Fairy Tale Interrupted: Feminism, Masculinity, Wonder Cinema
Fairy Tale Interrupted: Feminism, Masculinity, Wonder Cinema
Fairy Tale Interrupted: Feminism, Masculinity, Wonder Cinema
Jeana Jorgensen
Marvels & Tales, Volume 32, Number 2, 2018, pp. 474-476 (Review)
encourage the reader to revisit the tales analyzed herein and to appreciate in a
new light their artful, complex plots. They will also be useful in the classroom,
especially the opening chapters, which I believe would be an excellent resource
for students in an early folklore course to understand the cultural and histori-
cal situations of seminal folklore texts.
Psyche Z. Ready
George Mason University
474 Marvels & Tales: Journal of Fairy-Tale Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2018
doi: 10.13110/marvelstales.32.2.0474
logic for a reader to really grasp why this is the case. And it remains unclear
how this relates back to the main fairy-tale intertext the book revolves around,
which focuses on beastly bridegrooms rather than beastly brides. On a similar
note, one chapter section is titled “Belle’s Tumescence.” I remain unclear on
why. Further, the scope of the book is disorienting. If the author of a scholarly
fairy-tale book wants to take a break from discussing fairy tales to sift through
an unwieldy amount of feminist thought, I am usually game because I enjoy
that kind of discussion. But it is bizarre to frame it through the eyes of a fairy-
tale character. For example, Craven writes, “Belle’s curiosity is therefore piqued
by the feminism that has made such a difference to her situation; she is even
thinking it might be some kind of weird fairy godmother. In the next section of
the book, she heads off to learn more and get a little consciousness-raising”
(93). Pushing the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable academic writing
is an admirable goal, but consistently referring to Belle’s adventures frolicking
through the annals of feminist history struck me as an odd choice.
At times, the writing style is opaque and off-putting. Craven does not
adequately define how she uses terms like myth and, thus, as a reader, I had
trouble grasping her meaning in passages like this: “It may not come as any
surprise that, by direct or circuitous route, the discussion of myths and fairy
tales in feminism might lead back to wonder cinema. It is not by magic, and
feminism is not an enchanted narrative. But the culture of patriarchy, as so
many feminists have recognised, is built on myths, so it is perhaps inevitable”
(158). What seems inevitable here is that a folklorist would grow annoyed at
such genre generalizations and seemingly different uses of myth in the same
passage. There are also some citation gaps in this book that I found strange. In
addition to the lack of the aforementioned tale-type numbers, the author offers
an extended discussion of the mythopoetic movement and fails to mention
Jack Zipes’s essential essay “Spreading Myths about Iron John” (1994). Given
that Craven cited other works by Zipes, this is an odd omission.
However, there are some really fascinating tidbits in the book, places
where I wanted to see Craven’s interpretations pushed farther. I enjoyed Cra-
ven’s ruminations on how even the recent trend for empowered fairy-tale hero-
ines still dovetails with compliant femininity (the opposite of hegemonic
masculinity). For example, “Compliance is not necessarily inactive and all
forms of action are not agency. Just making sleeping girls into action girls does
not necessarily overcome the coerciveness of patriarchal culture if agency is
not exercised in the awakening” (193). I want more of that and less of the
tenuous linkage and odd writing style that Craven seems to favor.
At the end of the day, I am not certain whether to recommend this book,
unless one is researching one of the topics it dives into. The sections on films
like Mirror, Mirror (2012), Snow White and the Huntsman (2012), Maleficent
Marvels & Tales: Journal of Fairy-Tale Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2018 475
(2014), Shrek (2001), and Red Riding Hood (2011) are intriguing. If, like me,
you are happy with any excuse to feel cranky about the men’s rights move-
ment, Craven’s overview of it (citing the requisite scholarship on hegemonic
masculinity by R. W. Connell, among others) will be a fun, enlightening read.
But many moments in my experience of the book led to more confusion than
enlightenment, and, although I am not certain that I could have done any bet-
ter trying to string together all these topics into a coherent whole, I also do not
know that I will be returning to it all that often for quotes or other insights.
Jeana Jorgensen
Butler University
476 Marvels & Tales: Journal of Fairy-Tale Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2018
doi: 10.13110/marvelstales.32.2.0476