The first term that probably comes to mind when thinking about relations between texts themselves is “intertextuality”, coined by Julia Kristeva in her essay “Word, Dialogue, and Novel”, written in 1966. This was one of the first attempts to bring into the light the
"mosaic" nature of literary texts, emphasizing the polyphonic and "derivative" nature of original works that, in turn, can invalidate the thought that adaptations and translations are secondary works. And, as mentioned before, when we say text, we do not restrict that term to the written pages; it encompasses music, film, television, paintings, etc., whatever is
“readable”.
For this thesis, we have chosen to use the term adaptation to refer to both television shows analyzed and to the other audiovisual works mentioned in the first chapter and, Linda Cahir brings a definition of what it means to adapt, in a more general way, and it “[...] means to alter the structure or function of an entity so that it is better fitted to survive and to multiply in its new environment. To adapt is to move that same entity into a new environment” (2006, p. 14). Hutcheon, in the first pages of her seminal work, presents a definition that she will explore throughout the aforementioned, that adaptation is
An acknowledged transposition of a recognizable other work or works
A creative and interpretive act of appropriation/salvaging
An extended intertextual engagement with the adapted work (2006, p. 8)
56
It is important then to consider the media of the texts, both source and adaptation, as
“[...] In many cases, because adaptations are to a different medium, they are re-mediations, that is, specifically translations in the form of intersemiotic transpositions from one sign system [...] to another” (HUTCHEON, 2009, p. 16). The term intermediality, or intermedial, according to Irina Rajewski, “[...] designates those configurations which have to do with a crossing of borders between media, and which thereby can be differentiated from intramedial phenomena as well as from transmedial phenomena” (2005, p. 46). Our choice to refer to the television series here analyzed as adaptations has to do with the overall approach of this thesis: they are, indeed, remediations and, more specifically, intermedial works when considering their relations to the source texts, but because we presented a brief timeline of works in the first chapter and will contemplate how the audiovisual works from the past have shaped the way characters in Sherlock Holmes products are configured, therefore considering an intramediality, we have chosen to maintain our use of the term adaptation.
In the beginning of adaptation studies, as many others, there was a hierarchy between source text and adaptation, putting the (usually) literary work into a pedestal, so that the adaptation could properly pay it homage and the respect critics felt it deserved. Scholars have, since then, in their theoretical works, proposed a rupture of this hierarchy, disestablishing literature as the primary and most important text, putting both works onto the same level of value. As Linda Hutcheon (2006) states, adaptation “[...] is a derivation that is not derivative – a work that is second without being secondary” (p. 19). But as it is possible to see in reviews and comments around the internet, people in general still contribute to this long overdue overvaluing of the source text when they write and enunciate sentences such as “the book was better than the movie”, “the book is always better than the movie”, “the book has so many more details than they can put in a movie”, or even “it wasn’t faithful to the book”, just to mention a couple of examples using the most common type of adaptation we get into contact with. Besides the matter of value, the matter of faithfulness is still very much present, even though adaptation scholars have refused the judgement for a long time. But what is to be faithful in an adaptation? Are there levels of faithfulness that the authors have to abide so that the adaptation is considered valid? How is this judgement of value being constructed in the minds of people? Both of these matters are extremely subjective issues, as each person will have a different opinion on what should have been done so that it was a better experience.
What we need to take into consideration is that all of these new works are also subjective interpretations of the source texts they propose to adapt, as each film maker (or other medium
adapters) will present their interpretation in the final product (XAVIER, 2003). A certain adaptation is an author/director’s interpretation and view on the subject, in a specific setting of time and space, that is, “[...] from the adapter’s perspective, adaptation is an act of appropriating or salvaging, and this is always a double process of interpreting and then creating something new” (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. 20). The same source text can generate two extremely different new texts if produced in two different locations, as the cultural and historical baggage (of both person and community) will influence on the process, as “[...] In shifting cultures and therefore sometimes shifting languages, adaptations make alterations that reveal much about the larger contexts of reception and production” (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. 28).
