Skip Navigation

Adaptation 2008 1(1):1-4; doi:10.1093/adaptation/apn015
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cartmell, D.
Right arrow Articles by Whelehan, I.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Introduction to Adaptation

Deborah Cartmell, Timothy Corrigan and Imelda Whelehan

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Although screen adaptations of literature have been around since the beginning of cinema and have provoked the most intense debates among the public at large, the subject has been long neglected in literary and film studies. Up until a decade ago, adaptation was normally regarded as an area unworthy of sustained academic study. So why has it taken so long for a journal, such as this one, to be launched? We have come up with ten reasons.

  1. Champions of film, especially in the first half of the twentieth century saw the adaptation as ‘impure cinema’ and resented the dependency of film on literature, especially during the period in which film was struggling to be regarded as ‘the new literature’, an art form in its own right.
  2. Writers and literary critics in the first half of the twentieth century considered film adaptations as abominations, crude usurpations of literary masterpieces that threatened . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?