Television and Serial Adaptation

As American television continues to garner considerable esteem, rivaling the seventh art in its “cinematic” aesthetics and the complexity of its narratives, one aspect of its development has been relatively unexam- ined. While lm has long acknowledged its tendency to adapt, an ability that contributed to its status as narrative art (capable of translating canonical texts onto the screen), television adaptations have seemingly been relegated to the miniseries or classic serial. From remakes and reboots to transmedia storytelling, loose adaptations or adaptations which last but a single episode, the recycling of pre-existing narrative is a practice that is just as common in television as in lm, and this text seeks to rectify that oversight, examining series from M*A*S*H to Game of Thrones, Pride and Prejudice to Castle.

Shannon Wells-Lassagne is Senior Lecturer at the University of Burgundy-Franche Comté in Dijon, France. Routledge Advances in Television Studies

1 Parody and Taste in Postwar American Television Culture Ethan Thompson

2 Television and Postfeminist Housekeeping: No Time for Mother Elizabeth Nathanson

3 The Antihero in American Television Margrethe Bruun Vaage

4 American Militarism on the Small Screen Edited by Anna Froula and Stacy Takacs

5 Appreciating the Art of Television A Philosophical Perspective Ted Nannicelli

6 Politics and Politicians in Contemporary US Television Washington as Fiction Betty Kaklamanidou and Margaret J. Tally

7 Contemporary British Television Crime Drama Cops on the Box Edited by Ruth McElroy

8 Television and Serial Adaptation Shannon Wells-Lassagne Television and Serial Adaptation

Shannon Wells-Lassagne First published 2017 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

The right of Shannon Wells-Lassagne to be identi ed as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identi cation and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

CIP data has been applied for.

ISBN: 978-1-138-69635-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-52453-5 (ebk)

Typeset in Sabon by codeMantra Contents

Acknowledgments vii

PART I Building Blocks

1 Television and Adaptation: De ning Terms 3 2 Beginning, Middle, and End: Structure and Seriality in Television Adaptation 31

PART II Home Entertainment

3 Familiarity and Novelty: Television Microadaptations 63 4 Crossing Over: Television Adaptation, between Universality and Speci city 88 5 Origin and Intention: Authorship in Television Adaptation 123

PART III Broadcasting …

6 Here and There and Back Again: TV’s Inuence on Popular Fiction 155 Conclusion 187

Works Cited 191 TV Shows Cited 191 Films Cited 194 vi Contents Books Cited 196 Primary Sources and Literature 196 Secondary Sources: Adaptation 198 Secondary Sources: Television and Film 200 Secondary Sources: Literary Criticism and Theory 203 Articles Cited 205 Webliography 205 Artwork Cited 213 Index 215 Acknowledgments

To my colleagues and friends without whose support and enthusiasm I would not have entered the study of adaptation or television series, and this book would certainly never have been completed: Ariane Hudelet, Sarah Hatchuel, Sylvaine Bataille, Monica Michlin, Laurent Mellet, David Roche, Georges-Claude Guilbert, Claire Cornillon, Donna Andréolle, Florence Cabaret, Delphine Letort—and others. It is a privilege to work with people who are so full of energy and ideas (and who might also occasionally know how to blow off some steam). Special thanks to Sarah Hatchuel, whose careful and ultra-ef cient reading of this manuscript was the source of many new ideas and improvements, as well as a lifeline in moments of doubt. Thanks to my parents, whose unfailing support allowed me the time and energy to write this book, but beyond that, whose faith in me has been a mainstay through life’s many twists and turns. And to Tom, who makes everything worth it. This page intentionally left blank Part I Building Blocks This page intentionally left blank Television and Adaptation De ning Terms

Given the current popularity of adaptation studies, and the public acclaim for a new “golden age” in television, it seems odd that there should not be a more extended analysis of where the two might meet. Indeed, both adaptation and television are taxed with similar grievous faults, being more commercial than their “purer” brethren1—the cinema in general for television, and the art lm in particular for lm adaptations—or being too tightly tethered to their texts (whether it be the adaptation’s source text or the reign of the writer/producer in television) to take full advantage of their visual media. The hybrid nature of adaptation, the dif culty adaptation scholars have had in de ning what constitutes an adaptation, an allusion, or a simple use of intertextuality, is similar to the heterogeneous nature of television, which was always the repository for lm, news, variety shows, or talk shows in addition to the panorama of different types of television ction we’ll be discussing here. The inter- section of these two areas of study, then, center around some of the same issues, which may be either compounded or transformed when television broadcasts adaptations, providing new challenges and surprising innovations for those whose interests lie in either of these disciplines. The relative lack of academic focus on the topic is perhaps all the more surprising given that television’s early dependence on previous forms of narrative is well-known. Like the birth of lm, which poached stories, writers, and directors from literature and theater, early television was characterized by its adaptation of radio dramas in particular. In this, television followed in the footsteps of all young media, which tend to smooth the transition of the new technology by using previous narrative forms to showcase their innovations without rufing the feathers of novice users:

The introduction of a mass communication medium normally occurs when an economically viable commercial application is found for a new technology. A third element necessary to the launch, content (i.e., something to communicate), is often treated as something of an afterthought in the process. As a result, adaptations of popular works and of entire genres from previous media tend to dominate 4 Building Blocks the introductory period of a new medium, even as they mutate under the developing conditions. Such was the case in the rise of the television sitcom from the ashes of network radio.2

It seems clear, then, that adaptation has always been an issue in the television landscape, but perhaps never more so than now. The new golden age of television3 has an unprecedented voracity for content, given the multiplication of sources for television ction, be it broadcast networks, cable channels, satellite television, or non-broadcast sources like Net- ix, Amazon, or web series on YouTube or elsewhere. As a result, the number of adaptations from various media onto the small screen has multiplied, with TV studios seeking tried and true formulas from other media, be it lm, literature, graphic novels, websites, etc. In her 2003 work Storytelling in Film and Television, Kristin Thompson lists adaptations from lm to TV between the years 1980 and 1998, and names 71 series overall,4 which sounds impressive in and of itself. However, at the time of writing, the Internet Movie Data Base lists 81 television series based on a play,5 177 series based on a lm,6 347 based on a comic,7 and a whopping 1044 series based on a novel;8 of these 439 have appeared since 2000, when Thompson’s statistics end.9 Clearly, a phenomenon that was already signi cant when Thompson wrote has now reached epic proportions. Though we’ve argued that this is nothing new to television, what is novel about recent adaptations is not just their omnipresence, but also their reception. There has arguably never been such an emphasis placed on the process of adaptation in television. The improved availability of foreign television in the United States has increased familiarity with the original inspiration for American adaptations like The Of ce (NBC, 2005–2013), The Killing (AMC, 2011–2013, Netix, 2014), or The Bridge (FX, 2013–2014), making the relationship between source text and adaptation more visible (and more easily subject to criticism). In- deed, one could argue that this is but one aspect of a more general phenomenon, the “forensic fandom” that Jason Mittell studied in relation to the series Lost10 (ABC, 2004–2010), which delights in digging into the hidden meanings of text.11 Finding similarities and differences between source text and television adaptation and teasing out underlying meanings in the choices showrunners make to keep or discard elements of the original narrative thus becomes another way to interact with the ction. Indeed, the lure of this adaptation-based “forensic fandom” is so strong that the website The AV Club has two different types of episode reviews for Game of Thrones (HBO, 2011–), one for fans who have read the novels on which the series is based, and one for those who prefer to watch only the series: the show has contributed largely to the debate on the prevalence of spoilers, as book readers argue about sharing their knowledge of plot points from long-published novels.12 Likewise, Television and Adaptation 5 the new emphasis on “quality television” inaugurated by Robert J. Thompson,13 and the creation of the showrunner as the auteur of new quality shows, has heightened the attention paid to the complexity of narrative as never before. Adaptations, therefore, become the locus of all kinds of debates on new television: the question of the author/auteur, the complexity of serial storytelling and narrative, the speci city of the serial form as compared to its source material, for example. Each of the following chapters will explore one of these issues raised by small-screen adaptation, taking its cue from adaptation critics like Thomas Leitch,14 Christine Geraghty,15 or Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan,16 all of whom use case studies judiciously to illustrate the multifaceted nature of adaptation. Adaptation studies have come into their own since Bluestone’s rst book-length study on the subject.17 Though early studies largely focused on lm’s inability to be faithful to its source, given the innate limitations of the medium that many dated back to Lessing’s distinctions between poetry and painting, more recent works have sought to de ne and study adaptations as such, trying to pinpoint what constitutes the nature and the value of an adaptation without placing it in a hierarchical (and necessarily subordinate) relationship with its source material. This desire to question the established cultural value of the source text smacks of postmodernism, of course, with its tendency to eschew the strict distinctions between high and low culture, though Kamilla Elliot notes in her seminal work The Novel/Film Debate, adaptation is fundamentally a delicate balance of theoretical stances:

Adaptation lies between the rock of a post-Saussurian insistence that form does not and cannot separate from content and the hard place of poststructuralism’s debunking of content, of original and local signi eds alike. If words and images do not and cannot translate, and if form does not and cannot separate from content (whether because of their mandated insoluble bond or because content is simply an illusion), then what remains to pass between a novel and lm in adaptation?18

With some rare exceptions, where scholars have returned to the delity argument,19 adaptation studies have recently tended toward de nition (and rede nition) of its ambiguous central term, and reconsideration of adaptations in relation to not only its source material, but the various elements inuencing its creation, as per Philippe Marion and André Gaudreault’s theory of transécriture.20 Though many of these studies offer valuable insight, the application of adaptation studies to television has been fairly rare, an oversight that this work hopes to help correct. To do so, however, it seems crucial to note the speci city of the television adaptation, especially as 6 Building Blocks compared to its more widely studied cinematic kin. To do so, I’d like to examine two somewhat problematic adaptations to television, 12 Mon- keys (SyFy, 2015–) and Caprica (Syfy, 2010). These two series have much in common; not only did they air on the same channel and come from the same science- ction genre, they adapted well-known and beloved source texts21 (Terry Gilliam’s lm 12 Monkeys (1995), and Ron Moore and David Eick’s television series Battlestar Galactica (Syfy, 2003–2009), respectively) making them among the most anticipated new series upon their débuts. They are both in fact re-adaptations, as those source texts were in fact adaptations of earlier works—Chris Marker’s La Jetée (1962)22 and Glen A. Larson’s Battlestar Galactica series (ABC, 1978–1979), respectively. But ultimately, I chose these two series to begin this study of television adaptation because they challenge the very de nition of what adaptation is, and thus force us to rede ne the term for the television. Indeed, what interests me most about these two series is that they became associated with their well- known sources only after the fact—thus calling into question their status as adaptations at all. Series creators Terry Matalas and Travis Fickett wrote a script called Splinter about time travel that came to the attention of producer Richard Suckle, who was eager to remake the Terry Gilliam lm;23 Remi Aubuchon intended to make a television series about arti cial intelligence before being put into contact with Ron Moore and David Eick, who were interested in expanding the Battlestar universe. Because these shows were retooled to become adaptations—and this reinvention was made public knowledge—it seems that they are a particularly apt example to illustrate some of the particularities of adaptation applied to the art form of television. Unlike most adaptations, where adaptors almost systematically accentuate their desire to reinvent a beloved text, and their respect for the author and source text, here equal weight has been given to both the original idea and its relation to an older text; these became adaptations not because they were originally inspired by their source texts, but because they shared similar themes, similar concerns. Though of course upon broadcast their status as adaptations was predominant, given that the audience does not have access to the original screenplays, but can study the source texts at will, nonetheless the fact that their showrunners were open about this almost coincidental adaptation seems revealing; the admission thus precludes the hierarchisation of the original as the source text, at least in theory. In his article “Adaptation, the genre”, Thomas Leitch suggests that some lms are perceived as adaptations even without knowledge of the source text, that markers are signaling its adaptation status independent of its origins.24 By examining these two series, we will see how this idea can apply to television: what constitutes a television adaptation? How does it identify itself as such, with or without knowledge of its source? Television and Adaptation 7 Beyond their unusual genesis, of course, readers might also question the choice of these series as adaptations rather than as remakes, reboots, or spin-offs. Addressing this issue demands that we take into account the speci city of the ongoing storytelling of television ction; the implications of serial storytelling cannot be overstated in understanding the unique nature of the television adaptation. Long-running series in particular tend to fairly quickly outstrip their source material, leading them to almost systematically add in plotlines and characters; the division of story into seasons and episodes (and in shows on non-premium cable channels, into fairly stringently determined acts to leave room for commercial breaks) demands different structures, different beats than those commonly practiced in other media. The model for television adaptation is without a doubt an expansive one, incorporating new ideas, new models alongside the old. In keeping with this, there are forms of adaptation that have been popularized by the small screen, notably the spin-off (as is the case for Caprica), which maintains certain elements (most often characters) from a previous television ction and places them in a new context (but with a few notable exceptions,25 in the same genre). The reboot, which begins a well-known story anew (often bringing it into a more contemporary setting) and the prequel, which precedes the original story, have also become very popular in the contemporary television landscape.26 Caprica is all three of these and was one of the rst television prequels to hit the air,27 while 12 Monkeys is a reboot, transposing the action that in Gilliam’s lm took place in the mid-1990s into the year 2015 (and 2043 post-apocalypse). The proliferation of terms intended to categorize these different forms of adaptation seem in keeping with contemporary adaptation theory and what Imelda Whelehan and Deborah Cartmell terms its “will to taxonomize.”28 Though these terms may allow for a more speci c analysis of certain elements in these different forms of adaptation (the relationship between television prequels and their link to comic book origin stories, for example), as a rst book-length study of television adaptation as a whole,29 I seek to demonstrate what all these forms have in common, what makes them adaptations, and what forms the adaptation can take in the television format. Indeed, as Thomas Leitch makes clear in his article on the topic, “adaptation” is a term that is perhaps impossible to de ne.30 Rather than relegate each of these forms to its own chapter, I seek instead to show how television adaptation interrogates fundamental aspects of both adaptation and serial audiovisual storytelling. “Adaptation”, as I use the term here, will be as expansive as the television format I’m examining. It could perhaps be associated with what Richard Saint-Gelais has termed “trans ction”, where “ ctional elements are used in more than one text”;31 though Saint-Gelais himself has ruled out adaptation as a form of trans ction, his de nition of 8 Building Blocks adaptation seems particularly restrictive (and perhaps contrary to the very idea of adaptation):

Is it judicious to consider adaptation as a transmedia form of trans- ction? Given that an adaptation is based on a common diegetic foundation, we could be tempted to say yes. I hesitate to do so, however, precisely because of this goal of diegetic equivalence, which is incompatible with the profoundly trans ctional actions of extrapolation and expansion: adaptations do not intend to continue the story, much less suggest new adventures for the protagonists. […] One might recognize trans ctional elements in these transforma- tions; adaptation studies might nd fruitful avenues of investiga- tion. But one should keep in mind the somewhat particular nature of these trans ctional operations that few readers or viewers will see as diegetic developments of the original, [but rather as … ] (fortunate or unfortunate) deviations from this principle [of equivalence] than as a contribution to the original ction.32

