Anna Krawczyk- Łaskarzewska

Translation Theory vs Film Adaptation Studies – Taxonomies of Recycling and Bryan

Fuller’s Hannibal

Introduction
In this article I intend to comment briefly on the claims made repeatedly by several
translation studies scholars concerning the potential usefulness of their discipline for the
maddeningly chaotic, slightly unkempt and ultimately promiscuous 1 “bad boy of interart
criticism” (Elliott 2003: 133), namely adaptation studies, especially its literature- into- film
segment. I will refer to a few translation theory concepts which promise to elucidate the
central thematic preoccupations within the field of adaptation studies. Furthermore, using the
example of a TV series which reworks a famous literary franchise together with its feature
film adaptations, I will attempt to find a practical application for these concepts, only to argue
that, from the point of view of the contemporary socio-cultural moment, neither translation
studies nor adaptation studies are particularly well equipped to theorize the process of reusing
cultural materials and its circular nature.
The very first paragraph of my article should make it patently obvious that my agenda
does not necessarily serve the field of translation studies. In fact, I intend to treat it in an
instrumental way, mainly for the purpose of making a preliminary assessment whether
translation theory can really prove its explanatory power within the realm of film adaptation
studies. The broader context of my research is that of scripted, serialized TV, in particular, the
growing popularity of television remakes and reboots of iconic literary and graphic novel
franchises and/or feature films. Using the example of TV series Hannibal, I will argue that
although certain concepts of translation studies might throw some light on the exact nature of
the adapting process, they are neither more rigorous nor more adequate in this respect than the
theoretical approaches in the fields of cultural studies and, more importantly, adaptation
studies itself.

1
An adjective used by Kamilla Elliott in the description of her 2011 research project titled “ Rethinking the
Adaptation/Theorization Debate”, available at http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/projects/rethinking -the-
adaptationtheorization-debate(0b8be856-6996-4f29-b0fa-5213c3b 33a58).ht ml. Elliott argues there, convincingly
enough, that adaptations are forced to function as “battlegrounds for interdisciplinary wars” and that they
constitute „a resistant and inassimilable rival to theorization.”

1
 Additionally, the kind of recycling that takes place in series such as Hannibal, Fargo,
Bates Motel or Rosemary’s Child, etc., can and, in my opinion, should be investigated first
and foremost as a cultural activity and as an extreme example of the search for perfection
consistently demonstrated by the viewing audiences via message boards, discussion forums,
Tumblr, Twitter, Pinterest, Facebook accounts and other communication tools enhanced and
sustained by the highly interactive Web 2.0 environment. In particular, I will advocate the use
of the term “recycling” in order to emphasize the need to pay more attention to the
extratextual, industry- focused and reception-oriented factors involved in the creation of
modern-day cultural artefacts, since it is precisely this angle of research in adaptation studies
that I consider most promising.

“It rhymes with Cannibal!”

Hannibal is the 2013 TV series created by Bryan Fuller on the basis of the novel Red
Dragon by Thomas Harris, in order to shed a new light on Hannibal Lecter’s early years as a
psychiatrist and FBI consultant. Currently awaiting its third season on American network
NBC, but financed largely by the European Gaumont, Hannibal continues to garner rave
reviews from film and TV critics and, despite lackluster viewing ratings, boasts a dedicated
online fanbase (the self-proclaimed Fannibals) which seems to savour even the most
unsettling aspects of the show.
Why should Hannibal merit scholarly scrutiny? First of all, it is a representative
example of productions which “move beyond mere adaptation and transform their source text
into something new that works independently of its source” (Beyond Adaptation 2010: 3).
Secondly, Fuller’s work should be seen in the broader context of the American film and
television industry, which growingly relies on appropriating and regurgitating familiar/iconic
properties: a strategy suggestive of creative crisis, yet oddly in sync with the current zeitgeist.
In other words, while Thomas Harris’s tetralogy “cannibalized the 19th century Gothic”
(Halberstam 1995: 177), Fuller’s latest endeavour may be said to cannibalize the serial killer
genre and America’s arguably most memorable fictitious villain, while at the same time
validating the observation that Lecter is a symbol of “an autophagic society that eats its own
people” (Wasserman and Courseuil 2013: 217). Finally, the 2013 Hannibal offers a genuine
challenge not only as an ambitious, well written and visually stunning TV show, but also as
an adaptation that might be said to encourage and resist attempts at theorization. From the
point of view of the present article, the problem of what exactly this new version of Hannibal
is needs to be addressed, even at the cost of limiting interpretive options.

