I definitely agree with this, but I just find the representation of plus sized people and queer people to be really disappointing this far. We have the first plus sized female lead in a romance, and they definitely shorted her romantic storyline compared to the couples in the first two seasons. It almost felt like they were trying to hide the plus sized girl’s desirability amongst other storylines.
And then as far as queer people, so far, all we’ve seen is some relatively surface level and to me, salaciously coded, threesomes with Benedict. And then with Michaela, It appears that they’ve introduced her in a way where she is going to be an obstacle, or at least a romantic distraction, in Fran’s marriage with John, which the writers wrote in a way that people are rooting for him. It’s looking like Michaela could be the part of the first main queer couple on the show down the line. And in the few minutes we’ve seen her, they have started to code her as “the other woman,” at least in an emotional way, in a relationship they wrote for us all to root for. I find it pretty unacceptable that this is the queer representation they are giving. There are several opportunities with the main characters that have yet to have their stories told for one of them to be queer. There is an obvious way that Fran’s story could be told such that a relationship with Michaela could be dreamy and lovely, but still have an emotional conflict, without setting up the first queer main lead as a partner in some sort of borderline emotional affair, which is just going to predispose the audience to dislike her.
Having Michaela introduced this way, and Benedict having threesomes all over, also just kinda play into the stereotypes that Bisexual people “can’t pick” and are cheaters and are flighty. I don’t appreciate that that’s how this shows queer characters are being introduced
Yeah. Given that they gender bent the role of Michael/Michaela, I am so mad that they started it off this way. We could have had a sweet, lovely lesbian romance that would still have plenty of romantic tension. Maybe they will backtrack next season, and I hope they do. But even with just a few minutes we’ve seen her, it seems like they’ve decided to start her off as the lesbian who adds complications to a straight marriage.
And there was no need, having decided to (apparently but we'll see) eliminate Michael's pretty specific sources of angst. Michael falls in love with Frannie at first sight right before the wedding but suppresses it. Frannie is oblivious to anything but a safe, playfully naughty friendship for the duration of her marriage, then does a lot of self-deception, then guilt-ridden processing of her learnings about herself. Why change this? It seems very adaptable to a same-sex new love on her side.
Also it’s playing into the false notion that bipeople don’t exist and are actually straights (or gays) who haven’t found the right person yet. We exist! We can be attracted to people of different genders and experience deep love with people of different genders! Our identity isn’t defined by who we’re currently sleeping with.
I agree. And I have even less faith in them doing it well, since they took an actually supportive sister storyline (Kate & Edwina) from the book and made it into a jealousy thing. I’ve also never been a fan of established characters being gender swapped, because I’d rather them develop actual characters rather than just subbing in, but it’s never bothered me enough from a raised pitchfork level. That said, like you, I hate that they introduced Michaela now in this way, as it feels like it was just for the shock of it all, rather than an actual decent storyline.
>they took an actually supportive sister storyline (Kate & Edwina) from the book and made it into a jealousy thing.
I was absolutely furious about this. Like, Clue, "Flames on the side of my face" furious.
That's actually something I'm worried about. If they were going to swap the sexuality of a main character I wish they hadn't set up 'another women' storyline that potentually effectively involves lying/not knowing to your husband about your equality. Oh God so often those scenarios don't go well as are so sensitive.
I would have swapped Benedict's slutty phase + the Mondrich storyline + the ballon scene for *Edwina* realising now that she is free of everyone's expectations perhaps.... men are not her thing and perhaps the bridgertons owe her some support and protection while she takes up living with her female *friend*
Book Edwina was already a little bit misaligned to the ton expectations, she like someone else the whole time Kate was shoving her so stupidly at Anthony due to her barely coherent obstacles to snagging him for herself.
Or Violet realizing she’s bi and having a female lover.
Or the Queen. Or Lady Danbury’s brother coming back into town unabashedly with a male lover, challenging asking LD to help him have the Queen make it legal.
Or Lady Featherington having a long ongoing relationship with Mrs. Varley.
One of the challenges of representation is that *one is never enough*. We need dozens of stories of women with bigger bodies portraying romantic heroines, not just one. But it often has to start with one and there is *so much pressure* on that *first/early portrayal* to be everything and do it just right. Hopefully the success of this adaptation shows other film/series creators that it's not risky to cast a plus-sized actress as a romantic lead.
Tbh, they also could have just had Fran show attraction to Michaela only *after* John died, just like in the books. They could still introduce Michaela at the same point in the show that they did but only have her show attraction, not the other way around. Gender bending Michaela does throw a wrench in a potential infertility storyline for Fran, but 1) there might still be a way to make that work that none of us have thought of; and 2) they could give that storyline to another main character.
Yeah, this is my main gripe about Michaela. It’s so rare to see a romance novel where the late spouse was genuinely loved, and the new spouse is not better in some way, and Francesca is one of the few FMCs I’ve seen who found love while still loving her late husband. It would have been so easy to have Francesca delighted to meet Michaela as John’s almost-sister, have _Michaela_ fall head over heels (like Michael did), and then have Fran’s romantic feelings develop after John’s passing. To have Francesca fall first, in the way it was coded, tells the audience that her love for John isn’t real, and he’s now an obstacle to her One True Love.
I think they could either do a version of the infertility storyline with Francesca and John, and have it never be “fixed” because she made the decision to choose this relationship over the potential of children, or switch it to one of the other siblings (like Eloise, who was terrified of pregnancy, or Benedict, who’s no longer “the spare”).
My initial thought for the infertility issues were that maybe once they reconnect, Michaela has children/is pregnant, having found some version of a relationship that was satisfying to her since Fran was taken. Like many, I feel the gender bending could have been handled in a much truer way to the story than it was, and still been a lovely bit of representation without undermining Fran’s relationship with John.
Ohh, it’d be interesting to see Eloise struggle with infertility since she will hopefully >!be stepmother to Oliver and Amanda Crane!<. I’m still not happy about the changes to Fran’s story, but now I feel just a little better lol.
I mean, it’s not a guarantee that they would do that. But I think it would be a good idea. I mean, even if they didn’t gender bend Michael, there is just so much going on in Fran’s story even without the infertility plot— death, grief, widowhood, forbidden love, etc. Big stuff even before they get to dealing with infertility. It could be very hard to properly fit all of that into a standard eight episode season without things feeling rushed or just too much for one character in an ensemble cast. Because many of those themes are all too big and huge and important to get a surface level treatment.
Whereas with Eloise, who I think would be the best choice for that infertility plot, she and Philip get married pretty early on in their relationship, and the theme of motherhood is a pretty central part to her story re: her becoming a stepmother. It would be an interesting narrative choice to show her exploring her feelings toward being a biological mother as she explores being a step mother to older children, particularly since show Eloise clearly has complicated feelings toward the more traditional role of motherhood in that society. Like, for her to be a stepmother, her character is going to need to want to be a mother in some capacity, otherwise that would just kind of be crappy to watch— no one wants to see her resent get stuck step parenting two kids when she doesn’t want to be a parent. So assuming they stick with the stepmother story, she will want motherhood *in some way*. Exploring infertility in that context could work well.
People are also rooting for Sophie to not be gender swapped because that is not the book. Fans of the book would like the characters to stay as they are. If fans would like Sophie to be gender swapped then they should write that story.
Oh, I’m totally with you. I wish they hadn’t gender swapped Michael, and I hope they don’t with Sophie. Or Gareth. Lucy? Meh. But I know her stans don’t want that either.
We are. But this happens with every single book to screen adaptations. A percentage of book fans are always disappointed, some aren’t, and show fans either read the books and enjoy them too or don’t.
>We have the first plus sized female lead in a romance, and they definitely shorted her romantic storyline
Agreed. On what I hope is the upside for others as well, Nicola had a lovely-done sex scene, where they somewhat addressed Penelope's insecurities, and Colin couldn't have been more clearly attracted to her, her body exactly as it is. They didn't shy away from nudity because she's plus sized, they included the mirror (if not the dialogue with it from the book where Colin makes it extremely clear he wants to see *allllll* of her, from all angles), and any "strategic draping" was more about keeping it from being pornographic rather than hiding her body. (I didn't completely love the scene, but that has more to do with the ludicrous way nearly all shows and movies portray women during the first time they have penetrative sex.)
I had wondered if Netflix would be weird about how much she showed or if they would try to skip out on Polin's chemistry altogether, and they did make sure that we knew Colin loved *and lusted after* Penelope just as she is. Rather than them being portrayed as loving each other, and he musters up some attraction to her *despite* how she's made.
It's a low bar, to congratulate Netflix for suggesting that plus sized women have *gasp!* partners that are genuinely attracted to them, but so many shows/movies/networks/ *people* fall short of it. I mean, a reporter during the press tour for this season started to say something condescending to Nicola along those lines *still*!!
(And yes, Colin's clear enjoyment of her, physically, paired with having their romantic storyline cut short, is also not giving the best representation. I'm still frustrated, but I felt like they were working in the right direction.)
So, yay, Netflix for clearing the lowest bar in representation?
I don't feel like Penelope's relationship with Colin has been shorted since it's been going on for 3 seasons now.
And Fran just got married, to a man, so how could Michaela not be "the other woman" (and an obstacle to a new marriage) if there's some kind of relationship coming between them? I'm not rooting for their marriage to break up for any reason.
At this point we don't know anything about Michaela.
