{"id":781,"date":"2023-03-07T14:39:34","date_gmt":"2023-03-07T19:39:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/?p=781"},"modified":"2023-03-07T15:09:09","modified_gmt":"2023-03-07T20:09:09","slug":"cat-champney","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/2023\/03\/07\/cat-champney\/","title":{"rendered":"Cat Champney"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cat Champney<\/strong> (she\/her) is currently an English literature PhD student at the University of Delaware. She studies adaptation(s) of nineteenth-century gothic narratives, with an emphasis on the Radcliffean tradition and texts formerly categorized as \u201cfemale\u201d gothics. Broadly, Cat\u2019s research considers intersections of adaptation, gender, and genre, as well as the representation of domestic themes and spaces. She is also interested in the ways in which contemporary adaptations of the nineteenth century speak to current topics in feminism, sparked by events like the #MeTooMovement and the overturning of Roe V. Wade. Before attending UD, Cat obtained her MA in Literature from Brooklyn College with a specialty in nineteenth-century fiction. Her MA Thesis considers the representation (and lack thereof) of motherhood in David Selznick\u2019s film adaptation of Margaret Mitchell\u2019s <\/em>Gone with the Wind. For more information, please visit:https:\/\/sites.google.com\/udel.edu\/catchampneyphd\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Plagiarism; or, Adaptation?<\/strong>
\nA Renegotiation of the Reputation of William Wells Brown<\/strong><\/p>\n

William Wells Brown\u2019s Clotel; or, The President\u2019s Daughter<\/em>\u2014widely considered the first <\/em>African American novel\u2014fictionalizes the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, though this is only one of many recognizable historical narratives within his complex demonstration of vast intertextuality. And, Brown\u2019s complex use of intertextuality continues to baffle scholars and readers alike, as they struggle to find \u201cunity\u201d in the text.[1]<\/sup><\/a> Brown\u2019s novel follows the life of Clotel, the titular character, and her relatives: Althesa (her sister), Mary (her daughter), Jane and Ellen (her nieces), as well as various companions met along the way. Through each narrative line, Brown mixes historical rumors (like that of Hemings and Jefferson), historical facts (diseases and legal trials), and literary texts by Romantic authors and abolitionists. Though more nuanced readings of Brown\u2019s work suggest high levels of intellectualism and innovation, Brown\u2019s reputation rarely includes praises\u2014instead, Clotel <\/em>has been more frequently derided as an aesthetic failure.[2]<\/sup><\/a> Robert Reid-Pharr even (quite dramatically) claims: \u201cthe first <\/em>Black American novelist must be\u2026 the worst <\/em>Black American novelist.\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a> Complementary to aesthetic defilements, Brown\u2019s text is read and understood\u2014even by his supporters\u2014as a product of plagiarism. \u201cOver the course of [his] career,\u201d Geoffrey Sanborn writes, \u201cBrown plagiarized at least 87,000 words from at least 282 texts. He did not merely borrow ideas or creatively metabolize a major source text or two; he copied, for the most part, word for word.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a> Clotel, <\/em>specifically, hosts 102 plagiarized passages from 55 sources (almost 23 percent of the novel).[5]<\/sup><\/a> Though Sanborn confronts the term \u201cplagiarism\u201d in the boldest manner, other scholars use alternate, but similar terms to relay the same, perhaps unintentional, message: Brown did not really <\/em>write Clotel, <\/em>or his texts.<\/p>\n

However, Clotel <\/em>is not a product of plagiarism as it is broadly defined in contemporary culture. And Plagiarism\u2014readers, writers, and students can safely agree\u2014is not a neutral term. Therefore, Clotel <\/em>should not be understood as a product of plagiarism, but instead as a product of specific reprinting and revision: a product I call revisionist adaptation. <\/em>Revisionist adaptation and, broadly, the lens of adaptation produces critical readings of Brown\u2019s intertextuality (his \u201cplagiarism\u201d) as an integral component of his writing. Additionally, reading through the lens of adaptation encourages reading Clotel <\/em>alongside its sources, without hierarchal binaries (an allegiance to a \u201csource\u201d text) and overreliance on originality. Afterall, as Lisette Lopez Szwydky argues, \u201c\u2019original\u2019 works are often adaptations themselves.\u201d[6]<\/sup><\/a> Therefore, a clearer understanding of Brown\u2019s practices as adaptation, I argue, correlates directly to stronger analyses, with powerful terminology that speaks the language of Brown\u2019s complex text.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, Adaptation Studies (the field) thus far has been somewhat ignorant of early African American literature and writing. Historically, Adaptation Studies centered film adaptations as the primary <\/em>mode of adaptation, so Black and African American writers were only the subject of adaptation case studies if and when Hollywood adapted their text to film. And, perhaps evident from the viral hashtag, #OscarsSoWhite,[7]<\/sup><\/a> Black creators still receive far less critical attention than their White colleagues\u2014a trend that exists in Hollywood, Universities, and various academic fields. Although existing adaptation models focus on film, television, and stage performances, new methods and theories in the field suggest examining a broader range of adaptations. And adaptation models, according to Szwydky, can be readily \u201creworked for new forms and media.\u201d[8]<\/sup><\/a> All things considered, adaptation theories\u2014limited as they may be\u2014provide ample foreground to re-examine Clotel <\/em>and Brown\u2019s writing practices from a new angle.<\/p>\n

In the following sections, I will take a transhistorical approach to reading Clotel, <\/em>in the sense that I will apply adaptation theories and models to Brown\u2019s writing, as I use Brown\u2019s text to explore contemporary adaptation reading practices. In defense of her own adaptation-driven transhistoricism, Szwydky writes, \u201cmy goal is to flip the interpretive script that designates adaptation as an afterthought or as a derivative object that primarily exists through its relationship to an \u2018original\u2019 source\u2026 too many times adaptation is metaphorically used to describe the \u2018afterlife\u2019 of texts\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a> Like Szwydky, I intend to treat Brown\u2019s adaptation not as an afterthought, but as a frontrunner in the literary production culture of his time. In the following sections, I first read Clotel <\/em>through the lens of adaptation and define revisionist adaptation. Then, I explore Brown\u2019s reception and reputation as a plagiarist, followed by a concluding section on adaptation theories that speak directly to Clotel <\/em>and Brown\u2019s writing practices.<\/p>\n