2
 The formula “based on the characters from the book Red Dragon” in the opening
credits of the first episode of the series does not cover the complex processes of transforming
and expanding the characters borrowed and adapted from the Thomas Harris cannon. Gender
reversals, frequent repositioning of the existing characters and inventing new characters,
modifications and additions of various plotlines: these and other adapting techniques
confound expectations as much as the rich intersexual layer of the production, its generic
properties and cinematic values.
Taking into account the complicated relationship of the show to its literary and feature
film predecessors, it becomes quite difficult to opt for one satisfactory term that would do
justice to the “bipolar” nature of the series that feeds on the ready-to-use characters and
storylines, but is also driven by the seemingly insatiable drive to innovate. Is it a remake? A
reboot? An appropriation or a reappropriation? Can it be classified only as a prequel if it
meets the criteria of an interquel? Perhaps ultimately it is all of these things, and fanfiction
authors’ wet dream come true 2 , or merely a dream that hurts (Zoller Seitz 2013)? The creator
of the show does not mind the fanfiction trope in the least; judging by the exhilarating
interviews Fuller gave in recent months, he wholeheartedly embraces the association, even if
the “bromance” cherished by the Fannibals and depicted by the more creative part of the
fandom (fanfics, photo manipulations, gifs, fan art, etc.) does not do justice to the dynamic
between Hannibal Lecter and FBI profiler Will Graham:

A BROMANCE TO REM EM BER. Are Hannibal and Will googly-eyed for one another? “They have
love for each other,” Fuller replied. “It’s not necessarily a sexual love, but they absolutely have a pure,
genuine love for each other, which is why this situation becomes so complicated.” The E[xecutive]
P[roducer] then noted that fans have already taken care of a potential ro mance between the two men,
referring to the abundance of slash fic on the internet. “The whole television show is fan fiction. What’s
good for the gander is good for the goose.” (Gelman 2014)

Even more troubling is the realization that because of case studies such as Hannibal,
the categories that adaptation studies took for granted might require a redefinition. Is it, for
example, enough to define a remake as “a particular form of narrative” that “re-represents and
explains at a different time and through varying perceptions, previous narratives and
experiences” (Horton and McDougal 1998: 2) or claim that remakes “constitute a particular
territory existing somewhere between unabashed larceny and subtle originality” (Horton and
Dougal 1998: 4)? Just how meaningful is Linda Hutcheon’s definition of adaptation as “an

2
And since in the case of Fuller’s Hannibal the context of fanfiction is not entirely absurd, perhaps in order
to account for some of the character interactions in the series it would even make sense to use the term
“remodelling” suggested by Loock and Verev is for the purpose of categorizing fan productions (2012: 1 -15).

3
extended, deliberate, announced revisitation of a particular work of art” (2006: 170) in the
case of a televisual product such as Hannibal? Shouldn’t it be revised already, framed in
broader intertextual and ideological terms, treated as “a nexus for, and a mosaic of, context,
writing/directing subjects, originating texts and intertexts, discursive practices, and
viewers/readers” (Slethaug 2014: 5)? The word “excess” certainly suits the thematic and
stylistic features of the show, but when it comes to characterizing it as a specimen of
adaptation, the existing typologies somehow do not seem excessive enough. Perhaps the
discipline does, indeed, require an interdisciplinary intervention; maybe the findings of
translation studies scholars could offer film adaptation “a more rigorous critical methodology”
(Venuti 2007: 25).

Separate, Not Equal?

In 2012 a study titled Translation, Adaptation and Transformation was published, in
which its editor, Laurence Raw, proposed identifying a common ground for translation studies
and adaptation studies and expressed the wish to inspire “the kind of interdisciplinary
discussion about research, teaching, and learning that [...] is fundamental to the future of both
disciplines” (Raw 2012: 18). The better future envisaged by Raw could, of course, happen,
but, perhaps inadvertently, the very cover of the monograph undermines the prospects for this
joint translation/adaptation enterprise. The dominant graphic motif repeated there is that of a
set of three geometric rings which at first resemble a Venn diagram, except their colouring
scheme reflects the different colours of the words forming the title (green for transformation,
navy blue for adaptation, and blue for translation) and the rings are superimposed on one
another, with the translation ring constituting the surface layer. It would seem that this graphic
representation achieves at least three things: it creates the impression that the three rings never
truly overlap; it suggests that translation and adaptation are different from transformation and
should not be subsumed under the seemingly larger, more general set; finally, that translation
somehow deserves to be privileged, more visible, quite literally on the top.
The striking similarities between adaptation studies and translation studies have been
pinpointed and commented upon by various scholars, for instance, Patrick Cattrysse,
Lawrence Venuti, Roberto A. Valdeón, Phyllis Zatlin, and many others. According to
Cattrysse, the commonalities are obvious: both fields are “concerned with the transformation
of source into target text under some condition of ‘invariance’, or equivalence” (Cattrysse
1992: 54). Additionally, both have been, for many decades, obsessed with fidelity, suspicious
towards unfaithful and thus treacherous versions of the sacred originals. Equally frustrating is

