I can’t exactly remember whose post it was, but the post pointed out that Leitch is basically saying that everyone and everything that we have read is wrong.
In “Twelve Fallacies”, Leitch makes the note that adaptation studies is founded on a single fallacy: that there is is no such thing as contemporary adaptation theory. Why would Leitch believe this? And is he falling into the very trap that he sets out for other theorists?
Considering that “Twelve Fallacies” is a very recent article. Thus, Leitch arguably can comfortably fit into the category of “Post Modern”. Thus, his argument that there is no such thing as a contemporary adaption theory would make sense with a post-modernist reading. Leitch argues that even though there is increased attention on the relationship between film and text, there has been so significant theoretical work done. Yet, he cites many authors and theorists that we ourselves have read. Is he implying that people such as Elliot, Griffith, etc. cannot be considered respected theorists because the claims they made about adaptation are wrong? Leitch seems to be cherry-picking what he wants to prove that there has been no substantial research done in adaptation studies. While I agree that more can be done, contemporary adaptation theory does exists. Contemporary becomes the key word that I believe Leitch is not paying attention to. Contemporary implies current–separated from the past. Irregardless of how much theory there is in adaptation studies, contemporary views and research is obviously different from what it was originally thought.
Hopefully this rant makes sense. It just seems too presumptuous for Leitch to assume that there is no contemporary adaption theory. It is lacking, but it does exist. Yet, I do agree with many of his other points in the article. Like Elliot, he seems to be implicitly trying to push for the legitimacy of adaptation studies.