Part I: William Wells Brown\u2019s Adaptation of Lydia Marie Child\u2019s \u201cThe Quadroons\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Though Clotel <\/em>was popularized by the retelling of the rumored Hemings and Jefferson relationship, Brown\u2019s revisionist adaptation of Lydia Marie Child\u2019s \u201cThe Quadroons\u201d is arguably the most sustained intertextual engagements in the narrative. Robert Stam defines revisionist adaptations as adaptations that \u201cdramatically<\/em> transform and revitalize their source texts through provocative <\/em>changes in locale, epoch, casting, genre, perspective, performance modes, or production processes.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a> Immediately, Brown dramatically transforms Child\u2019s narrative through a provocative change in perspective, as he recasts Child\u2019s characters as descendants of Thomas Jefferson\u2014the American founding \u201cfather.\u201d Additionally, Brown changes the ending of Child\u2019s narrative and engages further with sentimental tropes. In fact, his overall use of the sentimental genre\u2014more emphatic and provocative than Child\u2019s\u2014highlights Brown\u2019s skill as a writer and heavy engagement with other sentimental authors, which displaces the notion that he only<\/em> plagiarized Child\u2019s story. Instead, he revises her story through dramatic and provocative changes that seek to challenge similar patriarchal ideologies, through a more direct attack on the concept of a unified, universal \u201cfounding father.\u201d Additionally, Brown\u2019s use of adaptation to alter Child\u2019s story separates his central messaging from hers. Brown encourages his adapted characters to\u2014like their form\u2014adapt to their circumstances and \u201cread\u201d situations differently, resulting in different narrative outcomes.<\/p>\n

In the Bedford Edition of Clotel, <\/em>\u201cThe Quadroons\u201d is included in an Appendix, so the two texts can be read together. In the introduction to this edition, Levine writes: \u201cThough Brown changed the names and the settings of Child\u2019s story, he lifted large swatches of text verbatim for his novel.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a> In this sentence, the emphasis is given to the large, verbatim \u201cswatches,\u201d when the changed names and settings make far more of an impact in Brown\u2019s rewriting of Child\u2019s text. And, as I note, the endings of the two narratives are significantly different. Furthermore, Levine writes that Brown \u201cbroke the story into three different sections and, through his use of pastiche and bricolage, put Child\u2019s sentimental discourse, plotting, and motifs into dialogue with discourses, plotting, and motifs that granted greater agency to rebellious blacks.\u201d[12]<\/sup><\/a> This is a somewhat challenging statement, as it is true but asserts an unfair hierarchy between Child and Brown. Brown certainly puts Child\u2019s text into other contexts, but he also engages with the sentimental tradition as a whole\u2014which does not begin or end with Child\u2019s specific discourse. And, though Brown does use skilled pastiche and bricolage with Child\u2019s work, he often assumes the pastiche of other Romantic writers as well\u2014it is difficult, if not impossible, to assign ownership to any particular discourse in Brown\u2019s writing. However, in swatches attributed to Child\u2019s text, Brown often enhances them with enhanced sentimentality\u2014he does not just copy them. For instance, while Child describes a setting as a \u201cprincely mansion,\u201d Brown writes;<\/p>\n

This was a most singular spot, remote, in a dense forest spreading over the summit of a cliff that rose abruptly to a great height above the sea; but so grand in its situation, in the desolate sublimity which reigned around, in the reverential murmur of the waves that washed its base, that, though picturesque, it was a forest prison.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Such enhancements move beyond a mere transcription of Child and reveal Brown\u2019s ability to write fluently in the Romantic tradition and resemble many (or all) skilled Romantics. Geoffrey Sanborn\u2019s quantitative analysis of Brown\u2019s intertextuality supports this, as Brown adapts the likes of: Alexander Pope, Lord Byron, Washington Irving, and Samuel Richardson.[14]<\/sup><\/a> This is not to say that Child has no presence in Brown\u2019s style (she obviously does), but simply to demonstrate how Levine\u2019s description plays into broader ideas about adaptation, ownership, and originality that place Child\u2019s narrative figuratively above Brown\u2019s in a literary, cultural hierarchy.<\/p>\n

While I will return to hierarchy in subsequent sections, reading \u201cThe Quadroons\u201d alongside Clotel <\/em>demonstrates Brown\u2019s skill as an adaptor and his interest beyond bricolage, as he expands and revises Child\u2019s narrative. \u201cThe Quadroons\u201d is relatively shorter than Clotel<\/em> and tells the story of Rosalie (a mixed race women), Edward (her white \u201chusband\u201d) and Xarifa (their daughter). Rosalie and Edward are married, but the marriage is only \u201csanctioned by Heaven,\u201d as they cannot legally marry due to Rosalie\u2019s race. Due to her own experiences as a mixed race woman, Rosalie finds herself devastated by Xarifa\u2019s future: \u201cWhen she looked at her beloved Xarifa, and reflected upon the unavoidable and dangerous position which the tyranny of society had awarded her, her soul was filled with anguish\u2026 in the deep tenderness of the mother\u2019s eye there was an in-dwelling sadness, that spoke of anxious thoughts and fearful forebodings.\u201d[15]<\/sup><\/a> In a tragic manner, Edward, overcome by political ambition, leaves Rosalie and Xarifa for Charlotte, a white woman and a potential legal wife. Ultimately, Child\u2019s narrative is a tragedy. The demise of Rosalie and Edward\u2019s relationship leads to both of their deaths and to the sale of Xarifa, to a man \u201cprobably about forty years of age, with handsome features, but a fierce and proud expression.\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a> In the end of the narrative, this man kills Xarifa\u2019s lover, rapes Xarifa, and causes her to die a \u201craving maniac.\u201d[17]<\/sup><\/a> Ultimately, Child\u2019s story demonstrates the inaccessibility of cultural ideologies pertaining to womanhood, such as purity, love, and sentimentality. Though Xarifa and Rosalie deeply respect the cultural institution of marriage, their race precludes them from participation and instead ensures destruction to those who attempt to transgress the racial boundaries of marriage. Her story, like Brown\u2019s, highlights the inherent inequality in American institutions like that of marriage.<\/p>\n

