Eleanor Tomlinson as Demelza (the first season)
Aidan Turner as Ross
[PLEASE NOTE: This news turned out to be false. None of these crucial alterations were done. I’ve kept the blog to show how one should not believe what gossip says is coming in a mini-series; for the argument of what are crucial chanages; and most of all for all the comments readers of the blog, lovers of the book and mini-series wrote. These are very interesting.]
As all those who have been waiting for the second season of Poldark to air know, there has been an unexpected delay in the airing of the second season of Poldark. Usually when a series is a real hit, the producers, channel, film-maker strike while the iron is still hot. The second season of Outlander came before the end of another year, and a third and possibly fourth season have already been announced.
I am among those eager to see the new second season. So late last spring I noticed a column by Debbie Horsfield containing a carefully worded statement (around the time a second season might have ended) that they had decided to present the sexual events of the coming season discreetly. They were going to be suggestive, not graphic. All who have read the books knew a rape was coming and I took this to mean that as in the 1975 Poldark, we would only see the prologue to rape, and then the screen would go dark. She was saying that modern film-making customs would not be followed, and explicit sex scenes would not be developed.
Not that Ross’s rape of Elizabeth would be obliterated altogether.
Robin Ellis as Ross in the scenes prologue to the rape
Jill Townsend as Elizabeth in the same scenes (1975-76 Poldark)
That is what has been done. A suddenly timid BBC has perhaps pressured the film-makers of the new Poldark series to destroy a central event that makes for a meaningful plot design with a first climax at the end of the 7th book (The Angry Tide) and the final denouement of the whole cycle, at the close of the 12th book (Bella):
The BBC and film-makers say they feel that the modern audience could not accept a rape from a hero. It’s too shocking, rape. Have they not been watching other TV series of late? read any recent contemporary novels?
I wonder how much or if they fought over this. Robin Ellis tells us that in Making Poldark the script-writers and director were in conflict with some of the actors over the way in the 1970s mini-series Ross’s marriage to Demelza was presented as a shot-gun wedding, the result of a pregnancy which she first tried to abort, none of which is in Graham’s books.
Anghared Rees as Demelza protesting the morning after sex, declaring she wants to leave
With Ellis as Ross, she struggles to free herself so as to go for her abortion (again 1975 Poldark, wholly invented and unlike the book)
In Graham’s books Ross rebels against hierarchy, rank, status norms to marry a servant in his house because he and she have started to go to bed together, and he feels he is destroying her future unless he stops this before she gets pregnant or marries her. He finds himself comfortable with her, does not want to give her up as a servant, companion, and bed-mate, and is deeply angry against the social order. So defies it. Was this an important change? thereafter the script-makers and director kept faithfully to the books until near the end of Warleggan (Episodoes 14 to 15 in the first season, 1975-76) when they again departed radically, causing problems for the second season two years later (1977-78).
How important is the rape? I’d argue it’s far more important than the initial precipitating cause for Ross and Demelza’s marriage, as nothing else hinged on it. Not so the rape. To put it abstractly, in what ways can a film adaptation depart from a novel in order to erase or betray it? well, it can expunge a crucial plot-event that gives rise to a succession of climactic and centrally thematic fraught consequences in this or later novels, in other words further crucial plot-events. A series of consequences that make for the very ending of novels that are turning points in the novel series. You might say, this would not be easy to do. If A (so we’ll call the final moment in a novel) is the result of B, C, D, and E, and they came as a direct result of F, and F is missing (the rape), what happens to B, C, D, and E? Especially if they are particularly moving and tragic and give the characters acting these events depth and intense interest?
True. events A, B, C, and D will not come until the 3rd season. The results of Ross’s rape of Elizabeth about 2/3s the way through Warleggan (Poldark Novel 4) do not emerge until the birth of Valentine, Ross and Elizabeth’s son in The Black Moon (Poldark Novel 5), i.e, Season 3. The intense jealousy of Warleggan, and his abuse of Elizabeth, and her misery and wretchedness begin only when Warleggan has reason to suspect Valentine is Ross’s much later in The Four Swans (Poldark Novel 6). Indeed the script writer, Debbie Horsfield will not have to trouble herself over the final tragedy in say Episode 8 or 10 since it is only at the close of The Angry Tide (Poldark Novel 7) that desperate to make Warleggan think her present pregnancy is by him and accept Valentine’s his, Elizabeth decides she will make Warleggan believe she tends to give birth early and goes to a doctor for a dangerous concoction of herbs to precipitate early parturition and her own death. Never can tell, there might not be a Season 3.
But if there is (and I hope there will be), how will all this be handled? In Graham’s books Elizabeth was left to deal with it on her own. In the older Poldark mini-series ditto.
Jill Townsend as Elizabeth, this time pregnant by Warleggan, ashamed as she visits a doctor
The unsympathetic suspicious doctor who supplies the needed abortifacient
If there is a third season, and say, we actually reach a last season, and the 12th and final book of the series, Bella, what will they do with the plangent meaningful tragic close (our hypothetical E)? What guilt could Ross have over how Valentine became twisted and isolated if he did not for all these books and all these years evade his responsibility, refuse to admit to anyone that the boy was his, he was the father who left the boy fatherless? The gut-wrenching nightmares, Valentine’s turn to a pet orangutan (don’t laugh, the last books do justice to characters with disability, and develop an animal rights point of view implicit in the early books), Valentine’s own choice of death or self-destruction?
A very young David Hemmings and Samantha Egg in the 1970 Walking Stick
Graham has been credited with being an instinctive feminist, and with presenting women in transgressive and iconoclastic roles. Not just in his historical novels, but also his spy thrillers and modern mysteries and a few remarkable novels centering on mental disorder and disability (i.e., Marni (1964, Hitchcock film), The Walking Stick, both of which were filmed, the second brilliantly). I knew much of this was erased in the new first season, including any undermining of male gender stereotypes, but the protest level of feminism had been at least embodied to some extent in Verity’s story as well as Demelza’s. The first season saw the character of Elizabeth, in the original books and series, an insecure and ambitious woman, who found more joy in motherhood than she did understanding or support in her husband Francis; who didn’t care for sex particularly, turned into a pious moral exemplar, whose every thought was to make her husband a good entrepreneur and imitator of his father, Charles and every waking act to nurture her baby.
Heida Reed as Elizabeth near tears because Francis is not coming up to masculine norms (2015 Poldark)
Kyle Soller as a moving Francis Poldark in considerable distress because he’s come down in the world as he can’t manage the work ethic (wholly unlike the aristocratic Francis of the books and 1970s series)
Henry James said what a character does is central to how we know a character’s psychology and ethical character. I am wondering now how they will change this character so that she falls into adultery with Ross? If they have an affair, that means sex with some frequency, no? If we are to see a succession of days and nights of sex between Ross and Elizabeth, what does that do to his character? his relationship with Demelza? In the original books and mini-series, the Scots Captain McNeill almost succeeds in seducing Demelza; she backs away at the last moment. Will she “have an affair in turn.” I hope not because she does have a real love romance in The Four Swans that is meaningful: as a young girl she never had a romantic courtship nor a man near her age, respect and courtesy and poetry she yearned for comes her way. No one is expecting Graham’s hero to be as believable as Tolstoy’s Pierre (from War and Peace) I suppose, but the books do contain a real man as protagonist, a complex enough character to interest us. Real men who are not utter villains rape women — this even happens the statistics tell us often. This is an issue that should not be swept under a rug.
In the first season Horsfield boasted that she was closer to the original books than the 1970s mini-series. She’s given that up — or was forced to. Could it be that the BBC read fan sites where people have argued fiercely that Ross could not have raped Elizabeth; or, that Elizabeth is to blame for the night of sex; or anything rather than Graham’s disquieting novel for mature adults. No longer do fans have nowhere to voice their displeasure. They were worried lest sticking to the original books mar their ratings. Recent film studies have shown that further seasons of a series will alter intentions and characters to please on-line fan groups or at least exert considerable pressure (Andrea Schmidt, “The Imaginative Power of Downton Abbey Fan Fiction” in Julie Taddeo and James Leggott’s collection, Upstairs and Downstairs: British Costume TV Drama: The Forsyte Saga to Downton Abbey). So perhaps the BBC was willing to mar their matter and pressured Horsfield to change her stance towards faithfulness. Whether the result will deprive the central heros and heroines of a complexly develping consistent personalities over a long series of books or (if it should come to pass) series of films remains to be seen.
I had been planning to write about the second season without referring to the 1970s mini-series. Now I will compare the two series with the books as I did last year (see my blog and an essay, Poldark Rebooted, 40 Years On). I may even teach the second trilogy of Graham’s books (The Black Moon, The Four Swans, and The Angry Tide, 1973-77) as last and two years ago I taught the first quartet (Ross Poldark, Demelza, Jeremy Poldark, Warleggan, 1945-53)
From the cover illustration of the first paperback edition of Graham’s Black Moon
Ellen
Ellen And Jim Have A Blog, Two 
Anne Hogg: “I much enjoyed reading your blog Ellen. Thanks for sharing.”