4
the two disciplines’ obsession about taxonomies. For instance, Jean Delisle, Peter Newmark,
Mary Snell-Hornby, Barbara Snell and Patricia Crampton, Juan Carlos Sager, or Roda
Roberts 3 have made numerous more or less convincing attempts to neatly demarcate various
categories of adaptation and/or translation, but the results of those efforts have often been as
dubious as the very classification criteria proposed by Geoffrey Wagner, Robert Stam, Dudley
Andrew, Thomas Leitch, or Kamilla Elliott, i.e. scholars working predominantly in the field
of adaptation studies. It seems that neither translation theory nor adaptation studies can avoid
an overlap of categories, though commendably enough, Roberts emphasizes the practical
(work-related and pedagogical) advantages of a more detailed classification.
It is worth adding that this translation-skewered interdisciplinary enthusiasm was
somewhat tempered by Barton Palmer’s reminder that “translation makes it difficult to
theorize any adaptation as a separate entity” (Palmer 2004: 263). Doubts were also expressed
by the already mentioned Zatlin; as an academic teacher, she was able to highlight numerous
parallels between adaptation and translation, but when confronted with a slightly less
theoretical task, namely surveying translators who specialized in translating theatrical plays,
she noticed their reluctance to adapt the content because “[a]daptations merely limit the
experience” (Zatlin 2005: 26).

Inte rpretants, Polysystem Theory, Transluciferation

The conceptual chaos and/or noise in film adaptation theory has been a constant
source of dissatisfaction within the field itself and among scholars representing e.g.
communication studies, film studies or translation theory, i.e. disciplines whose interes t areas
inevitably overlap with that of adaptation studies. To quote some of the more striking
assertions in this respect, Brett Westbrook claims that, unlike film studies, film adaptation
studies resists theory (Westbrook 2010: 24), while Thomas Leitch argues that “adaptation
theory has remained tangential to the thrust of film study because it has never been
undertaken with conviction and theoretical rigor” (Leitch 2003: 149). Having read such
pronouncements, one might suggest that perhaps the two scholars’ critical observations are
merely a product of misguided expectations concerning the ambitions and legitimacy of the
field; or, less depressingly, perhaps adaptation studies and its theoretical and methodological

3
See Roberts’ recount of the existing typologies and her own take on the issue. Parenthetically, the
classification system of translations as expanded by Roberts confirms what the majority of adaptation studies
scholars have already suspected, namely a lack of usefulness of translation theory typologies for their discipline.

5
preoccupations are not easily comparable with either film studies or the other disciplines
mentioned above.
Characteristically enough, several translation theorists have shown a tendency to
subsume adaptations under broader categories and terms. For instance, Cattrysse recalls
Roman Jakobson’s “intersemiotic translation” and argues that many scholars use the word
“translation” to “any type of intra- or intersemiotic practice or product” (2014: 50) and
because of the “loose semantic boundaries” between the two words the study of adaptation as
translation seems natural and desirable. On the other hand, Venuti emphasizes the derivative
nature of translations and adaptations (Venuti 2007: 29) and the fact that both are
interpretations (even if specific limitations are usually imposed on translators), ergo
regardless of whether we are dealing with a film or a translation, each of the two
“communicates one interpretation among other possibilities” (Venuti 2007: 29).
Venuti does contend that a straightforward equation of adaptations and translations
would be unfortunate; similarly to translations, “[a] film adaptation [...] recontextualizes its
prior materials, but [...] the process is much more extensive and complex because of the shift
to a different, multidimensional medium with different traditions, practices and conditions”
(Venuti 2007: 30). However, his method for theorizing the scope and complexity of the film-
making process comes from the field of translation theory. From Mikhail Iampolski Venuti
borrows the concept of interpretants – various factors that every translator applies in order to
transform the source text into a translation – and although the scholar is fully aware, and fairly
critical, of their “open-ended quality” (Venuti 2007: 32), he nevertheless perceives them as
applicable in the field of adaptation studies and divides them into formal and thematic:

Formal interpretants may include a relation of equivalence, such as a semantic correspondence based on
dictionary definitions or philological research, or a particular style, such as a lexicon and syntax
characteristic of a genre. Themat ic interpretants are codes: an interpretation of the source text that has
been articulated independently in commentary; a discourse in the sense of a relatively coherent body of
concepts, problems, and argu ments linked to a genre and housed in a social institution; or values, beliefs
and representations affiliated with specific social groups. Interpretants are rooted primarily in the
receiving situation even if in so me cases they may incorporate materials specific to the source culture.
(Venuti 2007: 31)

Undoubtedly, there is a context-bound logic to the development of adaptation studies,

from the medium-specific approach, through the comparative approach, to the cultural
pluralism approach, with each stage clearly inspired by the main paradigms and approaches of
the respective decades. However deep or shallow the inspirations with close reading,
structuralism, the cultural turn or cognitivism have been, on a meta level, one might jocularly
suggest that the discipline was reluctant to adapt those ideas thoroughly enough, always