As noted, gothic and sentimental tropes enhance Child\u2019s strategy. Rosalie becomes a ghostly mother figure, haunting the narrative as a \u201cdreadful [reminder] that transgressing the laws of patriarchy is often fatal to oneself and others.\u201d[18]<\/sup><\/a> In this case, Child manipulates the traditional Gothic mother (who would be a white character) by also warning of the dangers of transgressing the laws of a white <\/em>patriarchy. By proxy, transgressing the American marriage institution, specifically. In reference to the larger genre of sentimental fiction, Jennifer Fleishner calls Child\u2019s female characters \u201ctextual versions of Pamela,\u201d as they are \u201cworthy of high romance\u201d but \u201cdoomed to endure the moral pain of fallen women, or the physical and psychological torments (imprisonment, beatings, threat, rape) of enslaved serving women.\u201d[19]<\/sup><\/a> Child\u2019s adaptation of this figure results in the formulation of the \u201ctragic mulatta,\u201d defined by Raimon as a mixed-race woman who endures tragic circumstances due to both her gender and her race.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a> Furthermore, Raimon argues that \u201cdepictions of intermarriage in general and the mulatta figure in particular functioned as a rhetorical device that at once excoriated the workings of the slavocracy, destabilized the naturalness of racial hierarchies, and provided an occasion to envision an egalitarian future of racial reconciliation.\u201d[21]<\/sup><\/a> Brown\u2019s use of this figure, according to Raimon, was not just to destabilize hierarchies, but to specifically attack the foundational institutions of America.[22]<\/sup><\/a> Interestingly, Raimon still calls Clotel <\/em>a \u201cveritable transcription\u201d of Child\u2019s narrative, though she highlights his altered use of the figure. However, this revision is key, because he recasts <\/em>Child\u2019s characters as descendants of Thomas Jefferson\u2014a (literal and figurative) founding father:<\/p>\n

Thus closed a negro sale, at which two daughters of Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of American Independence, and one of the presidents of the great republic, were disposed of to the highest bidder![23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In turn, Brown identifies a theme in Child\u2019s narrative (the dangers of a white patriarchy) and subverts it, to more clearly target those who think themselves immune to the dangers of Child\u2019s story. In other words, Brown implies that even creators of the system\u2014such as the families of founding fathers\u2014are not immune to the consequences of the instabilities of a system grounded in an unreliable, unstable understanding of race. And, metaphorically, all American readers were \u201cchildren\u201d of Jefferson in the sense that he is a founding father of an entire nation, not just his own children. So, in line with Raimon\u2019s aforementioned claim regarding Brown\u2019s attack on foundational institutions, Brown\u2019s recasting of Child\u2019s story directly enables him to target the racialized nature of all systems in America\u2014by way of Jefferson\u2019s descendants or, by proxy, Americans. Therefore, the tragedy at the heart of both stories could be very real indeed, to readers of Brown\u2019s work, as the narrative \u201cfictionalizes\u201d the (poorly) hidden relationship between Jefferson and Hemings and speculates a future for all Jefferson\u2019s descendants, actual and metaphorical.<\/p>\n

With this, as Levine mentions, Brown makes additional revisions that give his female characters more agency. This does not result in a happier ending for all\u2014though Mary does move to London and marry (a proper sentimental ending). In Brown\u2019s text, Jane Morton, one of Althesa\u2019s daughters, experiences Xarifa\u2019s narrative, though she has considerably more control. In \u201cThe Quadroons,\u201d Xarifa\u2019s master locks her in his \u201cprincely mansion\u201d and tries to win her affections with \u201crespectful gentleness\u201d and gifts.[24]<\/sup><\/a> Xarifa and George\u2014her lover\u2014bribe a slave, who promises to drug Xarifa\u2019s master and build a rope ladder from her room to the ground. However, \u201cto obtain a double reward,\u201d the slave was \u201ctreacherous,\u201d[25]<\/sup><\/a> so Xarifa\u2019s master shoots George and he lies \u201cbleeding and lifeless\u201d at Xarifa\u2019s feet (before she fully descends the rope). Shortly thereafter, Xarifa\u2019s master \u201cgrew weary of her obstinacy,\u201d and raped her. This rape, as mentioned, results in Xarifa\u2019s madness and consequently her death.<\/p>\n

Instead of transcribing Child\u2019s narrative directly, Jane (the adapted Xarifa) does not trust another enslaved person with her escape\u2014\u201cShe dared not trust the old negress\u201d[26]<\/sup><\/a>\u2014instead,\u00a0 she communicates directly with Volney (her lover), who appears outside of her window (Brown makes him perhaps unrealistically accessible). Jane and Volney plot the rope ladder escape on their own: \u201cHe had in his hand a rope ladder. As soon as Jane saw this, she took the sheets from her bed, tore them into strings, tied them together, and let one end down the side of the house. A moment more, and one end of the rope ladder was in her hand, and she fastened it inside the room.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> Jane descends the ladder and embraces Volney, before her master arrives. It is during their embrace that Jane\u2019s master kills Volney and, like George, he lies bleeding at Jane\u2019s feet. Though awarding Jane an embrace does not necessarily enhance her agency, it does make Brown\u2019s narrative more tragic\u2014a final kiss, interrupted\u2014which highlights his expertise in sentimental writing beyond simply \u201cplagiarizing\u201d Child. Finally, Brown revises Child\u2019s rape scene. Rather than going mad, \u201cthe slow recovery of [Jane\u2019s] reason settled into the most intense melancholy, which gained at length the compassion even of her cruel master\u2026 in a few days the girl died of a broken heart.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> Brown spares Jane from the violence attributed to Xarifa, but also depicts her master gaining compassion. Though perhaps not a realistic\u2014or comfortable\u2014image of a slave owner, this revision suggests that Brown believed even the worst of men could revise themselves and their values through observing the lives of the women around them. His interest in revisionist adaptation, then, applies to both the form and content of his narrative: human beings, like texts, can (and should) change due to dramatic changes in their situations. Brown\u2019s writing becomes a model for adaptation in writing and in behavior, as even the most morally corrupt characters are provoked by emotional circumstances.<\/p>\n

