Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Adaptation theory and adaptation scholarship
View graph of relations

Adaptation theory and adaptation scholarship

Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSNChapter

Published

Standard

Adaptation theory and adaptation scholarship. / Elliott, Kamilla.

The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. ed. / Thomas Leitch. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 679-697.

Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSNChapter

Harvard

Elliott, K 2017, Adaptation theory and adaptation scholarship. in T Leitch (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 679-697. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199331000.013.39

APA

Elliott, K. (2017). Adaptation theory and adaptation scholarship. In T. Leitch (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies (pp. 679-697). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199331000.013.39

Vancouver

Elliott K. Adaptation theory and adaptation scholarship. In Leitch T, editor, The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2017. p. 679-697 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199331000.013.39

Author

Elliott, Kamilla. / Adaptation theory and adaptation scholarship. The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. editor / Thomas Leitch. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2017. pp. 679-697

Bibtex

@inbook{556b01af918045a4902c901b0ada1209,
title = "Adaptation theory and adaptation scholarship",
abstract = "Adaptation studies and scholars have persistently been faulted for theoretical failure. Arguing that this critique is the fallout of a dysfunctional relationship between adaptation and theorization in the humanities, this chapter examines particular problems that have arisen in adaptation scholarship as a result of adaptation{\textquoteright}s and theorization{\textquoteright}s impasses: for example, tensions between theoretical nostalgia and theoretical progressivism and theoretical sprawl as scholars range in search of new theories or return to old ones. Some failures, however, rest squarely with scholars, such as a widespread failure to cite prior scholarship, which has resulted in mythological field histories and trans-theoretical field myths, most notably the claim that adaptation studies has been primarily concerned with fidelity of adapting to adapted work. This is untrue. The chapter concludes that scholars instead attend to and critique our attempts to force adaptations to be faithful to theories that all too often obscure, neglect, and abuse adaptation. ",
author = "Kamilla Elliott",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199331000.013.39",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780199331000 ",
pages = "679--697",
editor = "Thomas Leitch",
booktitle = "The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - Adaptation theory and adaptation scholarship

AU - Elliott, Kamilla

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Adaptation studies and scholars have persistently been faulted for theoretical failure. Arguing that this critique is the fallout of a dysfunctional relationship between adaptation and theorization in the humanities, this chapter examines particular problems that have arisen in adaptation scholarship as a result of adaptation’s and theorization’s impasses: for example, tensions between theoretical nostalgia and theoretical progressivism and theoretical sprawl as scholars range in search of new theories or return to old ones. Some failures, however, rest squarely with scholars, such as a widespread failure to cite prior scholarship, which has resulted in mythological field histories and trans-theoretical field myths, most notably the claim that adaptation studies has been primarily concerned with fidelity of adapting to adapted work. This is untrue. The chapter concludes that scholars instead attend to and critique our attempts to force adaptations to be faithful to theories that all too often obscure, neglect, and abuse adaptation.

AB - Adaptation studies and scholars have persistently been faulted for theoretical failure. Arguing that this critique is the fallout of a dysfunctional relationship between adaptation and theorization in the humanities, this chapter examines particular problems that have arisen in adaptation scholarship as a result of adaptation’s and theorization’s impasses: for example, tensions between theoretical nostalgia and theoretical progressivism and theoretical sprawl as scholars range in search of new theories or return to old ones. Some failures, however, rest squarely with scholars, such as a widespread failure to cite prior scholarship, which has resulted in mythological field histories and trans-theoretical field myths, most notably the claim that adaptation studies has been primarily concerned with fidelity of adapting to adapted work. This is untrue. The chapter concludes that scholars instead attend to and critique our attempts to force adaptations to be faithful to theories that all too often obscure, neglect, and abuse adaptation.

U2 - 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199331000.013.39

DO - 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199331000.013.39

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780199331000

SP - 679

EP - 697

BT - The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies

A2 - Leitch, Thomas

PB - Oxford University Press

CY - Oxford

ER -