6
existing in a conceptual limbo, between the wish to be recognized as a fully fledged, separate
academic discipline and the impulse to embrace its inherent interdisciplinarity and ideological
relevance. For Venuti the evolution of adaptation studies theory, from the communicative
model, through emphasis on intertexuality, towards a hermeneutic model of adaptation à la
Robert Stam, betrays fundamental weaknesses. These weaknesses result from relying on
either the discourse of fidelity, in which “the film is not compared directly to the literary text,
but rather to a version of it mediated by an interpretation” (Venuti 2007: 26) or the discourse
of intertextuality, which invites questions concerning the possibility of unbiased, objective
critique which is not subject to a particular ideology. Venuti is keen on pinpointing

the deliberate but usually unremarked applicatio n of a third term, if not always a do minant or
authoritative interpretation of a novel or film, then at the very least a dominant crit ical methodology
based on a political position (broadly democratic, although capable of further specification according to
various social categories), which the crit ic applies as a standard on the assumption that the film should
somehow inscribe that and only that ideology. In adaptation studies informed by the discourse of
intertextuality, the film is not compared directly to the literary text, but rather to a version of it med iated
by an ideological crit ique. (Venuti 2007: 28)

Venuti claims that the hermeneutic model of translation (and adaptation), in particular
the category of interpretants, can help us address the issues of the political position most
critics adopt, can become an antidote to ideological critique and can even “turn the critic’s
work into an act of self-criticism” (Venuti 2007: 42). It can also retain the interpretive
function “fixing the form and meaning o f the prior materials”, but also assume the
interrogative goal, “exposing the cultural and social conditions of those materials and of the
translation or adaptation that has processed them” (Venuti 2007: 41). If Venuti’s advocating
of interpretants sounds unsatisfactory, it is perhaps because he essentially repackages issues
that have already been dealt with and theorized by various cultural theorists, e.g. the
representatives of the Frankfurt School or Birmingham cultural studies. In other words,
interpretants offer nothing new to adaptation studies nor do they explain what exactly happens
in the process of adapting. They merely contribute to the inflation of ideas and concepts the
discipline has tackled so far.
The truly interesting aspect of the methodology Venuti proposed is his position vis-à-
vis reception studies, his readiness to acknowledge the viewers as meaning makers (which,
ironically and perhaps not incidentally, might mean that we need to stop worrying so much
about the scholars/critics and their ideological biases). While his basic methodological
category can be accused of being vague and, ultimately, superfluous, it does encourage valid
and timely questions as soon as the scholar relinquishes control of interpretation and admits

7
the possibility that both interpretation and interrogation have already been taken over by fairly
demanding, perhaps abler crowds:

[...]interpretants deployed in a film adaptation may be co mp lementary, mutually rein forcing an overall
interpretation inscribed in the prior materials, or d isjunctive, resulting in opposing and even
contradictory interpretations that may in turn be perceived differently by different audiences. The
viewer’s interpretant thus becomes a central factor in assessing the significance of an adaptation, raising
the question of whether an academic critical discourse can or should take precedence over other, more
popular forms of reception. (Venuti 2007: 35)

Going back in time, Cattrysse’s take on the Polysystem Theory (PS) of translation
(1992) deserves a mention. Using the concepts originally proposed by Itamar Even-Zohar and
developed by Gideon Toury in connection with translation norms in order to discuss cultural
phenomena (put simply, literature, film, communication are seen as systems borrowing from
one another and existing within a polysystem, in hierarchical relations), Cattrysse applied it to
a limited corpus of American noir films, most of which happened to be adaptations. Working
on the premise that “translation is in fact a semiotic phenomenon of a general nature”
(Cattrysse 1992: 54), the scholar expressed the belief that “an extension of the concept of
translation, and an approach to the study of film (adaptation) in terms of this extended concept
could” “offer new insights into the fundamental patterns of communication” (Cattrysse 1992:
53-54).
Although his 1992 article is frustratingly vague, Cattrysse claimed that as a result of
adopting the Polysystem Theory framework, “[f]ilm would [...] be studied as a more or less
specific kind of translation (in the broadest sense of the word) of previous discursive practices
as well as experiences in real life. The underlying assumption is that by proceeding that way,
one would not only be able to describe in a more detailed way how movies were made, but
also get one step closer to explaining why certain movies were made the way they were
made” (Cattrysse 1992: 67), without the need to be limited by such paradigms as auterism.
In the monograph published this year, Cattrysse revisits some of the old concepts, but,
again, offers a rather confusing rationale for doing so: “the fact that adaptation critics have
recently repeated certain PS (-related) tenets offers as much an argument for as against a
revisiting of the earlier PS approach” (Cattrysse 2014: 15). Nevertheless, Cattrysse admits
that

in general, the PS approach as such has not caught on in adaptation studies. The fact that adaptation
commentators have generally ignored the approach makes it difficu lt to assess why PS adaptation
studies have not fared so well. The situation is clearer in the parent discipline of translation studies,
where the approach has been applied more extensively and translation scholars have more openly and
explicit ly criticized its features. (Cattrysse 2014: 13)