Though Raimon refers to Brown\u2019s revisionist adaptation as a \u201cveritable transcription\u201d of Child\u2019s story, she later admits that \u201cBrown appropriates and <\/em>diverges from the original version\u2014formally as well as thematically.\u201d[29]<\/sup><\/a> Furthermore, she examines \u201cthe significance of Brown\u2019s having at once, in essence, stolen Child\u2019s story and, at the same time, <\/em>built upon it a complex overlay of historical material\u2014imaginative and documentary combined\u2014that finally challenges US readers\u2019 conceptions of American nationalism itself and the \u2018naturalness\u2019 of identity at work at the moment of their nation\u2019s very origin.\u201d [30]<\/sup><\/a> Though I (still) resist the metaphorical theft\u2014after all, Child still had possession of her own narrative for all intents and purposes[31]<\/sup><\/a>\u2014Raimon\u2019s notion of simultaneity is appealing and extremely similar to reading practices related to adaptation. As a product and a process\u2014at the same time\u2014theories about <\/em>adaptation speak to complicated nature of simultaneity.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>Part II: The Dangers of Discourse<\/strong><\/p>\n

Raimon is not the only scholar to entertain language about adaptation alongside plagiarism in an attempt to better understand Brown and Clotel. <\/em>Problematically, while some call Brown a proto-postmodernist, many call him a plagiarist, due to his extensive use of allusion, citation, and pastiche. Levine and Raimon both lean on plagiaristic language (\u201ckidnapping\u201d and \u201cstealing,\u201d respectively) to describe Brown\u2019s practices. Sanborn\u2019s name for Brown\u2019s writing, \u201cPlagiarama\u201d[32]<\/sup><\/a> confronts (and adapts) \u201cplagiarism\u201d directly, while others continue to find creative ways around the word, though they remain (unfortunately and unintentionally) attached to the negative connotations of the term. John Ernest\u2019s term, \u201ccultural editor,\u201d[33]<\/sup><\/a> is perhaps the most appealing, and the most cited\u2014though it still undercuts Brown\u2019s role as a mastermind adaptor\u2014editing culture, I argue, is only a fragmented view of Brown\u2019s intricate process, at least when the term is co-opted outside of Ernest\u2019s scholarship. Ultimately, each scholar provides important critical readings of Clotel <\/em>that explore the aesthetics, challenges, and critiques within his work. However, as I demonstrate in the above reading of Clotel, <\/em>the presence of plagiarism overshadows the presence of adaptation, which functions as both form and central theme in Clotel. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

That being said, I find Sanborn\u2019s \u201cPlagiarama\u201d to be the closest existing term to Brown\u2019s practice: not because his writing is that closely related to plagiarism, but because Sanborn adapts<\/em> the term and, by proxy, models Brown\u2019s own behavior in his scholarly writing about Brown\u2019s writing. Sanborn\u2019s study is almost a meta-adaptation in itself. And, Sanborn acknowledges that plagiarism doesn\u2019t feel <\/em>right, when applied to Brown\u2019s practices. Rather than the prototypical sign of weakness, Sanborn argues, such excessive \u201cplagiarism\u201d actually indicates \u201ca wide-ranging awareness of, and freedom with, the materials of one\u2019s culture.\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a> Ultimately, though, Brown\u2019s \u201cfreedom with\u201d the materials of his culture challenge critical understandings of his textual unities: does Clotel <\/em>make sense? Is there a \u201cpractical\u201d purpose behind his citations?[35]<\/sup><\/a> What is the central meaning of the text? Reading Clotel <\/em>as an adaptation encourages critics to move beyond questions of why <\/em>Brown rewrites as he does, to instead ask how <\/em>his process of rewriting impacts reading the text (and readers of <\/em>the text). Instead of considering Clotel <\/em>as what Sanborn calls a \u201cvehicle for attractions, abolitionist and otherwise,\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a> Clotel <\/em>may be better visualized as an environment, in which upon entering readers must adapt to the unstable circumstances and challenge their own ideas of stability. As a result of Brown\u2019s adaptation, readers must adapt. Interestingly, too, Brown revised the novel to affect different audiences in different ways, which suggests the text itself was as adaptable as its audience. As duCille states, \u201cI can think of no novel other than Clotel, <\/em>in any tradition, that was revised and republished four different times under four different titles, certainly not in a 14-year period\u2026 each version of Brown\u2019s novel is pitched to a different audience and engages a different market.\u201d[37]<\/sup><\/a> Ultimately, Brown\u2019s revisionist adaptation\u2014both in product and in process\u2014far exceeds plagiarism or the sole acts of allusion, citation, or pastiche. And, though chaotic, through this lens his practices seem more unified, centralized, and meaningful than scholars previously admit.<\/p>\n

Brown\u2019s already marginalized status as an African American writer makes plagiarism discourse even more problematic, as he already does not meet institutional expectations (formal literary rules that categorize and define authors and texts) for African American writers. While Brown\u2019s texts have begun to enter the academic literary canon (a Bedford edition of the text at least exists), Clotel <\/em>remains relatively unknown compared to popular, traditional slave narratives or other nineteenth-century texts that better fit what the average American expects an African American writer to produce. Clotel <\/em>is not a slave narrative, for one, and Brown does not rely on accurate chronology to approach the \u201chistorical\u201d aspects of his narrative. Even his \u201cautobiographical\u201d slave narrative, which appears as a prologue to Clotel, <\/em>is not consistent with other drafts and recordings of his verbal performances. Brown was skilled performer and he was (and is) not, bluntly, what predominantly white institutions imply that he should <\/em>be, as a nineteenth-century writer and as an African American man. And, Clotel <\/em>is perhaps not what literature \u201cshould\u201d be (\u201chigh\u201d literature), in the sense that it does not follow a traditional form and\u2014at times\u2014intentionally provokes chaos in the reader\u2019s sense of coherency. Ernest admirably leaves expectations for \u201chigh\u201d literature at the door: \u201cI have tried to avoid bringing to this task assumptions about what literature should be and how it should work,\u201d he writes, \u201clooking instead for ways to understand what this <\/em>literature is and how it does <\/em>work.\u201d[38]<\/sup><\/a> In a similar vein, Ann duCille describes literary expectations for African American writers as a \u201cbig boogeyman\u201d that determines how they should (or should not) write:<\/p>\n

the big boogeyman<\/em> that haunts not only Clotel<\/em> but a great deal of nineteenth-century African American literature: a prescriptive sense of \u2018the right direction,\u2019 a tendency on the part of contemporary critics to privilege a particular notion of black identity and \u2018the black experience\u2019 and to fault early writers for, in essence, not being 100 years ahead of their time.[39]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Though the etymology of plagiarism predates Brown, the contemporary label of plagiarism carries contemporary connotations. In other words, the label impacts how readers understand Brown and, by proxy, nineteenth-century African American culture and history. Even more general conceptualizations of originality and unoriginality, when applied to textual theories, carry drastically different expectations than they did 100 years ago. Furthermore, reprinting practices were common in the nineteenth century, though Lara Cohen admits that attitudes to literary property \u201chad a tendency to splinter along the color line.\u201d[40]<\/sup><\/a> So, Brown\u2019s race played a pivotal role in analyses of his writing\u2014which I argue extends to his reputation today as a \u201cplagiarist.\u201d Such a splinter supports alternative readings of Clotel <\/em>and Brown, especially as academics reckon with marginalization and temporal separation.<\/p>\n

