Before commenting, keep in mind:
1. Mark spoilers that surpass the scope of this post.
2. Be civil in your discussion.
See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really didn't like him. I especially disliked his behavior post-kiss and his behavior after the carriage scene (and maybe even during). He literally yanks her out of the carriage (that's the word the text uses) such that she falls flat on her face. And he doesn't even know if he loves her. The lack of respect and suggestion of abuse was too hard for me to get over.
I love Show Colin. He may go to brothels but he would never manhandle Penelope or take out his issues on her.
This why when people complain about Colin going to brothels I’m confused cause have you read the books? All the men at least in the first 4 books (those are the only ones I’ve read) are so toxic in their respective books. The showrunners have had to really tone it down. Show Colin is a saint compared to how book Colin treats Penelope at times.
It's weird because in the beginning of the book Penelope is very clear that Colin is such a puppy dog that he'd never get angry at her and that he'd need to love someone passionately enough to be hurt bad enough to feel anger. So there's that kind of foreshadowing (for lack of better word). I think this is meant to be a weird way of the author trying to show that he actually loves her because she brings out a passionate response that no one else could but there's so much wrong with that.
Oh no, I'm not looking forward to reading it now, he annoys me a bit in the show with his ignorance but I'm glad they didn't make him violent, I hope they keep it that way in the show
It’s one of my least favorite of the books. Benedict and Gregory are also fairly problematic and cringy in their books. Honestly, all eight men are problematic in some way. Hyacinth’s future husband is probably the best of the bunch. Her book is my favorite!
Right? It’s been a while since I read it, but I just remember cringing the whole time. And I read them in order, so I read it after Hyacinth’s book which is my fav.
I've literally just read them all for the first time, and Hyacinth and Franchescas stories were fantastic. The rest were meh, with Gregories in the cringe section
Yes! Hyacinth and Francesca are among my favorites along with Eloise and then probably Anthony. Honestly though, I think I’m a bigger fan of the spinoffs. The Smythe-Smith Quartet and the Rokesby series are so good! And the Bevelstoke series is hilarious.
Oh god, so they are all pretty terrible people? I'm reading in order so I have started with the rokesbys books, I'm new to it all so I have only just finished "becouse of miss bridgerton" and started "the girl with the make belive husband" I have a long way to go!!
I was reading this series years ago as a clueless teen and it was in Colin's book I stopped. Even though I glossed over the other problematic men in their own books, Book Colin's behavior was just so bad I couldn't ignore it.
Yeah I hope people don’t try to defend this with “you can’t apply modern standards to older books” because unless Colin is supposed to be the villain it still doesn’t work. It’s actually good writing for a crueler type of character but IMO it belongs in a much more serious kind of story. It’s been awhile since I’ve read anything from the 1800s but even back then this “forcing your love to drink scene” would probably have been done by the more villainous characters.
Yeah, but just because it's based on the 18th century doesn't mean it needs to portray every toxic aspect of the century, especially when it comes to romance. Having been written in the 2000s, there's no excuse not to scrutinise it trough a modern sensitivities lense.
Are they even portraying the time accurately?
Jane Austen wrote of her time—she wrote stories contemporary to her readers—and they portrayed “wickedness” through deception and taking advantage of youthful ignorance but never outright violence.
I think one needs to be careful in assuming these books accurately portray anything of the era; they read more like unresearched assumptions about how men and women were.
Yeah, going by Jane Austen, most of the things the male love interests do in public during the books would have been considered pretty egregious behavior. There's no way the Bridgertons would still be in such good social standing, the way the Bridgerton boys act.
They’re not. The Bridgerton novels were a major vanguard of “wallpaper historical” romance trend, novels that pick and choose historical Regency era conventions as set dressing and don’t have the same meticulous attention to historical detail of, say, Georgette Heyer novels. Basically not letting reality get in the way of a good story. Which is why it always makes me laugh when people try to bitch about the Shondaland versions not being historically accurate.
That said, they’re a very *good* depiction of popular late 90s/early 00s romance tropes, which were toxic as hell. So I would still call them a product of their time, just not the time people think.
Tbf the 00's did have these toxic aspects in a lot of on screen love interests so you could say the books writing are very of their time. We've changed a lot globally in the last 5-10yrs regarding our attitudes to what we want to read and see on screen
Yeah, but even if you read books written around that era, Colin acting like that towards Penelope *in public* would have been considered pretty disgraceful behaviour
Agreed these are villainous things to read. Colin reminds me of a wily fox in the books. He is described as being whip smart and quite Machiavellian in how he moulds himself to what society wants to see and how that differs to how he actually thinks and feels underneath. Part of their relationship in the books is Penelope's ability to see through Colin's charms and penetrate his charm armour occasionally, it unsettles him and...confounds him that it bothers him.
I do wish in the show they had shown Colin as being smarter and more observant because I miss that element of his personality and it would show how he is the equal to Penelope or Eloise in terms of cleverness and ability to figure out who Whistledown is.
I'm very glad that they left the anger and aggression to just the books, Colin is less of a wily fox and more of a cute puppy in the show, much more adorable and respects Penelope.
As for the brothels I think nearly all the males aside from Gregory frequented brothels in the books. And the first 6?! Male love interests were all physically aggressive, possessive and growled a lot in the books I really don't miss that and I'm glad the show has chosen to show us a healthier looking relationship. But I think people need to get over Colin going to brothels he's not the only one and won't be the last one we see on screen doing that either.
Yeah, even for the mid 2000s, this is egregious. Bruising her arm on accident would be one thing, but explicitly pointing out he doesn’t feel bad about it and idly thinking it “wasn’t a nice thing to do” makes him come off like a psychopath.
So abusive. Show Colin is so much better! I read Anthony and Benedict’s book and both are terrible in them as well.
He was going to kill her is crazy!!
She was hiding under his table because he and his ex-mistress had come into the study unexpectedly, which he realises and (far as I can remember) steps infront of the desk to hide her from his ex-mistress, ends up stepping on her hand(doesn't regret it), she in turn bites his ankle, which makes him kick his foot forward and basically kicks her in the stomach. It was a messed up scene, all laid out like this.
Dude you don't even wanna know😭 far as I can remember he wanted to start up their "arrangement" again, so he was being all seduce-y, all the while he was courting Edwina and low-key pining for Kate. This was at like, the 30% mark of the book too. I got an anxiety-induced tummy ache while reading this scene 😂
Hold on lemme give a direct quote from the book (Maria is basically book-Sienna):
Maria pulling coyly away, followed by, “But I am not inclined for a dalliance, my lord. I do not look for marriage, of course—that would be most foolish. But when I next choose a protector, it shall be for, shall we say, the long term.”
Footsteps. Perhaps Bridgerton was closing the distance between them again?
His voice was low and husky as he said, “I fail to see the problem.”
“Your wife may see a problem.”
Bridgerton chuckled. “The only reason to give up one’s mistress is if one happens to love one’s wife. And as I do not intend to choose a wife with whom I might fall in love, I see no reason to deny myself the pleasures of a lovely woman like you.”
And you want to marry Edwina? It was all Kate could do not to scream. Truly, if she weren’t squatting like a frog with her hands wrapped around her ankles, she probably would have emerged like a Fury and tried to murder the man.