8
On the other hand, the scholar also defends his early 90’s approach, claiming that “a look at
certain recent (mostly Anglophone) adaptation studies indicates that even if the PS approach
is not directly mentioned, several of its key tenets are now generally accepted in adaptation
studies” and “[a]daptation critics sometimes merely repeat them as isolated slogans”
(Cattrysse 2014: 13). All in all, the scholar drops the idea of Polysystem Theory and embarks
on an ambitious project to construct, alongside descriptive translation studies, the first truly
comprehensive theoretical model of descriptive adaptation studies. Slightly worrying, but
perhaps understandable, in this context is Cattrysse’s announcement that he “must leave
actual application of the method to the talented researchers who [will] come after […]” him
(Cattrysse 2014: 17).
Far more appealing, and worth expounding on, seems to be the idea of translation
understood predominantly as innovative transformation. In particular, the concept of
transluciferation, developed by Brasilian poet and translator Haroldo De Campos (and used
interchangeably with such terms as transcreation and transtextualization) merits attention
because, at least in the context of translating poetry, it stresses the necessity of deviating from
the source text and considers this deviation a sine qua non of creative translation. The
translator in this take is first and foremost an uncompromising reader, interpreter and
manipulator for whom the needs of the receiving culture are a priority. While privileging the
receiving culture, de Campos offers vivid imagery in order to elaborate on what could and
should happen when a poem is subjected to this peculiar instance o f literary intervention:
“Blazing with the flaming tail of its instigating angel, creative translation, possessed with
demonism, is neither merciful nor memorial: it intends, at the limit, the erasure of origin: the
obliteration of the original” (qtd in Diniz 2003: 44-45).
De Campos’s point of departure is Walter Benjamin’s insistence on translation as a
non-servile and unabashedly creative gesture. The poet emphasizes the “non-submission of
the translating act to a presence alien to it, to a content that is intrinsically unessential to it”
(de Campos 1982: 182) and goes as far as to call that rebellious brand of translation a “satanic
enterprise” insofar as it “refuses to submit to the tyranny of the pre-ordained Logos”:

in the limits of any translation that proposes to be a radical operation of ‘transcreation’, something
sparkles, dazzles, like a feverish mo ment of usurping culmination: namely, the vision […], the mirage
of converting, at least for an instant, the original into the translation of its tran slation. [...]

The translator of poetry is a choreographer of the internal dance of language. He takes the meaning
(what is didactically called the content) not as a straight ahead goal in a word -to-word co mpetition,

9
 Pavlovian bell of the conditioned feedback, but as a semantic labile frame or a mult i-unfold ing scenery
for this changing choreography. (de Campos 1982: 182, 183)

While pondering over a specific case (the possible ways to translate a particularly
tricky fragment of Goethe’s Faust into Portuguese), de Campos characterized the “right”
strategy of approaching a source text and additionally described the somewhat paradoxical
consequence of adopting such an innovative approach:

It can only be achieved by a radical transfusion operatio n, acting in block on the paradigms (discarding
the exact, “punctual” sense of this or that isolated word) in order to re-mob ilize in the translated text a
similar counterpoint of phono-semantic series, aiming at the iconic effect of the whole. In translation,
more than in any other literary operation, the notion of mimeses comes true not as a theory of copying
or of the “salivary” reflex, but as the production of difference in the core of sameness. (de Campos
1982: 185)

The above quoted remarks demonstrate not only De Campos’s stance on translation as
a demonic, “fidelity- unfriendly” transformation, but also his conviction that creative
translation irrevocably changes the reader’s attitude towards the original, “stimulates us to
look at the source text in a never before imagined way, which fully justifies the presence of
the voice of the translator as well as distortions and omissions” (Diniz 2003: 44).
To sum up, de Campos’s strategy “questions the transparent, self-effacing role of the
translator, opting for “difference and divergence from the norm” (Gentzler 2000: 944). In this
way translation becomes “another kind of original writing, just as inventive, inspired and
spontaneous. […] The goal is less a version, more a reversion” (Gentzler 2000: 944 ). De
Campos does not refrain from ideological, political or artistic agendas involved in creating
and disseminating the unfaithful translation. His ideas and postulates resonate strongly in the
context of the 2013 adaptation of Thomas Harris’s novels. After all, their undisputed
protagonist, Hannibal Lecter, has been interpreted as a modern version of Satan, while
Fuller’s Hannibal constitutes a thorough and creative transformation of the original whose
memory lingers on and undergoes gradual obliteration at the same time. On the other hand,
one should not worry too much about the total obliteration of the (not so sacred) originals: an
announcement and/or release of a film adaptation of literally any book almost invariably
boosts the sales of the literary work. DVD’s and streaming/torrents also prevent the
consumers of culture from forgetting, whether it is yet another film instalment of the Hannibal
franchise or (less likely) Thomas Harris’s new Hannibal-related piece.

Cultural Recycling – The Last Re(-)sort or the First Necessity?

