Beyond Adaptation

Fortier, Mark

doi:10.3138/9781442669369-014

Cited by 18 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The result of Grosz's three‐book series is an outlook on “the emergence of art” as “the eruption of collective life, and the creation of new forms of politics” (, p. 8). The adaptation of the brain and body are intrinsic to evolutionary psychology, and studies in Shakespeare that either apply Grosz's perspective or similar outlooks on evolution to the stage have resulted in conclusions that are more in keeping with humanities discourses (Fletcher, ; Fortier, ; Maisano, ). The most recent of these is Stephen Greenblatt's final chapter of his book The Rise and Fall of Adam and Eve ().…”

Section: Scientism or Science? Jordan Peterson's Shakespearementioning

confidence: 99%

Shakespeare and cognition: Scientism, theory, and 4E

Kaethler

2020

Literature Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2001, there have been copious applications of cognitive science to Shakespeare and some to the work of other early modern authors, but have these yielded any new perspectives on the drama or poetry of this time period? This article distinguishes scientism or theoretical approaches that simply uphold scientific findings from interdisciplinary work that prompts scholars to revisit the literature of Shakespeare or other authors anew. In doing so, the article troubles the uniform, normative, and seemingly apolitical nature of cognitive science as well as the ways in which this framework has in some cases created a cognitive outlook that removes the brain from its lived experiences in exterior environs. Because Shakespeare's cultural capital has made him central to cognitive studies in literature, the article's debunking of quasiscientific approaches has wider implications for cognitive examinations of literature, given the common merits and regressions that have resulted from this canonical inclination to focus on a single author.

show abstract

Section: Scientism or Science? Jordan Peterson's Shakespearementioning

confidence: 99%

Shakespeare and cognition: Scientism, theory, and 4E

Kaethler

2020

Literature Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historically, writing seems always to have been a form of (intertextual) rewriting -"there is nothing beyond adaptation" and in this sense even the most provocative adaptation is "not innovation but renovation." 31 Yet, a poetics of "citationality," as Perloff recycles Antoine Compagnon's idea of "récriture," indeed seems "the logical form of "writing" in the age of literally mobile or transferable text." 32 What digital culture radically facilitates is the recombination of data due to their connecting potential.…”

Section: Citationalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

From Author to Data Processor in Postdramatic Theatre: Crash Testing the Classics?

Swyzen¹

2018

hybrid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theorizing Adaptation

Elliott¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Asking why adaptation has been seen as more problematic to theorize than other humanities subjects, and why it has been more theoretically problematic in the humanities than in the sciences and social sciences, Theorizing Adaptation seeks to both explicate and redress “the problem of theorizing adaptation” through a metacritical history of theorizing adaptation from the late sixteenth century to the present, a metatheoretical theory of the relationship between theorization and adaptation in the humanities, and analysis of and experimentation with the rhetoric of theorizing adaptation. Adaptation was not always the bad theoretical object that it increasingly became from the late eighteenth century: in earlier centuries, adaptation was celebrated and valued as a means of aesthetic and cultural progress. Tracing the falling fortunes of adaptation under humanities theorization, the history nevertheless locates dissenting voices valorizing adaptation in every period. Adaptation studies can learn from history not only how to theorize adaptation more positively, but also to consider “the problem of theorization” for adaptation. The metatheoretical section finds that theorization and adaptation are rival, overlapping, inimical processes, each seeking to remake culture—and each other—in their images. It is not simply the case that adaptation has to adapt to theorization: rather, theorization needs to adapt to and through adaptation. The final section attends to the rhetoric of theorizing adaptation, analyzing how tiny pieces of rhetoric have constructed adaptation’s relationship to theorization, and turning to figurative rhetoric, or figuration, as a third process that can mediate between adaptation and theorization and refigure their relationship.

show abstract

Beyond Adaptation

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Shakespeare and cognition: Scientism, theory, and 4E

Shakespeare and cognition: Scientism, theory, and 4E

From Author to Data Processor in Postdramatic Theatre: Crash Testing the Classics?

Theorizing Adaptation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About