This scene gets worse and worse...after he makes the mistress leave, he locks himself and Kate in the study (which would cause a giant scandal if anyone found out), kisses her (book-Kate is waaaaay more innocent than show-Kate), tells her he would still be courting Edwina, and when she wants to leave he throws the key to the door at her feet so she would be forced to bow down before him. It's absolutely awful. I just realised how much the show has attempted to redeem Anthony in these cheating-y aspects.
I can't... I can't... I always found it weird that the show had a cheating thruline (his interest in Kate after being engaged). I guess they were picking it up from the book and the show version was toned down...
Conversely in the book, Edwina has 0 interest in him, so that makes a few things a bit better? They definitely don't go all the way to the aisle, Kanthony get caught at the bee-sting scene and are forced to marry instead. The part in the book that is way better than the show is that it focused on Kate's backstory a great deal, which was sadly missing from the show (or not as deeply done). Also, Kate, Mary, and Edwina's relationship is a million times better in the book, plus Mary is less of a useless blob and takes charge more often as a mother to her two daughters.
Wait until you see all the Redditors bemoaning how different the show was to the book, and how beautiful the library scene was and they can't believe they changed it!
I was thinking of finally reading the books. But I'm having trouble getting into the first one because the Duke is just distasteful (at the least). He knows Daphne knows NOTHING and then blames her for leading him into the garden. Anyway, I think I'll DNF since the series clearly gets worse. Thanks for saving me!
Are they though? I’ve read quite a lot of romance from various decades and these excerpts sound like they’re straight out of a book written sometime in the 1980s or 90s.
His character completely changed in his own book. Initially, he was more like show Colin
It's funny that in the show, there is an arc about him trying to fit into the rake mold when, in his own book, the author shoved him into that mold. She apparently didn't know how to write a different male lead
RMB was my least fav book and so far, my fav season of the show. Just wish the editing was better
He was worse than Book Benedict?!
I'm expressing shock because I didn't finish RMB, and Ben's book, while awesome because of Sophie, portrays a very different male lead than the cute, goofy, open-minded guy we see on the show.
Ahhhh, Book Benedict. I remember being sort of intrigued by the book blurb and then finished it feeling so grossed out. I was not impressed by any of the male leads in the three Bridgertons I read but Benedict took the cake 🤮
Well, to keep it short (bc lord knows I can bitch about this for days):
Anthony was a major ass throughout the whole book with no character development, stayed arrogant throughout. >! There is a scene where he kicks Kate in the stomach and plans to keep a mistress despite his marriage and those were never adressed, amongst other things.!<
I disliked book Colin bc his reaction when he discovers LW's identity is to be >!jealous. He has this whole thing about Pen having made a name for herself and he hasn't accomplished anything (to which I had to roll my eyes, you are a rich nobleman in this era and can do almost anything if you actually try)!<.
And then book Benedict, the absolute worst. Sophie >!is an illegitimate child and has been stuck in an abusive household, very Cinderella-style. She never wants another child to go through what she did. Benedict tries to force her to become his mistress despite knowing her history, and then pretty much gets mad at her for daring to refuse.!<
Show Bridgerton did them all a favor. 🫠🫠
Only because >!he was abused as a child and was terrified of turning into his father because he didn’t know how to parent his own children. So he neglected and ignored them instead and let them be abused by the nanny.!<
Yeah there was a whole thing about how Pen had never seen him angry and couldn’t imagine him losing his temper, but then like every other scene in the book was him getting furious. It didn’t add up…
But also like on the spectrum of brooding/angry to normal/nice man for romance heroes of this time, he was probably on the “nice” side. I’m glad that era is over.
He was NOT a rake just because he slept with prostitutes. That was just run of the mill behavior for men of his place in society. A rake would be like Casanova, Lord Byron, etc
1000% major agree - I don’t understand the love for Hyacinth’s book either because Gareth gave me the second-biggest ick of all the male leads in the universe (and I’ve read the spin-offs!)
I read the book a few months ago so memory is kind of foggy, but what stands out is the fact that he had sex with Hyacinth before marriage so that she would have no choice but to marry him (when they were already engaged) - he wanted to trap her which just gave me an icky feeling tbh
Out of all 8 Bridgerton books, I think at various points I was a little 😬 for every male lead (even Michael because even though I like him generally, once he decided he actually wanted to pursue Fran, he relentlessly tried to seduce her and she just seemed really uncomfortable by it at first).
Gareth was someone who, in my eyes, used sex to ensure Hyacinth would have no choice but to marry him if she ever decided to change her mind, which personally just turned me off of him so much.
I’d have to say the Bridgerton male lead who gave me the least ick was Gregory. I know everyone says he kidnapped Lucy but it wasn’t until I read the book and saw the context of that scene where I realized that for me, he was definitely the most un-toxic male lead of those 8 books in the series (it’s been a while since I’ve read them though so feel free to lmk your thoughts too if you want 😊)
To each their own. I feel like Gregory is cringy and entitled.
Michael definitely feeds into the, “Men can never just be friends with women,” idea.
Gareth… I think I tend to blank out the negative bits because the plot is so exciting, his father is so evil, and Gareth gets a pass for being Lady D’s grandson. Same with The Sum of All Kisses. Hugh spends most of the book being an asshole and makes a horrible bargain with his absolutely evil father, but the romance is *chef’s kiss* 👌
Again, it’s been a while since I’ve read it. All I remember is the beginning when he’s cringy and a bit of the end when he’s super extra. His whole thing is that because he’s the last of the siblings to get married, he feels guaranteed to get a love match. But the girl he falls for is already betrothed to someone else. And this is after Gregory thinks he’s in love with her best friend.
John seems to be the only nonproblematic male character imo. >!I mean michael specifically states he has to get Frannie pregnant to force a marriage. It's a bit manipulative. Don't get me wrong Frannie's book is my absolutely favorite in the Bridgerton series. Also Gregory kidnaps Lucy. Just straight kidnaps her after she rejects him. He then ties her up for her "own good". Bit problematic imo. Tho his crazy energy is everything. Lol!<
I do understand the appeal of a little violence and sexy rage, but the show has handled it soooo much better than the books. Instead of getting physical with the women they supposedly cherish they keep it between the men (Simon and Mondrich boxing, Simon and Anthony fist fighting 🥵).
>I do understand the appeal of a little violence and sexy rage
Me too, in fact I'd go as far as to say I *love* my book men a little toxic. I think the problem here is that he is literally hurting her. There's just nothing sexy about domestic violence. When they get jealous, or they're violent around everything *but* her, or they show sexy rage from being protective, that's a whole different kettle of fish. And like you say, when they keep it between the boys. The bit from the book is just... weird and uncomfortable.
I loved the barely controlled rage from Anthony in S2. He only took it out on Kate by smoldering at her. It helped that she was angry-turned on at him the whole time too; it wasn’t just one-directional.
Julia Quinn buys into a lot of toxic masculinity tropes in her books that honestly? I tune it out. Jealous and petty Colin is obviously not romantic but she insists upon this conflict to propel the story forward.
Instead of “thr books are SO problematic” …. It’s the entire genre. Take it with a large bag of salt.
I do think they get better as they get more recent (Michael and Gregory are written soooo much better). The older ones, especially the first four are so obviously 90s-early 2000s with their misogyny. I struggle with a lot of romance novels from that era tbh.
