A RANT ABOUT THE STATE OF ADAPTATION IN MEDIA (skip if you dislike longwinded chastising, literary nazism, or my opinions) Hey, remember before the TV series of Dracula, Sleepy Hollow, and Beauty & The Beast, and before Once Upon a Time decided to just rob Alice and call it a day—before every network had to have a show (or two) on their roster be a loose amalgam of magical realism and suspended disbelief..... There was this wonderful thing called an allusion. The idea was, you could draw from these classic tales you want to retell by making your characters symbols of the thematic and moral allegories in the old story. For example, we all remember the Biblical allegory in Lord of the Flies, Ive read some interesting things about Battlestar Galactica and the Greek mythos, and any of us who have read The Waste Land (especially with Chip Lee) are fully familiar even with the kind of allusion that directly quotes its antecedents, reconstructing their parts into a new whole that is unidentifiable to the originals at first glance. Unfortunately, it seems to me like adaptation for literary merit has come to mean wholesale exploitation for marketing advantage. Now first off, Im not saying this art of adaptation doesnt exist in TV at all anymore—for one, I think Joss Whedon does a pretty good job of it, even in the midst of his own weirdly-Oriental sci-fantasies; and longer-running shows (like Dr. Who and The Wire, to name two completely asymmetrical examples from my viewing list) become littered with mythology and allegory by the time theyre done. But when I see a new TV show called Dracula, I see no reason that the character named Renfield should be Draculas loyal confidant when, in the novel the show is attempting to continue [19TH-CENTURY GOTHIC SPOILER ALERT], Dracula never really trusts Renfield at all, and kills him swiftly for his apparent disloyalty. Also hes an inmate at a sanitarium. Secondly, telling a story from one medium in a different medium is totally cool with me; its called adaptation. Using in your own story thematic elements, devices, or even symbols themselves from an older story is totally cool with me; Its called allusion, sometimes allegory. However, retelling a story, using the proper names, places, and concepts created by the original author, but then weaving in your own story and changing whatever bits necessary to make it work with your own creative licenses—I dont believe that to be proper writing. Im not saying these reimaginings cant be creative or interesting; go peruse a FanFic forum for a few hours and youll find some gems, no doubt. But I think that these shows are no more original stories than a pop song for which Ive simply changed the chord progression is my original song. Perfect example: I remixed Same Love by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis the day it came out, and released it that evening. Its by far my most played song on SoundCloud since, because—even though its not my best production—the gravity of that song and M&RLs success right when I released it made my adaptation a more valid part of a more popular whole. Frankly, no matter how good it was, the fact that it had Same Love in the title (and, because I dont enjoy theft, Macklemore & Ryan Lewis) made it more valuable for me. Long point short: If you have an original tale to tell, you shouldnt have to stand on the shoulders of another artist; Bram Stoker created the story of Dracula, the pre-existing structure and popularity/gravitas of which seems to have been thrown into the heap of classic stories that any half-assed writing team with too much money can exploit to complete a wholly lackluster idea and execution. You cant title your story someone elses story, use their characters, and then insert your own little anachronistic cherries on top for that pine-fresh bullshit scent. If you have a story, tell it. If you want to tell Dracula, then tell Dracula. Either is fine. Just pick one.
Posted on: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 18:54:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015