Representing Bodies and Bathing Machines: Jane Austen’s Sanditon and Andrew Davies’s 2019 ITV Adaptation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This offers a useful insight into how the first series of Sanditon was made and how it subsequently fared when aired.  It is sound and clear as far as it goes, but I think it could go further.  There is one obvious change to be made: we are told that the second series will start on Monday 21 March 2022, but that can now be updated and ideally supplemented by some information about how it is being received.  I was also surprised to see no mention of Bridgerton; I haven't seen it or read any of the books, but I would have had to have been living under a rock not to know that it does include sex, and did sell (though I believe the second series has been considered disappointing).  It would be interesting to see if the author could offer any suggestions about why people apparently did want to see the Bridgerton men get their kit off but didn't want to see the Sanditon ones doing so (though for what it's worth, I stopped watching Sanditon after the first episode because I thought it was slow rather than because of the sex scenes).  My final suggestion would be that there might be some consideration of what the characters wear when they do put on clothes.  I didn't watch Downton either, but my mother and my aunt assured me that it was worth it 'for the frocks', and costume is usually considered to be one of the great pleasures of period drama.  Is there nothing to be said about the costumes of Sanditon?

Author Response

Many thanks for the comments. To respond to each point in turn:

• Second series of Sanditon. When I finished the article, the new season had not started, and unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to watch it yet (I do not subscribe to BritBox). I hope to write a follow-up article in the future, dealing with the new series. I have indicated this in an addition to the final sentence: “and I hope to turn my attention to it in future work”.
• Bridgerton. I have briefly accounted for this in the sentence after “encouraging a female gaze that is analogous to a male one, a gaze that offers a body for scopophilic purposes, doesn’t sell universally well when it comes to Austen adaptations” (which I have added to in response to another reader's comment), stating that “Another costume drama that aired the following year, Bridgerton, featured male nudity, and was phenomenally successful, however, it is significant that this was not an adaptation of Austen, which made audience expectation quite different. Bridgerton appealed to a youthful, global Netflix consumer demographic rather than British terrestrial television viewers. ”.
• After saying how the red bathing gowns “are a very odd wardrobe choice, unless the costume designers were simply hoping to create striking visuals that were memorable to viewers”, I have added the following: “given that one source of appeal of costume drama is the clothing and general look”.

I am conscious that I have made only minor amendments in relation to these suggestions, but I have been given a very tight deadline to respond to the reviewers’ reports and upload the amended article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Broad Comments:

The analysis in this essay is generally strong and interesting, situating both Austen’s novel and Davies’ adaptation within multiple contexts that tell us a lot about their creations. The first few pages of the essay definitely need more substantive revisions, but after perhaps page 4, the essay is very strong.

The big revision changes I would suggest are: it would be better to have a clear, concise plot summary of Austen’s novel and a clear, concise description of the ITV adaptation very early in the essay, since many readers will likely be unfamiliar with the novel and show. It’s especially important to have a plot summary of the novel—perhaps even in the first paragraph to support the claim that this novel differs from Austen’s previous work.

The essay has several distinct shifts in focus, so it would be more manageable for readers to use section breaks with section headers. In the specific comments below I’ve recommended the places that feel natural to me for breaks.

Double spaced footnotes, especially long discursive footnotes, take up a massive amount of page space. This makes the essay look unbalanced, especially over the first several pages. I’d single space the notes. Also, for the discursive notes, consider whether that material can be moved into the body of the essay, or whether it could be deleted. For instance, note 3 seems like it should either be incorporated into the main argument, if this aesthetic info is important, or it should be cut if the info isn’t important. Note 8 doesn’t seem crucial.

Make sure the notes are always in a consistent font.

Specific Comments:

My comments below are a mix of section level observations and line comments.

Abstract

·         Line 3: do we need the phrase “under 24,000-word” for this first line? To me it kind of feels extraneous.

·         Lines 5-7: this section throws a lot of names at us, and for the abstract it isn’t clear that these names are all crucial to the core argument of the essay. Put more focus on the essay’s argument and leave crediting everyone involved with the show for the body of the essay. I’d streamline this by dropping it down to either the director or creator’s name.

·         Line 12: I don’t think the commas are necessary on either side of Me-Too.

Body

·         Lines 19-20: The essay title doesn’t need to be repeated here.

·         Lines 23-24: Tell us, at least briefly, how this is a departure from Austen’s previous work. Unless we’re expected to set aside this essay to read Todd’s work, just the reference isn’t sufficient. This could be the focus of the entire first paragraph, and then begin a new paragraph at the word “Unsurprisingly” on line 24.

·         Lines 26-27: The phrase “less famous” seems like an unnecessary dig at Davies’ colleagues, and since it doesn’t serve much rhetorical/argumentative function, it should be dropped.

·         Lines 28-37: This is a lot of logistical detail about the show, and it’s not clear how crucial most of it is to the eventual argument that’s going to be made. It seems like the key points are: 1) Davies’ style sets the tone for the series, and 2) this show combines Hollywood and British heritage approaches. If these are the most important points for the overall argument, the paragraph should foreground them, explain them in more depth (e.g., what is Davies’ style actually like—don’t just rely on footnotes pointing us toward other authors, since this info is crucial to your argument), and cut out details that aren’t as central to the argument.

·         Lines 52-53: This seems like a natural place for a section break. However, this section of the argument also requires framing. Why does it matter that there was this culture of seabathing? Why is it important for the argument this essay is making that we understand this context?

·         Line 60: competed, not completed

·         Lines 67-68: The two quotes here have both single and double quotation marks around them, which grammatically doesn’t make that much sense. Since these are quotes from the novel, they should just be in single quotes—which is the standard the essay uses for indicating quoted material.

·         Lines 126-127: I’d put another section break here, because this goes from a focus on Austen’s novel and its context to a focus on Davies’ ITV version.

·         Lines 215-216: This could be another section break as the essay shifts to the #MeToo context.

·         Lines 261-262: This could be another section break as the essay shifts to the cinematic context of the ITV version, looking more at this version as it compares with Davies’ previous work and with larger receptions of Austen.

·         Line 263: The phrase “the adaptation” isn’t clear here, as the TV version of The Handmaid’s Tale is also an adaptation. It would be clearer to say something like “in Davies’ Sanditon adaptation…”

·         Lines 323-325: This claim should be supported more. Certainly, it’s fair to claim that this was no where near as popular as Pride & Prejudice, but does that mean that the male nudity was a primary factor in that? I mean, Pride & Prejudice is one of the most beloved books in the world, whereas far fewer people will have heard of, much less read, Sanditon. We’re also in a different cultural moment now than 1995, and it seems to me that the British heritage industry isn’t pulling in the numbers it once was. I’m just not sure that the low viewership numbers aren’t more a result of other factors, rather than male nudity, as this claim suggests.

·         Lines 331-332: New section on sexual relationships.

·         Lines 354-357: This sentence is confusing because of how much info it sticks between the opening and closing portions. I would suggest a rewrite like: “Edward and Clara are both related to Lady Denham, but they are not kin—Sir Edward is Lady Denham’s step-nephew by her second marriage, and Clara is a member of Lady Denham’s original family—and Sir Edward is certainly not a ‘close family friend’ of Clara.” This should be a bit clearer for readers.

·         Lines 435-436: Personally, I’m not a fan of phrases like “To conclude…” or “In conclusion…” (probably because I see them continually in student writing. This might just be a personal preference, but I would rather than “Conclusion” as a section heading for this final paragraph.

Author Response

Many thanks for the extremely helpful report. I have attended to the comments as follows, and in my responses to the specific comments in italics that follow the bullet points:

• Plot summary. This has been added; see the response to the appropriate comment below.
• Section breaks. I have added three; see the responses to the appropriate comments below.
• Double-spaced footnotes. I have closed these up. Long footnotes: some of the material has been incorporated into the body of the essay, particularly at the beginning; see the responses to the appropriate comments below. I have deleted what was footnote 3 (now footnote 4), and another unnecessary footnote; I have removed the two critics featuring in them from the reference section. I have moved footnote 8 into the main essay due to another reviewer’s comment.

Specific Comments:

My comments below are a mix of section level observations and line comments.

Abstract

• Line 3: do we need the phrase “under 24,000-word” for this first line? To me it kind of feels extraneous. Cut; I have also removed “incomplete”, since “fragment” renders it extraneous.
• Lines 5-7: this section throws a lot of names at us, and for the abstract it isn’t clear that these names are all crucial to the core argument of the essay. Put more focus on the essay’s argument and leave crediting everyone involved with the show for the body of the essay. I’d streamline this by dropping it down to either the director or creator’s name. I have cut the directors and pasted them on lines 27-28.
• Line 12: I don’t think the commas are necessary on either side of Me-Too. Cut.