Though official definitions of plagiarism differ slightly, it is safe to assume that the practice is frowned upon, especially if the author is outside of the literary canon.[41]<\/sup><\/a> In fact, moralistic judgement appears even in the standard MLA definition of plagiarism. According to the 8th<\/sup> edition of the MLA Handbook, plagiarism is \u201cpresenting another person\u2019s ideas, information, expressions, or entire work as one\u2019s own. It is thus a kind of fraud: deceiving others to gain something of value\u2026 it is always a serious moral and ethical offense<\/em>.\u201d[42]<\/sup><\/a> Furthermore, regarding the actor: \u201cplagiarists are seen not only as dishonest but also as incompetent, incapable of doing research and expressing original thoughts. When professional writers are exposed as plagiarists, they are likely to lose their jobs and are certain to suffer public embarrassment, diminished prestige, and loss of future credibility.\u201d[43]<\/sup><\/a> While Brown engages in some of these activities\u2014presenting another\u2019s ideas, deceiving others, being dishonest\u2014he is hardly deserving of diminished prestige and he is not an unethical, immoral offender. And, Brown does not pretend that the intertextual moments are his own. Near the end of Clotel, <\/em>Brown acknowledges his sources:<\/p>\n

I may be asked, and no doubt shall, Are the various incidents and scenes related founded in truth? I answer, Yes. I have personally participated in many of those scenes. Some of the narratives I have derived from other sources; many from the lips of those who, like myself, have run away from the land of bondage\u2026 To Mrs. Child of New York, I am indebted for part of a short story. American Abolitionist journals are another source from whence some of the characters appearing in my narrative are taken.[44]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Though it is not a Works Cited Page that would satisfy the academy, Brown\u2019s acknowledgement represents the culture he writes within and highlights his intentions, as well as his tact. Furthermore, if one were to steal or kidnap a text\u2026 would they address the \u201cowner\u201d directly upon announcing they have their property? Likely not.<\/p>\n

Brown\u2019s acknowledgements not only challenge theft metaphors, but also speak to the highly intertextual print culture of his time. African American print culture\u2014and nineteenth century print culture more generally\u2014encouraged and regularly practiced reprinting, which\u2014at first glance\u2014may seem like plagiarism to a contemporary reader. For clarity, Lara Cohen and Jordan Alexander Stein \u201cdistinguish between \u2018print,\u2019 a technology that fixes impressions, and \u2018print culture,\u2019 a world in which print both integrates with other practices and assumes a life of its own.\u201d[45]<\/sup><\/a> And, on Brown, Cohen insists that, \u201cany attempt to understand Clotel\u2019s <\/em>radical intertextuality must begin by acknowledging that citation and reprinting were common practice<\/em> in antebellum print culture.\u201d[46]<\/sup><\/a> Therefore, African American scholars and others familiar with this culture may very well be comfortable simply referring to Brown\u2019s practices as reprinting\u2014which materializes his process and rebuts his canonical displacement. Adaptation is a part of this practice: the term appears in the organizing principles of Cohen and Stein\u2019s volume; \u201ccirculation, representation, adaptation, and publics.\u201d[47]<\/sup><\/a> However, even in the description of this cluster, Cohen and Stein resort back to plagiarism as an apt descriptor of African American adaptation processes: \u201cAfrican American producers rewrote, repurposed, and imaginatively plagiarized<\/em> from previously published materials.\u201d[48]<\/sup><\/a> Generally, I view the inclusion of adaptation (the term) as an opening for collaborative scholarship. Adaptationists have theoretical models available\u2014such as Stam\u2019s conceptual understanding of revisionist adaptation seen in this essay\u2014that can assist with terminological negotiations as scholars investigate these practices. In short, I believe that both fields can work together to better understand what is to \u201cimaginatively plagiarize\u201d as a cultural practice in nineteenth-century America, without the added implications of modern-day plagiarism. Additionally, like Cohen, Stein, and other African American print culturists, adaptationists have a vested interest in exploring a \u201cmedia culture whose impact on everyday life scholars are only beginning to understand.\u201d[49]<\/sup><\/a> The work of adaptation scholars such as Kamilla Elliott (2020) and Lissette Lopez Szwydky (c2020) have already begun using transhistorical approaches to analyzing and theorizing adaptation\u2014Brown\u2019s work, particularly Clotel<\/em>, complements these efforts and better develops the history of adaptation with consideration to African American culture and community.<\/p>\n

Part III: Reading Clotel <\/em>through Adaptation<\/u><\/p>\n

Ultimately, I argue that African American print culture practices\u2014which include Brown\u2019s specific innovations\u2014fall under the broader \u201cinvisible\u201d genre of adaptation,[50]<\/sup><\/a> that encourages reading texts simultaneously with their various source texts. Furthermore, framing Clotel <\/em>as adaptation explores the deeper connections between adaptation and intertextuality, as Brown\u2019s vigorous text features hundreds of intertextual relationships. While this argument examines one such relationship in-depth to highlight some of his revisions, the narrative overall is like a party in a ballroom, as various conversations between hundreds of texts occur at once. In this sense, a Bakhtinian understanding of adaptation functions as a useful lens through which to understand the entire reading experience of Clotel<\/em>\u2014from each individual engagement, like that with \u201cThe Quadroons,\u201d to the larger, more centralized conversation that occurs as a result of Brown\u2019s narrative. Rooted in Bakhtin\u2019s dialogism,[51]<\/sup><\/a> Dennis Cutchins explains that, \u201cdialogic thought suggests that the study of adaptations, broadly understood, is not peripheral to the study of literature\u2026 but is foundational to all textual studies.[52]<\/sup><\/a> Though all of the Brown scholars I cite likely appreciate Brown and admire his practices, they remain grounded in\u2014or at least infected by\u2014institutional understandings of plagiarism that do not explore the complex relationship between vast intertextuality, adaptation, and the creative forces that might inspire these practices (however one chooses to delineate them). Plagiaristic frameworks (at best) leave room for moralistic judgements and (at worst) invite it\u2014adaptation, on the other hand, provides ample ground to explore it.<\/p>\n

