19
Journal of Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice, 2(3), Fall, 2024
and the screen and they force directors to search beneath the surface of the text and recreate it in
visual and aural medium (2007, p. 62). Readers of a literary text actively construct their own
interpretations of the depicted settings, fostering a receptiveness to alternative representations of the
same work. This dynamic explains the considerable appeal of adaptations, as they offer fresh
perspectives on familiar narratives. In his article “Literature on screen: A History in the Gap” (2007),
Timothy Corrigan sheds light on the importance of “Specificity and Fidelity” in adaptations:
“Specificity assumes that different representational practices, such as literature and film, have
individual material and formal structures that distinguish and differentiate them from other practices.
Conversely, fidelity is a differential notion that purportedly measures the extent to which a work of
literature has been accurately recreated (or not) as a movie” (2007, p. 31). These two terms are crucial
in both classical literary texts and their adaptations. As he asserts, “Due to the canonical status and
historical longevity of a Shakespeare play or a Dickens novel, cinematic adaptations typically have
little chance of usurping their authority; thus, the adaptation is often perceived as ‘unfaithful’ to some
extent” (p. 32). Therefore, specificity suggests a sense of textual purity revealed especially through
and in its proper discipline, and fidelity to a source suggests the rights of the original that must be
acknowledged and ideally adhered to (p. 32).
In an article titled “Adaptation and Mis-adaptation,” Francesco Casetti discusses what are
commonly referred to as “bad adaptations,” which will henceforth be termed “mis-adaptations.” He
claims that sometimes mis-adaptations happen because “the movie does not distance itself enough
from the source, rather it remains attached to it” (p. 88). He also mentions that, “mis-adaptation
sometimes caused by an excess distance not of closeness, the transformation has been too ambitious
and the journey from the text to the derivative text has been too long so, the connection between the
two has been lost” (p. 89).
Maytawee Holasut in an article examines Truffaut’s adaptation, noting that, “In terms of its
transpositional capacity, Truffaut’s adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 retains the core elements of the
novel, namely the plot and the main characters, with some alteration to the context and setting of the
story” (p. 6). He claims that Truffaut’s adaptation is trying to picture James Bond in a post-
apocalyptic world. “Truffaut’s vision and aesthetic translates into a kind of arty espionage film with
very little fancy gadgetry involved, while dispensing with the apocalyptical atmosphere and tone of
the book entirely” (p. 6). He further argues that one of the major changes in the setting of the film
was the replacement of the mechanical hound, which could detect shifts in the protagonist’s emotions,
with a shaking fire pole, symbolizing the protagonist’s wavering faith (p. 6). However, the
extradiegetic narrative situation remains the same just like the original literary text.
3.
Theoretical framework
Adaptations have a long history, and numerous theoretical frameworks have emerged to analyse and
understand the process of adaptation. Most of them assume that the story is the common denominator
and all that transports across different media and genres. However, Linda Hutcheon further argues