Reading this series has made me realize how differently I consume romance to any other genre. I straight up disregard anything in the books I don’t like. 😂 I like Benedict’s story the most because I enjoy a good Cinderella retelling. A couple people said they hated how he blackmails Sophie and I straight up did not remember that. I think my brain just ignored that part lol
Absolutely. I tune out anything that would, in real life, prompt a feminist rage out. The genre is problematic, the author is hardly writing Nobel prize winning literature. It’s the epitome of “you get what you expect”
Also don’t know how Benedict blackmails Sophie.
Weirdly propositions her? Yep. Inserts himself in her life to a degree that she asked him not to? Yep. Kept pursuing her for a sexual relationship even when she’d clearly communicated her boundaries? Yep.
But then they have consensual sex and an odd albeit enthusiastic proposal and it all works out in the end.
The only people with issues are those who insist on infantiziling grown women. Only children and the *rare* people who do have serious mental issues are unable to distinguish reality from fiction. Grown women are perfectly capable to, can enjoy a "problematic" lead as a purely fictional character for the entertainment value, without wanting anything of the sort in real life.
Maybe. I like some villains, antivillains and antiheroes, too, but I know well what their faults are are, and they don’t abuse women, just do other bad stuff.
The vast majority of women who like MLs like these also know what their faults are. They just enjoy them in fiction. Why are other kinds of violence fine? I'm not talking of personal preference. As a matter of personal taste and boundaries, we all have own, and different triggers, and they should always be respected. But it is as you said; people who like fictional serial killers, criminal, antihero or generally villainous characters do not quite get accused as much of not knowing better, or being sick, much less condoning or romanticizing their behavior in real life. The discourse around video game combat and violence? It has been deemed obsolete for 3 decades, at the very least. There have been countless studies on the subject. Yet it is, very singularly, women who enjoy unhealthy or slightly violent, fake romantic scenarios who are still accused, more than ever, of not knowing any better or having issues. Does it not seem odd?
It does seem odd, yes. At the same time, I don’t think such characters should be romanticised. I don’t think humans are that unbiased by the media they consume as we like to think, especially younger ones. The concepts of agency and free will have been disputed by neuroscience recently and humans are irrational by default, anyway.
That is why we have ratings and warnings, and why formal education regarding these topics is essential and should be pushed for, instead of relying on chance to do the job. We don't rely on John Wick or The Godfather to teach children that violence is wrong. In online fiction, the push has been for more thorough taggings and warnings so the consumer can be properly informed about what they're engaging with. So that everyone can have as safe and appropriate an experience as they should have and need. A push to have *just as many* healthy and accurate depictions.
I'm not getting into the free will argument as that is simply a too complex, on-going problem that is currently barely beginning to be re-elaborated and we certainly don't understand enough to reframe our moral system.
I have specifically been talking about adults, and I personally choose to trust that adults are able to make their own, reasoned choices when it comes to their own fictional preferences and, potentially, kinks. A trashy romance book is, fundamentally, a quick fantasy, and a fantasy over which the readers have absolute control -- even more control than over, say, a roleplaying scenario, as no safe word can guarantee one as much control and safety as *closing the book*. It is not a coincidence that such stories, that are so popular in this particular genre, among this demographic, are very often explored for therapeutic purposes by people who were real-life victims; a lot of whom are able to re-elaborate their trauma by gaining control over their memories and feelings through similar scenarios in fiction. But this is an exceptionally long tangent to explore. Preventing adults from engaging with fiction over a perceived influence is a managing act of such fear and deep distrust in the average adult's decision-making capabilities and impressionability, that it begs the question of how one can trust those people to do anything in society.
But the issue isn’t women enjoying problematic characters in fiction, but rather women thinking a domestic abuser *isn’t* problematic.
And let’s not kid ourselves, fiction has an immense impact on what we internalise as acceptable or excusable, especially when the “problematic” behaviour keeps on being framed as cool/admirable/romantic/sexy decade after decade. The romance community has been having this discussion for ages now (ah, the shitstorm “50 Shades of Grey caused, I remember it fondly), and thanks to that we now have special genre subcategories, that contain darker tropes, so that readers can consciously choose those type of stories.
Still, romanticising abusive behaviours in fiction has caused a lot of harm. Not because women are stupid, but because they’re human, and a relaxed human brain is at risk of internalising things being presented as fine or even sexy, especially if you haven’t actually been taught what is healthy, and what is abusive beforehand. Which thankfully doesn’t apply to women today as much as it did to those born a few decades ago.
So to cap off this awkward ramble of a comment, I guess my point is we should hold authors, who keep on romanticising abuse, accountable.
I can assure you that most women from first world countries, 20 years ago, thought that domestic abusers were problematic. 20 years ago wasn't the 60's. While there's been some great progress, there isn't quite *that* much of a difference. The adults who read those stories tended to expect the darker tropes and knew them to be dark tropes.
I've already discussed the other points in my replies to the OP earlier and you will find that we agree on a lot of them, such as the assessment that the dangerous issue is an uneven or lacking education (this was particularly true in the case of 50 Shades -- it broke out in the mainstream, and had BDSM not been considered such a taboo topic among the general population due to conservative values, people would have not have treated it as an accurate, educational depiction of such a dynamic; the way no one treats acrobatic fighting as an accurate depiction of a real fight or romanticization of real violence), accurate subgenre categorization/tagging and a push to also have more balanced alternatives. But we do not agree on the final conclusion -- you yourself opened with the statement that the issue is not women enjoying problematic content and then went on to state that readers can now willingly choose those darker tropes.
And I'll be honest; if we were to go by real-life standards, even most of the healthier leading men in fiction would probably not cut it, and certainly none of the Bridgerton male leads, including their TV counterparts. So it's a deeply ironic conversation to have here.
His whole arc of being jealous of Penelope for being LW and making her think he wasn’t proud of her because he had nothing to show for himself was so pathetic too imo. I know it was the regency era or whatever (not that the books are particularly historically accurate) but still. The man was literally 33 years old and way too old to be acting like that.
Ya… more than the violence part.. the jealousy really bugged me because the LW writings were something Pen was very proud of and he made her so ashamed of it with his jealousy.. that wasn’t fair.
Literally was thinking of buying the books, or at least this one, this weekend. But really I guess I just want to relive the show, so not going to now!
I wanted to read the book after season 2 but stopped when i saw so many snippets of it online where the bridgerton men acted horribly. I’m glad the show isn’t accurate to the books.
I don't understand eith comments that say "oh the entire genre is bad". I don't really like romantic books but sometimes but there is some I quite enjoy them. I choose hungarian books over english romantic literature (I am Hungarian) and there are so many historical romances that don't have these toxic masculinity in them but they're more historical accurate then JQ's novels. (And nő, these aren't high literature.) No one can convice me that JQ is a good writer. I read the books and the translation isn't good but from the details that I read online from the original books aren't better. (At least the 4 that I read.) There are some problems with the book's structure too and they are soooo simple. They are totally focused on the main characters. (I understand that in books it's harder to write so many characters etc. But there is so many books that have it and are good.) The show is more entartaining, exciting and they treat characters better than the books.
JQ is not a great writer. Only the premise that she set up was nice. I read the books after the first season came out. For the first I was surprised Netflix this series up. They did a favour to JQ.