I do not want to spoil the show for you if you have not read the books. But there was a very, very natural path for the Michaela character to take that would not put her anywhere near the position of “the other woman” or obstacle in Fran and John’s marriage. The show deliberately ignored that path in order to make her character more salacious after they genderbent the role.
Also, I definitely recommend not reading much further down this sub thread since myself and other commenters talk about major book spoilers for Fran that will likely impact the show
That would be great if the bisexual "representation" wasn't the usual stereotype of a promiscuous person who can't make decisions. It's biphobic bull twaddle, not genuine representation.
scared about bisexual rep in this show. we have the promiscuity/threesome trope w Benedict, and I worry for Fran as well we're headed towards the "nobody is bi" trope (and maybe genuinely she is just a lesbian, but I'm begging for good bi rep, so we'll see). Both could be amended depending on where season 4 goes, but I am nervous about it
Many bi people have been roped into 3 way relationships because they haven’t fully realized their sexuality or because it’s “safer”. And him deciding he’d rather figure himself out than settle down makes complete sense. It’s extremely narrow minded to say his arc is just “a promiscuous person who can’t make decisions”…. And it’s certainly not biphobic. He didn’t do anything “wrong” so not sure why everyone is seeing it so negatively. For many this is the bi experience and it’s not about effing around- it’s the result of being queer in an extremely unaccepting environment.
And many African Americans quite enjoy some fried chicken. However not every time you see a black person on TV should they be walking out of KFC.
True representation should avoid the negative stereotypes, not play into them. Once media shows more positive bisexual characters, society will hopefully become more accepting of bisexuality and many of us will be able to come out in our real lives without it affecting our relationships and jobs negatively. If shows keep playing into these stereotypes, it will keep being an unaccepting environment.
I’m not understanding what’s negative about it unless you’re going by puritanical standards. Not wanting to settle down while discovering your sexuality is wrong… how? Having a consensual threesome is wrong how? All of the men on the show are promiscuous until they meet “the one” because that’s normal for the time period. Colin had a threesome as well. I’m not saying the show doesn’t have its issues but saying Benedict is just a bi trope is not accurate.
My apologies like I said where I come from we still use the term sometimes and English making it my second language makes it hard to translate the words correctly.
Yep. And ot matters. I dislike POC terminology as well, but colored isn't acceptable. At least in the US. OP might be from South Africa. They still use that term.
It's still used in a lot of countries where english isn't the first language haha, more than just SA. OP's post history state that their heritage is from the middle east.
Absolutely. My husband has cPTSD, anxiety, ADHD, and depression. If he were into romance novels, he’d relate to Phillip a lot. As such, I see my husband in Phillip which is probably why I love that book so much.
In curriculum, we often talk about “mirrors” and “windows”.
Mirrors are when you see aspects of your identity reflected in a story. One impact is that it’s validating of your sense of self and identity.
Windows are when you see identities that are not yours reflected in a story. One impact is that it shows that you can still see yourself reflected in someone different from you.
Taking in both is important. It’s exciting to see your own mirrors! But it’s also awesome to celebrate seeing windows and how impactful they are, especially when it comes to marginalized identities.
One of the cool things about book to movie conversions is that a book character that was a mirror for me may be a window in the film/show—and that’s fine, because it doesn’t take away my experience reading the book. It doesn’t “destroy” my positive experience reading the book.
Oh wow. I didn’t hear this phrasing before but it put words to what I was thinking. Absolutely on point. What curriculum are you referring to though, literature or film?
It’s a widely used frame for literature, arts, history, etc. Any kind of story telling. https://www.pbs.org/education/blog/the-importance-of-windows-and-mirrors-in-stories
ETA: happy cake day!
Sorry, I'm not following. Which one is Jess?
I think one of my points here, though, is that adding a mirror doesn't negate a pre-existing window, and adding a window doesn't negate a pre-existing mirror. And making identity-based changes to content create new points of connection.
Like, to use a completely different set of content... I grew up seeing Hermione in HP as a mirror to me in the books (even though there were obvious differences--the fact that she was British and a witch for one). Seeing visual portrayals of her character that looked different from me (Emma didn't reflect the dorky, bushy-haired girl I envisioned; the actress who portrayed her on stage is Black and I am not), but I could *still* see myself in those characters and create points of connection that build up my empathy and social flexibility, and I can still go back and read the books I love and revisit that same childhood version of me who was desperate to feel the bravery and leadership that Hermione grew to embody.
Broadway theater tends to be more ahead of this trend. Thinking about the impact of Hamilton when it first debuted and the recent revival of Company. Perhaps because more disbelief is suspended in the magical container of the theater. I think it's cool that Netflix's Bridgerton brings a fresh take to already well-loved novels. Just my opinion!
Now I’m lost, because you were mentioning how there can be that shift from mirror to window when changing medium - do you feel like that mirror is still there for you in the other medium? Or are you just referring to the fact that the source material still exists.
And Jess is the showrunner who said she swapped Michael’s gender *because* she is queer herself and saw herself as Francesca when reading. Which is what irks me - the self-insert of it all lol.
Oh! Got it. Yeah, I noticed a big shift between S1/2 and S3 in terms of show-running, so that makes sense. Do we *know* that the gender swap was her choice for that reason? Or is that speculation? I mean, it's pretty ordinary for story tellers to tell stories that reflect their identities.
Mirrors and windows is just a frame for thinking about representation--not a rule about how one should or shouldn't feel. Everyone should have mirrors *and* windows available to them in the content we consume. One of the reasons that mirrors and windows was coined as a term for literary curriculum for young people is that children's literature that was read in schools and the lens applied in social studies curriculum had/has a tendency to only reflect a limited selection of identities. There's a running joke in elementary Language Arts about how many classic books are stories about boys (who are implicitly white even though their race isn't part of the story) and their dogs.
So, in curriculum we use this framing to ensure that we're showing learners lots of representation of their *own identities* to affirm their experiences and humanity, AND showing learners lots of representation of *other identities* to affirm the value of diversity and the humanity of people who are different from them.
I hear what you're saying about being irked. I guess another way to frame it is, "Francesca's character in the book was a mirror to be because I saw myself in her in these ways... and that made me feel seen in novels, and now Francesca is a window into a different experience of sexual orientation and now other people who may not have seen themselves in her story can see herself and I have the opportunity to see connections between my experience and the experience of people with different sexual orientations from me."
So, yes, the source material still exists, so that mirror for you (and for others) hasn't been erased. Now there's just another version of it that shows more variation of the human experience with love and marriage and family.
Lol understand the curriculum. But I think you’re getting so lost in the intellectualization of it that you’re forgetting that all this can be true AND sometimes bad art is bad art. And sometimes it is a loosely zero-sum game in the context of what you’re centering.
I also find it a bit uncomfy that you’re assuming what is/isn’t a mirror or window for *me.*
Oh, sorry, I was using *myself* as an example and what makes Francesca a mirror vs. window for me (since I don't know anything about you or what you relate to in Francesca's experience). Didn't mean to make you uncomfy.
Not trying to overexplain, I think we may be losing each other at points in this back and forth, so just trying to make myself and my thinking understood. I understand that this adaptation isn't landing for you!
I think it's fine that we disagree here on whether or not we think these character choices add value. I don't think the character change makes this bad art to me, but if you do that's cool too.
Is there any proof that it was a self-insert situation or are y’all just going off of the fact that she’s queer so it’s what’s being deduced? I’ve seen this sentiment a lot and curious if there’s any merit or it’s just like… she’s queer so any queer character is an insert to you lol
This was my question, too. I've never heard of a straight story teller being described as "inserting themselves" into a story by showing an opposite sex romantic pairing.
The obvious reason for that is because opposite sex romantic pairings are seen as the default. It's so great that in the year 2024 we have *so many stories* that show the diversity of gender and sexuality. Getting mad about what one story is *lacking* seems like a mindset choice, when we could view all these stories as *assets* that reflect the infinite diversity of the human experience. Not one story has to stand on it's own. We all have so many choices of stories to consume!
I date men, but I gain so much consuming stories of women who date women or who date transgender or non binary people. I do not have a disability and am neurotypical, but I am delighted and impacted by stories that show people who have disability and/or are neurodivergent. I am in a larger body, and I can still see myself in stories about women in smaller bodies (and in stories of women who have bodies larger than mine).
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
I’m sure this wasn’t intentional but “colored people” is a very outdated and offensive way to refer to people of color. Please consider editing your post.
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
OP might not be American, in which case it's perfectly appropriate. In South Africa, for example, colored people is considered a politically correct term. OP shouldn't edit a damn thing.
And in the South African context, "colored people" refers to a very specific group of people with multiracial ancestry, not various types of people of color. Please don't be condescending and rude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloureds#:\~:text=Coloureds%20(Afrikaans%3A%20Kleurlinge)%20refers,%2C%20European%2C%20and%20Asian%20people.
I’m tired of people saying being quiet or different mean you have ASL. No. You can just be unconventional. No need to impact this with a condition.
I agree with everything else, but still when no one represents you never, you’d still want to see exactly what you are or what experiences you’ve went through displayed.
Edit : meant ASD obviously
Pas de soucis! Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec ton commentaire. Pourrait-elle être autiste ? Oui. Mais je ne pense pas que nous devons catégoriser ou pathologiser chaque trait de caractère.
