OuterSpeares: Shakespeare, Intermedia, and the Limits of Adaptation ed. by Daniel Fischlin (review)

Reviewed by: OuterSpeares: Shakespeare, Intermedia, and the Limits of Adaptation ed. by Daniel Fischlin Aneta Mancewicz Daniel Fischlin, ed. OuterSpeares: Shakespeare, Intermedia, and the Limits of Adaptation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. 401 pp. $34.95. OuterSpeares redefines intermediality through the theory of adaptation. It foregrounds not only technological and corporeal dimensions of media but also cultural and social ones. In the editorial introduction, Daniel Fischlin describes intermedia as forms of representation “reconfigured through an array of media and cultural forms that arise out of specific contexts, diffuse histories, technologies, and creative practices” (3). In his essay on Shakespeare and popular music, Fischlin further articulates a close link between intermediality and adaptation, claiming that “[i]ntermediality always already suggests the transformation, remediation, or hybridization that occurs when one form of media enters into dialogue with another” (258). The collection centres on intermediation between cultures and transpositions between media and to a lesser extent on interrelationships of media within a single work of art or a single event. This gives more emphasis to cultural and social aspects of intermedial transactions and their reception. Such an approach draws on work in semiotics and Shakespeare Studies (which tends to be more literature oriented than performance oriented), and it situates both Shakespeare and intermediality within the tradition of textual theory. The collection thus sets itself alongside the work on intermediality produced in the framework of theatre and performance studies, and it does so at times through collisions and clashes with performative approaches. This alternative perspective is needed and welcome, as it gives further impetus to the development of research on Shakespeare and media. With intermediality defined as “the crossing of cultural boundaries” (Fischlin, Magill, Riley 153), there is a particular emphasis in OuterSpeares on tensions between high and low, dominant and marginal, colonizing and colonized, as well as global and local. A critical investigation of these terms is the principal contribution of the volume both to the study of Shakespeare and to our understanding of contemporary culture. As it is inevitable in any collection of essays, the contributions vary in terms of the extent of their engagement with the concept of intermediality. However, what remains consistent throughout the volume is the authors’ critical engagement with questions of access, authority, tradition, and cultural relevance—notions that define adaptations of Shakespeare. The four parts of the collection testify both to the wide scope of media interactions and to the particular focus on cultural contexts. Part [End Page 226] one explores appropriations of Shakespeare on the Internet, reflecting a growing interest among academics and artists in digital Shakespeare. The essay on YouTube Shakespeare by Christy Desmet, which looks at mashups, sampling, and combining as modes of reinventing the Bard, offers novel models of thinking about ways of adapting Shakespeare on the World Wide Web. Jennifer L. Ailles’s article on mobile Shakespeare in turn persuasively contests myths related to global literacy and access to digital Shakespeare, looking into the distribution of reading and technical literacy and its impact on the reception of Shakespeare. Her investigation of mobile phone adaptation of Shakespeare in South Africa gives a compelling account of a local appropriation in a global context. Part two examines cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare’s dramas from complementary perspectives. Don Moore imposes a political interpretation on Julie Taymor’s The Tempest, reading it as a reflection on 9/11, while Tom Magill offers a sophisticated and personal account of Mickey B, his screen adaptation of Macbeth. The interview with Magill, conducted by Fischlin and Jessica Riley, offers the readers an invaluable insight into the process of producing the film and a powerful story of political conflicts in Northern Ireland and their aftermath. Part three features articles on television, radio, popular music, and theatre. Kim Fedderson and J. Michael Richardson examine Slings & Arrows, a Canadian television series produced from 2003 to 2007, looking into its adaptation strategy and “its remediation of a particular conception of the Shakespearean corpus” (206). Andrew Bretz’s essay on radio Shakespeare sheds light on a medium that has been overlooked by academics for a while but that has had its scholarly renaissance in the last few years. In his highly nuanced and informative...

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.