Curtin, M. (2012) ‘ Chinese media and globalization ‘, Chinese Journal of Communication, 5(1), pp. 1-9. Available at: https:// doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2011.647737
This article by Diya Abraham systematically traces the theoretical development and practical cases of adapting classic literature into modern media, moving from fidelity criticism to creative reinterpretation, and offering a relatively comprehensive framework for adaptation studies. Reading it has provided both theoretical inspiration and several directly applicable insights for my own research.
Summary of Key Arguments
The article’s central argument is that adaptations are not inferior copies of their source texts, but independent cultural products with their own value. The author organizes this argument around three main theoretical threads. First, early “fidelity criticism” treated the original work as the ultimate standard, viewing adaptation as an inevitable loss. Second, scholars represented by Hutcheon redefined adaptation as “repetition without replication,” emphasizing that it is a creative reinterpretation calibrated to new cultural contexts. Third, Kristeva’s theory of intertextuality reveals the ongoing dialogue between adaptations, their source texts, and contemporary culture. Through three case studies — Luhrmann’s Romeo & Juliet, Wright’s Pride and Prejudice, and The Great Gatsby — the article demonstrates how adaptations revitalize classic narratives for contemporary audiences through adjustments in visual style, characterization, and cultural framing.
Relevance to My Research
This article offers direct theoretical grounding for my study of how Chinese media reinterprets mythology.
First, Hutcheon’s framework of creative transformation can be applied directly to works such as Creation of the Gods and Ne Zha, which preserve the core narrative structure of mythology while substantially modernizing character motivations and visual language — a process that exemplifies the kind of “negotiation” my research seeks to examine.
Second, the article’s discussion of intertextuality is particularly pertinent. Chinese mythological adaptations do not merely engage in dialogue with traditional texts; they also enter into cross-cultural conversation with Hollywood narrative conventions, as seen in comparisons with the Thor franchise. This tension sits at the heart of the “global influence” dimension of my research.
Third, the article’s treatment of reception theory offers a useful reminder that the negotiation Chinese creators undertake between tradition, modernity, and global influence is also fundamentally a response to divergent audience expectations — domestic audiences seek cultural identification, while international audiences anticipate a fresh encounter with Eastern mythology.
It is worth noting, however, that the article’s scope is limited to Western canonical literature, with virtually no engagement with mythological adaptation outside the Western tradition. This gap is precisely where my research has the potential to make a meaningful contribution.
