The Arden Research Handbook of Shakespeare and Adaptation ed. by Diana E. Henderson and Stephen O’Neill (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Arden Research Handbook of Shakespeare and Adaptation ed. by Diana E. Henderson and Stephen O’Neill Benjamin Broadribb The Arden Research Handbook of Shakespeare and Adaptation. Edited by Diana E. Henderson and Stephen O’Neill. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. Pp. xiv + 411. Hardback $175.00. E-book $157.50. In their introduction to The Arden Research Handbook of Shakespeare and Adaptation, coeditors Diana E. Henderson and Stephen O’Neill use the phrase “big tent” to describe their approach to Shakespeare adaptation studies (18). They borrow the term from the world of politics, where it denotes a political party that embraces a broad spectrum of views rather than enforcing members to toe the line of a particular dogma. “Big tent” is an apt descriptor for Henderson and O’Neill’s expansive volume, which provides a truly panoramic view of the field. It demonstrates the longstanding intertwinement of Shakespeare studies and adaptation studies, while respecting each as a distinct discipline equally worthy of independent consideration and care. Shakespeare and Adaptation is the fifth entry in Bloomsbury’s series of Arden Research Handbooks, inaugurated in 2020. It follows the blueprint of other titles in the series by dividing its chapters into three parts under the headings “Research Methods and Problems,” “Current Research and Issues,” and “New Directions.” The editors also adapt this format by further dividing part two into subsections—“Histories and Politics of Adaptation,” “Shakespeare in Parts,” and “Media Lenses and Digital Cultures”—to achieve their desired balance of “capaciousness with clarity” (18). While each chapter is written with the distinctive voice of its writer or cowriters, the collection offers a united vision that captures the inclusive, forward-thinking philosophy that Henderson and O’Neill put forward in their introduction: “Adaptation is no longer simply a facet of Shakespeare or the field of study based on his works and their afterlives but is, rather, a key driver of Shakespeare’s ongoing vitality in the contemporary world” (5). While I cannot hope to capture the wealth of far-reaching research contained within Shakespeare and Adaptation in a brief review, I will try to emulate here the volume’s balance of capaciousness and clarity. The three chapters in part one, written by Emma Smith, Douglas M. Lanier, and Julie Sanders, convincingly set out the theoretical framework upon which the subsequent chapters are based. Together, these chapters decenter “Shakespeare” from the phrase “Shakespeare [End Page 191] and Adaptation.” Smith, Lanier, and Sanders present their work in a manner that is both academically rich and comprehensively accessible, explaining complex ideas through language and tone choices that are never abstruse. Smith positions Shakespeare as a key player in the long history of adaptation. She highlights early on that “The term ‘playwright’ [. . .] follow[s] the semantic model of words like cartwright and wainwright, suggesting not the lofty inspiration of the muses but rather artisanal labour and manufacture of new commodities out of raw materials” and concludes that “adaptation is the very condition of playwrighting” (25, 36). Reminding the reader that Shakespeare himself reused plot devices from his own plays, Smith dispels any perceived division between Shakespearean “originals” and their adaptations. Lanier’s chapter uses major theories of adaptation to level the playing field between Shakespeare studies and adaptation studies. Shakespeare has traditionally been considered dominant in this relationship, as Lanier argues, but his chapter urges a reconsideration of “Shakespeare’s place in the dynamics of cultural production, a place that is not as central as we Shakespeareans might be tempted to think it is” (51). Sanders then ties together threads of the previous two chapters with her own close readings of two twenty-first-century novels, Ali Smith’s Spring and Mark Haddon’s The Porpoise, both of which adapt Pericles, Prince of Tyre. By focusing on these specific examples, Sanders decenters Shakespeare’s position “in the context of a complex web of issues and influences” as she illuminates why certain plays resonate at particular cultural and historical moments (59). Smith, Lanier, and Sanders enable the contributors to parts two and three to take their chapters in exciting directions, in which the means and purposes of adaptation are just as important as the Shakespearean canon and...