As a follow up from the District Chair Feedback forms of last spring and the numerous comments received by the many talented interpretation coaches who responded to the Interpretation Questionnaire distributed at the 2005 NFL Nationals, this article will attempt to discuss a second issue that seemed to be a genuine interpretation concern cited by both groups. An earlier concern was discussed in the December Rostrum. (“Stop Cloning Around” and addressed the issue of cloning or impersonating the final round interpretation tapes.)

This second concern involves the issue of adapting a script as opposed to a true interpretation of a script for the interpretation events.

In my opinion there is a monumental difference between the concepts of adaptation and interpretation. As much as I hate to open this can of worms, this issue definitely involves the ubiquitous concept of what we often refer to as “author’s intent.” Let’s face it coaches, we already violate “true” author’s intent. Most literature, with the exception of some ready-made cuttings, is never meant to be presented in a ten- minute segment; they are never meant to be performed by one character; (Yes, I know there are a few exceptions to that.) They are usually meant to be performed in costume, with props, scenery, lighting, etc. We violate this “true” intent not out of a sense of being unfair or uninformed but because our rules require time limits, no props, no scenery, etc. My much larger concern is when we openly violate the author’s intent for the sole purpose to WIN! An adaptation should never be the reason a student wins a round of competition. If, for example, a contestant in humorous interpretation adds multiple sound effects, adds a number of words here and there, changes a character to someone who has been in the news recently, is the performer sharing the literature with his/her audience or sharing an adaptation of the original? (Cummings, 1999)

As one of the National Tournament Ombudsmen since 1996, I have met some wonderful coaches and students. I have made some life-long friends. I have learned some incredible things about competitive speech and humanity in general, but upon occasion, I have had to uphold an unpleasant challenge or protest. At the 1998 NFL Nationals I had the unfortunate experience and unpleasant task of upholding a disqualification of a young man in humorous interpretation. The young man performing the selection was remarkably talented! He had made the break to the semi finals! (As a side note, I always wonder why it took this long to be challenged but I will save that issue for another article.) The problem: The contestant had decided to include a large number of lines from such programs as “Bay Watch,” “Beeves and Butt Head,” and even a few from “Seinfield.” When I asked the young man why he had chosen to do this and distort the author’s original lines, his answer was honest and simplistic. “I did it to jazz up the piece. The ones used in the “original” were just old and tired and not nearly as funny as the ones I chose.” He and his coach later argued that they were simply “adapting” the script to a newer audience. My answer was, “Isn’t that what the author would need to do?” After a careful review of the student’s script, over 280 new words, phrases and entire paragraphs had been added.

When we examine the most basic definitions of the concept of “adaptation” we find:

Adaptation:

(1) to make fit for; or change to suit a new purpose.
(2) A composition that has been recast into a new form.

Interestingly also are the synonyms given for the word adaptation:

Adaptation: adjustment, alteration, conversion, refitting, remodeling, reworking, and transformation.

In my opinion, all of the definitions or synonyms clearly violate that nebulous concept of author’s intent. While I agree that true author’s intent is difficult to adhere to given our rules and restraints, I also believe it is easy to identify when the actual author’s intent has been so clearly violated.

The debate over “author’s intent” will continue long after my time and perhaps Cyrill Connolly provides us with a great analogy when he stated, “A river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a life time as to which is the main river.” However, when a student/coach clearly recasts a selection into a new form or overtly makes changes to suit a totally new purpose, the violation of intent is much easier to recognize and acknowledge.

A very difficult issue is what can be done about blatant violations of author’s intent? This is a tough one folks!

Initially, the problem we face is that many of our judges do not know every script that is out there. How could any of us given the wonderful and vast amount of literature that abounds? Secondly, many areas utilize parent judges (and they are great) and through no fault of their own, have even less knowledge of material that is being presented. Thus, what they see being presented is what they believe the literature generated as written. I think it also plausible that as an interpreter adds his/her inventions/phrases/gimmicks and see his/her ranks, his/her laughs increasing, they continue to alter and remodel the literature with little worry about getting caught. In the ombudsmen’s room, a student’s coach whose material had been challenged has also told me, that he had no idea that these changes/additions/remodeling had been done. I do think there is a solution to this dilemma. We all need to listen to our students during rounds! I know many of you do this and I applaud you! I have often told my own students that no matter how many times we practice in the classroom, we simply can’t duplicate the actual competitive situation! I believe we all need to watch our students during competitions not just to evaluate author intent but for a myriad of other evaluative tools that will benefit the student and their performance. Again, I applaud those of you who watch your students during performance rounds and if you don’t, I encourage you to start doing this at your next opportunity.

