The Guardian’s view on Austen and Brontë adaptations: Purists may reel, but reinvention keeps classic novels alive | Editorial

IIt is a truth universally acknowledged that every classic novel must be in need of a sexual adaptation. Since Mr. Darcy, played by Colin Firth, came out of the lake with a wet shirt in… BBC 1995 Pride and Prejudice Adapted by Andrew Davies We expected the novels’ undercurrents to be written largely on screen: the novel is full of sexual tension – who knew? No one objects when a Jane Austen couple kisses on television, even though it never happens on the page. But we are reluctant to imagine more troubling historical facts, such as maternal mortality, or where the wealth behind the big houses came from.

As part of celebrations of Austen’s 250th birthday, Davies shocked audiences at the Clifden Literary Festival last week with his words. Revelation It works on versions of Emma and Mansfield Park Which will include death, immorality and slavery. Spoiler: Emma dies in childbirth.

the 89 year old screenwriter It is true to say that such darkness can be found in Austen’s novels – they are not all “luminous and bright and sparkling” as she wrote of Pride and Prejudice. The perception that external events such as the Napoleonic Wars are ignored is equally incorrect. From Edward Said’s 1993 article Jane Austen and the Empire To the last piece By novelist Loren Groff Critics have debated the role of slavery in Mansfield Park.

Elsewhere, Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, another reboot favorite, has generated buzz with its release. Tractor For next year’s hyper-thriller is directed by Emerald Fennell (whose previous success at Saltburn might be seen as a risky take on Brideshead Revisited). The trailer has a lot of tension in its setting and plausibility, but it’s the ethnicity of Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff, described in the novel as a “dark-skinned gypsy,” that has sparked the backlash. There have been many Heathcliff characters on screen, including Laurence Olivier and Ralph Fiennes, but few of them were actors of color. James Howson and Solomon Glave – in Andrea Arnold’s 2011 film adaptation – are two exceptions.

The film’s director, Jharmal Cochrane, defended the accusations of “whitewashing”, saying: “It’s just a book… It’s all art.” For many this is heresy. Wuthering Heights, like Austen’s novels and other cherished titles, is never “just a book”: these stories are part of our cultural identity; Emma and Heathcliff are more than just characters. These are masterpieces, not franchises.

But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be touched. Without the fictional reimagining, we wouldn’t have Wide Sargasso Sea, Jean Rhys’s 1966 prequel to Jane Eyre, now a postcolonial and feminist classic in its own right, or 1995’s Clueless, which transports Emma to Beverly Hills High School. Whether the adaptation sticks faithfully to the original or plays with it quickly and liberally, our appetite for more seems endless, with new screen versions of pride and prejudice Sense and Sensibility will also be released next year.

Far from being acts of plagiarism, novel adaptations can be a way to keep novels alive. Since reading is now an endangered profession, any spin-offs that lead people to books are welcome. Purists need not fear: Austen and Brontë’s reputations will remain intact. We should rejoice in the fact that they have created storms on social media. Their work continues to be part of our cultural conversation—and not limited to classrooms and lecture halls. We still wonder: Who is Heathcliff? “Does Emma live happily ever after?”