TY - JOUR
AU - Leitch, Thomas
AB - Adaptation Vol. 1 , No. 1, pp. 63 – 77 doi: 10.1093/adaptation/apm005 REVIEW ARTICLE THOMAS LEITCH * After years of being stuck in the backwaters of the academy, adaptation studies is on the move. A decade’s worth of pioneering work by Brian McFarlane, Deborah Cartmell, Imelda Whelehan, James Naremore and Sarah Cardwell on the relation between fi lm adaptations and their literary antecedents culminated in the publication of Robert Stam’s three volumes on adaptation, two of them co-edited with Alessandra Raengo, in 2004 and 2005. The monumental project of Stam and Raengo sought to reorient ad- aptation studies decisively from the fi delity discourse universally attacked by theorists as far back as George Bluestone to a focus on Bakhtinian intertextuality — with each text, avowed adaptation or not, afl oat upon a sea of countless earlier texts from which it could not help borrowing — and this attempt was largely successful. If Stam and Raengo had any notion of settling the fundamental questions of adaptation studies, however, they must have been surprised to fi nd that their impact was precisely the opposite. In- stead of redrawing the fi eld, they have stirred the pot, provoking a welcome outburst of 
TI - Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads
JF - Adaptation
DO - 10.1093/adaptation/apm005
DA - 2008-03-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/adaptation-studies-at-a-crossroads-uw0o1Rzpsm
SP - 63
EP - 77
VL - 1
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -