Sanditon by Kate Riordan - My Review

 
Today the review roundup blog tour for Sanditon by Kate Riordan stops here for my review of the book. This is the novelisation of the Sanditon completion mini-series. In the UK, this aired last year, so I've watched the whole series... twice... but it's just started showing in the US. Let's take a look at the blurb and then we will look at what I thought of the book.

Book Description

In the vein of Downton Abbey, Jane Austen's beloved but unfinished masterpiece-often considered her most modern and exciting novel-gets a spectacular second act in this tie-in to a major new limited television series.

Written only months before Austen's death in 1817, Sanditon tells the story of the joyously impulsive, spirited and unconventional Charlotte Heywood and her spiky relationship with the humorous, charming (and slightly wild!) Sidney Parker. When a chance accident transports her from her rural hometown of Willingden to the would-be coastal resort of the eponymous title, it exposes Charlotte to the intrigues and dalliances of a seaside town on the make, and the characters whose fortunes depend on its commercial success. The twists and turns of the plot, which takes viewers from the West Indies to the rotting alleys of London, exposes the hidden agendas of each character and sees Charlotte discover herself... and ultimately find love.

My Review of Sanditon by Kate Riordan

As this is a novelisation of the series I think I should start by telling you (briefly and in as spoiler-free fashion as is possible) what I thought of the series. In preparation for watching it I read the fragment of Sanditon. by Jane Austen. It really is a fragment, introducing a whole cast of characters but not much more. My deduction from the fragment was that Charlotte was a very normal heroine, who I liked very much. Sidney Parker was the likely hero, and pretty much the rest of the characters were comic relief, all of them being odd in their own way. There was clearly rivalry for Lady Denham's money, and Clara Brereton was pitted against the buffoon Sir Edward Denham and his unlikeable sister Miss Denham in the quest of it.

I felt that in the adaptation, in terms of characters some were the same and some were changed - our heroine Charlotte and Lady Denham were the same as I had envisioned, for example, but Sir Edward Denham is most certainly no buffoon, but a ruthless man, focussed entirely on the pursuit of his inheritance. Miss Denham is cold and unlikeable - until I started to pity her, and then I was absolutely on her side, not in securing an inheritance, but in finding the happiness that I felt she deserved. What about the person I had earmarked as a hero, Sidney Parker? Well, he isn't portrayed as the character that I had expected (like Henry Tilney from Northanger Abbey but more handsome, if you are interested!). He's more a Mr Darcy but with less polish and subtlety. I was a bit frustrated by that, because a Mr Darcy-style love/hate hero almost feels like a default choice, due to the success of Pride & Prejudice in popular culture. We literally only just meet Sidney at the end of the fragment. He is described as lively, leading me to expect a light-hearted hero rather than the burdened, sombre and sometimes churlish character in the adaptation. However, his description in Austen's fragment is given by people whose judgement may be faulty, so I wouldn't say that this deviation is counter to Austen's starting point.

I started off watching the adaptation hoping for something that I could believe that Austen herself had written but I had to abandon this hope - we are through her material by midway through the first episode and some of the content I felt was decidedly not Austen. There is some sexual content and although I think Austen would certainly have been aware of sex, she would not have written about it! There is also nudity but I felt this was acceptable nudity. It's in the context of seabathing, which men did in the nude in those times. Once I gave up my admittedly unreasonable hope of somebody channelling Jane Austen and writing something that I could believe came from her I decided that I would need to enjoy Sanditon as an historical drama on its own merits. And I did enjoy it, aside from some frustration at hairstyles I deemed too modern, until the ending.

I am sure you will have heard our splutters of indignation across the pond, as UK viewers found that they were robbed of the 'happy' ending that we had expected so I don't see it as a spoiler to mention it. Instead we are given an ending that I felt was an opening for a second series which left me feeling a little cheated! However, as people viewing it now will have been warned  of the ending, perhaps you won't be as cross as I was about it. I hope that we are treated to a second series, because aside from Charlotte's story, I felt that other stories had been started but not finished, such as that of Miss Lambe, Jane Austen's only non-white character. I also wanted to know what fate had in store for Arthur Parker, who I have a fondness for - he is so funny, and not enough time was devoted to him.

