The plot goes on, the plot goes on
Twists keep pounding confusion to my brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
Inquiring Readers,
I apologize for reworking Sonny and Cher lyrics and adding them to my recap of Sanditon: Episode Six, but when the Davies’ writing team had 19th century Charlotte saying “Anyway, she’s safe” in discussing Georgiana to a stranger named Susan at a London ball, I was instantly transported out of the Regency era to our own time. Like, you know. Wha’s up with dat?
Our classy Miss Jane did not have any characters say “anyway” in her novel fragment of Sanditon This phrase, uttered late in the episode by Rose Williams, an accomplished and very likable actress, stood out like a gluten-free, plant-based dish at a smoked meat barbecue. Am I nitpicking? Well, yeah. You betcha.
The production values of the ball were gaspingly beautiful, and I loved the dances, although the music was somewhat off putting. While I liked the folksy music at the assembly ball in Sussex, a rural area, I would think that a prestigious London ball would feature more sophisticated airs and the latest musical trends from the continent.
With all the plot twists and confusing goings on in this episode, I imbibed two glasses of pinot noir. Just now I’m having a hard time deciding which plot elements to cover and which to gloss over. I’m sure you’ll mention some I missed in the comments.
Bear with me as I condense 8 pages of notes into a short-ish review. At the start of the episode we see virginal 22-year old Miss Charlotte Heywood galivanting alone to London by stagecoach with only a vague idea of where to find her friend, Georgiana Lambe, who planned to run off with Mr. Otis Molyneux and free herself from the shackles of her guardian, Sidney Parker.
Never mind that no single 19th century lady like Charlotte (or Miss Lambe) would venture forth without a chaperone (recall that dastardly General Tilney cast Catherine Morland out alone from Northanger Abbey on a long journey home and how this appalled Henry and his sister). Disregarding conventions or the services of a maid, our stubborn and loyal heroine is determined to find her friend without an address in a city of a million people. Somehow, in a dark, dank alley, without a GPS, she *happens* to meet Mr. Sidney Parker. Plot-wise, this is not Deus Ex Machina. It is Deus Ex Coincidenta.
Sidney, after an awkward exchange with Charlotte in which he mentions that he despises slavery, suggest that they might find Mr. Molyneux at a meeting of the Sons of Africa, a movement to which he belongs. There they find him speaking at a pulpit. Deus Ex Coincidenta.
Here’s where the plot twists and bends It turns out that Mr. Otis Molyneux never received the letter from Georgiana stating where she would meet him. Someone else met her and abducted her. Speaking to Otis, they discover he owes gambling debts to a Mr. Beecroft.
Sidney and Charlotte rush over to Beecroft’s gambling den and learn that in order to satisfy Otis’s debt, Mr. Beecroft kidnapped Miss Lambe and sold her to a Mr. Howard, a repulsive and dangerous man. This individual, upon learning that Sidney is hot on his heels, absconds with Georgiana to Scotland in order to force her into marriage and gain full access to her fortune.
Sidney, along with Charlotte, chase after Howard in a scene reminiscent of a classic Hollywood movie with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. Sidney’s horses heroically overtake Howard’s carriage, which allows our hero to jump onto the villain’s vehicle. The camera follows Sidney, not the horses, who have probably collapsed on the side of the road from exhaustion after their herculean efforts. It’s hard enough for two horses to pull a heavy vehicle for twelve miles at regular speed, but to ask them to run at a full clip with 2-3 people on board for however long, well, that’s zany. Why did Sidney not go on horseback alone and return with Miss Lambe after rescuing her? Oh, yes, I forgot. Stubborn Charlotte insisted on coming along.
At this point, Davies’ Sanditon, which many episodes ago had left the sophisticated structure of Austen’s unconventional forward-thinking novel fragment, goes backwards in time to gain inspiration from Austen’s fun but melodramatic Juvenilia stories, which were filled with outrageous characters, situations, and histories.
