nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. Changes in Writer Stratifications across Media in Nineteenth-Century Britain

verfasst von : Annie Nissen

Erschienen in: Authors and Adaptation

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the social and cultural stratifications of writers within and across media and the status of theatrical writing, which had been affected significantly by copyright laws. It finds that theatre’s status as a primarily adapting rather than original domain of writing had been indirectly determined by lax copyright laws, which led to producers favouring adaptations over original writing. The chapter further ponders adaptation’s effects on theatrical aesthetic theory, as well as the cultural and social position of the English theatre and the dramatic writer. Creating dialogues between prose writers and dramatic adapters such as Charles Dickens and William Thomas Moncrieff and studying other prose writers’ attempts to dramatise their own work, including Wilkie Collins, Mary Elizabeth Braddon, and Frances Hodgson Burnett, this chapter finds that the hierarchical values attached to different forms of writing and media were very much shaped by adaptation and in turn shaped attitudes towards adaptation and authorship. These dynamics only started to abate in the final decades of the nineteenth century, when copyright laws governing adaptation tightened, resulting in more original theatrical writing and higher esteem for cross-media writing.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Copyright Law, Authorial Ownership, and Adaptation Between Novels and Plays in Nineteenth-Century Britain

Nächstes Kapitel Adaptation, Ownership and the Emergence of Narrative Film

Alexis Easley (2013) discusses the celebrity status of nineteenth century British writers; Loren Glass (2004) focuses on American writers and celebrity at the turn of the twentieth century.

The 1841 Census groups authors under the category of “Other Educated Persons,” in which only 167 out of 626 individuals declared their main occupation as writing. In 1911, the number of self-declared authors was 13,786 (Salmon 2013, 6). The Census statistics apply to England and Wales.

These advancements were already acknowledged in contemporary reviews: for example, by William Archer in 1882.

In his testimony to the Committee, Moncrieff recommends that, “if the minor theatres were classed, it would have a most beneficial effect,” as they could “become nurseries for dramatic talent” (1836, 5). For further information on the variety of theatres in this period, see Michael R. Booth (1991); Allardyce Nicoll (1949); Russell Jackson (1989); Anthony Jenkins (1991) and John Russell Stephens (1980). Jane Moody (2000) gives a historical account of illegitimate theatres in London 1770–1840.

According to the French law, dramatists were generally very well protected. Not only did they receive high remuneration for their work, but plays performed without the consent of the author at any theatre also risked the penalty of forfeiting the whole profits. In “Dramatic Grub Street” (1858), discussed further in this chapter, Wilkie Collins would also compare the English Theatre unfavourably to the French: “In France, the most eminent literary men of the period write, as a matter of course, for the stage, as well as for the literary table” (267). French plays, greatly admired by writers, were as rampantly and eagerly adapted as British prose fiction in this period.

The letter is discussed in Chap. 2 and cited in full in Fitz-Gerald (1910, 121–6).

This has caused lasting confusion, as the British Library entry for the Playbill title credits Pierce Egan as the adapter, whilst the accompanying notes rightly identify Moncrieff.

Dickens was frequently likened by periodical writers and reviewers to George Cruikshank, who illustrated many of Dickens’s works and was widely celebrated for his caricatures. He had also illustrated Egan’s Life in London (1821). However, Cruikshank’s collaborations with Dickens ended on bad terms, and after Dickens’s death, he also claimed to have contributed more substantially to the works themselves. See Robert L. Patten (2012) and J. Hillis Miller and David Borowitz (1971).

At Collins’s request, Dickens wrote a formal letter in 1870 establishing that Collins’s contributions to Household Words and All Year Round were copyrighted to Collins (in 2005b, 337), demonstrating that even the ownership concerning non-fiction articles was not clearly legislated.

For further discussion on the relationship between nineteenth-century theatre and its class of audiences, see Booth (1975) and Jackson (1989, 9–78).

The 1832 Select Committee suggested that, among other factors, the causes of theatrical decline were “the prevailing fashion of late dinner hours, the absence of Royal encouragement [prior to Victoria’s coronation in 1837], and the supposed indisposition of some Religious Sects to countenance Theatrical Exhibitions,” although these were all “out of the province of the Legislature to control” (1836, 3).

