The present research explores the reasons why contemporary theoreticians of adaptation studies spurn “fidelity criticism.” With an increase in the production of adaptation with the advent of the cinema, there appeared a critical approach known as “fidelity criticism” in which the extent of the fidelity of the adapter to the adapted was investigated. Since this approach considers the adapted as a touchstone to evaluate the adapter and since it implicitly acknowledges the superiority of the former over the latter, postmodern critics, who frequently advocate alternative views and readings, struggle to release the adapter from being overshadowed by the adapted in order to let them express their unique message in the modern era. By referring to contemporary theories, the present research explores the whyness of the necessity for avoiding “fidelity criticism” as a touchstone for the evaluation of adaptation. To this end, the question of adaptation is expounded in the light of canon, logocentrism, and minor literature in order to study the likelihood of the ideological working of “fidelity criticism” as an apparatus in the hands of power. While the fact that “fidelity criticism” cannot be an appropriate criterion for the evaluation of adaptation has been frequently pointed out, the howness of its contribution to power discourse is an issue that has not been investigated in a coherent research, an attempt that can lead to a better understanding of the whyness of the rejection of “fidelity criticism.”