10
 The atemporal, YouTube- and P2P-enabled sharing of cultural space brings to mind
Marilyn Randall’s observation: “cultural recycling has only served to increase my stock of
goods, whose value is not undermined—is inevitably increased—by the co-existence of the
original and the recycled.” Her non-judgmental attitude towards a perennial cultural practice
offers a welcome contrast to the prevailing “notions of exhaustion and of the gratuitous
production of the worthless” (Randall 2007): “[t]he products of cultural recycling may be
better or worse, more or less valuable, than their originals, but not by virtue of the fact of
them having been recycled”, she argues and refuses to decry the currently dominant aesthetic
of plagiarism/imitation/repetition, since historically such operations on cultural material have
been a constant phenomenon, “differing more in degree and explicitness than in kind”
(Randall 2007). Moreover, unlike the environment-related concept of recycling, “cultural
recycling emphatically does not forget its past, nor erase the traces of its history and its
affiliation, not, at least, in any material way” (Randall 2007). One almost feels tempted to
rework H. L. Mencken’s famous “definition” of Puritanism and suggest that Randall seems
immune to the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be capable of originality or at
least of recognizing it.
Among the many dictionary definitions of recycling at least four can be employed in
order to discuss cultural phenomena, rather than instances of biochemical modification: to
make something new from (something that has been used before), to use (something) again, to
adapt to a new use, to bring back 4 . Nevertheless, recycling is simply not the first term that
comes to mind when dealing with various types of adaptation. Even a cursory look at the
scholarly works devoted to intersemiotic adaptation will yield a cornucopia of possibilities in
this regard. Borrowing, derivation, imitation, recurrence, revisitation, remodelling, reuse,
repetition, reproduction, etc. 5 , and various other terms are often enumerated in one breath and
used interchangeably, perhaps to further intimidate the confused readers. Recycling crops up
sparingly and usually in the context of cultural gestures, as a slightly desperate, if creative,
necessity, by and large inimical to the widely cherished notion of originality.
However, it is precisely the cultural dimension of recycling that seems topical and
relevant, also from the point of view of theorizing the process of adapting. Instead of
oscillating between adaptation theories and translation theories, it reminds us of a broader
scope of reference for talking about adaptation, namely cultural studies. Rather than obsessing
over the problem of originality of adaptations, some researchers are actually capable of

4
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recycle.
5
Work by George Bluestone, Constantine Verev is, Linda Hutcheon, Julie Sanders, etc.

11
approaching them more productively. S ynonyms for recycling, e.g. “cyclicity, repetition,
recurrence, renewal, reuse, reproduction” (Kalaga et al. 2011: 1) seem to highlight the circular
nature of the process of adapting, which entails going back to the “original” and the
subsequent return to the “copy” and an effective/efficient management of (cultural) waste and
excess. Ultimately, the point is that recycling denotes a highly useful and creative process.
Various adaptation scholars have been keen on using the term “recycling” to
emphasize the repetitive or, at best, eclectic aspect of adaptation. Particularly memorable was
James Naremore’s conviction that:

[t]he study of adaptation needs to be joined with the study of recycling, remaking, and every other form
of retelling in the age of mechanical reproduction and electronic co mmunication. By this means,
adaptation will beco me part of a general theory of repetition and will move fro m the margins to the
center of contemporary media studies. (Naremore 1999: 12)

Naremore’s ideas reverberate in the industry- focused manifesto proposed by Simone

Murray nearly a decade later. Murray, too, wishes “to transform adaptation studies from an
intellectual niche topic into perhaps the unifying discipline at the epicentre of contemporary
communication studies” (Murray 2008: 15). This scenario is possible as long as scholars
move from comparative textual analysis towards adaptation as “a material phenomenon
produced by a system of institutional interests and actors” (Murray 2008: 10):

the standardized routing of fidelity crit icis m has come to function as a smokescreen, lending the guise
of methodological and theoretical innovation to studies that routinely reproduce the set model of
comparative textual analysis. In its hermetis m, it is as though parallel intellectual streams of film
studies, media studies, the history of the book, and cultural theory had not vigorously explored the
interpretive significance of production, distribution, reception, and consumption contexts . [...]
Dematerialized, immune to commercialis m, floating free of any cultural institutions, intellectual
property regimes, or industry agents that might have facilitated its creation or indelibly marked its form,
the adaptation exists in perfect quarantine from the troubling worlds of commerce, Ho lly wood, and
global corporate media —a formalist textual fetish oblivious to the disciplinary incursions of political
economy , book history, or the creative industries.” (Murray 2008: 6, 5)

While Naremore and Murray’s visions of adaptation studies still sound like wishful
thinking, rather than a realistic prospect, they nevertheless remind us that the academic
discourse of recycling has been focused too much on the perils of adaptation to be able to
cherish the pleasures inherent in recycling. The passage of time and the resulting
recontextualization of characters and plotlines are of key importance in the case of a famous
and beloved franchise. Recycling as a form of cultural production, which can be placed on
the spectrum between originality and imitation, seems very apt for Hannibal, especially in
terms of the aesthetics of the show and the bold and blatant “handling” of the plotlines and

12
characters which have already been subjected to an intersemiotic adaptation and have become
a cultural staple in the iconic, beloved franchise.

