Introduction: Appropriating the Past

  • Graham Saunders
Part of the Adaptation in Theatre and Performance book series (ATP)


This chapter considers the practice of appropriation in Elizabethan and Jacobean drama by postwar British playwrights. It interrogates the terminology of adaptation and how it differs from appropriation as a textual practice through the work of theorists including Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Jean Genette, Harold Bloom, Linda Hutcheon, and Julie Sanders. The chapter also considers the applicability of other terms to describe this genre, including ‘offshoots’, ‘revisioning’, and ‘transformation’ as well as resistance by advocates of adaptation who have associated appropropriaiton with postmodern forms of parody such as Tom Stoppard’s play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (1967).


  1. Almansi, G. 1982. ‘The Thumb-Screwers and the Tongue-Twisters: On Shakespearean Avatars.’ Poetics Today 13: 87–100.Google Scholar
  2. Andreas, J.R. 1999. ‘Signifyin’ on The Tempest in Gloria Naylor’s Mama Day’. In Desment, C., and Sawyer, R. (eds.) Shakespeare and Appropriation, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, H., and Middleton, T. 1986. Women Beware Women, London: Calder.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, H., and Houth, E. 2007. A Style and Its Origins, London: Oberon.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, S. 1996. Performing Nostalgia: Shifting Shakespeare and the Contemporary Past. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Berkoff, S. 2001. The Secret Love Life of Ophelia. London: Faber.Google Scholar
  7. Bhabba, H.K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Billington, M. 1996. The Life and Work of Harold Pinter. London: Faber.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom, H. 1997. The Anxiety of Influence, 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  10. Bond, E. 1994. Edward Bond Letters, Vol. I, ed. I. Stuart. Amsterdam: Harwood.Google Scholar
  11. Bond, E. 1972a. Plays Two. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  12. Brater, E. 2001. ‘Tom Stoppard’s Brit/Lit/Crit.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Tom Stoppard, ed. K.E. Kelly. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 1972b. ‘The Long Road to Lear.’ Theatre Quarterly 11: 4–14.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, M. (ed.). 2011. Howard Barker Interviews 1980–2010: Conversations in Catastrophe. Bristol: Intellect.Google Scholar
  15. Buse, P. 2001. Drama + Theory: Critical Approaches to Modern British Drama. Manchester: MUP.Google Scholar
  16. Carney, S. 2013. The Politics and Poetics of Contemporary English Tragedy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  17. Coult, T. 1977. The Plays of Edward Bond: A Study. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  18. Desmet, C., and Sawyer, R. (eds.). 1999. Shakespeare and Appropriation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Dollimore, J. 1986. ‘Middleton and Barker: Creative Vandalism’. Programme note to Howard Barker (with Thomas Middleton). In Women Beware Women.Google Scholar
  20. Drakakis, J. 1997. ‘Shakespeare in Quotations.’ In Studying British Cultures: An Introduction, (ed.) Basnett, S. 162–184. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Elam, K. 1980. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  22. Eliot, T.S. 1975. ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’. In Twentieth Century Poetry: Critical Essays and Documents, (ed.) Martin, G. and Furbank, P.N. 79–85. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fischlin, D., and Fortier, M. (eds.). 2000. Adaptations of Shakespeare: A Critical Anthology of Plays from the Seventeenth Century to the Present. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Forsythe, A. 1998. Gadamer, History and the Classics: Fugard, Marowitz, Berkoff and Harrison Rewrite the Theatre. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  25. Franssen, J.C.M. 2010. ‘“But Never Mind about Politics”: Arnold Wesker’s The Merchant and its Critics.’ Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance 3 (3): 245–258.Google Scholar
  26. Freeman, J. 1996. ‘Holding up the Mirror to the Mind’s Nature: Reading Rosencrantz “Beyond Absurdity”’. Modern Language Review 91 (1): 20–39.Google Scholar
  27. Genette, G. 1997. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree, trans. Newman, G., and Doubinsky, C. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gross, J. 2003. After Shakespeare: Writing Inspired by the World’s Greatest Author. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  29. Hinchcliffe, A. 1974. British Theatre 1950–1970. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Hurr, M. 1992. ‘Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and Edward Bond’s Lear: Modern “Contaminations” of Shakespeare’s Hamlet and King Lear.’ English Language and Literature 38: 783–799.Google Scholar
  31. Hutcheon, L. 2006. A Theory of Appropriation. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Kilpatrick, D. 2003. ‘“The Myth’s the Thing”’: Howard Barker’s Revision of Elsinore in Gertrude–The Cry’. In Text and Presentation, 24, 139–148. New York: McFarland.Google Scholar
  33. Lanier, D. 2002. Shakespeare and Modern Popular Culture. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  34. Leeming, G. 1977. ‘Interview with Arnold Wesker: A Sense of What Should Follow.’ Theatre Quarterly 7: 5–24.Google Scholar
  35. Marsden, J. (ed.) 1991. The Appropriaton of Shakespeare: Post-Renaissance Reconstructions of the Works and the Myth. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  36. Marowitz, C. 1977. ‘Giving Them Hell.’ Plays and Players, 15–16.Google Scholar
  37. Massai, S. 2005. World-Wide Shakespeares: Local Appropriations in Film and Performance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Müller, K.P. 1997. ‘Cultural Transformations of Subversive Jacobean Sub-versions of Tragedy, Comedy, and Tragicomedy.’ In Drama on Drama: Dimensions of Theatricality on the Contemporary British Stage, (ed.) Boireau, N. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Niklas‚ P., and Linder‚ O. (eds.) 2012. Adaptation and Cultural Apropriation: Literature, Film, and the Arts. De Gruyter: Berlin.Google Scholar
  40. Nodelman, P. 1980. ‘Beyond Politics in Bond’s Lear.’ Modern Drama 23: 269–276.Google Scholar
  41. Novy, M. (ed.). 1999. Transforming Shakespeare: Contemporary Women’s Revisions in Literature and Performance. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Rabey, D.I. 2006. ‘Raising Hell.’ In Theatre of Catastrophe: New Essays on Howard Barker, (ed.) Gritzner, K. and Rabey, D.I. 13–29. London: Oberon.Google Scholar
  43. Rabey, D.I. 2009. Howard Barker: Ecstasy and Death: An Expository Study of his Drama, Theory and Production Work, 1998–2008. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  44. Rabinow, P. (ed.). 1984. The Foucault Reader. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. Sammels, N. 2001. ‘The Early Stage Plays.’ In Cambridge Companion to Tom Stoppard, (ed.) Kelly, K.E. 104–119. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  46. Sanders, J. 2001. Adaptation and Appropriation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Scott, M. 1989. Shakespeare and the Modern Dramatist. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Sinfield, A. 1985. ‘Royal Shakespeare: Theatre and the Making of Ideology.’ In New Essays in Cultural Materialism, (ed.) Dollimore, J. and Sinfield, A. 158–181. Manchester: MUP.Google Scholar
  49. ___. 1988. ‘Making Space: Appropriation and Confrontation In Recent British Plays.’ In The Shakespeare Myth, (ed.) G. Holderness, 128–144. Manchester: MUP.Google Scholar
  50. ___. 1992. Faultlines: Cultural Materialism and the Politics of Dissident Reading. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tuck, M.R. 1994. Talking Back to Shakespeare. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wesker, A. 1997. The Birth of Shylock and the Death of Zero Mostel. London: Quartet Books.Google Scholar
  53. Wilcher, R. 1991. Understanding Arnold Wesker. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  54. Woolf, V. 1929. A Room of One’s Own. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
  55. Zabus, C. (ed.). 2002. Tempests After Shakespeare. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations