The epiphany, perhaps
Alert Janeite Laurel Ann sent us an article from the Birmingham Post about Andrew Davies. It has a bit about P&P, wet shirt, yada yada, nothing we haven’t seen before, except for this rather revealing bit:
In fact, Davies claims his reputation for raciness arose due to a misunderstanding about a comment he made concerning Pride and Prejudice.
“I said I wanted to do a really sexy version of it because people think Jane Austen is all about social comedy and people making polite remarks in drawing rooms, whereas she is all about sex and money. Those are the deep down motivations,” says Davies. “One of the things I do try to do is bring out the sexual subtext that lurks in all of these great classics, because in the 19th century the convention was unless it was pornography, you couldn’t write directly about sex.
“It is all subtle and implied, which probably makes for better writing.”
You think?
April 21st, 2008 at 8:32 am
Oh gosh, he makes me tired. Methinks he has forgotten his college lit classes. What about Mr. Rochester? Heathcliff? Poor dear Tess of the D’Urbervilles? The creepy and disgusting novel of about 1797, The Monk, which revels in incest, matricide and sororicide? Clarissa Harlowe’s rape? Fielding can be suggestive, if you know how to read between the lines. What about Fanny Burney’s Evelina, in which the bad guy keeps trying to ravish Evelina?
It is true that 18th-19th century novels don’t address sex “directly,” in the sense that they don’t (although The Monk comes close) talk about body parts, surges and urges, and other clinical details, but they certainly address the emotions and consequences of the act.
I understand that Mr. “Monk” Davies has written at least one children’s book–I am strongly desirous of creating a film version of it, putting back in the sex scenes that he–mistakenly, I’m sure–left out.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:33 pm
LOL!
The *subtext of sex* is certainly a 14-year-old’s fantasy