CHAPTER 9 Grand Aspirations: Putting Pip on the Stage Adaptations and Absences Michael Eaton Writing to his friend John Forster in 1837 of theatrical performances of his works, specifically an early pirated version ofThe Pickwick Papers, Dickens observed: Well; if the Pickwick has been the means of putting a few shillings in the vermin-eaten pockets of so miserable a creature, and has saved him from a workhouse or a jail, let him empty out his little pot of filth and welcome. I am quite content to have been the means of relieving him. (Letters 1:304) This gives some indication of his understandable attitude to the ‘purloiners’ of his work; on another occasion, he attended a performance of a play of Oliver Twist and ‘laid himself down upon the floor in a corner of the box and never rose from it until the drop-scene fell’ (Forster 381). I suppose I must include myself among this number. Nevertheless, this chapter offers reflections on my adaptation of Great Expectations for the West Yorkshire Playhouse in March/ April 2016 (directed by Lucy Bailey), exploring the decisions made in adapting Great Expectations for a new theatrical production and demonstrating how the How to cite this book chapter: Eaton, M. 2020. Grand Aspirations: Putting Pip on the Stage Adaptations and Absences. In: Bell, E. (ed.), Dickens After Dickens, pp. 177–195. York: White Rose University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22599/DickensAfterDickens.j. Licence, apart from specified exceptions: CC BY-NC 4.0 178 Dickens After Dickens constraints and opportunities of the medium determine dramaturgical choices. I shall also explore efforts to put Pip on the stage from the late 19th century to the present, considering the role of illustration in visualising the novel and the text’s chequered performance history. What should Great Expectations look like? Unlike readers of his earlier serialised works, those who followed the instal- ments of Great Expectations in the pages of All The Year Round from December 1860 to August 1861 were given no visual representations of the characters, situations, and setting (in fact, of all of Dickens’s novels, only Great Expecta- tions and Hard Times were first published without any illustrations). There was no help from a ‘Phiz’ or even from a John Leech. It was across the Atlantic that the work was first illustrated, by John McLenan in the serialisation by Harper’s Weekly: A Journal of Civilization, which actually went on sale one week ahead of the British publication. Though this artist was known as ‘the American Phiz’, I doubt anyone would claim his 40 pictures to be the equal of the work of Hablot K. Browne (whose illustrations are briefly discussed by Katie Bell inChapter 3). Nevertheless, transatlantic readers were treated to a fuller aesthetic experience than those who consumed the new story in the austere, unillustrated, small print of the weekly conducted by the Inimitable himself.1 Back home, readers would have to wait a year until the tale was eventually published in the one-volume Chapman and Hall Library Edition, containing a measly eight woodcuts by Marcus Stone. Stone, only 22 years old, was the son of Dickens’s late friend and neighbour, Frank Stone, and Dickens had rather taken him under his wing and into the bosom of the family. Critics such as Malcolm Andrews have argued that Dickens had been disappointed with Phiz’s pictures for A Tale of Two Cities when it was reissued in monthly parts, and was after a much more ‘realistic’ (Schelstraete 55) depiction, in line with the fashion of the 1860s.2 Great Expectations has comparatively few comic scenes, though is far from devoid of great dramatis personae drawn with a characteristically Dick- ensian broad brush. Whatever the disputed circumstances of Stone’s advance- ment, I am not alone in finding his pictures entirely lifeless, not succeeding at what Emily Eells describes as a ‘freezing of the action’ in her discussion of McLenan’s illustrations (220).3 (Although Stone undoubtedly quitted himself far more creditably, taking on Our Mutual Friend, when Dickens reverted to monthly publication.) Other illustrators followed throughout the 19th century: most notably, in America, Sol Eytinge Junior, who was commissioned for the Diamond Edition knocked out to cash in on Dickens’s reading tour of 1867–68, and, in England, Frederick Pailthorpe for an 1885 edition. None of these provides particularly memorable additions to the Charles Dickens Picture Book, and none of these Grand Aspirations 179 Figure 9.1: Pip fancies he sees Estella’s Face in the Fire, lithograph by Harry Furniss, 1910. Source: Victorian Web http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illus- tration/furniss/front.html. Scanned image by Philip V. Allingham. artists come close to capturing either the melancholic profundity or the (occa- sional) bizarre comicality of this masterpiece of thwarted, deluded aspirations. Cumulatively, though, they all combine to give some visual embodiment to a story originally conceived without pictures. But at the end of the 19th century Pip, Joe, Miss Havisham, Estella, Wopsle, Wemmick, Jaggers, et al. remained definitively undrawn. My own visual introduction to Great Expectations came through the Classics Illustrated comic, with its striking cover of the opening chapter. But I was very fortunate to read the work itself for the first time in the 1910 Charles Dick- ens Library edition, which I inherited from my grandfather. This contained 27 drawings by the great and prolific Harry Furniss (also a cinematic pioneer),4 who was proud of his reputation as the first illustrator of the entire Dickens canon. At last, Great Expectations had pictures worthy of the prose. 180 Dickens After Dickens A drama on many stages Dickens may be the Inimitable, but he is far from the Unadaptable. From the first rise of his celebrity, his stories and characters had a life outside his own management, and to no pecuniary advantage to himself. His reaction, in this age before widespread copyright, was understandably forthright, both here and, especially, in America.5 This bare-faced larceny was particularly acute in the theatrical versions, staged often before the books themselves had completed their serialisation. Dickens puts his own complaints into the mouth of the eponymous hero of Nicholas Nickleby (1838): [Y]ou drag within the magic circle of your dulness, subjects not at all adapted to the purposes of the stage … you take the uncompleted books of living authors, fresh from their hands, wet from the press, cut, hack, and carve them … hastily and crudely vamp up ideas not yet worked out by their original projector, do your utmost to anticipate his plot – all this without his permission, and against his will; … to which you put your name as author … Now, show me the difference between such pilfering as this, and picking a man’s pocket in the street… . (633) A decade into his literary career, however, Dickens got wise and found a way to be to be in control of his own work. For his third Christmas Book, The Cricket on the Hearth (1845), Dickens did a financial deal with the Lyceum Theatre, run by a far more celebrated theatrical family than the Crummles: the Keeleys. The correspondent of The Almanack of the Month, ‘W.H.W.’, explained: That the Cricket might be served up quite warm to the play going public, on the foyer of the Lyceum Theatre, its author – Mr. Charles Dickens – supplied the dramatist, Mr. Albert Smith, with proof-sheets hot from the press. On the evening of the morning, therefore, on which the book was published, its dramatic version was produced; and, as the adaptor stuck very closely indeed to the text of the original, of course it succeeded. (quoted in Edgar Pemberton 158) This ‘authorised version’ pipped the first competitor to the post by 11 days. By the time Smith’s play opened in New York on 21 February 1846, there had already been no fewer than 21 other productions mounted in Britain! The same dodge was attempted in 1861 with the publication, at the office of All The Year Round on Wellington Street, Strand, of Great Expectations: A Drama in Three Stages. Founded on, and Compiled from, the Story of That Name, the title page clearly declaring it to be ‘By Charles Dickens’. Malcolm Morley, who wrote an invaluable series of articles chronicling theatrical adaptations in Grand Aspirations 181 the Dickensian throughout the mid-1950s, considers this to be an attempt to ‘retain stage copyright’, to secure ‘protection from pilfering bookwrights’ (79). Though issued under Dickens’s own name, Morley speculates that it was quite probably arranged by someone else in the All The Year Round office. There is no evidence to suggest this dramatisation was ever produced, and copies are extremely rare.6 Philip V. Allingham, in an article on the Victorian Web, gives a précis of this, quoting Worth: There is no chase, no capture, no trial, no deathbed scene for Magwitch; more important, there is no remorse, no repentance, no reformation for Pip. (172) Allingham reproduces the title page and the cast of characters, also rationally speculating that the omission of actors’ names against the dramatis personae ‘suggest(s) that the play was never performed’ (‘Who wrote the 1861 adaptation of Great Expectations?’). In this list, that there is no (a word which will recur throughout) Wopsle, no Wemmick, so no Aged P, no Trabb nor his boy, no Bentley Drummle, though Orlick is there, as are the insignificant Sarah, Geor- giana, and Camilla Pocket, billed as Miss Havisham’s relations. But there is one adaptation which, though again never destined to be per- formed, was certainly produced by Dickens’s own hand in an attempt to gain complete control over his own work – for financial exploitation as well as great enjoyment.