AdAptAtion As ConneCtion
43
intertextuality,” 40 while Robert Stam goes so far as to call adaptations a
metonymy for cultural production in general: “Virtually all films, not only
adaptations, remakes, and sequels, are mediated through intertextuality
and writing.” 41 Such a view radicalizes the poststructuralist claim that
meaning is understood as lying not exclusively within a single text but,
following Mikhail Bakhtin’s notions of heteroglossia and chronotope, in their
contextual relations, and more specifically, in their intertextual interactions, cross-dependencies and interrelations. Recent adaptation theorists
have revitalized such notions of intertextuality for the field of adaptation,
arguing that adaptation has to be regarded as a complex assemblage of
cross-influences rather than a unidirectional procedure between two media
within an implicitly hierarchical relationship. Most explicitly, perhaps,
Stam’s concept of adaptation as “intertextual dialogism” directs attention
to “the infinite and open-ended possibilities generated by all the discursive
practices of a culture, the entire matrix of communicative utterances within
which the artistic text is situated” and which, importantly, “reach the text
not only through recognizable influences, but also through a subtle process
of dissemination.” 42 The notion of intertextuality as interconnected assemblage of cross-references is effectively expressed by Gilles Deleuze
and Félix Guattari’s image of the rhizome. This non-linear, horizontal, and
deterritorialized formation presupposes a structure in which multiple “lines
of segmentarity and stratification” form an “acentered, nonhierarchical,
non-signifying system […] defined solely by a circulation of states.” 43 The
rhizome can be understood as a radical network formation, which has
become one of the leading metaphors for the dynamics of complex systems
and phenomena in the Information Age, an age increasingly being described
as “network society,” 44 “connected age” 45 or “moment of complexity.” 46
40 Julie Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation (London: Routledge, 2006), 17.
41 Robert Stam, “Introduction: The Theory and Practice of Adaptation.” In Literature and
Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation, ed. by Robert Stam and Alessandra
Raengo (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 45.
42 Robert Stam, “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation.” In Film Adaptation, ed. by
James Naremore (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000), 64.
43 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari [1980], A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia,
transl. by Brian Massumi (London, New York: Continuum, 2010), 23.
44 Manuel Castells, “Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society. A Theoretical
Blueprint.” In The Network Society. A Cross-Cultural Perspective, ed. by Manuel Castells (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004), 3–45.
45 Duncan Watts, Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age (New York: Norton, 2003).
46 Mark Taylor, The Moment of Complexity. Emerging Network Culture (Univ. of Chicago Press,
2001).
43
intertextuality,” 40 while Robert Stam goes so far as to call adaptations a
metonymy for cultural production in general: “Virtually all films, not only
adaptations, remakes, and sequels, are mediated through intertextuality
and writing.” 41 Such a view radicalizes the poststructuralist claim that
meaning is understood as lying not exclusively within a single text but,
following Mikhail Bakhtin’s notions of heteroglossia and chronotope, in their
contextual relations, and more specifically, in their intertextual interactions, cross-dependencies and interrelations. Recent adaptation theorists
have revitalized such notions of intertextuality for the field of adaptation,
arguing that adaptation has to be regarded as a complex assemblage of
cross-influences rather than a unidirectional procedure between two media
within an implicitly hierarchical relationship. Most explicitly, perhaps,
Stam’s concept of adaptation as “intertextual dialogism” directs attention
to “the infinite and open-ended possibilities generated by all the discursive
practices of a culture, the entire matrix of communicative utterances within
which the artistic text is situated” and which, importantly, “reach the text
not only through recognizable influences, but also through a subtle process
of dissemination.” 42 The notion of intertextuality as interconnected assemblage of cross-references is effectively expressed by Gilles Deleuze
and Félix Guattari’s image of the rhizome. This non-linear, horizontal, and
deterritorialized formation presupposes a structure in which multiple “lines
of segmentarity and stratification” form an “acentered, nonhierarchical,
non-signifying system […] defined solely by a circulation of states.” 43 The
rhizome can be understood as a radical network formation, which has
become one of the leading metaphors for the dynamics of complex systems
and phenomena in the Information Age, an age increasingly being described
as “network society,” 44 “connected age” 45 or “moment of complexity.” 46
40 Julie Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation (London: Routledge, 2006), 17.
41 Robert Stam, “Introduction: The Theory and Practice of Adaptation.” In Literature and
Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation, ed. by Robert Stam and Alessandra
Raengo (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 45.
42 Robert Stam, “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation.” In Film Adaptation, ed. by
James Naremore (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000), 64.
43 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari [1980], A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia,
transl. by Brian Massumi (London, New York: Continuum, 2010), 23.
44 Manuel Castells, “Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society. A Theoretical
Blueprint.” In The Network Society. A Cross-Cultural Perspective, ed. by Manuel Castells (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004), 3–45.
45 Duncan Watts, Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age (New York: Norton, 2003).
46 Mark Taylor, The Moment of Complexity. Emerging Network Culture (Univ. of Chicago Press,
2001).