This binary rhetoric is often still visible today, with Glenn Jellenik (2018) suggesting that adaptation studies is ideally positioned to move beyond outdated Romantic notions by reframing the approach to adaptation and originality, proposing to use the term ‘derivative originality’.

The guide, a precursor for early screenwriting manuals, offers the reader access to the world of playwriting, addressing the task of writing, rehearsals, productions, and monetary considerations of the profession. In her recent discussion of nineteenth-century playwriting manuals, which includes this one by A. Dramatist, Karen Morash (2022) points out how these manuals provide not only insights into historical theatre practices and production, but that some of the advice is still useful to playwrights today.

Similarities to this can also be seen with many film companies in the twentieth-century, discussed in Chap. 4.

A distinction is also being made here between writers within the “theatrical profession.”

The nominal absence of female playwrights in critical academic studies of playwriting in the nineteenth century is being redressed, for example, by Kerry Powell (1997), in a collection edited by Tracy Davis and Ellen Donkin (1999), and Katherine Newey (2005).

Karen E. Laird discusses this stage adaptation by J. Ware alongside that of Collins, suggesting that Collins imitated Ware’s adaptation strategies in the writing of his own (Laird 2015, 147–178).

Laird suggests that Collins turned to adaptation as a way of “modulating his authorial persona in a crucial moment in his career,” following the death of Dickens a year prior and breaking free from his shadow to establish himself as a playwright (Laird 2015, 163–4).

Richard Pearson (2015) offers a close study of both Dickens’ and Collins’ interactions with the stage (along with Robert Browning and Alfred Lord Tennyson, too).

An example of the relaxing censorship accompanying the rising classes, fortunes, and respectability of theatre in the 1870s, The New Magdalen was the first play to introduce a clergyman with anything other than a peripheral role into a drama (Stephens 1980, 109).

Peters points out, that the stringent written contract contrasts with contemporary accounts made of Collins’s amiable behaviour during productions and rehearsals (1991, 344).

Similar to other biographies, Peters’s assessment of Collins is more focused on his persona than on the social and cultural changes or media relationships in this period. This can also be seen in her view that Collins “increasingly began to neglect” the distinction between the arts, despite his clear awareness of it, which she does not fully address or explain, merely pointing out that Collins suffered from illness, pain and exhaustion from writing, as well as increased opium usage (1991, 136–7).

Sister art theories were also used also to describe the relationships between other art forms such as poetry, painting, and film (see Kamilla Elliott 2003, 1–10; Meisel 1983).

The edition published in 1862 was a revised version of his work, originally published in 1852. His dedication reads, “While the incidents of the story remain exactly what they were, the language in which they are told has been, I hope, in many cases greatly altered for the better” (6). As we saw in Chap. 2 with Shelley and Burnett, Collins’s actions suggest that his earliest work did not reflect his acquired literary skill, so he set out to revise it. This furthers the argument that, while the original author is still alive, the work is not yet fixed and it is within the right of the author to rework it as he/she pleases. This will be picked up further throughout this study.

Meisel, using examples from Dickens and William Makepeace Thackeray, discusses “the disposition of novelists in the nineteenth century to accept contemporary and pictorial models for their narrative art” and the novel to absorb these elements (1983, 68). Lissette Lopez Szwydky (2020, 97–135) also addresses visual and textual adaptation in literature and fine art forms in view of transmedia storytelling.

There have been prominent discussions about the visual imagination of nineteenth-century authors anticipating the medium of film, such claims that Dickens’s writing was proto-filmic, influencing early filmmakers such as D.W. Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein (Grahame Smith 2003; see also Chap. 5). Other critics counter that Dickens was adapting the visual media of his own day, such as magic lantern shows, which also fed into film (Joss Marsh 2009).

Moncrieff sees this indebtedness in some of Dickens’s “best characters,” such as Sam Weller (Fitz-Gerald 1910, 126). Other critics agree: Emily Allen (2003), for example, argues that theatre acts as a prominent figure in Dickens’s prose.

As stated in Chap. 2, these readings were not “copyright performances,” as other works copyrighting his fiction for performance had already been published.

Adams focuses on Dickens performing authorship in transatlantic lecture tours. In her book, she discusses the reverse process where American author Mark Twain toured Britain in order to secure ownership of his works (2016, 57–84).

Starting with private readings and moving to charity readings, Dickens turned his readings professional in 1858. The estimated number of his professional readings is 472. The usual format of these included a longer piece, lasting 70–80 minutes, and a short piece, lasting 30–40 minutes, with various other pieces of his repertoire. Readings from Pickwick (164) and A Christmas Carol (127) were by far the most performed (P. Collins 1975, xxvii). Philip Collins (1975) provides the most in-depth account of the history of Dickens’s performances, including material and accounts of each of his performed works. Malcolm Andrews (2006) discusses these performances in relation to Dickens’s persona as a novelist and the impact the reading tours had on him and his listeners. Schlicke argues that Dickens’s public readings were the culmination of his lifetime dedication to the cause of popular entertainment (1988, 226–48).

The acting profession was gaining in popularity and respectability in the nineteenth century, and the names of the performers were beginning to outshine those of writers within advertisements, as well as pay rates. Michael Baker (2016) provides a social history of the rising status of Victorian actors.

Field published her reviews of Dickens’s readings in 1871. Another contemporary account of the reading tours was provided by George Dolby (1885), who accompanied Dickens as a manager in Britain and America from 1866–70.

Other texts discussed by P. Collins prove a similar point.

Only certain narrative strands were related to the reader. The Nickleby readings were advertised as “Nicholas Nickleby at Mr. Squeers’s School.” Dickens had privately printed prompt copies of all of his readings, but altered these continuously by cutting out, pasting in, or annotating the texts, as well as not following the texts when he performed. P. Collins discusses successful and unsuccessful attempts to publish the reading copies especially in America, listing currently available texts and their whereabouts (P. Collins 1975, xlii ff.).

Salmon discusses this in view of authorship and portraiture (2013, 16–30).

Peters refers here to an 1873 adaptation of Man and Wife (1870), suggesting that “ideas that many critics had found repellent in the novel pleased them on the stage, where the action seemed complete and coherent,” adding that it also featured the first use of electric lightning for a storm scene and an effect of moving clouds (341). The play was produced under the direction of Squire and Marie Bancroft, regarded as pioneers of the Victorian stage, their joint autobiographies (1888, 1909) provide further insight not just into their own life and that of their associates, but also generally into nineteenth-century theatre.

Like Moncrieff’s earlier claim, Collins conjectured that the French law of remuneration would have benefitted him: “If I had been a Frenchman—with such a public to write for, such rewards to win, and such actors to interpret me, as the French Stage presents—all the stories I have written from ‘Antonina’ to ‘The Woman in White’ would have been told in dramatic form. Whether their success as plays would have been equal to their success as novels, it is not for me to decide; But if I know anything of my own faculty, it is a dramatic one” (2005a, 208).

As his editor in Household Words, Dickens was already Collins’s superior. John Forster’s extensive biography of Dickens, published between 1872–4, has been widely charged with marginalising Collins’s role in Dickens’s career, while other biographies of both Dickens (Slater 2009) and Collins (Peters 1991 and Pykett 2005) have foregrounded their personal rather than professional relationship. Other critics across the twentieth century, including J.W.T. Ley in 1924, T.S. Eliot in 1927, K.J. Fielding in 1953, Lonoff in 1982, and, more recently, Anthea Trodd (1999), and Jerome Meckier (1995), have focused instead on their mutual influence as writers.

Other, more recent, critics supporting Collins’s independent literary skills include Lillian Nayder (2010) and Pearson (2015). Two of Dickens’s and Collins’s collaborative adaptation projects highlight their different approaches to writing: The Frozen Deep (1857) and No Thoroughfare (1867). Pearson describes No Thoroughfare, both as fictional story and as play, as an “experiment in symbiosis,” which “challenges the notion that the play is always the adaptation of an original fiction by creating two versions of the same narrative in two different forms” (2015, 124–46).

As discussed in Chap. 2, Burnett enthusiastically involved herself in adaptations of her plays. Her collaborators included Stephen Townsend (whom she later married), Constance Fletcher (writing as George Fleming), Julian Magnus, and William Gillette, and she experienced varying success both in terms of the adaptations’ reception and of her collaborative working relationships.

Kendal offers a historical account from a practitioner’s perspective, which originated in a paper she presented at the Congress of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science in Birmingham in September 1884.

Dickens consulted Reade regarding an unauthorised adaptation of his and Collins’s collaborative short story from 1860, “A Message from the Sea,” for which they had already registered a dramatic version. Dickens sought legal advice from Reade, who was by that time regarded as an expert in copyright law, and on his advice, resolved the matter, see Lauriat (2009, 19).

Taylor was a prominent dramatist, who also championed authors’ rights. For example, as first Chairman of the Association to Protect the Rights of Authors in 1875.

Wayne Burns discusses both the book and the play, looking at Reade’s public declarations regarding his defence, as well as his private writings on the matter (1961, 114–19).

This is also the case regarding film adaptations and screenwriters, discussed in subsequent chapters.

Powell (1997) suggests this was the case until “at least 1888,” the year in which Burnett triumphed in her court case and with her own adaptation, as well as the year when the Berne Convention became more widely observed.

The reviews of her works perceived her to be more successful as a novelist than as a dramatist. For example, a review of her play, Genevieve; or, The Missing Witness, performed at the Royal Alexandra Theatre in Liverpool, reports that: “Miss Braddon’s enthusiastic reception, on Monday evening, was a tribute paid rather to her popularity as novel-writer than her success as a dramatist” (Porcupine review 11 April 1874).

Holder suggests that Braddon’s plays “reveal a decidedly combative attitude toward the theatrical conventions of their time, particularly as regards gender roles,” with “the unjustly persecuted female—particularly the wife” being her “favored theme.” She argues that “Braddon’s status was a very live issue, and part of a distracting ‘drama’ in itself,” as “[t]heatrical managers of the time exhibited great concern about the ‘respectability’ of their theatres, and were defensive about charges of immorality.” She suggests that the scandal about her “living arrangements” with John Maxwell will have been more harmful to her career as a playwright than as a novelist (2000, 166–7; 176–7).

Although there were some exceptions to this in film too, as the case of Elinor Glyn shows (see Chap. 5).

Adams, Amanda. 2011. Performing Ownership: Dickens, Twain, and Copyright on the Transatlantic Stage. American Literary Realism 43 (3): 223–241.CrossRef

———. 2016. Performing Authorship in the Nineteenth-Century Transatlantic Lecture Tour. London: Routledge.CrossRef

Allen, Emily. 2003. Theater Figures: The Production of the Nineteenth-Century British Novel. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Andrews, Malcolm. 2006. Charles Dickens and His Performing Selves: Dickens and the Public Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Archer, William. 1882. English Dramatists of Today. London: Sampson Low.

Arnheim, Rudolf. 1932 [1957]. Film as Art. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Babbitt, Irving. 1910. The New Laocoőn: An Essay Upon the Confusion of the Arts. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Baker, Martin. 2016. The Rise of the Victorian Actor. London; New York: Routledge.

Balázs, Béla. 1924, 1930 [2010]. Early Film Theory: Visible Man and The Spirit of Film. . Ed. Erica Carter. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Bancroft, Squire, and Marie Bancroft. 1888. Mr. & Mrs. Bancroft on and Off the Stage (Written By Themselves). London: R. Bentley and son.

———. 1909. The Bancrofts: Recollections of Sixty Years. London: E.P. Dutton.

Booth, Michael R. 1975. The Social and Literary Context. In In The Revels History of Drama in England. Volume VI: 1750–1880, 1–58. London: Methuen.

———. 1991. Theatre in the Victorian Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Braddon, Mary Elizabeth. 1863a. Aurora Floyd.

———. 1863b. Eleanor’s Victory.

Burns, Wayne. 1961. Charles Reade: A Study in Victorian Authorship. New York: Bookman Associates.

Carnell, Jennifer. 2000. The Literary Lives of Mary Elizabeth Braddon: A Study of Her Life and Work. Hastings: The Sensation Press.

Cheltenham Examiner. 8 January 1862. Charles Dickens’s Readings, 4. The British Newspaper Archive. Web. July 2018.

Collins, Wilkie. 1852 [2008]. Basil. Ed. Dorothy Goldman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 1858. Dramatic Grub Street. Household Words XVII: 265–270.

———. 1859–60/1860. The Woman in White. Ed. John Sutherland. 1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 1870. Man and Wife.

———. 1871. Miss or Mrs?.

