Chapter 6 demonstrates how and why adaptation resists theorization at its second stage: the development of taxonomies. While taxonomization has been challenged as a theoretical enterprise generally, adaptation offers more particular resistance to it. As a process that crosses taxonomical borders of all kinds, adaptation is itself anti-taxonomical. Even so, examining how some scholars have sought to taxonomize adaptation and others have resisted adaptation taxonomies informs adaptation’s relationship to theorization. As with definitions, taxonomies have subjected adaptation to other disciplines and their taxonomies. While discussions of adaptation taxonomies have been largely focused on taxonomies from translation studies and narratology, adaptation has been subjected to a host of others, studied and organized by adapters, genres, nations, historical periods, media forms and technologies, and by the taxonomies of identity politics, which are rarely addressed as taxonomical systems. Moreover, disciplines are themselves taxonomies: certain disciplines (most notably philosophy, history, linguistics/rhetoric) have been accorded theorizing power in the humanities, while others have not. By contrast, adaptation inhabits all disciplines and cannot be satisfactorily theorized without input from them all. Joining scholars who have for centuries questioned the ability of rational and empirical epistemologies to theorize the arts, Chapter 6 argues for creative-critical adaptation practice as a way to generate dialogues between the theorizing and “non-theorizing” disciplines. As with definition, retheorizing adaptation theorization at the level of taxonomization is not a matter of deciding which taxonomies developed to study other things we should apply to adaptation but of taxonomizing adaptation as adaptation and of setting these in dialogue with the taxonomies we already have in adaptation studies.
Aristophanes in Comic Books: Adaptation as Metabase