Judith Gay: “Brilliant read. lways enjoy your writing so much.’
Rosalyne Lemarchand: “A good blog. Thanks Ellen.”
Jenni Not sure you should have mentioned the “central event” so specifically on this page – spoiler alert! 🙂
But I know what you mean. I’m hoping that it will be as tastefully done as in the original series. I think one of the issues is that we are looking at it with more modern eyes than either WG was when he wrote it or even when it was filmed. I’m not even sure whether it was considered that it was rape at the time, more that she was “reluctant” because of the potential consequenes and social mores of the time, even though she really wanted to. Sort of like Rhett and Scarlett. Of course we now consider this unacceptable behaviour, but that’s a reflection of our current society,
Me: “Well, both BBC sites told of the rape explicitly — they are forestalling criticism; I do say that in order to make the points I want to about the effects of such changes I have to tell events in the future books and seasons so the reader stands warned. All my blogs have this kind of proviso. I am writing for those who have read the books. I trust that rape remains unacceptable and is not a momentary change of custom; indeed one problem is in courts the rapist gets away with it by smearing the woman and only a small percentage of rapes that happen are reported. It’s a violent violation of another human being, meant as an assault. That is how it is regarded in law across many many societies. And it is a potential in the character of Ross as conceived in the books and the original mini-series.
In GWTW, the incident is marital rape; if it’s not condemned by some viewers, that’s misogyny and does indeed reflect the 1930s when recall in the US lynching of black people was regular occurrence too.
Cindy Liley: “If it had been done similarly to the original series I don’t think anyone would have liked Ross less. It was obvious why he did what he did. Why do they always have to change things?”
Me: His anger is part of what makes him a revolutionary and radical, and his anger is justified by what happens around him.
Margaret Abbett: “Totally agree Jenni Goldsmith. And there is an ambivalence about this scene in the book. Indeed Ross hints to Demelza in the final scenes of book 4 that although he come upon Elizabeth by force it was consensual – and yes I know every rapist says that – but I prefer to believe it in this case and I understand Winston liked the reader to be left wondering. Ross is such a brooding character and Elizabeth such a compliant character that even being carried away into infidelity could have the same consequences in my opinion. Of course a TV drama cannot portray the nuances of a book. The director and scriptwriter has a choice and for today’s modern audiences I think they have chosen the right one. I loved the 1970’s version but we were a different audience. And the scriptwriters of that series also messed with the character of Elizabeth – making her such a selfish, hard character that she considers leaving Francis and getting a divorce – something so rare in the 1790’s as to be a laughable plot twist. Much had to be done to pull back and “soften” Elizabeth’s character for the second series of the earlier version so that we could believe her internal conflict. Nice blog though Ellen – it’s certainly got us thinking even if I don’t quite agree with your prognosis.
Me: I suggest films can be as complex as books. They are in the case of say Ingmar Bergman, and to cite someone less serious many Woody Allen films and on TV and in cinemas today, many films, e.g., the recent 45 Years. Elizabeth does not comply that night; we do not know if later on she just became passive. Certainly she seethes with intense anger at him for years after. She grieves alone over what happens ((there are several passages of this in Warleggan and more in the later books). Her desire to leave Francis is not laughable: separation did occur in that period between the upper classes and certainly it occurred in the audience of the 1970s. Historical films are about the earlier period but they are also about the audience’s conflicts.
I’m stunned – to remove a pivotal event in a book because the audience can’t handle a nuanced, complex hero and just want a cardboard cut out is ridiculous – especially when you think of how much sexual violence is on TV and in films nowadays. Just dumb….
Margaret Abbett: “I know she considered” separation – most of us would in an unsuitable relationship – the books made her far more human than TV. But the first series had her on the verge of eloping with Ross – that didn’t happen in the books. But I digress. We are talking about popular drama and viewing figures – like it or not that is what determines whether or not the Poldark series is bought to the screen. Much as you and I love the books I think it unlikely they will ever be dramatised for television with the same depth as an Ingmar Bergman film. Although who knows – the way we view TV is changing by the minute. I am merely talking about today’s audience and the pressures of a script writer like Debbie Horsfield working in that field.”
Me: I more or less agree. Bergman is the extreme example like Rohner who shows a film can be as complex as a book. But many TV films today do show complexity and daring: consider Outlander; male rape of males; torture; central characters doing all sorts of ambivalent acts. HBO is a place where mature films are presented weekly. I see the core problem of what happened to the 1970s mini-series and now to this one that there is no sufficient respect for the books and a persistent idea those watching then and today are watching tea-time “safe” Sunday serials. The latter is a preposterous notion but it holds. The original reception of the Poldark books categorized them as inferior women’s romance not the seriously researched historical novels they are. Horsfield in her contemporary work and what she has said about the Poldark in the first season suggests this kind of change was something she was pressured into doing. And now they will have to change what’s to come as this rape event was a crucial central node of the books.
Angela Hyde: “Excellent analysis”
Margaret Abbett; “You’re right Ellen – people love series like Outlander and others from HBO and buy the whole series – maybe in the future it will be a platform for Poldark where it can be tackled in a different way to the golden “safe” Sunday evening drama slot.
Me: Series do move, though not always so that they can be freer to present mature drama. Andrew Davies’s adaptation of War and Peace was not played on PBS in the US: PBS has actually adapted a policy where they eschew the old great classic or harder books in film adaptation. They prefer the thriller or situation comedy disguised as 1930s mystery story. They disrespect their audience and fear loss of revenue if they offer the old alternative they used to. So War and Peace in the US ended up on absurd channels like Lifeline. I watched it on my BBC iplayer. They accept Poldark because the books do not come with the aura of a classic. A sad state which deprives US viewers of great British drama. We may hope they’ll change their mind on Poldark only I fear Poldark might vanish because it might not be picked up by the channel that hosts Outlander — seen as too tame.
Tyler: “I’ll just chime in to say that Poldark season 2 will be on PBS in
September. On August 28th there is an “Inside Poldark” special on to
recap the old season and give previews for the new one, and it follows a
“I Miss Downtown Abbey” special that night – revisiting treasured
moments of the series and new behind the scenes and interview footage –
hosted by Allen Leech who played Branson (the chauffeur who married Sybil).
I enjoy reading your posts about these series Ellen so please do keep
posting about Poldark and how the new season differs from the books and
earlier series.
Tyler
Diane: “I watched season 1 of the remade Poldark, but have not read the books or seen the earlier series. Am I right in thinking that you are saying that Poldark rapes someone in season 2, that that event is integral to the story and yet that the rumor is that it might be written out of the new season 2, presumambly for reasons of political correctness? If so, that would be too bad.
Me: What I’m saying is a crucial event occurs at the climax of the first quartet of books (written 1945-53), after which Graham abandoned the series. He didn’t know what to do with this act that he rightly dramatized as what was coming: Ross Poldark’s rape of Elizabeth. When he returned 20 years later, just before the books began to be filmed for the BBC (1970s), so the impetus came first, he determined to make that event a pivotal one across all the books. It leads to a horrific tragedy at the end of the trilogy: Elizabeth’s death brought on my early parturition she caused to get her abusive husband off her back. He wrote 5 more books and in all of them the son, Valentine is a central figure, and the cycle ends on Valentine’s nightmarish death and Ross’s final coming to terms with his refusal to acknowledge, engage, father this boy.
It will utterly change the tenor of the series: in comparison the sexual act becomes trivial; since Horsfield changed the character of Elizabeth to be exemplary domestic instead of a form of feminism in the sense that the Elizabeth in the book and 1st series was transgressive, ambitious, cold and also a loving mother (altogether can exist). so now she has to make many changes because from A followed B, C, D, E, F …. now without A, what?
Ellen
Nancy Hey: “Well, the way I best remember it from the book was that Elizabeth consented to the sex, even if reluctantly because she knew she was committing adultery, but that does not really make it rape. I think if Ross had truly taken her against her consent the readers would have lost a lot of sympathy for Ross.”
Me; It was 1952 and the act itself not dramatized, left ambivalent. But that it seems a rape is clear, and that Elizabeth seethes and is deeply punished (most unfairly) by the coming events is part of the feminism of the book (as I see it). I think you have to read not just the scene but all that surrounds it and comes to pass. To change it to an affair utterly destroys the plot-design and the character of Elizabeth. A lot of men claim a woman said no and then gave in reluctantly — later she says not, Elizabeth herself. I’m with her. Ross is a complicated character; he did partly instigate the riot; he’s not a conventional hero at all. Abiding renegade, Che Guevara with Stewart Grainger combined is what Ellis called him.
