Sense and Sensibility, John Adams and others
I’ve now had a chance to finish re-reading “Sense and Sensibility” after viewing the PBS version, which was most enjoyable. I’m struck now by how much of the dialog was invented. It was tastefully done, but still…. In addition I’m disappointed by the dialog that was used, but truncated.
For example, when Willoughby appears late at night to confess his deeds to Elinor, the editing of that speech served only to obscure the main fact. He may be sorry, he may even be suffering, but he has not ceased to place himself at the center of the universe. He does not care what his effect has been on the Dashwood family (whose names he may have ruined) nor does he care for what he may have done to Marianne (who may be dying). All he cares about is whether or not someone will see how he’s suffering. This egoism is reinforced by a segment left out in the TV version, where he explains that Mrs Smith, from whom he was to inherit his fortune, actually offered to reinstate him if he’ll marry poor Eliza and make an honest woman of her. And he turns the offer down!
Why does this matter? Because Austen is showing us that love can be many things, and that sexual attraction, liveliness, and romance are all very well but they count for little if there is no genuine desire by the lover to consider the personal well-being of the one loved. Marianne wants only the best for Willoughby; Brandon wants only the best for Marianne; Elinor wishes only for Edward’s best interests; and Edward wants only to honor his word in the best interests of Lucy. But Willoughby wants only what’s best for Willoughby. And he’s not the only one. It’s an important point we can carry into the present day. When we say we care about someone are we looking out for our own convenience or for what will allow that person to be the best possible version of him or her self that is possible?
Austen is a serious meditator on love. It seems a pity to miss out a major component of her thinking as a result of the adaptation process. It leaves the reader/viewer thinking that Marianne and Elinor settle for second best, when the exact opposite is the case.
And this brings me to the point I was turning over yesterday. In a novel it is inevitable that a TV series or movie has to invent and adapt. Much of the information Jane Austen gives us is through observing the thoughts of her characters. it doesn’t exist in dialog. So invention occurs. In a play all the words that are spoken exist in the text, and can either be used or cut. They are seldom invented out of thin air. In contrast John Adams’ autobiography tells us a great deal of what he did and saw, but clearly it was not designed as ‘art’ and so the inventors of the world step forward to turn it into ’story’. And these days that notion of story is dependent upon what they think will sell. It’s as brutal as that.
The British poet George MacBeth some forty years ago sold many copies of his poem ‘The Three minute George MacBeth Macbeth’ and created a career around it. Shakespeare was reduced to three minutes - less if one read fast, as MacBeth frequently did - and we all laughed. What fun! Like Woody Allen speed reading “War and Peace” all he knew by the end was that it was about Russia.
Great writers, the truly great ones, need to be read slowly and in detail, and pondered upon. They are valuable because we know in our bones that they have reached out and touched something important, they’ve felt the breath of God on their faces. They are valuable because they’ve done what we couldn’t, but they’ve brought back the information we need so we can learn.
When the Greeks first put on the plays of Sophocles and others, and the theater at Epidavros was filled for performances of “Oedipus the King”, this was not a casual night out for the citizenry. This was a religious festival and you had to be there to learn its lessons or the High Priest would send his minions out to make sure you attended; because it was good for you. It wasn’t just so you could talk about something after a date, it was good for your soul, for your understanding, and therefore for the way you could relate to the world. Art made civilization worth having.
We have more art today, and more freedom. But are we wiser?
on April 13th, 2008 at 1:07 am
You make such a great point when you say that Willoughby’s love was really just for himself. Perhaps that’s not entirely clear in the film version. It seems like he cares for Marianne yet we can’t help but think what he’s done to poor Eliza who will really pay for his self-interest by having his child and facing a future entirely outside society. Still, even in this film version we catch something of the meditations on love that Jane Austen was offering. A truncated meditation but something. We may have more art today but we’re not really trained any more to appreciate it so the art may itself not be of the highest quality. Still, I’m glad for the film—it points in the right direction and may bring people to the more complex reflections of the book itself!