MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064107303 · doi:10.1353/esc.2007.0074

Faith in the Faithless: An Inter(re)view with Linda Hutcheon

2006· article· en· W2064107303 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brad Bucknell

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish studies in Canada · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaithPremisePostmodernismComicsAdaptation (eye)HistorySociologyPhilosophyLiteratureArt historyEpistemologyArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faith in the Faithless:An Inter(re)view with Linda Hutcheon Brad Bucknell Linda Hutcheon is University Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto and is arguably one of the most prolific of Canadian scholars. A Theory of Adaptation (New York: Routledge, 2006) is her ninth solo effort. A Theory of Adaptation points out the pervasiveness of adaptation in the current multimedia climate but also shows how the practice has had long and deep connections to literary and cultural practices long before the present. As with elements of the postmodern, the new is not so new after all. Hutcheon is at pains to point out that "there are many and varied motives behind adaptation and few involve faithfulness" (xiii). "Faithfulness" assumes a singular origin, a stable source from which anything that follows must flow. The notion of being faithful has guided many earlier studies of the relations between, say, fiction and film, comics and video games. Her premise is not so much that of Borges or Eliot, where the present re-writes the past but, rather, that the adapted text "challeng[es] the authority of any notion of priority. Multiple versions exist laterally, not vertically" (xiii). Fidelity to the text being adapted is, then, not the issue here. [End Page 157] There is an interesting double movement in this book, perhaps linked to Hutcheon's ongoing love of such "mixed" media as opera. Opera, as anyone who experiences this form in any way knows very well, is often a vexing thing. Its "problem" is that it resembles nothing so much as the bad puppet show in Don Quixote. There, the Don knows the story being told so much better than the marionettes; he sees through the bad staging and faulty illusion, the exaggerated emotion. Yet, when the fair damsel is finally at risk, he draws his sword and rushes the stage. In other words, representations of all kinds seem to possess this unaccountable quality, this perhaps all-too-human dimension so resistant to theorization or to "reason." Hutcheon, then, continues her career-long struggle to understand the powerful relationship between the human and the representational. Hence, she points out that the "'intertextual' or the dialogic relations among texts" are never strictly a "formal issue" (xii). Rather, "[w]orks in any medium are both created by and received by people, and it is this human, experiential context that allows for the study of the politics of intertextuality" (emphasis in original). For many who work cross-disciplinarily, the interesting moment here is Hutcheon's need to go further than the notion of the intertext has formerly taken us. The following interview took place over several months during the spring and summer of 2006. On the English Studies in Canada website ,readers can find a recorded interview with Linda Hutcheon. (Just follow the links to ESC Radio). * * * BB How did you come up with the idea of working on adaptations? LH Anyone interested in postmodernism and parody likely can't ignore adaptation for long. What I realized was that most people worked on literature to film and most did case studies. I like to tackle things across media and across genres, so I thought there might be room for a "theory of adaptation." BB It strikes me that almost all of your work takes a very optimistic view of things. You continually accentuate the positive. In the present book, for instance, you make it clear from the start that one of your main purposes is to force your readers to recognize the prevalence of adaptations. You also note the almost endless stream of negative descriptors used in regard to adaptations (2–3). Your purpose often seems to be to rehabilitate those [End Page 158] forms or cultural/aesthetic practices which for whatever reason are often sneered at. LH It's either my postmodern de-hierarchalizing impulse or my Pollyanna personality defect, I suppose. Maybe both? I can't do much about the latter, but I will confess to a real pleasure in trying to make the culturally denigrated newly appreciated. I enjoyed taking on postmodernism when "pomo-bashing" was the name of the game; ditto for adaptations. Have you...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish studies in CanadaSame topicShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismFrench-language works237,207