Academic literature on the topic 'Women authors, Italian 20th century History and criticism'

The book written by an international team of scholars and edited by B. Brazeau explores literary criticism and reception of Aristotle's «Poetics» in early modern Italy. Revisiting the «intellectual history» of Renaissance poetic studies written by Bernard Weinberg in 1960-s, the contributors find its own place whithin the 2000-years long tradition of translations, commentaries and polemic treatises. The authors apply new methods from book history, translation studies, history of emotions and classical reception to early modern Italian texts, placing them in dialogue with 20th-century literary theory, and thus map out avenues for future study.

A century ago an ambitious young anatomist in Rome, Primo Dorello, who sought to understand the cause of abducent nerve palsy that often occurred in patients with severe middle ear infections, conducted intricate studies on the intracranial course of the nerve. In his findings, he identified that the abducent nerve passes through a narrow sinus near the apex of the petrous bone, which formed an osteofibrous canal. Dorello suggested that in this enclosed region the abducent nerve may be particularly vulnerable to compression due to the vascular edema accompanying the infection. Although his work was widely appreciated, it was not well received by all. Interestingly, Giuseppe Gradenigo, one of the most prominent Italian otologists of the early 20th century, who was known for his work on a triad of symptoms (Gradenigo’s syndrome) that accompanies petrous apicitis, a result of severe middle ear infections, was obstinate in his criticism of Dorello’s findings. Thus a scientific duel began, with a series of correspondence between these two academics—one who was relatively new to the otological community (Dorello) and one who was well reputed in that community (Gradenigo). The disagreement ultimately ebbed in 1909, when Dorello published a report in response to Gradenigo’s criticisms and convinced Gradenigo to change his views. Today Dorello’s canal is widely recognized as a key landmark in skull base surgery of the petroclival region and holds clinical significance due to its relation to the abducent nerve and surrounding vascular structures. Yet, although academics such as Dorello and Gradenigo are recognized for their work on the canal, it is important not to forget the others throughout history who have contributed to the modern-day understanding of this anatomical structure. In fact, although the level of anatomical detail found in Dorello’s work was previously unmatched, the first description of the canal was made by the experienced Austrian anatomist Wenzel Leopold Gruber in 1859, almost 50 years prior to Dorello’s landmark publication. Another critical figure in building the understanding of Dorello’s canal was Harris Holmes Vail, a young otolaryngologist from Harvard Medical School, who in 1922 became the first person to describe Dorello’s canal in the English language. Vail conducted his own detailed anatomical studies on cadavers, and his publication not only reaffirmed Dorello’s findings but also immortalized the eponym used today—“Dorello’s canal.” In this article the authors review the life and contributions of Gruber, Dorello, Gradenigo, and Vail, four men who played a critical role in the discovery of Dorello’s canal and paved the way toward the current understanding of the canal as a key clinical and surgical entity.

TEODOR NARBUTT’S SCIENTIFIC CORRESPONDENCE AS TESTIMONY TO THE ‘ACADEMIC’ NATURE OF DZIEJE NARODU LITEWSKIEGO S u m m a r y The critique of Dzieje narodu litewskiego (The History of the Lithuanian Nation 1–9, Vilnius, 1835–1841, [DNL]) had always made Teodor vel Teodor Mateusz Narbutt (vel O styk-Narbutt,1784–1864) argue that he was not a layman nor a wilful forger. His own approach to defending himself against the attack was unique: he prepared a second edition of DNL and the so-called New Mythology – Mytologija Litewska ze sczegółami do wiary, obyczajów i oświaty przedchrześciańskiej Narodu litewskiego odnoszącemi się (Lithuanian Mythology with Details about the Belief, Customs, and pre-Christianity Education of the Lithuanian Enlightenment, 1848), intended to publish the collection of sources of Lithuanian history kept at his manor in Szawry (Lith. Šiauriai; Grodno Governorate, as of 1843 Vilnius Governorate, Lida Region), and finally, as proof of his honest work, pieced together his scientific correspondence – the letters from scholars, old collectors, and other citizens that cared for Lithuania’s past. Today, this collection that Narbutt made himself – Korrespondencya Uczona (Scientific Correspondence [KU]) is kept at the Manuscript Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Science (LMAVB : f. 18 [Manuscript collection B4], b. 185/2–185/16, 25r–791v). Narbutt’s peculiar method of defence bore an ad te ipsum character; however yet, due to historic circumstances (the sequestration of the Szawry manor, the seizure of the library and its transfer to the public library of Vilnius), originally designed as a tool of self-reflection, the collection became accessible to the public. And researchers dug into letters addressed to Narbutt with much gusto indeed. Nonetheless, the real attention grabbers were the celebrity names in this collection. Hence, just like the printed work of this historian, his handwritten legacy (in this case, correspondence), too, would often merit a fragmented read, which was largely due to its tremendous volume. For instance, DNL has 5,220 pages, KU 766 archival pages – a total of 1,532 pages recto and verso. In other words, letters to Narbutt were never approached in corpore, as an intentionally built collection with an incredibly bright idea and purpose. The idea that the appearance of this epistolary compendium had been inspired by autograph-hunting, a hot trend at thetime, should be disregarded straight away, because not every one of Narbutt’s correspondents was a celebrity. With a few exceptions, their overarching trait was intellectual work and love of Lithuanian antiques. The goal of the article was to approach the collection of letters to Narbutt as a whole, as a means of self-reflection a unique weapon of defence. Narbutt’s epistolary collection had never been dissected from any of these angles. The research has showed that today, KU consists of 386 letters. It is correspondence in Polish, German, Russian, and French (in the order of appearance) written in 1808–1858 (4 letters are not dated). Of the authors of the letters, 68 are men, 3 are women. The social picture of KU is very colourful: from gymnasium students to civil governors, from clergy to members of governorate statistical committees. Still, most of Narbutt’s correspondents were historians, archivists, and litterateurs. Some of the authors were litterateurs just as they were landlords; historians, as they were government officials; clergymen, as they were collectors. This motley crew had one thing in common: they all had read DNL. Cataclysmic political developments have prevented us from having KU in its final form. Not all the letters Narbutt himself had included in his collection have survived to this day. However, regardless of how incomplete KU today is, it features the names of nearly every scholar of Lithuania’s history or lover of Lithuanian antiques of the period nonetheless. The underlying theme of KU is Lithuania’s history, search for and dissemination of historic sources. The letters wax lyrical about DNL, while criticism is very subdued, if any. The collection reveals Narbutt as a prominent authority figure, a person that had rocked both the scientific world of the history of Lithuania and the public in general. KU had a high psychological value for Narbutt as well. DNL’s critique in the press was a source of daily stress, and the letters from Narbutt’s correspondents pointed to quite the opposite – approval of his research and DNL’s dissemination amidst the society. That was probably the reason why Narbutt fostered this collection so much. His ongoing concern was evident in his handmade folders for the letters, and even more so in his own notes. The books in his library were the only other thing that he would approach in a similar manner. 20th century historians have come to consider KU as a weighty piece of evidence of Narbutt as an honest researcher. However, what matters so much more is not the case of the so-called case of historic (non-)falsification, but the perception of KU as a whole. Most of the letters were written after the closure of the Imperial University of Vilnius. There was no official Vilnius school of history any more, but the historic thought had survived. It would present itself through search for and dissemination of sources of Lithuanian history, through historic tracts and reviews (anonymous as often as not). It would become evident on yet another level: in letters, hence private media that served as a forum for curious scientific seminars and epistolary dialogue on the subject of the history of Lithuania. It was through no accident that, instead of opting for just Correspondence, Narbutt titled his collection Scientific Correspondence. It stands to represent Szawry in its own peculiar way as well. The provincial manor became an intellectual centre – something that would have been impossible but for DNL, with all the mistakes that were (not) made in the tract.