So, moving onto the book. This is a novelisation of the series, rather than a book that has been translated into an adaptation. I think the big plus from this is that we don't get any moments that jar because they've been changed in the adaptation. Everything is just the same, but just enriched by the extra detail that can be added in a book such as characters' thoughts and motivations! There were some things that the book didn't deliver on as well as the adaptation - little details, such as the impressions left on the viewer from looks and visual hints. For example, there was a character who I was sure things wouldn't work out for based on something visual, although I will be fair and say that Kate Riordan dropped hints in other ways in relation to this particular person.

I really enjoyed reading this book; it took me through the series in my mind with additional embellishments of detail. The author's style isn't like Austen - probably more modern and simplified compared to her in terms of language, but you could feel absolutely immersed in the life of Sanditon.

Obviously, huge spoilers for the series abound in the novel, so I'd recommend that if you enjoy the series, you then move on to the novel; personally I wouldn't do it the other way round because I so enjoyed reliving it in my mind.

As stated above, there is some sex in the adaptation but the same scenes in the novel are decidedly non-graphic, which I felt was a good choice.

My recommendation is to give the adaptation a chance, bearing in mind that it isn't Austen, and there is no telling where she would have taken the story. If you enjoy it then I'd certainly give this novelisation by Kate Riordan a go. I enjoyed it, and I'd rate it as a 4 star read.

My thanks go to Grand Central Publishing who provided me with a copy of Sanditon by Kate Riordan for my honest review, and a copy of The World of Sanditon by Sara Sheridan, which I hope to read soon! I'd also like to thank Laurel Ann from Austenprose, for organising the blog tour.

Author Bio

Kate Riordan is a writer and journalist from England. Her first job was as an editorial assistant at the Guardian newspaper, followed by a stint as deputy editor for the lifestyle section of London bible, Time Out magazine. There she had assignments that saw her racing reindeers in Lapland, going undercover in London's premier department store and gleaning writing tips (none-too subtly) during interviews with some of her favorite authors. After becoming a freelancer, she left London behind and moved to the beautiful Cotswolds in order to write her first novel.

Buy Links

Sanditon by Kate Riordan is available to buy now, in paperback, ebook and on audio.

Amazon US / Amazon UK/ Amazon CA / Audible US / Audible UK / Barnes & Noble / Book Depository / Indiebound / Add to Goodreads Shelf

Note Regarding Comments: I love to read your comments, but a few blog visitors have reported difficulties in commenting while using the Safari browser. If you are unable to comment, please try using another web browser, such as Google Chrome, or please contact me and I will add your comment for you :)

SANDITON REVIEW ROUNDUP SCHEDULE:

January 13              Austenprose—A Jane Austen Blog

January 14              History Lizzie

January 17              Babblings of a Bookworm

January 20              Confessions of a Book Addict

January 20              Living Read Girl

January 25              Margie’s Must Reads

January 26              My Jane Austen Book Club

February 03            The Lit Bitch

February 10            Unabridged Chick

February 10            Laura’s Reviews

February 13            Bookfoolery

February 14            Half Agony, Half Hope

February 17            Scuffed Slippers, Wormy Books

February 18            Impressions in Ink

February 23            From Pemberley to Milton

February 24            So Little Time…

February 24            Vesper’s Place

February 26            Austenesque Reviews

February 28            My Vices and Weaknesses

* * *

If you don’t want to miss any of my future posts, please subscribe:

Subscribe to Babblings of a Bookworm

If you'd like to be friends on Goodreads then please invite me - just say that you visit my blog when it asks why you'd like to be friends with me.

Lady Susan Book and Love and Friendship Film - My Review

Lady Susan

I was unaware for years of this early work of Jane Austen’s, only hearing of its existence a few years ago. I was prompted to read it by a recent film adaptation, ‘Love and Friendship’. I always like to read the book before watching the film if possible so that I know the real story.

Northanger Abbey 2007

After watching the 1980s version of ‘Northanger Abbey’ I wanted to re-watch this one, as it’s been a few years since I saw it. The 2007 version was scripted by Andrew Davies, who famously scripted ‘Pride & Prejudice’ 1995 and also the 1996 ‘Emma’, starring Kate Beckinsale, and the adaptation of ‘Sense & Sensibility’ from 2008.