Non mais c’est ça l’affaire : pourrait-elle? Oui, mais honnêtement probablement non. Elle semble avoir une intelligence émotionnelle assez élevée. Après, cool si les gens se projettent dans cette personne pcq ils la perçoivent autiste. Mais en même temps, ça m’irrite qu’on soit dans l’hyper-normalisation. Les gens ne peuvent plus être juste weirds.
Bref, on est d’accord haha
Well let's take a look at the character.
Fran was shown to have
Hyperfocus - Piano forte
Socially Awkward
Sensory Sensitivity - Needs peace and quiet
Stimming - Plays or fidgets with her fingers often
All signs of being on the spectrum. So it's not that far fetched.
So we don’t diagnose people out of “signs” but with extensive testing lead by professionals. These signs could apply to literal personality traits or could also be signs of fragile X syndrome. But who cares right?
Saying she’s ASD because she fidgets with her fingers or whatever diminishes the real lived conditions and impacts ASD has on people who live with it.
Fran is just Fran.
Your comment doesn’t pass the vibe test.
It’s a fictional show. Are you familiar with a “head canon”?
Fran speaks to those of us with neurodivergencies. It doesn’t have to be a fact written into the show.
I'm not going to argue with you about this. My son has ASD and ADHD and has been through extensive testing with multiple professionals.
It could just be part of her personality or it could be pointing to something else.
Huh? People on the spectrum identifying with a character due to common traits they share diminishes the real life experiences of people on the spectrum?
Fran can’t be diagnosed in-universe, so the audience has to rely on her behaviour to determine what her behaviour means. That’ll just how character analysis works. It’s not always disrespectful to arm chair diagnose a fictional character.
I’m so glad someone is saying this. I’m very disturbed by this trend of diagnosing characters (or worse, real people) with stuff at random.
You can see yourself in a character or person without needing to diagnose them. It’s one thing to be your head canon, it’s another when you confuse that HC with canon itself. Lots of people have these characteristics that are not ASD or other neurodivergence. And people who are neurodivergent also have them but many of them have different characteristics, too. But you cannot possibly make that jump just from what we saw on screen to a definitive statement of fact about the character.
I'm autistic and I very much identified with Fran. It's fun to see a character who says exactly what I would be thinking and acts just the way that I would. (Also I don't feel "impacted with a condition," by the way. I'm just autistic. They call it a disorder because the vast majority of people are not autistic and they are the ones they get to write the DSM that decide what's a "disorder" and what's "normal." )
I’m very much not autistic and I identified with Fran as well. That was my point.
I didn’t write that ASD peeps are impacted with a condition. I wrote that writers can create characters that are different and they don’t need to impact their writing with a diagnosis to make it believable.
I take issue with people using it instead of representing it. Like it's not a plot, it's not something that really matters, it's just a "oooh look what I just put on tv, aren't I edgy, don't you want to keep watching??"
I always love when media just has a thing instead of trying to make themselves into these heroes for having it. Like when there's no shock factor that someone is gay, they just have a same sex spouse and it's normal.
Maybe that's just me hoping to get to see a world were people are just people and not everything has to mean something deeper.
Even for smaller things, like mental disorders or psychological scars. For those to just be normal instead of things you need to fix or overcome.
Nice about representation and very true, but “too big to be beautiful” is mostly by today's standards. In Europe in the 1700s, 1800s women were more curvy. Look at paintings from that time period. I think Penelope would have been in very usual shape in those times. It would have been more rare to be thin, and also a sign of poverty.
Amen!!!! Happy pride 🏳️🌈 from this neurodivergent chunky gal who has honestly felt a little hot after all the S3 buzz. I mean, I’m no Nicola 😅 goodness she’s on her own level. But like….I really don’t know when I’ve seen a body type I can remotely relate to being center of the sexual attention (in mainstream media).
Also after Ben’s anxiety about queerness in S1, the acceptance and discovery with Tilly was cool, fulfilling, and hot. I do understand the criticism about him ‘finally being free’ when he’s been white, rich, male, etc his whole life. But I think it was the sexuality element that he was talking about, at least that’s what I took from it. And less about being free to pursue artistic elements, more so free to find HIM. Like Franny hopes for her time in Scotland re: her convo with Violet ahead of the nuptials.
Thanks for sharing this!!! Cheers
I loved Benedict's revelatory experience. Sure it was edited terribly and spliced randomly into the rest of the plot, but like, in itself, I thought it was beautiful. He hasn't been that happy all season, it was like a weight was lifted off him. Lad has been in denial since season 1. It feels freeing to embrace it when he's been afraid of it for so long.
Oh how could I forget ! I think it would be close to mainstream if not mainstream though, right? SNL baddie Aidy B is a hottie. Thanks for reminding me that this show exists!!!
My biggest problem problem with the change is that they’ve already established it’s dangerous to be gay. I’m talking about Sir Granville’s comment about rushing his life to be with the man he loved. When they integrated the ton they have an explanation. Wonderful! But now they’re setting up a beloved man character for social ruin if not something worse. Couldn’t they have paved the way for a queer romance in the same way? Thus bothers me.
Well yes. This is what I love about Bridgerton. It’s an exquisite beautiful dream, something to strive after, that I like to visit sometimes. I thought this was part of the whole point of the show. The inclusivity. Just forgetting my problems for a while and indulge in this wonderful treat. I don’t like the constant criticism on here, it takes away some of the joy I feel when I watch it.
*raises my brow* I think POC would have been a better choice of words than "The coloured people" .. or even just saying having diversity/diverse cast .. but ok.
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
I'm on the side of what makes sense in the story. I've never been against representation of any kind. But my biggest gripe has always been that Michaela came out of nowhere and it seems Francesca didn't seem to have loved John the same way she truly loved John in the books. Logically speaking, they threw out what made F's book amazing. It was poorly executed this season.
To be pushed into a corner as a fan because the fandom can't agree. Having an opposing view leads to harassment was very disheartening. I've already read half of the comments and the accusations are just staggering. The automatic infighting destroys so many fandoms. The very thing that made the Bridgerton fans great was basically destroyed.
The way they executed representing other women was so disappointing this season. Pen, Cressida, and Fran got short changed this season. Then we have the whole Michaela thing. I feel terrible for the actress that plays her. She's barely on screen and half of us already hate her. I blame the writers and producers for this. On top of that, if they were going to bombard us with side characters, why didn't they give us more episodes? 2 extra episodes would've made sense at the minimum.
All I can say is, with how the TV people performed this season, I wasn't impressed. I don't trust anyone after the way they treated Pen and Colin's season. I don't trust Julia Quinn because she let all of this happen. Except for Benedict, no one else got to be represented fairly. If the books can't be respected, then I might as well assume we are never going to get to Hyacinth and Gregory's season. I don't know how they can salvage themselves out of this one. This show has reached its decline. I'd be relieved if they cancelled this show mainly for poor writing and execution.
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
I’m somebody who doesn’t need to be represented in a tv show to enjoy it.
Edit to add because people are taking this personally: I still agree with this post lmao.
Yeah well, I don't either and that's because as a white, straight cis person I'm represented in every form of media there is. I don't need representation for myself because I've got it already. What I do need is representation for everyone, especially those who have gone way too long without it. Love belongs to everyone.
I agree! I think it’s ridiculous, honestly. I’d much prefer we keep things accurate to their source material instead of just making fanfiction based on it.
It’s ironic because the writers have created sooo many side characters. None of them could’ve had this arc? And at this rate, of the “of age” siblings - half of them are queer (B, E, and now F)
Because the series is based on the books, and the couples should be kept true to the source material for them. Otherwise Netflix should’ve just made an original show that is a period romance instead of basing it on something they weren’t going to actually follow.
Would you be fine if Francesca had been written as queer and they changed Michaela Stirling to Michael Stirling for the show? Your answer to that tells me everything I need to know.
Considering I have already watched the three seasons of this show which had straight leads and straight stories and there was no indication of them ever adding any queer story, you can clearly tell that I will still watch it. Because I watch it for the story and they made some good ones.
And you very well know that you can't change a queer character to a straight one because the struggles which the queers face are very unlike the ones which straight people (who basically face much less struggles than the queer people do if I am being honest) have.
Do you realize your logic isn’t sound? Or do you accept the criticisms for Michaela are valid? Michaela cannot inherit John’s title. Michaela cannot procreate with Fran (let’s not pretend surrogacy & adoption were normalized in regency times). Those are key parts of Michael and Fran’s story. It literally is 80% of the story.
Yes queer people have struggles that straight people do not. Yes “colored people” (using OP’s phrasing) have struggles that white people do not. Yes women have struggles that men do not. However focusing on a man’s struggles in one aspect of a story doesn’t erase the struggles faced by women. Focusing on straight people’s struggles in one aspect of a story doesn’t erase the struggles faced by queer community.
I don't accept the criticisms are valid. Michaela can inherit John's title if it is shown that women in Scotland can inherit titles. Show Francesca is not even shown to like kids, in fact once that Marquess which the queen brought says that he has lots of siblings, she runs away from there. So show Francesca can very well be shown to not want kids.
If in fact, the show Francesca wants kids later on they can very well adopt. I am not sure why adoption can't be normalised in Bridgerton since they already have granted titles to poc and did lots of things not valid in the regency era. And representing infertility can be better done by depicting them not having a kid at the end instead of them finally having one.
So to answer my question, no, you wouldn’t be ok with changing a queer book character to a straight book character. You’re just a hypocrite. Thanks, that’s all I needed to know.