NOTICIAS / NEWS (“Transfer”, 2015) 1) CONGRESOS / CONFERENCES: 1. First Forlì International Workshop – Corpus-based Interpreting Studies: The State of the Art University of Bologna at Forlì, 7-8 May 2015. http://eventi.sslmit.unibo.it/cis1/<file:///owa/redir.aspx 2. 5th IATIS Conference – Innovation Paths in Translation and Intercultural Studies, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 7-10 July 2015. www.iatis.org/index.php/iatis-belo-horizonte-conference/itemlist/category/168-call-for-communication-proposals-within-the-general-conference 3. POETRY/TRANSLATION/FILM – POÉSIE/TRADUCTION/FILM PoeTransFi, Paul Valéry University, Montpellier, France, 18-19 June 2015. http://pays-anglophones.upv.univ-montp3.fr/?page_id=1795 4. 6th International Maastricht-Lodz Duo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning”, Maastricht School of Translation & Interpre-ting, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Maastricht, Netherlands 21-22 May 2015. www.translation-and-meaning.nl 5. MiddleWOmen. Networking and cultural mediation with and between women (1850-1950). Centre for Reception Studies (CERES), HERA Travelling TexTs project and Huygens ING KU Leuven campus Brussels 7-8 May 2015. www.receptionstudies.be 6. 5th International Symposium: Respeaking, Live Subtitling and Accessibility, Università degli Studi Internazionali di Roma, Italy, 12 June 2015. www.unint.eu/it/component/content/article/8-pagina/494-respeaking-live-subtitling-and-accessibility.html 7. Conference on Law, Translation and Culture (LTC5) and Legal and Institutional Translation Seminar, University of Geneva, Switzerland 24-26 June 2015. www.unige.ch/traduction-interpretation/recherches/groupes/transius/conference2015_en.html 8. 6th International Conference Media for All – Audiovisual Translation and Media Accessibility: Global Challenges, University of Western Sydney, Australia, 16-18 September 2015. http://uws.edu.au/mediaforall 9. Translation in Exile, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 10-11 December 2015. www.cliv.be 10. Literary Translation as Creation, Université d’Avignon et des Pays de Vaucluse, 20-21 May 2015. laurence.belingard@univ-avignon.fr marie-francoise.sanconie@univ-avignon.fr 11. 4th International Conference on Language, Medias and Culture (ICLMC 2015) 9-10 April 2015. Kyoto, Japan, www.iclmc.org 12. 9th International Colloquium on Translation Studies in Portugal – Translation & Revolution, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisbon, 22-23 October 2015. ix.translation.revolution@gmail.com 13. Translation as Collaboration: Translaboration?, University of Westminster, London, 18 June 2015 Contact: Alexa Alfer (A.Alfer01@westminster.ac.uk), Steven Cranfield (S.Cranfield@westminster.ac.uk), Paresh Kathrani (P.Kathrani@westminster.ac.uk) 14. Translation/Interpreting Teaching and the Bologna Process: Pathways between Unity and Diversity, FTSK Germersheim, Germany 27–29 November 2015. www.fb06.uni-mainz.de/did2015/index_ENG.php 15. Atlantic Communities: Translation, Mobility, Hospitality, University of Vigo, Spain, 17-18 September 2015. http://translating.hypotheses.org/551 16. Exploring the Literary World III: Transgression and Translation in Literature Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand 23-24 April 2015. www.arts.chula.ac.th/~complit/complite/?q=conference 17. Authenticity and Imitation in Translation and Culture, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland, 7 – 9 May 2015. www.swps.pl/english-version/news/conferences/12164-authenticity-and-imitation-in-translation-and-culture 18. Translation in Transition, Barnard College, New York City, USA 1-2 May 2015. barnard.edu/translation/translation-in-transition 19. First Forlì International Workshop – Corpus-based Interpreting Studies: The state of the art, University of Bologna at Forlì, Italy, 7-8 May 2015. http://eventi.sslmit.unibo.it/cis1 20. Translation and Meaning. The Lodz Session of the 6th International Maastricht-Lodz Duo Colloquium, University of Lodz, Poland, 18-19 September 2015. http://duo.uni.lodz.pl 21. TAO-CAT-2015, Université Catholique de l’Ouest, Angers, France 28-30 May 2015. www.tao2015.org/home-new 22. English Language and Literary Studies (ELLS 2015), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 3-4 August 2015. http://ells2015.com 23. Talking to the World 2: The Relevance of Translation and Interpreting – Past, Present and Future, Newcastle University, UK, 10-11 September 2015. www.ncl.ac.uk/sml/study/postgraduate/T&I/2015conference/main.htm 24. 6th International Symposium for Young Researchers in Translation, Interpreting, Intercultural Studies and East Asian Studies Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain, 3 July 2015. www.fti.uab.es/departament/simposi-2015/en/index.htm 25. Portsmouth Translation Conference: Border Crossing or Border Creation?, University of Portsmouth, UK, 14 November 2015. www.port.ac.uk/translation/events/conference 26. New Perspectives in Assessment in Translation Training: Bridging the Gap between Academic and Professional Assessment, University of Westminster, London, UK, 4 September 2015. www.westminster.ac.uk/news-and-events/events/humanities/archive/2014/mlc/new-perspectives-in-assessment-in-translation-training-bridging-the-gap-between-academic-and-professional-assessment 27. III Congreso Internacional de Neología en las Lenguas Románicas University of Salamanca, 22-24 October 2015. http://diarium.usal.es/cineo2015 28. Some Holmes and Popovič in all of us? The Low Countries and the Nitra Schools in the 21st century, Constantine the Philosopher University, Nitra, Slovakia, 8-10 October 2015. Contact: igor.tyss@gmail.com 29. The Cultural Politics of Translation, Cairo, Egypt, 27-29 October 2015. https://culturalpoliticstranslation2015.wordpress.com 30. Journée d’étude « le(s) figure(s) du traducteur », Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada, 30 April 2015. http://mrujs.mtroyal.ca/index.php/cf/index 31. Mediterranean Editors and Translators Annual Meeting —Versatility and readiness for new challenges, University of Coimbra, Portugal, 29-31 October 2015. www.metmeetings.org/en/preliminary-program:722 32. Lengua, Literatura y Traducción “liLETRAd”, University of Seville, Spain, 7-8 July 2015. http://congreso.us.es/liletrad. 33. Meta: Translators' Journal is celebrating its 60th anniversary in 2015! For the occasion, an anniversary colloquium will be held on August 19th to 21st, 2015 at the Université de Montréal (Montréal, Canada). Colloquium for the 60th Anniversary of META – 1955-2015: Les horizons de la traduction: retour vers le futur. Translation’s horizons: back to the future. Los horizontes de la traducción: regreso al futuro, August 19-21, 2015 – Université de Montréal. Please send your proposal to this address: meta60e@gmail.com, to the attention of Georges L. Bastin or Eve-Marie Gendron-Pontbrian 2) CURSOS DE POSGRADO / MASTERS: 1. Legal Translation, Master universitario di II livello in Traduzione Giuridica University of Trieste, Italy. http://apps.units.it/Sitedirectory/InformazioniSpecificheCdS/Default.aspx?cdsid=10374&ordinamento=2012&sede=1&int=web&lingua=15 2. Traducción Especializada, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Spain. http://estudios.uoc.edu/es/masters-posgrados-especializaciones/master/artes-humanidades/traduccion-especializada/presentacion 3. Online course: La Traducción Audiovisual y el Aprendizaje de Lenguas Extranjeras, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, 1st December 2014 to 31st May 2015. http://formacionpermanente.uned.es/tp_actividad/idactividad/7385 https://canal.uned.es/mmobj/index/id/21174 Contact: Noa Talaván (ntalavan@flog.uned.es), José Javier Ávila (javila@flog.uned.es) 4. Online course: Audio Description and Its Use in the Foreign Language Classroom, UNED, Madrid, Spain http://formacionpermanente.uned.es/tp_actividad/idactividad/7492 5. Online course: Curso de Formación de Profesorado, La Traducción Audiovisual y el Aprendizaje de Lenguas Extranjeras UNED, Madrid, Spain. http://formacionpermanente.uned.es/tp_actividad/idactividad/7385 6. EST Training Seminar for Translation Teachers, Kraków, Poland 29 June – 3 July 2015. www.est-translationstudies.org/events/2015_seminar_teachers/index.html 7. Train the Trainer -Teaching MT: EAMT-funded Workshop, Dublin City University, 30 April- 1 May 2015. https://cttsdcu.wordpress.com/eamt-workshop-on-teaching-mt-to-translator-trainers-30-april-1-may 3) CURSOS DE VERANO / SUMMER COURSES: 1. 2015 Nida School of Translation Studies, Leading Edges in Translation: World Literature and Performativity, San Pellegrino University Foundation campus, Misano Adriatico, Italy, 18-29 may 2015. http://nsts.fusp.it/Nida-Schools/NSTS-2015 2. EMUNI Translation Studies Doctoral and Teacher Training Summer School, University of Turku, Finland, 1-12 June 2015. www.utu.fi/en/units/hum/units/languages/EASS/Pages/home.aspx 3. Chinese-English Translation and Interpretation, School of Translation and Interpretation, University of Ottawa, Canada, 13th July – 7th August 7 2015. http://arts.uottawa.ca/translation/summer-programs 4. Summer Program in Translation Pedagogy, University of Ottawa 13 July – 7 August 2015. http://arts.uottawa.ca/translation/summer-programs 4) LIBROS / BOOKS: 1. Audio Description: New Perspectives Illustrated, Edited by Anna Maszerowska, Anna Matamala and Pilar Orero, John Benjamins, 2014. https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/btl.112/main 2. Call for papers: Translation Studies in Africa and beyond: Reconsidering the Postcolony, Editors: J Marais & AE Feinauer Contacts: Kobus Marais (jmarais@ufs.ac.za) or Ilse Feinauer (aef@sun.ac.za). 4. Measuring live subtitling quality: Results from the second sampling exercise, Ofcom, UK. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/subtitling/sampling-results-2 5. A Training Handbook for Legal and Court Interpreters in Australia by Mary Vasilakakos, ISBN 978-0-9925873-0-7, Publisher: Language Experts Pty Ltd. www.interpreterrevalidationtraining.com www.languageexperts.com.au 6. Call for papers: Opera and Translation: Eastern and Western Perspectives, Edited by Adriana Serban and Kelly Kar Yue Chan http://pays-anglophones.upv.univ-montp3.fr/?page_id=1908 7. The Known Unknowns of Translation Studies, Edited by Elke Brems, Reine Meylaerts and Luc van Doorslaer, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2014. https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/bct.69/main 8. Translating the Voices of Theory/ La traduction des voi de la théorie Edited by Isabelle Génin and Ida Klitgård, 2014. www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/groups/Voice-in-Translation/ 9. Authorial and Editorial Voices in Translation 1 - Collaborative Relationships between Authors, Translators, and Performers, Eds. Hanne Jansen and Anna Wegener, 2014. http://editionsquebecoisesdeloeuvre.ca/data/documents/AEVA-Flyer-1-190895-Vita-Traductiva-Vol-2-Flyer-EN-100413.pdf 10. Authorial and Editorial Voices in Translation 2 - Editorial and Publishing Practices, Eds. Hanne Jansen and Anna Wegener, 2014. www.editionsquebecoisesdeloeuvre.ca/accueil 11. Call for papers: Achieving Consilience. Translation Theories and Practice. https://cfpachievingconsilience.wordpress.com 12. Framing the Interpreter. Towards a visual perspective. Anxo Fernández-Ocampo & Michaela Wolf (eds.), 2014, London: Routledge. http://routledge-ny.com/books/details/9780415712743 13. Multilingual Information Management: Information, Technology and Translators, Ximo Granell, 2014. http://store.elsevier.com/Multilingual-Information-Management/Ximo-Granell-/isbn-9781843347712/ 14. Writing and Translating Francophone Discourse: Africa, The Caribbean, Diaspora, Paul F. Bandia (ed.), 2014, Amsterdam, Rodopi www.brill.com/products/book/writing-and-translating-francophone-discourse 15. Call for papers (collective volumen): Translation studies in Africa and beyond: Reconsidering the postcolony www.facebook.com/notes/mona-baker/translation-studies-in-africa-and-beyond-reconsidering-the-postcolony/743564399051495 16. Audiovisual Translation in the Digital Age - The Italian Fansubbing Phenomenon, By Serenella Massidda, Palgrave Connect, 2015. www.palgrave.com/page/detail/audiovisual-translation-in-the-digital-age-serenella-massidda/?k=9781137470362 17. Video: First International SOS-VICS Conference - Building communication bridges in gender violence, University of Vigo, Spain 25-26 September 2014. http://cuautla.uvigo.es/CONSOS/ 18. Camps, Assumpta. Traducción y recepción de la literatura italiana, Publicacions i Edicions UB, 2014. ISBN: 978-84-475-3776-1. 