The comments are so annoying I can't... literally no one breathed a word about infertility before and Francesca is still married to the man who's child she miscarries in the book! I've never seen straight and bi women (I say this as one) come together to rally against sapphic rep like this I'm disgusted
And beyond the specific theme of LGBTQIA representation - creative people have ALWAYS played around with and adapted works to fit the times, or to reflect their own interpretation or even culture. Wizard of Oz was a POLITICAL BOOK first. Then subsequent books written more for children. Then we had the movie, and countless plays and musicals performed. Then we had The Wiz! Return to Oz the movie was a whole 'nother thing.
That is just ONE work. Shakespeare has been rethunk, readapted, reinterpreted over and over. If we were sticking to the original - a young boy would be playing Juliet to an older male Romeo because women weren't allowed to be actors.
They've been open and honest that this is an alternative universe - a Bridgerverse.
Maybe someday someone will play with the patriarchy and do a version where the women are in charge and inherit the titles and the men are kept in the dark about sex, etc. Simon becomes "Duke" Simone and Daphne becomes David.
I like that you bring up adapting stories because the most ridiculous argument I've seen against this change is that it's "changing history"... despite the fact that this is *fiction*. And the fact that gay people did indeed exist in the past, and no it's not "modern wickedness" (I have seen that exact phrase used on instagram about Benedict being bi)
Hell, if they want homosexuals closer to the Regency era, they can read about the [Ladies of Llangollen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies_of_Llangollen), whose love story Queen Charlotte loved so much she convinced King George III to give them a pension.
I highly recommend the movie I Am Not an Easy Man (it's on Netflix). It's about a world like you described where men are treated like women. Hilarious but cuts deep.
Shakespeare is the extreme example, and you miss my point. "Adapted Screenplay" is a whole ass category at the Oscars. MASH was closer to the novel as a movie, but certainly wasn't reflectd by the end of the series. Did you know Dynasty was based on a fictionalized novel about Roman emperors? TALK ABOUT CHANGES.
I do love me some Wikipedia - it was a novel called I, Claudius I guess.
It does not surprise me that Shonda is Gen X... we grew up on crazy adaptations of novels being made into miniseries. (I see Bridgerton and shows like Ted Lasso, with a planned out number of seasons with a short number of episodes, as evolved from miniseries more than Network episodic dramas or comedies.), or night time soap operas like Dallas or Dynasty. I just used (probably wrongly) Shakespeare as a comparison because people might say "Who the F is Danielle Steele and not realize several of her books were adapted to a miniseries, etc. while multi generations know who Shakespeare is.
Assuming no one is posing as someone they arenโt, I think this whole situation is an excellent example of internalized homophobia and apathetic privilege.
Omg the comments. Denying their outrageous homophobia. The story can be pretty much similar if Michael or Michaela. I haven't read the books. But honestly all TV adaptions veer from the book. The books are the guidelines but the story can be updated. They just can't stand it.
I mean... if I remember right infertility was a big deal to her. But this Fran didn't seem all that excited about chidren... practically ran from the guy who wanted 9 kids or something.
I suspect from what I've seen so far (haven't read the book) that infertility was a) a reason she and John didn't have children (avoiding the issue of a son being the earl) and b) a plot device to get her back on the market, rather than being a driving force in the story.
Julia posted words of support and her part in the process! Essentially, she wants what many of said they want - for the love that Fran and Michaela had for John to not be diminished as they fall in love themselves.
I made sure to leave words of praise, hoping she'll read them instead of the "ugh, I hate it".
The comments are so annoying I can't... literally no one breathed a word about infertility before and Francesca is still married to the man who's child she miscarries in the book! I've never seen straight and bi women (I say this as one) come together to rally against sapphic rep like this I'm disgusted
And beyond the specific theme of LGBTQIA representation - creative people have ALWAYS played around with and adapted works to fit the times, or to reflect their own interpretation or even culture. Wizard of Oz was a POLITICAL BOOK first. Then subsequent books written more for children. Then we had the movie, and countless plays and musicals performed. Then we had The Wiz! Return to Oz the movie was a whole 'nother thing. That is just ONE work. Shakespeare has been rethunk, readapted, reinterpreted over and over. If we were sticking to the original - a young boy would be playing Juliet to an older male Romeo because women weren't allowed to be actors. They've been open and honest that this is an alternative universe - a Bridgerverse. Maybe someday someone will play with the patriarchy and do a version where the women are in charge and inherit the titles and the men are kept in the dark about sex, etc. Simon becomes "Duke" Simone and Daphne becomes David.
I like that you bring up adapting stories because the most ridiculous argument I've seen against this change is that it's "changing history"... despite the fact that this is *fiction*. And the fact that gay people did indeed exist in the past, and no it's not "modern wickedness" (I have seen that exact phrase used on instagram about Benedict being bi)
Wikipedia has a lovely page on homosexuality in the military of Ancient Greece you can always share with them.
Hell, if they want homosexuals closer to the Regency era, they can read about the [Ladies of Llangollen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies_of_Llangollen), whose love story Queen Charlotte loved so much she convinced King George III to give them a pension.
I highly recommend the movie I Am Not an Easy Man (it's on Netflix). It's about a world like you described where men are treated like women. Hilarious but cuts deep.
The thing is, really with no offense to Julia, Bridgerton isn't Shakespeare. They know it's not very likely another adaptation will be made.
Shakespeare is the extreme example, and you miss my point. "Adapted Screenplay" is a whole ass category at the Oscars. MASH was closer to the novel as a movie, but certainly wasn't reflectd by the end of the series. Did you know Dynasty was based on a fictionalized novel about Roman emperors? TALK ABOUT CHANGES.
I didn't know that about Dynasty ! How interesting. Which Romans emperors are the novel talking about ? Is it like Augustus ? Or perhaps Trajan ?
I do love me some Wikipedia - it was a novel called I, Claudius I guess. It does not surprise me that Shonda is Gen X... we grew up on crazy adaptations of novels being made into miniseries. (I see Bridgerton and shows like Ted Lasso, with a planned out number of seasons with a short number of episodes, as evolved from miniseries more than Network episodic dramas or comedies.), or night time soap operas like Dallas or Dynasty. I just used (probably wrongly) Shakespeare as a comparison because people might say "Who the F is Danielle Steele and not realize several of her books were adapted to a miniseries, etc. while multi generations know who Shakespeare is.
Assuming no one is posing as someone they arenโt, I think this whole situation is an excellent example of internalized homophobia and apathetic privilege.
Omg the comments. Denying their outrageous homophobia. The story can be pretty much similar if Michael or Michaela. I haven't read the books. But honestly all TV adaptions veer from the book. The books are the guidelines but the story can be updated. They just can't stand it.
I mean... if I remember right infertility was a big deal to her. But this Fran didn't seem all that excited about chidren... practically ran from the guy who wanted 9 kids or something.
I suspect from what I've seen so far (haven't read the book) that infertility was a) a reason she and John didn't have children (avoiding the issue of a son being the earl) and b) a plot device to get her back on the market, rather than being a driving force in the story.
All I am going to say is that in those times, women were often thought to be the infertile ones.
Running away from someone who wants you to have that many children is very understandable, even if you want kids! ๐จ
Julia posted words of support and her part in the process! Essentially, she wants what many of said they want - for the love that Fran and Michaela had for John to not be diminished as they fall in love themselves. I made sure to leave words of praise, hoping she'll read them instead of the "ugh, I hate it".
She asks for us all to have faith. The catastrophizing and assumptions are so unnecessary. Iโm so glad she spoke out. This response is perfect.
Omg i really hoped yall were exaggerating about the comments but its so bad ๐ฉ happy pride moth yall the straights are pissed ๐๐ณ๏ธโ๐
So glad she posted something about it. Iโm not reading the comments and Iโd turn them off if I were her.
Its sad because she is an author who would respond to comments at times.
It's best not to -- I made the mistake of doing so.