Showing posts from June, 2009

Adaptation Studies

Quote of the day: 
"Incidentally, the long-drawn-out discussion on fidelity has become rather tedious in my view, in that practically every recent book on adaptation pretends it has revolutionized adaptation studies by deconstructing fidelity and the supremacy of the original."
That's by Thomas Van Parys in a 2007 review of Thomas Leitch's Film Adaptation and Its Discontents.  For my part I have a contrarian interest in grappling with adaptation precisely as a matter of fidelity - or at least as historically shifting markers of fidelity. To my eye, Classic Hollywood seemed to take four approaches:
- subservience of source literary material by the film: in which studios/producers/etc valued the source material as pre-sold property with some audience recognition, or for the basis of stronger dialogue and narrative construction than could be done in-house, yet made a film that exhibits maximum narrative autarky, to use a Noel Burch term. That is, one can easily watch films…

Gender and Academic Blogging

Melissa Click and Nina Huntemann have an article in Flow on the gender disparity in media-studies blogging.  It's a great read and outlines what I imagine to be widespread concern that blogging might unconsciously replicate gender, race, and class divides in our field(s). I'll add just a few thoughts.
First, the authors note that "The career benefits of blogging are undeniable." The matter is not self-evident, however. Respondents may feel their careers benefit, but those blogging are inclined to think so. They may also be a self-selected group whose careers do benefit. I, mean, I hope the Click and Huntemann are right, but I cannot be fully confident.
Second, the article attributes gender disparity to the types of blogging: "So why don't female media scholars blog?" they write. "Of course many do, but part of women's perceived invisibility is bound up with what counts as a media studies blog. If journal style blogs and journal/k-log hybrids are …