19. Camps, Assumpta. Italia en la prensa periódica durante el franquismo, Publicacions i Edicions UB, 2014. ISBN: 978-84-475-3753-2. 5) REVISTAS / JOURNALS: Call for papers: “Altre Modernità – Rivista di studi letterarie e culturali” Special Issue: Ideological Manipulation in Audiovisual Translation, Contact: irene.ranzato@uniroma.it. http://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/AMonline/announcement/view/381 2. Call for papers: “Between, Journal of the Italian Association of Comparative Literature”. Special issue on censorship and self-censorship. http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between/pages/view/CFP9_censura_auto-censura 3. Open access journal, “Hieronymus, A Journal of Translation Studies and Terminology”, Croatia. www.ffzg.unizg.hr/hieronymus 4. “DIE SCHNAKE. Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik, Satire, Literatur”, Number 39+40, Kleines ABC des Literaturübersetzens. www.rainer-kohlmayer.de 5. Call for papers: “MonTI” 8 (2016) - Economic, Financial and Business Translation: from Theory to Training and Professional Practice. http://dti.ua.es/es/monti-english/monti-authors.html daniel.gallego@ua.es 6. Call for papers: “LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA”, NEW SERIES -Themes in Translation Studies (15/2016). Interpreting in Conflict Situations and in Conflict Zones throughout History. https://lans.ua.ac.be/index.php/LANS-TTS/announcement 7. Call for papers: “CULTUS: The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication” (8/2016). The Intercultural Question and the Interpreting Professions. www.cultusjournal.com 8. Call for papers: “The Journal of Specialised Translation” Non-thematic issue, Issue 26, July 2016. www.jostrans.org 9. “TranscUlturAl: A journal of Translation and Culture Studies”, Special issue Translating Street Art. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/TC/issue/view/1634 10. “Przekładaniec 28: Audiodeskrypcja [Audio Description]”, edited by Anna Jankowska and Agnieszka Szarkowska. All papers are published in Polish, with English abstracts. www.ejournals.eu/Przekladaniec/zakladka/66/ 11. Call for papers: “Lingvisticæ Investigationes”, Special issue on Spanish Phraseology: Varieties and Variations. http://dti.ua.es/es/documentos/li-call-for-papers-spanish-phraseology-varieties-and-variations.pdf Further details: Pedro.mogorron@ua.es; xblancoe@gmail.com 13. Call for papers: “Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos”, Special issue on The Translation of Advertising. Contact: Laura Cruz (lcruz@dis.ulpgc.es). Deadline: 20th July 2015. www.webs.ulpgc.es/lfe 14. “The AALITRA Review”. www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/ALLITRA 15. “Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E” www.cttl.org/cttl-e-2014.html 16. Call for papers: “Current Trends in Translation Teaching and Learning E”. www.cttl.org 18. Call for papers: “Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts”, Volume 1, Number 2, 2015 Deadline: 10-Jan-2015. https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/ttmc/main 19. Call for book reviews: “TRANS. Revista de Traductología,” vol.19, 2015. Deadline: Friday, 30th January 2015. www.trans.uma.es trans@uma.es 20. Call for papers: “a journal of literature, culture and literary Translation”. Special volume – Utopia and Political Theology Today Deadline: 15th January 2015. Contact: sic.journal.contact@gmail.com https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01 21. “trans-kom”. www.trans-kom.eu 22. “Linguistica Antverpiensia” NS-TTS 13/2014: Multilingualism at the cinema and on stage: A translation perspective, Edited by Reine Meylaerts and Adriana Şerban. https://lans-tts.uantwerpen.be/index.php/LANS-TTS/issue/current 23. Call for papers: 5th issue (2015) of “Estudios de Traducción”, Deadline: 20 February 2015. www.ucm.es/iulmyt/revista 24. Call for papers: “Journal of Translation Studies” - special issue on Translator & Interpreter Education in East Asia. KATS (Korean Association of Translation Studies), www.kats.or.kr (Go to 'English' page). Contact: Won Jun Nam (wonjun_nam@daum.net, wjnam@hufs.ac.kr). 25. “The Journal of Specialised Translation”, 23, January 2015. www.jostrans.org 26. Call for papers: “TranscUlturAl: A Journal of Translation and Cultural Studies”. Deadline: 15 March 2015. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/TC/announcement 27. “New Voices in Translation Studies”, Issue 11 (Fall 2014). www.iatis.org/index.php/publications/new-voices-in-translation-studies/item/1034-issue11-2014 28. “The Interpreter and Translator Trainer”, 8:3 (2014). Special issue: Dialogue Interpreting in practice: bridging the gap between empirical research and interpreter education E. Davitti and S. Pasquandrea (eds.) www.tandfonline.com/toc/ritt20/current#.VLQHuyvF-So 6) WEBS DE INTERÉS / WEBSITES OF INTEREST: 1. Support Spanish interpreters to secure the right to translation and interpreting in criminal proceedings: www.change.org/p/pablo-casado-retiren-el-proyecto-de-ley-org%C3%A1nica-que-modifica-la-lecrim

As a scholarly discourse, transmedia storytelling relies heavily on conservative constructions of authorship that laud corporate architects and patriarchs such as George Lucas and J.J. Abrams as exemplars of “the creator.” This piece argues that transmedia theory works to construct patriarchal ideals of individual authorship to the detriment of alternative conceptions of transmediality, storyworlds, and authorship. The genesis for this piece was our struggle to find a transmedia storyworld that we were both familiar with, that also qualifies as “legitimate” transmedia in the eyes of our prospective scholarly readers. After trying to wrangle our various interests, fandoms, and areas of expertise into harmony, we realized we were exerting more effort in this process of validating stories as transmedia than actually examining how stories spread across various platforms, how they make meanings, and what kinds of pleasures they offer audiences. Authorship is a definitive criterion of transmedia storytelling theory; it is also an academic red herring. We were initially interested in investigating the possible overdeterminations between the healthcare industry and Breaking Bad (2008-2013). The series revolves around a high school chemistry teacher who launches a successful meth empire as a way to pay for his cancer treatments that a dysfunctional US healthcare industry refuses to fund. We wondered if the success of the series and the timely debates on healthcare raised in its reception prompted any PR response from or discussion among US health insurers. However, our concern was that this dynamic among medical and media industries would not qualify as transmedia because these exchanges were not authored by Vince Gilligan or any of the credited creators of Breaking Bad. Yet, why shouldn’t such interfaces between the “real world” and media fiction count as part of the transmedia story that is Breaking Bad? Most stories are, in some shape or form, transmedia stories at this stage, and transmedia theory acknowledges there is a long history to this kind of practice (Freeman). Let’s dispense with restrictive definitions of transmediality and turn attention to how storytelling behaves in a digital era, that is, the processes of creating, disseminating and amending stories across many different media, the meanings and forms such media and communications produce, and the pleasures they offer audiences.Can we think about how health insurance companies responded to Breaking Bad in terms of transmedia storytelling? Defining Transmedia Storytelling via AuthorshipThe scholarly concern with defining transmedia storytelling via a strong focus on authorship has traced slight distinctions between seriality, franchising, adaptation and transmedia storytelling (Jenkins, “Transmedia Storytelling;” Johnson, “Media Franchising”). However, the theoretical discourse on authorship itself and these discussions of the tensions between forms are underwritten by a gendered bias. Indeed, the very concept of transmediality may be a gendered backlash against the rising prominence of seriality as a historically feminised mode of storytelling, associated with television and serial novels.Even with the move towards traditionally lowbrow, feminized forms of trans-serial narrative, the majority of academic and popular criticism of transmedia storytelling reproduces and reinstates narratives of male-centred, individual authorship that are historically descended from theorizations of the auteur. Auteur theory, which is still considered a legitimate analytical framework today, emerged in postwar theorizations of Hollywood film by French critics, most prominently in the journal Cahiers du Cinema, and at the nascence of film theory as a field (Cook). Auteur theory surfaced as a way to conceptualise aesthetic variation and value within the Fordist model of the Hollywood studio system (Cook). Directors were identified as the ultimate author or “creative source” if a film sufficiently fitted a paradigm of consistent “vision” across their oeuvre, and they were thus seen as artists challenging the commercialism of the studio system (Cook). In this way, classical auteur theory draws a dichotomy between art and authorship on one side and commerce and corporations on the other, strongly valorising the former for its existence within an industrial context dominated by the latter. In recent decades, auteurist notions have spread from film scholarship to pervade popular discourses of media authorship. Even though transmedia production inherently disrupts notions of authorship by diffusing the act of creation over many different media platforms and texts, much of the scholarship disproportionately chooses to vex over authorship in a manner reminiscent of classical auteur theory.In scholarly terms, a chief distinction between serial storytelling and transmedia storytelling lies in how authorship is constructed in relation to the text: serial storytelling has long been understood as relying on distributed authorship (Hilmes), but transmedia storytelling reveres the individual mastermind, or the master architect who plans and disseminates the storyworld across platforms. Henry Jenkins’ definition of transmedia storytelling is multifaceted and includes, “the systematic dispersal of multiple textual elements across many channels, which reflects the synergies of media conglomeration, based on complex story-worlds, and coordinated authorial design of integrated elements” (Jenkins, “Transmedia Storytelling”). Jenkins is perhaps the most pivotal figure in developing transmedia studies in the humanities to date and a key reference point for most scholars working in this subfield.A key limitation of Jenkins’ definition of transmedia storytelling is its emphasis on authorship, which persists in wider scholarship on transmedia storytelling. Jenkins focuses on the nature of authorship as a key characteristic of transmedia productions that distinguishes them from other kinds of intertextual and serial stories:Because transmedia storytelling requires a high degree of coordination across the different media sectors, it has so far worked best either in independent projects where the same artist shapes the story across all of the media involved or in projects where strong collaboration (or co-creation) is encouraged across the different divisions of the same company. (Jenkins, “Transmedia Storytelling”)Since the texts under discussion are commonly large in their scale, budget, and the number of people employed, it is reductive to credit particular individuals for this work and implicitly dismiss the authorial contributions of many others. Elaborating on the foundation set by Jenkins, Matthew Freeman uses Foucauldian concepts to describe two “author-functions” focused on