#fys007

For this portion of our project I selected Michael's poster adaptation project, Cody's adaptation of Salem's Lot, and Marcell's song-to-song adaptation project to learn from, critique, and compare. I chose these three projects because they offer a good variety and are interesting to me. 

Michael's artistic project is the closest to my own adaptation. We are both adapting and older work (or works) and are trying to modernize it (them). It will be challenging for us to stay somewhat true to its original form while making the newer form appealing to current-day audiences. Michael will also need to make his adaptations purposeful -- unique enough to be worth the effort of adapting the original posters -- and make them appear as they would at movie theaters today: crisp and professional. I will also have to keep my radio broadcast episode professional and fitting for modern radio audiences. 

Cody will have quite the project on his hands, adapting Stephen King's Salem's Lot into a short story. In his blog post, he described keeping some of the characters and leaving them largely unaltered. This could pose a challenge, because he is moving these characters and a vampire from the much older story of Dracula (one of the best novels, in my opinion) into a small town in modern times. Cody also mentioned introducing a new twist that will grab the reader. This is a challenging goal to achieve in a short story, but I agree that it is needed. After all, there are a lot of vampire stories being fed to the public already (no pun intended), increasing the need for a good plot twist. My audio story will not need as much of a plot twist and will largely stick to the storyline of the first episode in the The Lone Ranger TV series. Because the environment and time period will be so drastically different from the television series' setting, audiences will not be demanding a radical change and surprise like they might with Cody's adaptation. 

I love Marcell's idea to "renew" a song. Instead of transitioning a song to a new medium, he's remaking it. This reminds me of movie directors remaking old classics from the earlier times in the history of film. This is a great opportunity; music has changed so much over the years (even since 2000) and opens up a huge world of possibilities to Marcell to adapt the song. This does not apply to my project quite as much because the elements involved in radio stories has not evolved much. However, Marcell can take his song project any direction he would like to. He expressed how adaptations "keep history alive". I certainly think that both of our projects will accomplish this and further the original artists' works by at least a small increment, if not more. 

Hutcheon had some points I strongly agreed with and some points I strongly disagreed with in her the text we received. I did not mind the read, but her style also did not appeal to me as much. She chose to list examples without backing them up with enough evidence/interest. It was like she successfully served up the main course without providing a dessert; but I digress. 

Concerning the thoughts I found valuable or unjust, she seemed to present some of both to me, though I'm sure some classmates would disagree. Though she did not necessarily endorse it, I gasped when I read the Walter Benjamin quote in the first paragraph: "storytelling is always the art of repeating stories". Yet I enjoyed Hutcheon's comparisons in the second and third paragraphs about different mediums and how society views adaptations within them; perhaps this intrigued me because of my "cave" illustration. 

I did find a few quotes of hers that will be of great worth as I ponder the direction of my project. For example, her statement that "adaptation is repetition, but repetition without replication" gives me a direction to go with my Lone Ranger plan. It is a lot easier to simply "redo" a movie, a book, or closely create a copy of a work in another medium. But it takes skill to unlock new features and shine a new light on an old work. I will try to do just that in my adaptation, and will not settle for replication. On the other hand, I found her claim that "the familiar label 'based on a true story' is a ruse" to be very shallow and unfair. 

I passionately agree with her mention of "spirit" that authors/artists/etc. place in their work (though it seems Hutcheon finds the idea of a work's spirit to be extremely subjective). I think this is one of the most crucial aspects of properly adapting a work, and that is making something that the original creator would approve of. I wish to accomplish this with my adaptation. I want to create a modern-day piece that Fran Striker would not only approve of, but also enjoy. Contrary to some modern adaptations that have been appearing throughout the past few decades, I believe there is a sort of obligation to the original creator. If we have the guts to recreate their story, we ought to have the guts to stick to their standards. Otherwise, why not make a new story? Plus, I think it's a sign of respect.

I talked to my father about what he liked back in his time. I said he could pick anything: a painting, a song, a book, a movie... anything. Without a hint of hesitation he said "The Lone Ranger." And that was that. I had to adapt The Lone Ranger TV series. I actually watched many an episode with my dad while I was growing up, so I can also connect to the show. Yes, Disney just came out with a new movie that was an adaptation. However, I would like to completely transform the story and place it in a completely different environment in a completely different era. 