Conclusion
Translation theory concepts such as Polysystem Theory interpretants or
transluciferation were supposed to remedy the limitations inherent in employing fidelity and
intertextuality as the principal discourses in the field of adaptation studies. However, one
cannot help having the impression that what Venuti, Cattrysse and de Campos accomplished
boils down to merely expanding the already overflowing reservoir of concepts and categories,
offering a parallel effort to those associated with cultural studies. While perfectly
understandable in terms of ascribing particular value to their own fields of academic interest,
the above mentioned scholars’ insistence on the groundbreaking nature of translation theory
for thinking about adaptations conveniently downplays the importance and longstanding
relevance of the ideas proposed by the Frankfurt School, British cultural studies, John Fiske’s
audience- friendly turn, etc. Especially Cattrysse’s wish to espouse a purely descriptive model
of adaptation studies comes at the expense of what makes adaptation studies truly exciting,
namely its ability to identify and describe meaningful connections between the artistic
properties of the given product, the accompanying film industry practices, the ideological
factors involved in its planning, production, marketing and distribution, and the responses of
the film/TV viewers, who are the ultimate adaptation makers or breakers.
Terms such as transformation, reuse, reworking, reappropriation, bricolage have often
constituted a worthy and illuminating point of departure in either analyzing specific cases of
adaptation or trying to offer a more or less coherent theoretical paradigm for the discipline.
On the other hand, by focusing on capturing the exact nature of the adaptation’s relation to the
text adapted, the proponents of both translation theory and adaptation theory risk losing sight
of an arguably more important priority. Obsessing over taxonomies, paradigms, mechanisms
is part and parcel of scholarly enterprises, yet apart from paying attention to “what has been
lost, transformed, retrieved or reinserted into cultural circulation as a new product ”, of equal
relevance is the awareness “who remembers the original, who recalls its form and function,
and who cares?” (Randall 2007). Furthermore, if the two disciplines share, at least
superficially, interest in the nature of the process of adapting, then, as Loock and Verevis
argue,

13
 more interesting questions pertain to the factors (discourses) that enable the identification of the
intertext, and to the nature of the transformations that are worked upon it. In this way the translation—
adaptation or remake-- is less interested in its fidelity to the original than in the potential of the
precursor/s to generate further, and sometimes unpredictable, cultural production/s. (Loock and Verev is
2012: 7)

It would be no great simplification to suggest that adaptation studies in recent years

have seen a fundamental shift towards the spectators and fan cultures, whose obsessive drive
towards analysing the beloved properties easily matches the zeal manifested by the academia.
At the same time, the “fandom turn” could also help articulate the unpleasant truth, namely
that instead of introducing new ideas into their research, both adaptation and translation
scholars are, more and more frequently, doomed to repeat/reboot/recycle the work of their
predecessors. In other words, they have become middlemen, and not very convincing ones at
that. Perhaps embracing the ubiquity of cultural recycling and its innovative/subversive
potential as well as offering an in-depth reading of its manifestations could make the scholarly
endeavours more relevant and less frustrating.

Bibliography

Albrecht-Crane C., and Cutchins D. R., 2010, “Introduction: New Beginnings for Adaptation
Studies”, [in:] Adaptation Studies: New Approaches, eds. C. Albrecht-Crane and D. R.
Cutchins, Cranbury, NJ: Rosemont, pp. 11–22.
Campos, H. de, 1982, “Mephistofaustian Transluciferation (Contribution to the Semiotics of
Poetów Translation)”, trans. Gabriela Suzanna Wilder and Haroldo de Campos,
Dispositio, vol. 7.19–20, pp. 181–187.
Cattrysse P., 1992, “Film (Adaptation) as Translation: Some Methodological Proposals ”,
Target, vol. 4.1, pp. 53–70.
Cattrysse P., 2014, Descriptive Adaptation Studies. Epistemological and Methodological
Issues, Antwerp: Garant.
Diniz, T. F. N., 2003, “A New Approach to the Study of Translation: From Stage to Screen”,
Cadernos de Tradução, vol. 2.12, pp. 29-54, https://periodicos.ufsc.br/indAex.php/
traducao/article/viewFile/6196/5755 [accessed 17 September 2014].
Elliott K., 2003, Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frus, P., and Williams Ch., eds., 2010, Beyond Adaptation: Essays on Radical
Transformations of Original Works, London: McFarland.

