[ecrea] BADaptations, ed. I.Q. Hunter and Constantine Verevis. Deadline for proposals: 30 November 2011

       *_Call for Papers_*

       *__*

       */BADaptations/*

       /Eds. I. Q. Hunter (//Du Montfort //University, UK) and
       Constantine Verevis (Monash University, Melbourne)./

       //

       In the (not so distant) past, "adaptation studies" typically
       focused on the translation of books, especially "classic" and
       canonised literary novels, into films. As Thomas Leitch points
       out in his essay (and subsequent book) "Twelve Fallacies of
       Adaptation," this approach has meant that adaptation studies
       often takes fidelity to a literary source as the most
       appropriate method for analysing adaptations.

       Although the question of fidelity continues to dominate popular
       reviews of film adaptations, Leitch's essay (and other recent
       scholarship on adaptation) now routinely works with a much
       broader definition of adaptation, whereby it is no longer taken
       to mean simply novel-into-film (with the further assumption that
       "the novel is better") but also engages with films derived from
       such non-literary sources as comic books, electronic games, and
       theme park rides. Emphasising intertextuality over fidelity,
       such work locates adaptation within a range of long established
       industry practices that recycle and serialise narratives in the
       form of remakes, sequels, television series, novelizations,
       videogames, and the like. Recently, the idea has been taken up
       that "adaptation is a rational commercial strategy for
       commodifying textual material by disseminating it across
       numerous media" in order to consider the seemingly marginal
       phenomenon of the exploitation film as a mode of adaptation.

       This final approach overlaps with the notion of "BADaptation," a
       concept employed to engage with and challenge those approaches
       to adaptation and remaking that routinely employ a rhetoric of
       betrayal and degradation, of "infidelity" to some idealized
       original.

       The proposed collection of essays takes up the idea of
       BADaptation to ask the following questions: Is a film adaptation
       intrinsically BAD? Are all film adaptations BADaptations of some
       more authentic artifact? And what happens when one adapts a "bad
       object"? Does this result in a BADaptation, or a "GLADaptation"?
       The editors seek proposals for contributions to the volume that
       deal with either BAD adaptations of "good" objects, or GOOD
       adaptations of "bad" objects/./

       //

       This proposed edited collection seeks theoretical/overview
       pieces and case studies that deal with the idea of "bad
       versions" (adaptations, remakes and so on) of pre-existing (good
       or bad) material (however defined).

       General enquires and proposals are welcomed by the editors at:

       (iqhunter /at/ dmu.ac.uk) <mailto:(iqhunter /at/ dmu.ac.uk)> OR

       (Con.Verevis /at/ monash.edu) <mailto:(Con.Verevis /at/ monash.edu)>

       The deadline for submissions -- title, 250-word abstract and
       100-word bio -- is 30^th November 2011.

Dr Ian Hunter Reader in Film Studies
Centre for Cinema and Television History
Faculty of Art, Design and Humanities
De Montfort University
Clephan Building
The Gateway
Leicester LE1 9BH
Tel: 0116 2078683
Email: (iqhunter /at/ dmu.ac.uk) <mailto:(iqhunter /at/ dmu.ac.uk)>