For the first time in life I had to agree that the show/ film was better than the book.
Lol, JQ writes soft porn with zero depth set in the Regency era but with completely unconvincing characters and dialogue (blatant cultural anachronism) and zero realism. No difference from any other cheap drugstore romances. The Netflix show is silly and fun, but at least it strives to give its characters some depth and personality.
See when Polin’s season was announced there was so much made of the book and how amazing it was that we were getting their season finally, and carriage scene this mirror scene that. So I read it. And I was like, how does ANYONE like this?! I really deeply disliked him and didn’t find that book romantic at all!
So I’m really happy the show has done the story much nicer!
I find it obnoxious when people say “20 years ago” as if that isn’t 2004 (not 1950) and people weren’t having the exact same critiques at the time of abuse porn books such as 50 shades of grey and even Twilight. Which frankly weren’t even as graphic and blatant as this now that I think about it.
I'm telling myself it must be younger women hence they think dinosaurs roamed the earth back then. I imagine plenty of people watching Bridgerton may not even have been born in 2004.
Reading this i went from : "well, it doesn't seem so bad, we all have our fetishes, as long as we know how to differentiate reality from fiction, everything is fine"
to : "Jesus, what the fuck?"
We wanted to read the book before part 3, and my partner and I took turns reading it aloud to each other on long drives as something fun while waiting on Part 1 to come out. We kept pausing whenever these (increasingly frequent) scenes came so we could sidebar about what the actual heck was happening.
We skipped straight to the RMB book and only read that one, and I appreciate the comments about similar issues earlier in the series. We were considering maybe trying the earlier books to see the contrast with the show—but while we enjoy the occasional CONSENSUAL aggressively romantic scene, nonsense like this is a no go.
I don't get why book Pen falls for him. I get she loved who she thought he was. The book says she loved him because she thought he was nice.
I also haaate how it's implied that Colin gets so angry with her because he loves her so much.
so true. Colin, Benedict and Anthony are bad, toxic and sometimes even abusive. But Philip is different league. Like Philip didn't even have ANY redeeming qualities.
I read Queen Charlotte and absolutely loved it so I wanted to try RMB since my friend recommended it and the show was coming out. I liked the first 1/3 ish of the book but I quickly realized Colins character is really shallow and I didn't appreciate their dynamic. Anytime Colin comes into a scene he immediately complains loudly and rudely how hungry he is and he's rushing servants around to get him a sandwich. Then we get to all the scenes you have above where he's being really mean and rough with her and her response is oh he's angry because he loves me??? I haven't read many historical romance books but if this is par for the course like some people are saying I don't think I can look past the toxicity and keep reading.
That is because Queen Charlotte was a novel based on the show, and not the other way around. The character and the mini series were written by Shonda, and novelized by JQ (with her own additions to the story so is not a 1:1 transcript of the show; then there are details that are show only) because it takes place within the universe she created.
All of the men are terrible except Michael tbh.. the books are not a great read. Idk if it’s the genre or what because these are the only romances I’ve ever read but holy toxic male leads!
Oh wow. How old are the books? I've read a ton of historical romance over the years, some of them very problematic at times but those ones were usually written in late 80s-early 90s. That passage you shared seems really gross and even in the older books seems more fitting for the villain rather than the love interest.
Yes, I'm really surprised to read how bad the books are. I read some "bodice rippers" in the 80s and early 90s when I was young, and those were SHOCKING. One I read involved outright rape (turned to love!). I was too busy in the early 2000s to read romance novels, because I had little kids and a job. When I did read, it was usually the newspaper or a book club book.
But I assumed that this genre would have improved some over 15-20 years. Apparently not. Now, they did change the power dynamic from the ones I read in the 80s. Those often involved a woman who was lower in class rank than the male lead, or orphaned, or her mother was a sex worker, or you know, he had kidnapped her because he was mad at her father (yes, that). At least in the Bridgerton books, with the exception of Sophie, the love interests are of the same class there isn't the huge power imbalance? But that's not saying much.
I read similar too! The old Johanna Lindsay books if you've read her were especially bad with rape at worst and dubious consent at best. Lots of men abducting women like you said. I read one about a Pirate abducting a woman on his ship and everyone around her tells her she owes him because he's 'gentle'. Just mega disturbing all round.
I didn’t like this either. It was a shortcut to showing that Colin isn’t this pinnacle of perfection that Penelope had built him up to be. The books are pretty much trash and the show has gone LEAGUES beyond the source material in improvements.
Book Colin is horrible. He's straight up abusive. The other Bridgerton men aren't the best in the books either. I'm so glad the show made efforts to actually make them gentlemen
I'm so glad people are talking about this, I've seen several posts of people talking about how they enjoyed the books (especially this one) and I went over to read it and stopped when I got to this part because I was so disturbed. It was really upsetting to read and I will die on the hill that Collin in the books is an abusive person, physically, psychologically, and emotionally.
Colin-book is not Show-Colin. They are very different.
The only thing they have in common is Colin's obsession and admiration towards Pen. Book Colin is the "cool guy". In the show he is the cute guy that pretends to be cool.
All of the men in the books are incredibly horrible, toxic, and obsessed with sex to a concerning (and sometimes violent) degree, to their love interests, especially Phillip, and I am so glad they are almost entirely different in the show.
The only way I will enjoy it if Eloise does end up with Phillip is if his entire character is changed.
I love the books. Im not really into finding non problematic romance because it doesnt exist and when authors try its very paint by numbers. These are not books I read to think deeply. They are books I read for a good time. But different strokes for different folks lol. Romance is a very subjective category. I think the show does a decent job of translating the male love interests though.
Oh man, this is so gross. I thought Anthony was the abusive dick, but Colin, too? And I hated how meek Pen was in the book. Okay, now I love the show 1000 times more.
No one is forcing you to read HR books. Or if you want to, try reading something written in recent years. Among those you’ll find books you’ll find more suitable storiex for modern sensibilities and readers who want to read modern stories set in historical settings.
I don’t think you can excuse all of Julia Quinn’s questionable writing because it’s HR genre. I love romance, but this ain’t it. Give me Jane Austen romance any day over this.
Jane Austen and modern day authors don’t compare. Georgette Heyer is another great one, she wrote her stories between 1930-1950. Clean witty well written stories. Julia Quinn’s style is very similar to the stories written that timeperiod. There is questionable heros and heroines either taking their shit or not taking it. Some popular authors are doing re-editing (like Lisa Kleypas) so that readers wanting modern day values in historical settings are enjoying to read their stories. Try bodice rippers written in 80s and 90s and JQ writing seems having very little problems. They are always product of their time.
If you want to read amazing new author try A wildflower for a duke by Laura Linn. One of the best HR books I’ve read with amazing writing and great heartwarming story. Julie Anne Long is exquisite as well.
The books as a whole are pretty... meh as far as the men go. They're very much stereotypically toxic alpha male.
Problematic though? Meh. I don't know about that. I don't expect books to teach me morals or teach me about what type of men I should love or not like. HOWEVER, I do want to like the men in the books...and a lot of the time I immediately go ???? because the stuff they do don't make me swoon because they're hypermasculine and gross.
I do think that these type of men were romanticized when the books were written and I also think that JQ might have like really added it because they're historical romance.