———. 1872. Poor Miss Finch.

———. 1873. The New Magdalen.

Collins, Philip, ed. 1975. Charles Dickens: The Public Readings. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Collins, Wilkie. 2005a. The Public Face of Wilkie Collins: The Collected Letters. Ed. Andrew Gasson, Graham Law and William Baker. Vol. 1. London: Taylor & Francis Group.

———. 2005b. In The Public Face of Wilkie Collins: The Collected Letters, ed. Andrew Gasson, Graham Law, and William Baker, vol. 2. London: Taylor & Francis Group.

Collins, Wilkie, and Charles Dickens. 1867. No Thoroughfare and Other Stories. Stroud: Sutton Publishing.

Cox, Philip. 2000. Reading Adaptations: Novels and Verse Narratives on the Stage, 1790–1840. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Daily Telegraph. 11 October 1871. The Woman in White Review, 2.

Davis, Tracy C., and Ellen Donkin. 1999. Women and Playwriting in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dickens, Charles. 1836–37/1837. The Pickwick Papers.

———. 1838–9/1839 [2008]. Nicholas Nickleby. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 1859 [1998]. A Tale of Two Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dramatist, A. 1888. Playwriting: A Handbook for Would-Be Dramatic Authors. London: The Stage Office.

Easley, Alexis. 2013. Literary Celebrity, Gender and Victorian Authorship, 1850–1914. Newark: University of Delaware Press.

Egan, Pierce. 1821. Life in London.

Eliot, T.S. 1927. Wilkie Collins and Dickens. In Selected Essays, 373–382. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Elliott, Kamilla. 2003. Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Every Saturday. 18 September 1869. Originality. VIII (194): 365–366.

Field, Kate. 1871. Pen Photographs of Charles Dickens’s Readings: Taken From Life. London: Trübner & Co.

Fielding, K.J. 1953. Dickens and Wilkie Collins: A Reply. Dickensian 49: 130–136.

Fitz-Gerald, S. J. Adair. 1910. Dickens and the Drama. New York: Scribner’s Sons.

Glass, Loren. 2004. Authors Inc.: Literary Celebrity in the Modern United States, 1880–1980. New York: New York University Press.

Holder, Heidi J. 2000. Misalliance: M.E. Braddon’s Writing for the Stage. In Beyond Sensation: Mary Elizabeth Braddon in Context, ed. Madeleine Tromp et al., 165–182. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Illustrated London News. July 1858. Mr Dickens has invented … 33: 100. Illustrated London News Historical Archive, 1842–2003. Web. May 2023.

Jackson, Russell. 1989. Victorian Theatre. London: A & C Black.

Jellenik, Glenn. 2018. Adaptation’s Originality Problem: ‘Grappling with the Thorny Questions of What Constitutes Originality’. In The Routledge Companion to Adaptation, ed. Dennis Cutchins, Katja Krebs, and Eckart Voigts, 182–193. London: Routledge.CrossRef

Jenkins, Anthony. 1991. The Making of Victorian Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Kendal, Madge. 1884. The Drama. London: David Bogue.

———. 1890. Dramatic Opinions. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Laird, Karen E. 2015. The Art of Adapting Victorian Literature 1848–1920: Dramatizing Jane Eyre, David Copperfield, and The Woman in White. London: Routledge.

Lauriat, Barbara. 2009. Charles Reade’s Roles in the Drama of Victorian Dramatic Copyright. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 33 (1): 1–36.

Law, Graham, and Andrew Maunder. 2008. Wilkie Collins: A Literary Life. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. 1766 [2005]. Laocoőn: An Essay Upon the Limits of Painting and Poetry. Trans. Ellen Frothingham. 1898. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Ley, J.W.T. 1924. Wilkie Collins’s Influence upon Dickens. Dickensian 20 (2): 65–69.

Lonoff, Sue. 1982. Wilkie Collins and His Victorian Readers: A Study in the Rhetoric of Authorship. New York: AMS Press.