Well said. I have been an avid Poldark fan since the seventies. Have watched original series repeatedly and have read all the novels. Eagerly Awaited each new volume after Graham picked up the story following the success of the TV series’. My husband was also a fan and has found this upcoming change simply in his words “stupid”. He believes it diminishes the edge that was part of Ross’s character. Making him simply another man who won’t refuse a willing woman. This is true. I have come to enjoy the reboot of the series but some liberties do not sit well with me. George is portrayed ideally and well executed but Francis is a bit too much of a loser. It was not as you stated so emphasized in the 70’s adaptation. Silly for the BBC to think modern audiences can’t handle the truth. As you point out there is plenty of viewing evidence that says otherwise. One more observation. I have to disagree with your comment regarding Dr. Anselm who gave Elizabeth the deadly “vegetable mixture.” Perhaps it was different in the novel. I’d have to check back. In the TV production he is clearly skeptical and warns her. The famous “there is risk” line. She is quite adamant in her mission and unless I truly misread his performance I think he sees this. He does try to convince her to reconsider. It is good for thought. I remember him telling her at the very end of their consultation he believes she will deliver safely. I think these potions were effective with occasional consequences. Much like our questionable pharmaceuticals of today. Was he giving her the final say?
You may be right. I have to reread the novel but “there is risk” rings a bell. Somewhere in these blogs someone sent a comment which explains the compound and that it was known to sometimes eventuate in gangrene. I believe the film does simplify it. In the novel she is desperate; she feels she cannot live with George Warleggan on the terms they have been, and she fears he will abuse Valentine and her coming child. I’d say there’s a death wish there but that she cares so much for her children; that is the one obligation she adheres most to.
Horsfield realized she cannot omit the act, or the character, Valentine, and she seems to contemplate an affair. How is an affair between the two any better? In the novels Ross is torn between his love of the two women, but finally he decides he is truly in love with Demelza, sees her character as superior, and wants to do the honorable thing: stay with the woman he married. He also wanted (in the novel) to have Elizabeth dependent on him, and that was wrong; he was egoistic in that, not thinking of her.
Bonny wise: “I find it interesting in two different reviews of Warleggan when it was published that nothing was mentioned of rape or something shocking happening. I come down in the camp it was not rape… started out as forceful but did not end that way.
Me: Because something is not openly discussed does not mean it’s not in the book. In 1953 it would have been shameful to bring the topic. Indeed there was hardly any public talk in print about the Poldark novels until the first film adaptations. All publications were about Graham’s mystery and spy thrillers. The Poldark novels were dissed, book-of-the-month club selections, regional romance. No one until now has discussed the deep anti-capitalist thrust of the series and that’s vivid in the books and the 1970s films.
When a woman says no, it’s no, and it’s left ambiguous in the text, though he forces her down; we don’t know what was said; we do know what she said afterward and how she loathed Ross.
There are some very moving thoughts she has as she prepares to marry Warleggan, partly because she’s pregnant: ““God, I am in a cage! Lost for ever? why did Ross [then she does not articulate, it’s too hard for her]. God, I am in a cage. Lost for ever” Some instinct told her not to marry Warleggan, but she was stuck. The point is not to argue over the nature of the rape but at least in my blog to deplore the erasure of the issue altogether and wonder how this will destroy much of the original plot-design of the books.
Gill wrote: “Elizabeth pays with a ruined marriage and ultimately her life. Ross doesn’t suffer at all, IMO” I’d put it very marginally, nothing in comparison to what happened to her and she did not choose this sex act; he did, and forced it. That’s why I wonder what will happen leading up to and that last series of scenes in the book. There at long last he admits his guilt and is deeply deeply remorseful, but then by that time he has also lost another much beloved son, Jeremy. Demelza has retired permanently to Cornwall, no more court life for her either. These are remarkable historical novels.
Dr. Anselm just says if it does not work the first time, do not repeat. He never says it is dangerous. If he did, I don’t think she would have taken it.
Bonny: “They are very good books and look at the conversation it has spawned! I respect for everyone to have a right to their opinion. Ross is a complicated man and for the most part did the right thing..but he was far too emotional, even Demelza once said to “think” not “act”. All through the books when he thinks of what happened he always ends with a “but not so much so” by the end kind of remark except in Bella which was written 50 years later! Was it WG being senile ( there are other inconsistencies) or was he trying to tell us something? Maybe his son knows, but for me I have to believe he would not have spent the better part of his life and 12 novels writing about a rapist.
Me: If you look at the whole of his oeuvre, you find that he frequently recurs to marital rape: what happens to Morwenna is common across all his fictions. It’s central to Marni, and is found in The Forgotten Story. It’s really Morwenna’s case that he dramatizes at length. Disability is another common trope or kind of characters found across all his novels. Marni and The Forgotten Story are two readily available ones, both of which have been filmed. He writes in response to comments on Marni that he is showing how women have had a “raw deal.” The husband in Forgotten Story is not punished at all; we see the wife had to go back to him because she needs a job and a husband for a boy she adopts. We are to think he will not act that way again ,but it does happen and that’s telling. Rape is also not uncommon as a motive for action in a number of the books, especially those centering on family groups. So the Poldark novels fit into the rest of his work. I would say no man is defined by a single act; you may commit a crime, and live to become or be a good and great man. I would say Ross Poldark has many facets to his character and Graham is exploring him as a rebel, deep rebel and why. What happens to him. Over time. No one is accusing Ross of serial rape. But I suggest you are losing sight of the point of my blog: as a feminist who cares about the books I think it deprives the series of serious questioning found in the books. And I’ll stick by my idea that Elizabeth at times wishes for death, for oblivion. She is appalled when she realizes what Morwenna is going through and (an interpretation) blames herself for not being able to buck the bully Warleggan. That’s enough from me for the day.
John Gimlett “Boom! Drop that mic Bonny Wise!”
Love your blogs. They are the right mix of academic analysis and entertainment. I agree you can be a complex character and not always show good judgement as Ross had done several times,and ultimately with the rape of Elizabeth. This reprehensible act did not make me hate Ross. I was disappointed in him. But men commit rape even today and they too are not always punished but rather pitied by the public and judges. Also, Graham shows that the consequences of the rape was borne by Elizabeth because it was and is a male-dominated society and those consequences echoed throughout the novels, the most glaring and unfair being Elizabeth’s death. I think the producers should trust their audience, trust that we can hold complex feelings regarding heroes and heroines.
In reply to further comments: To John Gimlett, Elizabeth’s anguish was a compound of many things. Ross surmises he should return to her, but we are not told what she is feeling at that point; the narrative turns to what Demelza is feeling. The comment I quote gathers up how her marriage to Warleggan is a desperate move – she is entering an iron cage; he does not give her what he promised at all; after Francis died she found coping with life and finances too much. In a later scene when she tries to tell Ross Valentine is his and asks for his advice, she does say, if only you had returned but this is years later and after her second marriage is a bitter disappointment.
To Bonny, to my mind the marital rape scenes, the sadism are far more fully indicative and important in the series. Not for the plot-design as they are secondary characters but for theme. So many people comment Galsworthy as almost the only writer to depict coerced marriage and forced sex in marriage as marital rape. They ignore Graham.
Last comment: there are two very dark or bad characters in Graham: Books 7-12 feature them: gradually we learn that Stephen Carrington is very bad man: he leads Jeremy seriously astray, almost destroys his career; he betrays Clowance, and as I’ve not read the later books so often I can’t remember what but at the end it’s revealed he did some ruthless horrible things. Also Valentine is twisted, sadistic; if it’s not rape it’s near rape when he takes advantage of this lonely disabled girl repeatedly; it’s thought he murdered her (he didn’t). Books 7-12 have less of Ross and Demelza and they are much darker. My view: none are as strong as the first seven except The Twisted Sword which is a powerful masterpiece of historical fiction. Recently I learned how accurate is the depiction of the part of Waterloo where Jeremy Poldark fights.
Val Adams has taken it upon herself to speak for the “Poldark appreciation society” that Aidan Turner is miscast. My reply: No one can talk for all. Horsfield has reconceived the character and Turner is very good in it. So too is Demelza reconceived and Tomlinson is very good. I like Ruby Bentall very much. Kyle Soller is a great actor (he was in the Shakespeare Hollow Crown series). I could go on but will spare everyone. The only criticism I have is this: I dislike intensely the emphasis on the press and online about Turner’s nude torso; this sort of talk debases him as a person, makes him ridiculous ,and detracts from the way we should approach him in the part. I deplore the decision to include such scenes as realistically it’s ridiculous:in the hot sun he’d wear as shirt the way Kyle Soller does when he works his meadows as Francis Poldark.
I have encountered a good deal of comments on various message boards, Twitter and Tumblr from fans of the series who do not want Ross to rape Elizabeth in the current series. They want Horsfield to portray what happened between them as consensual sex.
I don’t know if Horsfield will change the context of the encounter. I hope that she doesn’t. I think she should follow Graham’s 1953 novel, considering the major consequences that eventually occurred because of Ross’ actions. It’s possible that Horsfield will portray the sequence just as the 1975 series did.
I only hope that Horsfield will not make the same mistake that the 1975 series did by following up the rape sequence with one that painted Ross in a positive light and Elizabeth in a negative one. I am referring to the added sequence that centered on the burning of Trenwith. I hope Horsfield will not be that cowardly.
And I’ll stick by my idea that Elizabeth at times wishes for death, for oblivion. She is appalled when she realizes what Morwenna is going through and (an interpretation) blames herself for not being able to buck the bully Warleggan. That’s enough from me for the day.
Elizabeth did. In a scene from “The Angry Tide”, she blamed both herself and George for Morwenna’s marriage and openly said so . . . much to his displeasure. And she was very adamant about it.
If you click on the two on-line columns, you’ll see it’s too late. She has already written the series so that Elizabeth and Ross are said to be having an affair, and it’s been filmed that way.
I have come to enjoy the reboot of the series but some liberties do not sit well with me. George is portrayed ideally and well executed but Francis is a bit too much of a loser.
George Warleggan is not portrayed ideally in this new series. He’s not a one-dimensional villain, but he’s certainly not ideal. And Francis was portrayed as a very pathetic loser in the 1975 adaptation of both “Ross Poldark” and “Demelza”. I just finished watching that particular series’ first eight episodes.
The new George Warleggan is no hero, but he is portrayed far more positively by Horsfield than he is in the book or the 1975-8 series. I love the new Francis at this point; I love an underdog and identify utterly with him though find that what is demanded of him goes deeply against Graham’s values in the original books. Horsfield is deeply pro-capitalist, pro-work ethic and the original books were deeply social and much more individualistic, hedonistic, flexible.
Horsfield is deeply pro-capitalist, pro-work ethic and the original books were deeply social and much more individualistic, hedonistic, flexible.
Because George Warleggan was portrayed with more ambiguity than he was in the 1975 series?
She has already written the series so that Elizabeth and Ross are said to be having an affair, and it’s been filmed that way.
I’m really inclined not to bother with Series 2. But considering that the 1975 series had screwed up or undermined the rape sequence by changing the ending of the “Warleggan” adaptation in order to regain Ross’ “heroic image”, I guess I might as well stick with it. But I will do so with disgust, as I have done the last part of the ’75 series.
I was feeling hostile, when writing about Debbie Horsfield’s decision to change what happened between Ross and Elizabeth. My hostility was directed at Ms. Horsfield, And my hostility was also directed at the producers of the 1975-77 series, who had decided to undermine the rape scene with changes at the end of that particular series in order to regain Ross’ heroic image.
It’s more than sympathy; she gives him lines to support the capitalist order; she has him justify spending his life compromising and networking so as to make money; she has him tell Ross that he will regret his rebellion, his retreat. i love when Ross make fun of that. But none of this is in the book. She also makes the person who is determined to be the ruthless monopolist, the uncle when in the books it’s Warleggan. One could say that the 1970s films make Warleggan worse, but they stayed within the terms of the books. The 2016 film is a fable for a neoliberal order; we see a man (Ross) struggle against it, but also grow rich through it. That is not the emphasis of the book or the 1970s films.
I will watch the second season. Mainly I like the books very much and actually am stimulated by comparing and enjoy some of the realization. Also I”m a widow, am alone most of the time and am glad to lose myself in what I have loved so well in books and in the 1970s films (which had their flaws but which I liked very very much).
I’ll just chime in to say that Poldark season 2 will be on PBS in September. On August 28th there is an “Inside Poldark” special on to recap the old season and give previews for the new one, and it follows a “I Miss Downtown Abbey” special that night – revisiting treasured moments of the series and new behind the scenes and interview footage – hosted by Allen Leech who played Branson (the chauffeur who married Sybil).
I enjoy reading your posts about these series Ellen so please do keep posting about Poldark and how the new season differs from the books and earlier series.
Tyler
I commented on another blog….I saw a video of Elizabeth with her legs open with her dress pulled up and Ross was over her….they were on a long table with dishes on the table and I find this really strange…I guess R wanted a quickie…E is being cooperative because she will do anything to make R leave D…this affair ruins the rest of the series… I would like to see what I saw in the 1975 series…!
Oh dear. I’ve read other comments like this. I wonder if this YouTube was deliberately planted.
All day long people have been reading my various blogs on the novels and on the films. The blogs on the novels sometimes contain a plot-summary. I’ve discovered that they’ve changed the books utterly.
The two books are not centered on love stories: the center of the first (Poldark 3, Jeremy Poldark) is a trial, and the aftermath of Demelza and Poldark going broke and nearly starving, he going in for smuggling, her fishing and having another baby. The center of the second (Poldark 4, Warleggan) is the death of Elizabeth’s husband, Francis as they try to re-open and succeed with the mine, and the second the rise of this guy Warleggan. Yes Ross’s rage, rape, because he feels betrayed by Elizabeth marrying Warleggan is there, but these are substories.
What Horsfield did (it’s said) was listen to fans who wanted consensual sex. Movies made using focus groups (just like political campaigns). And then made Elizabeth and Ross into lovers across the two books, and thus made the work into a romance. The first two books were made far more into romances too by marginalizing minor characters and other stories.
So now we have this pair of people desperately having sex on a kitchen table. Horsfield might say had Graham written the books today he would have had open adultery and far more sex, but that is to skew the books into romance. It is dismaying to realize that these books are not going to be more respected but less. I know the previous series departed a lot too, but except that opening reason for the marriage, it did stay with the original emphases.
I’ve lost my enthusiasm because I liked the books for their politics, for weaving history as politics that spoke to those left after WW2 on what basis for building a new society: socialistic democracy was Graham’s answer.
Diane: “I am reminded of Uncle Tom being turned into a meek, craven servant in post Civil War adaptations, which made him more palatable to audiences but fundamentally distorts the book and undermines its power.
Thinking of Henry James, who you mention in your blog, Uncle Tom in the novel is driven by the force of his integrity–he is a very strong person and always does the thing that preserves his innate sense of self and sense of dignity and worth and that gets obliterated to the point that “Uncle Tom” is now a term of derision. Though I don’t much know Poldark, I dislike on principle novels being changed to suit–and then reinforce– popular tastes.”
I read somewhere that Aiden said the E seduction scenes were discreet but having them use a table with him being on top is not being discreet…I thought he meant by saying the scenes were discreet for the viewers that nothing like this would be shown…unless Debbie is trying to make R look sexier…I guess I was wrong…if this is a romance then this is much more involvement between the two unless R was doing this to spoil things for George…this romance means to me that he was still in love with E and he was still trying to make up his mind…if they met a few times to have sex then he should have realized that E could become pregnant and I would have a hard time believing that R didn’t think Valentine was his kid…that is stupidity on his part…this doesn’t make sense…it shouldn’t have taken him that long to figure out that he wasn’t in love with E…what does a romance mean, 3, 4 or 6 seductions…that just doesn’t make sense to me…when they meet to have sex, I would have preferred them to have a passionate kiss then walk off to have sex …where were the servants…I guess she didn’t care because she had R right where she wanted him, inside of her…I am thinking about not watching the series because I have also lost my enthusiasm…!
Thank you for this reply. You are bringing home to me that attitudes in 2016 are that if a man [Ross] is in love with another woman [Elizabeth] than the one he’s married to [Demelza], the “natural” or even acceptable thing is to have an affair; if she [E] is in love with him [R] after all, vice versa. The conclusion you take is that the character is “sexier,” more sexually inclined.
Horsfield is then putting down to the 1950s and then 70s, the presentation of a man [R] in love with a woman [E] to repressed mores. She is dramatizing what she thinks is acceptable today. This theme of a man in love with two women while married to one is common across Graham’s works, and it is common among romance stories by men. The only thing is this sort of makes Demelza into a compliant fool. In the books and in the 1970s film Ross had a real love for Demelza that was much stronger than what he felt for Elizabeth; in the books and 1970s Demelza is presented as aware of what’s happening around her and not willing to stand for Ross having an affair. She is willing to leave him, and the marriage comes near to breaking up at the end of Warleggan. I think such attitudes are found today: that a man might not have an affair with a woman he is not married to but thinks he loves — if he is deeply in love with his wife and concerned for her. Another reason for Graham not to write on for 20 years. There was 20 years between Warleggan and The Black Moon (Poldark 5) . He had written himself into a box.
I agree the one time sexual encounter that produces a pregnancy is absurd. It was a common convention in novels where the heroine was supposed to be regarded as chaste and yet had had sex outside marriage from the 18th century on. It was not acceptable for a chaste heroine to have lots of sex with a man outside marriage. So this convention came about, and it was used in the 1970s films where they departed from Ross Poldark [Poldark 1]. In the 1970s films Ross and Demelza have sex but once and she gets pregnant, and because of her pregnancy he marries her. In the book they begin to have an affair, go to bed nightly, and he marries her out of decency towards her, because he likes and is comfortable with her, enjoys the sex, and is deeply alienated from the hierarchical society which murdered Jim for example. In the book she gets pregnant only after a few months of marriage.
It is troubling to me to see the interpretation of Elizabeth that you rightly explain. In other words, today young women regard other women as aggressive sexually; as being like men wanting sex for itself ruthlessly (“she had R right where she wanted him, inside her ….”). In the 1945-53 books and in the 1970s films Elizabeth is not aggressive sexually; she is a loyal wife first (to Francis Poldark and then to George Warleggan), and her desire for sex only emerges when she deeply loves. She cannot deeply love Ross in the books because there is no on-going relationship to develop once Ross is married to Demelza. I guess this overt aggressive sexuality is seen as a new form of feminism. To me it’s imposing on women a male point of view about sex.
I also see from what you say that in 2016 Ross is not criticized strongly for betraying his wife sexually as a regular thing. In the 1950s and in the 1970s that would have been worse than a one-night rape — the rape after all was the result of his rage at Elizabeth for (as he felt it) taking advantage of him by taking money (he forgot he offered it to be able to make her beholden to him and control her). The original audiences would have been dismayed in the extreme and hurt at Ross having a regular affair with Elizabeth. Love rather than sex was the seen as rightly a dominating motive. Today it seems okay for sex to be dominating: again, I think that’s an aggressive male point of view replacing a woman’s.
To me Horsfield is no feminist; she takes on board the male hegemonic order and re-structures the characters to mirror male attitudes. I’ll compare Outlander where the heroine, Claire, is deeply torn because she truly loves Jamie. We are told at the outset after the separation they have had for 5 years, they were no longer the lovers they were, and they were not quite getting there; before this could emerge she is transported to the 18th century and then as protection marries Jamie. This viewpoint is that of a woman, and I’d say Gabaldon and her film-makers are making a series that is far more a true woman’s film, mirroring a woman’s point of view, than Horsfield. I am sorry for this, regret it, for again Graham was an instinctive feminist, felt for women, saw them as they saw themselves. I wonder what Horsfield will do about the marital rapes and sadism in the coerced marriage of Morwenna to the mean vicar Whitworth — if the series gets that far.
I will watch because I’ve loved Graham’s books, but now to try to understand these modern attitudes and how women are losing ground in the areas of independence and their very psychology erased and distorted. I am dismayed over that.
It’s worth mentioning that in the books Elizabeth has three children: Geoffrey Charles who she loves tenderly by Francis; Valentine who she is a loving mother to because she loves her children first as and for themselves and so it does not matter to her that the father is Ross; and then a girl, Ursula, by George Warleggan. We are to feel she would have been such a good mother to this daughter, but she is cut off by the early parturition and death. As they stand by Elizabeth’s corpse near the end of The Angry Tide, George tells Ross, between the two of them they killed Elizabeth. In this sense she is a tragic heroine for women to identify with, done in by male sexuality, male jealousy, male power (for George Warleggan had been making her life miserable, been cruel to Valentine and Ross was not accepting any responsibility for what had happened). In the later novels Elizabeth’s spinning wheel is kept in one of the rooms and it becomes a poignant symbol of her absent presence. I have loved her as the character she is in the books.
Again thank you for giving me this insight into why and how Horsfield has made such changes.
Not a digression: Yes I’m an essentialist and think (along with Lynn Brown and others) that there is a woman’s psychology different from men’s: the result not only of biology, but centuries of history, the way women are socialized still, the kinds of roles they are allowed which are internalized.
“It’s an interesting question, Ellen: in what ways can a film adaptation
destroy or betray a book.
It makes me think of the Wizard of Oz – the 1939 film is one of the greatest films ever made, and yet, it betrays the book because Dorothy’s journey to Oz is just a dream – in the book it’s a real place, and in the series, Dorothy returns there many times.
So the question might be when can a film adaptation betray a book, butit still is okay?
Tyler”
That’s right. Thank you, Tyler. That is the point I was making. Instead if you look at the comments there are arguments was the act a rape or not, and the people go off into cataloguing the new changes. I do participate or at least listen to new attitudes in 2016, but my central point was lost. Thank you. I think this particular change is so crucial that it does change the whole tenor of the story. I’d say the 1939 change in The Wizard of Oz film was crucial enough to change the tenor of the story, but the reality is there was no second movie. If they had wanted to make a second movie, they’d have had to say in Movie 2, wait it really was a real place.
Hardly anyone paid attention to this which is what interested me to write the blog 🙂
I’ve discovered from listening to these people a whole new set of attitudes towards women in this new film series that does dismay me. I’ve written this partly on the assumption the reader knows the books, but I have also tried to explain what’s in the books and 1970s films so send this on for those interested.
E.M.
I agree with what you said about Demelza and how this is going to be so difficult for her…IMO it makes her look weak because I know she’s such a strong woman in mind and in spirit…I know D suffered during her 10 year marriage because she knew E was a threat…then she has to be tormented by this affair…how much can a woman take…I know she loves R but if she did want to leave him there wouldn’t be too many choices for her and she mite lose Jeremy…many women stayed with their husbands because they had to during that time…E was only in love with herself and I do not believe she was ‘in love’ with R…she loved the fact that she could control him by her remarks and her behavior (the letter on May 9 and the comment she made at the dinner)…E did that to provoke him, O.K., don’t throw stones at me, but she knew what would make R visit her…I know R wanted to control her but she wanted to control him because it made her feel desirable (someone said this in a previous blog)…also what kind of woman would try to take a husband away from his wife…to me that’s ruthless behavior…R is a an azz and you are right again in that he really doesn’t suffer for his behavior…if there is a romance then IMO he’s weak and cowardly…he could never redeem himself in my eyes…he is bloddy high-minded and his ego is the size of the planet…I would have horse whipped him and kicked him out…I mite watch the series to see what happens if there is a romance but I’m very sad the plot line has been changed…I love, love this blog…!
They are all very real. Lots of us are weak, and you are right to remember that in this earlier era. women could not just leave a husband. Demelza would have no means of support; her community would be very against her. We must never forget her low rank; an upper class woman can return to a family who has room and servants, Demelza would be despised. She’d lose whatever she gained by the marriage. In reality, she would not think of it for real. She might want to, but pull back — as she does in the books. Plus she loves him.
Elizabeth is a complicated character. Yes she is an egoist, very involved with herself, but I think she’s the kind of woman who does not love a man deeply; there are women who are mothers first. She wants to be part of society, she wants stability and safety. The love romance myth is a myth; one cannot build a whole life on love. She’s attracted by Ross but she fears his predilection for risk, his violence. Probably she choose badly both times when she chose a husband. She learns if anything Warleggan is far worse than Francis; Francis was kind and did not domineer. I think as she is in the book she corresponds more to women wanting to live independent yet safe lives today. I feel for her fragility — she’s more on the edge than any other of the major characters. And she does die.
Graham bonds with Ross, and Ross is (as with many male authors) a dream image. He himself had conflicts I’m sure. He has many males who love two women in his novels .Women who are themselves unfaithful or love another man beyond the husband. Graham delves sex maturely.
I made a boo-boo…if there is a romance and D stays with R it makes her look weak !!!
Nancy: “I find the Poldark novels too dark for my taste. I do want good heroes; men who rape women and treat them as badly as the men do in this series are not to my taste. I have only watched parts of the TV series. I like HEA’s if it isn’t straight history. At my time of life I don’t much care to read about so much anguish and hurt, adultery, and such. Give me a happy ever after ending.
Nancy”
Me: “You’re right they are dark, but they also include good, well-meaning characters, and characters who works for good causes (in parliament, as doctors) and sometimes achieve real progress. They are realistic. Women had a very raw deal in earlier period (“raw” is Graham’s term) and I’d say the novels themselves are quietly instinctively proto-feminist. I love them. I am watching the new series as I did the old because I love the books.
I am sorry they have changed this crucial scene; it is the sort of thing that on balance makes the new film series something utterly different from the books. The 1970s departed, all films do, they were discreet, but they kept the rape scene and they kept Elizabeth’s character intact.
Fresh latest confession: I am very fond of the character Elizabeth Chynoweth. When I was for a short time on the Graham website (I left, the place used to be charged with bitter quarrels, and one was about the books historicity, the other this rape, a third its progressive politics), I used her name as my pseudonym (you had to have one) and had a lovely still of Jill Townsend from the second season as my gravatar.
I also enjoy the book series for its recreation of the 18th century in progressive terms. The 1970s series tried t to replicate that; 2016 is more ambiguous, more hopeless, darker yet …. about political realities
I am thinking of comparing this new series to Outlander, if the series departs so radically from the books. There is a point where comparison then becomes useless, but let’s see how the mini-series really is.
Thanks for telling me all that could happen to D if she left R…the series is going to get darker if there is a romance between R and E…I could handle the one nite visit by R to E but anything else is hard for me to take…for some reason I blame E because she led R on for so long…IMO R was kind of trying to control himself when she was around but E made it harder for him to control his feelings by her statements…yes, there was an erotic pull between R and E but it was more from R and E just wanted to take him away from D…she uses her body to try to control R…IMO I believe E was jealous of R & D relationship and she was trying to come in between them…in the 2015 series she uses her eyes to relay messages and sayings like ‘it depends on the partners’ and E said that Verity was strong enough to go to Capt. Blamey…in the 1975 series E asks Dr. Ennis to talk to R, I believe, because she wanted to have dinner with Frances, R and D…E was only doing that to be around R which is very calculating…she used men to get what she wanted…I’m so emotional over these characters but that’s what a good book/series is suppose to do…thank you for your reply…I love the way you write…!!!