It seems that adaptation does not necessarily demand diegetic equivalence, particularly in the case of television adaptations. On the contrary, television adaptation also seems a unique opportunity to rethink one of the bêtes noires of adaptation theory, the delity debate.33 As the television media, with its extended duration and serial storylines, makes equivalence more or less impossible, thus it offers new opportunities for a broader understanding of what adaptation can be. In the case of Caprica and 12 Monkeys, approaching them as adaptations allows us to discern better how the exploration of their original themes (arti - cial intelligence and time travel) are deepened by associating them with preexisting ctional universes. By making the arti cial intelligence of Caprica the Cylons, who are both the destroyers and the progenitors of humanity, the show pro ts from an accrued sense of the dangers and possibilities of technological innovation, and the religious themes underlying the Battlestar universe underscore the notions of identity and reality it explores (do Cylons have a soul? What is religion without the need for faith?).34 By making Splinter into an adaptation of 12 Monkeys, the bleak post-apocalyptic world of Gilliam’s lm gives added weight to the urgency of time travel, while fundamental changes to the mythology of the lm (notably, that time can indeed be changed) says much about television, which must remain open-ended, rather than closing down all possibilities as in the inevitability (and self-contained nature) of the feature-length lm. The de nition of the term “adaptation” must be ex- panded to accommodate the different forms of trans ction present in television, in the same way that television itself is constantly expanding to accommodate new storylines, new characters, new settings, etc. Of course beyond its challenge to the de nition of adaptation itself, one of the rst aspects of the television adaptation made explicit in the Television and Adaptation 9 case of Caprica and 12 Monkeys is its commercial nature. These series were clearly greenlit because they became adaptations rather than original series. Their broadcasting channel, Syfy, played a particular part in this: as Battlestar Galactica’s critical acclaim had essentially put the young channel on the map, it was eager to reclaim that status with various expansions of the Battlestar universe. However, unlike the other popular television version of SF, Star Trek (NBC, 1966–1969), the choice was made not to expand the universe as a whole, describing different ships or colonies from the original series, as the many spin-offs of Star Trek did, but instead to focus on origin stories: both Caprica and later web series Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome (Web series, 2012) feature a character named William Adama, one of the principal characters in Battlestar Galactica as the commander of the titular ship, played by Edward James Olmos. Blood and Chrome recounts Adama’s early days as a pilot for the Colonial Fleet, while Caprica recounts the story of his family (the character given the name William Adama ultimately turns out to be the Battlestar Galactica character’s elder half-brother, whose name he shares). Caprica, ultimately, is the origin story of the Cylons, the arti cial intelligence that takes on accrued importance in the contemporary reboot as compared to the 70s original series,35 rather than the direct link to Battlestar Galactica that the same Adama character would have implied. 12 Monkey’s series creators have openly admitted that they originally said no when asked to helm a 12 Monkeys reboot, citing the Terry Gilliam motion picture as “a perfect lm,”36 but were encouraged by Atlas Entertainment, which had long been seeking to adapt the lm prop- erty.37 In both cases, it becomes obvious that television adaptation is a commercial effort, a move made to get the series produced—though, as the short-lived nature and extensive mid-season retooling of Caprica proves, not necessarily to allow it to survive. Their status as adaptations de nitely ensured publicity and popular interest in the new series that would not have otherwise been afforded unknown pilots; thus for example The Gates, a television series with a similar fan base (it was a supernatural drama, with a proliferation of vampires, werewolves and witches no doubt inuenced by the ongoing popularity of the Twilight franchise),38 opened to little fanfare in the summer, and was often only discovered by fans online, though it, too, appeared in 2010, and was broadcast on major network ABC rather than Syfy’s cable channel.39 Caprica, however, had its own panel at the 2009 editions of both San Diego’s Comic Con and Paley Fest and premiered its pilot episode there, creating considerable hype for the series, named by many as one of the most anticipated series of 2010.40 Television adaptations are also clearly organic forms, changing as the series continues, with obvious rami cations for any attempts at delity to the source text. The genesis of these two series highlights the collab- orative and constantly evolving nature of the television series from its very inception as a series, modulating from one central idea to another 10 Building Blocks according to input from various collaborators (producers, studios, broadcasters, cast, and crew). While Caprica and 12 Monkeys are a particularly obvious example, they only serve to emphasize an aspect of television adaptation that is widespread, if not ubiquitous. In True Blood (HBO, 2008–2014), for example, the rst and second seasons remained relatively faithful to the original Sookie Stackhouse novels (Dead Until Dark and Living Dead in Dallas, respectively)41 upon which they were based, but they sharply diverged when it came to killing off the character of Lafayette. Though his death was the impetus for one of the second novel’s major storylines, the character as portrayed onscreen by Nelsan Ellis was such a success with both the showrunners and with the public that they decided to keep him alive, and he was one of the few remaining original characters in the series nale. The popularity of actors, the availability of shooting locations, the audience reaction to certain storylines (and the creative team’s response to that reaction) will inevitably impact the television series, perhaps as much as does the source text. Though neither this nor the commercial considerations just discussed is a real particularity of television— lm is also subject to commercial concerns and the whims of circumstance when lming—the duration of television exaggerates these considerations beyond those of feature-length lm. George R.R. Martin, the author of the source text for one of the most faithful long-running television adaptations to date, Game of Thrones, has spoken of “the buttery effect” in relation to adaptations: as in Ray Bradbury’s short story, where a time traveler steps on a buttery while hunting dinosaurs, only to return to a dystopic future effected by his misstep, the smallest change at the outset of a story can have ever-increasing implications as the story continues.42 Though he has mostly discussed the issue in relation to character deaths, this is even more true of the structural changes inherent to television adaptations, which tend to prefer ensemble casts to the smaller character list of novels, for example, so as not to privilege a single actor who may or may not continue to be available throughout the series (as was the case with the previously discussed True Blood).43 Likewise, while only rarely do lms have more than one director (or directing team)—if there is a change of directors, this generally means reshooting the lm under new direction—the opposite holds true in television, where it is rare for the either the directors or the creator and/or showrunner to remain unchanged for the duration of the series.44 Both Caprica and 12 Monkeys have changed showrunners—12 Monkeys lost one of its initial showrunners in its second season,45 while Caprica was retooled mid-season with new showrunners to try and reinforce the emotional aspects of the show.46 The change in showrunners was particularly agrant in Caprica, where a new hand at the helm ultimately led to signi cant changes in character and plotline. We will be examining the problem of authorship in more detail in Chapter 4, but whether or not one ascribes to the possibility of Television and Adaptation 11 an “auteur” vision of television, the impact of changing directors, producers, writing teams is visible to the audience in a way that lm simply cannot be, because the serial format allows us to view these changes as aired, incrementally. Whether the creators intend to simply remake the source text for television or not, the very nature of the media makes this attempt signi cantly more dif cult than in feature lms. The fact that Caprica and 12 Monkeys are ostensibly works of science ction also highlights another particularity of television adaptation: the complex nature of television genre. Jason Mittell has suggested that television genre is unique, and cannot be seen simply in terms of its content, but also in relation to broadcasting context (channel, hour of broadcast, duration of the individual episode, etc.).47 We have already seen the importance of the broadcasting network, Syfy, in simply getting these shows greenlit, but their generic af nity can also be associated with Syfy, which originally specialized in science ction, before choosing to diversify with reality shows, wrestling matches, and horror lms. In keeping with Mittell’s assessment of the impossibility of generic purity for television programming, these adaptations emphasize the generic hybridity of most television ction: 12 Monkeys’ showrunners have spoken of their desire to make the show a conspiracy thriller,48 something that was explicitly rejected in the feature lm, when the titular shadowy organization ended up being fairly innocuous, and the perpetrator was found to be working alone. Likewise, Caprica’s showrunners were outspoken about wanting to break with the gritty naturalistic style of Battlestar Galactica and its space battles, which set a new genre standard at the time, and chose instead to use a slicker aesthetic and an emphasis on family politics in the style of primetime soaps like Dallas (CBS, 1978–1991) or Dynasty (ABC, 1981–1989). Mittell ultimately argues that this generic hybridity can be more effective at pinpointing the particularities of the genre,49 an opinion that certainly seems to have been shared by their broadcasting channel. The very nature of television as a domestic format, one which largely continues to be enjoyed at home rather than in a public forum like a movie theater (though no longer necessarily on a television screen) suggests yet another particularity of the television adaptation, and a possible justi cation for the popularity of the reboot, i.e. the proximity of television. Both because of the setting in which it is enjoyed (whether it be at home in front of the television set, or watching an individual tablet, phone, or computer) and the ritual nature of its consumption (either punctuating the weekly schedule of the viewer watching live, or the complete immersion of the new tendency to binge-watch several episodes at a stretch), television is a medium of proximity, creating familiarity in the viewer as they spend hours with the show’s characters, as the seasonal episodes (Christmas episodes, etc.) mirror the passage of time the viewer is experiencing, as shows reference current events in their di- alogue and storylines (à la Law and Order’s (NBC, 1990–2010) “ripped 12 Building Blocks from the headlines” plots, or the sitcom’s tendency to reference current events in its humor),50 television has become associated with a certain immediacy. André Bazin has defended the remake by saying that the realism one sought in lm demanded that these ctions be remade with the latest technological advances to make them newly believable to the audience;51 for television, as a medium not just for ction but also for news, with its increased proximity to its audience, this need is even more important. The updates made to their source texts (from 1995 to 2015 in 12 Monkeys, from the special effects of the 1970s Battlestar Galactica and even the green screen elements of its reboot to the entire virtual worlds of Caprica) are but one aspect of the contemporary nature of these adaptations, which must update the original premise both in terms of setting and effects, and in terms of contemporary concerns: thus Caprica, like its predecessor, examines contemporary fears about religious fanat- icism and its link to terrorism, but also explores the rami cations of the then-recent innovations in streaming media and mobile access to the internet52 through its explorations of “V-World”, a synaesthetic version of the internet available through “holobands”, the Caprica version of Google glasses,53 and the danger and potential of virtual reality; likewise 12 Monkeys discusses bioterrorism, a topic even more pertinent in the wake of 9/11 and the recent avian u and Ebola epidemics, and features an Edward Snowden character whose determination to reveal the government’s secrets leads to the release of the deadly virus—and is seen as its equivalent: “I have exposed the truth to the world, and for that I have been labeled a traitor. […] Maybe I should expose this plague to the world.” (1.07) And most importantly, perhaps, television adaptations are concerned with their own nature, both as television shows and as adaptations. In the case of both 12 Monkeys and Caprica, the central conceit becomes a means of examining the nature of what constitutes originality and identity, allowing the shows to further their examination of themselves as they advance their respective plots. Caprica’s central conceit creates clear parallels between the show’s premise and the work of adaptation. As was mentioned earlier, the only character that carries over from Battlestar Galactica to Caprica is ultimately the Cylon robot, and the nature of identity for this robot, downloaded with a perfect replica of the personality of a young woman, Zoe Graystone, now dead in an attack by a religious extremist, is at the heart of the series’ concerns. Is avatar Zoe simply an inferior copy of her creator, a thing, or can she have a life, a soul, an identity of her own? Clearly, the series’ interest in virtual reality and arti cial intelligence becomes a meta ctional commentary on the responsibilities an adaptation has to its source text and the possibilities that source text offers for a new lease on life of its own. The religious language here becomes a recurrent plotline, as the struggle between monotheistic beliefs and a polytheistic society is at the center of Television and Adaptation 13 the chain of events that will lead to the birth of the Cylons. In Battlestar Galactica, this was of course also one of the major themes, but in the context of an adaptation, the condemnation of monotheism, the idea of a single god, who has all the answers (“a monotheistic religious philoso- phy, advocating the worship of a single, all-knowing, all-powerful God”, 1.01, or “a moral dictator called God”, 1.05), becomes reminiscent of a purist interpretation of the source text, to which the adaptation must pledge its delity to a superior original form. Likewise, the virtual reality created by Zoe’s father Daniel Graystone, one of the elements that was initially present in Remi Aubuchon’s pitch for a series, and that is new to the Battlestar universe, has the potential to be both “a moral vacuum” (1.05), an accusation familiar to all those blaming television violence for various social ills, as well as a possible expression of true artistry, as avatar Zoe uses this world at will to express feelings, and create new possibilities for herself and her fellow avatar Tamara. This, of course, can be seen as an enactment of debates on the responsibilities of television ctions (and the video games to which the series owes much of its virtual reality aesthetic). If we associate this virtual reality with the process of adaptation, the debate becomes one of imitation versus artistry: the series can indeed be reduced to a simple imitation of the original world of Battlestar Galactica (just as in the series, one of the most popular games in the virtual reality is New Cap City, where Caprica City is reproduced perfectly, but with a lm noir aesthetic),54 but ultimately Caprica allies itself with Zoe, and her new creation rising from the foun- dations of the previous world of New Cap City. Towards the end of the series, Zoe comes to recognize her potential for individuality and expression when she is faced with a gure that looks like her:55 “You’re not her. You’re not the same. You keep walking in her footprints even after her footprints have stopped. But you didn’t have to. Even she knew that. Now are you going to lie down and pay for her sins or are you going to own yourself?” (1.12) The representation of this virtual reality also seems an attempt to ad- dress concerns about the evils of television and its addictiveness. Charac- ter Heracles might help Tamara Adama’s avatar brave the dif culties of New Cap City, but ultimately seems lost in the real world. Josef Adama, in his efforts to nd his daughter’s avatar, loses himself to the game and virtual stimulants, neglecting his real-world responsibilities to his son William Adama in his quest to nd what remains of his daughter who was killed in the pilot’s terrorist attack. Those who have ever spent hours watching a marathon of a television series will, of course, recognize themselves. By the same token, Caprica’s actual inclusion of Caprican television programs, notably the comic news show Backtalk with Baxter Sarno and its inammatory and divisive effect on the public, seems to point to the possible evils perpetrated by the small screen in this world (and by extension in ours). The fact that characters from the series 14 Building Blocks appear on the show, and manage to nd a middle ground, despite the talk show host’s provocations, points to the possible cathartic advantage of narrative ction, which allows viewers to explore the rami cations of some of the extremes proposed by the media, without actually inicting harm. Amanda Graystone insists on honesty in her dealings with the media, both when she rst realizes her daughter was involved with the STO (Soldiers of the One), who perpetrated the terrorist attack, and later on Backtalk when she defends her daughter from criticism, and this honesty is ultimately her saving grace. The series eventually focuses on the coming together of the Graystone family, monotheist avatar Zoe and her polytheist parents, and this idea of bridging the divide between generations and different forms of belief can easily be associated with a desire to bridge the aesthetic and thematic gap between the 2003 series Battlestar Galactica and its prequel. Likewise, the monotheistic plans for “Apotheosis”, an illusion of paradise to those who martyr themselves in terrorist attacks, can also be associated with the nature of television narrative. While “true believer” Clarice Willow offers this solution as a sure means to guarantee the popularity of the new young religion, as it offers “a religion that removes the need for faith, a religion of certainty that reects the won- der of all we have created.” (1.10), this certainty of a happy ending is proved false not only within the narrative, where avatar Zoe ultimately destroys what is essentially a recruitment tool for possible terrorists, but also within a television narrative, where happy endings are never guaranteed (a fact that Caprica learned the hard way, as it was forced to abruptly conclude its storylines upon learning that it had been cancelled). Even its status as prequel, where the outcome is seemingly just as certain as the diegetic “apotheosis” for the believers, the xed ending for the series signi cantly included some surprises, most symbolically through the true identity of the William Adama character we’ve been following, who is in fact the half-brother of the William Adama character of Battlestar Galactica, thus making the link with its predecessor even looser, a thematic adaptation of similar concerns rather than an adaptation of speci c characters to a new environment, as is traditional with the television spinoff (transporting character Frasier Crane from Boston to Seattle as he moves from Cheers (NBC, 1982–1993) to Frasier (NBC, 1993–2004), for example, something I’ll be examining further in Chapter 2). It is no coincidence that though Caprica recounts the height of Colonial civilization, there is no mention of the sacred texts of polytheism, no mention of the Pythian Scrolls that set the last remaining humans of Battlestar Galactica on their quest to nd Earth. Instead, we have a religion that permeates the society depicted here, but that can be reinterpreted by different societies, different cultures in many different ways, from the Taurons’ shrines to the departed and their sense of honor and community to the Capricans’ looser sense Television and Adaptation 15 of morality, in yet another transposition of Caprica’s approach to adaptation. 12 Monkeys, of course, insists on the duality inherent to an adaptation in its very premise: the relationship between present and future, and the central character of Cole, who can travel between them, becomes an avatar for the ideal viewer, who experiences their own form of déjà vu when watching the series refer to elements from the lm, who travels back and forth between knowledge of the original and involvement in the new narrative. This impression is emphasized visually in the credit sequence, which reinvents the original very memorable imagery, but adds depth to the original, allowing us to go through a tunnel of these clockwork monkeys rather than leaving them as at images forming a circle, and giving us a new central gure who gradually appears—an enraged monkey.56 The double vision implied by the concept (and its status as adaptation) becomes clear in episode 4, where Cole is drugged for information and sees past and present overlap, sees his 2015 partner Cassandra in the features of his 2043 former lover Max. The series differs from its cinematic predecessor in a crucial element of its mythology: while in the Gilliam lm, it was impossible to change the past, meaning that the

Figure 1.1 Film credits are at images.

