Week 12 - "Useless" Beauty --> Useful Literary Adaptations?

Like Kristin I was struck by our discussion on Thursday about adaptations. Adapting a text, film, or any other form of media can be very difficult because if a creator stays too close to the original piece they can be criticized for not using their imagination. Adaptations that resemble the original piece are often labeled “boring” and “safe”. But, at the same time, if a creator takes too much liberty in preparation of an adaptation they too can be criticized. An adaptation can go too far in trying to bring imagination to an original work. So, considering all of this where is (and is there) a happy medium?

I tend to think the answer to this question varies from subject to subject but, I am not sure. Speaking from experience, I can say that Matthew Bourne’s all male version of Swan Lake is a good adaptation of the original Swan Lake. This particular ballet uses the same storyline as the original but, the dancers adopt a slightly different attitude.  Nicknamed the “gay Swan Lake” by the British and American press it definitely is a different Swan Lake then I am used to seeing. But, just because it is different does not mean I don’t enjoy Bourne’s interpretation of a classical piece. I don’t think anyone can out due the elegance of the original Swan Lake but, I still fully appreciate this new rendition of Swan Lake. I think a successful adaptation should engage the viewers in a new exciting way but, still remind the viewers of the beauty of the original piece.

The discussion about reality as a story really intrigued me.  When I think about it, I feel that there are two aspects to discussion, perceived reality, and actual reality.  It seems obvious to me that perceived reality is a story created by whoever is perceiving the reality.  A human’s reality is different from a dog’s, and I feel that its safe to say that one human’s reality even differs from another, and one dog’s reality differs from another.  Each individual perceives a reality different from everyone else for two reasons.  First, no individual has the same experiences, and different experiences change the way one views reality.  Second, the anatomical “machinery” used to convert the actual reality into something perceivable differs from one individual to another.  All humans may have the same general anatomy, but no two humans have the exact same eyes or neural networks.  Ultimately, everyone has their own story of reality.

The notion of different perceptions of reality is straightforward, simple, logical, and an argument in which most would agree.  A discussion about an actual reality is much more theoretical and up for debate.  Many would argue that there is an inherent actual reality that we can never truly experience, but does in fact exist.  Initially, when I began thinking about this I agreed, but the more I think about it, the more unsure I am.  If no organism can truly experience the actual reality, than does the actual reality actually exist?  This is exactly the same as the age old philosophical question: If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?  A part of me wants to say it doesn’t, but at the same time a part wants to say it does.  I am torn. 

Although there are aspects of reality that change from individual to individual, such as the way they experience seeing color, or the way they experience hearing something, but there are physical constants that are universal to all, aren’t there?  For example, everyone experiences time in the same manor.  A second to one individual is a second to another, right?  Well, theoretically, it is conceptually possible that one person experiences time differently than another.  Everyone knows what a second is, but that doesn’t me that one’s experience of a second is not different than another’s.  A second to one may be the experiential equivalent to 1.25 seconds of another.  That could explain why some people are better at sports…things just move a little slower for them.   Now this is just a theoretical possibility, and although it may not be correct, I don’t see any evidence that suggests it’s wrong.    

But, at the same time, I feel like there must be some inherent, actual reality, that everyone experiences, but in a different way.  Even if we do experience time differently, I feel that the difference is created at the biological level, not the physical.  The bottom line, however, is that there is no way we will ever know what this inherent, actual reality is, Likewise there is no way to know who’s story of reality is closer to the actual reality, or if we get closer or farther away from reality as we, as a species evolve.   

Here’s an interesting question: if there is an actual reality, and if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is correct, would evolution force our perception of reality closer or further away from actual reality?

i don't think that it's appropriate to say that a novel based on another novel, an adaptation, is evolution. evolution is a process that occurs over millenia and refers observations about a scientific process. with a literary adaptation, though, a single author chooses to create a new book and he or she is inspired by an older one. this is a single decision, this is an author's reponse, so it can't be an evolution.