Marsh, Joss. 2009. Dickensian ‘Dissolving Views’: The Magic Lantern, Visual Story-Telling, and the Victorian Technological Imagination. Comparative Critical Studies 6 (3): 333–346.CrossRef

Maunder, Andrew. 2013. Sensation Fiction. In The Cambridge Companion to Sensation Fiction, ed. Andrew Mangham, 52–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Meckier, Jerome. 1995. Hidden Rivalries in Victorian Fiction: Dickens, Realism, and Revaluation. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Meisel, Martin. 1983. Realizations: Narratives, Pictorial and Theatrical Arts in Nineteenth-Century England. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Miller, J. Hillis, and David Borowitz. 1971. Charles Dickens and George Cruikshank: Papers Read at a Clark Library Seminar on May 9, 1970. Los Angeles: University of California.

Moncrieff, William Thomas. July 1837, Strand Theatre. Playbill: Sam Weller! Or the Pickwickians. British Library Collection Items. Web. May 2023.

———. 1837. Sam Weller! Or the Pickwickians. London: Forgotten Books. Classic Reprint Series.

Moody, Jane. 2000. Illegitimate Theatre in London, 1770–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morash, Karen. 2022. Playwriting Manuals, 1888–1925: Jerome K. Jerome, Alfred Hennequin, Agnes Platt, and Moses Malevinsky. New Theatre Quarterly 38 (4): 362–378.CrossRef

Nayder, Lillian. 2010. Unequal Partners: Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins, and Victorian Authorship. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRef

Newey, Katherine. 2005. Women’s Theatre Writing in Victorian Britain. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

———. 2010. Theatre. In The Cambridge Companion to Victorian Culture, ed. Francis O’Gorman, 119–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Nicoll, Allardyce. 1925. British Drama. London: Harrap.

———. 1949. A History of Late Nineteenth-Century Drama 1850–1900. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Norwood, Janice. 2007. Sensation Drama? Collins’s Stage Adaptation of The Woman in White. In Wilkie Collins: Interdisciplinary Essay, ed. Andrew Mangham, 222–236. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

———. 2015. Adaptation and the Stage in the Nineteenth Century. Nineteenth Century Theatre and Film 42 (1): 3–8.CrossRef

Patten, Robert L. 2012. Charles Dickens and “Boz”: The Birth of the Industrial-Age Author. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Pearson, Richard. 2015. Victorian Writers and the Stage: The Plays of Dickens, Browning, Collins and Tennyson. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Peters, Catherine. 1991. The King of Inventors: A Life of Wilkie Collins. London: Secker & Warburg.

Porcupine. 11 April 1874. Miss Braddon in Liverpool. Review 28.

Powell, Kerry. 1997. Women and Victorian Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Pykett, Lyn. 2005. Wilkie Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reade, Charles. 1853. Peg Woffington.

———. 1872. Shilly-Shally.

———. [1875] 1882. The Rights and the Wrongs of Authors. In Readiana: Comments on Current Events. London: Chatto and Windus.

———. 1875. Trade Malice: A Personal Narrative. London: Samuel French.

Reade, Charles and Tom Taylor. 1852. Masks and Faces.

Salmon, Richard. 2013. The Formation of the Victorian Literary Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Saturday Review. 8 December 1888. The Renaissance of the Drama. lxvi: 76.

Schlicke, Paul. 1988. Dickens and Popular Entertainment. London: Unwin Hyman.

Select Committee on the Dramatic Arts. 1836. Report from the Select Committee On Dramatic Literature: With the Minutes of Evidence. 1832. Selection of Reports and Papers of the House of Commons: Literary and Scientific. Vol. 32.

Slater, Michael. 2009. Charles Dickens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Smith, Grahame. 2003. Dickens and the Dream of Cinema. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Stephens, John Russell. 1980. The Censorship of English Drama, 1824–1901. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Szwydky, Lissette Lopez. 2020. Transmedia Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: Ohio State University Press.CrossRef

Times. 12 October 1871. Olympic Theatre. London, 27192: 4. The Times Digital Archive. Web. July 2018.

Trodd, Anthea. 1999. Collaborating in Open Boats: Dickens, Collins, Franklin, and Bligh. Victorian Studies 42 (2): 201–225.CrossRef

Trollope, Anthony. 1871. Ralph the Heir.

Wagner, Geoffrey. 1975. The Novel and the Cinema. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Titel: Changes in Writer Stratifications across Media in Nineteenth-Century Britain
verfasst von: Annie Nissen
Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland
Buch: Authors and Adaptation
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-46821-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-46822-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46822-3_3