OK, I'm a blogging failure and can't figure out how to make my own post. Seriously, I tried to sign in and it just wanted me to make a whole new blog with a new URL, and I was like - No. So I'm posting a comment here until I figure things out.
Yeah. So I just wanted to say that a lot of the reading we're doing seems to be like trying to turn the study of adaptations around, but it doesn't go beyond trying to prove why we should look at adaptations in new ways. In the reading for Wednesday, for example, Linda Hutcheon explains how she's looking at adaptations -- from the "modes of engagement" (that's the heading on 22) standpoint, but I just feel like she's still fighting against the old stuff too, because she keeps bringing it up. She spends Chapter 2 disproving cliches, not unlike the first author we read, even though perhaps for different reasons. At the end of Chapter 3, she says, "Any answer to the question "Why adapt?" needs to take into account the range of responses provided by adapters themselves" (111). Like she's still trying to prove why she's talking about stuff the way she is. And I guess I just want to see her (and all the other authors) do it, without spending so much of her time fighting what's already been written.
I guess that's critical argument -- I've learned about it, done it. It's just hard to see a lot of the writing breaking new ground, even when it says we need to, and I'm not sure why.
yes, i noticed and was frustrated a bit with the same thing–we keep hearing in these critical essays, how much we need to move away from our 'preconceived' and 'narrow' notions about adaptation, break out of the framework of thinking of fidelity, etc., but then we keep hearing about it. it feels a bit like the critics don't quite know where to go from here: yes, we know not to limit our interpretation of what adaptation means now...so what do we interpret instead?
i do appreciate that looking at "modes of engagement," however, offers a bit of a wider scope for interpretation; seems like it's more about what actions are involved in the use of the medium, rather than the medium itself...if that makes sense...
p.s. i'm not sure if we're supposed to comment on everyone's posts. i just did...for fun. this time.
I also could not figure out how to put up a new post. But here goes.
This is somewhat in the same vein as Luke’s post, but I found a similar interest in the way adaptation in the movie of the same name takes on more than just an adaptation from literature and screen, but also from life to literature. It even goes so far as to include organic adaptation or that of life. This has me thinking that when an artist like Susan Orleans is creating a book she must adapt Laroches life into words as much as she must adapt her life to that of a reporter.
In this way, when any artist is creating a piece of any kind, they are simply adapting their personal experience into a medium of expression. As Kauffman explains the organic evolution in Adaptation as how we got from then to now – it seems only natural to consider the evolution of a piece of art in the same way. Adapting that which has been adapted.
Now this might seem overwhelming in terms of the larger scale of adaptation, but I think when looking at it from the correct angle we must consider all art as an adaptation. While this may seem to challenge the depths of originality, it really supports it more. Simply because we come from the same source does not mean we are the same as any other animal on the planet. As adaptation gets more complex so do the things we are adapting from.
Thus, is the modern adaptation “crises” of the lack of original story really a simplification of literature or just a new species of it? Is it not creating something original in form and style? It seems that people feel as though because of the mass production of cinema that it cannot contain the complexities of literature. I would argue that the beauty behind modern adaptation lies not in the similarities between the forms, but the subtle complications. Like natural adaptation, artistic adaptation takes a long slow grueling process to find the masterpieces that will survive.
OK, I'm a blogging failure and can't figure out how to make my own post. Seriously, I tried to sign in and it just wanted me to make a whole new blog with a new URL, and I was like - No. So I'm posting a comment here until I figure things out.
ReplyDeleteYeah. So I just wanted to say that a lot of the reading we're doing seems to be like trying to turn the study of adaptations around, but it doesn't go beyond trying to prove why we should look at adaptations in new ways. In the reading for Wednesday, for example, Linda Hutcheon explains how she's looking at adaptations -- from the "modes of engagement" (that's the heading on 22) standpoint, but I just feel like she's still fighting against the old stuff too, because she keeps bringing it up. She spends Chapter 2 disproving cliches, not unlike the first author we read, even though perhaps for different reasons. At the end of Chapter 3, she says, "Any answer to the question "Why adapt?" needs to take into account the range of responses provided by adapters themselves" (111). Like she's still trying to prove why she's talking about stuff the way she is. And I guess I just want to see her (and all the other authors) do it, without spending so much of her time fighting what's already been written.
I guess that's critical argument -- I've learned about it, done it. It's just hard to see a lot of the writing breaking new ground, even when it says we need to, and I'm not sure why.
yes, i noticed and was frustrated a bit with the same thing–we keep hearing in these critical essays, how much we need to move away from our 'preconceived' and 'narrow' notions about adaptation, break out of the framework of thinking of fidelity, etc., but then we keep hearing about it. it feels a bit like the critics don't quite know where to go from here: yes, we know not to limit our interpretation of what adaptation means now...so what do we interpret instead?
ReplyDeletei do appreciate that looking at "modes of engagement," however, offers a bit of a wider scope for interpretation; seems like it's more about what actions are involved in the use of the medium, rather than the medium itself...if that makes sense...
p.s. i'm not sure if we're supposed to comment on everyone's posts. i just did...for fun. this time.
I also could not figure out how to put up a new post. But here goes.
ReplyDeleteThis is somewhat in the same vein as Luke’s post, but I found a similar interest in the way adaptation in the movie of the same name takes on more than just an adaptation from literature and screen, but also from life to literature. It even goes so far as to include organic adaptation or that of life. This has me thinking that when an artist like Susan Orleans is creating a book she must adapt Laroches life into words as much as she must adapt her life to that of a reporter.
In this way, when any artist is creating a piece of any kind, they are simply adapting their personal experience into a medium of expression. As Kauffman explains the organic evolution in Adaptation as how we got from then to now – it seems only natural to consider the evolution of a piece of art in the same way. Adapting that which has been adapted.
Now this might seem overwhelming in terms of the larger scale of adaptation, but I think when looking at it from the correct angle we must consider all art as an adaptation. While this may seem to challenge the depths of originality, it really supports it more. Simply because we come from the same source does not mean we are the same as any other animal on the planet. As adaptation gets more complex so do the things we are adapting from.
Thus, is the modern adaptation “crises” of the lack of original story really a simplification of literature or just a new species of it? Is it not creating something original in form and style? It seems that people feel as though because of the mass production of cinema that it cannot contain the complexities of literature. I would argue that the beauty behind modern adaptation lies not in the similarities between the forms, but the subtle complications. Like natural adaptation, artistic adaptation takes a long slow grueling process to find the masterpieces that will survive.