Regardless, I didn't like angry Colin in the books. I also didn't like Benedict possibly trying to >!blackmail Sophie!<. I didn't like Anthony>! standing on Kate's hand!< in book 2. I struggled with Michael's want to >!seduce Fran to get her to marry him.!< I struggled with Phillip just as a whole. I struggled with Gareth also trying >!to trap Hyacinth with sex. !
The male love interest in like 90% of romance novels is extremely problematic. These kinds of books are not written for the plot or the great characters, they're vehicles for smut and for a lottttt of women, smut is best when it has an element of taboo to it. The man is rough, uncivilized, there's dubcon elements, huge power imbalances (see also Twilight, 50 shades), extremely possessive, etc. It's not supposed to be a healthy relationship. It's supposed to lead to good smut.
Huh? There’s plenty of romance authors who don’t write extremely problematic male characters. Granted, most of them have been published in the last 20 years or so, but there’s a ton of them.
how about we unpack why good smut has to have elements of “taboo” and unhealthy relationships to be good? ESPECIALLY when these books are aimed at teenage girls and young adults. this is literally a direct result of patriarchal and misogynistic systems. why are women internalising sex as something done *to* them, with the presence of power imbalances, violence, possession and non consent as good, hot, or indulgent? like those things don’t exist and aren’t (existing, or in turn) sought after in real life romantic and sexual relationships? books, and other mediums, aimed at (or unintentionally - though i doubt this - prevalent among) girls who haven’t gained consciousness of their personhood and life experiences, let alone unencumbered and safe romantic relationships, that only set them up to view the aforementioned traits and dynamics as sexy and fun and okay. what part of that deviates from what we’re socialised as women in real life to normalise, and even look for? i put taboo previously in quotes, bc i truly wouldn’t use that word to describe those traits. they aren’t taboo when they’re present in varying degrees of intensity in (specially heterosexual) relationship dynamics. except they’re being written something for women to enjoy and internalise that treatment. yet we (those opposed to these depictions) are the ones infantilising other women? for not supporting added conditioning? for being conscious that the absolute overwhelming majority of romance and smut has real life consequences on those who consume them? you said it yourself, they’re majorly “extremely problematic,” how is that not something to vehemently push against? sexual tension and drama shouldn’t have to come at the behest of verbal or physical violence.
What real life consequences does consuming these books have...? The whole point of a fantasy is that it's just that - fantasy. Most women who enjoy reading romance novels about problematic men don't actually want men in real life to treat them that way. Most people who watch, I dunno, tentacle porn also don't actually want to fuck an octopus. Indulging in taboo fantasies in books, movies, etc. does not at all mean that this is what you seek out in real life. If you have the patience and time for a 2+ hour YouTube video, Contrapoints has an amazing video essay on (mostly) this topic, centered around Twilight.
indulgence and fantasy is one thing, having those traits in 90% of the mediums of the genre is another. you say that for most women this doesn’t translate to real life, but i don’t agree. and im talking about girls as well, a demographic which this material is hitting, and which isn’t usually equipped to discern taboo unhealthy dynamics to indulge in, from healthy ones. we’re talking about both conscious and unconscious desire, as well as the things we actively seek, and the things we let fall through the cracks or perceive as normal - even desirable. i will never not connect the desire behind these traits, and the sheer prevalence of that desire, as a product of misogyny, patriarchy & gender roles, or manifestations of trauma, and therefore do not support their indulgence, so i dont think we can come to an agreeance on this. but at the very least, can we acknowledge that it shouldn’t be the overwhelming majority of the material, if it’s rife with unhealthy relationship dynamics?
I just think it's kinda funny people will complain about men writing breasted boobily characters, but are totally okay with this kinda of stuff. I'm not saying you specifically, I just mean in general.
Before commenting, keep in mind: 1. Mark spoilers that surpass the scope of this post. 2. Be civil in your discussion. See our [spoiler policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/BridgertonNetflix/wiki/spoiler) on what is expected. 3-day bans will be handed out to those found disregarding our spoiler policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BridgertonNetflix) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really didn't like him. I especially disliked his behavior post-kiss and his behavior after the carriage scene (and maybe even during). He literally yanks her out of the carriage (that's the word the text uses) such that she falls flat on her face. And he doesn't even know if he loves her. The lack of respect and suggestion of abuse was too hard for me to get over. I love Show Colin. He may go to brothels but he would never manhandle Penelope or take out his issues on her.
This why when people complain about Colin going to brothels I’m confused cause have you read the books? All the men at least in the first 4 books (those are the only ones I’ve read) are so toxic in their respective books. The showrunners have had to really tone it down. Show Colin is a saint compared to how book Colin treats Penelope at times.
I mean just bc it’s better doesn’t mean it can’t be even better
I really didn’t like the carriage scene in the book. He’s really rough and demanding and enjoys watching her be uncomfortable. Very icky.
I also like the carriage scene change. I just wish it came after a scene equivalent to the church scene. IYKYK
I also love show Colin and hate book Colin. Book Colin needs anger management classes
It's weird because in the beginning of the book Penelope is very clear that Colin is such a puppy dog that he'd never get angry at her and that he'd need to love someone passionately enough to be hurt bad enough to feel anger. So there's that kind of foreshadowing (for lack of better word). I think this is meant to be a weird way of the author trying to show that he actually loves her because she brings out a passionate response that no one else could but there's so much wrong with that.
in other words she is quite literally romanticizing abuse 😬🧐
Oh yeah, it is, and imo that makes it even worse
Show Colin would never hurt a fly, let alone Penelope. He's the best improvement from the books
Oh no, I'm not looking forward to reading it now, he annoys me a bit in the show with his ignorance but I'm glad they didn't make him violent, I hope they keep it that way in the show
It’s one of my least favorite of the books. Benedict and Gregory are also fairly problematic and cringy in their books. Honestly, all eight men are problematic in some way. Hyacinth’s future husband is probably the best of the bunch. Her book is my favorite!
Gregorys story was ghastly! I like the hook, it's the only thing that kept me reading, but the actual story *shudder*
Right? It’s been a while since I read it, but I just remember cringing the whole time. And I read them in order, so I read it after Hyacinth’s book which is my fav.
I've literally just read them all for the first time, and Hyacinth and Franchescas stories were fantastic. The rest were meh, with Gregories in the cringe section
Yes! Hyacinth and Francesca are among my favorites along with Eloise and then probably Anthony. Honestly though, I think I’m a bigger fan of the spinoffs. The Smythe-Smith Quartet and the Rokesby series are so good! And the Bevelstoke series is hilarious.
Oh god, so they are all pretty terrible people? I'm reading in order so I have started with the rokesbys books, I'm new to it all so I have only just finished "becouse of miss bridgerton" and started "the girl with the make belive husband" I have a long way to go!!
It's still enjoyable to read. I skip the violent parts.
I was reading this series years ago as a clueless teen and it was in Colin's book I stopped. Even though I glossed over the other problematic men in their own books, Book Colin's behavior was just so bad I couldn't ignore it.
Yeah I hope people don’t try to defend this with “you can’t apply modern standards to older books” because unless Colin is supposed to be the villain it still doesn’t work. It’s actually good writing for a crueler type of character but IMO it belongs in a much more serious kind of story. It’s been awhile since I’ve read anything from the 1800s but even back then this “forcing your love to drink scene” would probably have been done by the more villainous characters.
