In McFarlane's words, 'the critic who quibbles at failures of fidelity is realy saying no more than: "This reading of the original does not tally with mine in these and these ways."' (McFarlane, p. 9). .
Critic's encourage the idea that 'faithfulness' is not only possible, but also desirable. Maurice Beja, on the other hand, is singled out by McFarlane, because he asks, 'What relationship should a film have to the original source? Should it be "faithful"? Can it be? To what? .
McFarlane reminds us that in attempting to be faithful---perhaps in recreating 'Dickens' London'---a film can produce a quaint period-piece while the novel would have had a contemporary feel. .
The 'Fidelity' issue obscures other aspects too: while some critics complain adaptations lessen great novels, what is lost is any consideration of the production process which might impact upon a film. The source novel is then---to draw upon the notion of intertextual relations---but one part of the context of an adaptation. An adaptation might be better understood by considering not 'fidelity' but, for example, the way in which it may be part of the way in which Hollywood represents say, 'Englishness', or a film might be better understood by considering the way it relates to other films of the same genre or from the same director. We might also consider casting, the studio's financing and marketing of a film, etc., etc. .
Geoffrey Wagner proposed considering adaptations according to broad categories which, according to MacFarlane, help move us on from the hegemony of fidelity. The first of Wagner's three categories is the transposition which is a near literal transposition-that is, with the 'minimum of apparent interference'. His second is the commentary in which the film maker has a 'different intention' from the novelist. Third is what he calls analogy which is markedly differs from the original text and is, as such, 'a different work of art'.
