The Theory of Appropriation

By Karla Sabella 

The Theory of Appropriation 

As the Oxford Dictionary states, to adapt is to “make suitable for a new use or purpose” (Soanes & Stevenson, 2005). Perhaps a more accurate definition of adaptation lies in the biological explanation of it, which is “the process by which organisms undergo modification so as to function more perfectly in a given environment” (King, Stansfield, Mulligan, 2007) In lieu of this, the adaptation of a text has three functions. Firstly, it reworks the previous text to provide a new reflection upon the ‘original’ ideas and themes. Secondly, it re-positions these ‘original’ ideas to appeal to a new audience. Thirdly, it potentially challenges the ideologies both within the prior text, as well as the contemporary context. In doing so, it becomes better suited to its environment, as well as for a new audience and purpose.  

The relationship between new texts to their ‘originals’ is central to the ideas of adaptation and appropriation.  Julie Sanders (2006) identifies the difference between adaptation and appropriation. She suggests that adaptation signals an obvious “relationship with an informing sourcetext or original” (p.26). An example of this would be the adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet to Zeffirelli’s film Romeo and Juliet. In contrast, an appropriation invokes a more subtle collaboration of ideas and characters from the ‘original’ text, frequently affecting “a more decisive journey away from the informing source into a wholly new cultural product and domain” (Sanders, 2006, p.26).  

There are two techniques most commonly used in literary adaptations and appropriations. The first is bricolage, which is a French term for ‘Do-it-yourself’ (DIY). It involves the invocation of other texts, assembling “a range of quotations, allusion, and citations from existent works of art” (Sanders, 2006, p.4). This technique is more commonly known as intertextuality, a term coined by Julia Kristeva (1980). Secondly, as a subcategory of intertextuality, pastiche is considered as more of an imitation. Satirists often employ pastiche by taking fragments of information, plot line, characters and even direct quotations to re-position them often as a mockery of the former text1.  

There are two reasons that old texts are most commonly appropriated. Perhaps most obviously, a text is re-worked simply because the initial story has remained popular and well known. Particularly in times of economic hardship, composers of texts are able to ‘play it safe’ by appropriating aspects of previously admired texts. Their past popularity is often a testament to their success in any context if grafted effectively. Secondly, appropriations are commonly considered to be politically motivated. As Sanders (2006) suggests, appropriation “frequently adopts a posture of critique, even assault” (p.4) on the prior text. 

Commonly, the act of ‘writing back’ or appropriating gives voice to those characters that were marginalised in the initial texts, challenging the authority of the sourcetext.   Indeed the study of appropriations in an academic context has in part been spurred on by the recognised ability of adaptation to respond or write back to an informing original from a new or revised political and cultural position, and by the capacity of appropriations to highlight troubling gaps, absences, and silences within the canonical texts to which they refer. Many appropriations have a joint political and literary investment in giving voice to those characters or subject-positions they perceive to have been oppressed or repressed in the original. (Sanders, 2006, p.98)