The field of Adaptation Studies resonates with Brown, in the sense that both entities share a past checkered with moralistic judgements and accusations of unoriginality. \u201cAdaptation,\u201d Lisette Lopez Szwydky writes, \u201cis typically understood as a secondary feature of storytelling\u2014a \u2018derivative\u2019 practice, the antithesis of artistic \u2018originality.\u2019 [53]<\/a><\/sup> And, though fidelity discourse is long out of practice in academic adaptation circles, infidelity to beloved \u201csource\u201d texts continue to upset audiences. Adaptations are often considered weak, derivative, or even parasitic: according to Robert Stam, readers fear an adaptation will \u201cburrow into the body of the source text and steal its vitality.\u201d[54]<\/sup><\/a> These readers play with similar metaphors as Brown\u2019s scholars, relating to theft, kidnapping, stealing, and more. Of course, Brown\u2019s scholars likely have a higher sense of admiration for Brown\u2019s intentions, but this does not separate their metaphors from those damaging adaptations and, by proxy, prevents the development of a better understanding of all<\/em> cultural practices of rewriting\u2014including African American print culture.<\/p>\n

However, Adaptationists have come a long way in \u201ctaking back\u201d their terminology to not just avoid moralistic judgements, but to attack them directly. Julie Grossman empowers \u201chideous\u201d adaptations through their elastextity: \u201cMore elastic adaptations,\u201d she writes, \u201cseek to invent new ways of rewriting or interpreting preexisting texts and influences and prod readers and viewers to expand their understanding of texts and of textual influence. These adaptations may be experienced as \u2018hideous\u2019 because,\u201d she continues, \u201cfrom the perspective of seeking \u2018truthful\u2019 representations of single sources internalized by their readers or audiences, they so often seem \u2018unsightly\u2019\u201d (16). Brown\u2019s combination of sources\u2014historical narratives, rumors, autobiography, and \u201cThe Quadroons,\u201d to name only a few\u2014lead to such an \u201cunsightly\u201d adaptation, in the sense that readers feel disoriented, unsure, and unclear of centralized meaning. However, \u201crather than fleeing the [metaphorical Frankenstein-ian] laboratory,\u201d Grossman proposes, readers are \u201ccalled upon to read the story in a new context and asked to meet the [adaptation] on its own terms, rather than projecting onto it our internalized \u2018home text\u2019 and running from its hideousness.\u201d[55]<\/sup><\/a> Rather than attacking an internalized \u2018home text,\u2019 Brown\u2019s work attacks the notions that readers regularly associate with African American writing. His work attacks \u201cthe big bogeyman\u201d duCille describes, as he deviates from the internalized cultural script readers associate with Brown and Black writers\u2014problematically, to this day.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, \u201chideous\u201d adaptations are not always so recognizable to audiences. Most audiences expect to recognize an adaptation from an \u201cinspired by\u201d label, or an intertitle in a film adaptation. As Szwydky writes, \u201cmany reject the term \u2018adaptation\u2019 unless it\u2019s used to describe a very specific cultural product, such as a play directly derived from a textual source and used as evidence for the text\u2019s or author\u2019s excellence.\u201d[56]<\/sup><\/a> Arguably, Brown does this in his acknowledgement to Child, but his vast intertextuality beyond just Child\u2019s texts confuses the typical association. In other words, Clotel <\/em>is not just a rewriting of \u201cThe Quadroons,\u201d but an array of rewriting, reimaginations, and direct reprinting, which differentiates the narrative from the recognizable cultural product. All things considered, \u201cfrom a historical perspective,\u201d Szwydky argues, \u201cpart of what makes the study of adaptation especially compelling lies in the difficulty of narrowing down a transhistorical cultural phenomenon that can refer to many products and processes at the same time.\u201d[57]<\/sup><\/a> Compelling and empowering, as Brown\u2019s practices\u2014through the lens of adaptation\u2014become part of a larger transhistorical practice. In other words, by contextualizing Brown through a nuanced understanding of revisionist adaptation in the nineteenth-century, readers better understand the creativity and complexity of his work. And Brown\u2019s writing can participate in a much larger dialogue about African American experiences within American institutions, then and now, propelled by the adaptation of White \u201ccanonical,\u201d historical, and \u201cliterary\u201d fictions.<\/p>\n

But, what of Brown\u2019s other \u201cplagiarisms?\u201d Are his \u201ccopies\u201d from other texts, aside from Child\u2019s, a part of his revisionist adaptation? Julie Sanders argues that \u201cmere\u201d citation is \u201cdifferent\u2026from adaptation, which constitutes a more sustained and deeper engagement usually within a single text or source, than the more glancing act of allusion or quotation, even citation, allows.\u201d[58]<\/sup><\/a> But, she continues, \u201cappropriation<\/em> carries out the same sustained engagement of adaptation but frequently adopts a posture of critique, overt commentary and even sometimes assault or attack.\u201d[59]<\/sup><\/a> And, \u201cappropriations,\u201d Sanders adds, \u201cdo not always make their founding relationships and interrelationships explicit. The gesture towards the source text can be wholly more shadowy than in the above examples, and this brings into play, sometimes in controversial ways, questions of intellectual property, proper acknowledgement and, at its worst, the charge of plagiarism.\u201d[60]<\/sup><\/a> So, all though not all of Brown\u2019s sources are treated equally, I argue that they function as a larger body of appropriation of the canon itself. In other words, Brown\u2019s treatment of his citations functions as the form of \u201csustained engagement\u201d that distances adaptation from \u201cmere\u201d citation (or plagiarism) in the first place. For instance, Sanborn dedicates 53 pages of his study to Brown\u2019s citations, which materially suggests Brown\u2019s engagements are not just a \u201cpassing glance\u201d at the sources. Such excessive citation in itself, then, is certainly an \u201cextended engagement,\u201d and Sanders does not at any point say\u2014nor do other Adaptationists\u2014that each hypotext must be explored equally.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, \u201chideous\u201d adaptations and appropriation describe the process at the heart of Brown\u2019s creation, Clotel. <\/em>Because of the unique nature of the text\u2014its \u201chideousnesss\u201d\u2014readers are unsure how to classify it. Similarly, scholars<\/em> do not know how to understand it, or where to derive meaning from Brown\u2019s narrative if he uses (and perhaps even abuses) so many sources. However, \u201chideous\u201d adaptations hold considerably more agency than plagiarisms, as they attack, extend, and manipulate source texts and <\/em>meaning as they engage new readers.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Though I only glance at some of Clotel\u2019s <\/em>55 sources, this project intends to reposition Brown in such a way that invites further consideration.[61]<\/sup><\/a> Right now, Clotel <\/em>appears predominantly in African American literature courses\u2014some of which, I presume, carry the \u201cbig bogeyman\u2019s\u201d expectations and apply them to Brown\u2019s writing. More recent scholarship in African American print culture, such as the collection edited by Cohen and Stein, helps alleviate those expectations, though, as I\u2019ve argued here, they do not completely override the negativity associated with plagiarism. And college classrooms do not always (if even regularly) assign secondary texts related to print culture (an emerging field) when Brown appears on the syllabus\u2014though every syllabus, I might add, contains a hefty warning about the dangers, immorality, and pitfalls of plagiarism.<\/p>\n