Both scientific journals and literature have a similar objective and theme.  Both try to grab their readers’ attention by discussing one place and time that the authors themselves are intrigued by.  Evolution is prevalent in both and, eventually, a conclusion concerning the particular evolution must be written to satisfy the taste of their readers.  Scientific journals typically discuss the importance of a particular organism (usually an animal or plant) in its natural environment and investigate a variety of possibilities to how that organism evolved or has lived, which ends with the most logical of suspected conclusions.  This is not very different from literature, where a reader is acquainted with a number of different characters, who, over the course of the book, emotionally and physically evolve, culminating at the conclusion.

Andrea Zambetti

It goes without saying that biological evolution is different from other types of evolution.  That having been said, when it comes time to articulate this difference, what seems to end up happening is that in the act of explaining the difference, more similarities seem to emerge between the two than differences.  This perplexes me: How is possible to talk oneself out of such a strong intuition?

 I think that Evan makes a really interesting distinction between literary trends and biological evolution.  As he says, trends come and go, whereas biological traits evolve on an irreversible continuum.  Is there such a thing as literary evolution?  Or is it really just about trends?

I think that Katie's idea fits in well here too.  As Katie says, humans have the power to invent literature; every piece of literature we read is a human creation, and every concept in literature has emerged as a result of writers' decisions to deal with those concepts.  I think this is a key difference between biological evolution and literary evolution: the process of biological evolution is something that is completely beyond human control. 

Which brings me to ekorn's point--that in the process of evolution, it is the original evolutionary source that provides the most insight into every adaptation of that source that comes after it.  Is this the case with the two terms: biological and let's say, linguistic evolution?  The idea of biological evolution (I think) came first before other types of evolution were considered, and therefore it is biological evolution that provides the discourse for other types of evolution.  If we didn't have an understanding of and a vocabulary for discussing biological evolution, we would not have an understanding of or a vocabulary for discussing any other type of evolution.

So then, is the reason why it's hard to articulate the difference between biological and other types  of evolution because there is only one discourse for evolution--the original, which is biological evolution?  It is the case that whenever we attempt to distinguish between biological and other types of evolution it is difficult because there is no vocabulary by which we can effectively do so?

I'm kinda maybe beginning to see the connection with evolving stories and evolving biological processes. I see it as a time frame sort of thing. On Beauty came out during a time period when the content of the book would make sense. We are struggling with the issues that her book addresses, especially race, today. It has evolved to the right thing because of it's time, and has therefore survived. I think if Smith hadn't changed as much as she had, like only flopped the gender of the characters, the story wouldn't make sense in modern times. People wouldn't relate to the time period and it would be an evolutionary failure. Howard's End was a success because it too was appropriate for it's time and audience. Biological evolution is a timing thing also. Humans wouldn't have survived if we evolved in the early oxygen-lacking atmosphere.

I'm still having a hard time saying that literary and biological evolution are exactly the same. I can't see the randomness in literature that biological evolution has. Maybe it doesn't have to be there. Literature and art are not organisms, so maybe they don't evolve exactly like them. Maybe the processes of evolution are different for each medium, but they still occur.

Race is certainly a large element of Smith’s, On Beauty. But rather that distinguish between the so-called races I think Smith is using this text to illustrate that there are many ways of being, regardless of race, that have more to do with class standing. The perception of what race is has changed over time, and today we know that using race as a signifier of other elements of personhood is inutile. I think Smith is playing with this idea. Levi is discovering himself, and in the process he questions his black icons, and the way in which he thinks about blackness, his own and others. Kiki plays with her identity a number of times. She uses her girth and her way of speaking to project a certain image. Does this image that she projects line up with the individual within? It is her way of adapting to changing environments. This process of personal evolution and adaptation is offset by the change in society between Forsters England and modern New England. I would argue that when it comes to blackness not much has changed in essence. Forster romanticizes Africa, while Smith romanticizes blackness, though Forster was somewhat unaware of what he was doing and Smith is well aware and toying with our ideas of identity formation and perception.

We discussed that one way in which On Beauty is different from Howards End is that On Beauty does not leave any thing to the next generation. There is no illegitimate child of a Bast to inherit the University. I do think though that there is something to be said for the mixed race individual that is inheriting the racially divisive society of her or his parents. While the Bast baby, the mixture of the classes, is inheriting all riches of England, Kiki’s children, the mixture of nations and ‘races’ is inheriting the university, the analytics, and hopefully a bit of the beauty of their parents.

