AdAptAtion As ConneCtion
35
terms of its specific “function” in a new set of circumstances. A successful
adaptation, according to evolutionary biology, is one that implies survivability, one based on what Charles Darwin calls “natural selection.” Over
time, Darwin holds, all species “undergo modification to some extent. The
extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms.” 8 Adaptation, in the evolutionary sense, constitutes a
necessary part of the species’ survival, since it is an expression of its fitness
to a continuously changing environment. The very fact that an adaptation
exists is a proof of its validity, since the only determining factors are time
and an adaptation’s evolving nature.
Bortolotti and Hutcheon hold that in following a descriptive rather than
an evaluative approach towards the diversity of species and life forms,
biology serves as a potential model for cultural adaptation studies. Stories,
just like genes and organisms, “‘evolve’ – that is, replicate and change,” so
cultural adaptations, just like biological adaptations, should “have equal
cultural validity.” 9 What current adaptation studies can learn from biology,
accordingly, is the ability to simultaneously think about process and origin,
to maintain some sense of “core narrative” (however rudimentary it seems)
and to appreciate divergence and variation. Following Richard Dawkins’
meme theory, the authors argue that just like biological organisms, narratives
contain a “replicator,” some sort of “core idea” and a narrative “vehicle” that
changes over time. While “organisms act as vehicles for genes; the literary
text or the stage performance we call adaptations are the vehicles of narrative ideas.” 10 Since a replicator’s success does not necessarily equal the
vehicle’s success, the authors suggest that different questions need to be asked
about the success of an adaptation, taking into account categories such as
“persistence, abundance, and diversity,” as for example, “how many people saw
the musical or played the videogame and therefore know the videogame?” 11
Although offering inspiring new perspectives on the way we regard
adaptations, Bortolotti and Hutcheon’s natural/biological adaptation homology is based on a variety of problematic premises. Firstly, the distinction
between “replicator” and “vehicle,” however valuable for biological species,
bears the danger of aligning itself with a problematic form/content division.
Although the notion of some sense of “core idea” that is inherent to adaptations is widely discussed in adaptation studies, Bortolotti and Hutcheon
8 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (Dent: London, 1971), 344.
9 Bortolotti and Hutcheon, “On the Origin of Adaptations,” 446.
10 Ibid., 447, emphasis in original.
11 Ibid., 452.
35
terms of its specific “function” in a new set of circumstances. A successful
adaptation, according to evolutionary biology, is one that implies survivability, one based on what Charles Darwin calls “natural selection.” Over
time, Darwin holds, all species “undergo modification to some extent. The
extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms.” 8 Adaptation, in the evolutionary sense, constitutes a
necessary part of the species’ survival, since it is an expression of its fitness
to a continuously changing environment. The very fact that an adaptation
exists is a proof of its validity, since the only determining factors are time
and an adaptation’s evolving nature.
Bortolotti and Hutcheon hold that in following a descriptive rather than
an evaluative approach towards the diversity of species and life forms,
biology serves as a potential model for cultural adaptation studies. Stories,
just like genes and organisms, “‘evolve’ – that is, replicate and change,” so
cultural adaptations, just like biological adaptations, should “have equal
cultural validity.” 9 What current adaptation studies can learn from biology,
accordingly, is the ability to simultaneously think about process and origin,
to maintain some sense of “core narrative” (however rudimentary it seems)
and to appreciate divergence and variation. Following Richard Dawkins’
meme theory, the authors argue that just like biological organisms, narratives
contain a “replicator,” some sort of “core idea” and a narrative “vehicle” that
changes over time. While “organisms act as vehicles for genes; the literary
text or the stage performance we call adaptations are the vehicles of narrative ideas.” 10 Since a replicator’s success does not necessarily equal the
vehicle’s success, the authors suggest that different questions need to be asked
about the success of an adaptation, taking into account categories such as
“persistence, abundance, and diversity,” as for example, “how many people saw
the musical or played the videogame and therefore know the videogame?” 11
Although offering inspiring new perspectives on the way we regard
adaptations, Bortolotti and Hutcheon’s natural/biological adaptation homology is based on a variety of problematic premises. Firstly, the distinction
between “replicator” and “vehicle,” however valuable for biological species,
bears the danger of aligning itself with a problematic form/content division.
Although the notion of some sense of “core idea” that is inherent to adaptations is widely discussed in adaptation studies, Bortolotti and Hutcheon
8 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (Dent: London, 1971), 344.
9 Bortolotti and Hutcheon, “On the Origin of Adaptations,” 446.
10 Ibid., 447, emphasis in original.
11 Ibid., 452.