Writers Life | Persuasion: Yes, No, Maybe

The Write and Rong Weigh two Rite

Don’t adjust your television set, people.

All words in the title are spelled correctly, and when placed in that order form a context which reveals the meaning. But they are homophones of the words which I should have used.

‘Thank you, Captain Obvious.’

Speaking of Captain … I’d like to talk about Captain Wentworth, as in Jane Austen’s hero from Persuasion. Actually, I want to talk about Persuasion, one of Jane Austen’s classic romance stories.

Now Jane wrote in her usual style:

“He is a rear admiral of the white. He was in the Trafalgar action, and
has been in the East Indies since; he was stationed there, I believe,
several years.”
“Then I take it for granted,” observed Sir Walter, “that his face is about
as orange as the cuffs and capes of my livery.”
Mr Shepherd hastened to assure him, that Admiral Croft was a very hale,
hearty, well-looking man, a little weather-beaten, to be sure, but not
much, and quite the gentleman in all his notions and behaviour; not
likely to make the smallest difficulty about terms, only wanted a
comfortable home, and to get into it as soon as possible; knew he must
pay for his convenience; knew what rent a ready-furnished house of that
consequence might fetch; should not have been surprised if Sir Walter
had asked more; had inquired about the manor; would be glad of the
deputation, certainly, but made no great point of it; said he sometimes
took out a gun, but never killed; quite the gentleman.

Jane’s work would not do well with an agent in today’s Christian Fiction market.

Her character development is brilliant, for sure, but the way she writes is by telling.

Much, much telling. I had a quick re-read of the opening chapters (I haven’t read it since high school) and found the first two chapters were devoid of any dialogue. They were, in effect, a massive two-chapter information dump. Our writing tutors warn us constantly against such a writing sin. The piece above, from chapter three, includes a couple of short pieces of dialogue, but Mr Shepherd’s answers are all told about, and no action beats are included.

Is this right? Can Jane do that?

Well, she did, and it is one of her six classics, well-known and well-loved.

Of course, many of us may be familiar with her story from having watched the various movie adaptations.

I remember how excited I was when the 1995 version staring Amanda Root and Cirian Hinds was advertised at the small indie-theatre. I gathered a number of friends – none of whom were familiar with Persuasion – and we went for a girl’s night out to the movies. But when I left the cinema, I was disappointed. My imagination had built an image of both Anne and Captain Wentworth that was far more handsome than the chosen actors. (Now I sound like Sir Walter in my shallow judgements). This was not a time of streaming or owning the DVD, so I haven’t watched it since, and probably should. At that time, though, I was not judging the screenwriting or production. I was judging the casting and was disappointed by it.

Thirteen years later, I was living in the UK, and visited Bath. Today’s Bath was interesting, but of course you had to find the places that reflected the Bath of Jane’s time, hidden amongst the noisy, chaotic noises of the 21^st Century. While there, I found a DVD of the newly released 2007 version of Persuasion.

Rupert Penry-Jones was a worthy Captain Wentworth.

Sally Hawkins played Anne, and while the brief for the costume and wardrobe people were that she was past her prime, and not considered a beauty like Elizabeth, I thought they went too far. Her hair style was always harsh and tight, and her costume was always dull, even when going to meet Lady Dalrymple. There, the Sir Walter in me is coming out again.

Having bought the copy of this version, I can now make judgement on the screenplay, and how the writer adapted it for screen. It was quite well done, and reflected the heart of Jane’s original characterisation and plot succinctly. But poor Anne (Sally). They could have let the poor girl’s hair down once in a while.

To yesterday. I braved the watching of the newly released 2022 Netflix version of Persuasion. At first, I was excited, but the trailer gave a certain ‘Brigerton’ air and I became cautious. After its immediate release some writer/reader friends posted their responses, and my fears were confirmed. The screenwriter had ‘adapted’ persuasion right into the 21^st Century, embracing the inclusivity of our time with casting, and rejecting the rules of Jane’s time in language and behaviour.

Armed with low expectations I eventually watched it to judge it for myself. The experience (as I mentioned on Facebook) was like hoping for Star Wars and getting Space Balls.

The purity of the Regency era was ignored. Anachronisms were everywhere, and at times it was plain laughable.

Did I enjoy it? As a version of Persuasion, I guess so.

Where did it rank out of the 4 (including the book)?

Well, to make that judgement, I’d need to go and reread the entire book, and find a copy of the 1995 version to give it a more mature analysis. But at this stage, it would probably rank in the low 25%. Though casting did much better for Anne, casting Dakota Johnson.

The girl they chose for Mary, Mia McKenna-Bruce, did a sterling job of the self-absorbed, demanding younger sister.

When rewriting a classic tale – like Cinderella, Pride and Prejudice, A Christmas Carol – what rules do you think apply in terms of making the story accessible to the millennials?

For example, I watched Clueless the movie many times, and recognised it as an adaptation of Emma.  I liked it, but then it was set in the 1990s, using 1990s language and behaviour, with Austen’s original story as the guide.

I watched 10 Things I Hate About You. Another 1990s adaptation of a classic – Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew. I’m not overly familiar with the Shakespeare version, but loved the Heath Ledger/Julia Stiles 90s interpretation.

Both these movies took classic stories and retold them for the era in which they were produced. The story lines connected with the viewers of that time, but didn’t mess with the purity of the original tale by bringing 1990s language to the Regency period.

I’ve done this just recently, with Carolyn Miller. We have written a 21^st Century retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in Washington State present day. Daring Mr Darcy follows Jane’s original storyline, but doesn’t pretend to be a Regency novel. Carolyn writes Regency, and when she does, she does it properly, without anachronisms.

So what are your thoughts about adaptations of classic works?

Do you enjoy seeing the story set in the historic past, even knowing the behaviour, language and casting inclusivity are anachronistic? Or do you prefer to see historical research applied and writing, costuming and casting to reflect the period?

My last thought on the issue: If we rework all the classics, set them in the past, but represent the past falsely, how will our new and emerging generations understand history?

(Of course, I’m sure Moses didn’t look like Charlton Heston, so there’s that)

If you’re interested in our contemporary retelling of Jane’s classic Pride and Prejudice, you can pre-order on any platform now. It is a complete novel in a multi-novel box set, My Funny Valentine. Currently 99cents classics adaptations of classics for the set. Daring Mr. Darcy