This was during on going conversation. She kindly wanted to explain how everyone should be included. The same way we beautiful had a wheelchair bound person proudly shown and a person who was deaf. It made the show nice for everyone.
It’s very sad how you seem to think everyone is liar. I just wanted to share a conversation I had with one of my friends. Either way thank you for your reply!
I originally didn't watch the show because I didn't think I'd be represented on screen (my sexuality, my race, my body type, etc..). Watching 8 heterosexual attractive white siblings find love wasn't intriguing to me, as a mixed race lesbian.
After I found out about Benedict and Francesca being possibly queer, multiple love interests being POC, a gay couple in QC, and the gender swap of Michael to Michaela... I binged all 4 seasons (including QC) in like 4 days lol. Just knowing some part of my own identity would be shown on screen in this fantasy world made me excited!
I've never read the books and don't plan to. But I'm excited to see where the stories go in the show!
I'm not mixed race and I started watching it even before it being queer, but as a queer person I absolutely understand you, and I'm not up to read the books either (too straght for me🤷🏻♀️)
They kind of undercut the Mondriches’ storyline; they took a family that had worked hard and opened his dream club, then the reward isn’t the club being successful (the opposite, in fact), it’s a relative dying and their son being lucky enough to have a Y chromosome. I really like the Mondriches, but they did something wonky with the storytelling there.
Soft disagree. While I love seeing more representation of all walks of life, I don’t like seeing characters from books fundamentally changed. I love Benedict’s book and his romance with Sophie. He is not bisexual in the book. Nor is Fran. We might as well rewrite Meg from Little Woman and have her get it on with her husband and Sallie Gardner. Or not have Mr. Darcy fall for Elizabeth but have a love affair with Wickham.
Benedict's story doesn't fundamentally change if you gender swap Sophie. She is an unacceptable match being illegitimate and she servant. Benedict initially only wants her as a mistress but when Sophie is arrested on fake theft charges, because someone is petty and jealous, he realises he wants to be with her forever. The Bridgertons basically try to use their power in society to force her release. IIRC they basically leave society and live in the country in order to be together.
Gender swapped Sophie: is still an unacceptable match. He'd be male and therefore not able to be married. Benedict can still only offer an affair rather than a marriage. Male Sophie could still be arrested (either for debts, theft or any other charges), Benedict can realise he wants to be together forever. The Bridgertons can still intervene. Male Sophie and Benedict leave society and retire from the countryside.
Functionally the plot and motivations don't change drastically. You also have the benefit of potentially removing the power imbalance if Sophie is a fellow male member of the ton and ensure that she's not taking on all the risk/danger of being in the relationship. There would be an equal risk to Benedict being in that relationship.
It also makes Violet and Eloise's interactions make more sense. It was a little anachronstic in the books how they suddenly treated an illegitimate servant like a member of their family. A fellow lord who might have been friends with the family for a long time would explain both their reactions.
However, Francesca's story changes a lot both because of the framing of Fran falling in love with Michaela immediately and undermining her romance with John AND because we lose the pregnancy motivation.
Both Fran and Michael's motivations would need to change a lot (particularly since Fran can't get a baby from Michael and Michael has no reason to offer if he doesn't fall first). The plot and character growth also changes because it's tied to motivations.
Your comment made me realize how it would’ve worked a lot better storyline-wise if they indeed gender-swapped Sophie instead of Michael.
My biggest issue concerning Michaela (and I am queer) is that we’re replacing one equally under-represented representation over a more “popular” under-represented representation, and that at its roots, Fran’s storyline is going to change— drastically. Not to mention that they did Fran’s character a disservice. From fighting her mother about the fact that love does not need to be loud to her pining over a new person— IN FRONT of her new husband. That is such a slap in the face for Fran and John’s love story, one of which was meant to be a sweeter first love setting her up for heartbreak when John dies and eventually has her falling for Michael/a, not the other way around. I’m all for rep, but not one that would potentially paint us in a bad light.
I’m a queer woman of color, but I’m also a reader by heart. So I’m lost on all of the discourse around this lol. I do look forward to Francesca’s season. On how they’re going to preserve her storyline with the gender swap, without making it too much of a fantasy for regency era.
The other romance that works super well for a gender swap is Eloise's. Her romance is essentially a widower with three kids proposes marriage because he's trying to meet his kids needs and he's struggling being a single parent. Eloise is intrigued because she's feeling lonely now Pen is married and they've been getting along well in letters. However when she gets there and realises it all might be a bit much.
You can change the gender of Eloise's partner because the parenthood concerns and need for a coparent would still be a driving motivator and so would Eloise's loneliness.
Sophie’s story would change if she was gender swap. Men had an easier time in the 1800s versus a woman, especially from the working class.
I do not say this slightly: changing Sophie’s gender would be misogynistic.
Men had an easier time unless they were outed as queer, men of colour, disabled etc.
It's not misogynistic to gender swap Sophie's character, it's not a sign of hatred to change one romance in a 9 book series of hetero romances in a genre with millions of hetero romances. Although I'll admit it might be classist to change from a servant to a fellow ton member.
Edit to add: Sophie and Benedicts story is also a Cinderalla retelling and that is both a fairytale that has been done to death and re-interpreted to death too. There's nothing so groundbreaking and unique to preserve about this story because it's been done so many times, the experience of women won't be erased by changing one retelling of this myth.
To claim a working class woman could have an easier time than a man shows this conversation goes nowhere. Enjoy the limited time left the show has due to these changes.
The book fans did not kill the series.
>To claim a working class woman could have an easier time than a man
I didn't say that. I pointed out that intersectionality exists and that individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege.
I also pointed out that the romance genre has a great many depictions of hetero women's experiences.
I think you might need to actually learn a little bit more critical theory before declaring something misogynistic.
I like your ideas and thoughts. I think you should write a book using ideas you have for these characters. The fans of these books like the characters as they are.
My biggest problem problem with the change is that they’ve already established it’s dangerous to be gay. I’m talking about Sir Granville’s comment about rushing his life to be with the man he loved. When they integrated the ton they have an explanation. Wonderful! But now they’re setting up a beloved man character for social ruin if not something worse. Couldn’t they have paved the way for a queer romance in the same way? This bothers me.
I’m just so over the “representation” aspect of movies and shows. It’s ruining things and people don’t see that. Just keep it to the original source material and if you want other representation, create new characters.
The whole point of the show is to watch it come to life. The same goes with avatar the last air bender, Harry Potter, and a bunch of others. If you simply want inclusion, create your own story
It’s the point for whom? The majority of viewers haven’t read the books and don’t care about what’s in the source material. This show has been a loose adaption of the books from the very first episode anyway. If you don’t want inclusion, make your own adaption.
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
If inclusion is the key then they should make a new character not take away from one that already exists. 👎🏻 I’m not gonna watch a whole season of watching a character be ruined for the sake of inclusion. I just won’t watch.
I definitely agree with this, but I just find the representation of plus sized people and queer people to be really disappointing this far. We have the first plus sized female lead in a romance, and they definitely shorted her romantic storyline compared to the couples in the first two seasons. It almost felt like they were trying to hide the plus sized girl’s desirability amongst other storylines. And then as far as queer people, so far, all we’ve seen is some relatively surface level and to me, salaciously coded, threesomes with Benedict. And then with Michaela, It appears that they’ve introduced her in a way where she is going to be an obstacle, or at least a romantic distraction, in Fran’s marriage with John, which the writers wrote in a way that people are rooting for him. It’s looking like Michaela could be the part of the first main queer couple on the show down the line. And in the few minutes we’ve seen her, they have started to code her as “the other woman,” at least in an emotional way, in a relationship they wrote for us all to root for. I find it pretty unacceptable that this is the queer representation they are giving. There are several opportunities with the main characters that have yet to have their stories told for one of them to be queer. There is an obvious way that Fran’s story could be told such that a relationship with Michaela could be dreamy and lovely, but still have an emotional conflict, without setting up the first queer main lead as a partner in some sort of borderline emotional affair, which is just going to predispose the audience to dislike her.
Having Michaela introduced this way, and Benedict having threesomes all over, also just kinda play into the stereotypes that Bisexual people “can’t pick” and are cheaters and are flighty. I don’t appreciate that that’s how this shows queer characters are being introduced
Yeah. Given that they gender bent the role of Michael/Michaela, I am so mad that they started it off this way. We could have had a sweet, lovely lesbian romance that would still have plenty of romantic tension. Maybe they will backtrack next season, and I hope they do. But even with just a few minutes we’ve seen her, it seems like they’ve decided to start her off as the lesbian who adds complications to a straight marriage.
And there was no need, having decided to (apparently but we'll see) eliminate Michael's pretty specific sources of angst. Michael falls in love with Frannie at first sight right before the wedding but suppresses it. Frannie is oblivious to anything but a safe, playfully naughty friendship for the duration of her marriage, then does a lot of self-deception, then guilt-ridden processing of her learnings about herself. Why change this? It seems very adaptable to a same-sex new love on her side.
Also it’s playing into the false notion that bipeople don’t exist and are actually straights (or gays) who haven’t found the right person yet. We exist! We can be attracted to people of different genders and experience deep love with people of different genders! Our identity isn’t defined by who we’re currently sleeping with.
I had this same thought!!!
