What do you think?
Rate this book
Adaptation and Cultural Appropriation: Literature, Film, and the Arts
Hamlet by Olivier, Kaurismäki or Shepard and ""Pride and Prejudice"" in its many adaptations show the virulence of these texts and the importance of aesthetic recycling for the formation of cultural identity and diversity. Adaptation has always been a standard literary and cultural strategy, and can be regarded as the dominant means of production in the cultural industries today. Focusing on a variety of aspects such as artistic strategies and genre, but also marketing and cultural politics, this volume takes a critical look at ways of adapting and appropriating cultural texts across epochs and cultures in literature, film and the arts.
285 pages, Hardcover
First published April 20, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 17, 2014
Because this is a collection of conference proceedings, it's a rather uneven terrain in terms of methodology, goals, and styles. Some of the essays aim for theoretical complexity and attempt to address gaps and omissions within the field of adaptations studies, some are more direct readings/analyses of specific adaptations, some identify general trends within a fairly narrow field of adaptations. In general the writing was accessible, and many of the essays had bits and pieces that were useful for a general understanding of adaptation studies.
One nice thing as a reader (and kind of disappointing thing as a scholar) was that many of these essays are super short--which suggests that some are simply reprinted from what was presented at the conference. This was nice because I could move through them quickly, but bad because it meant that some essays lacked the depth and rigor I would ideally have liked. But being written more for oral presentation than for publication, I suspect, contributed to the general accessibility of most essays--because a paper written to be heard will often be less jargony, technical, and linguistically complex than one written to be printed for readers.
One nice thing as a reader (and kind of disappointing thing as a scholar) was that many of these essays are super short--which suggests that some are simply reprinted from what was presented at the conference. This was nice because I could move through them quickly, but bad because it meant that some essays lacked the depth and rigor I would ideally have liked. But being written more for oral presentation than for publication, I suspect, contributed to the general accessibility of most essays--because a paper written to be heard will often be less jargony, technical, and linguistically complex than one written to be printed for readers.
Displaying 1 of 1 review