![]() ![]() ![]() What she has to gain is the ability to talk about what interests her: “there appears to be little need to engage directly in the constant debate over degrees of proximity to the ‘original’” (7). 3Hutcheon may be writing 25 years after Andrew, but she still has something to gain by attacking what was, until recently, “the critical orthodoxy in adaptation studies” (7)-what Stam calls “the conventional language” and “the standard rhetoric” (3) what Ray calls (citing Jonathan Culler) “an endless series of twenty-page articles” (47). Linda Hutcheon, similarly bored with fidelity discussions, highlights the same logical flaw: “Of more interest to me is the fact that the morally loaded discourse of fidelity is based on the implied assumption that adapters aim simply to reproduce the adapted text” (7). Part of what makes this discussion tiresome is its unswaying commitment to the historically dubious and logically unnecessary assumption that “the task of adaptation is the reproduction in cinema of something essential about an original text” (Andrew, 31). “Unquestionably the most frequent and most tiresome discussion of adaptation (and of film and literature relations as well) concerns fidelity and transformation” (31). Ray and Dudley Andrew, the problem with fidelity is that it makes for boring criticism. ![]() 2There are problems with fidelity discourse beyond its implied moralising.įor Robert B. The standard rhetoric has often deployed an elegiac discourse of loss, lamenting what has been ‘lost’ in the translation from novel to film” (“Introduction”, 3). ![]() Stam’s principal objection is the covert moralising of fidelity discourse: “The conventional language of adaptation criticism has often been profoundly moralistic, rich in terms that imply that the cinema has somehow done a disservice to literature. Indeed, as the editor of two major adaptation anthologies, he is speaking for them. The Fidelity Reflex 1When Robert Stam entitles one of his recent efforts to theorise adaptation “Beyond Fidelity,” he could be speaking for a wide range of critics (54). Treglown's source note is as follows: 'Several people who were at the top of Priory House at the time have discussed it with me, particularly B.L.L. Beyond fidelity: the dialogics of adaptation. Type Chapter Author(s) R Stam Date 2000 Page start 54 Page end 76 Is part of Book Title.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2022
Categories |