》、《神奇的狐狸先生》、《狗岛》、《9岁的兰戈》和《库博与两根弦》,这些作品通常挑战主流动画中描绘的玩偶般的因循守旧。布朗认为,一种有趣的模式在恐怖中特别普遍,那就是一种心理多样性,通常被排除在关注种族和性别的话语之外。这些电影通过对死亡、创伤和暴力的参与,挑战了天真或理想化童年的概念,尽管这些都是许多儿童生活中真实的一部分,但它们大多被排除在主流儿童动画之外。此外,这些电影中的儿童角色宣扬个人主义,因为这些角色不与流行的派系交往。换言之,这些电影很可能在社会和风格上迎合了主流之外的观众,正如布朗所展示的那样,后者往往会增加电影在国际市场上的吸引力(176)。在整个审查过程中,我基本上避免包括布朗用来支持他的主张的特定电影,而这个决定只是因为他包括了太多。布朗对主要来源的使用是精心平衡的,从不仅仅依靠一两部电影来支持。相反,他在全文中讨论了100多部电影,按比例平衡了他在第一章中介绍的主要工作室的分析:迪士尼、皮克斯、梦工厂、照明、蓝天、索尼、派拉蒙和莱卡。尽管迪士尼和皮克斯确实受到了很多批评的关注,但文本的一个主要优势是布朗对这些工作室的商业实践如何影响基调、风格、多样性和叙事的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信