In order to further explain this issue of adaptation vs. interpretation, I called and asked interpretation coach extraordinare, NFL Hall of Fame Member, and good friend Donovan Cummings from Stockton, California, for his permission to use several examples he noted in an article in the April 1, 1999, California State Speech Bulletin. (This is a superb publication and I learn something in every issue I receive!)

Please note that neither Mr. Cummings nor my comments are meant to imply any intentional illegal behavior on the part of any coach or student. The examples are meant merely to serve as food for thought.

Equus: In this example the student added speeches for the horse when the boy was alone with his favorite horse. In the play, the boy talks to the horse; he feels communication with the horse. Mr. Cummings posits an excellent observation at this point when he noted that if the horse had been a speaking character in the play, he was sure he would have said something very similar to what was added. Mr. Cummings went on to mention that the added lines were beautiful and touching. However, the horse never speaks in the play and we are left with the question, was it a legitimate change to the script?

The Boys Next Door: Mr. Cummings illustrates an even more poignant example from this play. This is an example of a minor script change, but did the change justify the student’s interpretation of the main character? The original script reads:

“My name is Jack Palmer. For the past eight months I’ve been supervising five group apartments of the mentally handicapped...the idea is to introduce them into the mainstream...Lucien and Norman are retarded. Arnold is marginal...Barry, on the other hand, really doesn’t belong here in the first place. He’s a grade A schizophrenic with a chronic history of institutions."

The student performance began:

“My name is Jack Palmer. For the past eight months I’ve been supervising five group apartments for the mentally handicapped. The idea is to introduce them into the mainstream. One of the men, Barry, is mentally retarded with a chronic history of institutions.”

In this selection, the student portrayed Barry as mentally retarded. If Barry were played that way in a play production of that script, the author’s intent of “mentally handicapped” would have been destroyed. Again, we must ask, is this a legitimate change in the script? Did the contestant hold true to the author’s intent?

Mr. Cummings final example is especially astute.

Zooman and the Sign: In the wonderful play, Zooman and the Sign by Charles Fuller, the play focuses on the effects of an accidental killing of a young black girl by a hoodlum, violent Black teenager called “Zooman.” Beyond the personal family reactions to the tragedy, the play deals with a community’s fears created by the violence. It is not a play about “racial” violence. It is a play about Black on Black violence. In a duo interpretation Mr. Cummings observed, Zooman was changed and introduced as a white teen who had killed a black girl; a play about the Black community’s reaction to a racial killing. Mr. Cummings further noted that the performance was creative and touching—BUT a fair interpretation of the script?

Mr. Cummings and I both agree that more than one interpretation of a script can be enlightening, fascinating and defensible. Professional directors and actors interpret scripts differently. The key and defensible term here is “INTERPRET”, not change; not make the script an adaptation from the original!

In my opinion, we must establish some type of standard(s) that demand performances of scripts as written by the authors. Cuttings, changes because of profanity, time constraints, must be as honest as possible to the original author’s intent. There is no way we should destroy creativity or not be able to seek new and fascinating presentations of a work. That mission is the fantastic challenge that the outstanding interper and coach should seek.

George Santayana stated: “A jewel should not be painted over; but it may be set to advantage and shown in a good light.” We all must continue to work hard to insure that the literature (our jewel) is not changed and yet can be interpreted and displayed in the best possible light to maximize its original brilliance!

We need to leave Adaptations to the Steven Spielberg’s and Peter Jackson’s of the world!

Cummings, Donovan, “Legitimate Changes in Interpretation Scripts,” The California Speech Bulletin. April 1, 1999. Volume XXXVI, No. 2. p. 4.

Hall of Fame member Don Crabtree has been coaching for 35 years at Park Hill High School in Kansas City, (MO). He is a six diamond coach. Don currently serves as Vice President of the NFL Executive Council.