We open in the same vein as the 1987 version of ‘Northanger Abbey’, with Catherine having a wild imagining brought on by her choice of reading material. There are a number of these throughout the film, the earlier ones are daydreams, but the majority of them are dreams and they are so funny, really endearingly silly. Catherine imagines swordfights, dungeons, abductions and even, daringly, some nudity (although the viewer doesn’t see anything that needs blurring out!).

Austen adaptation aficionados may well recognise Catherine’s neighbour, Mrs Allen, who she accompanies to Bath. The character is played by Sylvestra Le Touzel, who played Fanny Price in the 1983 version of ‘Mansfield Park’. I enjoyed her in the role, she was quite over the top and funny. Mrs Allen is quite an amusing role, I think, so it fitted well.  This one is muslin-obsessed!

This version isn’t exactly the same as the book. Catherine’s leap of imagination in respect of General Tilney here is somewhat explained because hints have been dropped by more than one person in relation to his behaviour to his wife. I was also a little sad to see a few key conversations weren’t included such as the conversation Henry and Catherine have while dancing where they talk about the similarities between dancing and marriage (not because of its significance to the story, but just because I like that bit!) and also the part where Henry points out to Catherine that it’s not the attention of other men to Miss Thorpe that is the problem, it’s the fact that she accepts them. I know Catherine dismisses this view, but it underlines Miss Thorpe’s character nicely for the reader. That being said, her character is perfectly clear to the viewer. I felt the 1987 version of Isabella lacked subtlety but this version is far, far better, and here the viewer is led to pity her too.

Like the 1987 version, the setting of Northanger Abbey is too gothic looking, rather than the disappointingly normal-looking building that Catherine finds. Although the interior of the building is dark and a little spooky, however, her behaviour when she is at Northanger is more in line with the book.

What makes this adaptation really stands out for me are the performances of the leads. Henry Tilney is played by J J Feild and he is entirely charming and lovely. The viewer can fall in love with him right along with Catherine! Although he teases her, it’s not done unkindly and she often teases him back, which puts them on an equal footing. Henry has nearly all the best lines in the script, and he delivers them really well. The conversation that Henry and Catherine have the first time they dance where he talks about the required discourse while dancing and finishes off with the line “Now I must give one smirk, and then we may be rational again.” was delivered so drolly, and accompanied by a very amusing over the top smirk that had me laughing along with Catherine!

Felicity Jones is fantastic as Catherine. Her performance is the best thing about a generally wonderful adaptation. She is sweetly naive and unsuspecting of the motives of the more worldly people that she meets. You can completely understand Henry’s teasing of her, because she reacts so adorably to it! One thing I liked about this version of Northanger Abbey is that it’s clear that Catherine is by no means unintelligent, she’s just so sheltered that she’s only ever met honest, straightforward people. Conversational subtext goes entirely over her head.

I think this might be my favourite adaptation of any of Austen’s works. The adaptation is entertaining and funny, the leads work well together and individually, and though some changes were made, in many cases this served to convey aspects of the book. I felt it was true to the spirit of the book. There was only one theme of the book that didn’t really translate for me, which was the defence of the novel found within the book, though since that’s the narrator making this argument it may have been tricky to convey without distracting from the main story. I would say that this version could be appreciated by people who haven’t read the book yet (although the book is wonderful and definitely worth reading) and I would heartily recommend it. A big fat five stars from me.

Northanger Abbey Adaptation – 1987

I had been putting off watching this adaptation for a while, because the only other version of Northanger Abbey that I’ve seen, the 2007 version, I really loved, so I thought this one would suffer by comparison. Also, the cover of the DVD put me off. Our hero, Henry Tilney, is supposed to be aged 24 but the actor playing him is a fair bit older, and Catherine’s hair looks like it’s had a tonne of hair mousse applied, so I wasn’t enticed. However, now I’m stuck in a chair recuperating it seems like a good time to tackle my ‘To Be Watched’ list.

This version of Northanger Abbey starts out with one of Catherine’s imaginings as she reads one of her lurid romances, so the gothic romance idea is introduced from the first and it’s very strong throughout the story. Some of her imaginings are ridiculous, while others are a bit disturbing. I don’t think the adaptation conveyed the right sense of these books being ridiculous and over the top, as the book is clearly poking fun at the genre. The setting was also a little disappointing in this regard. Northanger Abbey is pretty creepy here, which could fuel even a less active imagination, whereas it should be disappointingly comfortable and modern, thereby highlighting how absurd Catherine’s flight of fancy is. General Tilney is also more sinister in this adaptation than in the book.