The value of adaptations is actually of great importance, as they are able to alter both slightly and/or completely the cultural polysystems. According to Itamar Even-Zohar (1990), a polysystem is a system that is “[...] dynamic and heterogeneous in opposition to the synchronistic approach” (p. 42). Our rejection of the judgement of value here presented builds on the notion that
[...] the polysystem hypothesis involves a rejection of value judgements as criteria for an a priory selection of the objects of study. [...] If one accepts the polysystem hypothesis, then one must also accept that the historical study of phenomena as polysystems cannot confine itself to the prestigious segments [...]. (EVEN-ZOHAR, 1990, p. 43)
Considering this, using the website Google Trends, a general term (“sherlock holmes livro” and “sherlock holmes book”) was chosen to see the impact – at least superficially – that these adaptations have caused in the United States, in the United Kingdom, and in our country regarding searches for Sherlock Holmes’s books. There has been a great increase in this very broad search term since January of 2010; it is possible to say that this is due to the release of Guy Richie’s Sherlock Holmes in December of 2009, though not with 100% of certainty without further research. What makes it possible to make such supposition is the fact that we have a peak towards the end of 2010 in Brazil, and in January of 2012 and 2014 in the three locations, and these dates coincide with the releases of the three seasons of BBC’s Sherlock.
In the following graphic, the blue line represents the search term “sherlock holmes livro” in Brazil, the red represents “sherlock holmes book” in the United Kingdom, and the yellow represents “sherlock holmes book” in the United States of America.
58
Image 1 – Google Trends graphic
This broad search term was used to illustrate that these new adaptations have brought Doyle’s works back into evidence, because it is visible that, before 2009, especially in Brazil, there was not a strong demand or even need of such books. The second peak chronologically is in August of 2010, days after the release of the first episode of Sherlock. The most significant peak abroad in the UK and the second most in Brazil and USA is in 2012, when the second season of the British series aired and Elementary started to air on CBS.
Taking into consideration these most recent adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes’s stories, it is possible to notice a movement as the stories are more on the center of attention, so maybe Doyle’s creation has been going through a renewal of position within the polysystem because of the adaptations. Since the release of the BBC series, for example, there are new books being released with the canon stories featuring images of the series on the front cover, so the editorial market has taken advantage of this new relevance of Sherlock Holmes.
The stories were already in our polysystem before, but they have gained more visibility with the new adaptations, a case that is similar to Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (1954) (INDRUSIAK, 2013), but, in this specific case, the adaptations introduced the written works to Brazilian readers. What this means for the Holmes canon today is that the process of adapting to television resignifies the character and changes the dimension of the relations between Sherlock and John.
It is most interesting to notice that even within adaptations themselves there is a strong hierarchy, especially with the two television shows chosen here. The first thing that we notice is in the amount of studies published on both series: the difference is extreme. There is a high number of works published analyzing, it’s possible to find so much more on Sherlock than on Elementary. The series are set two years apart of difference, one began in 2010 and the other in 2012, so it is definitely not a matter of the latter being too recent to have articles about it. A cursory research on internet websites, there seems to be a priority to talk about Sherlock; it is noticeable due to the number of articles and even whole books – even if collecting articles –
dedicated to the series, and Elementary, up to this date, still has no books, and only a handful of academic articles. As of news articles in general, the amount is similar, but it is clear the preference of the BBC series over the CBS one. When CBS announced the series, actually, there was heavy judgement of it being a copy of the Sherlock series, due to it being a contemporary version set in New York, that is was not original or creative to do it, as we can see in articles such as “'Sherlock' versus 'Elementary' – homage or rip-off?”5 (BEHR, 2013),
“Steven Moffat ‘Annoyed’ By Sherlock Show Elementary, Fears Damage To ‘Brand’”6 (CONNELLY, 2012), “US plan to 'copy' Sherlock angers BBC”7 (MIRROR ONLINE, 2012).
Adaptations being set in their contemporary time is actually a Sherlock Holmes tendency that is not new, as it was mentioned in the first chapter of this thesis. It was only in 1940 that the first adaptation set in the Victorian times was released, so to say it is a mere copy because of that makes no sense. And even though both series initially seem so different from one another in their premises, when one looks more in depth into both, it is possible to see that they actually have a lot of similarities, though still not a mere copy, including the fact that they can both be considered police procedurals, according to Tom Steward (2012) – which will be commented on the next subchapter and more thoroughly argued in chapter four.