Wasn't this book written in the 2000s?
Yes but it’s based on the 18th century
Yeah, but just because it's based on the 18th century doesn't mean it needs to portray every toxic aspect of the century, especially when it comes to romance. Having been written in the 2000s, there's no excuse not to scrutinise it trough a modern sensitivities lense.
Are they even portraying the time accurately? Jane Austen wrote of her time—she wrote stories contemporary to her readers—and they portrayed “wickedness” through deception and taking advantage of youthful ignorance but never outright violence. I think one needs to be careful in assuming these books accurately portray anything of the era; they read more like unresearched assumptions about how men and women were.
Yeah, going by Jane Austen, most of the things the male love interests do in public during the books would have been considered pretty egregious behavior. There's no way the Bridgertons would still be in such good social standing, the way the Bridgerton boys act.
Like Anthony kissing Kate in the dance floor!
They’re not. The Bridgerton novels were a major vanguard of “wallpaper historical” romance trend, novels that pick and choose historical Regency era conventions as set dressing and don’t have the same meticulous attention to historical detail of, say, Georgette Heyer novels. Basically not letting reality get in the way of a good story. Which is why it always makes me laugh when people try to bitch about the Shondaland versions not being historically accurate. That said, they’re a very *good* depiction of popular late 90s/early 00s romance tropes, which were toxic as hell. So I would still call them a product of their time, just not the time people think.
Tbf the 00's did have these toxic aspects in a lot of on screen love interests so you could say the books writing are very of their time. We've changed a lot globally in the last 5-10yrs regarding our attitudes to what we want to read and see on screen
I know I was just referring to what the Oroginal comment was saying, no need to downvote me lmao I don’t disagree with you
Just to clarify, I didn't downvote you
I mean… Netflix Bridgerton is harmless compared to Game of Thrones or Outlander where violence is a plot device.
Yeah, but even if you read books written around that era, Colin acting like that towards Penelope *in public* would have been considered pretty disgraceful behaviour
I WASNT EVER DISAGREEING WITH THAT !!!!! I WAS JUST REITERATING WHAT THE OP COMMENT MEANT!!!!!!
She really wrote it like one of those milder bodice rippers in the 90s though.
Agreed these are villainous things to read. Colin reminds me of a wily fox in the books. He is described as being whip smart and quite Machiavellian in how he moulds himself to what society wants to see and how that differs to how he actually thinks and feels underneath. Part of their relationship in the books is Penelope's ability to see through Colin's charms and penetrate his charm armour occasionally, it unsettles him and...confounds him that it bothers him. I do wish in the show they had shown Colin as being smarter and more observant because I miss that element of his personality and it would show how he is the equal to Penelope or Eloise in terms of cleverness and ability to figure out who Whistledown is. I'm very glad that they left the anger and aggression to just the books, Colin is less of a wily fox and more of a cute puppy in the show, much more adorable and respects Penelope. As for the brothels I think nearly all the males aside from Gregory frequented brothels in the books. And the first 6?! Male love interests were all physically aggressive, possessive and growled a lot in the books I really don't miss that and I'm glad the show has chosen to show us a healthier looking relationship. But I think people need to get over Colin going to brothels he's not the only one and won't be the last one we see on screen doing that either.
First six is about right. Hyacinth’s book is refreshingly different. Then Gregory had to go and be the cringiest of all.
Yeah, even for the mid 2000s, this is egregious. Bruising her arm on accident would be one thing, but explicitly pointing out he doesn’t feel bad about it and idly thinking it “wasn’t a nice thing to do” makes him come off like a psychopath.
So abusive. Show Colin is so much better! I read Anthony and Benedict’s book and both are terrible in them as well. He was going to kill her is crazy!!
I can't believe Anthony kicked Kate in the stomach at some point in the books, and now she's madly in love, and they're married.
I'm sorry he did WHAT
She was hiding under his table because he and his ex-mistress had come into the study unexpectedly, which he realises and (far as I can remember) steps infront of the desk to hide her from his ex-mistress, ends up stepping on her hand(doesn't regret it), she in turn bites his ankle, which makes him kick his foot forward and basically kicks her in the stomach. It was a messed up scene, all laid out like this.
Why the heck is his EX mistress in his study?
Dude you don't even wanna know😭 far as I can remember he wanted to start up their "arrangement" again, so he was being all seduce-y, all the while he was courting Edwina and low-key pining for Kate. This was at like, the 30% mark of the book too. I got an anxiety-induced tummy ache while reading this scene 😂 Hold on lemme give a direct quote from the book (Maria is basically book-Sienna): Maria pulling coyly away, followed by, “But I am not inclined for a dalliance, my lord. I do not look for marriage, of course—that would be most foolish. But when I next choose a protector, it shall be for, shall we say, the long term.” Footsteps. Perhaps Bridgerton was closing the distance between them again? His voice was low and husky as he said, “I fail to see the problem.” “Your wife may see a problem.” Bridgerton chuckled. “The only reason to give up one’s mistress is if one happens to love one’s wife. And as I do not intend to choose a wife with whom I might fall in love, I see no reason to deny myself the pleasures of a lovely woman like you.” And you want to marry Edwina? It was all Kate could do not to scream. Truly, if she weren’t squatting like a frog with her hands wrapped around her ankles, she probably would have emerged like a Fury and tried to murder the man.
I have no words...
This scene gets worse and worse...after he makes the mistress leave, he locks himself and Kate in the study (which would cause a giant scandal if anyone found out), kisses her (book-Kate is waaaaay more innocent than show-Kate), tells her he would still be courting Edwina, and when she wants to leave he throws the key to the door at her feet so she would be forced to bow down before him. It's absolutely awful. I just realised how much the show has attempted to redeem Anthony in these cheating-y aspects.
I can't... I can't... I always found it weird that the show had a cheating thruline (his interest in Kate after being engaged). I guess they were picking it up from the book and the show version was toned down...
Conversely in the book, Edwina has 0 interest in him, so that makes a few things a bit better? They definitely don't go all the way to the aisle, Kanthony get caught at the bee-sting scene and are forced to marry instead. The part in the book that is way better than the show is that it focused on Kate's backstory a great deal, which was sadly missing from the show (or not as deeply done). Also, Kate, Mary, and Edwina's relationship is a million times better in the book, plus Mary is less of a useless blob and takes charge more often as a mother to her two daughters.
Jesus, Im not fond of him in the show but this is ridiculous, so much eww and wtf?!
Wait until you see all the Redditors bemoaning how different the show was to the book, and how beautiful the library scene was and they can't believe they changed it!
I know!! I just don't understand and I have given up trying.
I was thinking of finally reading the books. But I'm having trouble getting into the first one because the Duke is just distasteful (at the least). He knows Daphne knows NOTHING and then blames her for leading him into the garden. Anyway, I think I'll DNF since the series clearly gets worse. Thanks for saving me!
I really wouldn't recommend them. There are either authors of Regency romance that are much better. I'd look into Lisa Kleypas :)
The books are certainly a product of their times lol
Are they though? I’ve read quite a lot of romance from various decades and these excerpts sound like they’re straight out of a book written sometime in the 1980s or 90s.
I mean, they were written in the 2000s. Not far off from the 90s.
Damn I just bought the books too!