the role of an author in defining the transmedia text itself and in marketing it (Freeman 36-38). Scott, Evans, Hills, and Hadas similarly view authorial branding as a symbolic industrial strategy significant to transmedia storytelling. Interestingly, M.J. Clarke identifies the ways transmedia television texts invite audiences to imagine a central mastermind, but also thwart and defer this impulse. Ultimately, Freeman argues that identifiable and consistent authorship is a defining characteristic of transmedia storytelling (Freeman 37), and Suzanne Scott argues that transmedia storytelling has “intensified the author’s function” from previous eras (47).Industry definitions of transmediality similarly position authorship as central to transmedia storytelling, and Jenkins’ definition has also been widely mobilised in industry discussions (Jenkins, “Transmedia” 202). This is unsurprising, because defining authorial roles has significant monetary value in terms of remuneration and copyright. In speaking to the Producers Guild of America, Jeff Gomez enumerated eight defining characteristics of transmedia production, the very first of which is, “Content is originated by one or a very few visionaries” (PGA Blog). Gomez’s talk was part of an industry-driven bid to have “Transmedia Producer” recognised by the trade associations as a legitimate and significant role; Gomez was successful and is now recognised as a transmedia producer. Nevertheless, his talk of “visionaries” not only situates authorship as central to transmedia production, but constructs authorship in very conservative, almost hagiographical terms. Indeed, Leora Hadas analyses the function of Joss Whedon’s authorship of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D (2013-) as a branding mechanism and argues that authors are becoming increasingly visible brands associated with transmedia stories.Such a discourse of authorship constructs individual figures as artists and masterminds, in an idealised manner that has been strongly critiqued in the wake of poststructuralism. It even recalls tired scholarly endeavours of divining authorial intention. Unsurprisingly, the figures valorised for their transmedia authorship are predominantly men; the scholarly emphasis on authorship thus reinforces the biases of media industries. Further, it idolises these figures at the expense of unacknowledged and under-celebrated female writers, directors and producers, as well as those creative workers labouring “below the line” in areas like production design, art direction, and special effects. Far from critiquing the biases of industry, academic discourse legitimises and lauds them.We hope that scholarship on transmedia storytelling might instead work to open up discourses of creation, production, authorship, and collaboration. For a story to qualify as transmedia is it even necessary to have an identifiable author? Transmedia texts and storyworlds can be genuinely collaborative or authorless creations, in which the harmony of various creators’ intentions may be unnecessary or even undesirable. Further, industry and academics alike often overlook examples of transmedia storytelling that might be considered “lowbrow.” For example, transmedia definitions should include Antonella the Uncensored Reviewer, a relatively small-scale, forty-something, plus size, YouTube channel producer whose persona is dispersed across multiple formats including beauty product reviews, letter writing, as well as interactive sex advice live casts. What happens when we blur the categories of author, celebrity, brand, and narrative in scholarship? We argue that these roles are substantially blurred in media industries in which authors like J.J. Abrams share the limelight with their stars as well as their corporate affiliations, and all “brands” are sutured to the storyworld text. These various actors all shape and are shaped by the narrative worlds they produce in an author-storyworld nexus, in which authorship includes all people working to produce the storyworld as well as the corporation funding it. Authorship never exists inside the limits of a single, male mind. Rather it is a field of relations among various players and stakeholders. While there is value in delineating between these roles for purposes of analysis and scholarly discussion, we should acknowledge that in the media industry, the roles of various stakeholders are increasingly porous.The current academic discourse of transmedia storytelling reconstructs old social biases and hierarchies in contexts where they might be most vulnerable to breakdown. Scott argues that,despite their potential to demystify and democratize authorship between producers and consumers, transmedia stories tend to reinforce boundaries between ‘official’ and ‘unauthorized’ forms of narrative expansion through the construction of a single author/textual authority figure. (44)Significantly, we suggest that it is the theorisation of transmedia storytelling that reinforces (or in fact constructs anew) an idealised author figure.The gendered dimension of the scholarly distinction between serialised (or trans-serial) and transmedial storytelling builds on a long history in the arts and the academy alike. In fact, an important precursor of transmedia narratives is the serialized novel of the Victorian era. The literature of Charlotte Brontë, George Eliot and Harriet Beecher Stowe was published in serial form and among the most widely read of the Victorian era in Western culture (Easley; Flint 21; Hilmes). Yet, these novels are rarely given proportional credit in what is popularly taught as the Western literary canon. The serial storytelling endemic to television as a medium has similarly been historically dismissed and marginalized as lowbrow and feminine (at least until the recent emergence of notions of the industrial role of the “showrunner” and the critical concept of “quality television”). Joanne Morreale outlines how trans-serial television examples, like The Dick Van Dyke Show, which spread their storyworlds across a number of different television programs, offer important precursors to today’s transmedia franchises (Morreale). In television’s nascent years, the anthology plays of the 1940s and 50s, which were discrete, unconnected hour-length stories, were heralded as cutting-edge, artistic and highbrow while serial narrative forms like the soap opera were denigrated (Boddy 80-92). Crucially, these anthology plays were largely created by and aimed at males, whereas soap operas were often created by and targeted to female audiences. The gendered terms in which various genres and modes of storytelling are discussed have implications for the value assigned to them in criticism, scholarship and culture more broadly (Hilmes; Kuhn; Johnson, “Devaluing”). Transmedia theory, as a scholarly discourse, betrays similarly gendered leanings as early television criticism, in valorising forms of transmedia narration that favour a single, male-bodied, and all-powerful author or corporation, such as George Lucas, Jim Henson or Marvel Comics.George Lucas is often depicted in scholarly and popular discourses as a headstrong transmedia auteur, as in the South Park episode ‘The China Problem’ (2008)A Circle of Men: Fans, Creators, Stories and TheoristsInterestingly, scholarly discourse on transmedia even betrays these gendered biases when exploring the engagement and activity of audiences in relation to transmedia texts. Despite the definitional emphasis on authorship, fan cultures have been a substantial topic of investigation in scholarly studies of transmedia storytelling, with many scholars elevating fans to the status of author, exploring the apparent blurring of these boundaries, and recasting the terms of these relationships (Scott; Dena; Pearson; Stein). Most notably, substantial scholarly attention has traced how transmedia texts cultivate a masculinized, “nerdy” fan culture that identifies with the male-bodied, all-powerful author or corporation (Brooker, Star Wars, Using; Jenkins, Convergence). Whether idealising the role of the creators or audiences, transmedia theory reinforces gendered hierarchies. Star Wars (1977-) is a pivotal corporate transmedia franchise that significantly shaped the convergent trajectory of media industries in the 20th century. As such it is also an anchor point for transmedia scholarship, much of which lauds and legitimates the creative work of fans. However, in focusing so heavily on the macho power struggle between George Lucas and Star Wars fans for authorial control over the storyworld, scholarship unwittingly reinstates Lucas’s status as sole creator rather than treating Star Wars’ authorship as inherently diffuse and porous.Recent fan activity surrounding animated adult science-fiction sitcom Rick and Morty (2013-) further demonstrates the macho culture of transmedia fandom in practice and its fascination with male authors. The animated series follows the intergalactic misadventures of a scientific genius and his grandson. Inspired by a seemingly inconsequential joke on the show, some of its fans began to fetishize a particular, limited-edition fast food sauce. When McDonalds, the actual owner of that sauce, cashed in by promoting the return of its Szechuan Sauce, a macho culture within the show’s fandom reached its zenith in the forms of hostile behaviour at McDonalds restaurants and online (Alexander and Kuchera). Rick and Morty fandom also built a misogynist reputation for its angry responses to the show’s efforts to hire a writer’s room that gave equal representation to women. Rick and Morty trolls doggedly harassed a few of the show’s female writers through 2017 and went so far as to post their private information online (Barsanti). Such gender politics of fan cultures have been the subject of much scholarly attention (Johnson, “Fan-tagonism”), not least in the many conversations hosted on Jenkins’ blog. Gendered performances and readings of fan activity are instrumental in defining and legitimating some texts as transmedia and some creators as masterminds, not only within fandoms but also in the scholarly discourse.When McDonalds promoted the return of their Szechuan Sauce, in response to its mention in the story world of animated sci-fi sitcom Rick and Morty, they contributed to transmedia storytelling.Both Rick and Morty and Star Wars are examples of how masculinist fan cultures, stubborn allegiances to male authorship, and definitions of transmedia converge both in academia and popular culture. While Rick and Morty is, in reality, partly female-authored, much of its media image is still anchored to its two male “creators,” Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon. Particularly in the context of #MeToo feminism, one wonders how much female authorship has been elided from existing storyworlds and, furthermore, what alternative examples of transmedia narration are exempt from current definitions of transmediality.The individual creator is a social construction of scholarship and popular discourse. This imaginary creator bears little relation to the conditions of creation and production of transmedia storyworlds, which are almost always team written and collectively authored. Further, the focus on writing itself elides the significant contributions of many creators such as those in production design (Bevan). Beyond that, what creative credit do focus groups deserve in shaping transmedia stories and their multi-layered, multi-platformed reaches? Is authorship, or even credit, really the concept we, as scholars, want to invest in when studying these forms of narration and mediation?At more symbolic levels, the seemingly exhaustless popular and scholarly appetite for male-bodied authorship persists within storyworlds themselves. The transmedia examples popularly and academically heralded as “seminal” centre on patrimony, patrilineage, and inheritance (i.e. Star Wars [1977-] and The Lord of the Rings [1937-]). Of course, Harry Potter (2001-2009) is an outlier as the celebrification of J.K. Rowling provides a strong example of credited female authorship. However, this example plays out many of the same issues, albeit the franchise is attached to a woman, in that it precludes many of the other