1. Introduction: Adaptation in a
Convergence Environment
Johannes Fehrle
An increased interest in adaptation studies in the early 21st century has
generated countless discussions about rethinking adaptations as well as
the field of adaptation studies as a whole. The impression has often been
voiced, for instance by Thomas Leitch in his essay for the inaugural issue
of the journal Adaptation, that adaptation studies is “at a crossroads,” in
which its methodology and material are in transition from the discipline’s
humble novel-to-film-studies beginnings to a broader, if somewhat unclear, future. 1 As part of a moment in the field’s history, in which scholars
repeatedly state ambitious research agendas, Linda Hutcheon has likewise
described adaptation studies as moving “well beyond [its] familiar film/
performance focus” and on to readings that highlight the politics of our
time, the “indigenization” of adaptations, and approaches that question
notions of priority and anteriority in unprecedented ways. 2
There is, however, another major change – the elephant in the room of
adaptation studies, so to speak: since adaptation, at least in its most common
understanding, describes the transposition of a story or its elements from
one medium to another, it is necessarily bound to questions of mediality
and remediation. 3 Therefore, one of the most important new developments
in adaptation studies is constituted by the shift in the global mediascape in
light of the rise of digital media since the 1980s and the spread of the internet
1 Thomas Leitch, “Review Article. Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads,” Adaptation 1, no. 1
(2008): 63–77.
2 Linda Hutcheon, “Moving Forward: The Next Step in Adaptation Studies.” In Adaptation and
American Studies: Perspectives on Research and Teaching, With an Afterword by Linda Hutcheon,
ed. Nassim Winnie Balestrini (Heidelberg: Winter, 2011), 213, 217.
3 For my example of a “traditional” or narrow understanding of adaptation, I use Irina
Rajewsky’s definition of adaptation as “medial transposition.” Irina Rajewsky, “Intermediality,
Intertextuality, and Remediation: A Literary Perspective on Intermediality.” Intermédialités 6
(2005): 51.
Fehrle, J. and W. Schäfke, Adaptation in the Age of Media Convergence, Amsterdam University
Press, 2019
doi 10.5117/9789462983663_ch01
Convergence Environment
Johannes Fehrle
An increased interest in adaptation studies in the early 21st century has
generated countless discussions about rethinking adaptations as well as
the field of adaptation studies as a whole. The impression has often been
voiced, for instance by Thomas Leitch in his essay for the inaugural issue
of the journal Adaptation, that adaptation studies is “at a crossroads,” in
which its methodology and material are in transition from the discipline’s
humble novel-to-film-studies beginnings to a broader, if somewhat unclear, future. 1 As part of a moment in the field’s history, in which scholars
repeatedly state ambitious research agendas, Linda Hutcheon has likewise
described adaptation studies as moving “well beyond [its] familiar film/
performance focus” and on to readings that highlight the politics of our
time, the “indigenization” of adaptations, and approaches that question
notions of priority and anteriority in unprecedented ways. 2
There is, however, another major change – the elephant in the room of
adaptation studies, so to speak: since adaptation, at least in its most common
understanding, describes the transposition of a story or its elements from
one medium to another, it is necessarily bound to questions of mediality
and remediation. 3 Therefore, one of the most important new developments
in adaptation studies is constituted by the shift in the global mediascape in
light of the rise of digital media since the 1980s and the spread of the internet
1 Thomas Leitch, “Review Article. Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads,” Adaptation 1, no. 1
(2008): 63–77.
2 Linda Hutcheon, “Moving Forward: The Next Step in Adaptation Studies.” In Adaptation and
American Studies: Perspectives on Research and Teaching, With an Afterword by Linda Hutcheon,
ed. Nassim Winnie Balestrini (Heidelberg: Winter, 2011), 213, 217.
3 For my example of a “traditional” or narrow understanding of adaptation, I use Irina
Rajewsky’s definition of adaptation as “medial transposition.” Irina Rajewsky, “Intermediality,
Intertextuality, and Remediation: A Literary Perspective on Intermediality.” Intermédialités 6
(2005): 51.
Fehrle, J. and W. Schäfke, Adaptation in the Age of Media Convergence, Amsterdam University
Press, 2019
doi 10.5117/9789462983663_ch01