66
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
of filtration, and in terms of intertextual webs or signifying fields, rather
than simplistic one-way lines of influence from source to adaptation.” 22 The
connections between fanfictions and the pre-texts, Sanders’ intertextual
webs, are actualized in the reception process. Hutcheon refers to the mode
of reading in her definition of the third criterion of adaptations. As a “process
of reception,” she explains, “we experience adaptations (as adaptations) as
palimpsests through our memory of other works that resonate through
repetition with variation.” 23 Understanding fanfiction and the involved
processes of meaning making is often necessarily based on a reception
practice that sees them exactly in this manner. For fanfictions there is
an “interrelation between texts which is fundamental to their existence
and which at times seems to get to the heart of the literary, and especially
the reading, experience” that Sanders deems central. 24 The expectation of
authors that their readers will read their texts as fanfiction and therefore as
a specific form of adaptation is constitutive even in the structure of many
texts, and certainly in the content of the comments and reviews that are
part of the fantext of any given fandom. 25 Of course, not all fanfictions are
written in the same fashion. Fanfictions can be written as distinct works,
as for example many “all human” fanfictions, in which the knowledge of
the pre-texts adds another dimension to the reception process but is not
fundamental. Fanfictions can further explore motivations of canonical
characters, and develop them in ways that provide continuity with the
pre-text, bestowing these characters with more emotional and psychological
depth. These texts then are a “means of prolonging the pleasure of the
original presentation, and repeating the production of a memory” as John
Ellis argues for transpositions of narratives into other media. 26 Fanfictions,
written as extensions in this sense, are linked to their pre-texts in similar
ways as prequels and sequels of franchises.
Yet, at its inception fanfiction is often not intended to stand by itself,
even if fans turn to the texts to enjoy the same pleasures repeatedly. The
authors of fanfiction can assume that their readers are familiar with the
canon. This knowledge is then, as in the reception of other adaptations as
well, drawn on and juxtaposed with in the reading process. Not only are the
22 Julie Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation (New York: Routledge, 2006), 24.
23 Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 8.
24 Sanders, 8.
25 Judith Fathalla’s Fanfiction and the Author provides an extensive investigation of comments
and feedbacks in several fandoms. Fathallah’s research highlights the cultural work inside fan
communities and the complex practices of negotiation.
26 John Ellis, “The Literary Adaptation: An Introduction,” Screen 23, no. 1 (1982): 4–5.
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
of filtration, and in terms of intertextual webs or signifying fields, rather
than simplistic one-way lines of influence from source to adaptation.” 22 The
connections between fanfictions and the pre-texts, Sanders’ intertextual
webs, are actualized in the reception process. Hutcheon refers to the mode
of reading in her definition of the third criterion of adaptations. As a “process
of reception,” she explains, “we experience adaptations (as adaptations) as
palimpsests through our memory of other works that resonate through
repetition with variation.” 23 Understanding fanfiction and the involved
processes of meaning making is often necessarily based on a reception
practice that sees them exactly in this manner. For fanfictions there is
an “interrelation between texts which is fundamental to their existence
and which at times seems to get to the heart of the literary, and especially
the reading, experience” that Sanders deems central. 24 The expectation of
authors that their readers will read their texts as fanfiction and therefore as
a specific form of adaptation is constitutive even in the structure of many
texts, and certainly in the content of the comments and reviews that are
part of the fantext of any given fandom. 25 Of course, not all fanfictions are
written in the same fashion. Fanfictions can be written as distinct works,
as for example many “all human” fanfictions, in which the knowledge of
the pre-texts adds another dimension to the reception process but is not
fundamental. Fanfictions can further explore motivations of canonical
characters, and develop them in ways that provide continuity with the
pre-text, bestowing these characters with more emotional and psychological
depth. These texts then are a “means of prolonging the pleasure of the
original presentation, and repeating the production of a memory” as John
Ellis argues for transpositions of narratives into other media. 26 Fanfictions,
written as extensions in this sense, are linked to their pre-texts in similar
ways as prequels and sequels of franchises.
Yet, at its inception fanfiction is often not intended to stand by itself,
even if fans turn to the texts to enjoy the same pleasures repeatedly. The
authors of fanfiction can assume that their readers are familiar with the
canon. This knowledge is then, as in the reception of other adaptations as
well, drawn on and juxtaposed with in the reading process. Not only are the
22 Julie Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation (New York: Routledge, 2006), 24.
23 Hutcheon and O’Flynn, 8.
24 Sanders, 8.
25 Judith Fathalla’s Fanfiction and the Author provides an extensive investigation of comments
and feedbacks in several fandoms. Fathallah’s research highlights the cultural work inside fan
communities and the complex practices of negotiation.
26 John Ellis, “The Literary Adaptation: An Introduction,” Screen 23, no. 1 (1982): 4–5.