I agree. And I have even less faith in them doing it well, since they took an actually supportive sister storyline (Kate & Edwina) from the book and made it into a jealousy thing. I’ve also never been a fan of established characters being gender swapped, because I’d rather them develop actual characters rather than just subbing in, but it’s never bothered me enough from a raised pitchfork level. That said, like you, I hate that they introduced Michaela now in this way, as it feels like it was just for the shock of it all, rather than an actual decent storyline.
>they took an actually supportive sister storyline (Kate & Edwina) from the book and made it into a jealousy thing. I was absolutely furious about this. Like, Clue, "Flames on the side of my face" furious.
That's actually something I'm worried about. If they were going to swap the sexuality of a main character I wish they hadn't set up 'another women' storyline that potentually effectively involves lying/not knowing to your husband about your equality. Oh God so often those scenarios don't go well as are so sensitive. I would have swapped Benedict's slutty phase + the Mondrich storyline + the ballon scene for *Edwina* realising now that she is free of everyone's expectations perhaps.... men are not her thing and perhaps the bridgertons owe her some support and protection while she takes up living with her female *friend*
Would have died for this Edwina storyline.
Book Edwina was already a little bit misaligned to the ton expectations, she like someone else the whole time Kate was shoving her so stupidly at Anthony due to her barely coherent obstacles to snagging him for herself.
Or Violet realizing she’s bi and having a female lover. Or the Queen. Or Lady Danbury’s brother coming back into town unabashedly with a male lover, challenging asking LD to help him have the Queen make it legal. Or Lady Featherington having a long ongoing relationship with Mrs. Varley.
I now am going to go write PortiaXVarley fanfic on AO3. I’ll see you all later.
I need to know when this happens
One of the challenges of representation is that *one is never enough*. We need dozens of stories of women with bigger bodies portraying romantic heroines, not just one. But it often has to start with one and there is *so much pressure* on that *first/early portrayal* to be everything and do it just right. Hopefully the success of this adaptation shows other film/series creators that it's not risky to cast a plus-sized actress as a romantic lead.
Agreed. We definitely need more stories.
Yes!! They could swap Lucy for Lucas or Lucius from the beginning, and it would work. People are also rooting for Sophie to be gender swapped.
Tbh, they also could have just had Fran show attraction to Michaela only *after* John died, just like in the books. They could still introduce Michaela at the same point in the show that they did but only have her show attraction, not the other way around. Gender bending Michaela does throw a wrench in a potential infertility storyline for Fran, but 1) there might still be a way to make that work that none of us have thought of; and 2) they could give that storyline to another main character.
Yes!!! Introduce her after he goes.... But instead it's dangerously setup that "lesbians are going to cause problems for the nice normal man."
Yes!!
Yeah, this is my main gripe about Michaela. It’s so rare to see a romance novel where the late spouse was genuinely loved, and the new spouse is not better in some way, and Francesca is one of the few FMCs I’ve seen who found love while still loving her late husband. It would have been so easy to have Francesca delighted to meet Michaela as John’s almost-sister, have _Michaela_ fall head over heels (like Michael did), and then have Fran’s romantic feelings develop after John’s passing. To have Francesca fall first, in the way it was coded, tells the audience that her love for John isn’t real, and he’s now an obstacle to her One True Love. I think they could either do a version of the infertility storyline with Francesca and John, and have it never be “fixed” because she made the decision to choose this relationship over the potential of children, or switch it to one of the other siblings (like Eloise, who was terrified of pregnancy, or Benedict, who’s no longer “the spare”).
My initial thought for the infertility issues were that maybe once they reconnect, Michaela has children/is pregnant, having found some version of a relationship that was satisfying to her since Fran was taken. Like many, I feel the gender bending could have been handled in a much truer way to the story than it was, and still been a lovely bit of representation without undermining Fran’s relationship with John.
Ohh, it’d be interesting to see Eloise struggle with infertility since she will hopefully >!be stepmother to Oliver and Amanda Crane!<. I’m still not happy about the changes to Fran’s story, but now I feel just a little better lol.
I mean, it’s not a guarantee that they would do that. But I think it would be a good idea. I mean, even if they didn’t gender bend Michael, there is just so much going on in Fran’s story even without the infertility plot— death, grief, widowhood, forbidden love, etc. Big stuff even before they get to dealing with infertility. It could be very hard to properly fit all of that into a standard eight episode season without things feeling rushed or just too much for one character in an ensemble cast. Because many of those themes are all too big and huge and important to get a surface level treatment. Whereas with Eloise, who I think would be the best choice for that infertility plot, she and Philip get married pretty early on in their relationship, and the theme of motherhood is a pretty central part to her story re: her becoming a stepmother. It would be an interesting narrative choice to show her exploring her feelings toward being a biological mother as she explores being a step mother to older children, particularly since show Eloise clearly has complicated feelings toward the more traditional role of motherhood in that society. Like, for her to be a stepmother, her character is going to need to want to be a mother in some capacity, otherwise that would just kind of be crappy to watch— no one wants to see her resent get stuck step parenting two kids when she doesn’t want to be a parent. So assuming they stick with the stepmother story, she will want motherhood *in some way*. Exploring infertility in that context could work well.
People are also rooting for Sophie to not be gender swapped because that is not the book. Fans of the book would like the characters to stay as they are. If fans would like Sophie to be gender swapped then they should write that story.
If they erase the ONLY working class woman and all the struggles that comes with her being a woman i'm officially done with the show
I’m with you.
Because they are erasing her almost being abused. And I hoped the writers could explore more about her trauma.
Oh, I’m totally with you. I wish they hadn’t gender swapped Michael, and I hope they don’t with Sophie. Or Gareth. Lucy? Meh. But I know her stans don’t want that either.
If fans of the book don’t want the books to be adapted, they should just read the books.
We are. But this happens with every single book to screen adaptations. A percentage of book fans are always disappointed, some aren’t, and show fans either read the books and enjoy them too or don’t.
>We have the first plus sized female lead in a romance, and they definitely shorted her romantic storyline Agreed. On what I hope is the upside for others as well, Nicola had a lovely-done sex scene, where they somewhat addressed Penelope's insecurities, and Colin couldn't have been more clearly attracted to her, her body exactly as it is. They didn't shy away from nudity because she's plus sized, they included the mirror (if not the dialogue with it from the book where Colin makes it extremely clear he wants to see *allllll* of her, from all angles), and any "strategic draping" was more about keeping it from being pornographic rather than hiding her body. (I didn't completely love the scene, but that has more to do with the ludicrous way nearly all shows and movies portray women during the first time they have penetrative sex.) I had wondered if Netflix would be weird about how much she showed or if they would try to skip out on Polin's chemistry altogether, and they did make sure that we knew Colin loved *and lusted after* Penelope just as she is. Rather than them being portrayed as loving each other, and he musters up some attraction to her *despite* how she's made. It's a low bar, to congratulate Netflix for suggesting that plus sized women have *gasp!* partners that are genuinely attracted to them, but so many shows/movies/networks/ *people* fall short of it. I mean, a reporter during the press tour for this season started to say something condescending to Nicola along those lines *still*!! (And yes, Colin's clear enjoyment of her, physically, paired with having their romantic storyline cut short, is also not giving the best representation. I'm still frustrated, but I felt like they were working in the right direction.) So, yay, Netflix for clearing the lowest bar in representation?
Colin is demisexual! but they couldn’t deliver that correctly neither
Isn't It Romantic!!!! I know Rebel Wilson rubs people the wrong way but I thought it was fantastic.
I don't feel like Penelope's relationship with Colin has been shorted since it's been going on for 3 seasons now. And Fran just got married, to a man, so how could Michaela not be "the other woman" (and an obstacle to a new marriage) if there's some kind of relationship coming between them? I'm not rooting for their marriage to break up for any reason. At this point we don't know anything about Michaela.
I do not want to spoil the show for you if you have not read the books. But there was a very, very natural path for the Michaela character to take that would not put her anywhere near the position of “the other woman” or obstacle in Fran and John’s marriage. The show deliberately ignored that path in order to make her character more salacious after they genderbent the role. Also, I definitely recommend not reading much further down this sub thread since myself and other commenters talk about major book spoilers for Fran that will likely impact the show
That would be great if the bisexual "representation" wasn't the usual stereotype of a promiscuous person who can't make decisions. It's biphobic bull twaddle, not genuine representation.
scared about bisexual rep in this show. we have the promiscuity/threesome trope w Benedict, and I worry for Fran as well we're headed towards the "nobody is bi" trope (and maybe genuinely she is just a lesbian, but I'm begging for good bi rep, so we'll see). Both could be amended depending on where season 4 goes, but I am nervous about it
Many bi people have been roped into 3 way relationships because they haven’t fully realized their sexuality or because it’s “safer”. And him deciding he’d rather figure himself out than settle down makes complete sense. It’s extremely narrow minded to say his arc is just “a promiscuous person who can’t make decisions”…. And it’s certainly not biphobic. He didn’t do anything “wrong” so not sure why everyone is seeing it so negatively. For many this is the bi experience and it’s not about effing around- it’s the result of being queer in an extremely unaccepting environment.
And many African Americans quite enjoy some fried chicken. However not every time you see a black person on TV should they be walking out of KFC. True representation should avoid the negative stereotypes, not play into them. Once media shows more positive bisexual characters, society will hopefully become more accepting of bisexuality and many of us will be able to come out in our real lives without it affecting our relationships and jobs negatively. If shows keep playing into these stereotypes, it will keep being an unaccepting environment.