As for its generativity, I find On Beauty to be even more generative for me than Howards end. When I leave the text I can still see the characters walking around and talking. They are alive for me, and in my mind I can generate more stories about them.

Danielle

Zadie Smith's work and our analysis of it in class has made me consider the repurcussions of being an academic as Smith puts it. Immersed in the realm of textbooks, scholarly journals, and papers, according to Smith, academics are seeking meaning that does not exist, yearning to put their name on a new idea that is the illegitimate spawn of the original and functional thought.
I am bothered by how quick Smith is to assume that academia is a permanent field of creating stories that do not belong. I see reasons why academia should persist and do not understand how can Smith assume that everyone is as (and these next few points are debateable and certainly subjective..) poignant as she is, as capable as she is in forming a story, and as equipped to understand the changing world without this education she so greatly condemns? Certainly Smith does not want to see the population refuse to go to class and learn the basics, but it is my understanding that her perception is that those in the field of academia spend simply too much time and effort devoted to picking apart what should just be left untouched. Perhaps Smith's message is that these academics do not leave well enough alone, but rather attempt to create stories and meaning beyond what is there. This presumptuous practice causes Smith to discount the work of academics, yet I think Smith is just as presumptuous to do so.

Scanning through Sunday’s paper, I too was excited to find yet another article that related to this class.  This time it was David Brooks’ op-ed piece, “The Age of Darwin.”  However, after reading the column, my initial excitement quickly faded.  His initial point, “Once the Bible shaped all conversation, then Marx, then Freud, but today Darwin is everywhere,” is very observant.  In fact, after discussing and connecting evolution in our class for almost an entire semester, I feel that Brooks’ statement is actually very reflective of my own personal awakening to the dominate presence that the topic of evolution holds in our modern world.  And yet from the conversations in class, I cannot help but be skeptical about nearly every subsequent claim Brooks makes concerning the process of evolution.  In his praise of evolution, Brooks’ proclaims that evolution, “holds that most everything that exists does so for a purpose. If some trait, like emotion, can cause big problems, then it must also provide bigger benefits, because nature will not expend energy on things that don’t enhance the chance of survival.”  This argument seems not only overly simplified, it simply does not hold up to either biological or anthropological reasoning.  Having just read the book, “Unnatural Emotions” by Catherine Lutz, I feel that Brooks’ equating of “emotion” as simply a trait is just false.  And biologists would agree.  The fact of the matter is, emotion is socially constructed.  And not only that, in biological evolution, only the genetic components of variation can have true evolutionary consequence.  Again, in his claim that, “nature will not expend energy on things that don’t enhance the chance of survival,” I wonder what he means with his use of the word “things”.  Populations?  Individuals? It makes a difference.  While trying to write a short sweet piece on the “grand narrative that explains behavior and gives shape to history,” Brooks further complicates the “meaning” of evolution and provides his readers with misleading examples to explain the significance of evolution in our current society.  

The differences between Howard's End and On Beauty are numerous.  While initially I was annoyed with Smith's calling her novel a hommage to Forster, as I read on, I began to understand that this was not the plot copy I initially thought it to be.  She is applying the timeless themes from Howard's End and applying them to the modern era.  Smith's novel appears to me, to be much more complex than Forster's.  This is not to say that Smith is not more clever, but rather, that our modern society contains many more conflicts than the society in which Forster's novel was written.  While Forster's novel deals mostly with social classes, perhaps just touching on the issues of gender and nationality, Smith goes in depth with these themes and more, especially race.

Another one of the more interesting themes I found in Smith's novel was the role of religion.  It is a common question, "what role does religion play in today's society?".  It is not an easy question to answer.  The article above makes a good point, in a nation where almost anything is possible, is it logical to believe in God?   While Howard refuses to change his ways, he is staunchly against religion throughout the novel, mocking it as well as becoming angry toward it.  But if it is as hindering as some believe it to be, where is Howard's actions coming from?

 Still thinking..