Littlejohn Adaptation

Adaptation

Emily Littlejohn
Kansas State University

Abstract

“Adaptation” originally began as a scientific term, but from 1860 to today it most often refers to an
altered version of a text, film, or other literary source. When this term was first analyzed, humanities
scholars often measured adaptations against their source texts, frequently privileging “original” texts.
However, this method began to shift when scholars like Brian McFarlance, Deborah Cartmell, and
Imelda Whelehan outlined the negative consequences of source text bias. More recently, Linda Hutcheon
argued that adaptation is worthy of study in its own right (2006). Furthermore, as Brian A. Rose has
noted, serial adaptations respond to cultural and societal changes, helping us trace the relationship
between the earliest definitions of adaptation and more contemporary understandings of adaptation. For
example, Little Red Riding Hood shows how adaptations change through time, each focusing on a social
concern prevalent at the time in which it was produced. Lastly, as John Stephens and Robyn McCallum
argue, while “retellings of traditional stories may seem intellectually and culturally oppressive, there are
always possibilities for resistance, contestation, and change” (p. 8)—thus confirming the importance of
attending to, carefully considering, and drawing theoretical conclusions about altered or emended
versions of familiar texts.

Keywords: adaptation, children’s literature, texts, young adult

Author Bio: Emily Littlejohn is a second-year Master’s student at Kansas State University. She
is specializing in Children’s Literature and currently teaches an undergraduate writing course
focused on persuasive writing. Her research interests include the Christian fantasy tradition,
Victorian Children’s Literature, and Gary Schmidt’s young adult texts, especially The
Wednesday Wars and Okay for Now.

Email: [email protected]

9
Brock Education Journal, 27(2), 2018
Littlejohn Adaptation
The earliest definition of “adaptation” appears in 1597 in the Oxford English Dictionary
(OED, 2011) as “the action of applying one thing to another or of bringing two things together so
as to effect a change in the nature of the objects”. By 1610, adaptation was commonly defined as
“the action or process of adapting one thing to fit with another, or suit specified conditions, esp. a
new or changed environment” (OED). While the first definition refers to the word’s history as a
scientific term, the second reflects the beginning of its usage in reference to the humanities. It
wasn’t until 1860 that “adaptation” was used as we think of it today: “an altered or amended
version of a text, musical composition, etc., (now esp.) one adapted for filming, broadcasting, or
production on the stage from a novel or similar literary source” (OED). These definitions are not
mutually exclusive. Adapters, whether filmmakers, theatre directors, or authors, still alter a work
for “a particular end or purpose,” usually to “suit specified conditions, esp. a new or changed
environment” (OED).
In 1957, George Bluestone wrote an influential analysis of screenwriters’ adaptation
processes in Novels into Film. Since then, scholars have measured adaptations against their
source texts, often privileging original texts or regarding adaptations as derivative. However, this
attitude began to shift as the field emerged. In 1996, Brian McFarlane argued that loyalty to the
source text takes away from other elements of the film’s intertextuality. A film is never just
based on one source text; other circumstances such as popular culture and “social climate” affect
the making of a film (McFarlane, 1996). Similarly, Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan note
that scholars in literary studies usually prefer the original text and that the original text bias
skews analyses of adaptations. They argue that using the original text to evaluate adaptations in
another form of media, “homogenizes the identities and desires of both film and fiction
consumers who experience narrative pleasures differently” (Cartmell & Whelehan, 1999, p. 17-
18). Like McFarlane, Cartmell and Whelehan fear that source-text fidelity discourages
examination of an adaptation’s cultural and artistic differences. In A Theory of Adaptation, Linda
Hutcheon (2006) argues that adaptation is worthy of study in its own right, particularly in its
offering of “repetition with variation, from the comfort of ritual combined with the piquancy of
surprise” (p. 4). Focusing on adaptation through the modes of telling and showing as well as
interacting, Hutcheon (2006) suggests that, “there are significant differences between being told
a story and being shown a story, and especially between both of these and the physical act of
participating in a story’s world” (p. xv). Studying adaptation through these modes may be
productive not only for adaptation studies in general, but also for children’s literature and
culture. The Disney Studio, for instance, has honed its approach to adaptation, successfully
appealing to children and families through all three modes: reading (literary texts), viewing
(films and performances), and interacting (videogames and theme parks) (Hutcheon, 2006).
More recently, Kamilla Elliot (2014) studies how adaptations may turn into a competition for
power: power over the disciplinary definition of adaptation or power over a theoretical idea
concerning adaptation. Elliot (2014) explains that, “while in the twentieth century literature and
film scholars used adaptations to vie for disciplinary territory and power, in the twenty-first, they
have more often used adaptations to compete for theoretical dominion and authority” (p. 576).
A work such as Peter Pan shows how source text bias is arbitrary and ignores more effective
characteristics of adaptation. It has a complicated textual history, one that challenges the idea of
a single source’s relationship with its adaptation. Its first incarnation was for an adult book, The
Little White Bird (1902). Peter Pan became a play in 1904. In 1906, in the wake of the older
Peter Pan’s theatrical success, Peter Pan was published as Peter in Kensington Gardens, and
later, Peter and Wendy (Hollingdale, 2008). Removing Peter’s story from the context of The