I reached for my second glass of wine while watching the drama unfold among the Denhams and Clara Brereton. As Lady Denham lies dying (she is as mean-spirited as ever), Edward searches for her will in every nook and cranny, room or desk he can think of. Papers are scattered everywhere (one would have thought a servant might have alerted their lady to this dastardly search, but Lady D probably alienated them too.)
In Jane’s novel fragment, Edward is a self-centered buffoon, one who quotes poetry and literature inspired by nature with doltish misunderstanding. In quoting his favorite poets and authors, he blathers reams of nonsense.
Sir E also fancies himself a ladies’ man and a seducer. His personality under Austen’s hand is that of an ineffectual dilettante, one without a fortune. To save himself from poverty, his hopes depend solely on an inheritance from Lady D or a marriage to an heiress. In Davies’ Sanditon, Edward is intentionally malicious. He is a villain, plain and simple – handsome and dangerous – but a plotting SOB.
My attitude towards Esther in Davies’ Sanditon has softened somewhat, since her treatment of Babbington in Episode 5 was not altogether atrocious, but she’s captive to her longing for Edward, which makes her a weak character. Still, I cannot forget her coarse conversations with Clara Brereton, more reminiscent of women in a brothel than maidens reared in privileged environments.
It’s not as if Esther has no prospects. Lady D is more than willing to team her up with Lord Babbington, Sidney’s friend, who possesses the trifecta of a title, estate, and fortune. Hormones have overpowered Esther’s common sense, however, and she prefers to moon over her stepbrother and wait for good fortune to save and unite them.
Jane Austen’s take on the situation differs from Davies’s. In Austen’s Sanditon, Lady D tells Charlotte about Esther:
Miss Esther wants me to invite her and her brother to spend a week with me at Sanditon House, as I did last summer. But I shan’t. She has been trying to get round me every way with her praise of this and her praise of that; but I saw what she was about. I saw through it all. I am not very easily taken in, my dear.”
&
“And Miss Esther must marry somebody of fortune too. She must get a rich husband. Ah, young ladies that have no money are very much to be pitied! But,” after a short pause, “if Miss Esther thinks to talk me into inviting them to come and stay at Sanditon House, she will find herself mistaken. Matters are altered with me since last summer, you know. I have Miss Clara with me now which makes a great difference.”
Then there’s Clara Brereton, Lady D’s companion, whose enviable skill is in her ability to keep Lady D happy. This is how Austen describes her:
…in selecting the one, Lady Denham had shown the good part of her character. For, passing by the actual daughters of the house, she had chosen Clara, a niece—more helpless and more pitiable of course than any—a dependent on poverty—an additional burden on an encumbered circle—and one who had been so low in every worldly view as, with all her natural endowments and powers, to have been preparing for a situation little better than a nursery maid.
Clara had returned with her—and by her good sense and merit had now, to all appearance, secured a very strong hold in Lady Denham’s regard. The six months had long been over—and not a syllable was breathed of any change or exchange. She was a general favourite.”
One critic compared Clara’s situation to Jane Fairfax’s. Both young women, dependent on the kindness of relatives and strangers, had to walk a tightrope in their respective situations. No hint of scandal could be attached to their conduct. Jane Fairfax was successful in hiding her romance with Frank Churchill, but in Davies’ Sanditon, Clara makes brazen movements towards Sir Edward. She’s seen by Charlotte giving him a hand job and in this episode the viewer is given the distasteful experience of watching her writhe with Edward on the floor after they found Lady D’s will and wrangled over their take of the inheritance. What if the servants had walked in on them? How stupid could a single woman with no fortune be?
Austen does hint at Edward’s desire to have Clara for a lover. She writes:
Miss Heywood, or any other young woman with any pretensions to beauty, he was entitled (according to his own view of society) to approach with high compliment and rhapsody on the slightest acquaintance. But it was Clara alone on whom he had serious designs; it was Clara whom he meant to seduce.”