Though adaptation theories are less common than adaptations themselves in college classrooms, adaptation studies provides an ample interdisciplinary lens to view African American print culture, which is an abundant, emerging field of study in need of more attention and resources. However, due to the slow attention from book historians, Cohen and Stein assert that progress in understanding African American literature as a key part of print culture has been slow. \u201cThis neglect,\u201d they claim, \u201cis all the more surprising given the abundance of potential material:<\/p>\n

In colonial and antebellum America, the African Americans featured prominently in literary production both on the page (as writing subjects as well as subjects of writing) and off (as readers, editors, printers, engravers, compositors, papermakers, libraries, and so on). The sheer breadth and diversity of their experiences has a great deal to tell us about American print culture, while their omission from critical accounts renders even the freshest reconsiderations of the field inevitably partial.\u201d[62]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Adaptations (as products and practices) are also dominant players in literary production, though transhistorical approaches to adaptation\u2014like this project\u2014in the nineteenth-century are rare: \u201cDespite four decades of scholarship to draw on,\u201d Szwydky writes, \u201cadaptation studies still doesn\u2019t have a well-known history of its own outside of specialized circles.\u201d[63]<\/sup><\/a> Though, she adds, \u201cthe reverse is also true. Nineteenth-century cultural histories that include literary adaptations would benefit from conversations taking place in contemporary adaptation studies.\u201d[64]<\/sup><\/a> And, there is an even wider gap between African American cultural histories and adaptation studies, that also stands to (seriously) benefit from interdisciplinary conversations. In sum, African Americanists and Adaptationists need to further investigate the intersections in their respective cultural practices, as current boundaries in both fields only marginalize authors like Brown and other African American adaptors.<\/p>\n

To some, repositioning Brown as such is only a small alteration. The scholars I\u2019ve cited do talk about the pitfalls of plagiarist discourse and protect Brown, when they can, against the negative connotations. Plagiarism might seem like a simple word choice, easily remedied by justification for the specific kind <\/em>of plagiarism\u2014because that\u2019s what he does, isn\u2019t it? Readers will understand, won\u2019t they? These objections are short-sighted. As Brown emerges from the margins, it is crucial to avoid broad, culturally loaded language with the capability to send him back. As Brown\u2019s work hopefully, inevitably appears in more reading spaces (institutional and public), his practices will be further removed from individuals who can differentiate his <\/em>plagiarism from that <\/em>plagiarism.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, a transhistorical approach to reading Clotel <\/em>as adaptation protects the text from future marginalization and respects his efforts as an adaptationist, in a time before adaptation was formally recognized as a lucrative creative practice. Furthermore, \u201cpositioning adaptation as a primary entry point into the study of literature, culture, and history reveals that,\u201d Szwydky argues, \u201calthough forms and media continuously change and evolve, the process that undergrids the historical trajectory of storytelling\u2014adaptation\u2014remain stable and perpetual.\u201d[65]<\/sup><\/a> Clotel\u2019s <\/em>instability continues to baffle even Brown\u2019s most ardent supporters\u2014within a larger culture of intertextual play, however, his instability becomes a stable creative practice that invites readers to question their own expectations and reading experiences. I\u2019ve mentioned the ways in which Brown challenges the institution of marriage and the conceptualization of a unified, \u201cfounding father,\u201d so I add here that his text, as adaptation, challenges the notion of categorization by race and readerly expectations of African American authors. Why should his narrative, in this sense, have to \u201cmake sense\u201d in the ways that readers were institutionally conditioned to expect it to?<\/p>\n

Though I argue that Clotel <\/em>benefits from adaptation theories, I want to also suggest that this relationship is reciprocal\u2014Brown, as an adaptationist, was also foregrounding adaptation reading models through his writing. In other words, reading Clotel <\/em>through the lens of adaptation provokes broader questions about other African American texts that may seek to challenge categorization. What new discoveries might be made, from adaptations, appropriations, and not that kind <\/em>of plagiarisms? How can Clotel, <\/em>as an adaptation, challenge institutional conceptions of originality and rewriting?\u00a0 In the conclusion to his chapter on Clotel<\/em>, Ernest argues that \u201cit is difficult to claim that Brown was successful, given the history not only of the United States but also of critical responses to [Clotel<\/em>]. But,\u201d he writes, \u201cClotel <\/em>waits beyond ethereal critical categories and narratives\u2014waits in closer fields for those looking to construct more intimate and revealing histories, working this time from the ground up.\u201d[66]<\/sup><\/a> Adaptation provides a method through which to read \u201cfrom the ground up,\u201d with respect to Clotel\u2019<\/em>s intertextuality and also its originality\u2014distinct from the ethical and moral stains of plagiarism discourse.<\/p>\n

Acknowledgement: I want to thank Dr. John Ernest at the University of Delaware for his encouragements regarding this project.<\/em><\/p>\n

End Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cIn describing [the world of Clotel],\u201d John Ernest writes, \u201ccritics have been so frustrated by the presence of so many sources and plots in one text that they have had trouble seeing the one in the many\u2014a unified artistic achievement greater than the sum of its parts.\u201d <\/sup><\/p>\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Sanborn, Geoffrey. Plagiarama!: William Wells Brown and the Aesthetic of Attractions <\/em>(New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 5.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> Qtd. in Cohen, Lara Langer. \u201cNotes from the State of Saint Domingue: The Practice of Citation in Clotel.\u201d Early African American Print Culture <\/em>(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 161.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> Sanborn, 8.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> Sanborn, 14.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> Szwydky, Lissette Lopez. Transmedia Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century <\/em>(Ohio State University Press, 2020), 212.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cWhat is the significance of the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag?\u201d Brittanica Encyclopedia <\/em>(2023).<\/p>\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> Szwydky, 133.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Szwydky, 3.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> Stam, Robert. \u201cRevisionist Adaptation: Transtextuality, Cross-Cultural Dialogism, and Performative Infidelities.\u201d The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies<\/em>, ed. Thomas Leitch (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017), 239. (my italics)<\/p>\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> Levine, 319.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Levine, 320.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> Brown, 198.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> Sanborn, 163 \u2013 176.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> Child, Lydia Marie. \u201cThe Quadroons.\u201d Clotel; Or, The President\u2019s Daughter, <\/em>ed. Robert S. Levine, A Bedford Cultural Edition (Boston; New York, Bedford\/St. Martin\u2019s, 2011), 322.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Child, 329.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a> Child, 329.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a> Davison, Carol Margaret. History of the Gothic: Gothic Literature 1764 \u2013 1824 <\/em>(Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2009), 102.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a> Fleishner, Jennifer. \u201cMothers and Sisters: The Family Romance of Antislavery Women Writers.\u201d Feminist Nightmares: Women at Odds: Feminism and the Problem of Sisterhood <\/em>(New York: New York University Press, 1994), 3.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/sup><\/a> Raimon, Eve Allegra. The Tragic Mulatta Revisited: Race and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Antislavery Fiction <\/em>(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 5.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/sup><\/a> Raimon, 63.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/sup><\/a> Raimon, 63 \u2013 64.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/sup><\/a> Brown, 88.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/sup><\/a> Child, 328.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/sup><\/a> Child, 328.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/sup><\/a> Brown, 198.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/sup><\/a> Brown, 198.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/sup><\/a> Brown, 199.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/sup><\/a> Raimon, 65.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/sup><\/a> Raimon, 66.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/sup><\/a> Ernest, John. (Personal Correspondence)<\/p>\n

[32]<\/sup><\/a> Sanborn, 12.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/sup><\/a> Ernest, 23.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/sup><\/a> Sanborn, 15.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/sup><\/a> Cohen, \u201cNotes from the State of the Saint Domingue,\u201d 165.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/sup><\/a> Sanborn, 79 \u2013 81.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/sup><\/a> duCille, 452.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/sup><\/a> Ernest, x.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/sup><\/a> duCille, 453.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/sup><\/a> Cohen, 165.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/sup><\/a> For authors safely inside of the literary canon, such as Laurence Sterne, plagiarism is less of a concern\u2026 and terminologically less involved in their legacies.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/sup><\/a> MLA Handbook, 8th<\/sup> Edition<\/em> (New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2016), 16.<\/p>\n

[43]<\/sup><\/a> MLA Handbook, 8th<\/sup> Edition<\/em>, 16.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/sup><\/a> Brown, William Wells. Clotel; or, The President\u2019s Daughter. <\/em>A Bedford Cultural Edition, edited by Robert Levine (Boston; New York: Bedford\/St. Martin\u2019s, 2011), 226.<\/p>\n

[45]<\/sup><\/a> Cohen, Lara Langer and Jordan Alexander Stein. Early African American Print Culture <\/em>(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 7.<\/p>\n

[46]<\/sup><\/a> Cohen, \u201cNotes from the State of the Saint Domingue,\u201d 165.<\/p>\n

[47]<\/sup><\/a> Cohen and Stein, 8.<\/p>\n

[48]<\/sup><\/a> Cohen and Stein, 11.<\/p>\n

[49]<\/sup><\/a> Cohen and Stein, 15.<\/p>\n

[50]<\/sup><\/a> Leitch, Thomas. \u201cAdaptation, the Genre.\u201d Adaptation, <\/em>vol. 1, no. 2 (Oxford University Press, 2008), 106.<\/p>\n

[51]<\/sup><\/a> For more information, see: Bakhtin, MM. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, <\/em>edited by Michael Holoquist (Austin; London: University of Texas Press, 1981).<\/p>\n

[52]<\/sup><\/a> Cutchins, Dennis. \u201cBakhtin, Intertextuality, and Adaptation.\u201d The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studied, <\/em>edited by Thomas Leitch (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017), 71.<\/p>\n

[53]<\/sup><\/a> Szwydky, 1.<\/p>\n

[54]<\/sup><\/a> Stam, Robert and Alessandra Raengo. Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation <\/em>(Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 7.<\/p>\n

[55]<\/sup><\/a> Grossman, Julie. Literature, Film, and Their Hideous Progeny <\/em>(New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 17. <\/em><\/p>\n

[56]<\/sup><\/a> Szwydky, 13.<\/p>\n

[57]<\/sup><\/a> Szwydky, 8.<\/p>\n

[58]<\/sup><\/a> Sanders, Julie. Adaptation and Appropriation<\/em> (London; New York: Routledge, 2006), 6.<\/p>\n

[59]<\/sup><\/a> Sanders, 6.<\/p>\n

[60]<\/sup><\/a> Sanders, 43.<\/p>\n

[61]<\/sup><\/a> Sanborn, 14.<\/p>\n

[62]<\/sup><\/a> Cohen and Stein, 3.<\/p>\n

[63]<\/sup><\/a> Szwydky, 12.<\/p>\n

[64]<\/sup><\/a> Szwydky, 12.<\/p>\n

[65]<\/sup><\/a> Szwydky, 3.<\/p>\n

[66]<\/sup><\/a> Ernest, 54.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cat Champney (she\/her) is currently an English literature PhD student at the University of Delaware. She studies adaptation(s) of nineteenth-century gothic narratives, with an emphasis on the Radcliffean tradition and texts formerly categorized as \u201cfemale\u201d gothics. Broadly, Cat\u2019s research considers intersections of adaptation, gender, and genre, as well as the representation of domestic themes and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22232,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[16],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/781"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22232"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=781"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/781\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":816,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/781\/revisions\/816"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}