148Vol. 14, No. 1 (2013)IMAGE [&] NARRATIVE In/Fidelity. Essays on Film Adaptation

Despite both critical and institutional progress over the past decade, it appears that adaptation studies will never be rid of the fidelity debate. David L. Kranz and Nancy C. Mellerski’s collection, entitled In/ Fidelity: Essays on Film Adaptation, exemplifies why: after the theoretical evolution, fidelity adherents have adapted to the changing circumstances by positioning their approach as another alternative within the variety that can be found in adaptation theory and practice. And what reasonable critic will oppose healthy critical diversity? While in this way this volume of essays (which originates from the 2005 Literature/Film Association annual conference) intends to redeem fidelity criticism, it does not set out to undo the field’s progress, but in fact makes a plea for “a plurality of approaches ” in adaptation studies, “rather than the infinity of perspectives promoted by relativistic post-structuralism or the reductive and evaluative approach represented by near-absolute fidelity criticism ” (Kranz & Mellerski 2008: 5). However, although Kranz and Mellerski provide a terrific succinct enumeration of the main arguments against the fidelity approach, they neglect to give sufficient arguments why it should be reinstated. Furthermore, I feel the editors move too quickly through their argumentation, leaving a couple of questions to be asked. Firstly, Kranz and Mellerski argue that “the inevitable logic of post-structuralism [...] threatens to den