What is you were Elizabeth, genteel, sheltered, impoverished but wanting something out of life? why must she be sentimental? she went for Ross thinking he could bring them both up in the world, but when he deserted (two years), she turned to the heir. She’s not a sexy woman, one of the problems with her relationship with Francis. George Warleggan is a cool one too: lots of people are not these enthusiastic types in bed. We must rid our minds of myths. She is scared of risk. A failed marriage, the man dies, and now what? she has real troubles and a woman of her period would lean on a man. Ross is to blame a lot: he would like to have both women in his control, one as a trophy (Elizabeth), the other wife and friend. He goes into debt to help her and when he discovers she has agreed to marry Warleggan he is enraged. That’s why the rape is important. It’s an attack too. Yes she longs for him and shows it, but not once she’s married again. Far from it. She’s ambitious; today we are told to be ambitious. Wants to go to London, be a saloniere in London, was promised that by Warleggan and how is she treated? He is abusing Valentine by the near end of The Angry Tide. She is “in a cage” as she says, just as Demelza is. Both subject, subaltern, cannot own property once they marry, legally bound to go to bed with their husbands, no respect or help if they separate.
Instead of absolving Ross, or blaming him for the system, we should see how he’s comfortable enacting it. Now Demelza does see that in a couple of their angry conversations in the trilogy (Four Swans, Angry Tide); she is allured by a gentle poetic types, and why not? All very human.
I get very involved too.
Ross is to blame also because he does want two women, like you said…IMO if he was truly in love with D it seems he would be faithful but I know he was betrayed by hearing E was going to marry George…yes, rage was involved and that makes the scene much more powerful…I believe romance means that R loves E also but his love is deeper with D…like you said, R went into debt to control her but I also I believe he was trying to choose between the two women… he was so confused regarding E he made some decisions that were very harmful to D…one of the reasons why they almost lost everything was due to his feelings for E…that was a cruel thing to do to D and his cruelty continues with his visit to E on May 9…he only thinks of himself and doesn’t think of the consequences of his behavior…I don’t blame D for having an affair with the poet considering R treatment of her…!!
No I am happy for Demelza that she had this courtship: she was so young and a servant and desperate not to be returned to a violent father and abusive household. It’s not Ross’s fault he was so much older and originally her master. He would not be boyish and offer romance.
What I think I have in mind: is start to see the whole situation from Elizabeth’s point of view. She is so upset when George Insists on Morwenna marrying Whitworth, but again her background leads her to agree. When she realizes, the man is a sadistic rapist, she is horrified at George. He misbehaves to her, to Geoffrey Charles, to Valentine. She can only think to to try make him believe Valentine is his and dies in the attempt Ross suggested. Not his fault that either.
The Poldark novels teach us about the 18th century, about the male hegemonic order. Before you make Elizabeth the central one to blame, think of what she paid and how hemmed in she was. I don’t want to blame Ross as he in the novels is a rebel against that established order but he profits from it. He pays only in Book 11 (Twisted Sword) and 12 (Bella). That final scene in the final novel is not redemptive so I do believe finally the books are dark in their vision for all they have good characters, people meaning well and some progress recorded.
I agree with what you said about Elizabeth and George…I like George because I feel sorry for him in a way…he always wanted to be like Ross and Frances…he did what his uncle wanted him to do in the 2016 series…I wanted to shake George and say make a decision on your own…in the 1975 series his father was the dominant one…what he does to Ross is borne out of jealousy and George knows that Ross was E first love…I believe he suspects that E is still in love with R and that haunts him throughout their marriage…then I started to dislike George for his treatment of Ross and Morwenna…he did mistreat Valentine, Jeffrey Charles and I was surprised that E became so angry with George regarding Morwenna because finally she spoke her mind…I do not completely blame E because she was taught to go along with her husband…she had to live a lie with Frances because of Valentine…I thought Ross advised her to change the month she became pregnant again and that would make George believe that Valentine is his own…she didn’t do what Ross suggested, as I remember…E was so excited when R returned from the war…I believe that R and E would have had a successful marriage because they both were young and wouldn’t think about what society wanted because their love was so intense…lots of people said that E would have left R but I don’t think so…!!
I was wrong regarding the video of R and E on the table…the video is about War and Peace…in Poldark, I read that the scenes were not goint to be graphic…!!
How long is the affair between Ross and Elizabeth?
I just read that Ross was going to have an affair with Elizabeth…I also saw a video of him dancing with Elizabeth and Demelza…that is beyond being cruel to be sleeping with her while dancing with your wife…why make him so weak and cowardly…this really destroys the rest of the series and I have a feeling people are going to be upset about Ross having the affair…he broke into Trenwith and then does this…to me he’s becoming hateful and I thought Debbie was trying to make him look like a romantic hero…I now very much dislike Elizabeth because she will do anything to try to get Ross…I have no sympathy for her having two bad marriages…she doesn’t deserve to have happy marriages…but to do this to another man’s wife is bloody awful…people think Elizabeth is not capable of being so awful but to me she needs to be horse whipped…I’m so happy Demelza hits Ross…I wish she would have done more hitting and kicking…I am so disappointed now because I wanted the series to be somewhat close to the books and I didn’t want Ross to be such a mean azz…if I’m wrong about them having the affair please tell me…!!!!
I was away in Cornwall and not able to approve messages so I approved your first. I cannot agree with your wholesale dismissal of Elizabeth or Ross. I’ve been reading Horsfield’s scripts and have discovered that in fact she prepared for this turn of events in the first series but it was not well realized. I will be writing about this. I identify with Elizabeth in the book and with Jill Townsend as she played Elizabeth, and am waiting to watch. Ross is a human being and we are all flawed: he did love this woman passionately before he went away. Demelza will hold her own. I hope you will be more temperate in your further replies.
I apologize…I am so emotional about these characters…!!!
Apology accepted. I identity intensely too, but I keep in mind that none of the characters exist:they are all surrogates, fragments from Graham’s mind, elements in a book set 200 years ago.
When I first read Warleggan and ‘that’ scene between Ross and Elizabeth years ago, I thought it slightly ambiguous as we, the reader, are not actually privy to events after Ross carries Elizabeth to the bed. However, given the preceding anger and forcefulness of Ross, I did, on balance, perceive what followed as a probable rape. On continued reading of the book though, that opinion gradually changed; the internal thoughts of both Ross and Elizabeth in the months following the event did not seem to me to be those of either a rapist or rape victim. I ended the book with the firm conclusion that, whilst the encounter obviously began forcefully, consent was ultimately given by Elizabeth by the point of the final act. This was not to excuse Ross’ conduct, which was still reprehensible, just a simple observation of the full picture that the book as a whole gives the reader.
The fact that the sexual encounter was not a rape does not affect the consequential story arcs that follow from it. Elizabeth and Ross would still not be willing to admit to the world the true parentage of Valentine, and so the tragedies that follow would still reach the same conclusion.
I think the current t.v. series writers have ample justification from the source material to portray the scene as the culmination, and ultimate over-spilling, of months of pent up anger and resentments that find a outlet in an unfulfilled, long-haboured, passion, but one that does not result in rape.
Yes, Ross goes to Trenwith to take back control of an uncontrollable situation, and yes, he tries to do that in the only way he feels is left to him – physically. Yes, he cannot stand the thought of George, his enemy, having the very thing he has wanted for so long, and yes, he tries to prevent Elizabeth’s marriage and ‘betrayal’ by having sex with her. Yes, in the face of months of adversity he losses control of long supressed emotions and he treats Elizabeth abominably; but does this mean he ultimately rapes her? Having recently re-read the books, and taking into account Ross and Elizabeths’ thoughts afterwards (and Elizabeth’s before – she unashamedly flirts with Ross, and stokes the embers of his feelings for her in a way that could easily be considered manipulative ) I still believe he does not.
I don’t feel that Debbie Horsfield has ‘sold out’ at all; I think she has made a very plausible interpretation of the book that will, admittedly, be more palatable to a modern audience but will still leave many women heartbroken! I am not one of those, and, I confess, the emotionally charged scenes that follow in the months after are some of my favourites and involve my favourite character – Demelza.
The way Winston describes Demelza’s deep, deep desolation at Ross’ betrayal is so spot on and incredibly moving. I’d forgotton, or else I’m older now and understand the emotions better: Ross was her protector, her rescuer, her mentor, before ever he was her lover, and so the loss of trust is not just that between a husband and wife, but much worse – it is manifold and all the more devastating.
