WORDS!

Some words from a text document I've noting on the train, just a brain dump to try and get things straight in my head.

The structuralist perspective postulates a media in control of all aspects, putting forward information to suit a personal agenda of their own. If taken on that ground, a structuralist adaptation would suffer from the original agendas and preconceptions of the creator of the work. When adapting a work, the adapter must take the structuralist view of the work into account – the deeper themes to the original work, and it's cultural resonance, especially the world that the work was created within. An interactionist approach would have the adapter pay more attention to the audience the work is being adapted for than the audience it was originally created for – but without losing the original key themes of the work. This can also lead to unsatisfying results for the spectator, as the work can appear alien to the original piece. The thematic character of the work – the tone – is of paramount importance, and a structuralist approach to the work may obscure this under technological anachronisms and cultural irrelevance. On the other side the interactionist approach may lose spectators through alienating the work from it's original audience, by updating the content culturally the tone may become lost in a mess of new meanings and settings. A Structurationist approach may suit better, with deep research into the original themes related through relevant examples that the spectator could culturally identify with.