Analysis Of Linda Hutcheon's A Theory Of Adaptation

One of the most influential takes on theorizing adaptation hast been put forward by Linda Hutcheon. After studying Modern Languages at the University of Toronto, Romance Studies at Cornell University and earning her Ph.D. in Comparative Literature back in Toronto, the Canadian scholar took on several teaching positions at universities and published a number of influential works on literary criticism, dealing with topics such as parody, irony and Postmodernism. Her book A Theory of Adaptation (2006) examines the traditional way criticism has dealt with adaptations and attempts to establish a more productive theoretical groundwork for analyses, one that does not only compare, and regards differences as faults.
In postmodern criticism every piece

Adaptations can be anything, movies, novels, paintings, possibilities are endless, but since this paper will ultimately compare a play (in text form) to a video series, the theotretical part will focus on text-to-film and text-to-stage adaptations. A film adaptation, for example, cannot express a character's emotions and thoughts the same way a piece of literature can. Hutcheon likens re-mediations to translations, which can never be literal, but have to find the most accurate way possible to convey the same meaning in a different sign system

The choices a creator makes depend on many different factors; their cultural, social, educational and religious background are only a few examples. At the same time they need to consider their budget and the audience's interests since they will most likely want to make financial profit from their adaptation.
The audience plays another important role in the reception of adaptations. An adaptation can only been seen as one if the audience is familiar with the adapted text and in this case Hutcheon speaks of a “knowing audience” (120). A creator has to consider how well known a source is, before deciding how much to rely on this knowledge. Unknowing member of the audience will experience the adaptation as an independent 'primary work' and not pick up on deliberate deviations and commentary on the adapted text.
Of course this effect can be reversed. Knowledge of a movie adaptation before reading the literary source can influence the perception of the adapted work when read afterwards, even if a member of the audience was familiar with the adapted text before watching the