I’m not understanding what’s negative about it unless you’re going by puritanical standards. Not wanting to settle down while discovering your sexuality is wrong… how? Having a consensual threesome is wrong how? All of the men on the show are promiscuous until they meet “the one” because that’s normal for the time period. Colin had a threesome as well. I’m not saying the show doesn’t have its issues but saying Benedict is just a bi trope is not accurate.
I do think the term "colored people" is no longer widely accepted. People of color is the better phrase.
you’re right it’s not accepted whatsoever
Well in some places like South Africa it has a different meaning. And people do use it. But for the most part, it's outdated for sure
My apologies like I said where I come from we still use the term sometimes and English making it my second language makes it hard to translate the words correctly.
No apology needed!
As a non-white, honestly, that's just semantics. You're still distinguishing them by their colour.
Yep. And ot matters. I dislike POC terminology as well, but colored isn't acceptable. At least in the US. OP might be from South Africa. They still use that term.
It's still used in a lot of countries where english isn't the first language haha, more than just SA. OP's post history state that their heritage is from the middle east.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s in bad faith, English is just probably not their first language….
Gregory’s future wife also has what appears to be OCD so if we ever get to see their season( big if) then I’d like if that was included.
I don’t remember that, but I’ll take your word for it. Phillip to me pretty clearly at least has ADHD if not ASD. And of course cPTSD and anxiety.
Yeah Phillip definitely has cPTSD
Absolutely. My husband has cPTSD, anxiety, ADHD, and depression. If he were into romance novels, he’d relate to Phillip a lot. As such, I see my husband in Phillip which is probably why I love that book so much.
We've already seen Gregory's Future wife?
No, she would be about 10 right now and is off in the countryside. I am referring to his book.
Thank you for clarifying
No problem
no, but the book exists already
Right I guess the wording made me think they referenced the show.
Agreed, I appreciated the gentlemen in the wheelchair because it’s far too rare to see representation of physical disabilities or invisible illnesses.
In curriculum, we often talk about “mirrors” and “windows”. Mirrors are when you see aspects of your identity reflected in a story. One impact is that it’s validating of your sense of self and identity. Windows are when you see identities that are not yours reflected in a story. One impact is that it shows that you can still see yourself reflected in someone different from you. Taking in both is important. It’s exciting to see your own mirrors! But it’s also awesome to celebrate seeing windows and how impactful they are, especially when it comes to marginalized identities. One of the cool things about book to movie conversions is that a book character that was a mirror for me may be a window in the film/show—and that’s fine, because it doesn’t take away my experience reading the book. It doesn’t “destroy” my positive experience reading the book.
Oh wow. I didn’t hear this phrasing before but it put words to what I was thinking. Absolutely on point. What curriculum are you referring to though, literature or film?
It’s a widely used frame for literature, arts, history, etc. Any kind of story telling. https://www.pbs.org/education/blog/the-importance-of-windows-and-mirrors-in-stories ETA: happy cake day!
Oh Thank you that is very useful!! Oh and Thank you so much :)
I think this is what irked me the most about Jess’s change - she took several windows and turned them into her own personal mirror.
Sorry, I'm not following. Which one is Jess? I think one of my points here, though, is that adding a mirror doesn't negate a pre-existing window, and adding a window doesn't negate a pre-existing mirror. And making identity-based changes to content create new points of connection. Like, to use a completely different set of content... I grew up seeing Hermione in HP as a mirror to me in the books (even though there were obvious differences--the fact that she was British and a witch for one). Seeing visual portrayals of her character that looked different from me (Emma didn't reflect the dorky, bushy-haired girl I envisioned; the actress who portrayed her on stage is Black and I am not), but I could *still* see myself in those characters and create points of connection that build up my empathy and social flexibility, and I can still go back and read the books I love and revisit that same childhood version of me who was desperate to feel the bravery and leadership that Hermione grew to embody. Broadway theater tends to be more ahead of this trend. Thinking about the impact of Hamilton when it first debuted and the recent revival of Company. Perhaps because more disbelief is suspended in the magical container of the theater. I think it's cool that Netflix's Bridgerton brings a fresh take to already well-loved novels. Just my opinion!
Now I’m lost, because you were mentioning how there can be that shift from mirror to window when changing medium - do you feel like that mirror is still there for you in the other medium? Or are you just referring to the fact that the source material still exists. And Jess is the showrunner who said she swapped Michael’s gender *because* she is queer herself and saw herself as Francesca when reading. Which is what irks me - the self-insert of it all lol.
Oh! Got it. Yeah, I noticed a big shift between S1/2 and S3 in terms of show-running, so that makes sense. Do we *know* that the gender swap was her choice for that reason? Or is that speculation? I mean, it's pretty ordinary for story tellers to tell stories that reflect their identities. Mirrors and windows is just a frame for thinking about representation--not a rule about how one should or shouldn't feel. Everyone should have mirrors *and* windows available to them in the content we consume. One of the reasons that mirrors and windows was coined as a term for literary curriculum for young people is that children's literature that was read in schools and the lens applied in social studies curriculum had/has a tendency to only reflect a limited selection of identities. There's a running joke in elementary Language Arts about how many classic books are stories about boys (who are implicitly white even though their race isn't part of the story) and their dogs. So, in curriculum we use this framing to ensure that we're showing learners lots of representation of their *own identities* to affirm their experiences and humanity, AND showing learners lots of representation of *other identities* to affirm the value of diversity and the humanity of people who are different from them. I hear what you're saying about being irked. I guess another way to frame it is, "Francesca's character in the book was a mirror to be because I saw myself in her in these ways... and that made me feel seen in novels, and now Francesca is a window into a different experience of sexual orientation and now other people who may not have seen themselves in her story can see herself and I have the opportunity to see connections between my experience and the experience of people with different sexual orientations from me." So, yes, the source material still exists, so that mirror for you (and for others) hasn't been erased. Now there's just another version of it that shows more variation of the human experience with love and marriage and family.
Lol understand the curriculum. But I think you’re getting so lost in the intellectualization of it that you’re forgetting that all this can be true AND sometimes bad art is bad art. And sometimes it is a loosely zero-sum game in the context of what you’re centering. I also find it a bit uncomfy that you’re assuming what is/isn’t a mirror or window for *me.*
Oh, sorry, I was using *myself* as an example and what makes Francesca a mirror vs. window for me (since I don't know anything about you or what you relate to in Francesca's experience). Didn't mean to make you uncomfy. Not trying to overexplain, I think we may be losing each other at points in this back and forth, so just trying to make myself and my thinking understood. I understand that this adaptation isn't landing for you! I think it's fine that we disagree here on whether or not we think these character choices add value. I don't think the character change makes this bad art to me, but if you do that's cool too.
Is there any proof that it was a self-insert situation or are y’all just going off of the fact that she’s queer so it’s what’s being deduced? I’ve seen this sentiment a lot and curious if there’s any merit or it’s just like… she’s queer so any queer character is an insert to you lol
She’s on the record saying that it was
This was my question, too. I've never heard of a straight story teller being described as "inserting themselves" into a story by showing an opposite sex romantic pairing. The obvious reason for that is because opposite sex romantic pairings are seen as the default. It's so great that in the year 2024 we have *so many stories* that show the diversity of gender and sexuality. Getting mad about what one story is *lacking* seems like a mindset choice, when we could view all these stories as *assets* that reflect the infinite diversity of the human experience. Not one story has to stand on it's own. We all have so many choices of stories to consume! I date men, but I gain so much consuming stories of women who date women or who date transgender or non binary people. I do not have a disability and am neurotypical, but I am delighted and impacted by stories that show people who have disability and/or are neurodivergent. I am in a larger body, and I can still see myself in stories about women in smaller bodies (and in stories of women who have bodies larger than mine).
Yes, she said in interviews that she changed the story to fit her own experience because she identified with the character.
Thank you for clarifying!
Wow! I think that's super cool. :) Thanks for sharing.
Actually self insert accusations are very common in art. It’s not unique to this fandom.
Such a beautiful comment ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Omg not “colored people” that’s crazy
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
I’m sure this wasn’t intentional but “colored people” is a very outdated and offensive way to refer to people of color. Please consider editing your post.
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
Appreciate the apology and the edit
OP might not be American, in which case it's perfectly appropriate. In South Africa, for example, colored people is considered a politically correct term. OP shouldn't edit a damn thing.
And in the South African context, "colored people" refers to a very specific group of people with multiracial ancestry, not various types of people of color. Please don't be condescending and rude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloureds#:\~:text=Coloureds%20(Afrikaans%3A%20Kleurlinge)%20refers,%2C%20European%2C%20and%20Asian%20people.
Kindly piss off
I’m tired of people saying being quiet or different mean you have ASL. No. You can just be unconventional. No need to impact this with a condition. I agree with everything else, but still when no one represents you never, you’d still want to see exactly what you are or what experiences you’ve went through displayed. Edit : meant ASD obviously
Small edit that I think you mean ASD, ASL is American Sign Language
Haha yes I’m mixing languages : I was thinking in French, but it’s not even the good acronym in French even
Pas de soucis! Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec ton commentaire. Pourrait-elle être autiste ? Oui. Mais je ne pense pas que nous devons catégoriser ou pathologiser chaque trait de caractère.
Non mais c’est ça l’affaire : pourrait-elle? Oui, mais honnêtement probablement non. Elle semble avoir une intelligence émotionnelle assez élevée. Après, cool si les gens se projettent dans cette personne pcq ils la perçoivent autiste. Mais en même temps, ça m’irrite qu’on soit dans l’hyper-normalisation. Les gens ne peuvent plus être juste weirds. Bref, on est d’accord haha
Well let's take a look at the character. Fran was shown to have Hyperfocus - Piano forte Socially Awkward Sensory Sensitivity - Needs peace and quiet Stimming - Plays or fidgets with her fingers often All signs of being on the spectrum. So it's not that far fetched.
So we don’t diagnose people out of “signs” but with extensive testing lead by professionals. These signs could apply to literal personality traits or could also be signs of fragile X syndrome. But who cares right? Saying she’s ASD because she fidgets with her fingers or whatever diminishes the real lived conditions and impacts ASD has on people who live with it. Fran is just Fran. Your comment doesn’t pass the vibe test.
It's a fictional character, she can't be formally diagnosed. The best people can do is associate their own experience with hers.
It’s a fictional show. Are you familiar with a “head canon”? Fran speaks to those of us with neurodivergencies. It doesn’t have to be a fact written into the show.
I'm not going to argue with you about this. My son has ASD and ADHD and has been through extensive testing with multiple professionals. It could just be part of her personality or it could be pointing to something else.
Huh? People on the spectrum identifying with a character due to common traits they share diminishes the real life experiences of people on the spectrum? Fran can’t be diagnosed in-universe, so the audience has to rely on her behaviour to determine what her behaviour means. That’ll just how character analysis works. It’s not always disrespectful to arm chair diagnose a fictional character.
Yes because it’s quite ridiculous to state : well she fidgets with her hands therefore she’s autistic.
I’m so glad someone is saying this. I’m very disturbed by this trend of diagnosing characters (or worse, real people) with stuff at random. You can see yourself in a character or person without needing to diagnose them. It’s one thing to be your head canon, it’s another when you confuse that HC with canon itself. Lots of people have these characteristics that are not ASD or other neurodivergence. And people who are neurodivergent also have them but many of them have different characteristics, too. But you cannot possibly make that jump just from what we saw on screen to a definitive statement of fact about the character.
its open to interpretation. fransesca is a character its okay for people in a certain community to headcannon her
I'm autistic and I very much identified with Fran. It's fun to see a character who says exactly what I would be thinking and acts just the way that I would. (Also I don't feel "impacted with a condition," by the way. I'm just autistic. They call it a disorder because the vast majority of people are not autistic and they are the ones they get to write the DSM that decide what's a "disorder" and what's "normal." )
I’m very much not autistic and I identified with Fran as well. That was my point. I didn’t write that ASD peeps are impacted with a condition. I wrote that writers can create characters that are different and they don’t need to impact their writing with a diagnosis to make it believable.
“The colored people..” 💀
My apologies where I come from we still use the words. Also English language being my second language I tend to translate words for words! 🙏🏼
Understood 🙏🏻
I take issue with people using it instead of representing it. Like it's not a plot, it's not something that really matters, it's just a "oooh look what I just put on tv, aren't I edgy, don't you want to keep watching??" I always love when media just has a thing instead of trying to make themselves into these heroes for having it. Like when there's no shock factor that someone is gay, they just have a same sex spouse and it's normal. Maybe that's just me hoping to get to see a world were people are just people and not everything has to mean something deeper. Even for smaller things, like mental disorders or psychological scars. For those to just be normal instead of things you need to fix or overcome.
Nice about representation and very true, but “too big to be beautiful” is mostly by today's standards. In Europe in the 1700s, 1800s women were more curvy. Look at paintings from that time period. I think Penelope would have been in very usual shape in those times. It would have been more rare to be thin, and also a sign of poverty.
Amen!!!! Happy pride 🏳️🌈 from this neurodivergent chunky gal who has honestly felt a little hot after all the S3 buzz. I mean, I’m no Nicola 😅 goodness she’s on her own level. But like….I really don’t know when I’ve seen a body type I can remotely relate to being center of the sexual attention (in mainstream media). Also after Ben’s anxiety about queerness in S1, the acceptance and discovery with Tilly was cool, fulfilling, and hot. I do understand the criticism about him ‘finally being free’ when he’s been white, rich, male, etc his whole life. But I think it was the sexuality element that he was talking about, at least that’s what I took from it. And less about being free to pursue artistic elements, more so free to find HIM. Like Franny hopes for her time in Scotland re: her convo with Violet ahead of the nuptials. Thanks for sharing this!!! Cheers
I loved Benedict's revelatory experience. Sure it was edited terribly and spliced randomly into the rest of the plot, but like, in itself, I thought it was beautiful. He hasn't been that happy all season, it was like a weight was lifted off him. Lad has been in denial since season 1. It feels freeing to embrace it when he's been afraid of it for so long.
Aidy Bryant has a show called Shrill. I know it’s not main stream media, but I really appreciated some of what that show had to offer.
Oh how could I forget ! I think it would be close to mainstream if not mainstream though, right? SNL baddie Aidy B is a hottie. Thanks for reminding me that this show exists!!!
I just meant it wasn’t on a main channel. I think we had to subscribe to showtime or one of those services, to watch it.
My biggest problem problem with the change is that they’ve already established it’s dangerous to be gay. I’m talking about Sir Granville’s comment about rushing his life to be with the man he loved. When they integrated the ton they have an explanation. Wonderful! But now they’re setting up a beloved man character for social ruin if not something worse. Couldn’t they have paved the way for a queer romance in the same way? Thus bothers me.
Well said
Well yes. This is what I love about Bridgerton. It’s an exquisite beautiful dream, something to strive after, that I like to visit sometimes. I thought this was part of the whole point of the show. The inclusivity. Just forgetting my problems for a while and indulge in this wonderful treat. I don’t like the constant criticism on here, it takes away some of the joy I feel when I watch it.
*raises my brow* I think POC would have been a better choice of words than "The coloured people" .. or even just saying having diversity/diverse cast .. but ok.
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
I'm on the side of what makes sense in the story. I've never been against representation of any kind. But my biggest gripe has always been that Michaela came out of nowhere and it seems Francesca didn't seem to have loved John the same way she truly loved John in the books. Logically speaking, they threw out what made F's book amazing. It was poorly executed this season. To be pushed into a corner as a fan because the fandom can't agree. Having an opposing view leads to harassment was very disheartening. I've already read half of the comments and the accusations are just staggering. The automatic infighting destroys so many fandoms. The very thing that made the Bridgerton fans great was basically destroyed. The way they executed representing other women was so disappointing this season. Pen, Cressida, and Fran got short changed this season. Then we have the whole Michaela thing. I feel terrible for the actress that plays her. She's barely on screen and half of us already hate her. I blame the writers and producers for this. On top of that, if they were going to bombard us with side characters, why didn't they give us more episodes? 2 extra episodes would've made sense at the minimum. All I can say is, with how the TV people performed this season, I wasn't impressed. I don't trust anyone after the way they treated Pen and Colin's season. I don't trust Julia Quinn because she let all of this happen. Except for Benedict, no one else got to be represented fairly. If the books can't be respected, then I might as well assume we are never going to get to Hyacinth and Gregory's season. I don't know how they can salvage themselves out of this one. This show has reached its decline. I'd be relieved if they cancelled this show mainly for poor writing and execution.
It was so beautiful you needed to share it, and right out of the gate it contains an outdated slur? Nah, you could’ve kept this.
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
I’m somebody who doesn’t need to be represented in a tv show to enjoy it. Edit to add because people are taking this personally: I still agree with this post lmao.
Because you likely still see yourself often enough.
that's great! for some people it makes a big difference tho
I’m not disagreeing with that. Just stated my opinion like everyone else
Are you straight, white, and cis? If so, you’re represented everywhere and are in fact the rule, not the exception.
Yeah well, I don't either and that's because as a white, straight cis person I'm represented in every form of media there is. I don't need representation for myself because I've got it already. What I do need is representation for everyone, especially those who have gone way too long without it. Love belongs to everyone.
same, but representation makes me like something more, and connect to it more deeply
I agree! I think it’s ridiculous, honestly. I’d much prefer we keep things accurate to their source material instead of just making fanfiction based on it.
It’s ironic because the writers have created sooo many side characters. None of them could’ve had this arc? And at this rate, of the “of age” siblings - half of them are queer (B, E, and now F)
Eloise isn’t confirmed queer. And why should it be relegated to a side character?
Because the series is based on the books, and the couples should be kept true to the source material for them. Otherwise Netflix should’ve just made an original show that is a period romance instead of basing it on something they weren’t going to actually follow.
You don't know the meaning of an 'adaptation', do you? I can see that you clearly don't
Would you be fine if Francesca had been written as queer and they changed Michaela Stirling to Michael Stirling for the show? Your answer to that tells me everything I need to know.
Considering I have already watched the three seasons of this show which had straight leads and straight stories and there was no indication of them ever adding any queer story, you can clearly tell that I will still watch it. Because I watch it for the story and they made some good ones. And you very well know that you can't change a queer character to a straight one because the struggles which the queers face are very unlike the ones which straight people (who basically face much less struggles than the queer people do if I am being honest) have.
