A crucial scene accurately encapsulates the philosophy that pervades both Chuck Palahniuk's original novel Fight Club and David Fincher's film adaptation is the so-called sacrifice scene human. Overall, there is fidelity between the adaptation and the original, however, the sacrifice scene in particular stands out as creatively delineating the two works. Palahniuk's version has the narrator pointing a gun at convenience store owner Raymond K. Hessel, interrogating him, and threatening the clerk with death unless he returned to pursuing his former ambitions. The narrator tells him, “You could be at school working your ass off, Raymond Hessel, or you could be dead” (Palahniuk 154). The film instead portrays this act as perpetrated by Durden. The narrator is present in the scene, however, the script calls for him to "grow even paler […] slump[ed] against a tree" (Fight Club). This makes the Narrator seem passive rather than active. Why then would Fincher choose to portray the scene the way he did, and what does this change mean for the film? I propose that the difference exists to add a visual element to the essential aspects of the story, as well as satisfy the artistic expectations of the audience. of work. Since this alteration is Fincher's most significant edit, it ultimately helps answer the question of when an adaptation is different from the original work. The addition of Durden to the scene helps maintain the idea that he and the Narrator are separate people. Later in the film and book, the narrator realizes that Tyler is actually him, a split personality created by insomnia. The film portrays this through flashback methods. Up until this point, it was necessary to maintain a clear distinction between the two... middle of paper... the departure is significant because it alters the fundamental relationship between the main characters and gives the audience of the film they would have a different impression of it than in the one that the readers of the novel would have. Despite the difference in which character is important in the scene, it is important to note that the overall feeling remains. The act of threatening Hessel is inherently nihilistic and sadistic. This is a fact regardless of who holds the gun to Hessel's head. Fincher's choices show that to create a truly successful adaptation two criteria must be met. First, the story must be changed enough to allow the works to be considered analogous rather than complementary. Equally important is that the film is philosophically faithful to the novel. This shows that even if an adaptation maintains the same central message, it can still be a distinctly separate work of art.