My dad actually grew up listening to The Lone Ranger on the radio, and then he watched the television episodes when they became popular. When I was still a young lad he bought them on DVD and watched them with me. We had many great times watching those black and white scenes of shootouts and horseback chases. 

I am hoping to completely modernize the TV series and put it into a setting a 2013 audience would understand very well. I am hoping to write a short story (almost like a new episode, but not a screenplay) that will effectively adapt the concept of the masked man. 

A Christmas Carol is a wonderful piece of writing that I enjoyed reading again. While reading it did not offer me many new revelations about the original story as Dickens wrote it, I was able to delve in the tale more analytically and notice some things. I have had some experiences with A Christmas Carol in the past: I was in the theatrical production my school performed a few years back, I have read one of the adaptations to the book, and have also seen a professional theatrical performance of the tale twice. Thankfully, all of those (even the adapted book I read) clung to Dickens' original writings very closely. I say "thankfully" because I feel that this classic story is a wonderful and original work of literature that should be kept from being tainted. That may sound vague, but it is one of those instances where the work is too near perfection to be altered significantly in my personal opinion.  

Though I was already familiar with the plot, rereading the book certainly had its benefits. I particularly enjoyed paying closer attention to the narrator's tones and attitude and those of the ghosts as well. I also had fun trying to figure out which parts of the story were directly related to Dickens' own life and which parts were purely fictional. And I will say that the visit to the ship by Scrooge and Christmas Present caught me off guard -- I did not remember that instance from before. Perhaps it was not included in the adaptation I had read previously. Of course, paying attention to the writing style of Dickens was necessary, and I found that task quite rewarding, even if it made for a slightly longer read. He crafts his sentences beautifully, and the reader can feel and appreciate that. 

Concerning some of the differences I see between adaptations of A Christmas Carol are not major, but are still noticeable. A few minor details in the plot are not performable in plays, which means that traveling through the night sky watching people below is limited. Also, some book adaptations may leave out wordy chunks of description that aren't needed. On the other hand, though I have not watched one personally, I would think that movies would have enough time and resources to actually expand the fantastical night trips with the ghosts. They would probably even add some more events to connect the separate occurrences and timelines visually. And, of course, today's movie audience demands spectacle and magnificence, so plenty of extra special effects and plot drama would probably accompany Dickens' original story. That would include a longer exposition period as well. 

Ebenezer Scrooge, an old banker, hates everything about Christmas. He also despises charity, and is strict and religious towards his finances. The old man refuses to part with a single dime and runs his rich life without donating a cent to a soul. 

A deceased coworker of Scrooge's comes back to him as a ghost to warn Scrooge of the doom that awaits him. It turns out their selfish ways and greedy habits don't carry over well to the after-life. The visit of this ghost is accompanied by much screaming, groaning, chain-rattling, and so forth. 

Scrooge doesn't listen. 

Before his coworker's ghost leaves, it warns him that three spirits will be visiting him. Scrooge then watches the ghost leave, and goes back to his business. 

However, once in bed and sleeping, Scrooge is visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present, and the Ghost of Christmas Future. They scare the living daylight out of him and succeed in changing his life philosophy. It was a great team effort. 

            Richard Dawkins has some very interesting thoughts related to the cultural preservation of ideas and behaviors. Dawkins argues that there are memes, which is the “idea of a unit of transmission, or a unit of imitation.” He claims that these memes affect our culture heavily, changing and maintaining everything from language to religion. However, because Dawkins fails to support this intriguing idea with anything but speculation, I will slightly alter his idea of a meme and rename it.

            Consider the tale of “Little Red Riding Hood”. Where Dawkins would assert that a meme has kept the story alive by hopping from human brain to human brain throughout the centuries, I would assert the story’s success throughout history is due to connectivity. What is connectivity? It is similar to the idea of a meme, but relates more to human interaction instead of mutating “brain gene”. Still using the Red Riding Hood example, I would argue that this particular story (and why so many people choose to retell it) has the following characteristics that contribute to its high level of connectivity: it has a lesson tied to it that make the retelling of it useful to younger members of society; the story has the idea of family within it, allowing any family to automatically feel connected to the story; it follows a fantastical fairy tale plot line, making it appealing to society; and it has a clever and unique ending.