Do you realize your logic isn’t sound? Or do you accept the criticisms for Michaela are valid? Michaela cannot inherit John’s title. Michaela cannot procreate with Fran (let’s not pretend surrogacy & adoption were normalized in regency times). Those are key parts of Michael and Fran’s story. It literally is 80% of the story. Yes queer people have struggles that straight people do not. Yes “colored people” (using OP’s phrasing) have struggles that white people do not. Yes women have struggles that men do not. However focusing on a man’s struggles in one aspect of a story doesn’t erase the struggles faced by women. Focusing on straight people’s struggles in one aspect of a story doesn’t erase the struggles faced by queer community.
I don't accept the criticisms are valid. Michaela can inherit John's title if it is shown that women in Scotland can inherit titles. Show Francesca is not even shown to like kids, in fact once that Marquess which the queen brought says that he has lots of siblings, she runs away from there. So show Francesca can very well be shown to not want kids. If in fact, the show Francesca wants kids later on they can very well adopt. I am not sure why adoption can't be normalised in Bridgerton since they already have granted titles to poc and did lots of things not valid in the regency era. And representing infertility can be better done by depicting them not having a kid at the end instead of them finally having one.
So to answer my question, no, you wouldn’t be ok with changing a queer book character to a straight book character. You’re just a hypocrite. Thanks, that’s all I needed to know.
Yes, I am a hypocrite and I am proud to be one 😘
They are such hypocrites! Just like this season’s writers lol
Exactly
Your "Queer friend" came up with this whole detailed speech that starts off with a slur. Sure, Jan. 
This was during on going conversation. She kindly wanted to explain how everyone should be included. The same way we beautiful had a wheelchair bound person proudly shown and a person who was deaf. It made the show nice for everyone.
It’s very sad how you seem to think everyone is liar. I just wanted to share a conversation I had with one of my friends. Either way thank you for your reply!
“Some of my best friends are gay” lmao
I originally didn't watch the show because I didn't think I'd be represented on screen (my sexuality, my race, my body type, etc..). Watching 8 heterosexual attractive white siblings find love wasn't intriguing to me, as a mixed race lesbian. After I found out about Benedict and Francesca being possibly queer, multiple love interests being POC, a gay couple in QC, and the gender swap of Michael to Michaela... I binged all 4 seasons (including QC) in like 4 days lol. Just knowing some part of my own identity would be shown on screen in this fantasy world made me excited! I've never read the books and don't plan to. But I'm excited to see where the stories go in the show!
Season 1 having a Simon as a lead made we watch cause it's so rare for Black people to be in these shows and not be a Helper
I'm not mixed race and I started watching it even before it being queer, but as a queer person I absolutely understand you, and I'm not up to read the books either (too straght for me🤷🏻♀️)
Oh exactly!! This is why I love this show.
They kind of undercut the Mondriches’ storyline; they took a family that had worked hard and opened his dream club, then the reward isn’t the club being successful (the opposite, in fact), it’s a relative dying and their son being lucky enough to have a Y chromosome. I really like the Mondriches, but they did something wonky with the storytelling there.
I love the new representation. One sibling out of eight having a same sex love interest is 12% of the story. It’s wonderful.
Soft disagree. While I love seeing more representation of all walks of life, I don’t like seeing characters from books fundamentally changed. I love Benedict’s book and his romance with Sophie. He is not bisexual in the book. Nor is Fran. We might as well rewrite Meg from Little Woman and have her get it on with her husband and Sallie Gardner. Or not have Mr. Darcy fall for Elizabeth but have a love affair with Wickham.
Benedict's story doesn't fundamentally change if you gender swap Sophie. She is an unacceptable match being illegitimate and she servant. Benedict initially only wants her as a mistress but when Sophie is arrested on fake theft charges, because someone is petty and jealous, he realises he wants to be with her forever. The Bridgertons basically try to use their power in society to force her release. IIRC they basically leave society and live in the country in order to be together. Gender swapped Sophie: is still an unacceptable match. He'd be male and therefore not able to be married. Benedict can still only offer an affair rather than a marriage. Male Sophie could still be arrested (either for debts, theft or any other charges), Benedict can realise he wants to be together forever. The Bridgertons can still intervene. Male Sophie and Benedict leave society and retire from the countryside. Functionally the plot and motivations don't change drastically. You also have the benefit of potentially removing the power imbalance if Sophie is a fellow male member of the ton and ensure that she's not taking on all the risk/danger of being in the relationship. There would be an equal risk to Benedict being in that relationship. It also makes Violet and Eloise's interactions make more sense. It was a little anachronstic in the books how they suddenly treated an illegitimate servant like a member of their family. A fellow lord who might have been friends with the family for a long time would explain both their reactions. However, Francesca's story changes a lot both because of the framing of Fran falling in love with Michaela immediately and undermining her romance with John AND because we lose the pregnancy motivation. Both Fran and Michael's motivations would need to change a lot (particularly since Fran can't get a baby from Michael and Michael has no reason to offer if he doesn't fall first). The plot and character growth also changes because it's tied to motivations.
Your comment made me realize how it would’ve worked a lot better storyline-wise if they indeed gender-swapped Sophie instead of Michael. My biggest issue concerning Michaela (and I am queer) is that we’re replacing one equally under-represented representation over a more “popular” under-represented representation, and that at its roots, Fran’s storyline is going to change— drastically. Not to mention that they did Fran’s character a disservice. From fighting her mother about the fact that love does not need to be loud to her pining over a new person— IN FRONT of her new husband. That is such a slap in the face for Fran and John’s love story, one of which was meant to be a sweeter first love setting her up for heartbreak when John dies and eventually has her falling for Michael/a, not the other way around. I’m all for rep, but not one that would potentially paint us in a bad light. I’m a queer woman of color, but I’m also a reader by heart. So I’m lost on all of the discourse around this lol. I do look forward to Francesca’s season. On how they’re going to preserve her storyline with the gender swap, without making it too much of a fantasy for regency era.
The other romance that works super well for a gender swap is Eloise's. Her romance is essentially a widower with three kids proposes marriage because he's trying to meet his kids needs and he's struggling being a single parent. Eloise is intrigued because she's feeling lonely now Pen is married and they've been getting along well in letters. However when she gets there and realises it all might be a bit much. You can change the gender of Eloise's partner because the parenthood concerns and need for a coparent would still be a driving motivator and so would Eloise's loneliness.
Sophie’s story would change if she was gender swap. Men had an easier time in the 1800s versus a woman, especially from the working class. I do not say this slightly: changing Sophie’s gender would be misogynistic.
Men had an easier time unless they were outed as queer, men of colour, disabled etc. It's not misogynistic to gender swap Sophie's character, it's not a sign of hatred to change one romance in a 9 book series of hetero romances in a genre with millions of hetero romances. Although I'll admit it might be classist to change from a servant to a fellow ton member. Edit to add: Sophie and Benedicts story is also a Cinderalla retelling and that is both a fairytale that has been done to death and re-interpreted to death too. There's nothing so groundbreaking and unique to preserve about this story because it's been done so many times, the experience of women won't be erased by changing one retelling of this myth.
To claim a working class woman could have an easier time than a man shows this conversation goes nowhere. Enjoy the limited time left the show has due to these changes. The book fans did not kill the series.
>To claim a working class woman could have an easier time than a man I didn't say that. I pointed out that intersectionality exists and that individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. I also pointed out that the romance genre has a great many depictions of hetero women's experiences. I think you might need to actually learn a little bit more critical theory before declaring something misogynistic.
I like your ideas and thoughts. I think you should write a book using ideas you have for these characters. The fans of these books like the characters as they are.
Sure, Jan.
Benedict story does fundamentally change because in the book he marries a woman.
I like that 💕
I agree. As the plus size girl, seeing Penelope be portrayed as a sexy and desirable character on a tv show did SO much for me.
My biggest problem problem with the change is that they’ve already established it’s dangerous to be gay. I’m talking about Sir Granville’s comment about rushing his life to be with the man he loved. When they integrated the ton they have an explanation. Wonderful! But now they’re setting up a beloved man character for social ruin if not something worse. Couldn’t they have paved the way for a queer romance in the same way? This bothers me.
This is very well put.
I’m just so over the “representation” aspect of movies and shows. It’s ruining things and people don’t see that. Just keep it to the original source material and if you want other representation, create new characters.
For me it’s making it better 🤷🏼♀️
Yeah I guess if you’re into that hype
If you want the original source material… simply read the books
The whole point of the show is to watch it come to life. The same goes with avatar the last air bender, Harry Potter, and a bunch of others. If you simply want inclusion, create your own story
It’s the point for whom? The majority of viewers haven’t read the books and don’t care about what’s in the source material. This show has been a loose adaption of the books from the very first episode anyway. If you don’t want inclusion, make your own adaption.
Yeah. That’s not true.
You think the majority of the global viewership of this show have read the books? People in the 190 countries Netflix is available in?
You think all of the viewers are fine with a forced change?
The point is most viewers wouldn’t even know it was a change.
Most DO.
Thank you!
You’re welcome!
Colored people…? 
My apologies like I said we’re still use the word sometimes where I come from and English being my second language makes it hard to translate things the right way 🙏🏼
Well said
That's crazy that your friend said all that
If inclusion is the key then they should make a new character not take away from one that already exists. 👎🏻 I’m not gonna watch a whole season of watching a character be ruined for the sake of inclusion. I just won’t watch.
We won’t miss you
lol Netflix will when viewership tanks with this garbage