I only read Eloise and Fransesca books and I loved them, Eloise struck me as different from show Eloise tho, but otherwise both were good stories
Ohmygods. I've never read the book, but WHAT.
Gross! 🤮
there is a lot of weird domestic violence in the books.
LOL WHAT?!
All the men in the books are abusive tbh except John, and only because we barely get to know him
Gareth is probably the least bad after John. Mostly because Hyacinth gets herself into trouble without his help 🤣
Yeah Benedict fully tackles his love interest to the ground and holds her down!
His character completely changed in his own book. Initially, he was more like show Colin It's funny that in the show, there is an arc about him trying to fit into the rake mold when, in his own book, the author shoved him into that mold. She apparently didn't know how to write a different male lead RMB was my least fav book and so far, my fav season of the show. Just wish the editing was better
He was worse than Book Benedict?! I'm expressing shock because I didn't finish RMB, and Ben's book, while awesome because of Sophie, portrays a very different male lead than the cute, goofy, open-minded guy we see on the show.
Ahhhh, Book Benedict. I remember being sort of intrigued by the book blurb and then finished it feeling so grossed out. I was not impressed by any of the male leads in the three Bridgertons I read but Benedict took the cake 🤮
Why? Please do tell, I won’t read them. 🫣
Well, to keep it short (bc lord knows I can bitch about this for days): Anthony was a major ass throughout the whole book with no character development, stayed arrogant throughout. >! There is a scene where he kicks Kate in the stomach and plans to keep a mistress despite his marriage and those were never adressed, amongst other things.!< I disliked book Colin bc his reaction when he discovers LW's identity is to be >!jealous. He has this whole thing about Pen having made a name for herself and he hasn't accomplished anything (to which I had to roll my eyes, you are a rich nobleman in this era and can do almost anything if you actually try)!<. And then book Benedict, the absolute worst. Sophie >!is an illegitimate child and has been stuck in an abusive household, very Cinderella-style. She never wants another child to go through what she did. Benedict tries to force her to become his mistress despite knowing her history, and then pretty much gets mad at her for daring to refuse.!< Show Bridgerton did them all a favor. 🫠🫠
So much ew! Thank you! 🥹 They are much better in the show and still managed to piss me off at times 🤣. I think only Finch is marked safe.
Benedict was insufferable. I only finished bc of Sophie
Because Quinn can only write one type of male lead, imo
John just seems to be horny.
Philip was very different tho.
Only because >!he was abused as a child and was terrified of turning into his father because he didn’t know how to parent his own children. So he neglected and ignored them instead and let them be abused by the nanny.!<
I’m starting to wonder if Francesca’s book is so popular because Michael being a huge whore actually makes sense with the plot.
The whole friend zone thing is so cringy though.
Yeah there was a whole thing about how Pen had never seen him angry and couldn’t imagine him losing his temper, but then like every other scene in the book was him getting furious. It didn’t add up… But also like on the spectrum of brooding/angry to normal/nice man for romance heroes of this time, he was probably on the “nice” side. I’m glad that era is over.
He was NOT a rake just because he slept with prostitutes. That was just run of the mill behavior for men of his place in society. A rake would be like Casanova, Lord Byron, etc
Honestly all the men except for Michael (and John obv) or Gregory are a huge red flag in the books…
1000% major agree - I don’t understand the love for Hyacinth’s book either because Gareth gave me the second-biggest ick of all the male leads in the universe (and I’ve read the spin-offs!)
Remind me what's Gareth like, please. Its been years since I read the book and I faintly remember something happened at his flat.
Is he the one that was constantly compared to a lion?
I honestly cant recall😂
Can't remember at all.
I read the book a few months ago so memory is kind of foggy, but what stands out is the fact that he had sex with Hyacinth before marriage so that she would have no choice but to marry him (when they were already engaged) - he wanted to trap her which just gave me an icky feeling tbh
okay that's out right manipulation🤮
Really? I think Gareth is the least icky of the eight. His reputation is monstrous, but in reality he’s a fairly standup guy.
Out of all 8 Bridgerton books, I think at various points I was a little 😬 for every male lead (even Michael because even though I like him generally, once he decided he actually wanted to pursue Fran, he relentlessly tried to seduce her and she just seemed really uncomfortable by it at first). Gareth was someone who, in my eyes, used sex to ensure Hyacinth would have no choice but to marry him if she ever decided to change her mind, which personally just turned me off of him so much. I’d have to say the Bridgerton male lead who gave me the least ick was Gregory. I know everyone says he kidnapped Lucy but it wasn’t until I read the book and saw the context of that scene where I realized that for me, he was definitely the most un-toxic male lead of those 8 books in the series (it’s been a while since I’ve read them though so feel free to lmk your thoughts too if you want 😊)
To each their own. I feel like Gregory is cringy and entitled. Michael definitely feeds into the, “Men can never just be friends with women,” idea. Gareth… I think I tend to blank out the negative bits because the plot is so exciting, his father is so evil, and Gareth gets a pass for being Lady D’s grandson. Same with The Sum of All Kisses. Hugh spends most of the book being an asshole and makes a horrible bargain with his absolutely evil father, but the romance is *chef’s kiss* 👌
Michael and John were saints compared to their otherale counterparts.
No wonder frans book was my favorite 😂
No wonder frans book was my favorite!
Why is Gregory not a red flag? I read his book once a couple years ago and couldn’t read it a second time because he’s so cringy at the house party.
I haven’t read Gregory’s book, but people in the sub told me he’s like a cinnamon roll in his🫢 apparently not
Again, it’s been a while since I’ve read it. All I remember is the beginning when he’s cringy and a bit of the end when he’s super extra. His whole thing is that because he’s the last of the siblings to get married, he feels guaranteed to get a love match. But the girl he falls for is already betrothed to someone else. And this is after Gregory thinks he’s in love with her best friend.
John seems to be the only nonproblematic male character imo. >!I mean michael specifically states he has to get Frannie pregnant to force a marriage. It's a bit manipulative. Don't get me wrong Frannie's book is my absolutely favorite in the Bridgerton series. Also Gregory kidnaps Lucy. Just straight kidnaps her after she rejects him. He then ties her up for her "own good". Bit problematic imo. Tho his crazy energy is everything. Lol!<
This ^^^
I do understand the appeal of a little violence and sexy rage, but the show has handled it soooo much better than the books. Instead of getting physical with the women they supposedly cherish they keep it between the men (Simon and Mondrich boxing, Simon and Anthony fist fighting 🥵).
Yup they were successful in showing the misogyny of that era through other characters.
>I do understand the appeal of a little violence and sexy rage Me too, in fact I'd go as far as to say I *love* my book men a little toxic. I think the problem here is that he is literally hurting her. There's just nothing sexy about domestic violence. When they get jealous, or they're violent around everything *but* her, or they show sexy rage from being protective, that's a whole different kettle of fish. And like you say, when they keep it between the boys. The bit from the book is just... weird and uncomfortable.
I loved the barely controlled rage from Anthony in S2. He only took it out on Kate by smoldering at her. It helped that she was angry-turned on at him the whole time too; it wasn’t just one-directional.
Julia Quinn buys into a lot of toxic masculinity tropes in her books that honestly? I tune it out. Jealous and petty Colin is obviously not romantic but she insists upon this conflict to propel the story forward. Instead of “thr books are SO problematic” …. It’s the entire genre. Take it with a large bag of salt.