creative minds who have helped shape Harry Potter’s world. How many more billions of dollars need we invest in men writing about the mysteries of how other men spread their genetic material across fictional universes? Moreover, transmedia studies remains dominated by academic men geeking out about how fan men geek out about how male creators write about mostly male characters in stories about … men. There are other stories waiting to be told and studied through the practices and theories of transmedia. These stories might be gender-inclusive and collective in ways that challenge traditional notions of authorship, control, rights, origin, and property.Obsession with male authorship, control, rights, origin, paternity and property is recognisible in scholarship on transmedia storytelling, and also symbolically in many of the most heralded examples of transmedia storytelling, such as the Star Wars saga.Prompting Broader DiscussionThis piece urges the development of broader understandings of transmedia storytelling. A range of media scholarship has already begun this work. Jonathan Gray’s book on paratexts offers an important pathway for such scholarship by legitimating ancillary texts, like posters and trailers, that uniquely straddle promotional and feature content platforms (Gray). A wave of scholars productively explores transmedia storytelling with a focus on storyworlds (Scolari; Harvey), often through the lens of narratology (Ryan; Ryan and Thon). Scolari, Bertetti, and Freeman have drawn together a media archaeological approach and a focus on transmedia characters in an innovative way. We hope to see greater proliferation of focuses and perspectives for the study of transmedia storytelling, including investigations that connect fictional and non-fictional worlds and stories, and a more inclusive variety of life experiences.Conversely, new scholarship on media authorship provides fresh directions, models, methods, and concepts for examining the complexity and messiness of this topic. A growing body of scholarship on the functions of media branding is also productive for reconceptualising notions of authorship in transmedia storytelling (Bourdaa; Dehry Kurtz and Bourdaa). Most notably, A Companion to Media Authorship edited by Gray and Derek Johnson productively interrogates relationships between creative processes, collaborative practices, production cultures, industrial structures, legal frameworks, and theoretical approaches around media authorship. Its case studies begin the work of reimagining of the role of authorship in transmedia, and pave the way for further developments (Burnett; Gordon; Hilmes; Stein). In particular, Matt Hills’s case study of how “counter-authorship” was negotiated on Torchwood (2006-2011) opens up new ways of thinking about multiple authorship and the variety of experiences, contributions, credits, and relationships this encompasses. Johnson’s Media Franchising addresses authorship in a complex way through a focus on social interactions, without making it a defining feature of the form; it would be significant to see a similar scholarly treatment of transmedia. At the very least, scholarly attention might turn its focus away from the very patriarchal activity of discussing definitions among a coterie and, instead, study the process of spreadability of male-centred transmedia storyworlds (Jenkins, Ford, and Green). Given that transmedia is not historically unique to the digital age, scholars might instead study how spreadability changes with the emergence of digitality and convergence, rather than pontificating on definitions of adaptation versus transmedia and cinema versus media.We urge transmedia scholars to distance their work from the malignant gender politics endemic to the media industries and particularly global Hollywood. The confluence of gendered agendas in both academia and media industries works to reinforce patriarchal hierarchies. The humanities should offer independent analysis and critique of how media industries and products function, and should highlight opportunities for conceiving of, creating, and treating such media practices and texts in new ways. As such, it is problematic that discourses on transmedia commonly neglect the distinction between what defines transmediality and what constitutes good examples of transmedia. This blurs the boundaries between description and prescription, taxonomy and hierarchy, analysis and evaluation, and definition and taste. Such discourses blinker us to what we might consider to be transmedia, but also to what examples of “good” transmedia storytelling might look like.Transmedia theory focuses disproportionately on authorship. This restricts a comprehensive understanding of transmedia storytelling, limits the lenses we bring to it, obstructs the ways we evaluate transmedia stories, and impedes how we imagine the possibilities for both media and storytelling. Stories have always been transmedial. What changes with the inception of transmedia theory is that men can claim credit for the stories and for all the work that many people do across various sectors and industries. It is questionable whether authorship is important to transmedia, in which creation is most often collective, loosely planned (at best) and diffused across many people, skill sets, and sectors. While Jenkins’s work has been pivotal in the development of transmedia theory, this is a ripe moment for the diversification of theoretical paradigms for understanding stories in the digital era.ReferencesAlexander, Julia, and Ben Kuchera. “How a Rick and Morty Joke Led to a McDonald’s Szechuan Sauce Controversy.” Polygon 4 Apr. 2017. <https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/12/16464374/rick-and-morty-mcdonalds-szechuan-sauce>.Aristotle. Aristotle's Poetics. New York: Hill and Wang, 1961. Barsanti, Sami. “Dan Harmon Is Pissed at Rick and Morty Fans Harassing Female Writers.” The AV Club 21 Sep. 2017. <https://www.avclub.com/dan-harmon-is-pissed-at-rick-and-morty-fans-for-harassi-1818628816>.Bevan, Alex. “Nostalgia for Pre-Digital Media in Mad Men.” Television & New Media 14.6 (2013): 546-559.Boddy, William. Fifties Television: The Industry and Its Critics. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1993.Bourdaa, Mélanie. “This Is Not Marketing. This Is HBO: Branding HBO with Transmedia Storytelling.” Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network, 7.1 (2014). <http://www.ojs.meccsa.org.uk/index.php/netknow/article/view/328>.Brooker, Will. Star Wars. London: BFI Classics, 2009. ———. Using the Force: Creativity, Community and Star Wars Fans. New York: Bloomsbury, 2003.Burnett, Colin. “Hidden Hands at Work: Authorship, the Intentional Flux and the Dynamics of Collaboration.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, eds. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 112-133. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.Clark, M.J. Transmedia Television: New Trends in Network Serial Production. New York: Bloomsbury, 2012.Cook, Pam. “Authorship and Cinema.” In The Cinema Book, 2nd ed., ed. Pam Cook, 235-314. London: BFI, 1999.Dena, Christy. Transmedia Practice: Theorising the Practice of Expressing a Fictional World across Distinct Media and Environments. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney. 2009.Dehry Kurtz, B.W.L., and Mélanie Bourdaa (eds). The Rise of Transtexts: Challenges and Opportunities. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2016.Evans, Elizabeth. Transmedia Television: Audiences, New Media and Daily Life. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2011.Easley, Alexis. First Person Anonymous. New York: Routledge, 2016.Flint, Kate. “The Victorian Novel and Its Readers.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Victorian Novel, ed. Deirdre David, 13-35. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. Freeman, Matthew. Historicising Transmedia Storytelling: Early Twentieth Century Storyworlds. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2016.Gordon, Ian. “Comics, Creators and Copyright: On the Ownership of Serial Narratives by Multiple Authors.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, eds. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 221-236. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.Gray, Jonathan. Show Sold Separately: Promos, Spoilers and Other Media Texts. New York: New York UP, 2010.Gray, Jonathan, and Derek Johnson (eds.). A Companion to Media Authorship. Chichester: Wiley, 2013.Hadas, Leora. “Authorship and Authenticity in the Transmedia Brand: The Case of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network, 7.1 (2014). <http://www.ojs.meccsa.org.uk/index.php/netknow/article/view/332>.Harvey, Colin. Fantastic Transmedia: Narrative, Play and Memory across Fantasy Storyworlds. London: Palgrave, 2015.Hills, Matt. “From Chris Chibnall to Fox: Torchwood’s Marginalised Authors and Counter-Discourses of TV Authorship.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, eds. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 200-220. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.Hilmes, Michelle. “Never Ending Story: Authorship, Seriality and the Radio Writers Guild.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, eds. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 181-199. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.Jenkins, Henry. “Transmedia 202: Further Reflections.” Confessions of an Aca-Fan. 31 July 2011. <http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2011/08/defining_transmedia_further_re.html>.———. “Transmedia Storytelling 101.” Confessions of an Aca-Fan. 21 Mar. 2007. <http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html>.———. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006.———, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York UP, 2013.Johnson, Derek. Media Franchising: Creative License and Collaboration in the Culture Industries. New York: New York UP, 2013.———. “Fan-tagonism: Factions, Institutions, and Constitutive Hegemonies of Fandom.” In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, eds. Jonathan Gray, Cornell Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington, 285-300. New York: New York UP, 2007.———. “Devaluing and Revaluing Seriality: The Gendered Discourses of Media Franchising.” Media, Culture & Society, 33.7 (2011): 1077-1093. Kuhn, Annette. “Women’s Genres: Melodrama, Soap Opera and Theory.” In Feminist Television Criticism: A Reader, eds. Charlotte Brunsdon and Lynn Spigel, 225-234. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open UP, 2008.Morreale, Joanne. The Dick Van Dyke Show. Detroit, MI: Wayne State UP, 2015.Pearson, Roberta. “Fandom in the Digital Era.” Popular Communication, 8.1 (2010): 84-95. DOI: 10.1080/15405700903502346.Producers Guild of America, The. “Defining Characteristics of Trans-Media Production.” PGA NMC Blog. 2 Oct. 2007. <http://pganmc.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/pga-member-jeff-gomez-left-assembled.html>.Rodham Clinton, Hillary. What Happened. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017.Ryan, Marie-Laure. “Transmedial Storytelling and Transficitonality.” Poetics Today, 34.3 (2013): 361-388. DOI: 10.1215/03335372-2325250. ———, and Jan-Noȅl Thon (eds.). Storyworlds across Media: Toward a Media-Conscious Narratology. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 2014.Scolari, Carlos A. “Transmedia Storytelling: Implicit Consumers, Narrative Worlds, and Branding in Contemporary Media Production.” International Journal of Communication, 3 (2009): 586-606.———, Paolo Bertetti, and Matthew Freeman. Transmedia Archaeology: Storytelling in the Borderlines of Science Fiction. London: Palgrave, 2014.Scott, Suzanne. “Who’s Steering the Mothership?: The Role of the Fanboy Auteur in Transmedia Storytelling.” In The Participatory Cultures Handbook, edited by Aaron Delwiche and Jennifer Jacobs Henderson, 43-52. London: Routledge, 2013.Stein, Louisa Ellen. “#Bowdown to Your New God: Misha Collins and Decentered Authorship in the Digital Age.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, ed. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 403-425. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.

