Since I am doing my presentation on Leitch my post wont be as long as normal because I don’t want to give all of my ideas away! In his article Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads, he asks: “is literature on screen?” “if it is on screen, is it literature?” Seems to be a bit broad but I think it is important to think about with our studies of adaptation in class. When I think about these questions I wonder, how can literature physically be on screen? I assume he doesn’t mean a physicality of literature because that is just not possible! I think he means the spirit of the piece of literature and the spirit that we have talked about in class; the true core of the piece of literature and its use in an adaptation. He says that adaptation theorists are stuck with the notion that adaptation has to be faithful to its original source texts. He says that this is what is ‘haunting’ the field and that a lot of adaptations use secondary sources as well but these are completely ignored. He says. “Beneath this contradictory notion of film adaptation as not merely hybrid texts but texts holding dual citizenship in two modes of presentation is an even more pervasive legacy that haunts adaptation studies : the assumption that the primary context within which adaptations are to be studied is literature”( Leitch 64). So my question is: Do we focus on adaptation strictly in the context of the primary literary source? How come we forget the other sources that may contribute to the adaptation? And does this mean that all of the adaptation theorists we have read thus far are stuck with this same perception?