The Thorpes, particularly Isabella Thorpe, are presented quite straightforwardly as who they are rather than more subtly which I thought was a missed opportunity as one of the things I liked about the novel is the juxtaposition of Catherine’s imagination seeing more than it should when there is no basis and her naivety causing her to miss a real life deception being played out in front of her eyes.

Peter Firth - Henry Tilney (L) / Colin Baker - Doctor Who (R)

As regards casting, this adaptation has Henry Tilney played by Peter Firth, who apparently is most famous for the ‘Spooks’ TV series (called ‘MI-5’ in some countries), but I thought I recognised him as Doctor Who from the Sci-fi series of the same name. The series is long running, and has different actors playing the title role. I thought Peter Firth was the Doctor back in the 1980s. Actually he didn’t play Doctor Who, I was mixing him up with Colin Baker, who was almost his doppelganger back in those days!

I wasn’t keen on him as Henry. He came across as really quite cold and humourless, and when you consider how funny some of Henry’s dialogue is that doesn’t seem right at all. I didn’t find him charming either, and I couldn’t really see what Catherine saw in him.

I quite liked Katheine Schlesigner’s portrayal of Catherine, though I don’t think Catherine’s extreme youth (she was only 17, remember) really came across, and since that is what excuses her behaviour such naivety is harder to comprehend. I also didn’t feel that the leads had much chemistry between them. You couldn’t really see what drew them to each other. The ending scene was so out of nowhere that I thought Catherine was imagining it!

Another thing about this adaptation that struck me was the background music, at times, was really bad, particularly during the gothic imaginings scenes. It was quite synthesised, and I think there was even a bit of saxophone at one point. It was just far too modern.

You may feel from reading all this that I didn’t enjoy the adaptation but you’d be wrong, because I enjoyed it despite all the above! It’s actually pretty amusing. If you’ve read the book you can fill in the gaps. If you hadn’t read the book already, I’m not sure somebody watching would get the joke. I think the main shame for me with this version, is that I thought it was almost like ‘Northanger Abbey Lite’. I know this is true of all adaptations, to an extent, as to get the story in full you’d be better off reading the book, but I felt that particularly with this adaptation, it didn’t do anything in much depth. I wouldn’t recommend it as an introduction to ‘Northanger Abbey’, you’d be better off reading the book (obviously!) but if you didn’t fancy starting with the book, start with the more recent adaptation, which I plan to watch next. This version gets 3 stars from me.

Emma – BBC Version, 2009

Although everybody seems to love this version of ‘Emma’ I have held off watching it because of Jonny Lee Miller, who plays Mr Knightley in this version. I am a big admirer of his work, but to me he is Edmund Bertram, who he played in ‘Mansfield Park’ in the 1999 version. That Mansfield Park wasn’t the best version I’ve seen but, in my opinion, Jonny Lee Miller completely nailed the role. However, being currently chair-bound, it seemed like fate that I should catch up with my DVD ‘To Be Watched’ list.

I watched this with my husband, who is not familiar with the book, and felt that the beginning of this adaptation would be a little bewildering to somebody who doesn’t know the background, as we rattle through the dearth of parents that Jane Fairfax, Frank Churchill and Emma have. This way of showing it though, directly comparing the three characters, who all faced losses at such a young age, really underlined how lucky Emma was for the time. Of the three, she is the only one who stays in the same home. She is doted upon and loved unconditionally. Soon we see Emma as a grown adult and start to appreciate the restricted life she has to live, day after day, with no holidays, no visits outside her very small circle of acquaintances and no likelihood of it ever changing, not that she yearns for anything different.