10
Brock Education Journal, 27(2), 2018
Littlejohn Adaptation
Little White Bird diminished some of the more adult themes and concerns of the work.
Furthermore, subsequent adaptations, especially Disney’s 1953 animated film and P.J. Hogan’s
2003 live-action film adaptation, among many other reworkings of the tale, continue to
demonstrate problematic treatments of race, gender, and sexuality.
Brian A. Rose addresses serial adaptations and their relationship to cultural and societal
changes, showing the relationship between the earliest definition’s focus on, “adapting one thing
to fit with another…esp. a new or changed environment,” and more contemporary
understandings of adaptation as “altered or amended version[s] of a text…one adapted for
filming, broadcasting, or production on the stage from a novel or similar literary source” (OED).
Rose (1996) discusses how adaptations change through time, each focusing on a social concern
prevalent at the time in which it was produced. When addressing oral versions of “Little Red
Riding Hood,” French ethnologist, Yvonne Verdier focused on aspects of puberty, motherhood,
and menopause. When Charles Perrault adapted this oral story in 1697, he masculinized it,
making it about socialization and warning French bourgeoisie girls to beware of wolves’ sexual
urges. Tex Avery’s (1943) animated cartoon “Red Hot Riding Hood” takes place in the city
rather than the woods, and both Red and Grandma are sexualized and objectified through their
appearances, jobs, and hobbies. However, they are not as naïve or defenseless as the heroine of
Perrault’s tale. Red is cunning; she rejects the wolf and eludes his grasp. When the wolf
encounters Grandma, she sexually objectifies him (aggressively). After his narrow escape from
Grandma, the wolf vows to never look at a “babe” again. Catching himself ogling Red, he shoots
himself. (This was a Production Code-induced revision of Avery’s original ending for the
cartoon, in which the wolf and Grandma brought their half-wolf, half-human children to watch
Red’s cabaret act.) In 1982, following in the tradition of James Thurber’s “The Little Girl and the
Wolf” (1939), Roald Dahl published his version, “Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf.” Here,
Red immediately recognizes that the wolf is not her grandmother and when the wolf tries to eat
her, “She whips a pistol from her knickers,” demonstrating her preparedness, then “aims it at the
creature’s head / And bang bang bang, she shoots him dead,” demonstrating her capability (Dahl,
1995, p. 40). Like Avery’s cartoon heroine, Dahl’s Red does not need to rely on authoritative
male figures or Prince Charmings. As each generation highlights the cultural values and concerns
relevant to their time, their re-interpretations support Rose’s argument and outline tensions
between “the new or changed environment” and the medium of the adaptation (OED).
John Stephens and Robyn McCallum (1998) suggest that “[w]hen compared with general
literature, the literature produced for children contains a much larger proportion of retold stories.
In part this is because some domains of retellings, especially folk and fairy tales, have long been
considered more appropriate to child culture than to adult culture” (p. 3). Many of these
retellings retain “Western metaethics,” or ideologies from the original texts which can be
“androcentric, ethnocentric, and class-centric” (Stephens & McCallum, 1998, p. 7, 9). Stephens
and McCallum (1998) ultimately argue that while “retellings of traditional stories may seem
intellectually and culturally oppressive, there are always possibilities for resistance, contestation,
and change” (p. 8), thus confirming the importance of attending to, carefully considering, and
drawing theoretical conclusions about altered or emended versions of familiar texts.

11
Brock Education Journal, 27(2), 2018
Littlejohn Adaptation
References

Adaptation (2011). In Oxford English dictionary (3rd ed.). Retrieved from

http://dictionary.oed.com
Avery, T. (1943). Red hot riding hood. YouTube. Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/xX0VRWrBuF8
Cartmell, D. & Whelehan, I. (1999). Adaptations: The contemporary dilemmas. In D. Carmell &
I. Whelehan (Eds.), Adaptations: From text to screen, screen to text. London; New York:
Routledge.
Dahl, R. (1995). Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf. In Q. Black (Ed.), Revolting rhymes
(pp.36-40). New York: Puffin.
Hollingdale, P. (2008). Introduction. In Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens and Peter and Wendy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hutcheon, L. (2006). A theory of adaptation. New York: Routledge.
McFarlane, B. (1996). Novel to film: An introduction to the theory of adaptation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Perrault, C. (1999). Little Red Riding Hood. In M. Tatar (Ed.), The classic fairy tales. New
York: Norton.
Rose, B. A. (1996). Jekyll and Hyde adapted: Dramatizations of cultural anxiety. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Stephens, J. & McCallum, R. (1998). Retelling stories, framing culture: Traditional story and
metanarratives in children’s literature. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.
Verdier, Y. (1997). Little Red Riding Hood in oral tradition. Marvels & Tales, 11(1/2), 101-23.

12
Brock Education Journal, 27(2), 2018