18
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
graphics engines, usually of video games), mashups, and countless other forms of
user engagement with commercial and non-commercial fictional creations, an
engagement that, in turn, also influences the logics and aesthetics of commercial
creations. This kind of participation is not a new phenomenon, but rather, as
Martin Butler argues, “has been an integral part, if not a defining characteristic
of popular culture.” 23 Nevertheless, it has become more widespread, visible,
and accepted in recent years. For this reason, fan culture needs to be taken
into account to gain a full perspective on the range of texts and adaptations
in convergence environments, as well as what people do with them.
Looking at transmedia phenomena from an adaptation studies perspective raises the question of where it is helpful to treat texts as adaptations
and where applying a different framework may be more productive. The
transformations of audiences and audience positions force us to think
through how to reformulate our understanding of adaptation in order to
do justice to this new cultural and medial environment while maintaining
a certain sharpness of our critical focus and tools of analysis. One crucial
difference in examining fan-created vis-à-vis commercial adaptations is
that the goal of fan adaptations is usually not the monetary one of industrial
productions. Fan creation instead participates in an alternative economy
that traditionally defines itself as a “gift economy.” This makes fan culture
a social space that functions according to a different symbolic economy.
While fans welcome corporate recognition to an extent, many are suspicious
of attempts to monetize their creative force in ways that are too openly
commercial or that enforce restrictions violating the field’s rules. 24 The
reflection on various motivations behind the production of texts, as well
as the unwritten rules by which they are made, shared, and consumed, are
only some aspects in relation to which fan creations are different. They
nevertheless point both to productive new questions for adaptation studies
and to the questions raised above: which texts generate productive new questions and insights when they are conceptualized as adaptations (and hence
approached from an adaptation studies’ angle), and where are texts more
usefully conceptualized under a different concept, such as “appropriation,” 25
or a separate part of convergence culture that does not benefit from an
adaptation studies perspective?
23 Martin Butler, “Net-Works: Collaborative Models of Cultural Production in Web 2.0 Contexts.”
In Precarious Alliances: Cultures of Participation in Print and Other Media, ed. Martin Butler,
Albrecht Hausmann, and Anton Kirchhofer (Bielefeld: transcript, 2016), 19.
24 Cf. Roberta Pearson, “Fandom in the Digital Era,” Popular Communication 8, no. 1 (2010):
84–95.
25 Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation.
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
graphics engines, usually of video games), mashups, and countless other forms of
user engagement with commercial and non-commercial fictional creations, an
engagement that, in turn, also influences the logics and aesthetics of commercial
creations. This kind of participation is not a new phenomenon, but rather, as
Martin Butler argues, “has been an integral part, if not a defining characteristic
of popular culture.” 23 Nevertheless, it has become more widespread, visible,
and accepted in recent years. For this reason, fan culture needs to be taken
into account to gain a full perspective on the range of texts and adaptations
in convergence environments, as well as what people do with them.
Looking at transmedia phenomena from an adaptation studies perspective raises the question of where it is helpful to treat texts as adaptations
and where applying a different framework may be more productive. The
transformations of audiences and audience positions force us to think
through how to reformulate our understanding of adaptation in order to
do justice to this new cultural and medial environment while maintaining
a certain sharpness of our critical focus and tools of analysis. One crucial
difference in examining fan-created vis-à-vis commercial adaptations is
that the goal of fan adaptations is usually not the monetary one of industrial
productions. Fan creation instead participates in an alternative economy
that traditionally defines itself as a “gift economy.” This makes fan culture
a social space that functions according to a different symbolic economy.
While fans welcome corporate recognition to an extent, many are suspicious
of attempts to monetize their creative force in ways that are too openly
commercial or that enforce restrictions violating the field’s rules. 24 The
reflection on various motivations behind the production of texts, as well
as the unwritten rules by which they are made, shared, and consumed, are
only some aspects in relation to which fan creations are different. They
nevertheless point both to productive new questions for adaptation studies
and to the questions raised above: which texts generate productive new questions and insights when they are conceptualized as adaptations (and hence
approached from an adaptation studies’ angle), and where are texts more
usefully conceptualized under a different concept, such as “appropriation,” 25
or a separate part of convergence culture that does not benefit from an
adaptation studies perspective?
23 Martin Butler, “Net-Works: Collaborative Models of Cultural Production in Web 2.0 Contexts.”
In Precarious Alliances: Cultures of Participation in Print and Other Media, ed. Martin Butler,
Albrecht Hausmann, and Anton Kirchhofer (Bielefeld: transcript, 2016), 19.
24 Cf. Roberta Pearson, “Fandom in the Digital Era,” Popular Communication 8, no. 1 (2010):
84–95.
25 Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation.