AdAptAtion As ConneCtion
49
in a nostalgic revival of period drama in British television). The question whether this adaptation is “successful” or indeed “malfunctioning”
becomes obsolete since this is what Nanay calls a “modal” question, a
question that is purely hypothetical since the adaptation, from its pure
existence alone, inevitably has functions bound to its own intra- and
extratextual relations. Not even the frequently mentioned aspect of “aesthetic quality” (whatever this may be) is a valid criterion for judging the
overall function of the adaptation, since “quality” and “function” are not
necessarily the same thing. “Aesthetic quality” is itself a highly subjective
and context-dependent category, thus representing one possible function
for making value judgments but not the only one. Thus, aesthetic quality
does not equal function, but is only an attribute ascribed to a particular
adaptation based on systems of cultural distinction (which can itself be
a function of the adaptation).
Both theories of “function” are effective in adaptations. The function of
an adaptation depends just as much on its relation to other texts or media as
on its own properties and its status as medium in its own right. The network
perspective reconciles these two notions of function, since networks are
defined by what Castells calls their “scalability,” namely that “they can
expand or shrink in size with little disruption.” 61 Networks potentially encompass a multitude of perspectives; they allow us to “think simultaneously
the singular and the multiple, the common and the unique.” 62 Depending
on the scale chosen, we can zoom into the level of the individual or zoom
out and look at interrelations or the network as a totalizing structure,
“a meshwork of overlapping cultural formations, of hybrid reinventions,
cross-pollinations, and singular variations.” 63 The function of adaptations
as constituting a network of different agents therefore oscillates between
Walsh’s “relational” and Nanay’s “modal” function, between the question
which traces and associations the adaptation bears to past and future texts
and the question how it is unique in its functions, irrespective of other media.
The scalability of networks as map-like structures makes them a heuristic
tool for switching between different layers of signification and between
shifting cultural functions. However, networks are always abstractions,
suggesting coherence and a horizontal ontology where there might be
fragmentation and hierarchies.
61 Castells, “Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society,” 6.
62 Tiziana Terranova, Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age (London, New York:
Pluto Press, 2004), 1.
63 Terranova, Network Culture, 2.
49
in a nostalgic revival of period drama in British television). The question whether this adaptation is “successful” or indeed “malfunctioning”
becomes obsolete since this is what Nanay calls a “modal” question, a
question that is purely hypothetical since the adaptation, from its pure
existence alone, inevitably has functions bound to its own intra- and
extratextual relations. Not even the frequently mentioned aspect of “aesthetic quality” (whatever this may be) is a valid criterion for judging the
overall function of the adaptation, since “quality” and “function” are not
necessarily the same thing. “Aesthetic quality” is itself a highly subjective
and context-dependent category, thus representing one possible function
for making value judgments but not the only one. Thus, aesthetic quality
does not equal function, but is only an attribute ascribed to a particular
adaptation based on systems of cultural distinction (which can itself be
a function of the adaptation).
Both theories of “function” are effective in adaptations. The function of
an adaptation depends just as much on its relation to other texts or media as
on its own properties and its status as medium in its own right. The network
perspective reconciles these two notions of function, since networks are
defined by what Castells calls their “scalability,” namely that “they can
expand or shrink in size with little disruption.” 61 Networks potentially encompass a multitude of perspectives; they allow us to “think simultaneously
the singular and the multiple, the common and the unique.” 62 Depending
on the scale chosen, we can zoom into the level of the individual or zoom
out and look at interrelations or the network as a totalizing structure,
“a meshwork of overlapping cultural formations, of hybrid reinventions,
cross-pollinations, and singular variations.” 63 The function of adaptations
as constituting a network of different agents therefore oscillates between
Walsh’s “relational” and Nanay’s “modal” function, between the question
which traces and associations the adaptation bears to past and future texts
and the question how it is unique in its functions, irrespective of other media.
The scalability of networks as map-like structures makes them a heuristic
tool for switching between different layers of signification and between
shifting cultural functions. However, networks are always abstractions,
suggesting coherence and a horizontal ontology where there might be
fragmentation and hierarchies.
61 Castells, “Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society,” 6.
62 Tiziana Terranova, Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age (London, New York:
Pluto Press, 2004), 1.
63 Terranova, Network Culture, 2.