Ross was the first man to ever treat Demelza with any respect or worth; she worships him and her loss is such that she can take no longer take pleasure in all those simple things that she took joy in before. She is further plunged into despair by her own revengeful attempts at adultery a few days after Ross and Eluzabeths’ encounter. Even in the first bitterly painful throws of hurt when she is convinced (heart wrenchingly so) that Ross must now find her disgusting (‘common clay’) having slept with Elizabeth and will leave her, she cannot go through with it, so tight are the proprietal bonds that bind her to Ross. She hates herself, and him, for it, and for the demeaning position it has led her to put herself in. Her whole self-worth is dependent on what she percieves Ross to have given her, and then what he has taken away, and now she feels herself utterly worthless and lost, usurped by the grand and beautiful Elizabeth at last, and it is heartbreakingly told.
She almost becomes stripped down, back to the abused and neglected child that Ross took in years before, in constant fear of abandonment by Ross and living each day on those fierce survival instincts that saw her through her childhood and the early days at Nampara, yet she remains so dignified (only smashing some teacups in the immediate aftermath!). It is a real-life, vivid description of the devastation that can be wrought by one person to another in one reckless act; for when all the court trials and smuggling and scything and horseriding and bare-chestedness is done, it is the human story, still as relevant today, that I really feel has drawn viewers into this current adaptation, and hope fully, the books. I really hope that Debbie and Eleanor manage to do it justice and convey the deep wound that Ross and Elizabeth deal to Demelza, for surely there was never a fictional woman so completely undeserving of such treatment!!
Wow! I didn’t I intend to write all that! Thanks for your blog; I really enjoy it!
And thank you very much for this thoughtful comment. For the record and future blogs: while in Cornwall this summer I found a fat volume called The Complete Scripts for Poldark, season 1 — by Horsfield. I’ve discovered the scripts are very good; the problem is the director and producer are not realizing what’s there. Horsfield is very suggestive, and early on has the idea to make Elizabeth susceptible to having an affair with Ross. Many of the brief scenes of Elizabeth meditating and other moments have been cut. I also feel that Aidan Turner is not subtle enough but everyone is directed to move too swiftly and present the material too directly. I’m only half-way through the volume (script for last year’s episode 4) and so will finish them all before trying to write about this remarkable volume. I recommend getting it.
I have seen and read Debbie Horsefield’s changes in season 2…she has made Elizabeth (E) to be calculating and devious…her relationship with Demelza (D) is so fake but she needs to intefere with R & D’s marriage so she can manipulate R…E is too nice and she tries to make other people believe that she is sincere but the only thing she is doing is to try to take R away from D…why does DH make her so calculating and so different from the book…R says some horrible things regarding D to E and I believe he’s trying to distance himself from D…I believe that the R in the book would never describe D that way to anyone…DH makes him even more confused and hateful to D…I just don’t understand why she had to do this because the characters R & E have changed so much…E aggressively pursues R with total disregard for anyone else especially D…it makes R & D’s relationship look unreal and foolish…I have read other blogs and they do not like DH changes…!
Thank you so much for this reply. My order for the scripts for the second season was cancelled — without any explanation except the bookseller cannot supply it. I know it exists: I saw a ISBN, I saw the cover.
My feeling is that Horsfield does not like the books; she does not like the way the women are presented; she does not understand the kind of socialism (pro-people, it’s not hard, it’s simple), rejection of materialism that Ross stands for. She was hired as someone doing successful modern mini-series.
Alas.
Do you know where I could get a copy of these scripts? Could I buy one from you?
I did not explain myself very well…I have been reading several of the blogs that have seen the new series and they have opinions regarding the other series that are to be shown next Fall, I guess…I spend hours reading their blogs…I’m kind of addicted to them, ugh…I agree with what you said about E & DH…!!!
I see. Well we have to watch ourselves to see if their reactions to and descriptions of Elizabeth are accurate .I can’t see how Horfield can present Ross as having an affair with Elizabeth without presenting Demelza as betrayed and hurting. This far more than a one night rape changes the character of Ross for me. And also it’s contrary to the character of Elizabeth in Graham’s novels: she simply would not participate in adultery; she is too conventional and also ethical in her way.
I’m going to re-watch the BBC Episode 3 tonight on my BBC iplayer.
Before the trial R & D look like they are really in love with each other but after the trail R changes drastically…he’s depressed because of Julia, smelting co., and the trial so he doesn’t talk to D very much and they stop having sex after the trial…she knows that he’s thinking about E but he’s doing it to think about the wonderful times when he was with E when they were young…he questions his love for D which is crazy to me because they were so in love before the trail…he hates himself for putting himself and D through these hard times and he feels like a failure…at times he openly flirts with E and E flirts with him when D & F are present…when R & D are at Trenwith after the festival R & D stay over…R & E go to the library and start talking… R said D is a scullery maid and you are a lady…he thinks basically E is above doing the things that D does at the house…so she says “I have hidden talents”…D hears this and is heart broken…I don’t know how long the flirting goes on because DH spent too much time on the trial and the episodes that are next are compressed so it’s hard to follow…I read that several people think the sex scene between R & E is not sincere on his part and he feels like he has to get this over with…also R & E have sex once, not sure about this, but several have said that R drops E like a “napkin”…D is very much heart broken and she suffers so much before R & E have sex…now I don’t like E & R because they have devestated D…this information is from the Poldark blogs…if this is true I believe R can never redeem himself…
Let say this is utterly untrue to Graham’s novels. In Jeremy Poldark Ross never questions his love for Demelza: what happens is after the accidental death of Francis (the next book), he feels he loves both. As Elizabeth turns to him for help, the old chivalrous and protective and lyrical feelings emerge; this is before she begins also to turn to Warleggan.
The novels show a man can love more than one woman and a woman can love more than one man: later in the series Demelza will fall in love with a courtly young man who offers romantic love in ways Ross never did. In both cases Ross and Demelza eventually see they love one another far more and far deeply than these other attractions.
It is painful to see how Horsfield changes this. I have loved the books and still do probably. So we have to distinguish Graham’s Ross (which the 1970s series more or less kept to) and Horsfield’s.
[…] best in Joe Wright’s films). Quite a number of blogs by now and some comments on two of mine (“disconcerting news,” the “Horsfield scripts”) have been saying that the events to come are going to […]
Goodness, I just read a blog that said R is in love with E…he said he can’t turn off his feelings for her and she can’t either…she wants a piece of his heart..he thinks, I think this is correct, either the love of his life (D) or the mother of his child (E’s child)…or the mother of his children (D)…this sounds confusing but he’s torn between the two women…this is totally a new story all the way through…he returns home one night and he tells D “It’s over” and she says “Is it”…I believe he starts to cry with one of the women…so this is painful for him…I don’t know if this is true but if it is then DH has made some drastic changes…several bloggers have said the same thing…!!!
I forgot to say something…if the sex scene is different what is going to make E angry with R…they need a break in their relationship…!!
People certainly feel very strongly about Ross betraying Demelza in the current t.v. drama! Maybe some need to remember the characters are fictional, however much we might love them! I’m from the U.K. and read anything I come across about the current Poldark; I have not seen any official promotional pieces
(Interviews with cast and writer and forthcoming clips) that in any any way convey that Ross and Elizabeth have an affair. From the guarded comments given by those involved it appears that the scene will be very much as it is in the book but for the fact that, rather than an, IMO, ambiguous rape (I know you don’t agree) , the final sexual act is shown as unquestionably consensual. I have not heard or seen anything to suggest the two have an ongoing affair, except in wild speculation on fan blogs of the show by people who have clearly not read the books and are putting 2 and 2 together and are getting 5! Hope this helps! Thanks for sharing your blog.
Okay. I hope you’re right. If you read my next blog (on 2 Poldark 1-3) I remark that thus far despite changes in characters, nuances, mood too, the basic hinge-points (crucial acts of story line) have remained the same.
Thanks for your reply !!
I watched an episode of Poldark last night and this is turning into a cheap romance novel that you buy at the store…you have a woman that knows how to make a man pay attention to her just because she wants attention and she wants to believe that she can break up a marriage…DH has made E into a manipulating woman…E is a bit like this in the 1975 series…I know R turns into a love struck child when he is alone with E…I know R is trying to escape his problems but this is ridiculous…I read that when Francis dies she falls into R’s arms…I saw a video clip where R is riding with Jeffrey Charles and E is by his side…R pets her arm while they are riding…this makes the supposed love scenes between R and D seem unreal…when E’s horse is giving her trouble he flies off his horse to help her…I have read romance novels that are so similar to this…I am very sad because I wanted the series to reflect some of the books and 1975 series…Francis is the only one that seems truly happy and I love how he has changed…I did not read the books but I watch the 1975 series every now and then…If I am wrong with anything I have read or seen please let me know…is DH trying to make D more responsible for his straying because they argue so much…!!!
I have yet to watch the new episode. Read the book. Elizabeth is not at all wanton; she is a woman left with little money, she has to deal with abrasions in the world she never did before. She has not been trained this way. She likes Ross and depends on him – -but is not looking for romance at first. No.
Ellen
I forgot, the episodes do somewhat follow the series…I know that DH has limitations…I will stop after this, I promise…!!!!