What is Clara’s part in his plans for her seduction? Evidently, she wasn’t born yesterday. Jane describes the following:
Clara saw through him and had not the least intention of being seduced; but she bore with him patiently enough to confirm the sort of attachment which her personal charms had raised. A greater degree of discouragement indeed would not have affected Sir Edward. He was armed against the highest pitch of disdain or aversion. If she could not be won by affection, he must carry her off. He knew his business. Already had he had many musings on the subject. If he were constrained so to act, he must naturally wish to strike out something new, to exceed those who had gone before him; and he felt a strong curiosity to ascertain whether the neighbourhood of Timbuctoo might not afford some solitary house adapted for Clara’s reception.”
Sir Edward’s plans are ambitious and nonsensical, for he has not a sou to his name, and so Austen states:
But the expense, alas! of measures in that masterly style was ill-suited to his purse; and prudence obliged him to prefer the quietest sort of ruin and disgrace for the object of his affections to the more renowned.”
Austen’s rather extensive description of the Denhams in her short twelve paragraphs exceeds her description of Sidney Parker and Miss Lambe, to whom Austen had not given a first name. So the story of the Denhams and Clara Brereton as it unfolds in Davies’ Sanditon is partially Austen’s invention, but in the series’ explicit vulgarity it is all Davies’s.
Episode six ends with the ball. Weeks before, Lord Babbington entered Trafalgar House with invitations to a masked ball in Grosvenor Square, a high end Mayfair address in London. Tom Parker immediately seizes on the idea of taking his friends to the ball and asking them to advertise the regatta in Sanditon to all the ball goers they encounter. This is bad form, but Tom is desperate and his friends’ support might be his last hope for salvaging his finances and reputation.
In a Deus Ex Coincidenta moment, Charlotte meets a lovely older woman named Susan, who shows extraordinary interest in the artless young woman. As Charlotte leaves her new acquaintance, she spots Sidney Parker in deep conversation with a lady. Since Charlotte’s and Sidney’s adventure in rescuing Georgianna, they’ve bonded and become close. Their dance brought them even closer, so one can imagine her shock at seeing him so intimate with a strange woman.
Stay tuned for Episode 7 to see what develops. I, for one, am somewhat miffed that a new character has been introduced so late in the series.
What say you?
Jane Austen's World 
I so agree!!!
Poor Jane!!!
Poor Jane, indeed.
I’ve just discovered this blog because I was looking around to see what others thought of this episode in particular, and have really enjoyed reading all the posts and comments about Sanditon so far!! It’s nice to know that other people are feeling the same way I am about this series.
I especially appreciated your comments about the Denhams and Clara because one of the things that has been missing to me in this series is the comedy and absurdity that I enjoy about Jane Austen stories. The Denhams (and the Parker siblings, who are mostly ignored) were clearly set up to be the silly characters in the original Sanditon fragment, and these characteristics are mostly lost in this version. It comes across overly serious and dark, which makes it feel like a soap opera, in my opinion.
I am also disappointed that Andrew Davies didn’t take this opportunity to develop Sidney and Charlotte into new characters, and instead has re-used a lot of material from other Austen stories, making them mostly like Darcy and Elizabeth in personality. As someone else pointed out, Sidney is getting darker and more angry than Darcy, but I don’t think that’s an improvement. Based on the original descriptions of Sidney, I expected him to turn out more like Henry Tilney (my favorite Austen hero) in humor and wittiness, so I find him highly disappointing.
I enjoy how the characters are developed in the book version of Sanditon that was finished by “a lady.” Admittedly, it’s a bit more like Georgette Heyer than Austen in plot, but definitely fun and enjoyable. I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned that version yet, but I would recommend it to anyone who hasn’t tried it!
We completely agree with you, As we were watching we kept saying “that’s not right” or “that wouldn’t happen” or “they didn’t behave that way” etc. This is not Jane Austen anymore. As my wife said she’s not enjoying it even as a historical drama now as its getting way off base. Reminds me more of a soap opera then something Jane would write. I appreciate you showing the differences between what she wrote, and the way the characters are being portrayed here. We both did like the ball scene, and agreed that they were very interesting dances, although the music left something to be desired in my opinion. We will keep watching it, so as to see it through to the end.