Biology teaches us that organisms adapt—or don’t; sociology claims that people adapt—or don’t. We know that ideas can adapt; sometimes even institutions can adapt. Or not. Various papers in this issue attest in exciting ways to precisely such adaptations and maladaptations. (See, for example, the articles in this issue by Lelia Green, Leesa Bonniface, and Tami McMahon, by Lexey A. Bartlett, and by Debra Ferreday.) Adaptation is a part of nature and culture, but it’s the latter alone that interests me here. (However, see the article by Hutcheon and Bortolotti for a discussion of nature and culture together.) It’s no news to anyone that not only adaptations, but all art is bred of other art, though sometimes artists seem to get carried away. My favourite example of excess of association or attribution can be found in the acknowledgements page to a verse drama called Beatrice Chancy by the self-defined “maximalist” (not minimalist) poet, novelist, librettist, and critic, George Elliot Clarke. His selected list of the incarnations of the story of Beatrice Cenci, a sixteenth-century Italian noblewoman put to death for the murder of her father, includes dramas, romances, chronicles, screenplays, parodies, sculptures, photographs, and operas: dramas by Vincenzo Pieracci (1816), Percy Bysshe Shelley (1819), Juliusz Slowacki (1843), Waldter Landor (1851), Antonin Artaud (1935) and Alberto Moravia (1958); the romances by Francesco Guerrazi (1854), Henri Pierangeli (1933), Philip Lindsay (1940), Frederic Prokosch (1955) and Susanne Kircher (1976); the chronicles by Stendhal (1839), Mary Shelley (1839), Alexandre Dumas, père (1939-40), Robert Browning (1864), Charles Swinburne (1883), Corrado Ricci (1923), Sir Lionel Cust (1929), Kurt Pfister (1946) and Irene Mitchell (1991); the film/screenplay by Bertrand Tavernier and Colo O’Hagan (1988); the parody by Kathy Acker (1993); the sculpture by Harriet Hosmer (1857); the photograph by Julia Ward Cameron (1866); and the operas by Guido Pannain (1942), Berthold Goldschmidt (1951, 1995) and Havergal Brian (1962). (Beatrice Chancy, 152) He concludes the list with: “These creators have dallied with Beatrice Cenci, but I have committed indiscretions” (152). An “intertextual feast”, by Clarke’s own admission, this rewriting of Beatrice’s story—especially Percy Bysshe Shelley’s own verse play, The Cenci—illustrates brilliantly what Northrop Frye offered as the first principle of the production of literature: “literature can only derive its form from itself” (15). But in the last several decades, what has come to be called intertextuality theory has shifted thinking away from looking at this phenomenon from the point of view of authorial influences on the writing of literature (and works like Harold Bloom’s famous study of the Anxiety of Influence) and toward considering our readerly associations with literature, the connections we (not the author) make—as we read. We, the readers, have become “empowered”, as we say, and we’ve become the object of academic study in our own right. Among the many associations we inevitably make, as readers, is with adaptations of the literature we read, be it of Jane Austin novels or Beowulf. Some of us may have seen the 2006 rock opera of Beowulf done by the Irish Repertory Theatre; others await the new Neil Gaiman animated film. Some may have played the Beowulf videogame. I personally plan to miss the upcoming updated version that makes Beowulf into the son of an African explorer. But I did see Sturla Gunnarsson’s Beowulf and Grendel film, and yearned to see the comic opera at the Lincoln Centre Festival in 2006 called Grendel, the Transcendence of the Great Big Bad. I am not really interested in whether these adaptations—all in the last year or so—signify Hollywood’s need for a new “monster of the week” or are just the sign of a desire to cash in on the success of The Lord of the Rings. For all I know they might well act as an ethical reminder of the human in the alien in a time of global strife (see McGee, A4). What interests me is the impact these multiple adaptations can have on the reader of literature as well as on the production of literature. Literature, like painting, is usually thought of as what Nelson Goodman (114) calls a one-stage art form: what we read (like what we see on a canvas) is what is put there by the originating artist. Several major consequences follow from this view. First, the implication is that the work is thus an original and new creation by that artist. However, even the most original of novelists—like Salman Rushdie—are the first to tell you that stories get told and retold over and over. Indeed his controversial novel, The Satanic Verses, takes this as a major theme. Works like the Thousand and One Nights are crucial references in all of his work. As he writes in Haroun and the Sea of Stories: “no story comes from nowhere; new stories are born of old” (86). But illusion of originality is only one of the implications of seeing literature as a one-stage art form. Another is the assumption that what the writer put on paper is what we read. But entire doctoral programs in literary production and book history have been set up to study how this is not the case, in fact. Editors influence, even change, what authors want to write. Designers control how we literally see the work of literature. Beatrice Chancy’s bookend maps of historical Acadia literally frame how we read the historical story of the title’s mixed-race offspring of an African slave and a white slave owner in colonial Nova Scotia in 1801. Media interest or fashion or academic ideological focus may provoke a publisher to foreground in the physical presentation different elements of a text like this—its stress on race, or gender, or sexuality. The fact that its author won Canada’s Governor General’s Award for poetry might mean that the fact that this is a verse play is emphasised. If the book goes into a second edition, will a new preface get added, changing the framework for the reader once again? As Katherine Larson has convincingly shown, the paratextual elements that surround a work of literature like this one become a major site of meaning generation. What if literature were not a one-stage an art form at all? What if it were, rather, what Goodman calls “two-stage” (114)? What if we accept that other artists, other creators, are needed to bring it to life—editors, publishers, and indeed readers? In a very real and literal sense, from our (audience) point of view, there may be no such thing as a one-stage art work. Just as the experience of literature is made possible for readers by the writer, in conjunction with a team of professional and creative people, so, arguably all art needs its audience to be art; the un-interpreted, un-experienced art work is not worth calling art. Goodman resists this move to considering literature a two-stage art, not at all sure that readings are end products the way that performance works are (114). Plays, films, television shows, or operas would be his prime examples of two-stage arts. In each of these, a text (a playtext, a screenplay, a score, a libretto) is moved from page to stage or screen and given life, by an entire team of creative individuals: directors, actors, designers, musicians, and so on. Literary adaptations to the screen or stage are usually considered as yet another form of this kind of transcription or transposition of a written text to a performance medium. But the verbal move from the “book” to the diminutive “libretto” (in Italian, little book or booklet) is indicative of a view that sees adaptation as a step downward, a move away from a primary literary “source”. In fact, an entire negative rhetoric of “infidelity” has developed in both journalistic reviewing and academic discourse about adaptations, and it is a morally loaded rhetoric that I find surprising in its intensity. Here is the wonderfully critical description of that rhetoric by the king of film adaptation critics, Robert Stam: Terms like “infidelity,” “betrayal,” “deformation,” “violation,” “bastardisation,” “vulgarisation,” and “desecration” proliferate in adaptation discourse, each word carrying its specific charge of opprobrium. “Infidelity” carries overtones of Victorian prudishness; “betrayal” evokes ethical perfidy; “bastardisation” connotes illegitimacy; “deformation” implies aesthetic disgust and monstrosity; “violation” calls to mind sexual violence; “vulgarisation” conjures up class degradation; and “desecration” intimates religious sacrilege and blasphemy. (3) I join many others today, like Stam, in challenging the persistence of this fidelity discourse in adaptation studies, thereby providing yet another example of what, in his article here called “The Persistence of Fidelity: Adaptation Theory Today,” John Connor has called the “fidelity reflex”—the call to end an obsession with fidelity as the sole criterion for judging the success of an adaptation. But here I want to come at this same issue of the relation of adaptation to the adapted text from another angle. When considering an adaptation of a literary work, there are other reasons why the literary “source” text might be privileged. Literature has historical priority as an art form, Stam claims, and so in some people’s eyes will always be superior to other forms. But does it actually have priority? What about even earlier performative forms like ritual and song? Or to look forward, instead of back, as Tim Barker urges us to do in his article here, what about the new media’s additions to our repertoire with the advent of electronic technology? How can we retain this hierarchy of artistic forms—with literature inevitably on top—in a world like ours today? How can both the Romantic ideology of original genius and the capitalist notion of individual authorship hold up in the face of the complex reality of the production of literature today (as well as in the past)? (In “Amen to That: Sampling and Adapting the Past”, Steve Collins shows how digital technology has changed the possibilities of musical creativity in adapting/sampling.) Like many other ages before our own, adaptation is rampant today, as director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kaufman clearly realised in creating Adaptation, their meta-cinematic illustration-as-send-up film about adaptation. But rarely has a culture denigrated the adapter as a secondary and derivative creator as much as we do the screenwriter today—as Jonze explores with great irony. Michelle McMerrin and Sergio Rizzo helpfully explain in their pieces here that one of the reasons for this is the strength of auteur theory in film criticism. But we live in a world in which works of literature have been turned into more than films. We now have literary adaptations in the forms of interactive new media works and videogames; we have theme parks; and of course, we have the more common television series, radio and stage plays, musicals, dance works, and operas. And, of course, we now have novelisations of films—and they are not given the respect that originary novels are given: it is the adaptation as adaptation that is denigrated, as Deborah Allison shows in “Film/Print: Novelisations and Capricorn One”. Adaptations across media are inevitably fraught, and for complex and multiple reasons. The financing and distribution issues of these widely different media alone inevitably challenge older capitalist models. The need or desire to appeal to a global market has consequences for adaptations of literature, especially with regard to its regional and historical specificities. These particularities are what usually get adapted or “indigenised” for new audiences—be they the particularities of the Spanish gypsy Carmen (see Ioana Furnica, “Subverting the ‘Good, Old Tune’”), those of the Japanese samurai genre (see Kevin P. Eubanks, “Becoming-Samurai: Samurai [Films], Kung-Fu [Flicks] and Hip-Hop [Soundtracks]”), of American hip hop graffiti (see Kara-Jane Lombard, “‘To Us Writers, the Differences Are Obvious’: The Adaptation of Hip Hop Graffiti to an Australian Context”) or of Jane Austen’s fiction (see Suchitra Mathur, “From British ‘Pride’ to Indian ‘Bride’: Mapping the Contours of a Globalised (Post?)Colonialism”). What happens to the literary text that is being adapted, often multiple times? Rather than being displaced by the adaptation (as is often feared), it most frequently gets a new life: new editions of the book appear, with stills from the movie adaptation on its cover. But if I buy and read the book after seeing the movie, I read it differently than I would have before I had seen the film: in effect, the book, not the adaptation, has become the second and even secondary text for me. And as I read, I can only “see” characters as imagined by the director of the film; the cinematic version has taken over, has even colonised, my reader’s imagination. The literary “source” text, in my readerly, experiential terms, becomes the secondary work. It exists on an experiential continuum, in other words, with its adaptations. It may have been created before, but I only came to know it after. What if I have read the literary work first, and then see the movie? In my imagination, I have already cast the characters: I know what Gabriel and Gretta Conroy of James Joyce’s story, “The Dead,” look and sound like—in my imagination, at least. Then along comes John Huston’s lush period piece cinematic adaptation and the director superimposes his vision upon mine; his forcibly replaces mine. But, in this particular case, Huston still arguably needs my imagination, or at least my memory—though he may not have realised it fully in making the film. When, in a central scene in the narrative, Gabriel watches his wife listening, moved, to the singing of the Irish song, “The Lass of Aughrim,” what we see on screen is a concerned, intrigued, but in the end rather blank face: Gabriel doesn’t alter his expression as he listens and watches. His expression may not change—but I know exactly what he is thinking. Huston does not tell us; indeed, without the use of voice-over, he cannot. And since the song itself is important, voice-over is impossible. But I know exactly what he is thinking: I’ve read the book. I fill in the blank, so to speak. Gabriel looks at Gretta and thinks: There was grace and mystery in her attitude as if she were a symbol of something. He asked himself what is a woman standing on the stairs in the shadow, listening to distant music, a symbol of. If he were a painter he would paint her in that attitude. … Distant Music he would call the picture if he were a painter. (210) A few pages later the narrator will tell us: At last she turned towards them and Gabriel saw that there was colour on her cheeks and that her eyes were shining. A sudden tide of joy went leaping out of his heart. (212) This joy, of course, puts him in a very different—disastrously different—state of mind than his wife, who (we later learn) is remembering a young man who sang that song to her when she was a girl—and who died, for love of her. I know this—because I’ve read the book. Watching the movie, I interpret Gabriel’s blank expression in this knowledge. Just as the director’s vision can colonise my visual and aural imagination, so too can I, as reader, supplement the film’s silence with the literary text’s inner knowledge. The question, of course, is: should I have to do so? Because I have read the book, I will. But what if I haven’t read the book? Will I substitute my own ideas, from what I’ve seen in the rest of the film, or from what I’ve experienced in my own life? Filmmakers always have to deal with this problem, of course, since the camera is resolutely externalising, and actors must reveal their inner worlds through bodily gesture or facial expression for the camera to record and for the spectator to witness and comprehend. But film is not only a visual medium: it uses music and sound, and it also uses words—spoken words within the dramatic situation, words overheard on the street, on television, but also voice-over words, spoken by a narrating figure. Stephen Dedalus escapes from Ireland at the end of Joseph Strick’s 1978 adaptation of Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man with the same words as he does in the novel, where they appear as Stephen’s diary entry: Amen. So be it. Welcome, O life! I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race. … Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead. (253) The words from the novel also belong to the film as film, with its very different story, less about an artist than about a young Irishman finally able to escape his family, his religion and his country. What’s deliberately NOT in the movie is the irony of Joyce’s final, benign-looking textual signal to his reader: Dublin, 1904 Trieste, 1914 The first date is the time of Stephen’s leaving Dublin—and the time of his return, as we know from the novel Ulysses, the sequel, if you like, to this novel. The escape was short-lived! Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man has an ironic structure that has primed its readers to expect not escape and triumph but something else. Each chapter of the novel has ended on this kind of personal triumphant high; the next has ironically opened with Stephen mired in the mundane and in failure. Stephen’s final words in both film and novel remind us that he really is an Icarus figure, following his “Old father, old artificer”, his namesake, Daedalus. And Icarus, we recall, takes a tumble. In the novel version, we are reminded that this is the portrait of the artist “as a young man”—later, in 1914, from the distance of Trieste (to which he has escaped) Joyce, writing this story, could take some ironic distance from his earlier persona. There is no such distance in the film version. However, it stands alone, on its own; Joyce’s irony is not appropriate in Strick’s vision. His is a different work, with its own message and its own, considerably more romantic and less ironic power. Literary adaptations are their own things—inspired by, based on an adapted text but something different, something other. I want to argue that these works adapted from literature are now part of our readerly experience of that literature, and for that reason deserve the same attention we give to the literary, and not only the same attention, but also the same respect. I am a literarily trained person. People like me who love words, already love plays, but shouldn’t we also love films—and operas, and musicals, and even videogames? There is no need to denigrate words that are heard (and visualised) in order to privilege words that are read. Works of literature can have afterlives in their adaptations and translations, just as they have pre-lives, in terms of influences and models, as George Eliot Clarke openly allows in those acknowledgements to Beatrice Chancy. I want to return to that Canadian work, because it raises for me many of the issues about adaptation and language that I see at the core of our literary distrust of the move away from the written, printed text. I ended my recent book on adaptation with a brief examination of this work, but I didn’t deal with this particular issue of language. So I want to return to it, as to unfinished business. Clarke is, by the way, clear in the verse drama as well as in articles and interviews that among the many intertexts to Beatrice Chancy, the most important are slave narratives, especially one called Celia, a Slave, and Shelley’s play, The Cenci. Both are stories of mistreated and subordinated women who fight back. Since Clarke himself has written at length about the slave narratives, I’m going to concentrate here on Shelley’s The Cenci. The distance from Shelley’s verse play to Clarke’s verse play is a temporal one, but it is also geographic and ideological one: from the old to the new world, and from a European to what Clarke calls an “Africadian” (African Canadian/African Acadian) perspective. Yet both poets were writing political protest plays against unjust authority and despotic power. And they have both become plays that are more read than performed—a sad fate, according to Clarke, for two works that are so concerned with voice. We know that Shelley sought to calibrate the stylistic registers of his work with various dramatic characters and effects to create a modern “mixed” style that was both a return to the ancients and offered a new drama of great range and flexibility where the expression fits what is being expressed (see Bruhn). His polemic against eighteenth-century European dramatic conventions has been seen as leading the way for realist drama later in the nineteenth century, with what has been called its “mixed style mimesis” (Bruhn) Clarke’s adaptation does not aim for Shelley’s perfect linguistic decorum. It mixes the elevated and the biblical with the idiomatic and the sensual—even the vulgar—the lushly poetic with the coarsely powerful. But perhaps Shelley’s idea of appropriate language fits, after all: Beatrice Chancy is a woman of mixed blood—the child of a slave woman and her slave owner; she has been educated by her white father in a convent school. Sometimes that educated, elevated discourse is heard; at other times, she uses the variety of discourses operative within slave society—from religious to colloquial. But all the time, words count—as in all printed and oral literature. Clarke’s verse drama was given a staged reading in Toronto in 1997, but the story’s, if not the book’s, real second life came when it was used as the basis for an opera libretto. Actually the libretto commission came first (from Queen of Puddings Theatre in Toronto), and Clarke started writing what was to be his first of many opera texts. Constantly frustrated by the art form’s demands for concision, he found himself writing two texts at once—a short libretto and a longer, five-act tragic verse play to be published separately. Since it takes considerably longer to sing than to speak (or read) a line of text, the composer James Rolfe keep asking for cuts—in the name of economy (too many singers), because of clarity of action for audience comprehension, or because of sheer length. Opera audiences have to sit in a theatre for a fixed length of time, unlike readers who can put a book down and return to it later. However, what was never sacrificed to length or to the demands of the music was the language. In fact, the double impact of the powerful mixed language and the equally potent music, increases the impact of the literary text when performed in its operatic adaptation. Here is the verse play version of the scene after Beatrice’s rape by her own father, Francis Chancey: I was black but comely. Don’t glance Upon me. This flesh is crumbling Like proved lies. I’m perfumed, ruddied Carrion. Assassinated. Screams of mucking juncos scrawled Over the chapel and my nerves, A stickiness, as when he finished Maculating my thighs and dress. My eyes seep pus; I can’t walk: the floors Are tizzy, dented by stout mauling. Suddenly I would like poison. The flesh limps from my spine. My inlets crimp. Vultures flutter, ghastly, without meaning. I can see lice swarming the air. … His scythe went shick shick shick and slashed My flowers; they lay, murdered, in heaps. (90) The biblical and the violent meet in the texture of the language. And none of that power gets lost in the opera adaptation, despite cuts and alterations for easier aural comprehension. I was black but comely. Don’t look Upon me: this flesh is dying. I’m perfumed, bleeding carrion, My eyes weep pus, my womb’s sopping With tears; I can hardly walk: the floors Are tizzy, the sick walls tumbling, Crumbling like proved lies. His scythe went shick shick shick and cut My flowers; they lay in heaps, murdered. (95) Clarke has said that he feels the libretto is less “literary” in his words than the verse play, for it removes the lines of French, Latin, Spanish and Italian that pepper the play as part of the author’s critique of the highly educated planter class in Nova Scotia: their education did not guarantee ethical behaviour (“Adaptation” 14). I have not concentrated on the music of the opera, because I wanted to keep the focus on the language. But I should say that the Rolfe’s score is as historically grounded as Clarke’s libretto: it is rooted in African Canadian music (from ring shouts to spirituals to blues) and in Scottish fiddle music and local reels of the time, not to mention bel canto Italian opera. However, the music consciously links black and white traditions in a way that Clarke’s words and story refuse: they remain stubbornly separate, set in deliberate tension with the music’s resolution. Beatrice will murder her father, and, at the very moment that Nova Scotia slaves are liberated, she and her co-conspirators will be hanged for that murder. Unlike the printed verse drama, the shorter opera libretto functions like a screenplay, if you will. It is not so much an autonomous work unto itself, but it points toward a potential enactment or embodiment in performance. Yet, even there, Clarke cannot resist the lure of words—even though they are words that no audience will ever hear. The stage directions for Act 3, scene 2 of the opera read: “The garden. Slaves, sunflowers, stars, sparks” (98). The printed verse play is full of these poetic associative stage directions, suggesting that despite his protestations to the contrary, Clarke may have thought of that version as one meant to be read by the eye. After Beatrice’s rape, the stage directions read: “A violin mopes. Invisible shovelsful of dirt thud upon the scene—as if those present were being buried alive—like ourselves” (91). Our imaginations—and emotions—go to work, assisted by the poet’s associations. There are many such textual helpers—epigraphs, photographs, notes—that we do not have when we watch and listen to the opera. We do have the music, the staged drama, the colours and sounds as well as the words of the text. As Clarke puts the difference: “as a chamber opera, Beatrice Chancy has ascended to television broadcast. But as a closet drama, it play only within the reader’s head” (“Adaptation” 14). Clarke’s work of literature, his verse drama, is a “situated utterance, produced in one medium and in one historical and social context,” to use Robert Stam’s terms. In the opera version, it was transformed into another “equally situated utterance, produced in a different context and relayed through a different medium” (45-6). I want to argue that both are worthy of study and respect by wordsmiths, by people like me. I realise I’ve loaded the dice: here neither the verse play nor the libretto is primary; neither is really the “source” text, for they were written at the same time and by the same person. But for readers and audiences (my focus and interest here), they exist on a continuum—depending on which we happen to experience first. As Ilana Shiloh explores here, the same is true about the short story and film of Memento. I am not alone in wanting to mount a defence of adaptations. Julie Sanders ends her new book called Adaptation and Appropriation with these words: “Adaptation and appropriation … are, endlessly and wonderfully, about seeing things come back to us in as many forms as possible” (160). The storytelling imagination is an adaptive mechanism—whether manifesting itself in print or on stage or on screen. The study of the production of literature should, I would like to argue, include those other forms taken by that storytelling drive. If I can be forgiven a move to the amusing—but still serious—in concluding, Terry Pratchett puts it beautifully in his fantasy story, Witches Abroad: “Stories, great flapping ribbons of shaped space-time, have been blowing and uncoiling around the universe since the beginning of time. And they have evolved. The weakest have died and the strongest have survived and they have grown fat on the retelling.” In biology as in culture, adaptations reign. References Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. Bruhn, Mark J. “’Prodigious Mixtures and Confusions Strange’: The Self-Subverting Mixed Style of The Cenci.” Poetics Today 22.4 (2001). Clarke, George Elliott. “Beatrice Chancy: A Libretto in Four Acts.” Canadian Theatre Review 96 (1998): 62-79. ———. Beatrice Chancy. Victoria, BC: Polestar, 1999. ———. “Adaptation: Love or Cannibalism? Some Personal Observations”, unpublished manuscript of article. Frye, Northrop. The Educated Imagination. Toronto: CBC, 1963. Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968. Hutcheon, Linda, and Gary R. Bortolotti. “On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success”—Biologically.” New Literary History. Forthcoming. Joyce, James. Dubliners. 1916. New York: Viking, 1967. ———. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. 1916. Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1960. Larson, Katherine. “Resistance from the Margins in George Elliott Clarke’s Beatrice Chancy.” Canadian Literature 189 (2006): 103-118. McGee, Celia. “Beowulf on Demand.” New York Times, Arts and Leisure. 30 April 2006. A4. Rushdie, Salman. The Satanic Verses. New York: Viking, 1988. ———. Haroun and the Sea of Stories. London: Granta/Penguin, 1990. Sanders, Julie. Adaptation and Appropriation. London and New York: Routledge, 160. Shelley, Percy Bysshe. The Cenci. Ed. George Edward Woodberry. Boston and London: Heath, 1909. Stam, Robert. “Introduction: The Theory and Practice of Adaptation.” Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 1-52. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Hutcheon, Linda. "In Defence of Literary Adaptation as Cultural Production." M/C Journal 10.2 (2007). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/01-hutcheon.php>. APA Style Hutcheon, L. (May 2007) "In Defence of Literary Adaptation as Cultural Production," M/C Journal, 10(2). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/01-hutcheon.php>.