            Connectivity is the sum of various measurements of how certain ideas, stories, songs, religious motives, and other cultural notions affect the human conscience. I listed above why the Red Riding Hood is a valuable story in our world. We see connectivity in Christianity. We see connectivity in the democratic system of government. We even see connectivity in the production of cheddar cheese. We see connectivity nearly everywhere in our daily lives. But why is connectivity important? We can apply Dawkins’ own words about memes. “If you contribute to the world’s culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool.” I would most certainly agree with this statement, though I find that applying to connectivity instead of memes is much more fitting.

            Back to the Little Red Riding Hood analysis, we can see how the idea lives on to teach little children year after year. Instead of saying “I am going to see my grandmother and carry her a cake and a little pot of butter from my mother” when happening across a stranger, the child can more wisely answer with a short “I must be on my way, sorry” and avoid trouble (and in some extremes, death). And thus the story has been retold for centuries. And through those centuries storytellers have tried to make it their own by slightly adjusting the story, perhaps even making it an adaptation. “Little Red Riding Hood” becomes “Little Red Hat”, grandma goes from being fine to being sick, and somewhere along the line a huntsman appeared so he could “[take] a knife and … cut open the sleeping wolf’s maw” in order to provide a happier ending.

            The story of “The Little Red Riding Hood” is just one example of connectivity in culture. We can also examine religion, songs, fashion, products, transportation, and thousands of other things that withstand time or adapt to modern times due to their high quality of connectivity. And we cannot ignore its role in culture – instead we should embrace it, and give society products that won’t just be a short-lived fad, but ones that will connect to culture and live on for centuries, adapting along the way.

            One summer, while living in Chicago, I went to see an improvisation group perform downtown. They created an entire play (about an hour and a half long) based on the audience suggestion for a title. From that title came all dialogue, movement, and plot. They did a masterful job and I had to go back a second time to watch them piece together an entire story with their individual minds and creativity.

            But why am I mentioning this? It seems to me that Dudley Andrews would call their plays adaptations, which I feel is unjust. Yes, they do receive a title from the audience, which gives them a starting point to go from. But all of what they do is original. It has never been thought of or performed before! This makes me believe that it is wrong to call it an adaptation.

            Allow me to delve a little deeper into this issue of originality. According to Andrew, some original works of art depend on “the great fructifying symbols and mythical patterns of civilization.” Now, if that is the case, then the train was not an original invention. No, it must have borrowed from the invention of a wagon, which predated it by thousands of years. After all, they both have wheels, transport people, and move forward on a “path”. But everything in the universe could be stated that way. And if that is true then there is no originality in the universe – only new twists on old ideas.

            I do not believe that to be true. In order for there to be adaptations, there must be originality. For someone to copy, someone had to create.  It does not matter what medium the original is from, it simply matters that creation happened so that adaptation can occur. And adaptation can be a beautiful thing. Adaptation also allows for the original idea, medium, or purpose to be transformed into something just as wonderful and meaningful. As Linda Hutcheon states in A Theory of Adaptation, “different media and genres” are used for varying purposes.

            The advantage of creating adaptations and using various mediums is highly beneficial. Society is constantly looking for new things, new products, new ideas, new solutions, and new everything else. Even if the new subject is repetitive of something else, it can still feel new. For example, we see recurring fashion trends frequently. People buy the new trend because it seems new to them, even though it is based off of an original design from decades back in time.

In a sense, it is all about perspective. If people think it is new, it will peak their interests. That is why adaptation is such a popular method and is so prominent in society. Adapting a piece of art into music relates to people’s sense of nostalgia and what they already know as well as their desire for “new”. In other words, it combines two of the most prominent and instinctual human brain functions: loyalty to the old, and greed for the new.

Similarly, humans like to think about topics from different angles. Thus adaptation can take advantage of another brain function and tease the viewer/listener/admirer by offering them another approach to something they already knew.