I thought this was a very soft portrayal of Emma – it’s quite a sympathetic view, and you don’t get the full blast of her self-importance and just how much everybody around her (with the exception of Mr Knightley) inflates her ego and her idea of her infallibility. Here, Emma, played by Romola Garai, is quite funny, and though her flaws are clear, she is still very loveable, rather than Austen’s character ‘whom no-one but myself will much like’. Personally, I always quite liked Emma, as at heart she meant well, and when you consider she’d been brought up being told everything she said and did was perfect, it’s no wonder that she believed it. I wonder if, had she married differently, the book Emma may have ended up being somewhat like ‘Pride & Prejudice’s Lady Catherine de Bourgh? The Emma in this adaptation was probably never in danger of that.

I am always interested to see what is made of Jane Fairfax and here I was a little disappointed, as she is not prominent, which is a shame, as I find her an interesting character. Frank Churchill is not sympathetically portrayed at all – usually I am pretty ambivalent towards him, but here I joined Mr Knightley in disliking him heartily!

My favourite character in this adaptation was definitely Mr Woodhouse. He is a good character in the book, being affectionately portrayed as a slightly ridiculous old fusspot. I loved Michael Gambon’s performance. It was very humorous; he had some great lines which he delivered wonderfully.

Bertram or Knightley?!

As for Mr Knightley – well, he’s a likeable fellow and he and Emma have a lovely rapport on screen. Although the characters have a 16 year age gap you don’t really feel it. This may partly be because the age gap between the actors is less but to me there was another, more major reason. I liked Jonny Lee Miller’s Knightley, I really did, but to me, he wasn’t quite Mr Knightley. He was missing something, the air of authority, the sense that he’s a man who has been master of his surroundings for years, the essence of Knightley wasn’t there for me.

Mark Strong from the 1996 mini series of Emma

It probably doesn’t help that the 1996 mini-series of ‘Emma’, starring Kate Beckinsale, also starred Mark Strong, and when I first read ‘Emma’, probably a couple of years before that version was made, I imagined Mr Knightley pretty much exactly like him. He just has more of an air of self-confidence and experience that I think Mr Knightley would exude.

This version of Emma is really beautiful to watch, the costumes are gorgeous and the locations are a feast for the eyes. The house chosen for Hartfield, for example, couldn’t have been more perfect, and it is lovely to think that they were able to use the same building for the interior and exterior filming, at least in Emma's home. This adaptation is a bit more of a ‘comfortable’ watch than other versions, having less cringeworthy scenes than there could be, and some people may prefer the Mr Knightley character to be toned down, especially if they aren’t a fan of age gaps. For me, although the Knightley wasn’t quite Knightley enough, it didn’t affect my enjoyment of the story. I thoroughly enjoyed the humour, the chemistry, the costumes and settings. I’d certainly recommend it, and I’d really enjoy watching it again. 4½ stars from me.

Death Comes to Pemberley Adaptation

Please note - there are some spoiler-ish comments in the below, in italics, so if you want to avoid them, skip the italic section

When I heard that Death Comes to Pemberley was being adapted I was pretty excited that we were going to get some new Austenesque adapted for the screen. Then I read the book, and I was much less excited, because I didn’t like it all that much! You can see my review of the book here. There were some issues from the book that I hoped they were going to fix for the adaptation, such as Elizabeth’s uncharacteristic blandness, and Lydia being completely obnoxious and over the top so I tuned in with millions of other people to watch the 3 part Death Comes to Pemberley.

In the adaptation of Death Comes to Pemberley, as in the book, the story is set six years after the end of the events in Pride & Prejudice. The story centres around Denny being murdered after getting out of a carriage and running into Pemberley woods. Wickham is found with his friend’s blood on his hands, and says that he has killed him. This is taken to be a confession, and Wickham stands to be accused of murder, but Wickham later clarifies that his meaning was that he was to blame for Denny’s death, by arguing with his friend, which is what caused him to leave the carriage and run off into the woods. Despicable as Wickham has been in the past, has he really stooped to murder? And if he’s innocent, how will he escape hanging when the circumstances around the death all point to his guilt?

There were things I liked and things I didn’t about this adaptation. First things first, let’s look at the casting.

For most Austen fans the most important parts in this would be Elizabeth and Darcy:

Elizabeth is played by Anna Maxwell Martin, who I recognised as Bessy Higgins from North and South. I think she was the wrong choice for the role, for several reasons. Firstly, Elizabeth in DCtP is supposed to be 26 years old. Ms Maxwell Martin is 36 and in this age of naturalistic makeup in period dramas and high-definition TV she looks 36.