Figure 1.2 Television credits pay homage to the original, but imply depth, and emphasize the gradual understanding of what it is the viewer is seeing. 16 Building Blocks protagonist Cole was simply attempting to nd the source of the virus to save the future rather than helping the past, in the television version, time can be changed. Thus TV’s Cole has a different mission: he wants to stop the virus before it is ever released. In episode 6, the character returns to a future he doesn’t recognize (his partner Cassandra has been killed in the past, which changes the future), and he spends the rest of the episode trying to save both her and the status quo for the future. This fundamental change to the mythology of the 12 Monkey universe has considerable meaning for the TV adaptation—there is the possibility for more than one future from a common present—just as there is the possibility of more than one ction from a common inspiration. The series continues to concentrate on this idea of duality, as it later posits that there are two possible solutions to the epidemic that sweeps the globe—one can either nd a cure, or go back in time and prevent the outbreak altogether, again representing two possible solutions for a single problem, paralleling the two renditions of the source material. The treatment of these two solutions is particularly interesting, because the series seemingly refuses to take sides: we learn that a rival to the Splinter time travel project has actually hit on a cure (thus evoking the implied conclusion of the lm), but Jones, the scientist in charge of the time travel project, rejects that solution, preferring to have a clean slate, a new beginning, rather than to continue in a post-apocalyptic future. This idea of erasure of the past (through time travel) is, of course, interesting because it is one of the motivations that Linda Hutcheon suggests for adaptation itself.57 Jones’s sel sh motives (she wants her deceased daughter back) and her ruthless actions in rejecting this second solution (killing her rival to avoid leaking the news of the breakthrough in treating the virus) make it dif cult for the audience to identify with her completely, while at the same time, of course, the show itself depends on the continuation of her project. The search for a solution, therefore, becomes an allegory for television writing, where the viewer continues to hope for successful closure to the quest narrative—but at the same time wants that closure endlessly deferred, so as to prolong the series itself. If Cole succeeds in his quest to stop the outbreak, the events of the series we enjoyed will be lost, as everything will “reset” according to this new timeline, while if the cure is put into practice for the 2043 survivors of the original outbreak, success will be obtained, but the adventures will cease. The entire show is therefore based on the relationship between the original lm and its television sibling, as well as on this fundamental paradox of television writing, the desire for and necessary deferral of closure. The metaphors for adaptation are therefore biological—the story itself is a virus as well, mutating into different forms to survive—and religious, as Cole is subject to various messiah sermons, being told that his Television and Adaptation 17 mission is “preordained” (1.09). The publicity still for the series makes this religious undercurrent manifest, as the time machine creates a halo around Cole’s head, making him a science ction Jesus, and transform the titular army of the twelve monkeys into a cult-like group, whose violence is motivated by mystical (and mysterious) beliefs. Cole’s close friendship with brother gure José Ramse, and its decay into a rivalry when each chooses a different solution to the plague, cannot fail to make the viewer think of another religious leader who endured plague and led his people to salvation—though the Biblical Moses’s adopted pharaoh brother is unnamed in the Bible, DeMille’s epic 10 Commandments (Cecil B. DeMille, 1956) names him “Ramses.” This character, who is but a voice in the lm (named only José), here becomes a reference to Biblical prophecy as well as to contemporary television: Ramses was of course called “Ozymandias” by the Greeks, therefore referring not just to Percy Bysshe Shelley’s sonnet,58 but also to its recent use in one of the best-known television series of recent years, Breaking Bad (AMC, 2008–2013). The Shelley reference is perhaps even more fraught in the Syfy show—whereas Vince Gilligan’s series showed a Walter White who was clearly witnessing the destruction of his empire, Ramse seems to literalize the ironic message of the poem. In the original text, “Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!” is a statement originally made sincerely, where Ozymandias’s works are so impressive that those who see them cannot help their feelings of awe, only to be made ironic by the destruction of those works by nature and time; the statement and the character’s scowling face and metaphorical “feet of clay” are all that remain. In 12 Monkeys, it is ultimately Ramse’s actions that cause the destruction Shelley’s character could not predict: Ramse willingly allows the events leading up to the outbreak to happen (he is thrown back in time himself, and voluntarily avoids changing anything that might keep the epidemic from being released so as to maintain the timeline and to make certain that his son will be born). In so doing, Shelley’s irony is overturned, given its ironic reinterpretation, where destruction represents the character’s hope rather than its disappointment. The nal moments of the season nale, where Cole saves Ramses and suggests he will try to nd a third possible solution, imply that even this reinterpretation may be overturned, and something new built from this destruction—just as Shelley’s poem was built from both Ozymandias’s initial arrogance and its annihilation. In this sense, the TV series becomes the third option, between the two solutions of cure or prevention, destruction or reset, allowing the narrative to continue. The heavy allegorical importance of Ramse’s name, of course, points to the importance of language in the series: the original lm, as we’ve said, simply names Cole’s cellmate José—and the implications in that name from the lm are fully realized when in the television series Ramse 18 Building Blocks is revealed unexpectedly to be a father, like the Biblical Joseph, and becomes willing to sacri ce everything for his son, who can metaphori- cally wash away the sins of the past for a new future. By adding the name Ramse, once again, the two possibilities—of a Joseph gure, who will accept a new hope for humanity into his family, and of a Ramses gure, who will refuse possible salvation and bring about destruction to once great hopes—are implicit in the very name of the character. As such, language (and here speci cally onomastics) becomes a way of suggesting the different paths the series might take from its source. The emphasis on language might also be seen as a reference to the traditions of television. While Gilliam’s lm emphasized the many lm in- uences on the narrative,59 and the theme of surveillance predominates, the series has multiplied references to texts and myths: Gilliam’s Jeff Goines becomes Jennifer Goines in the series, and she becomes an Oph- elia character, whose madness, while perhaps not caused by her love for Cole, becomes more acute upon realizing that Cole killed her father; her comment on the subject (“I was a daughter. Daddy’s feeding the worms.” 1.2) and the ower petals that are strewn through the murder scenes she witnesses, seem to make the Hamlet reference fairly clear—given her actions in the nal episodes of the rst season, one might suspect that she becomes Laertes as well, making the outbreak of the virus inevitable in her need for revenge. Similarly, Cassandra owns a bookstore, which becomes the characters’ refuge from any prying eyes, where the inves- tigation can take place. When Cassandra and her love interest Aaron believe that Cole has succeeded in his quest and are clearing out their notes, Aaron saves Mans eld Park from the trash heap; given that the season ends with Cassandra travelling into the future, and a pre-established family in which she has no place, while Cole stays in 2015, the story of Fanny Price and her arrival at the Bertram family home seems like fore- shadowing. As it emphasizes its literary inspirations rather than its lmic ones, the multiplication of literary and mythological allusions may also point to a source text other than the lm made by Gilliam: the original screenplay. It is after all the screenplay that is cited in the credits to the series (“Based on the motion picture ‘12 Monkeys’ screenplay by David Peoples and Janet Peoples”), and this emphasis on text is in keeping with the emphasis on writing particular to the TV media, which keeps a fairly consistent writing team—whose ultimate authority tends to be the writers and showrunners rather than the directors, who change every week, as well as on one of the most obvious remnants of the original screenplay written by Terry Matalas and Travis Fickett—the term “splinter”, used to describe time travel, was both the name of the original proposed show—and the name of the pilot. By emphasizing its relation to the text, the show asserts its own status within the traditions of television series and insists that its references are not limited to Gilliam’s lm. Television and Adaptation 19 Ultimately, time travel is not limited to 12 Monkeys; Daniel Graystone cites his desire to go back, to be ready to make any effort to get back his daughter, something that is later made explicit when the company com- mercializes the avatar program to “eliminate grief” (1.13); in this sense, then, virtual reality and arti cial intelligence are also a sort of time machine, allowing users access to an otherwise inaccessible past. This is interesting of course because of Jean-Louis Baudry’s Freudian interpretation of lm itself as a vehicle for nostalgia; these technology-based prem- ises would therefore be a sort of reworking of apparatus theory, wherein the necessarily ideological bent of lm is hidden behind the seemingly realist images, literally forcing the passive viewer to share the point of view of the lmmakers.60 However, contrary to Baudry’s theories, here the images are explicitly non-realist, and their status as science ction and as adaptations allow us to take a step back from the story, and examine the implications of said stories more closely. In so doing, they echo Leitch’s conclusions about the adaptation genre, where he remarks that the simple assumption of the texts as adaptations forces the viewer to take a step back, to create critical distance to better appreciate it:

Watching or reading an adaptation as an adaptation invites audience members to test their assumptions, not only about familiar texts, but about the ideas of themselves, others, and the world those texts project against the new ideas fostered by the adaptation and the new reading strategies it encourages.61

The push and pull between familiarity and novelty we nd in these and all the other adaptations allow us understand the intricacies of television narrative better, and the choices made to permit that narrative stand on its own two feet. Indeed, the nal element characteristic of television adaptation is a desire to nd its own identity, separate and possibly independent of its source: more than any other form, as a rule television adaptations are unique in their structure and their storylines; the two series I’ve chosen as introductory examples of the form insist both within and without the narrative on being taken on their own terms. Thus, for example, Ron Moore immediately declared that he was going to resist the temptation to follow directly in Battlestar Galactica’s footsteps, and instead create something new:

The intention of ‘Caprica’ is to make it really its own show. It was really important to us as we created the show to create something […where] you had to be a fan of ‘Battlestar Galactica.’ Here is a series that stands on its own, that is part of this larger universe but is not predicated on knowledge of—or love of—the original. That was very important to us.62 20 Building Blocks Similarly, Travis Fickett cites another recent loose adaptation as an example of a show that stands on its own without simply imitating the original:

I think Fargo is a really good example of how you take a perfect movie where you’re like, “Why would you ever make that a show?,” and make it a spiritual successor. You take the core elements and the essence of what that is, and you play with that episodically. I think Fargo worked beautifully. It did it so well. It felt like Fargo, but they weren’t telling the same story, at all. What would be the point? You’d just be watching them hit those benchmarks, and that’s not fun or interesting.63

Within the story, of course, the characters do refuse to simply follow well-trodden paths—Cole refuses the cure that ends the lm, while Zoe refuses to simply accept that she is her human inspiration, instead choosing her own identity. In this, once again, we have an explicit foregrounding of adaptation—and an explicit rejection of simple mimicry, of the crutch of delity. Instead, these new series inject their versions of the ctional environments with new themes, and new (and ever-evolving) meanings—most notably, an analysis of its nature. As the delity debate continues to rage on despite dismissals from theorists, television adaptations, therefore, seem a particularly interesting subject of study. As this rst introductory chapter has dealt with the nature of television adaptation, and how it differs from other forms of adaptation into other media, so chapter two will deal more speci cally with the structural rami cations of adaptation into an episodic form; I refer to these rst two chapters as “building blocks”, which seek to identify the unique nature of television adaptation. Television ctions can be divided very generally into two categories according to their duration: long-form series have no xed end point and hope to continue the basic premise of their story inde nitely, while short-form series are conceived with a given number of episodes in mind.64 Adaptations tend to vary quite a bit according to their duration (and the corresponding format): tradi- tionally, long-form television adaptations have been sitcoms, which systematically reboot after each half-hour, coming back to their original premise for the next episode, while short-form adaptations are generally hour-long episodes that advance the plot toward a pre-determined ending. Chapter two will, therefore, examine how these two forms of television deal with adaptation, and its rami cations on television structure: the sitcom, with its eternal beginnings, and the miniseries, with its xed ending. In so doing, I will demonstrate how the study of these sitcoms allow us to better understand their distinctiveness from other forms of adaptation, calling into question some of our preconceived notions of how adaptation works; conversely, the study of the short-form television Television and Adaptation 21 adaptation will allow us to better understand television ction, as I argue that it has had more of an impact than has been generally realized on se- rialization, one of the central tenets for determining “quality television.” In the next section of the book, “Home entertainment”, I will be examining familiar paradoxes of adaptation and their unique manifesta- tions in serial television, given that small screen ctions have long been characterized by their proximity to the viewer. Chapter 3 will deal with another form of adaptation endemic to television that I have called the “microadaptation”, where an adaptation occurs not over the course of an entire series, but only for one episode. It is a thematic episode adapting a speci c text. In so doing, I will also be examining the fundamentally paradoxical nature of both adaptation and television’s attractions for the viewer, caught between familiarity and novelty. Adaptation ex- ists only because of some sort of awareness of its source (whether it is the general premise or a thorough knowledge of the text); likewise, though the viewer is never free from the prospect of sudden change, overall television ction depends on consistency—be it in the characters (whose extended presence on screen allows for discovery of foibles no doubt lost to a feature-length lm), setting (either geographical or narrative, with familiar locations or plotlines), and (if the series is to be successful) a dependable time and date to nd your favorite show. However, this familiarity must be offset by novelty if viewer familiarity is not to breed contempt. I suggest that one means of treating this necessary tension between familiarity and novelty is through the recurrent use of microadaptations in television. Though “Microadaptation” is a new term, the phenomenon itself is very familiar, as in the innumer- able versions of A Christmas Carol adapted to different series for the Christmas season, Moonlighting’s (ABC, 1985–1989) adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew (“Atomic Shakespeare”), or more recently Cas- tle’s (ABC, 2009–2016) rendition of Rearview Window (“The Lives of Others”). As these examples indicate, these microadaptations largely take place in comic series, be it the sitcom or the more recent hybrid drama-comedies, or “dramedies”, using more “high culture” sources. In so doing, the microadaptations of course foreground novelty, exchang- ing the expected plotline, the familiar setting for another. The comic bent of this trope is understandable in this context: the looser seriality typical of the comic mode allows for the change of tone and plot necessary to make these adaptations work, while the distance from the original characters and setting can heighten the comic effect (creating the distance Henri Bergson tells us is so crucial to comedy). The pleasure of surprise is heightened by the cultural cachet of well-known stories, im- buing the series with enhanced stature. However, the microadaptation does not forgo the familiarity necessary to television ction: the story is of course chosen for its applicability to the characters and the concerns of the host series, and chooses a canonical text that will itself be familiar 22 Building Blocks to the viewer. Moreover, these thematic episodes may, in fact, advance character concerns or reinforce characterization, making the momen- tary novelty a means of ultimately enhancing viewer familiarity. These microadaptations, therefore, become a sort of crystallization of the delicate tension between novelty and familiarity necessary for successful TV. Indeed, the series Community (NBC, 2009–2014, Yahoo, 2015–) has made the microadaptation its very premise, making it a sort of an- thology of adaptations: its small but rabid fanbase is a testament to the power of these thematic episodes (while the relatively feeble audience share demonstrates the dangers of repeatedly adapting different genres and texts, where novelty may sometimes impede the proximity of coher- ent narrative). Adaptation has long been a favored means of reappropriating a story from one form, from one culture, or from one period to another. Its use in television tells us much of the paradoxical nature of reappropri- ation, as a means of insisting on the universality of a given story, while also emphasizing the speci city, the uniqueness, of each iteration iteration, something I will be examining in depth in chapter four. One of the more interesting phenomena in contemporary US television is that of transnational adaptation: be it comedies like The Of ce or dramas like Homeland (Showtime, 2011–) or The Bridge, American television has discovered television abroad—and decided that it must be adapted to a purely American idiom and context. This is particularly interesting in the case of British originals, like The Of ce or House of Cards (Netix, 2013–), which have no apparent language barriers to be crossed, and no obvious need for “adaptation”, but which studios clearly thought needed their own American counterparts, to be adapted to American television genres (the sitcom) or American culture (be it of ce or national politics). At the same time, the study of one of the remaining “big three” networks, whose target audience is as broad as possible in the contemporary television landscape, causes adaptation to take on an entirely different signi cance. Indeed, ABC’s continued efforts at transmedia storytelling suggests on the contrary that TV is a vector for bringing adapted properties into increased proximity with the viewer, beginning with Lost and its well-known use of transmedia (cf. Henry Jenkins’s Convergence Culture), and continuing today, be it with series that re- imagine worlds explored in lm, like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (ABC, 2013–) (which recounts tales of the non-superpowered agents of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe), or Once Upon a Time (ABC, 2011–) (which ap- peals to parents by adapting and subverting recent and classic Disney lms to more adult themes); or with series that continue on in literature, as in (ABC, 2009–2016) (whose titular character writes novels that then appear at viewer’s local booksellers—novels that are reportedly being adapted into a TV series in turn). Here, television is both the spring- board for multi-platform storytelling and the echo of the multinational Television and Adaptation 23 industry of the mass media (ABC belongs to Disney, as does Marvel, explaining the cross-promotion of one media by another). In fact, this seemingly contradictory reception of television as both culturally speci c and universally multi-platform ultimately suggests the omnipresence of both adaptation and television as systems of proximity, even immersion, for the viewer: whatever the appearance, TV functions on a model of proximity to its audience, be it by bringing the foreign product closer to our own experience, or making the narrative prolifer- ate onto different platforms, allowing us to immerse ourselves in these ctional worlds. Adaptation and television share the common problem of authorship, and an analysis of this quandary for academic study will be central to chapter ve. While television, particularly in the American system, tends to have entire writing teams, which change as the series continue, adaptations must necessarily share authorship with the originators of the source text, not to mention the various iterations of the screenplay, which may have passed through many hands before the nal draft, and is then subject to the input of the director, the producers, and the studio. Given that Romantic thought has impacted Western society’s conception of the author as a locus of art and its originality, the problematic status of the author for both adaptation and television may partially explain the tendency to downplay their status as art forms. Chapter ve examines this problem of authorship and art through a case study of Hannibal (NBC, 2013–2015) and Bates Motel (A&E, 2013–), which interrogate the problematic nature of the author (and the auteur) for both form and practice. Though the horror genre has been more rare on American television than on the silver screen, it has often been linked to adaptation, from The Twilight Zone (CBS, 1959–1964) or The Munsters (CBS, 1964–1966) to Dexter (Showtime, 2006–2013), and has of course been one of the more popular genres for examination by lm theorists. 2013’s television season’s featured serial killers were adapted from iconic sources: Hannibal is inspired by Hannibal Lecter and his lm incarnations, and Bates Motel is a prequel to Robert Bloch’s Psycho, as adapted to the screen by Hitchcock. In so doing, the showrunners go beyond the economic reasons for using a popular text to nd a pre-sold audience, and instead seek to use adaptation, as lm once did, to insist on the artistic possibilities of the small screen, to suggest paradoxically that television perhaps can don the mantle of auteur cinema, though the notion of an author is perhaps even more fraught than for the cinema. In so doing, the proximity that has characterized these televisual forms of adaptation creates its own form of paradox, where the showrunner-cum-auteur becomes a dis- tancing mechanism necessary for artistic and aesthetic appreciation, all while reinforcing their proximity (notably through the press and social media) to entice viewers. 24 Building Blocks Finally, in chapter six, I would like to turn the tables. The third part of the book, “Broadcasting …” will look “beyond the screen”, examining the adaptation of television’s concepts and structures into other media. In her study The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of Television,65 Kathleen Fitzpatrick used Harold Bloom’s The Anx- iety of Inuence66 to suggest the hostility many contemporary novelists feel at the upstart popular form of television: just as Bloom argues that each generation of artists must reject the artistic assumptions of its pre- decessors, so novelists feel television has this same Oedipal urge. How- ever, in this nal chapter I would like to suggest that on the contrary, television can be a productive form of inspiration for creating new works (like Jennifer Egan’s Goon Squad, inspired by The Sopranos (HBO, 1999–2007)) or creating new readers (like the virtual reading clubs for series like Lost or Mad Men (AMC, 2007–), which attempt to read all the books mentioned on each of the series, or quite simply the impact of Oprah Winfrey’s televised “Book Club” on American book sales). To do so, I will examine two case studies where television, and specif- ically television adaptation, has reinvigorated the writing of literature. The hugely inuential 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, I argue, is as much a source text for the rst popular “chick lit” novel, Helen Fielding’s Bridget Jones’s Diary, as was the original novel by Jane Austen: the new genre spawned by Fielding’s success is characterized not only by a tendency to work in the media industry (thus foregrounding the metatextual nature of adaptation in each of the novels), but also an emphasis on material things (shopping, shoes, etc.) that ultimately par- allel the “museum aesthetic” Andrew Higson describes as being typical of Heritage drama. His critiques of these period adaptations echo the critiques of the chick lit genre, taxed with a tendency to focus on form rather than content. The fact that many of these novels also feature a heroine swooning over different period television adaptations only ce- ments this association. Popular comic author Jasper Fforde’s Thursday Next series may seem a less obvious choice for novels inuenced by television: the titular character works in a fantastical world where books are cherished, where children swap baseball cards of famous eighteenth-century authors, where Richard III is a performance treated with the same interactive zeal as The Rocky Horror Picture Show in our own. Nonetheless, the author himself admits to being inuenced by 1970s sitcoms and reality television; by applying these well-used tropes to canonical literature (Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Great Expectations), I argue that he is essentially creating a farcical version of the classic television serial, where television tropes are just as crucial as the original work—and by mixing these different genres (the period adaptation, the reality television show, the sitcom), Fforde’s manic pace ultimately gives the sensation of fran- tically zapping through channels, giving the reader a comic version of Television and Adaptation 25 television itself. In both cases, these novels are resolutely popular forms, that may not always be taken as seriously as those who lament “The Literature of Exhaustion” as does John Barth, but who instead deal with the possibly troubling aspects of mass media culture through humor and a fertile mixture of literary and audiovisual allusions and tropes. As such, television adaptations become a fundamentally different en- terprise from lm adaptation—and one deserving of closer analysis. In his examination of the sociological impact of adaptation in lm noir, Barton Palmer suggests what adaptation offers to lm: “‘How does adaptation serve the cinema?’ A short answer, I suggest, is that adaptation provides the cinema not only with new texts but with new norms and models (conceived, in the neoformalist sense, as systems of norms).”67 In this book, I will demonstrate how TV adaptation offers new norms, new models, to television as well as to adaptation.