Body

• Lines 19-20: The essay title doesn’t need to be repeated here. Cut.
• Lines 23-24: Tell us, at least briefly, how this is a departure from Austen’s previous work. Unless we’re expected to set aside this essay to read Todd’s work, just the reference isn’t sufficient. This could be the focus of the entire first paragraph, and then begin a new paragraph at the word “Unsurprisingly” on line 24. I have added the following: “The novel fragment is set in the fledgling seaside resort of Sanditon on the south coast of England. The heroine, Charlotte Heywood, stays with the Parker family, and encounters a variety of invalids, mercenaries, and oddities. The draft narrative returns to Austen’s “youthful style of burlesque and caricature” (Todd, 93); unlike the mature novels, there is little in the way of free indirect discourse as a way of accessing the heroine’s thoughts. The fragment ends when Charlotte visits the grande dame of the resort, Lady Denham”.
• Lines 26-27: The phrase “less famous” seems like an unnecessary dig at Davies’ colleagues, and since it doesn’t serve much rhetorical/argumentative function, it should be dropped. Cut.
• Lines 28-37: This is a lot of logistical detail about the show, and it’s not clear how crucial most of it is to the eventual argument that’s going to be made. It seems like the key points are: 1) Davies’ style sets the tone for the series, and 2) this show combines Hollywood and British heritage approaches. If these are the most important points for the overall argument, the paragraph should foreground them, explain them in more depth (e.g., what is Davies’ style actually like—don’t just rely on footnotes pointing us toward other authors, since this info is crucial to your argument), and cut out details that aren’t as central to the argument. I have made amendments here: I have added a few sentences where relevant and moved some of the footnote material to the main text.
• Lines 52-53: This seems like a natural place for a section break. However, this section of the argument also requires framing. Why does it matter that there was this culture of seabathing? Why is it important for the argument this essay is making that we understand this context? I have put a section break in here. To frame it, I have added a prefatory sentence as follows: “To appreciate the significance of the adaptation’s treatment of bodies and bathing, it is important to consider the pastime of sea-bathing in Austen’s life, period and the novel fragment”.
• Line 60: competed, not completed. Changed.
• Lines 67-68: The two quotes here have both single and double quotation marks around them, which grammatically doesn’t make that much sense. Since these are quotes from the novel, they should just be in single quotes—which is the standard the essay uses for indicating quoted material. Changed.
• Lines 126-127: I’d put another section break here, because this goes from a focus on Austen’s novel and its context to a focus on Davies’ ITV version. I have kept it as it is, because it’s part of the section on bodies and bathing machines in the novel and adaptation.
• Lines 215-216: This could be another section break as the essay shifts to the #MeToo context. I have kept it as it is, because it is a contextualisation of the same topic.
• Lines 261-262: This could be another section break as the essay shifts to the cinematic context of the ITV version, looking more at this version as it compares with Davies’ previous work and with larger receptions of Austen. As above.
• Line 263: The phrase “the adaptation” isn’t clear here, as the TV version of The Handmaid’s Tale is also an adaptation. It would be clearer to say something like “in Davies’ Sanditon adaptation…” Changed.
• Lines 323-325: This claim should be supported more. Certainly, it’s fair to claim that this was no where near as popular as Pride & Prejudice, but does that mean that the male nudity was a primary factor in that? I mean, Pride & Prejudice is one of the most beloved books in the world, whereas far fewer people will have heard of, much less read, Sanditon. We’re also in a different cultural moment now than 1995, and it seems to me that the British heritage industry isn’t pulling in the numbers it once was. I’m just not sure that the low viewership numbers aren’t more a result of other factors, rather than male nudity, as this claim suggests. At the end of line 325, I have added “although the lesser-known status of Sanditon amongst Austen’s works may have played a factor in the low viewing figures”. Also, I have added two sentences after this one in response to another reviewer’s comment.
• Lines 331-332: New section on sexual relationships. I have put a section break in here.
• Lines 354-357: This sentence is confusing because of how much info it sticks between the opening and closing portions. I would suggest a rewrite like: “Edward and Clara are both related to Lady Denham, but they are not kin—Sir Edward is Lady Denham’s step-nephew by her second marriage, and Clara is a member of Lady Denham’s original family—and Sir Edward is certainly not a ‘close family friend’ of Clara.” This should be a bit clearer for readers. Amended – thank you!
• Lines 435-436: Personally, I’m not a fan of phrases like “To conclude…” or “In conclusion…” (probably because I see them continually in student writing. This might just be a personal preference, but I would rather than “Conclusion” as a section heading for this final paragraph. I have added a section break and removed “To conclude,”.

Reviewer 3 Report

please add more (significant) key words & don't "hide" your important arguments on the treatment of race and racism in the footnote (n°8)

more actual dates (access to websites)

very trendy topic, well presented, good balance between adaptation & original --> a good read & a fine case study!

Author Response

Many thanks for the comments. To respond to the points:

• I have added the following key words: “ITV; bodies; sea-bathing”; I have moved footnote 8 on the “treatment of race and racism” into the main text.
• The dates of access to websites are in the bibliography at the end under each relevant entry.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The only correction I'd suggest is indenting the first line of the paragraph starting at line 70.