Secondly, I don’t think the actress makes a good Lizzy even if she had been the right age – the physical description we have of Lizzy from Pride & Prejudice isn’t that detailed but we are expecting dark eyes and a light figure. We know she was the second prettiest girl in the Bennet family, ‘second in birth and beauty to Jane’ and one of the ‘brightest jewels’ in Hertfordshire. Ms Maxwell Martin is slim but she doesn’t fit the other criteria. In addition to this, although the Lizzy in the DCtP book was like cardboard cut out, most viewers will be expecting to see a vivacious Lizzy and Ms Maxwell Martin doesn't play her that way, aside from only once in the three episodes, when she gets to give Lady Catherine some stick. Most of the time she slinks about looking equal parts exhausted and haunted. Another thing that is very odd is that Lizzy, though seen on several different days in the adaptation, only appears to own two dresses!

As for the casting of Darcy, I didn’t mind that as much, although he also looks too old to me.  Darcy is supposed to be about 34 or 35 and he looks about 40, but that isn’t helped by how dour he is played, and he’s also incredibly pale in it! I’ve seen the actor in real life, and he looks younger than he did in DCtP. Darcy’s physical description in Pride & Prejudice is only that he is tall and has handsome features. This is subjective but I think Matthew Rhys is fairly handsome, but he isn’t tall enough for the role. It has been pointed out to me that Colin Firth isn't that tall but his proportions must be different, because on screen I think Rhys looks fairly short. This isn’t helped by him often being seen with Colonel Fitzwilliam who appears to be extremely tall here. It is such a shame that they didn’t go for somebody more like Richard Armitage, who, though he is also older than the role to be played, is around the same age as Matthew Rhys and is both tall and very handsome.

Jenna Coleman plays Lydia Wickham, and I think she is perfect for the role, although this could just be because she fits my mental image of Lydia. She must have been fairly pretty for Wickham to have eloped with her and she is described in P&P as having a ‘fine complexion’. I am pleased to say that Lydia in the book (who is too much of a whiner with a chip on her shoulder to be believable) is here played as only realistically annoying!  The scriptwriters did an excellent job with this part. Matthew Goode plays Wickham, and I thought he looked the part and played it well. In fact, I would say that the Wickhams are probably the thing I liked best about this adaptation, they felt real to Austen's characters.

Another piece of casting that I thought would please most people is that of Eleanor Tomlinson as Miss Darcy, I thought she was very good, though she had to do a public display of emotion in front of the servants which is not the thing in those times!

Chatsworth is ‘cast’ as Pemberley.  Many people think that Chatsworth was Jane Austen’s model for Pemberley due to the description of the landscape around Pemberley matching that of Chatsworth but since Chatsworth is actually mentioned in Pride & Prejudice I prefer to think of something a bit different, particularly as Chatsworth has an entrance hall, seen several times in the adaptation, which I would describe as quite fussy in style rather than what I’d imagined for Pemberley from the description in the book, for example the furniture has ‘less of splendour and more real elegance’ than Rosings so I’d imagine something a bit less ornate.

However all of the rest of the rooms and outside locations are just lovely. This is certainly a very attractive adaptation to watch, a real feast for the eyes.

There are quite a few things that are changed from the book. I don't want to spoil it for anybody who hasn't seen it yet, so without giving too much away I will say that the focus of the story shifts. The book is really centred on Darcy and they gave a lot of his part of the story to Elizabeth. This has the advantage of making her character more central but the flip side of this is that it pushes Darcy to the side a bit. He is quite a different character in the adaptation from the book, which I thought was a shame, because the character of Darcy was about the only thing I liked about the book! The dynamic between Darcy and Elizabeth is also very different, as is Darcy's attitude towards his sister. I felt that though Elizabeth's character was built up for the adaptation it was at the expense of the character of Darcy. There was also a sex scene in the adaptation that wasn't in the book, and though I don't generally object to sex scenes I didn't like it, to me it felt intrusive.

The character of Colonel Fitzwilliam was also quite different from Pride & Prejudice. The character was made very different in the book Death Comes to Pemberley and although he doesn't seem to me like the Colonel Fitzwilliam we know and love, he was far more likeable than the DCtP book character.

As for the mystery, since I'd read the book I already knew what happened on the night poor Denny got killed, so it's hard to know if I'd have worked it out in advance. In the book I worked out places where things were a bit fishy but that is pretty much as far as I got, I enjoy cosy mysteries but it doesn't mean that I'm particularly good at working them out!

On the whole, the adaptation is fairly entertaining. If I was less of a fan of Austen’s work I think I would have enjoyed it more though, because there were things which kept flagging up as wrong or unlikely that I may not have noticed if I wasn’t so familiar with the characters. I would definitely recommend watching it, although it’s not an adaptation I can see myself buying to watch again and again. I’d give it 3½ stars.

And now for the spoiler section! Look away now if you haven't seen the adaptation yet, but if you'd like to come back after you've seen it and share your thoughts on it then I'd love to know what you think.

....

...

No really, you'll spoil it for yourself...

...

...

What I thought of it in a bit more detail:

The main change for me is how much the focus changed from Darcy to Elizabeth. Elizabeth is like wallpaper in the book, seen and there, but lifeless. In the adaptation she does a lot of investigating into the events surrounding Denny’s death. I didn’t think this was a good change because Darcy is a magistrate, and part of this role would include investigating into the cause of deaths. He has additional cause to do it here, because Wickham is connected with his family through marriage, and because despite all his past with Wickham he cannot believe that Wickham would become a murderer. The fact that he does half a job makes him appear to be pretty ineffectual and willing to let down a lot of people.  

He is also shown, unfairly, to be trying to push Georgiana into a ‘suitable’ marriage rather than marrying a husband of her choice. This would be so hypocritical of him, since he married the woman of his choice. However, in the book, he isn’t pushing Georgiana at all. It really annoyed me that the filmmakers would sacrifice Darcy’s character in this way, and make him a lesser man. There were many things I didn’t like about the book of Death Comes to Pemberley, but one thing I think P. D. James did well was to capture Darcy’s character, and I wouldn’t say that about the adaptation, he is more like Darcy at the beginning of Pride & Prejudice rather than Darcy at the end of the book.

The Darcy’s marriage also gives the impression of being an unhappy union, with Elizabeth worrying that he has regretted marrying beneath him. However, this is not something that I felt from the book, if anything, Darcy worries that Elizabeth may have had feelings for George Wickham. This is another reason why I didn’t like Elizabeth doing all the investigating, as her efforts to save Wickham may have given credence to her having feelings for him. The adaptation also features a sex scene. Now, I don’t mind sex scenes in general, but this one came out of nowhere. To me it felt intrusive and unnecessary. I can only imagine that it was included to show some closeness between Elizabeth and Darcy, but the book never gave me the impression that their marriage was unhappy or that they were not close.

Oddly, the Wickhams appear to have a happier marriage than the Darcys, with true affection between them. This is not something I feel likely from Pride & Prejudice, where it is said ‘His affection for her soon sunk into indifference: her's lasted a little longer’ but it was actually nice to see and quite touching. It’s just a shame that Elizabeth and Darcy’s marriage is shown to be unhappy.

Another character I thought was portrayed differently to the Death Comes to Pemberley book is that of Colonel Fitzwilliam, who is extremely hard and unlikeable in the book. Here, although he isn’t shown to be lovely, he doesn’t come across in the same way.

What did you think of the adaptation? If you leave a comment containing spoilers, please flag them up so people can avoid reading them if they haven't watched it yet :)

Mansfield Park DVD – 1983 BBC Version

Recently, I watched the BBC 6 part series of Mansfield Park, made in 1983. The part of Fanny is played by Sylvestra Le Touzel (who also had a role in the 2007 Northanger Abbey) and Nicholas Farrell as Edmund. Anna Massey is Mrs Norris and Samantha Bond is Maria Bertram.

I also recognised Gorden Kaye (Rene from 80s sitcom 'Allo 'Allo!).

Over the years I’ve seen a few adaptations of Mansfield Park. The first one I saw was the 1999 version starring Frances O’Connor and Jonny Lee Miller. It’s been a few years since I’ve seen that version, but I remember feeling that they’d got Fanny’s character all wrong. She was a lot more self-assured than in the book and I felt that she’d make mincemeat of Edmund, whereas in reality Edmund would have looked after her. The slavery aspect is explored more than the book, where the only allusions to slavery I can recall are references to Sir Thomas’ plantation in Antigua, which was presumably run by slave labour, and Fanny actually mentions the slave trade over dinner, in a conversation stopping move. Also, this version was very sexualised, which was unnecessary in my opinion. 