Thanks, Kevin. I felt I had to write my disappointment so late in the series. Honestly, could Davies and his team not have devised a plot closer to an Austen intention? I feel that we are in a Harlequin Romance nightmare.
I sent in a polite ,but critical comment early on to this site regarding the PBS Sandition series and it was never printed. I sent in another comment that it was not printed and this is my third time to let others know. I have never received any response. I don’t know why.
Carol, let me check. If you included a link, I need to approve it. I’ll let you know shortly. I don’t mind criticisms at all, especially those that agree to disagree. Vic
I’ve also been trying to make a comment on this post for a few days and haven’t seen it show up. Let me know if I’m doing something wrong!
I really appreciate the blogs though!!
I’m so sorry that your comments are not coming through. I’ll contact wordpress to find out what is going wrong.
Kirsten, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen all of your posts, so maybe the problem is at your end,
Thank you! It seems I can reply to other comments, but not post my own, for some reason…
Robhban – How interesting, thanks for letting me know! I still can’t see my comment on this post, but I was able to comment on the new one, so the issue seems to be resolved.
Thanks for your help!!
I wondered who this “Susan” is, and why Charlotte felt impelled to recount everything she knew without provocation to a complete stranger. Such a lack of decent reticence! But, of course, one has to see it through to the end….!
Indeed. I was vexed that nothing more of Susan was revealed. Not her last name, nor her title.
I was privy to a number of comments from friends who saw it on UK television, and decided to give it a pass because of these issues. I do wish Davies could learn the difference between discreet titillation and out-and-out vulgarity. Each adaptation seems to get a bit more flagrant than the preceding. I also find it annoying when a writer gives 19th century characters 21st century attitudes and behaviours. It throw me off. However, these are my opinions only.
Lauren, a Janeite friend of mine cautioned me against recapping the series for fear that I might anger fans of the series. That is why I take pains to make a distinction between Jane Austen’s novel fragment and Davies’ version of Sanditon.
Davies has been given license to provide us with visual entertainment and keep the modern audience in mind. Jane, who was firmly entrenched in her era, and who is an extraordinary talent and incomparable genius, can outwit, outwrite, and outplot all but a few authors and writers any day, year, or century.
The Oxford Dictionary says “anyway” is attested from the 1500s, but only in the sense of “by any means”. The “in any case” meaning is first attested from 1859. Now, we know that words are usually in use long before they appear in print, but half a century is stretching it more than a bit!
I found this episode the hardest to accept of all. At times, it sinks to the level of a TV farce, and as Vic so rightly says, there are far too many coincidences. For those who have not yet seen the whole series, fear not: you will soon discover more about Susan.
Thanks for your observation, which had me embark on some research. As I said, nowhere in Sanditon did Jane use the word “anyway”.
I then checked “Persuasion,” in which she used the word 101 times. The term was used most often and consistently by the third person omniscient, then by Mary Musgrove, who used it when exaggerating her symptoms, feelings, and situations. The other Musgroves also used the word, as did Admiral and Mrs. Croft and Lady Russell.
Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth each used “always” once in sentences that were more sophisticated than Charlotte Heyworth’s utterance, and therefore their words took on an early 19th century meaning. RE: Persuasion, it seems that minor, secondary, or comic characters owned the word. The hero and heroine stayed away from it. I’d like to check out Austen’s other novels now that you’ve excited my curiosity.
In the context of Charlotte’s sentence, I was transported to modern days.
As for the coincidences you mentioned, there are more to come. I agree. Davies has led us into a world of TV farce.
I am impressed by your research into “anyway”, Vic.
It sure as hell ain’t Austen. It is entertaining, up to a point, and the production values are impressive. But—-sex on the floor ? Miss Heywood spilling confidences to a stranger she just met at a ball? (Saying “anyway” is the least of it). Jane Austen would be spinning in her grave.
Love your first sentence and the rest of your comment!
I have been reading your reviews with interest as, after the first episode, I could not stomach any more of it. It was so unlike Austen’s writing from the start and it appears to have gone further downhill from there. I am not surprised it takes a wine or two to get through an episode!
