Adaptation: Not the "Bad" Guy

"Therefore, adapters are first interpreters and then creators."
     After reading that, I was able to see adaptation in an entirely different light than, "Hide 'yo words, hide 'yo book; they be adapting everything out in here." I will freely admit that, as an avid reader, I judge many other forms of art based on how well they represent the book I already love. But, as this quote states (the first one and not the slanted quote I played on words with), that isn't really the point of adaptation. The point is to, weirdly enough, create some new sparkle or magic from something that already exists in greatness.
     As the chapter says, "different things get adapted and in different ways" (12). The author then proceeds to explain how the different mediums engage new audiences and in those "different ways." It isn't all about using the book as a script; it is about making the story intriguing for another medium and a new audience and, when done correctly, an adept adapter could certainly keep the spirit of the book alive while at the same time placing their own stamp on it in a way that helps even old followers stop, think, and see the story in a new light.
     I imagine this would be true of other mediums, as well. It's odd that I never really thought about this, but the author uses historical accounts and art even as an adaptable examples. People can honestly adapt anything--not just books--and they don't do it to steal another person's work. They do it to show their own creative brain waves and "make the adapted material one's own" (20). At times, that could be just what is needed to help someone understand or relate to a story better, and how can I judge that as harshly as I have been?