This version was probably my favoured version though, because Jonny Lee Miller was a fantastic Edmund. For me, he captured the role perfectly, so much so, that I’ve not been able to watch the 2009 version of Emma because how can I watch Edmund pretending to be Mr Knightley?! Jonny Lee Miller actually has a part in the 1983 Mansfield Park too - here he's one of Fanny's younger brothers.

The next version of Mansfield Park that I saw was the 2007adaptation starring Billie Piper. I’ve liked Billie in other things but I really didn’t like her as Fanny Price. She plays her as light hearted and giggly and she looks so wrong. Billie’s hair is very obviously dyed – fine in real life, but not in a period drama! You can’t have an historical heroine whose eyebrows are a different colour to the hair on her head! In addition, her hair is in a tousled style which is all wrong. As the poor relation Fanny would have not been keen to draw attention to herself in such a negative way, I think she’d have looked neat and tidy at all times and there would have been no hoydenish behaviour, although I think Fanny too serious a character to be hoydenish anyway. I think Fanny can be a character that a modern audience can find hard to relate to, since she’s so meek, and this is why her character is changed – but once she’s no longer meek her clear-sightedness and strength of character in refusing Henry Crawford is no longer remarkable.

I was ready to accept that there wasn’t a version of Mansfield Park out there that was true to the book when I was given the recommendation on Twitter by @AusteninBoston to try this 1983 version, which he told me was much truer to the book. I got a copy and used it to distract me over a few ironing sessions and found that he was right – this version is much truer to the book than the other versions I’d seen.  

Since this is a 1980s drama you can’t expect it to look as pretty as a newer one, and it doesn’t, but the production is pretty good. Some older productions look like they are being filmed in studios but you don’t get this impression here, it looks very natural.  I found the background woodwind music a bit distracting at first but either it stopped or I got used to it because I only really noticed it in the first episode. The story is true to Austen’s Mansfield Park, although some things are lost in the translation, as they would be with any adaptation.

There were some things that really stood out for me with this version. The first is Samantha Bond who was absolutely fantastic as the headstrong, catty Maria. Mrs Norris was toned down here so if you’d not read the book you wouldn’t have full hatred for her, but you wouldn’t like her. Anna Massey plays Mrs Norris here and gives a wonderful performance.

A while ago I read Mansfield Revisited by Joan Aiken which has a very sympathetic view of the Crawfords, particularly Mary Crawford, and having seen this I wonder if watching this version had influenced her view of Mary, even the physical description is the same. (As an aside, I have trouble with Mary Crawford as a character – her practical, unfeeling views match so well with our modern views, particularly in the respect of dealing with the elopement. I want to dislike her for being heartless, but instead I find myself agreeing with her views on a practical level, and admiring her candidness!)

In addition, Henry Crawford's situation with Maria is given a less blameworthy appearance in this, which also tied in with the happenings of Mansfield Revisited.

For me, some things didn't come across so well. Obviously some things you lose when adapting for screen, such as narrative language use, and these were included where they could be, but some of the main themes of the book Mansfield Park were not evident. For example, I thought a huge theme of Mansfield Park was Nature v. Nurture, which doesn't come across at all. Fanny's mother doesn't come across as at all similar to Lady Bertram in nature, although I accept that this might be hard to convey. I am not sure what I thought about Lady Bertram, she seemed not languid, but simple! There was recognition that Sir Thomas' family weren't brought up as well as they should have been, which was good to see.

The main downside of this adaptation for me was the portrayal of Fanny. Although she’s much closer to the book I think she was overacted. She’s just too gauche. Also, neither Fanny nor Edmund are very lovable, they are both humorless. I know they aren’t exactly bursting with humour in the book but other good qualities are conveyed which I didn’t quite get from this, they’re both a bit priggish. So although this version wasn’t perfect, and I think there is a gap for a really definitive version of Mansfield Park, this one is far better than the other versions out there. If you are looking for an adaptation of Mansfield Park to watch I’d recommend that you make it this one.