If I may be honest, I binge watched the entire series in early January, then promptly forgot the details. Having to watch each episode again for these reviews prompted me to find solace in sol’s fermented juices.
I agree wholeheartedly! So many things occurred that are more modern and not AT ALL what Jane Austen would have written
If Jane would have watched this she would have rolled in her grave…although, if she were around to watch it she wouldn’t be in a grave…I digress…
I decided to watch the show as a “not Jane Austen” mini-series and it was better but it still wasn’t great. However, that being said, I do now have to watch the second season just to find out what happens (since we don’t have a book to find out.)
It’s sad, isn’t it? I don’t want to give away too much for those who still have to watch the next two episodes
I agree about the lack of a chaperone when Charlotte goes haring off to London alone. That was bad enough. Then there was the sudden appearance of Susan, like a seagull had dropped her on the balcony, leaving you going “Wait…what?” The worst part was the panting and tearing of clothes sex scene, which the writer tried to justify in the post-show clip by saying that Jane Austen’s works were full of titillation like affairs, teenage pregnancies, etc. Perhaps. But she didn’t need to smack viewers over the head with an abandoned corset and scream “This is entrancing, appreciate how it was done!”.
Let’s face it, the Georgian era was licentious. London boasted 50,000 prostitutes at the turn of the 19th century. The upper classes, after producing an heir and spare, felt free to bunny around country house corridors. Syphilis and gonorrhea were rampant. Affairs in the upper classes were not unknown. Jane was aware of this licentiousness and hinted at it, but these were undercurrent in her novels.
Davies chose to highlight them and cater to our 21st century sensibilities. He and his team took surface facts and embellished them, but Austen had a deeper mission. Davies’ Sanditon is like an overly sugared cream puff. Jane’s novels feed us, nourish us, and ask us to return to the trough repeatedly.
It’s a pity that Kate Hamill didn’t do the adaptation. The dialog and plot would have been a lot better. We just came back from her latest adaptation as a reading, The Scarlet Letter, which is the best one she has done yet. It will be at a theater in California in a few months. Sanditon needed her.
I’ll be in touch with you regarding this performance. It sounds fantastic.
Thank you for those quotations at the end. I did reread Sanditon but probably not carefully enough. This is much more off-the-cuff, a first response, but in it maybe you will see I agree with you. First I should say I watched Sanditon when it aired on British TV so this is a re-watch — using not PBS, but a BBC commercial set of DVDs.
I must say I forgot this episode utterly. Maybe I slept through it? It is blatantly absurd or nervy — almost parodic, especially the part where Sidney and Catherine are in a coach and four chasing down Georgiana and the bad fat white man, and Sidney swings over to the other coach. I’m sure it was a stunt man (not Theo James).
The film-makers also just didn’t worry themselves over absurd coincidences or anachronisms. Sidney tells Charlotte how can you expect to find X in a million people? well, he did — find Charlotte, find Otis. No problem.
One could say that this episode was enjoyable if you shut off critical faculties on realism but how far can you do this?
How is it a brothel and doesn’t count? When Claire Randall (Outlander) returns to the mid-18th century in Edinburgh and finds Jamie living in a brothel, his living arrangements are seriously accounted for: he is a fence and the brothel gives him a place to store the smuggled in wine. The brothel provides meals and a good bed. She nonetheless is seriously questioning this — so it is much more believable. The Outlander film-makers do what they can to bring us in — there can be no seriousness even of comic art here.
It is true that a black woman could be re-enslaved and they are treating that too lightly. I also again don’t find believable the way Georgiana and Otis behave — nor that Sidney would suddenly change his mind and everyone forgive Otis for what is unforgivable — simply believe him.
There is the melodrama and more over-the-top sex among Esther and Edward Denham and Clara Brereton — all of them fighting over the will. Is it at all likely that Clara and Edward would have sexual intercourse on the floor? She loathes him.I thought he had forced her into what for lack of a better term (pray forgive this) a handjob on him? How are we to believe she will trust him?
