
3
doesn’t. Bradbury uses all manner of literary allusions in his novel, but there is no reference to
Bunyan, despite its appropriateness.
The allusion is actually to be found in a radio play, a dramatization of Fahrenheit 451
produced by BBC Radio in 2003, and written by David Calcutt. Calcutt doesn’t just use The
Pilgrim’s Progress for a throwaway quotation, but instead uses it to establish some of the
mystery of Guy Montag and his role in life: the play begins with the passage being read over a
dreamlike sound collage, and the quotation returns as if in a haunting dream, just as Bunyan’s
entire book is framed as being “delivered under the similitude of a dream”. Later, The Pilgrim’s
Progress turns out to be the book that Montag steals, and at the play’s end it also becomes the
text which Montag chooses to commit to memory.
Calcutt’s play clearly has strong connections to Bradbury’s novel. Linda Hutcheon defines
an adaptation as “an extended, deliberate, announced revisitation of a particular work of art”
(170), a definition which accurately encompasses Calcutt’s play. Clearly, though, the play is not
identical to Bradbury’s novel. In fact, the first reaction of a naïve listener might be to object that
Calcutt has changed Fahrenheit 451; that he hasn’t followed the “true” story in which Montag
actually steals many books, and first reads from Gulliver’s Travels and The Life of Samuel Johnson
rather than from The Pilgrim’s Progress; Calcutt has not faithfully adapted the Bradbury novel.
There is no doubt that such a position, which adopts an argument for “fidelity”, is quite
common and still informs some published reviews whenever, say, a book is adapted into a film,
or a film is adapted into a computer game (Hutcheon 7). However, in the community of critics of
literature, film and popular culture, the fidelity argument has long been dismissed on the
grounds that fidelity is impossible to achieve: the differences between one medium and another
are legion, and the adjustments required when taking a work into a new medium are
unavoidable.
In recent decades the critical discourse has moved beyond fidelity and instead explores
more interesting ideas, such as how one work of art can inform another, or how one work can
comment on another. Thinking of adaptations as translations or re-mediations – literally being
transformed from one medium to another – enables us to think of an adaptation as being
inevitably multi-layered (Hutcheon uses the word “multilaminated”), and often leading the
reader’s or viewer’s thoughts to oscillate actively between the original work and the adaptation
even as they read or watch (6). Hutcheon suggests we even avoid referring to an “original work”,