What is the job of the adapter if not to adapt?
Connor brings up an interesting point that Dudley states that there is an assumption that this the only job that the adapter has which makes for boring fidelity discussion. Isn’t that the point? This somewhat perplexes me because I suppose that I would assume, where Connor would not that there is some level of obligation owed to the fidelity of the original source by the adapter. I suppose that I also additionally understand the notion that only discussing the familiarity between the adaptation and the adapted can make for traditional and uninteresting discourse however this still does not tell me what if my IS the job of the adapter? Adaptation is inherently bound to its source material is it not? Bazin, who seems to be my go to theorist/thinker, would argue that so long as the spirit is faithful to the original it is still a good adaptation. Does this mean that the responsibility is to simply create a good adaptation based on less traditional thinking? This may be too many questions in one post.