ADAPTING TRISTRAM SHANDY by Adria Young Submitted in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

criticized, its anomalous status as an eighteenth-century text is sometimes excused as an early figuration of modern and postmodern aesthetics. 5 Even with all of the recent interest in adapting Sterne’s ‘life’ work, it is still an “unread classic” (New “Review” 579), and the adaptations have been considered failures (580). Regardless of public opinion, the “unfilmable” has been filmed (Voigts-Virchow 149); the un-adaptable has been adapted. Underlying the criticism about Tristram Shandy’s transfer to new media is the concept of representation, a central point around which adaptation studies orbit. For the most part, critical discussion of literary adaptations has been focused on the “fidelity” of the adaptation (McFarlane 8). Only in the last few years has this approach been challenged; it has been deemed narrow, “unilluminating” (McFarlane 8), and leads to evaluation based upon personal tastes. Indeed, some assert that “infidelity” is a much more enlightening framework (Newell 79). The infidelity approach frees the new work from an explicit dependence on the original. We see this more often, however, in remakes (a form of adaptation) of already made films rather than literary adaptations. 6 The infidelity approach, however, is almost too liberating; the generative text becomes only a referent, which raises questions about the extent to which an unfaithful adaptation is an adaptation. 7 Other theorists have replaced “fidelity” with a much more ethereal, indeterminate, and enigmatic approach: adaptation as a rendering of the “spirit of the text” (MacCabe 7). This concept of the “spirit,” while it widens the ways in which adaptations can be critically investigated, has yet to be defined as a concept that encapsulates or represents the nature of adaptations across genres and media in a widely applicable or determinable way. It is helpful as a metaphor, but it is also a scapegoat. Colin MacCabe argues that the notion of “spirit” avoids “in its very formulation any 2
notion of a literal fidelity” (7) to the text; that is, it is vague enough to dodge the blows of fidelity criticism, and can validate even the freest of adaptations. In addition, spirit “demonstrates a much greater sophistication in the general culture” (MacCabe 7), whatever that means. In recognition of this lack of general definition that “spirit” holds (or does not hold), each usage in adaptation criticism has to be particularized to the specific, original source of the adaptation, which can take on various meanings, depending on the theorist. Spirit can account for the “themes” that have been adapted (Hutcheon 20), for instance. But this ‘spiritual’ approach only works for films that conceptually adapt the original text. In recognition of the fairly conceptual and abstract applications of “spirit,” it becomes clear that there are gradations of adaptations. There is the first level of adaptation that attempts the direct text-to-screen transfer. Then, there is the modernized or reworked adaptation. And, finally, there is the kind of adaptation that is true to the spirit of the text. If spirit is abstract, on the third level, then fidelity, at the ground floor, is literal. The fidelity approach as a critical tool is thus relegated to the first level of adaptations that attempt direct text-to-screen transfers. The “heritage film” (Mayer 1), for instance, is a genre within which the primary aim is to recreate the text and its contexts, historical or social, to the word, like the BBC Films versions of the novels of Jane Austen, for example. Other recent and notable “faithful” literary adaptations include Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner (Forster 2007), Cormac MacCarthy’s The Road (Hillcoat 2009), and the ten film and television versions of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre, with the most recent version by Cary Fukunaga (2011). Really, this list of direct adaptation films is endless; there is significant interest in adaptations that attempt the 3
Page 1 and 2: ADAPTING TRISTRAM SHANDY by Adria Y
Page 3 and 4: AUTHOR: Adria Young TITLE: Adapting
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES v
Page 7 and 8: ABSTRACT Laurence Sterne’s The Li
Page 9: CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Given its r
Page 13 and 14: Cruel Intentions (Kumble 1999), and
Page 15 and 16: narrative in the same way that Ster
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER 2: ADAPTING THE SHANDEAN Of
Page 19 and 20: The critical tradition surrounding
Page 21 and 22: digressive, and it is progressive,
Page 23 and 24: contexts and manipulated to a great
Page 25 and 26: Shandean, and are hitherto unseen t
Page 27 and 28: and sale occupied less than five pe
Page 29 and 30: (Sterne 580). Neither do we receive
Page 31 and 32: himself was dying of, and died from
Page 33 and 34: “new depth” and it was Sterne w
Page 35 and 36: Widow Wadman’s preoccupation with
Page 37 and 38: (Sterne 472), alluding to both the
Page 39 and 40: to adaptation are the method or the
Page 41 and 42: Hutcheon’ s theory effectively si
Page 43 and 44: about the act of reading the novel.
Page 45 and 46: (Weiner 17). Critics began to value
Page 47 and 48: Figure 4.Rowson's homage to Gin Lan
Page 49 and 50: work, aided by the relationship bet
Page 51 and 52: adaptation is in the “mixture of
Page 53 and 54: (Rowson np), as a reference to Joyc
Page 55 and 56: Commentary about Tristram Shandy mi
Page 57 and 58: or does not relate at all; however,
Page 59 and 60: Sentimental Journey as a textual
Page 61 and 62:
Yorick is drawn as the likeness of
Page 63 and 64:
spirits” (Sterne 1.1), and thus a
Page 65 and 66:
Rowson also illustrates context via
Page 67 and 68:
andRowson and Pete are drawn in a p
Page 69 and 70:
we are aware that we are watching a
Page 71 and 72:
critically approached. Fidelity as
Page 73 and 74:
critical interpretation (what ideol
Page 75 and 76:
associations and recognitions made
Page 77 and 78:
etween chapters and volumes (just a
Page 79 and 80:
fictionalized autobiography, and Wi
Page 81 and 82:
cutting room floor (even though we
Page 83 and 84:
fucking camera! He can be emotional
Page 85 and 86:
at “realism.” Coogan replies,
Page 87 and 88:
[Al] Pacino stand in for [David] Ga
Page 89 and 90:
properties of different media make
Page 91 and 92:
modes and conventions. On the abstr
Page 93 and 94:
fictional autobiography, a military
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 21: The final page of Rowson
Page 97 and 98:
11 Even this is tricky, and potenti
Page 99 and 100:
36 See Melvyn New. “Job’s Wife
Page 101 and 102:
59 Sterne had many Modern and Postm
Page 103 and 104:
86 That is, the “lack of formula
Page 105 and 106:
� Bibliography Allen, Dennis W.
Page 107 and 108:
Noble, 1978. Print. Corliss, Richar
Page 109 and 110:
Joyce Goggin and Dan Hassler-Forres
Page 111 and 112:
Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adapta
Page 113 and 114:
McFarlane, Brian. “Part I: Backgr
Page 115 and 116:
---------- “Interview with Alex F
Page 117:
University of Adelaide, 2011. Web.
show all

ADAPTING TRISTRAM SHANDY by Adria Young Submitted in ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?