14
Gelman V., 2014, “Hannibal @ Comic-Con: A Huge Return, Much Gillian Anderson and
(Hopefully) Clarice Feed the Thriller's Future”, tvline.com, http://tvline.com/2014/07/
24/hannibal-comic-con-2014-season-3-spoilers/ [accessed 17 September 2014].
Gentzler E., 2000, Metaphor and Translation, Encyclopaedia of Literary Translation into
English, Volume 2, ed. O. Classe, Chicago and London: Fitzroy Dearborn, pp. 941-
945.
Halberstam, J., 1995, Skin Shows: Gothic Horror and the Technology of Monsters, Durham:
Duke University Press.
Horton, A., and McDougal S. Y., eds., 1998, Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes,
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hutcheon L., 2006, A Theory of Adaptation, Oxford: Routledge.
Kalaga W., Kubisz M., and Mydla J., 2011, “Preface”, [in:] A Culture of Recycling /
Recycling Culture?, 2011, eds. W. Kalaga, M. Kubisz, and J. Mydla, Frankfurt am
Mein: Peter Lang.
Leitch T., 2003, “Twelve Fallacies in Contemporary Adaptation Theory”, Criticism, vol. 45.2
(spring), pp. 149–171, http://adaptation391w.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2012/08/
Leitch-Twelve-Fallacies.pdf [accessed 11 November 2014].
Loock K., and Verevis C., 2012, “Introduction: Remake/Remodel”, [in:] Film Remakes,
Adaptations and Fan Productions. Remake/Remodel, eds. K. Loock and C. Verevis,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–15.
Murray, S., 2008, “Materializing Adaptation Theory”, Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 36, pp.
4-20.
Naremore, J., 1999, “Film and the Reign of Adaptation. Distinguished Lecture of the Institute
and Society for Advanced Study given on September 24, 1999, at Indiana University”,
pp. 1-13, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/8506/IAS-DLS-
10.pdf?sequence=1 [accessed 5 November 2014].
Palmer, R. B., 2004, “The Sociological Turn of Adaptation Studies: The Example of Film
Noir”, [in:] A Companion to Literature and Film, eds. R. Stam and A. Raengo,
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 258–77.
Randall M., 2007. “Recycling Recycling, or plus ça change....”, Other Voices, vol. 3.1 (May),
http://www.othervoices.org/3.1/mrandall/index.php [[accessed 17 November 2014].
Raw L., 2012, “Introduction: Identifying Common Ground”, [in:] Translation, Adaptation
and Transformation, ed. L. Raw, Bloomsbury Advances in Translation Series, London
and New York: Continuum, pp. 1–19.

15
Roberts Roda P., 1995, “Towards a Typology of Translations”, Hieronimus Complutensis,
vol. 1, pp. 69–78, http://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/hieronymus/pdf/01/01_069.pdf
[accessed 7 December 2014].
Slethaug G. E., 2014, Adaptation Theory and Criticism. Postmodern Literature and Cinema
in the USA, London and New York: Bloomsbury.
Valdeón R. A., “From Adaptation to Appropriation: Framing the World Through News
Translation”, https://www.academia.edu/8817215/From_Adaptation_to_Appropriation
_Framing_the_World_Through_News_Translation [accessed 5 December 2014].
Venuti L., 2007, “Adaptation, Translation, Critique”, Journal of Visual Culture, vol. 6.1, pp.
25–43.
Wasserman, R., and Corseuil A. R., 2013, “Travelling Cannibals”, Cualli, vol. 1, pp. 195–
217, http://www.kennesaw.edu/chs/CUALLI%20Journal/
NRRenataWassermanandAneliseCourseuil.pdf [accessed 5 December 2014].
Westbrook B., 2010, “Being Adaptation: The Resistance to Theory”, [in:] Adaptation Studies:
New Approaches, eds. C. Albrecht-Crane and D. R. Cutchins, Cranbury, NJ:
Rosemont, pp. 25–45.
Zatlin P., 2005, Theatrical Translation and Film Adaptation. A Practitioner’s View,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Zoller Seitz, M., 2013, “Seitz on Hannibal: It’s All a Dream, and It Hurts”, vulture.com, 23
June, http://www.vulture.com/2013/06/seitz-on-hannibal- its-a-dream-and- it-hurts.html
[accessed 7 December 2014].

Abstract
In this article I address some of the practical consequences of adopting translation theory
concepts within the field of adaptation studies. More specifically, I question the validity of the
hypothesis that adaptation studies, allegedly a discipline in shambles, is in desperate need of a
theoretical crossover with translation studies. While examining the claims made by, among
others, Patrick Cattrysse, Lawrence Venuti and Hugo de Campos, and confronting them with
the theories espoused by several cultural studies scholars, I intend to establish whether
translation studies indeed deserves to be extolled as a major source inspiration for adaptation
studies. Furthermore, the usefulness of such notions as the Polysystem Theory interpretants or
transluciferation are tested against the complex case of novel-to- film adaptation, namely the

16
2013 TV series Hannibal, which is based on the widely acclaimed Thomas Harris literary
franchise.

Key words : adaptation studies, interpretants, Polysystem Theory, translation theory,

transluciferation, recycling.

17