As women's literature emerged in late nineteenth-century Italy, female authors encountered many obstacles. Foremost among them was the near-total absence of Italian female literary role models. Female writers often expressed ambivalence towards the writing of other women, which was considered inferior to male writing. However, their reverence for male writers revealed how conflictive their identities as writers were, and it was an impediment to the establishment of a serious women's literary tradition. In addition to such personal conflicts, these writers also faced the challenge of gaining acceptance by the male-dominated literary community and by their readers. These two groups expected that women's writing conform to a moral code which did not apply to men's writing. This thesis is an analysis of the specific problems that female novelist Bruno Sperani and others faced as they strove to establish themselves in Italian literature.

This thesis argues that twentieth-century American women playwrights spearhead the drama of transformation, and their plays become resistance discourses that protest, subvert, or change the representation of the female self in community. Many create antisocial, deviant, and self-reflexive characters who become misfits, criminals, or activists in order to lay bare women's moral-psychological crises in community. This thesis highlights how selected women playwrights engage with, and question various dominant, regional, racial, or ethnic female communities in order to redefine themselves. Sophie Treadwell's Machinal and Marsha Norman's 'night, Mother are representative texts that explore how the dominant culture can pose a barrier for radical women who long for self-fulfillment. To cultivate their personhood, working class Caucasian women are forced to go against their existing community so as to seek sexual freedom and reproductive rights, which are regarded as new forms of resistance or transgression. While they struggle hard to conform to the traditional, gendered notion of female altruism, self-sacrifice and care ethics, they cannot hide their discontent with the gendered division of labor. They are troubled doubly by the fact that they have to work in the public sphere, but conform to their gender roles in the private sphere. Different female protagonists resort to extreme homicidal or suicidal measures in order to assert their radical, contingent subjectivities, and become autonomous beings. By becoming antisocial or deviant characters, they reject their traditional conformity, and emphasize the arbitrariness and performativity of all gender roles. Treadwell and Norman both envision how the dominant Caucasian female community must experience radical changes in order to give rise to a new womanhood. Using Beth Henley's Crimes of the Heart and Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun as examples, this thesis demonstrates the difficulties women may face when living in disparate communities. The selected texts show that Southern women and African-American women desperately crave for their distinct identities, while they long to be accepted by others. Their subjectivity is a constant source of anxiety, but some women can form strong psychological bonds with women from the same community, empowering them to make new life choices. To these women, their re-fashioned self becomes a means to reexamine the dominant white culture and their racial identity. African-American women resist the discourse of assimilation, and re-identify with their African ancestry, or pan-Africanism. In the relatively traditional southern community, women can subvert the conventional southern belle stereotypes. They assert their selfhood by means of upward mobility, sexual freedom, or the rejection of woman's reproductive imperative. The present study shows these women succeed in establishing their personhood when they refuse to compromise with the dominant ways, as well as the regional, racial communal consciousness. Maria Irene Fornes' Fefu and Her Friends and Wendy Wasserstein's The Heidi Chronicles are analyzed to show how women struggle to claim their dialogic selfhood in minoritarian communities (New England Community and Jewish Community). Female protagonists maintain dialogues with other women in the same community, while they choose their own modes of existence, such as single parenthood or political activism. The process of transformation shows that women are often disturbed by their moral consciousness, a result of their acceptance of gender roles and their submission to patriarchal authority. Their transgressive behaviors enable them to claim their body and mind, and strive for a new source of personhood. Both playwrights also advocate women's ability to self-critique, to differentiate the self from the Other, to allow the rise of an emergent self in the dialectical flux of inter-personal and intra-personal relations. The present study reveals that twentieth-century American female dramatists emphasize relationality in their pursuit of self. However, the transformation of the self can only be completed by going beyond, while remaining in dialogue with the dominant, residual, or emergent communities. For American women playwrights, the emerging female selves come with a strong sense of "in-betweenness," for it foregrounds the individualistic and communal dimensions of women, celebrating the rise of inclusive, mutable, and dialogic subjectivities.

This thesis examines the role of Canadian women as presented in English language novels of the 1930s written by women authors. Within the context of the Great Depression it focuses on issues that are central to women's daily lives such as work, love, marriage and motherhood. It also isolates recurring themes in the novels and attempts to understand the authors' messages within their social context. Social reform, politics and gender relationships are among the subjects explored.

This dissertation provides a feminist reading of the works of Latin American women writers since the decade of the sixties to the present who focus on the particular historical moment of their times from a political perspective. A systematic study of the narrative figure in novels by Dora Alonso, Elena Poniatowska, Claribel Alegria and Darwin Flakoll, and Isabel Allende, reveals an awareness of the undercurrents of oppression existent in their societies based on racial and class stereotypes with a growing understanding of oppression based on sex. From the perspective of the female narrator in Tierra Inerme by the Cuban writer Dora Alonso, the Cuban social structure before 1959 is condemned for its inequality on the basis of class, race, and sex. However, the perspective of the narrator reveals that she has not entirely escaped the prejudices that permeate her society concerning women. Hasta no verte Jesus mio, by the Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska concentrates on the testimony of Jesusa Palancares who condemns the structural inequality existent in Mexican society. Although Palancares' perspective reveals an awareness of the unequal treatment of women, because of her underprivileged status she concentrates on oppression based on class. In Cenizas de Izalco by Darwin Flakoll from the United States and the Salvadoran Claribel Alegria, the 1931 massacre of the peasants in El Salvador is condemned. However, through the contrasting perspectives of the male and female narrators, oppression on the basis of sex is most emphasized. La casa de los espiritus by the Chilean Isabel Allende depicts brutal class, racial and sexual oppression in Chile from the 1920's to 1973. It is in this novel that sexual oppression is portrayed most vividly, again through the contrasting perspectives of the male and female narrators. Although a growing awareness of sexual oppression emerges in the novels studied becoming most emphatic in this decade through an awakening feminist consciousness, the perspective of the narrators emphasize to varying degrees the importance of solidarity among women to combat injustice of every form to achieve a more equitable existence for all oppressed people.

 The thesis deals with the concept of feminine sublimation among Chinese feminist writings and theory. Previous feminist readings of literary works of Chinese female writers tended to confuse the Freudian concept of sublimation with “aestheticized politics” and utopian desire. These feminist readings have concentrated on articulating an authentic subject beyond power relations. I would however, redefine the concept of feminine sublimation as a theoretical trope to articulate the possible emergence of female subjectivity within specific power relations. Although gender performativity has become a universally circulated concept to theorize the subversive depiction of female bodies in particular cultural contexts, I argue that any performative reiteration would not be adequately contextualized and historicized when its usage ignores issues of female subjectivity in terms of sublimation. Chapter one of the thesis begins with various feminist approaches to the relationship of sublimation and performativity. Chapter two re-reads a novel Song of Youth in the socialist era. The conventional conception of sublimation is re-examined contextually in a way that the consideration of gender performativity alone would not be able to do. Through reading a canonical work of the “nationalist feminist” writer Xiao Hong, chapter three delineates the relation between my redefined concept of feminine sublimation and the possibility of political coalition, and explains how this relation provides a totally different understanding of performative reiteration. I would finally redefines the fundamental relationship between feminist subjectivity and performative politics.
published_or_final_version
Comparative Literature
Master
Master of Philosophy