Notes 1 This is of course a reference to André Bazin’s essay “Pour un cinéma impur. Défense de l’adaptation” in Qu’est-ce que le cinéma ? (1976), Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986. See also Imelda Whelehan and Deborah Cartmell’s recent work on adaptation also inspired by Bazin’s essay, Screen Adaptation: Im- pure Cinema, London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 2 David Marc, “In search of the radio sitcom,” The Sitcom Reader: America Viewed and Skewed, Mary Dalton, Laura R. Linder, Albany: State Univer- sity of New York Press, 2005, 15. 3 According to different critics, this is the second or the third golden age of television; see for example Robert J. Thompson’s classic text Television’s Second Golden Age. Robert J. Thompson, Television’s Second Golden Age: From Hill Street Blues, NY, NY: Continuum Publishing, 1996. 4 Kristin Thompson, Storytelling in Film and Television, Boston, MA: Har- vard UP, 2003, 84. 5 http://www.imdb.com/search/keyword?keywords=based-on-play&ref_=kw_ ref_typ&sort=moviemeter,asc&mode=advanced&page=1&title_type= tvSeries. Accessed February 2015. 6 http://www.imdb.com/search/keyword?keywords=based-on- lm&sort=moviemeter,asc&mode=simple&page=1&title_type=tvSeries&ref_=kw_vw_smp. Accessed February 2015. 7 http://www.imdb.com/search/keyword?keywords=based-on-comic&ref_=kw_ ref_typ&sort=moviemeter,asc&mode=advanced&page=1&title_type= tvSeries. Accessed February 2015. 8 http://www.imdb.com/search/keyword?keywords=based-on-novel&ref_=kw_ ref_typ&sort=moviemeter,asc&mode=advanced&page=1&title_type= tvSeries. Accessed February 2015. 9 56 based on a lm, 213 based on a novel, 155 based on a comic, and 15 based on a play. Of course, these statistics must be quali ed, as they refer to international and not just American shows, and there may be some argument over the designations (the 2015 version of The Odd Couple, for example, is “based on a play,” but many would argue that it is the adaptation of either the lm or the sitcom that followed it), but the phenomenon itself seems indisputable. 26 Building Blocks 10 Jason Mittell, “Sites of participation: Wiki fandom and the case of Lost- pedia,” Transformative works and cultures, vol. 3, 2009. http://journal. transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/118/117. Accessed July 2014. 11 Mittell has since gone on to distinguish between what he terms “drillable” texts and “spreadable” texts, those that encourage deeper analysis of the series itself, and those that encourage a proliferation of the created universe through diverse professional and fan productions, respectively, making the archeological metaphor all the more pertinent. Jason Mittell, “Forensic Fandom and the Drillable Text,” http://spreadablemedia.org/ essays/mittell/#.VO8X4EJhegM. Accessed January 2015. 12 The title of Neela Debnath’s article is very evocative: “Don’t moan about spoilers for Game of Thrones, the books were published years ago.” The In- dependent, April 6, 2014. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ dont-moan-about-spoilers-for-game-of-thrones-the-books-were-published- years-ago-9241767.html. Accessed June 2014. 13 Op. cit., Television’s Second Golden Age. 14 Thomas Leitch, Film Adaptation and Its Discontents: From Gone with the Wind to The Passion of the Christ, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 2007. 15 Christine Geraghty, Now A Major Motion Picture, Lanham: Rowman and Little eld, 2008. 16 Op. cit., Screen Adaptation. 17 George Bluestone, Novels into Films, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins UP, 1957. 18 Kamilla Elliot, The Novel/Film Debate, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003, 3–4. 19 See for example Colin McCabe, Kathleen Murray, eds., True to the Spirit: Film Adaptation and the Question of Fidelity, Oxford: OUP, 2011. 20 “Transécriture and Narrative Mediatics: The Stakes of Intermediality,” in Robert Stam, Alessandra Raengo, eds., A Companion to Literature and Film, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005, 58–70. 21 I will be using the term “source text” regardless of the media in which the source was originally created (novel, short story, lm, television series, etc.); for the purposes of this book, “text” is therefore to be taken very broadly, as any form of signs that holds meaning, rather than as a necessarily written work. 22 For an analysis of Gilliam’s lm as a foreign remake of La Jetée, see Raphael Moine. Raphaëlle Moine, “Théories et pratiques du remake,” Remakes : Les lms français à Hollywood, Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2007, Open Edition 2013. http://books.openedition.org/editionscnrs/683. Accessed July 2015. 23 Heather M, “Aaron Stanford, Travis Fickett, and Terry Matalas Talk 12 Monkeys [Exclusive],” TV Goodness, April 10, 2015. Available online: http://www.tvgoodness.com/2015/04/10/aaron-stanford-travis-fickett- and-terry-matalas-talk-12-monkeys-exclusive/. Accessed March 2015. 24 Thomas Leitch, “Adaptation, the genre,” Adaptation Vol. 1, No. 2, 2008, 106–120. 25 Trapper John M.D. (CBS, 1979–1986), a dramatic spin-off of the long-running sitcom M*A*S*H (CBS, 1972–1983), for example. 26 “Now prequel TV series are all the rage in Hollywood, another way of maintaining a brand with a built-in audience. I won’t say it’s part of the creative bankruptcy, though, because a number of the shows are well done and even sometimes quite clever.” Christopher Campbell, “What TV Show Should Get a Prequel Series While the Trend is Still Hot?,” Film School Rejects, http:// lmschoolrejects.com/features/tv-series-prequels.php. Accessed February 2015. Television and Adaptation 27 27 This was not uncommon in the area of children’s animated series, where shows like Muppet Babies (CBS, 1984–1991) or Iron Man: Armored Adven- tures (Nicktoons, 2009–2012) sought to make their protagonists younger so as to appeal to a younger demographic, but until Caprica, it was fairly rare in the prime-time slot. 28 “What fascinates us here is not so much the taxonomies themselves, which reflect disciplinary preferences and often the privileging of one medium over another, but this will to taxonomize, which is symptomatic of how the field has tried to mark out its own territory. These various and sometimes con- flicting schemes of categorization show how many directions the field can take, as well as the multitudinous ways in which the field connects with the originary disciplines of literary and film studies, constantly widening its purview and possibly trampling on sacred ground.” Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan, The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007, 2. 29 Sarah Cardwell’s excellent book on television adaptations of canonical texts, Revisiting Adaptation, will be discussed at length in the second chapter. The quality and importance of her work is not in question, but her book dealt only with limited-run adaptations rather than with the variety of forms television adopts. Sarah Cardwell, Adaptation Revisited: Television and the Classic Novel, Manchester UP, 2002. 30 Thomas Leitch, “Adaptation and Intertextuality, or, What isn’t an Adapta- tion, and What Does it Matter?,” in A Companion to Literature, Film, and Adaptation, Deborah Cartmell, ed., Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, 87–104. 31 “[…] il y a transfictionnalité lorsque des éléments fictifs sont repris dans plus d’un texte.” Richard Saint-Gelais, Fictions transfuges : La transfictionnalité et ses enjeux, Paris: Seuil, 2011, 19–20, author’s translation. 32 “Est-il judicieux de considérer l’adaptation comme une forme (transmédi- atique) de la transfictionnalité ? Sachant que c’est sur la base d’une com- munauté diégétique que s’établit une adaptation, on pourra être tenté de répondre par l’affirmative. J’hésite malgré tout à le faire, en raison précisé- ment de cette visée d’une équivalence diégétique, incompatible en principe avec les opérations exemplairement transfictionnels que sont l’extrapolation et l’expansion : les adaptations n’ont pas pour vocation de prolonger l’his- toire et encore moins de proposer de nouvelles aventures des protagonistes. […] Rien n’interdit de reconnaître une portée transfictionnelle à ces transfor- mations; les études de l’adaptation trouveraient là un ensemble de questions fructueuses. Il faut cependant garder à l’esprit le statut quelque peu particu- lier de ces opérations transfictionnelles que peu de lecteurs ou de spectateurs, me semblent-ils, verront comme des développements diégétiques de l’original, [mais …] seront davantage vues comme des déviations (heureuses ou malheureuses) à ce principe [d’équivalence] que comme une contribution à la fiction originale.” Ibid., 35. 33 This will be discussed in further detail in Chapters 3 and 4. 34 The adepts of monotheism propose using virtual reality to download an avatar of their martyrs into a digital paradise, thus guaranteeing salvation to its followers that ostensibly requires no “leap of faith.” 35 While the Cylons from the original series were simply evil aliens, without complex motivation or ambiguity, the 21st century Cylons were made by man, develop models that are indistinguishable from humans, and can actually crossbreed with their human creators. Clearly, the Cylons are a more complex entity in the more recent rendition. 28 Building Blocks 36 Christina Radish, “12 MONKEYS Interview: Creators Terry Matalas & Travis Fickett and Showrunner Natalie Chaidez,” Collider, January 23, 2015. http:// collider.com/12-monkeys-tv-show-terry-matalas-travis-fickett-interview/. Accessed March 2015. 37 Atlas Entertainment was the original producer of the Gilliam lm. Heather M, “Aaron Stanford, Travis Fickett, and Terry Matalas Talk 12 Monkeys,” op. cit. 38 Though I by no means intend to insinuate that science ction and fantasy are equivalent, and I realize that the debate de ning the boundaries between the two genres is a long and heated one, for the needs of this study I will say that both genres share a devoted fanbase and a tendency to explore real-world problems through non-realist means. 39 John Consoli, “ABC’s Struggling ‘The Gates’ a Hit Online,” The Wrap, July 16, 2010. http://www.thewrap.com/abcs-gates-draws-most-online-unique- viewers-june-19319/ Accessed April 2015. 40 Daniel Fienberg, “25 Anticipated TV Premieres, Returns and Finales for 2010: ‘Lost,’ ‘Dollhouse,’ ‘Caprica’ and more,” Hit x, January 1, 2010. http://www.hit x.com/galleries/25-anticipated-tv-premieres-returns-and- nales-for-2010-lost-dollhouse-caprica-and-more#11. Accessed January 2015; Lewis Wallace, “Review: Caprica Spins Religion, Race Into Worthy Galactica Prequel,” Wired, April 20, 2009. http://www.wired.com/2009/04/ review-caprica/. Accessed January 2015. 41 Charlaine Harris, Dead Until Dark, New York: Ace Books, 2001; Living Dead in Dallas, New York: Ace Books, 2002. 42 Adam Pasick, “George R.R. Martin on His Favorite Game of Thrones Actors, and the Buttery Effect of TV Adaptations,” New York Magazine, October 20, 2011. http://www.vulture.com/2011/10/george_rr_martin_on_ his_favori.html. Accessed January 2012. 43 I have discussed this elsewhere: “High Fidelity: Adapting Fantasy Novels to the Small Screen,” TV Series n° 6, Florence Cabaret, Claire Cornillon, 2014, 109–122. Available online: http://media.wix.com/ugd/93a9a2_d89b- c328f66b4db9bf65f807ecc6c70c.pdf. 44 Of course this is relative, as showrunners usually stay with a show several years, while directors can and do change from one episode to the next. This will be discussed at length in chapter 5. 45 Marc Berman, “Syfy Renews Drama ‘12 Monkeys’ for Season 2,” TV Me- dia Insights, March 13, 2015. http://www.tvmediainsights.com/highlights/ syfy-renews-drama-12-monkeys-season-2/, Accessed May 2015. 46 Kevin Murphy, who had more of a background in soap operas (he was co-executive producer of Desperate Housewives, ABC, 2004–2012) than in science ction, was asked to helm the series during the mid-season hiatus. Kevin Murphy commentary track, Caprica, 1.10. 47 “Television genre is best understood as a process of categorization that is not found within media texts, but operates across the cultural realms of media industries, audiences, policy, critics, and historical contexts.” Jason Mittell, Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture, New York, NY: Routledge, 2004, xii. See also François Jost, “La promesse des genres,” Réseaux, Vol. 15, No. 81, 1997, 11–31. 48 Joseph McCabe, “Exclusive: Producers Travis Fickett and Terry Matalas on Time Travel, Gender Swapping, and Syfy’s 12 Monkeys,” The Nerdist, January 17, 2015. http://nerdist.com/exclusive-producers-travis- ckett-and- terry-matalas-on-time-travel-gender-swapping-and-syfys-12-monkeys/. Accessed March 2015. Television and Adaptation 29 49 “[…] the practice of generic mixture has the potential to foreground and activate generic categories in vital ways that ‘pure’ generic texts rarely do.” Mittell, Genre and Television, op. cit., 155. 50 For a fascinating take on this aspect of the television sitcom, see Colin Irvine, “Why 30 Rock Rocks and The Of ce Needs Some Work: The role of Time/Space in Contemporary Sitcoms,” in Melissa Ames, ed., Time in Television Narrative: Exploring Temporality in Twenty-First-Century Pro- gramming, Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi, 2012, 218–231. 51 André Bazin, “À propos des reprises,” Cahiers du cinéma, No. 5, September 1951, 52–56. Quoted in Jennifer Forrest and Leonard R. Koos, Dead Ring- ers: The Remake in Theory and Practice, Albany, NY: State University of New York, 2002, 20. 52 Hulu, the rst provider of streaming content, was made public in 2007, the same year as the appearance of the iPhone, thus making internet access entirely mobile. Cameron Chapman, “The History of the Internet in a Nutshell,” Six Revisions, November 15, 2009. http://sixrevisions.com/ resources/the-history-of-the-internet-in-a-nutshell/. Accessed May 2015. 53 This is somewhat anachronistic, as Google glasses were actually introduced to the public in 2012, but it is but one example among many of the occasionally prescient nature of science ction. 54 This is a clear reference to another adaptation that was less than faithful to its source, but ended up spawning an entire subgenre of science ction; I am referring, of course, to Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982), and its resultant genre, Tech Noir. 55 This appears to be the Caprica version of the angel/messengers that already appeared in Battlestar Galactica both in the form of Starbuck and Num- ber 6; Kevin Murphy con rmed that the showrunners sought various actors from the original Battlestar series to play the role (including Tricia Helfer and James Callas), but as they were unavailable, Alessandra Torresani played the part. Episode commentary, Caprica, 1.10. 56 Of course this also reects current aesthetic styles, where three-dimensional and computer-generated imagery have become increasingly popular in both television and lm credits, but the emphasis on this reworking of the credit sequence seems to suggest the series’ intention to delve further into the mythology of the lm, and perhaps unearth something very different in the process. 