34
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
emphasize the importance of thinking about the category of “function.” I
will then connect both biological and cultural adaptation discourses by
referring to recent complexity and network theory, both of which build
on Pragmatist models of transitional, processual, and emergent notions of
knowledge and creativity. A functional approach to adaptation can help
understand and describe some of the yet uncharted terrains of adaptation,
convergence, and the creative flux of narratives across media, culture(s),
and history. It foregrounds the intrinsic value of adaptations as such, while
drawing attention to the relational quality of adaptations in a larger system
of signification, knowledge production, and interaction throughout cultural
history.
Adapting adaptation: Biological versus cultural “adaptation”
One of the few attempts to bring together a biological and a cultural notion
of adaptation is Gary R. Bortolotti and Linda Hutcheon’s essay entitled
“On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and ‘Success’ – Biologically.” Taking their cue from Hutcheon’s deconstruction of
the fidelity discourse in A Theory of Adaptation, the authors convincingly
show the benefits of proposing what they consider “a homology between
biological and cultural adaptation” to redefine what the notion of a “successful adaptation” can mean. 5 Rather than judging the level of truthfulness
between adaptation and original, the authors suggest that we look at how
adaptations reveal “lineages of descent, not similarities of form alone,” thus
taking into consideration “how a specific narrative changes over time” and
ultimately evaluating not (only) the adaptations but “the success of the
narrative itself.” 6 A biologically informed view on adaptation fundamentally
destabilizes fidelity judgments, since “biology does not judge adaptations in
terms of fidelity to the ‘original’; indeed, that is not the point at all. Biology
can celebrate the diversity of life forms, yet at the same time recognize that
they come from a common origin.” 7 Considering a growing distrust in value
judgments in recent adaptation studies, Bortolotti and Hutcheon’s concept
of “successful adaptation” may seem problematic. Yet, in the biological sense,
“success” does not mean that an adaptation is better in “essence” but only in
5 Gary R. Bortolotti and Linda Hutcheon, “On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity
Discourse and “Success” – Biologically,” New Literary History 38.3 (Summer 2007): 444.
6 Bortolotti and Hutcheon, “On the Origin of Adaptations,” 445.
7 Ibid., 445.
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
emphasize the importance of thinking about the category of “function.” I
will then connect both biological and cultural adaptation discourses by
referring to recent complexity and network theory, both of which build
on Pragmatist models of transitional, processual, and emergent notions of
knowledge and creativity. A functional approach to adaptation can help
understand and describe some of the yet uncharted terrains of adaptation,
convergence, and the creative flux of narratives across media, culture(s),
and history. It foregrounds the intrinsic value of adaptations as such, while
drawing attention to the relational quality of adaptations in a larger system
of signification, knowledge production, and interaction throughout cultural
history.
Adapting adaptation: Biological versus cultural “adaptation”
One of the few attempts to bring together a biological and a cultural notion
of adaptation is Gary R. Bortolotti and Linda Hutcheon’s essay entitled
“On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and ‘Success’ – Biologically.” Taking their cue from Hutcheon’s deconstruction of
the fidelity discourse in A Theory of Adaptation, the authors convincingly
show the benefits of proposing what they consider “a homology between
biological and cultural adaptation” to redefine what the notion of a “successful adaptation” can mean. 5 Rather than judging the level of truthfulness
between adaptation and original, the authors suggest that we look at how
adaptations reveal “lineages of descent, not similarities of form alone,” thus
taking into consideration “how a specific narrative changes over time” and
ultimately evaluating not (only) the adaptations but “the success of the
narrative itself.” 6 A biologically informed view on adaptation fundamentally
destabilizes fidelity judgments, since “biology does not judge adaptations in
terms of fidelity to the ‘original’; indeed, that is not the point at all. Biology
can celebrate the diversity of life forms, yet at the same time recognize that
they come from a common origin.” 7 Considering a growing distrust in value
judgments in recent adaptation studies, Bortolotti and Hutcheon’s concept
of “successful adaptation” may seem problematic. Yet, in the biological sense,
“success” does not mean that an adaptation is better in “essence” but only in
5 Gary R. Bortolotti and Linda Hutcheon, “On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity
Discourse and “Success” – Biologically,” New Literary History 38.3 (Summer 2007): 444.
6 Bortolotti and Hutcheon, “On the Origin of Adaptations,” 445.
7 Ibid., 445.