AdAptAtion As ConneCtion
37
myth that assumes that biological systems work completely independent
of human agency (think of evolutionary processes from bioengineering
or the role of the human observer in the construction of biological “laws,”
for example). So, rather than asking, as Bortolotti and Hutcheon do, how a
successful adaptation can be rethought in terms of looking at the narrative
in general and its diverse replication, I suggest leaving behind the notion
of “success” altogether because, taking the evolutionary model literally,
every adaptation is successful, if only for a limited amount of time or only
in a limited context. Especially in the age of the Web 2.0, with proliferating
ecosystems of creative user-generated retellings, it seems that not only “every
important story gets told,” 18 but also that for every re-telling of a story there
is a niche audience for which this particular adaptation is an “important,”
and therefore “successful” adaptation.
Cultural functions of adaptation
In order to avoid falling into the trap of discussing adaptation in terms of
problematic categories of “success” or “origin,” it proves helpful to draw
on theoretical models that focus on adaptation as a necessary constituent
involved in any process of culture and knowledge formation. American Pragmatism and recent complexity theory, in particular, offer such theoretical
perspectives that foreground the specific functions of adaptation as an effect
and a condition of cultural evolution. Function is not meant teleologically, as
in a pre-Darwinian notion of “natural” purpose. Rather, in a cultural sense, it
refers to the (shifting) functions of adaptations within a particular cultural
context. In the context of a “cultural turn” in intermediality studies, cultural
functions have recently begun to be discussed in relation to adaptation. 19
The main question of a functional analysis of adaptation, according to
Werner Wolf, is not whether intermediality is successful or not, but how to
account for it and its effects. 20 Wolf explicitly replaces “success” with “function.” According to this view, the self-reflexive functions of a text’s specific
allusions, aesthetic contexts, and ideological implications become the focus
18 Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 3.
19 Cf. Werner Wolf, “Towards a Functional Analysis of Intermediality: The Case of TwentiethCentury Musicalized Fiction.” In Cultural Functions of Intermedial Exploration, ed. by Erik Hedling
and Ulla Britta Lagerroth (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002), 15–34.; Lars Eckstein and Christoph
Reinfandt, “On Dancing about Architecture: Words and Music between Cultural Practice and
Transcendence,” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 54.1 (2006), 1–8.
20 Wolf, “Towards a Functional Analysis of Intermediality,” 18.
37
myth that assumes that biological systems work completely independent
of human agency (think of evolutionary processes from bioengineering
or the role of the human observer in the construction of biological “laws,”
for example). So, rather than asking, as Bortolotti and Hutcheon do, how a
successful adaptation can be rethought in terms of looking at the narrative
in general and its diverse replication, I suggest leaving behind the notion
of “success” altogether because, taking the evolutionary model literally,
every adaptation is successful, if only for a limited amount of time or only
in a limited context. Especially in the age of the Web 2.0, with proliferating
ecosystems of creative user-generated retellings, it seems that not only “every
important story gets told,” 18 but also that for every re-telling of a story there
is a niche audience for which this particular adaptation is an “important,”
and therefore “successful” adaptation.
Cultural functions of adaptation
In order to avoid falling into the trap of discussing adaptation in terms of
problematic categories of “success” or “origin,” it proves helpful to draw
on theoretical models that focus on adaptation as a necessary constituent
involved in any process of culture and knowledge formation. American Pragmatism and recent complexity theory, in particular, offer such theoretical
perspectives that foreground the specific functions of adaptation as an effect
and a condition of cultural evolution. Function is not meant teleologically, as
in a pre-Darwinian notion of “natural” purpose. Rather, in a cultural sense, it
refers to the (shifting) functions of adaptations within a particular cultural
context. In the context of a “cultural turn” in intermediality studies, cultural
functions have recently begun to be discussed in relation to adaptation. 19
The main question of a functional analysis of adaptation, according to
Werner Wolf, is not whether intermediality is successful or not, but how to
account for it and its effects. 20 Wolf explicitly replaces “success” with “function.” According to this view, the self-reflexive functions of a text’s specific
allusions, aesthetic contexts, and ideological implications become the focus
18 Jenkins, Convergence Culture, 3.
19 Cf. Werner Wolf, “Towards a Functional Analysis of Intermediality: The Case of TwentiethCentury Musicalized Fiction.” In Cultural Functions of Intermedial Exploration, ed. by Erik Hedling
and Ulla Britta Lagerroth (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002), 15–34.; Lars Eckstein and Christoph
Reinfandt, “On Dancing about Architecture: Words and Music between Cultural Practice and
Transcendence,” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 54.1 (2006), 1–8.
20 Wolf, “Towards a Functional Analysis of Intermediality,” 18.