57 “Of more interest to me is the fact that the morally loaded discourse of delity is based on the implied assumption that adapters aim simply to reproduce the adapted text. Adaptation is repetition, but repetition with replication. And there are manifestly many different possible intentions behind the act of adaptation: the urge to consume and erase the memory of the adapted text or to call it into question is as likely as the desire to pay tribute by copying.” Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, New York/Oxon: Routledge, 2006, 7. 58 “I met a traveller from an antique land / Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone / Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, / Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, / And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, / Tell that its sculptor well those passions read / Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, / The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed: / And on the pedestal these words appear: / ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: / Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’ / Nothing beside remains. Round the decay / Of that colossal wreck, bound- less and bare / The lone and level sands stretch far away.” Percy Bysshe 30 Building Blocks Shelley, Ode to the West Wind and Other Selected Poems, London: Dover, 1993, 5. 59 Most notably through the Hitchcock marathon that Cole and Kathryn attend while hiding from the authorities, where Gilliam shows excerpts from both the famous sequence of Vertigo where X describes her supposed previous life by pointing at the rings of a tree trunk: “There I was born, and there I died.” and from The Birds, and where Cole chooses to go to the Florida Keys based only on advertisements he’s seen on various screens. See also Laura Rascoli, “Time travel and Film Spectatorship in 12 Monkeys and Strange Days,” in Gregg Rickman, ed., The Science Fiction Film Reader, New York, NY: Limelight Editions, 2004, 355–368. 60 This thought is partially inspired by Laura Roscoli’s article on the Gilliam lm, though the conclusions drawn are my own. Laura Roscoli, “Time Travel and Film Spectatorship,” op. cit. Jean-Louis Baudry, “Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus,” Film Quarterly, 28, no. 2 (Winter 1974–1975), 533–542. 61 Thomas Leitch, “Adaptation, the Genre,” op. cit., 116. 62 Brian Ford Sullivan, “Live at the Paley Festival: Sci Fi’s “Battlestar Galactica/ Caprica,” The Futon Critic, April 20, 2009. http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ interviews/2009/04/20/live-at-the-paley-festival-sci- s-battlestar-galactica- caprica-31105/20090420_battlestargalactica/. Accessed January 2015. 63 Christina Radish, “12 MONKEYS Interview,” op. cit. 64 These are referred to as miniseries in the United States and serials in Great Britain; since the British term can all too easily be confused with the serial nature of storytelling in television, I will be avoiding this term, and using either “short-form” or “miniseries.” 65 Kathleen Fitzpatrick, The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of Television, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP, 2006. Available online: http://www.anxietyofobsolescence.com/. 66 Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Inuence: A Theory of Poetry (1973), Oxford: OUP, 1997. 67 R. Barton Palmer, “The Sociological Turn of Adaptation Studies: The Example of Film Noir,” in Robert Stam, Allessandra Raengo, eds., A Companion to Literature and Film, Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005, 258–277, 259. References 12 Monkeys. SyFy. 2015âPresent. Television. The Addams Family. ABC. 1964â1966. Television. The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. Fox. 1993â1994. Television. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. ITV. 1984â1994. Television. Agatha Christieâs Poirot. ITV. 1989â2013. Television. Agent Carter. NBC. 2015âPresent. Television. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. ABC. 2013âPresent. Television. Alice. CBS. 1976â1985. Television. All in the Family. CBS. 1971â1979. Television. American Horror Story. FX. 2011âPresent. Television. Angel. The WB. 1999â2004. Television. The Animated Tales from Shakespeare. BBC2. 1992â1994. Television. Bates Motel. A&E. 2013âPresent. Television. Batman. ABC. 1966â1968. Television. Battlestar Galactica. ABC. 1978â1979. Television. Battlestar Galactica. Syfy. 2003â2009. Television. Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome. 2012. Web series. Beauty and the Beast. CBS. 1987â1990. Television. BeTipul. HOT3. 2005â2008. Television. Bionic Woman. NBC. 2007. Television. Bones. Fox. 2005âPresent. Television. Breaking Bad. AMC. 2008â2013. Television. Brideshead Revisited. ITV. 1981. Television. The Bridge. FX. 2013â2014. Television. Broadchurch. ITV. 2013âPresent. Television. Broen/Bron. SVT1, DR1. 2011âPresent. Television. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. WB. 1997â2001, UPN. 2001â2003. Television. Cadfael. ITV. 1994â1996. Television. Caprica. Syfy. 2010. Television. Castle. ABC. 2009â2016. Television. Charlie Rose. PBS. 1991âPresent. Television. Cheers. NBC. 1982â1993. Television. Cliffordâs Puppy Days. PBS. 2003â2004. Television. The Colbert Report. Comedy Central. 2005â2014. Television. Cold Case. CBS. 2003â2010. Television. 192 The Colony. USA. 2015âPresent. Television. Community. NBC. 2009â2014; Yahoo. 2015âPresent. Television. CSI. CBS. 2000âPresent. Television. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Comedy Central. 1999â2015. Television. Dallas. CBS. 1978â1991. Television. Dead Like Me. Showtime. 2003â2004. Television. Desperate Housewives. ABC. 2004â2012. Television. Dexter. Showtime. 2006â2013. Television. Doctor Who. BBC, 1963âPresent. Television. Dollhouse. Fox. 2009â2010. Television. The Dukes of Hazzard. CBS. 1979â1985. Television. Dynasty. ABC. 1981â1989. Television. Episodes. Showtime, BBC Two. 2011âPresent. Television. The Equalizer. CBS. 1985â1989. Television. The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin. BBC. 1976â1979. Television. Family Matters. ABC. 1989â1997; CBS 1997â1998. Television. Fargo. FX. 2014âPresent. Television. Firefly. Fox. 2002. Television. The Following. Fox. 2013âPresent. Television. Forbrydelsen. DR1. 2007â2012. Television. The Forsyte Saga. 1967. Television. Frasier. NBC. 1993â2004. Television. Freddyâs Nightmares: A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Series. Syndicated. 1988â1990. Television. Friday Night Lights. NBC. 2006â2008; The 101 Network. 2008â2011. Television. Friday the 13th. CBS. 1987â1990. Television. Friends. NBC. 1994â2004. Television. Game of Thrones. HBO. 2011âPresent. Television. The Gates. ABC. 2010. Television. The Gilmore Girls. The WB. 2000â2006; The CW. 2006â2007. Television. Girls. HBO. 2012âPresent. Television. Gracepoint. Fox. 2014. Television. Grimm. NBC. 2011âPresent. Television. Hannibal. NBC. 2013â2015. Television. Happy Days. ABC. 1974â1984. Television. Hatufim. Channel 2. 2011âPresent. Television. Hill Street Blues. NBC. 1981â1987. Television. Homeland. Showtime. 2011âPresent. Television. Homicide: Life on the Street. NBC. 1993â1999. Television. House of Cards. Netflix. 2013âPresent. Television. House of Cards. BBC. 1990â1995. Television. How I Met Your Mother. CBS. 2005â2014. Television. I, Claudius. BBC. 1976. Television. In Treatment. HBO. 2008â2010. Television. The Irish R.M. BBC 4/RTÃ. 1983â1984. Television. Iron Man: Armored Adventures. Nicktoons. 2009â2012. Television. Jewel in the Crown. ITV. 1984â1985. Television. Jim Hensonâs Muppet Babies. CBS. 1984â1992. Television. Justified. FX. 2010âPresent. Television. 193 Just Shoot Me. NBC. 1997â2003. Television. The Killing. AMC. 2011â2013; Netflix. 2014. Television. Laverne and Shirley. ABC. 1976â1983. Television. Law and Order. NBC. 1990â2010. Television. The Leftovers. HBO. 2014âPresent. Television. Life on Mars. BBC. 2006â2007. Television. Life on Mars. ABC. 2008â2009. Television. Little Bear. CBC. 1995â2003. Television. The Lone Ranger. ABC. 1949â1957. Television. Lonesome Dove. CBS. 1989. Television. Lost. ABC. 2004â2010. Television. Lost in Austen. ITV. 2008. Television. Lost in Space. CBS. 1965â1968. Television. Mad Men. AMC. 2007â2015. Television. M*A*S*H. CBS. 1972â1983. Television. Masterpiece Theater. PBS. 1971âPresent. Television. Mockingbird Lane. NBC. 2012. Television. Monty Pythonâs Flying Circus. BBC. 1969â1974. Television. Moonlighting. ABC. 1985â1989. Television. Mork and Mindy. ABC. 1978â1982. Television. The Munsters. Joe Connelly , Bob Mosher . CBS. 1964â1966. Television. The Muppets. CBS. 1976â1981. Television. The Muppets Go to the Movies. ABC. 1981. Television. Muppet Babies. CBS. 1984â1991. Television. Nash Bridges. CBS. 1996â2001. Television. Neverwhere. BBC. 1996. Television. The Odd Couple. ABC. 1970â1975. Television. The Odd Couple. CBS. 2015âPresent. Television. The Office. NBC. 2005â2013. Television. The Office. BBC. 2001â2003. Television. Once Upon a Time. ABC. 2011âPresent. Television. Oprah Winfrey Show. ABC/Syndicated. 1986â2011. Television. Orange is the New Black. Netflix. 2013âPresent. Television. Ozzie and Harriet. ABC. 1952â1966. Television. The Pacific. HBO. 2010. Television. The Pallisers. BBC. 1974. Television. Pride and Prejudice. BBC. 1980. Television. Pride and Prejudice. BBC. 1995. Television. Pushing Daisies. ABC. 2007â2009. Television. QB VII. ABC. 1974. Television. Queer as Folk. Channel Four. 1999â2000. Television. Queer as Folk. Showtime. 2000â2005. Television. Resurrection. ABC. 2014â2015. Television. The Returned. A&E. 2015âPresent. Television. Les Revenants. Canal+. 2012âPresent. Television. Roots. ABC. 1977. Television. Sanford and Son. NBC. 1972â1977. Television. Sense and Sensibility. BBC. 2008. Television. Sesame Street. PBS. 1969âPresent. Television. Shameless. Channel Four. 2004â2013. Television. 194 Shameless. Showtime. 2011âPresent. Television. Sherlock. BBC. 2010âPresent. Television. The Shield. FX. 2002â2008. Television. The Simpsons. Fox. 1989âPresent. Television. The Six Million Dollar Man. ABC. 1973â1978. Television. Skins. E4. 2007â2013. Television. Skins. MTV. 2011. Television. The Slap. ABC1. 2011. Television. The Slap. NBC. 2015. Television. Sons of Anarchy. FX. 2008â2014. Television. The Sopranos. HBO. 1999â2007. Television. Starsky and Hutch. ABC. 1975â1979. Television. Star Trek. NBC. 1966â1969. Television. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Syndication. 1993â1999. Television. Star Trek: Voyager. UPN. 1995â2001. Television. Steptoe and Son. BBC1. 1962â1965. Television. The Strain. FX. 2014âPresent. Television. Supernatural. The CW. 2005âPresent. Television. Super Why! PBS. 2007â2012. Television. Tales from the Crypt. HBO. 1989â1996. Television. The Thorn Birds. ABC. 1983. Television. Till Death Us Do Part. BBC1. 1965, 1966â1968, 1970, 1972â1975. Television. Trapper John, M.D. CBS. 1979â1986. Television. Treme. HBO. 2010â2013. Television. True Blood. HBO. 2008â2014. Television. True Detective. HBO. 2014âPresent. Television. The Tunnel/Tunnel. Canal+/Sky 1. 2011â Present. Television. The Twilight Zone. CBS. 1959â1964, 1985â1989. Television. Twin Peaks. ABC. 1990â1991. Television. V. NBC. 1983, 1984â1985. Television. V. ABC. 2009â2011.Television. V: The Final Battle. NBC. 1984. Television. The Vampire Diaries. The CW. 2009âPresent. Television. Vanity Fair. BBC. 1998. Television. Vanity Fair. BBC. 1967. Television. The Walking Dead. AMC. 2010âPresent. Television. Wallander. BBC. 2008â2010. Television. Wilfred. SBS One. 2007â2010. Television. Wilfred. FX. 2011â2013; FXX. 2014. Television. The Wire. HBO. 2002â2008. Television. Wishbone. PBS. 1995â2001. Television. The Writerâs Room. Sundance. 2013âPresent. Television. XâFiles. Fox. 1993â2002. Television. 10 Commandments. Cecil B. DeMille . Dir. 1956. Film. 12 Monkeys. Terry Gilliam . Dir. 1995. Film. 21 Jump Street. 2012. Film. 195 Algiers. John Cromwell . Dir. 1938. Film. Alice Doesnât Live Here Anymore. Martin Scorsese . Dir. 1974. Film. Animal House. John Landis . Dir. 1978. Film. The Animatrix. Peter Chung , Andrew R. Jones , Yoshiaki Kawajiri , Takeishi Koike , Mahiro Maeda , KÃ´ji Morimoto , ShinichirÃ´ Watanabe . Dirs. 2003. Film. Austenland. Jershua Hess . Dir. 2013. Film. The Avengers. Joss Whedon . Dir. 2012. Film. The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Joss Whedon . Dir. 2015. Film. Blade Runner. Ridley Scott . Dir. 1982. Film. Blue Velvet. David Lynch . Dir. 1986. Film. The Bonfire of the Vanities. Brian De Palma . Dir. 1990. Film. The Bostonians. James Ivory . Dir. 1984. Film. Bram Stokerâs Dracula. Francis Ford Coppola . Dir. 1992. Film. The Breakfast Club. John Hughes . Dir. 1985. Film. Bridget Jonesâs Diary. Sharon Macguire . Dir. 2001. Film. Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. Beeban Kidron . Dir. 2004. Film. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Fran Rubel Kuzui . Dir. 1992. Film. Capote. Bennett Miller . Dir. 2005. Film. Captain America: Winter Soldier. Anthony Russo , Joe Russo . Dirs. 2014. Film. Casablanca. Michael Curtiz . Dir. 1942. Film. Crash. Paul Haggis . Dir. 2004. Film. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Ang Lee . Dir. 2000. Film. Double Indemnity. Billy Wilder . Dir. 1944. Film. The Dukes of Hazzard. Jay Chandrasekhar . Dir. 2005. Film. Elephant Man. David Lynch . Dir. 1980. Film. End of Watch. David Ayer . Dir. 2012. Film. Eraserhead. David Lynch . Dir. 1977. Film. The Europeans. James Ivory . Dir. 1979. Film. Fahrenheit 451. FranÃ§ois Truffaut . Dir. 1966. Film. Fantasia. Norman Ferguson . Dir. 1940. Film. Foxcatcher. Bennett Miller . Dir. 2014. Film. Friday Night Lights. Peter Berg . Dir. 2004. Film. Frozen. Chris Buck , Jennifer Lee . Dirs. 2013. Film. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Howard Hawks . Dir. 1953. Film. Ghost. Jerry Zucker . Dir. 1990. Film. The Golden Bowl. James Ivory . Dir. 2001. Film. Goldeneye. Martin Campbell . Dir. 1995. Film. The Green Room. FranÃ§ois Truffaut . Dir. 1978. Film. Hannibal. Ridley Scott . Dir. USA. 2001. Film. Hannibal Rising. Peter Webber . Dir. 2007. Film. His Girl Friday. Howard Hawks . Dir. USA. 1940. Film. Howards End. James Ivory . Dir. 1992. Film. How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Ron Howard . Dir. 2000. Film. The Ice Storm. Ang Lee . Dir. 1997. Film. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Steven Spielberg . Dir. 1989. Film. Jeepers Creepers. Victor Salva . Dir. 2002. Film. La JetÃ©e. Marker, Chris . Dir. 1962. Film. Jules et Jim. FranÃ§ois Truffaut . Dir. 1962. Film. The Legend of Zorro. Martin Campbell . Dir. 2005. Film. 196 Lethal Weapon. Richard Donner . Dir. 1987. Film. The Little Mermaid. Ron Clements , John Musker . Dirs. 1989. Film. Manhunter. Michael Mann . Dir. 1986. Film. Mary Shelleyâs Frankenstein. Kenneth Branagh . Dir. 1994. Film. Maurice. James Ivory . Dir. 1987. Film. M*A*S*H. Robert Altman . Dir. 1970. Film. The Matrix. Andy Wachowski , Lana Wachowski . Dirs. 1999. Film. The Matrix: Reloaded. Andy Wachowski , Lana Wachowski . Dirs. 2003. Film. The Odd Couple. Gene Saks . Dir. 1968. Film. Pepe Le Moko. Julien Duvivier . Dir. 1937. Film. Psycho. Alfred Hitchcock . Dir. 1960. Film. Psycho. Gus Van Sant . Dir. 1998. Film. Rear Window. Alfred Hitchcock . Dir. 1954. Film. Red Dragon. Brett Ratner . Dir. 2002. Film. Ride with the Devil. Ang Lee . Dir. 1999. Film. The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Jim Sharman . Dir. 1975. Film. Romeo and Juliet. Baz Luhrmann . Dir. 2013. Film. Room with a View. James Ivory . Dir. 1985. Film. Salemâs Lot. CBS. 1979. Film. Sense and Sensibility. Ang Lee . Dir. 1995. Film. Serenity. Joss Whedon . Dir. 2005. Film. The Shining. Stanley Kubrick . Dir. 1980. Film. Shoot the Piano Player (Tirez sur le pianist). FranÃ§ois Truffaut . Dir. 1962. Film. Showrunners: The Art of Running a TV Show. Des Doyle . Dir. 2014. Film. The Silence of the Lambs. Jonathan Demme . Dir. 1991. Film. Some Like It Hot. Billy Wilder . Dir. 1959. Film. Starsky and Hutch. Todd Phillips . Dir. 2004. Film. Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. George Lucas . Dir. 1999. Film. Strangers on a Train. Alfred Hitchcock . Dir. 1951. Film. They Came Back (Les Revenants). Robin Campillo . Dir. 2004. Film. Thor: The Dark World. Alan Taylor . Dir. 2013. Film. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. David Lynch . Dir. 1992. Film. Vertigo. Alfred Hitchcock . Dir. 1958. Film. The Wizard of Oz. Victor Fleming . Dir. 1939. Film. X-Files: Fight the Future. Rob Bowman . Dir. 1998. Film. X-Files: I Want to Believe. Chris Carter . Dir. 2008. Film. Austen, Jane . Northanger Abbey (1817). New York: Knopf, 1992. Print. Austen, Jane . Pride and Prejudice (1813). New York: Modern Library, 1995. Print. Bissinger, Buzz . Friday Night Lights: A Town, a Team, and a Dream. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley Pub. 1990. Print. Bloch, Robert . Psycho (1959). New York, NY: The Overlook Press, 2010. Print. Boileau, Pierre , and Thomas Narcejac . Dâentre Les Morts. Paris: DenoÃ«l, 1954. Print. Bradbury, Ray . Fahrenheit 451. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967. Print. 197 BrontÃ«, Charlotte . Jane Eyre (1847). Oxford: OUP, 2001. Christie, Agatha . The Mousetrap (1952). New York: Dell, 1974. Print. David, Peter , Robert Q. Atkins , Al Barrionuevo , Carlos Rodriguez , Scott Elmer , Andy Owens , Carlos Rodriguez , Chris Sotomayor , and Cory Petit . Richard Castleâs A Calm before Storm: A Derrick Storm Mystery. New York: Marvel Worldwide, 2013. Print. DeLillo, Don . White Noise. New York, NY: Viking, 1985. Kindle edition. Dickens, Charles . The Adventures of Oliver Twist (1837). London: Oxford UP, 1949. Print. Dickens, Charles . Pickwick Papers (1836). London: Wordsworth Classics, 1992. Print. Dickens, Charles . Charles Dickensâs Great Expectations: Authoritative Text, Backgrounds, Contexts, Criticism. New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 1999. Print. Dumas, Alexandre . The Three Musketeers (1844). New York: Dodd, Mead, 1941. Print. Fforde, Jasper . First Among Sequels. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2007. Print. Fforde, Jasper . The Big Over Easy. London: Penguin, 2005. Print. Fforde, Jasper . The Eye of Zoltar. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2014. Print. Fforde, Jasper . The Eyre Affair. London: Penguin, 2001. Print. Fforde, Jasper . The Fourth Bear. London: Penguin, 2006. Print. Fforde, Jasper . The Last Dragonslayer. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2010. Print. Fforde, Jasper . The Song of the Quarkbeast. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2011. Print. Fforde, Jasper . The Well of Lost Plots. London: Penguin, 2004. Print. Fforde, Jasper . One of Our Thursdays is Missing. London: Penguin, 2012. Print. Fforde, Jasper . Shades of Grey: The Road to High Saffron. New York: Viking, 2009. Print. Fielding, Helen . Bridget Jonesâs Diary, London: Picador, 1996. Print. Fielding, Helen . Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. London: Penguin, 2001. Print. Flaubert, Gustave . Madame Bovary: Moeurs De Province (1856). Paris: Ãditions Garnier, 1961. Print. Ford, Ford Madox . The Good Soldier (1915). New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2012. Print. Franzen, Jonathan . The Corrections. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001. Print. Gaiman, Neil . Neverwhere. New York, NY: Avon Books, 1998. Goodis, David . Down There. New York, NY: Gold Medal Books, 1956. Print. Grahame-Smith, Seth . Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 2009. Print. Hale, Shannon . Austenland. London: Bloomsbury, 2007. Print. Harris, Charlaine . Dead Until Dark. New York: Ace Books, 2001. Print. Harris, Charlaine . Living Dead in Dallas. New York: Ace Books, 2002. Print. Harris, Thomas . Red Dragon (1981). New York, NY: Dell, 2002. Print. Harris, Thomas . The Silence of the Lambs. New York, NY: St. Martinâs Press, 1988. Print. Harris, Thomas . Hannibal. New York, NY: Dell, 1999. Print. Harris, Thomas . Hannibal Rising. New York, NY: Dell, 2006. Print. Highsmith, Patricia . Strangers on a Train. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001. Print. Hooker, Richard . MASH. New York: Morrow, 1968. Print. Hugo, Victor . The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1831). New York: Modern Library, 1941. Print. 198 James, Henry . The Turn of the Screw and Other Short Novels. New York, NY: Signet, 1980. Print. Lewis, Naomi , Angela Barrett , and H. C. Andersen . The Emperorâs New Clothes. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick, 1997. Print. Lewis, Sinclair . It Canât Happen Here (1935). New York, NY: Signet, 2014. Print. Lindsay, Jeff . Darkly Dreaming Dexter. New York, NY: Vintage, 2006. Print. Loos, Anita . Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. 1925. Print. Mott, Jason . The Returned. Don Mills, Ontario: Harlequin MIRA, 2013. Print. Nobbs, David . The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin. New York, NY: Random House, 1975. Kindle edition. Perrotta, Tom . The Leftovers. New York: St. Martinâs, 2011. Print. âRichard Castle.â Heat Wave. New York: Hyperion, 2009. Print. âRichard Castle. Naked Heat. New York: Hyperion, 2011. Print. RochÃ©, Henri-Pierre . Jules et Jim (1953). Paris: Gallimard, 1979. Print. Saberton, Ruth . Amber Scott is Starting Over. London: Orion, 2012. Print. Shakespeare, William . Hamlet (1603). New Haven: Yale UP, 2003. Print. Shakespeare, William . Julius Caesar (1599). London: Penguin, 2005. Print. Shakespeare, William . Macbeth (1606). New Haven: Yale UP, 2005. Print. Shakespeare, William . Richard III (1592). New Haven: Yale UP, 2008. Print. Shakespeare, William . The Taming of the Shrew (1592). New Haven: Yale UP, 1954. Print. Shakespeare, William . The Tragedy of King Lear (1608). Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Print. Shakespeare, William . The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (1597). New Haven: Yale UP, 1954. Print. Shelley, Percy Bysshe . Ode to the West Wind and Other Selected Poems. London: Dover, 1993. Print. Simon, Neil . The Odd Couple (1966). New York, NY: Samuel French, 1994. Print. Sterne, Laurence . The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy (1761â1767). Howard Anderson , ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 1980. Print. Tessaro, Kathleen . Elegance. New York, NY: William Morrow, 2004. Print. Thackeray, William Makepeace . Vanity Fair (1848). New York: W.W. Norton, 1994. Print. Wallace, David Foster . Infinite Jest: A Novel. Boston: Little, Brown, 1996. Print. Wolfe, Tom . Bonfire of the Vanities. New York: Farrar, Straus Giroux, 1987. Print. Baetens, Jan . âFrom Screen to Text: Novelization, the Hidden Continentâ in Imelda Whelehan and Deborah Cartmell . Eds. The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Cambridge/London: Cambridge UP, 2007. 226â238. Print. Baetens, Jan . La Novellisation: du film au roman. Brussels: Les Impressions Nouvelles, 2008. Print. Bernstein, Matthew . â High and Low: Art Cinema and Pulp Fiction in Yokohama.â Film Adaptation. James Naremore , ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2000. 172â189. Print. 199 Bluestone, George . Novels into Films. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins UP, 1957. Print. Boozer, Jack . âThe Screenplay and Authorship in Adaptation.â Authorship in Film Adaptation. Jack Boozer , ed. Austin: U of TX Press, 2008. 1â30. Print. Cardwell, Sarah . Adaptation Revisited: Television and the Classic Novel. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2002. Print. Cardwell, Sarah . âLiterature on the small screen: television adaptations.â The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Cambridge/London: Cambridge UP, 2007. 181â196. Print. Eder, Jens . âTransmediality and the politics of Adaptation: Concepts, Forms, and Strategies.â The Politics of Adaptation: Media Convergence. Dan Hassler-Forest and Pascal Nicklas , eds. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015. 66â81. Print. Elliot, Kamilla . The Novel/Film Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print. Gaudreault, AndrÃ© , and Philippe Marion . âTransÃ©criture and Narrative Mediatics.â A Companion to Literature and Film. Robert Stam , Allessandra Raengo , eds. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. 58â70. Print. Geraghty, Christine . Now a Major Motion Picture. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007. Print. Hunter, I.Q. âPost-classical fantasy cinema: The Lord of the Rings .â The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan , eds. Cambridge: CUP, 2007. 154â166. Print. Hutcheon, Linda . A Theory of Adaptation. New York/Oxon: Routledge, 2006. Print. Kantar, Maythee . Childrenâs Responses to Televised Adaptations of Literature. PhD dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1990. Print. Leitch, Thomas . âAdaptation and Intertextuality, or, What isnât an Adaptation, and What Does it Matter?â A Companion to Literature, Film, and Adaptation. Deborah Cartmell , ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. 87â104. Print. Leitch, Thomas . Film Adaptation and Its Discontents: From Gone with the Wind to The Passion of the Christ. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 2007. Print. Leitch, Thomas . âHitchcock and his Writers: Authorship and Authority in Adaptation.â Authorship in Film Adaptation. Jack Boozer , ed. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2009. 63â84. Print. Leitch, Thomas . âTwice-Told Tales: Disavowal and the Rhetoric of the Remake.â Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. Jennifer Forrest and Leonard R. Koos , eds. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2002. 37â62. Print. Letort, Delphine , and Shannon Wells-Lassagne . Lâadaptation cinÃ©matographique: PremiÃ¨res pages, premiers plans. Paris: Mare et Martin, 2014. Print. Loock, Cathleen , and Constantine Verevis , eds. Film Remakes, Adaptations, and Fan Productions: Remake/Remodel. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012. Martin, Amy . âA Battle on Two Fronts: Wuthering Heights and Adapting the Adaptation.â Film Remakes, Adaptations, and Fan Productions: Remake, Remodel. Katherine Loock , Constantine Verevis , eds. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012. 67â86. Print. 200 McCabe, Colin , Murray, Kathleen . Eds. True to the Spirit: Film Adaptation and the Question of Fidelity, Oxford: OUP, 2011. Print. McFarlane, Brian . Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. Oxford: OUP, 1996. Print. Muller, Anja . âIntroduction: Adapting Canonical Texts in and for Childrenâs Literatureâ in Anja Muller , ed., Adapting Canonical Texts in Childrenâs Literature. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. 1â8. Print. Naremore, James . Ed. Film Adaptation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2000. Print. Palmer, R. Barton . âThe Sociological Turn of Adaptation Studies: The Example of Film Noir .â A Companion to Literature and Film. Robert Stam , Allessandra Raengo , eds. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. 258â277. Print. Stam, Robert , and Alessandra Raengo . Eds. Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Print. Wells-Lassagne, Shannon . âDe lâÃ©cran Ã la page: Castle and Richard Castleâs Deadly Storm .â Bande dessinÃ©e et adaptation (littÃ©rature, cinÃ©ma, tv). BenoÃ®t Mitaine , David Roche , Isabelle Schmitt-Pitiot , eds. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal, 2015. 299â310. Print. Whelehan, Imelda , and Cartmell Deborah . The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print. Whelehan, Imelda , and Cartmell Deborah . Screen Adaptation: Impure Cinema. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print. Aardse, Kent . âAlternate reality Game, Narrative Disbursement and Canon: The Lost Experience .â Fan CULTure: Essays on Participatory Fandom in the 21st Century. Kristin M. Barton , Jonathan Malcolm Lampley , eds. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2013. 106â118. Print. Anderson, Christopher . âOverview: Producing an Aristocracy of Culture in American Television.â The Essential HBO Reader. Gary R. Edgerton and Jeffrey P. Jones , eds. Lexington: University Press of KY, 2008. 23â41. Print. Bazin, AndrÃ© . Quâest-ce que le cinÃ©ma? Paris: Ãditions du Cerf, 2002. Print. Bennett, Tara . Showrunners: The Art of Running a TV Show. London: Titan Books, 2014. Print. Bordwell, David . âRhetoric in Action: Seven Models of Psycho .â Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. Boston, MA: Harvard UP, 2007. 224â248. Print. Buckingham, David . Childrenâs Television in Britain: History, Discourse and Policy. London: BFI, 1999. Print. Caldwell, John T. Televisuality. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995. Print. Cardwell, Sarah , and Steven Peacock , eds. âGood Television?,â Journal of British Cinema and Television, 3:1 (2006). Print. Clarke, M.J. Transmedia TV: New Trends in Network Serial Production. New York, NY/London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Kindle edition. Corliss, Richard . Talking Pictures: Screenwriters in American Cinema. New York: Overlook, 1985. Print. 201 Cornillon, Claire . âQuand les personnages de sÃ©rie Ã©crivent des livres: effet de rÃ©el/effet de fiction.â Fictions contemporaines, sÃ©rialitÃ© et transmedia. Paris: HonorÃ© Champion, forthcoming. Print. Creeber, Glen . Serial Television. London: BFI, 2005. Print. Davies, MÃ ire Messenger . Children, Media, and Culture. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2010. Print. De Vito, John , and Frank Tropea . Epic Television Miniseries: A Critical History. Jefferson, NC/London: McFarland, 2010. Kindle edition. Dunne, Anne . âThe genres of television.â Narrative and Media. Rosemary Huisman , Julian Murphet , Helen Fulton , eds. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 125â139. Print. Eaton, Rebecca . Making Masterpiece: 25 Years Behind the Scenes at Masterpiece and Mystery! On PBS. New York, NY: Viking Penguin, 2013. Kindle edition. Ellis, John . Visible Fiction (1982). New York, NY: Routledge, 1992. Print. Evans, Elizabeth . Transmedia Television: Audiences, New Media, and Daily Life. New York, NY: Routledge, 2011. Print. Farr, Cecilia Konchar . Reading Oprah: How Oprahâs Book Club Changed the Way America Reads. Albany, NY: State University of NY Press, 2005. Print. Favard, Florent . âLa promesse dâun dÃ©nouement: Ã©nigmes, quÃªtes et voyages dans le temps dans les sÃ©ries tÃ©lÃ©visÃ©es de science-fiction contemporaines.