"Adaptation" originally began as a scientific term, but from 1860 to today it most often refers to an altered version of a text, film, or other literary source. When this term was first analyzed, humanities scholars often measured adaptations against their source texts, frequently privileging "original" texts. However, this method began to shift when scholars like Brian McFarlance, Deborah Cartmell, and Imelda Whelehan outlined the negative consequences of source text bias. More recently, Linda Hutcheon argued that adaptation is worthy of study in its own right (2006). Furthermore, as Brian A. Rose has noted, serial adaptations respond to cultural and societal changes, helping us trace the relationship between the earliest definitions of adaptation and more contemporary understandings of adaptation. For example, "Little Red Riding Hood" shows how adaptations change through time, each focusing on a social concern prevalent at the time in which it was produced. Lastly, as John Stephens and Robyn McCallum argue, while "retellings of traditional stories may seem intellectually and culturally oppressive, there are always possibilities for resistance, contestation, and change" (p. 8)--thus confirming the importance of attending to, carefully considering, and drawing theoretical conclusions about altered or emended versions of familiar texts.