Ross is going to Trenwith twice a week to see E after Frances dies…he turns into another man because he’s so happy to help E..he’s also trying to forget his troubles…I know all the men love to take care of her R, F, G…she expects to be taken care of and she let’s them know that she needs attention…in front of a mirror, E is pulling her face tightly and she tells Jeffrey Charles that this is what pleases men…when she goes riding with R she pinches her cheeks before she leaves…she’s trying to figure out what man would be able to take care of her and Jeffrey Charles…at one point she tells R not to visit her any more and he says he wants to come visit…I believe at that time she was thinking about G taking care of her…she wished it would be R but he had no money…E is doing her best to let R and G know that she needs a man by saying “it’s so cold at Trentwith, she receives a letter and she asks R what she should do, she goes riding with R and she says that outside is warmer than Trenwith”…poor E…many people do not like E at all because she is so calculating and manipulative…R is really mean to D…I don’t know if this in the book but I don’t remember this in the 1970s series…!!
It is only there fleetingly in the 1970s mini-series: one quick scene of Ellis as Ross helping Townsend as Elizabeth cope with debts and another her telling him this unknown person has decided to buy these worthless shares. Still I think the scenes are a justifiable extrapolation from what is in the book. So too Demelza’s hurt though it is so hard to watch. It’s only fleetingly suggested in the book and does not become thorough and acted upon until Ross rapes Elizabeth (or if you don’t accept that) spends a whole night away from Nampara with Elizabeth at Trenwith. Then Demelza is fired up with indignation.
Let’s admit the book is guilty of a deus ex machina here and twice: it is not probable that a real Elizabeth would not really inquire into who offered this money nor guess who it was, and it is not probable that a Caroline would be able to offer Ross just the money he needs to cover his debts: in the 18th century women had little control over their property and there were barriers to acting on their own the way that Caroline does. In the later books (Angry Tide, for example), Graham has Ross rescue Pascoe from a run on the bank by setting up a consortium: not so romantic, but a lot more probable and it brings in the parliamentary politics that are part of the later books.
Ellen
Thanks for your reply…I do agree it was rape in the book and the 1970 series…E did ask G if he had given her 600 pds but I do believe she knew that is was R that gave her the money…she offered some of the money to R but he declined…also R invited E to have Christmas lunch with him and D…Verity convinced her not to go…after visiting her so much does he really think that D would want her around…sounds absurd to me…he is so unaware of D feelings and he just does what he wants…the blogs also say that DH has turned E into the “other woman”…also some have said that E should have had her baby three week later because of the timing…!!
I just read a blog that said R goes to visit E right after she delivers Valentine…is this true or did DH write this…just curious !!!
I found out that R does not visit E after she has the baby…I should not comment until I read more blogs !
Oh, how I’ve enjoyed reading all of these contemporary comments casting doubt and incredulity on complex characters from a more genteel age. I feel I can scarcely comment as I have not read the books (but intend to). Right now I’m in a tizzy because while watching Season Two in real time on PBS, I’ve also been watching the old Poldark series (okay, binging…) on my iPad. Don’t know if I’m coming or going, toing or froing.
Poldark is so very dear to me as I had the good fortune of living in England as a teenager when the first series aired. My father was in the military and we were stationed at RAF Upper Heyford near Oxford. As an adult, I purchased the VHS tapes of both series One and Two as soon as I saw them on the market. I am rather enjoying this new version, and while I’d like to swap out some characters (prefer the first George and Elizabeth), I am more pleased than not. They can botch it six ways to Sunday and I’m still enthralled. Super happy to have stumbled upon this blog and all of the fascinating threads weaving in and out of it.
Thank you for this very kind comment. I’ve not been able to watch the new series on the BBC, in a way that permitted me easily to re-see or snap stills, which is the way I wanted to. The second season will soon be released as a DVD and then I’ll commence more blogging. I fell in love with the books sometime in the 1990s when I was working on a project on film adaptations of Austen. I wanted to compare this super-popular 1970s version, but when I started to watch I felt there was so much more there suggested and hinted at I needed to read the books. So I put down the old VHS cassette after the second episode and began to read and didn’t stop until I reached Book 12 (Bella). I’ve since read the earlier books a few times, the first four several, and watched the older mini-series many times and am now fully engaged with this new one.
I have seen and read Debbie Horsefield’s changes in season 2…she has made Elizabeth (E) to be calculating and devious…
It is?
I agree…after the mining accident E knew how Ross would feel so she writes the letter to make him come to her…she knew exactly how to do that…D says that E used it as a trick to get R to show that he cared for her…E made the statement during the VBT what could R do for her…if R had some money, not as much as G, after the VBT and during the month that followed, do you think R would have left D and E would have accepted his coming back…why did E want R to come back…I believe a separation at that time was legal but don’t know what it entails…also the beach scene where he almost told D that he sometimes felt he still loved E…was she still a fantasy/ideal to him…I know first loves, usually, stay with you as a memory…Kathy
I don’t agree. I don’t believe that Elizabeth’s goal was to simply make Ross come to her. It made sense that she would give a letter to him announcing her engagement to George . . . or summoning him to Trenwith to deliver the news. At this time, she was still part of the Poldark family and Ross was the head. He had been helping her deal with running Trenwith. Why wouldn’t she send that letter?
I never understood some of the fans who claim that Elizabeth’s sole purpose was to lure Ross to her bed. Do many fans still find it hard to believe that Ross was in love with two women?
[…] The new Poldark, 2nd season, disconcerting news […]
I had re-watched the 1975 adaptation of “Warleggan” again. I forgot that in its own way, it was just as appalling as Debbie Horsfield’s recent adaptation. The rape had remained intact. But producers Coburn and Barry, along with screenwriter Jack Russell ended up villifying Elizabeth’s character to the point that she was portrayed as a money hungry bitch, whose reasons for marrying George Warleggan was more about her than her son, Geoffrey-Charles. It almost seemed as if the producers and the writer were trying to convey this message that getting raped by Ross was Elizabeth’s “punishment” for being a bitch and a golddigger. And thanks to the unnecessary addition of the burning of Trenwith sequence, Elizabeth is not even angry when she sets eyes on Ross. Instead, she wants to know why he didn’t allow the estate’s tenants to kill her new husband. This latest re-watch truly reminded me why I found the 70s adaptation of “Warleggan” so unpleasant and tainted with a great deal of misogyny. I wonder how Winston Graham had felt about it all.
We are in more agreement than usual. I recently reread Warleggan and both mini-series distort Elizabeth. It’s as if the film audience is not ready for a mature woman’s behavior. I agree she is presented as this cold and ambitious (very bad thing — she is ambitious in the book but she is also ambitious for her son) woman; in the recent she is clingingly sentimental and looks at him disappointed when he leaves after the rape. As far as I know Graham never said anything specific about the rape scene or the depiction of Elizabeth. He decried the departures from his text in Episodes 3 and 4 and the last or 16th in the first series. But he never became more specific than complaints of distortion from his intended meaning and specifics like burning down Trenwith. That meant in season 2 another house had to be found for George and Elizabeth Warleggan to be living in.
It was a good decision not to portray the rape. It would have caused a huge social media backlash and it wasn’t necessary. I compare it to the care you have to take writing an email. What might seem fine or innocuous or well-considered in a letter or conversation comes across as cold and abrupt, unless couched carefully in emoticons and punctuation. So a rape would have decisively shifted Ross from a compromised, flawed hero to a villain and threatened to hijack the series entirely, in today’s climate.
The truly tragic aspect is kept — that Ross virtually doesn’t spend 10 minutes with Elizabeth after that one night, while she waits on tenterhooks for him to do something about her. So you still think he’s a jerkThe night with Elizabeth still contaminates his marriage.
Graham’s ability to call back to the rape and follow it through is fascinating. The other characters don’t condone or accept it, Elizabeth confronts Ross with it, and his son and Demelza utterly reject his insistence that coercion has its place. Ross advises Jeremy to force Cuby into accepting him, which horrifies Jeremy and dismays Demelza.
I can see what you’re saying. The reason Graham in 1953 (when Warleggan was written) did not portray it further was he couldn’t and get the book published by publishers for the middle class. He has an analogous series of rapes in his novels and none of them are graphically described. I like your point that none of the characters in the Poldark novels condones or accepts the rape as “understandable;” and certainly when Ross urges his son to do likewise (just about) Jeremy rejects this and Demelza is appalled. Salutary thought. Thank you. Ellen
Yes, I think the effect of that encounter is what moves the character and plot forward and the series managed to accomplish that without sacrificing Ross, which Graham didn’t seem to have to contend with. I expected before I read it that he would have tried to sell it as erotic, but it wasn’t like that at all. He doesn’t in any way try to condone it. Elizabeth never forgives Ross.
The most chilling scene for me is with Whitworth on his wedding night with Morwenna. One thing the series doesn’t quite get is the monstrous, low grade entitlement of Whitworth. The series pulls back from those moments.