â PhD thesis, UniversitÃ© de Bordeaux, forthcoming. Print. Fine, Richard . Hollywood and the Profession of Authorship. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1985. Print. Forrest, Jennifer , and Leonard R. Koos . âReviewing Remakes: An Introduction.â Dead Ringers: The Remake in Theory and Practice. Jennifer Forrest and Leonard R. Koos , eds. Albany, NY: SUNY UP, 2002. 1â36. Print. Francis, James Jr . Remaking Horror: Hollywoodâs New Reliance on Scares of Old. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2013. Print. Gledhill, Christine . âSpeculations on the Relationship between Soap Opera and Melodrama.â American Television: New Directions in History and Theory. Nick Browne , ed. London/New York, NY: Routledge, 1993. 123â144. Print. Greenhalgh, Susanne . âThe Eye of Childhood: Shakespeare, Performance, and the Child Subject.â Turning the Page: Childrenâs Literature in Performance and the Media. Fiona M. Collins and Jeremy Ridgman , eds. Bern: Peter Lang, 2006. Print. Harvey, Colin . Fantastic Transmedia: Narrative, Play and Memory across Science Fiction and Fantasy Storyworlds. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015. Print. Hatchuel, Sarah . RÃªves et sÃ©ries amÃ©ricaines: la fabrique dâautres mondes. Aix-en-Provence, Rouge Profond, 2015. Print. Hatchuel, Sarah . Lost: fiction vitale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2013. Print. Hatchuel, Sarah . âPlay Within Film.â Cambridge Shakespeare Encyclopedia. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, Forthcoming. Print. Hatchuel, Sarah . Shakespeare and the Cleopatra/Caesar Intertext: Sequel, Conflation, Remake. Lanham, MD: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 2011. Print. Hellekson, Karen and Kristin Busse . Eds. Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet: New Essays. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2006. Print. Higson, Andrew . English Heritage, English Cinema: Costume Drama since 1980. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print. 202 Hopkins, Lisa . âMr. Darcyâs Body: Privileging the Female Gaze.â Jane Austen in Hollywood. Linda Troost , Sayre N. Greenfield , eds. Lexington: University Press of KY, 2001. 111â121. Print. Horton, Andrew , and Stuart Y. McDougal , eds. Play it Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Print. Irvine, Colin . âWhy 30 Rock Rocks and The Office Needs Some Work: The role of Time/Space in Contemporary Sitcoms.â Time in Television Narrative: Exploring Temporality in Twenty-First- Century Programming. Melissa Ames , ed. Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi, 2012. 218â231. Print. Itzkoff, Dave . Mad as Hell: The Making of Network and the Fateful Vision of the Angriest Man in Movies. New York, NY: Times Books, 2014. Jacobs, Jason , and Steven Peacock , eds. Television Aesthetics and Style. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Kindle edition. Jenkins, Henry . Convergence Culture. New York, NY: NYUP, 2006. Print. Jenkins, Henry . Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York, NY: NYUP, 2013. Kindle edition. Jowett, Lorna , and Stacey Abbott . TV Horror: Investigating the Dark Side of the Small Screen. London: I.B. Tauris, 2013. Print. King, Noel . âThe Last Good Time We ever Hadâ: Remembering the New Hollywood Cinema.â The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s. Alexander Horwath , Thomas Elsaesser , Noel King , eds. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 2004. 19â36. Print. Kleinecke-Bates, Iris . Victorians on Screen: The Nineteenth Century on British Television 1994â2005. New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan, 2014. Print. Kozloff, Sarah . âNarrative Theory and Television.â Channels of Discourse, Reassembled: Television and Contemporary Criticism (1992). Robert C. Allen , ed. 2nd edition, Oxon: Routledge, 2003. 67â100. Print. Lanier, Douglas . Shakespeare and Popular Culture. Oxford: OUP, 2002. Print. Lavender-Smith, Jordan . ââItâs not Unknownâ: The Loose- and Dead-End Afterlives of Battlestar Galactica and Lost .â Time in Television Narrative: Exploring Temporality in Twenty-First-Century Programming. Melissa Ames , ed. Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi, 2012. 56â68. Print. Lavigne, Carlen , ed. Remake TV: Remake, re-boot, recycle. Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2014. Print. Marc, David . âIn search of the radio sitcom.â The Sitcom Reader: America Viewed and Skewed. Mary Dalton , Laura R. Linder , eds. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005. 15â24. Print. Martin, Brett . Difficult Men: Behind the Scenes of a Creative Revolution: From The Sopranos and The Wire to Mad Men and Breaking Bad. London: Penguin, 2013. Print. McCabe, Janet and Kim Akass , eds. Quality TV: Contemporary American Television and Beyond. London/New York, NY: I.B. Tauris, 2007. Print. Metcalfe, Greg . DVD Novel: How the Way We Watch Television Changed the Television We Watch. Santa Barbara, CA: ABCâCLIO, 2012. Print. Metz, Christian . Le Signifiant imaginaire (1977). Paris: Christian Bourgois, 2002. Print. Mills, Brett . The Sitcom. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2005. Print. Mittell, Jason . Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling. New York, NY/London: New York UP, 2015. Kindle edition. 203 Mittell, Jason . Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture. New York, NY: Routledge, 2004. Print. Mittell, Jason . Television and American Culture. New York/Oxford, Oxford UP, 2010. Print. Newman, Michael Z. , and Elana Levine . Legitimating Television: Media Convergence and Cultural Status. NY, NY/London: Routledge, 2012. Kindle edition. Price, Steven . The Screenplay: Authorship, Theory and Criticism. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print. Rascoli, Laura . âTime travel and Film Spectatorship in 12 Monkeys and Strange Days .â The Science Fiction Film Reader. Gregg Rickman , ed. New York, NY: Limelight Editions, 2004. 355â368. Print. Rebello, Stephen . Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho (1990). London: Marion Boyars, 2013. Print. Roche, David . Making and Remaking Horror in the 1970s and 2000s: Why Donât They Do It Like They Used To? Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 2014. Print. Solomonson, Ed , and OâNeill, Mark . TVâs M*A*S*H: The Ultimate Guidebook. Albany, GA: BearManor Media, 2009. Print. Stuart, Sarah Clarke . Literary Lost: Viewing Television through the Lens of Literature. London: Bloomsbury, 2011. Print. Thiellement, PacÃ´me . Pop Yoga. Paris: Sonatine Ãditions, 2013. Kindle edition. Thompson, Kristin . Storytelling in Film and Television. Boston, MA: Harvard UP, 2003. Print. Thompson, Robert J. Televisionâs Second Golden Age: From Hill Street Blues. NY, NY: Continuum Publishing, 1996. Print. Tredy, Dennis . âThe Origins Of The TV Sitcom: Transgressional Comedy in the Early 1950âs.â 2015. Presentation. Verevis, Constantine . Film Remakes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2006. Print. Wasko, Janet . Understanding Disney: The Manufacture of Fantasy. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. Kindle edition. Weissmann, Elke . Transnational Television Drama: Special Relations and Mutual Influence between the US and the UK. London/New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012. Print. Wild, David . The Showrunners: A Season Inside The Billion-Dollar, Death-Defying, Madcap World Of Televisionâs Real Stars. New York, NY: Harper Colllins. 1999. Print. Wood, Robin . âAn Introduction to the American Horror Film.â Movies and Methods: Volume 2. Bill Nichols , ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. 195â220. Print. Zanger, Anat . Film Remakes as Ritual and Disguise: From Carmen to Ripley. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006. Baratz-Logsted, Lauren . âIntroduction.â This is chick lit. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, 2013. 1â6. Print. Barth, John . The Friday Book. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins UP, 1997. Print. Barthes, Roland . âIntroduction Ã lâanalyse structurale des rÃ©citsâ (1966). Lâaventure sÃ©miologique, Paris: Ãditions du Seuil, 1985. 167â206. Print. 204 Barthes, Roland . âLa mort de lâauteur (1968).â Le bruissement de la langue. Paris: Seuil, 1984. Print. Bergson, Henri . Le Rire: Essais sur la signification du comique (1900). Paris: Payot, 2011. Print. Bloom, Harold . The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (1973). Oxford: OUP, 1997. Print. Brooks, Peter . Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative. New York, NY: Vintage, 1984. Print. Debord, Guy . La SociÃ©tÃ© du spectacle (1967). Paris: Gallimard, 1992. Print. Doody, Margaret Ann . âIntroduction.â Samuel Richardson . Pamela: Or, Virtue Rewarded (1740). London: Penguin, 1981. Print. Ferriss, Suzanne . âNarrative and Cinematic Doubleness: Pride and Prejudice and Bridget Jonesâs Diary.â Chick Lit: The New Womanâs Fiction. Suzanne Ferriss , Mallory Young , eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006. 71â84. Print. Ferriss, Suzanne , and Mallory Young . âIntroduction.â Chick Lit: The New Womanâs Fiction. Suzanne Ferriss , Mallory Young , eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006. 1â13. Print. Fielding, K. J. âDickens and International Copyright.â Bulletin: British Association for American Studies, No. 4 (Aug., 1962). 29â35. Print. Fitzpatrick, Kathleen . The Anxiety of Obsolescence: The American Novel in the Age of Television. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP, 2006. Kindle edition. Flint, Kate . âThe Victorian novel and its readers.â The Cambridge Companion to the Victorian Novel. Deirdre David , ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. 13â35. Print. Foucault, Michel . âQuâest-ce quâun auteur ? (1969).â Dits et Ã©crits I, 1954â1975. Paris: Gallimard. 2001. Print. Harzewski, Stephanie . âTradition and Displacement in the New Novel of Manners.â Chick Lit: The New Womanâs Fiction. Suzanne Ferriss , Mallory Young , eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006. 29â46. Print. Horkheimer, Max , and Theodor W. Adorno . âThe Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.â Dialectic of Enlightenment. Redwood City, CA: Stanford UP, 2002. 63â93. Print. Hornby, Nick . Shakespeare Wrote For Money. San Francisco, CA: Believer Books, 2008. Print. Huyssen, Andreas . After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1986. Print. Iser, Wolfgang . The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1974. Jameson, Fredric . âPostmodernism and the Consumer Society.â The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983â1998. London: Verso, 1998. 1â20. Print. Lejeune, Philippe . Le Pacte autobiographique. Paris: Seuil, 1975. Print. Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim . Laocoon: An Essay upon the Limits of Painting and Poetry (1766). Ellen Frothingham , trans. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2005. Print. Lyotard, Jean-FranÃ§ois . La condition postmoderne. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1979. Print. McRobbie, Angela . Postmodernism and Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 1994. Print. 205 Mizejewsk, Linda . Hardboiled and High Heeled: The Woman Detective in Popular Culture. London: Routledge, 2004. Print. Ricoeur, Paul . Temps et rÃ©cit Tome 2: La configuration dans le rÃ©cit de fiction. Paris: Ãditions du Seuil, 1984. Print. Saint-Gelais, Richard . Fictions transfuges : La transfictionnalitÃ© et ses enjeux. Paris: Seuil, 2011. Print. Teague, Fran . âShakespeare and America.â The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare. Arthur F. Kinney , ed., Oxford: OUP, 2012. Print. Whelehan, Imelda . Helen Fieldingâs Bridget Jonesâs Diary. London: Bloomsbury, 2002. Print. Baudry, Jean-Louis . âIdeological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus.â Film Quarterly, 28, no. 2 (Winter 1974â1975). 39â47. Print. Bazin, AndrÃ© . âÃ propos des reprises.â Cahiers du cinema. No. 5, September 1951. 52â56. Print. Bazin, AndrÃ© . âLe cinÃ©ma comme digeste.â La Revue des lettres modernes. No. 36â38, Summer 1958 (CinÃ©ma et roman). 201â207. Print. Bazin, AndrÃ© . âRemade in USA.â Cahiers du cinÃ©ma. No. 11, April 1952. 54â59. Print. Jost, FranÃ§ois . âLa promesse des genres.â RÃ©seaux. Vol. 15, No. 81, 1997. 11â31. Print. Kerr, Paul . âClassic Serialsâto be continued.â Screen, 23:1. 1982. 6â19. Print. Leitch, Thomas . âAdaptation, the genre.â Adaptation. Vol. 1, No. 2. 2008. 106â120. Print. Leitch, Thomas . âTwice-Told Tales: The Rhetoric of the Remake.â Film/Literature Quarterly 18, no. 3 (1990): 138â149. Print. Mittell, Jason . âNarrative Complexity in Contemporary American Television.â Velvet Light Trap. NO. 58, Fall 2006. 29â40. Print. Mulvey, Laura . âVisual Pleasure and Narrative Cinemaâ Screen 16:3. Autumn 1975. 6â18. Print. Truffaut, FranÃ§ois . âUne certaine tendance du cinÃ©ma franÃ§ais.â Cahiers du CinÃ©ma. No. 31. January 1954. 15â29. Print. Wallace, David Foster . âE Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction.â Review of Contemporary Fiction. 13:2 (1993: Summer). 151â194. Print. Wells-Lassagne, Shannon , and Geraghty, Christine . âIntroduction.â Dossier âOpening pages, opening shots.â Screen (Summer 2015). 56 (2). 234â237. Print. â2000 DOMESTIC GROSSES.â 2000 Yearly Box Office Results. Web. Accessed June 2015 . Adalian, Josef . â Community Creator Dan Harmon on His Big Plans for Season Twoâ Culture Vulture. August 13, 2010. Web. Accessed January 2011 . âAlice (TV Series 1976â1985)â IMDb. Web. Accessed July 2015 . 206âAlice (TV Series 1976â1985)âFull Cast & Crewâ IMDb. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Astruc, Alexandre . âNaissance dâune nouvelle avant-garde: la camera-styloâ LâÃcran franÃ§ais. No. 144. March 30, 1948. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Barone, Matt . âLast Night on âThe Leftovers,â Damon Lindelof Atoned for âLostâsâ Nikki and Paolo.â Complex. July 14, 2014. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Barr, Merrill . âAre Marvel Studios and Marvel Television Suffering a Communications Breakdown?â Forbes. April 23, 2015. Web. Accessed May 2015 . Bentley, Jean . ââGracepointâ showrunner defends killer reveal, shares Season 2 plans.â December 12, 2014. ZAP2It. Web. http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/gracepoint_showrunner_defends_killer_reveal_shares_season_2_pla ns-2014â12. Accessed July 2015 . Berman, Marc . âSyfy Renews Drama â12 Monkeysâ for Season 2.â TV Media Insights. March 13, 2015. Web. Accessed May 2015 . Birnbaum, Debra . ââGame of Thronesâ creators: We Know How Itâs Going to End.â Variety, April 15, 2015. Web. Accessed April 2015 . Bryant, Steve . âWhat The Leftovers can learn from Lost .â Esquire. July 16, 2014. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Campbell, Christopher . âWhat TV Show Should Get a Prequel Series While the Trend is Still Hot?â Film School Rejects. Web. Accessed February 2015 . Cardwell, Sarah . âTelevision Aesthetics.â Critical Studies in Television, 1:1 (2006), 72â80. Web. Accessed May 2016 . < http://cdn.cstonline.tv/assets/file/user_92/s9.pdf.> Chapman, Cameron . âThe History of the Internet in a Nutshell.â Six Revisions. November 15, 2009. Web. Accessed May 2015 . Charles, Ron . âWho will miss Jon Stewart most? Book publicists.â The Washington Post. February 11, 2015. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Consoli, John . âABCâs Struggling âThe Gatesâ a Hit Onlineâ The Wrap. July 16, 2010. Web. Accessed April 2015 . Crawford, Shawn . âNo time to be idle: the serial novel and popular imagination.â The World and I, Vol. 13, No. 11. November 1998. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Cuse, Carlton . Reddit AMA. April 30, 2015. Web. Accessed July 2015 . 207 Debnath, Neela . âDonât moan about spoilers for Game of Thrones, the books were published years ago.â The Independent. April 6, 2014. Web. Accessed June 2014 . Donadio, Rachel . âThe Chick-Lit Pandemic.â The New York Times. March 19, 2006. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Duchateau, Christian . â5 questions for âThe Returnedâ author Jason Mott.â CNN. September 2, 2013. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Favard, Florent . âThe Yellow Umbrella Syndrome: Pledging and Delaying Narrative Closure in How I Met Your Mother .â GRAAT Online. No. 15. April 2014. Web. Accessed April 2014 . Fforde, Jasper . âQuestions and Answers for Caitlin.â Jasper Fforde.com. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Fforde, Jasper . âQuestions and Answers for Hodder (UK Publishers) January, 2001.â Jasper Fforde.com. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Fforde, Jasper . âQuestions and Answers for il Giornale.â Jasper Fforde.com. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Fforde, Jasper . âThursday Next âFirst Among Sequelsâ Sub-Index Page.â Web. Accessed March 2015 . Fienberg, Daniel . â25 Anticipated TV Premieres, Returns and Finales for 2010: âLost,â âDollhouse,â âCapricaâ and more.â Hitfix. January 1, 2010. Web. Accessed January 2015 . Fienberg, Daniel . ââGame of Thronesâ mastermind George R.R. Martin talks Blackwater, TV changes and playing favorites.â Hitfix. March 20, 2013. Web. Accessed January 2014 . Fienberg, Daniel . âPost-Mortem: Co-showrunner Dan Futterman weighs in on the âGracepointâ killer reveal.â HitFix. December 12, 2014. Web. Accessed April 2015 . âForeign Language.â Movies at the Box Office. Web. Accessed June 2015 . Franzen, Jonathan . âTwoâs Company.â The New Yorker. May 23, 2005. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Frevele, Jamie . âThe People At âSesame Streetâ Behind Those Amazing Parodies Tell Us How They Do It.â Uproxx. June 8, 2015. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Fuller, Todd . â Alice Season 1 DVD Review.â Sitcoms Online. Web. Accessed July 2015 . âGervaisâ surprise at Globes win.â N.a. BBC News. January 26, 2004. Web. Accessed April 2015 . 208 Greenwald, Andy . âLost in Translation: Damon Lindelof returns to TV with HBOâs deeply dark âThe Leftoversâ.â Grantland. June 25, 2014. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Goldberg, Leslie . âMarvel, ABC Set âThe Inhumansâ TV Series.â The Hollywood Reporter. November 14, 2016. Web. Accessed November 2016 . http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/marvel- abc-set-inhumans-tv-series-947296. Hadas, Leora . âAuthorship and Authenticity in the Transmedia Brand: The Case of Marvelâs Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. â Networking Knowledge. 7.1, 2014. 7â17. Web. Accessed June 2014 . Halterman, Jim . âBryan Fuller Breaks Down Homoerotic Charge of Hannibal .â Backlot. April 22, 2014. Web. Accessed April 2014 . âHardcover Fiction.â The New York Times. August 10, 2007. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Herring, Taylor . âGiant Mr. Darcy Launches Drama Channel.â N.d. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Hibberd, James . ââGracepointâ wonât get a second seasonâ Entertainment Weekly. December 15, 2014. Web. Accessed April 2014 . Hibberd, James . âNBCâs âHannibalâ contains âThe Shiningâ shout-outsâ Entertainment Weekly April 4, 2013. Web. Accessed July 2013 . Holmes, Adam . âHow the Agents of SHIELD Midseason Finale Set Up The Inhumans .â Cinemablend. n.d. Web. Accessed May 2015 . Hudelet, Ariane . âUn cadavre ambulant, un petit-dÃ©jeuner sanglant et le quartier Ouest de Baltimore : le gÃ©nÃ©rique, moment-clÃ© des sÃ©ries tÃ©lÃ©visÃ©es.â GRAAT Online. No. 6. December 2009. 1. Web. Accessed March 2012 . Interview with David Foster Wallace on Charlie Rose (PBS, 1991â). May 17th, 1996. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Itzkoff, Dave . âJennifer Egan Discusses TV Plans for âA Visit From the Goon Squadââ The New York Times. April 21, 2011. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Jane Anders, Charlie . âThe Real Reason Why Joss Whedon Named His Space Western Show Fireflyâ io9. July 31, 2014. Web. Accessed August 2014 . Karni, Annie . âHillaryâs hair: Sheâs in on the joke.â Politico. May 28, 2015. Web. Accessed June 2015 . Kipling, Rudyard . âThe Five Nations/The White Manâs Burden.â Wikisource. Web. Accessed May 2015 . 209 Lewis, Andy . ââCastleâ Book Series Lives,â The Hollywood Reporter, May 20, 2016. Web. Accessed May 2016 . âList of American television series based on British television series.â Wikipedia. Web. Accessed June 2015 . â Lost Book Club.â Web. Accessed March 2015 . âThe Lost Book Club.â Web. Accessed March 2015 . Lowry, Brian . ââGracepointâ Finale Highlights âBroadchurchâ Remakeâs Shortcomingsâ Variety. December 11, 2014. Web. Accessed April 2015 . M. Heather . âAaron Stanford, Travis Fickett, and Terry Matalas Talk 12 Monkeys [Exclusive]â TV Goodness. April 10, 2015. Web. Accessed March 2015 . MacDonald, Jay . âJasper Fforde: Fantastic voyage.â Book Page. March 2004. Web. Accessed July 2015 . âM*A*S*H TV Series (1972â1983)âTrivia.â IMDb. Web. Accessed July 2015 . McCabe, Joseph . âExclusive: Producers Travis Fickett and Terry Matalas on Time Travel, Gender Swapping, and Syfyâs 12 Monkeys.â The Nerdist. January 17, 2015. Web. Accessed March 2015 . McCormick, Casey J. âMaking Sense of the Future: Narrative Destabilization in Joss Whedonâs Dollhouse .â Time in Television Narrative: Exploring Temporality in Twenty-First-Century Programming. Melissa Ames , ed. Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi, 2012. 205â217. Print. McGee, Ryan . âChecking in onâ¦ Community .â Boob Tube Dude. February 22, 2011. Web. Accessed March 2015 . McInnes, Paul . âBreaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan: the man who turned Walter White from Mr Chips into Scarface.â The Guardian. May 19, 2012. Web. Memmott, Carol . âChick lit, for better or worse, is here to stay.â USA Today. 21 June 2006. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Methven, Nicola . âTop 10 memorable TV drama moments revealed with Mr. Darcyâs lake scene in Pride & Prejudice topping list.â Irish Mirror. July 5, 2013. Web. Accessed July 2015 . âMhysa and Racism: The Great White Savior of Game of Thrones.â N.a. Disgruntled Critic. 24 June 2013. Web. Accessed January 2015 . 210 Midgley, Neil . âIs Broadchurch just like The Killing?â The Telegraph. April 22, 2013. Web. Accessed May 2015 . Midgley, Neil . âHow British Television Fell Under the Spell of Nordic Noir.â The Telegraph. March 28, 2014. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Minzesheimer, Bob . âHow the âOprah Effectâ changed publishingâ USA Today. May 22, 2011. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Mittell, Jason . âForensic Fandom and the Drillable Text.â Web. Accessed January 2015 . Mittell, Jason . âSites of participation: Wiki fandom and the case of Lostpedia.â Transformative Works and Cultures, no. 3. 2009. Web. Accessed June 2015 . Moine, RaphaÃ«lle . Remakes: Les films franÃ§ais Ã Hollywood. Paris: CNRS Ãditions, 2007. Open Edition 2013. Web. Accessed July 2015 . âMost Popular âBased on Comicâ TV Series Titles.â IMDb. Web Accessed February 2015 . âMost Popular âBased On Filmâ TV Series Titles.â IMDb. Web Accessed February 2015 . âMost Popular âBased on Novelâ TV Series Titles.â IMDb. Web Accessed February 2015 . âMost Popular âBased On Playâ Titles.â IMDb. Web Accessed February 2015 . Nededog, Jethro . ââCommunityâ: EP Dan Harmon explains Abedâs evolutionâ Zap2it. November 04, 2010. Web. Accessed January 2011 . âThe Odd Couple (1968).â IMDb. Web. Accessed January 2015 . âThe Odd Couple (1968).â Box Office Mojo. Web. Accessed January 2015 . Older, Daniel JosÃ© . âWhitewashed TV isnât just racist. Itâs boring!â Salon. December 9, 2013. Web. Accessed January 2015 . Oldham, Joseph . â Agents of Shield: Agency, Institutions and Transmedia Serialisation.â Critical Studies in Television Online. June 27, 2014. Web. Accessed September 2014 . 211 OâNeal, Sean . âHBO wonât be making The Corrections into a TV Show after all.â The A.V. Club. May 1, 2012. Web. Accessed July 2015 . âOpening Credits for Episodes .â Vimeo. Web. Accessed January 2014 . Pasick, Adam . âGeorge R.R. Martin on His Favorite Game of Thrones Actors, and the Butterfly Effect of TV Adaptations.â New York Magazine. October 20, 2011. Web. Accessed January 2012 . Peters, Steve . âWhat the hell is Transmedia.â Steve Peters: Experience Design. May 18, 2011. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Poland, Michael . âFull of Wholes: Narrative Configuration, Completion, and the Televisual Episode/Season/Series.â GRAAT On-Line. No. 15, April 2014. Web. Accessed April 2014 . Prudom, Laura . âCarlton Cuse on âBates Motelâ Ending: This Isnât a Show That Should Run for 10 Years.â Variety. June 6, 2014. Web. Accessed June 2015 . Prudom, Laura . ââGracepointâ vs. âBroadchurchâ: How Foxâs Adaptation Differs From British Original.â Variety. July 21, 2014. Web. Accessed April 2015 . Radish, Christina . â12 MONKEYS Interview: Creators Terry Matalas & Travis Fickett and Showrunner Natalie Chaidez.â Collider. January 23, 2015. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Rahman, Aamer . â Game of Thrones and Racist Fantasy.â Artthreat. June 15, 2013. Web. Accessed January 2015 . Recycled Movie Costumes. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Rice, Lynette . ââBroadchurchâ coming to Fox.â Entertainment Weekly. August 1, 2013. Web. Accessed May 2015 . âThe Rory Gilmore Book Club.â Web. Accessed March 2015 . Rosenblum, Emma . â Community Creator Dan Harmon on Reference Humor, TV Love, and Whether Joel McHaleâs Going to Grow a Beard.â Culture Vulture. February 4, 2010. Web. Accessed January 2011 . Rowles, Dustin . âHereâs why ABC is the best broadcast network on television.â Uproxx. May 8, 2015. Web. Accessed May 2015 . Ryan, Maureen . ââBates Motelâ Review: Checking In To TVâs New Horror Hotelâ Huffington Post. March 14, 2013. Web. Accessed June 2015 . 212 Ryan, Maureen . ââGame of Thronesâ Third Season: How Many Episodes Will There Be?â The Huffington Post. November 11, 2012. Web. Accessed January 2014 . Sepinwall, Alan . âComic-Con 2013: âHannibalâ panel live-blog.â Hit Fix. July 18, 2013. Web. Accessed July 2013 . Sepinwall, Alan . ââHannibalâ producer Bryan Fuller on cannibal cuisine, renewal and more: How did the âPushing Daisiesâ creator avoid cloning previous Hannibal Lecter adaptations?â Hit Fix. June 19, 2013. Web. Accessed July 2013 . Stack, Tim . âEP Carlton Cuse: âBates Motelâ is one part âFriday Night Lights,â one part âLostâ and one part âTwin Peaksâ.â Entertainment Weekly. March 18, 2013. Web. Accessed July 2013 . Stanley, Alessandra . âImports Suffering Identity Problems.â The New York Times. October 8, 2008. Web. Accessed April 2015 . Sterritt, David . ââTwin Peaksâ is Auteur TV.â The Christian Science Monitor. April 25, 1990. Web. Accessed July 2015 . Sullivan, Brian Ford . âLive at the Paley Festival: Sci Fiâs âBattlestar Galactica/Caprica.â The Futon Critic. April 20, 2009. Web. Accessed January 2015 . âThereâs a New Girl in Town Lyrics by Alan and Marilyn Bergman & David Shires.â Lyrics on Demand. Web. Accessed January 2015 . VanDerWerff, Todd . âAbedâs Uncontrollable Christmas.â The AV Club. December 9, 2010. Web. Accessed January 2011 . VanDerWerff, Todd . âBryan Fuller walks us through Hannibalâs debut season.â The AV Club. July 24, 2013. Web. Accessed July 2013 . VanDerWerff, Todd . âHannibalâs Bryan Fuller on blending Busby Berkeley with murder.â The A.V. Club. March 8, 2014. Web. Accessed July 2013 . VanDerWerff, Todd . ââCannibalism isnât that big of a dealâ: Bryan Fuller on Hannibal Lecter, the perfect devil.â Vox. June 4, 2015. Web. Accessed June 2015 . VanDerWerff, Todd . â Community: âDebate 109â.â The A.V. Club. November 13 2009. Web. Accessed December 2009 . VanDerWerff, Todd . â Hannibalâs Bryan Fuller on blending Busby Berkeley with murder.â The A.V. Club. March 8, 2014. Web. Accessed March 2014 . 213 VanDerWerff, Todd . âInterview: Community creator Dan Harmon.â The A.V. Club. September 23 2010. Web. Accessed January 2011 . Wallace, Lewis . âReview: Caprica Spins Religion, Race Into Worthy Galactica Prequel.â Wired. April 20, 2009. Web. Accessed January 2015 . Weinstein, Shelli . ââGracepointâ and âBroadchurchâ Star David Tennant: âItâs Not Just Repeating the Sameâ.â Variety. October 1, 2014. Web. Accessed May 2015 . Wells-Lassagne, Shannon . âCrossing the Pond: Adapting The Office to an American Audienceâ TV/Series. No.2, November 2012. 171â187. Web. Accessed November 2012 . Wells-Lassagne, Shannon . âHigh Fidelity: Adapting Fantasy Novels to the Small Screen.â TV Series No. 6. Florence Cabaret , Claire Cornillon , eds. December 2014. 109â122. Web. Accessed December 2014 . Wells-Lassagne, Shannon . âReview of Jonathan Bignellâs conference: âAdventures between TV and film, and between Britain and Americaâ (JournÃ©e thÃ©matique GUEST-Normandie SÃ©ries/cinÃ©ma, 21 novembre 2014, Caen).â TV/Series. No. 6, December 2014. Web. Accessed December 2014 . Wells-Lassagne, Shannon . âTransforming the traditional sitcom: Abed in Community â TV Series. No. 1, June 2012. pp. 455â466. Web. Accessed June 2012 . Whitmire, Kendra Ann . âThe Uses of Shakespeare on American TV 1990â2010.â MA Thesis from the University of Birmingham, 2011. Web. Accessed March 2015 . Williams, Holly . â Broadchurch - Finally, ITV makes a Killing: An eight-parter about small-town lives is just the imitation Scandi-noir weâve been waiting for.â The Independent. March 09, 2013. Web. Accessed May 2015 . Willmore, Alison . âCan ABCâs âAgents of S.H.I.E.L.D.â Save Itself From Being the Blandest Part of the Marvel Universe?â Indiewire. October 11, 2013. Web. Accessed December 2014 . Wood, Jennifer M. âBryan Fuller on Pushing Daisies, Dead Like Me, and Being Cancelled.â Esquire. March 19, 2015. Web. Accessed June 2015 . Hirst, Damien . Mother and Child, Divided. 1993. Sculpture. Hirst, Damien . Some Comfort Gained from the Acceptance of the Inherent Lies in Everything. 1996. Sculpture.