intertextuality/intermediality

It's hard to set the rules for writing about adaptation, when its essential nature is to cross boundaries, one way or another. I get easily tired with arguments about how something should be talked about. Why attempt to limit the discourse? Why, on the other hand, try to open the conversation using suggestion and argument about discourse when time would be better spent actually saying something oneself? Why not lead by example?

Let's assume that all ways of approaching the topic of adaptation are equally valid. What do I want to talk about?

Adaptation is the most blatant example of intertextuality (when that concept is expanded to include relationships between narratives in different media). The meaning of a film adaptation is greatly affected by its relationship to its source, and thus, audience reception is often dependent on the public's familiarity with the source material (as well as how much that material is already 'treasured').

Meanwhile, any film or book is already situated within the larger 'matrix' of narratives within its tradition. So an adaptation is not only tied to its source, but also, more loosely, to similar narratives within its home media and all the more indirectly to narratives related to its source material. Homages are common in novels and films - from titles (e.g. For Whom the Bell Tolls) to visual sequences that mirror scenes from other movies. Relationships between narratives, in whatever form, are inescapable. Adaptation creates ties across media to build our story-matrix ever larger, deeper, and richer.