In this one –the trajectory of the episode 00 slowly Catherine and Sidney are developing a relationship. They are now like 18th century Sherlock and his gal Friday sidekick. The dancing towards the close is appealing and symbolically we see them falling in love – but it is crass to have him meet “Eliza” (Mrs Cameron now widowed) and end on a cliff hanger because Charlotte is supposed devastated. Wait a minute? is she so in love with him so quickly?
On another crucial point over the course of the novel or film-story I find myself uncomfortable with the way Tom Parker is forgiven. The way he is presented suggests we are to forgive him. He feels sorry all this is happening. He never had any money for his laborers and was lying all along. Old Mr Stringer has died because of Tom Parker. He is only sorry he is not getting his way.
It’s no wonder this series cannot win any award … a shame because Austen’s fragment has much in it — you, Vic, have pointed some of this out — were it to have been seriously developed. I guess that was never in the cards ….
Ellen
As always, Ellen, I am in thrall of your ability to describe what I’m thinking and reacting to a televised story better than me. I agree – Austen’s fragment had much in it. The topic of hypochondria, which she addressed significantly in Sanditon, is treated as a joke by the Davies team. Austen’s wit is rarely shown in this production. We are left with surface plots and devices. This is a missed opportunity.
I like the idea of the 2 glasses of Pinot Noir…or for that matter any other wine of choice. Great summery but may I be more harsh? Depending on the scene it all fluctuated between absurd and extremely vulgar. Poor Jane is, no doubt, spinning in her grave. And so many thoroughly unlikable characters! Even Charlotte is beginning to annoy me and I actually did start out liking her. And I’m glad you pointed out the chaperone-less situations, Vic – so completely incorrect for the early 1800’s. If I make it through the last episode it will only be from sheer perseverance. In spite of that, thanks for taking time to dissect and share, Vic…always enjoyable!
You’re not harsh. You’re realistic. My liver and I thank you for the compliments.
My liver and yours can share a moment next Sunday – I think another glass might make some of this series easier to handle…maybe… ;-)
Imagine my agony! I am allergic to wine so nothing will work to make this easier LOL
I totally agree with you, Vic, and with these comments. You said it very well. This episode was horrendous in so many ways. I’m sad that Jane Austen’s name is connected with it.
Brenda, I wish that this television mini-series was marketed differently. So many viewers who have not read Sanditon are misled into believing that this series is true to Austen’s vision.
To give the writers and producers their due, they did do their research, but Jane’s novels are so much more than stringing together historical facts and research of her past novels and characters. Jane’s gift of wit, satire, and understanding of the human condition was hers uniquely. Only a few humans in a generation are given her wisdom and talent.
On a surface level and as a binge watcher, I enjoyed the series. Sadly, I forgot the plot almost instantly.
As always, your comments hit the mark. I enjoyed the series, but more as a period comedy than anything to do with our Jane.
I forgot all about dear Jane in episode one. Davies sexed this adaptation so much as to make it utterly unrecognizable as Austen. The only aspect of Austen is the reappraisal of each other by Sidney and Charlotte based upon their observations of each other’s behavior. The stupidity of running off to London and then being rescued reminds me more of Samuel Richardson than Austen. Costumes are lovely, but it ain’t Jane.
Debra, Thanks for the Samuel Richardson association. The reappraisal of each other that Sidney and Charlotte repeat over and over has become a romance novel cliche in our era.
While this plot device was used often in Austen’s time, my sense is that it hadn’t grown tired and overused at that time. Sexual tension in romance plots make sense. (I am thinking of Wuthering Heights.) Vulgarity does not have a place nor does stupidity have a part in the Austen canon, not unless she is making fun of the character for a higher purpose.
Costumes are lovely. Sets are divine. Ho hum. I–we–want meatier stuff.
