Tumgik
#fanfic and adaptation are not equivalent but that's not because there's some intrinsic qualitative difference
anghraine · 7 months
Text
I've always found it a bit disappointing that Linda Hutcheon specifically excluded fanfic from her generally excellent discussion of adaptation in A Theory of Adaptation, because I do think fanfic is more akin to adaptation than probably any other thing it gets compared to.
Like, for me, what makes both really intriguing are questions like:
How does this story function as a story in its own right? How do you experience it if you don't know its source material? Does it work? Do you need certain kinds of background knowledge? Are people likely to experience it separately from its source or other versions of the source even if they are familiar with them?
How is this story engaging with the original or previous version it's working off of? What does it consider essential to keep from its source or canon? What is it willing to change? What assumptions govern both of those things?
How does this particular story take part in wider trends in storytelling that may or may not have anything to do with its source or canon? Where do fads or norms in broader storytelling contexts come into play? (For instance, film adaptations may resemble other contemporary films more than their source materials, fanfic goes through phases of popular structures, premises, and phrasings that cut through different fandoms. Or you can look at both in a broad cultural context beyond their immediate social context of fandom/film/whatever.)
I mean, I'm phrasing the questions in a kind of formal way, but I think the basic questions do factor into a lot of the more localized conversations that spring up around both adaptation and fanfic (whether specific adaptations/fics or general groupings of them). So much general discourse around fanfic revolves around the legitimacy of writing versions of pre-existing stories and it's like!! Adaptation is right there.
44 notes · View notes