This series is definitely more cast in modern situations and terms than Jane’s. However I think most of the incidents could have had their counterparts in Jane’s times because, as another writer pointed out, the Regency was awash in purient interests. Yes, there was slavery; yes, there were abolitionists, yes, seductions, yes, even forced abductions preceding seductions or rapes. Jane hinted at some in her books. I think Davies, like so many contemporary writers and screenwriters, was caught between a desire to sketch a plot that could have been Austen’s and a need to make sure he had viewers. No, I haven’t liked Sanditon more than other Austen adaptations from any time; yes, I’ve liked it as a light romance with historical overtones. I’m enjoying all the acting and actors, particularly Theo James whom I’ve thought a perfect hero since Divergent.
Bonnie, Thank you for your comment.
“I think Davies, like so many contemporary writers and screenwriters, were caught between a desire to sketch a plot that could have been Austen’s and a need to make sure he had viewers.”
So true, and I’ve alluded to his commercial mission over the past 6 weeks. The marketing was that this version of Sanditon was an extension of Jane Austen’s vision. It is not.
I have no quibble with the actors, who are excellent in their portrayals of their characters and a delight to watch. The plot, however, is heavy handed and shows little of Jane’s light handed touch of satire and wit in developing a story.
In all your other statements about this mini-series I agree with you.
Vic
I very much enjoyed this review Vic. I must say that the worst of Andrew Davies brings out the best of you. I expect Davies has done very well out of Jane Austen with his various adaptations of her work, and he is now taking on the persona of a feckless Regency character (Willoughby perhaps?) who leeches off his maiden aunt while treating her with disrespect, and her property as his own. If he had only called this series ‘Andrew Davies’ Seaside Shenanigans’ or something like, we could be talking about what it is, rather than what it is not.
Great comment, Polly. Regretfully, Davies derailed this anticipated mini-series so much from Austen’s original intention that at this point it has no association with her except for the broadest of outlines. I’m currently reading a Julian Fellowes novel, Belgravia. I think Fellowes would have written a superior continuation for Austen’s last work.
I’ve just discovered this blog because I was looking around to see what others thought of this episode in particular, and have really enjoyed reading all the posts and comments about Sanditon so far!! It’s nice to know that other people are feeling the same way I am about this series.
I especially appreciated your comments about the Denhams and Clara because one of the things that has been missing to me in this series is the comedy and absurdity that I enjoy about Jane Austen stories. The Denhams (and the Parker siblings, who are mostly ignored) were clearly set up to be the silly characters in the original Sanditon fragment, and these characteristics are mostly lost in this version. It comes across overly serious and dark, which makes it feel like a soap opera, in my opinion.
I am also disappointed that Andrew Davies didn’t take this opportunity to develop Sidney and Charlotte into new characters, and instead has re-used a lot of material from other Austen stories, making them mostly like Darcy and Elizabeth in personality. As someone else pointed out, Sidney is getting darker and more angry than Darcy, but I don’t think that’s an improvement. Based on the original descriptions of Sidney, I expected him to turn out more like Henry Tilney (my favorite Austen hero) in humor and wittiness, so I find him highly disappointing.
I enjoy how the characters are developed in the book version of Sanditon that was finished by “a lady.” Admittedly, it’s a bit more like Georgette Heyer than Austen in plot, but definitely fun and enjoyable. I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned that version yet, but I would recommend it to anyone who hasn’t tried it!
Perhaps we should be grateful to Davies for sparking off one of the more interesting conversations we’ve had for a while. I congratulate fellow Austen lovers on their learning and wit. Thanks to our wonderful Vic for providing a platform for our discussion.
It’s crazy and unbelievable — Lady D’s servants are an idle lot, though probably underpaid — but I don’t mind it. You know what they say, there’s one in every crowd. Davies is just borrowing every lurid subplot of all the novels, particularly S & S, and giving it, as you stated, a Northanger Abbey or earlier style. It’s a bit like the “horrid novels” that Catherine and Isabella so loved.
I’ve tried so hard to honor this adaptation, but, as you’ve noticed, by Episode Six I could no longer contain myself. My sarcasm crept in. Lurid is an excellent word to describe so many of the subplots. Thank you for stopping by.