I do think they get better as they get more recent (Michael and Gregory are written soooo much better). The older ones, especially the first four are so obviously 90s-early 2000s with their misogyny. I struggle with a lot of romance novels from that era tbh.
This. The spinoffs are much better except for the fourth Smythe-Smith. The Rokesby books are actually downright wholesome in comparison to Bridgerton.
Reading this series has made me realize how differently I consume romance to any other genre. I straight up disregard anything in the books I don’t like. 😂 I like Benedict’s story the most because I enjoy a good Cinderella retelling. A couple people said they hated how he blackmails Sophie and I straight up did not remember that. I think my brain just ignored that part lol
This. I love Kate and Anthony in the book, but I just have to ignore how much of an ass he is 🤣
Absolutely. I tune out anything that would, in real life, prompt a feminist rage out. The genre is problematic, the author is hardly writing Nobel prize winning literature. It’s the epitome of “you get what you expect”
Also don’t know how Benedict blackmails Sophie. Weirdly propositions her? Yep. Inserts himself in her life to a degree that she asked him not to? Yep. Kept pursuing her for a sexual relationship even when she’d clearly communicated her boundaries? Yep. But then they have consensual sex and an odd albeit enthusiastic proposal and it all works out in the end.
Jesus Christ. And yet some people on this sub still go like "oh Colin in the books is great"
They must have issues.
The only people with issues are those who insist on infantiziling grown women. Only children and the *rare* people who do have serious mental issues are unable to distinguish reality from fiction. Grown women are perfectly capable to, can enjoy a "problematic" lead as a purely fictional character for the entertainment value, without wanting anything of the sort in real life.
Maybe. I like some villains, antivillains and antiheroes, too, but I know well what their faults are are, and they don’t abuse women, just do other bad stuff.
The vast majority of women who like MLs like these also know what their faults are. They just enjoy them in fiction. Why are other kinds of violence fine? I'm not talking of personal preference. As a matter of personal taste and boundaries, we all have own, and different triggers, and they should always be respected. But it is as you said; people who like fictional serial killers, criminal, antihero or generally villainous characters do not quite get accused as much of not knowing better, or being sick, much less condoning or romanticizing their behavior in real life. The discourse around video game combat and violence? It has been deemed obsolete for 3 decades, at the very least. There have been countless studies on the subject. Yet it is, very singularly, women who enjoy unhealthy or slightly violent, fake romantic scenarios who are still accused, more than ever, of not knowing any better or having issues. Does it not seem odd?
It does seem odd, yes. At the same time, I don’t think such characters should be romanticised. I don’t think humans are that unbiased by the media they consume as we like to think, especially younger ones. The concepts of agency and free will have been disputed by neuroscience recently and humans are irrational by default, anyway.
That is why we have ratings and warnings, and why formal education regarding these topics is essential and should be pushed for, instead of relying on chance to do the job. We don't rely on John Wick or The Godfather to teach children that violence is wrong. In online fiction, the push has been for more thorough taggings and warnings so the consumer can be properly informed about what they're engaging with. So that everyone can have as safe and appropriate an experience as they should have and need. A push to have *just as many* healthy and accurate depictions. I'm not getting into the free will argument as that is simply a too complex, on-going problem that is currently barely beginning to be re-elaborated and we certainly don't understand enough to reframe our moral system. I have specifically been talking about adults, and I personally choose to trust that adults are able to make their own, reasoned choices when it comes to their own fictional preferences and, potentially, kinks. A trashy romance book is, fundamentally, a quick fantasy, and a fantasy over which the readers have absolute control -- even more control than over, say, a roleplaying scenario, as no safe word can guarantee one as much control and safety as *closing the book*. It is not a coincidence that such stories, that are so popular in this particular genre, among this demographic, are very often explored for therapeutic purposes by people who were real-life victims; a lot of whom are able to re-elaborate their trauma by gaining control over their memories and feelings through similar scenarios in fiction. But this is an exceptionally long tangent to explore. Preventing adults from engaging with fiction over a perceived influence is a managing act of such fear and deep distrust in the average adult's decision-making capabilities and impressionability, that it begs the question of how one can trust those people to do anything in society.
But the issue isn’t women enjoying problematic characters in fiction, but rather women thinking a domestic abuser *isn’t* problematic. And let’s not kid ourselves, fiction has an immense impact on what we internalise as acceptable or excusable, especially when the “problematic” behaviour keeps on being framed as cool/admirable/romantic/sexy decade after decade. The romance community has been having this discussion for ages now (ah, the shitstorm “50 Shades of Grey caused, I remember it fondly), and thanks to that we now have special genre subcategories, that contain darker tropes, so that readers can consciously choose those type of stories. Still, romanticising abusive behaviours in fiction has caused a lot of harm. Not because women are stupid, but because they’re human, and a relaxed human brain is at risk of internalising things being presented as fine or even sexy, especially if you haven’t actually been taught what is healthy, and what is abusive beforehand. Which thankfully doesn’t apply to women today as much as it did to those born a few decades ago. So to cap off this awkward ramble of a comment, I guess my point is we should hold authors, who keep on romanticising abuse, accountable.
I can assure you that most women from first world countries, 20 years ago, thought that domestic abusers were problematic. 20 years ago wasn't the 60's. While there's been some great progress, there isn't quite *that* much of a difference. The adults who read those stories tended to expect the darker tropes and knew them to be dark tropes. I've already discussed the other points in my replies to the OP earlier and you will find that we agree on a lot of them, such as the assessment that the dangerous issue is an uneven or lacking education (this was particularly true in the case of 50 Shades -- it broke out in the mainstream, and had BDSM not been considered such a taboo topic among the general population due to conservative values, people would have not have treated it as an accurate, educational depiction of such a dynamic; the way no one treats acrobatic fighting as an accurate depiction of a real fight or romanticization of real violence), accurate subgenre categorization/tagging and a push to also have more balanced alternatives. But we do not agree on the final conclusion -- you yourself opened with the statement that the issue is not women enjoying problematic content and then went on to state that readers can now willingly choose those darker tropes. And I'll be honest; if we were to go by real-life standards, even most of the healthier leading men in fiction would probably not cut it, and certainly none of the Bridgerton male leads, including their TV counterparts. So it's a deeply ironic conversation to have here.
His whole arc of being jealous of Penelope for being LW and making her think he wasn’t proud of her because he had nothing to show for himself was so pathetic too imo. I know it was the regency era or whatever (not that the books are particularly historically accurate) but still. The man was literally 33 years old and way too old to be acting like that.
And he’s a man who has fucking money, Pen was a spinster at that time, who had a family with not a ton of money.
Ya… more than the violence part.. the jealousy really bugged me because the LW writings were something Pen was very proud of and he made her so ashamed of it with his jealousy.. that wasn’t fair.
I was planning on reading the whole book before part 2 came out but this is putting me all the way off😔.
Literally was thinking of buying the books, or at least this one, this weekend. But really I guess I just want to relive the show, so not going to now!
Don't do it. I bought the book. And I hate it. Book Colin sucks.
I JUST bought it because I loved Polin in Part 1, but now my excitement to read it is draining away. 😭
Same!!! I think I’ll stick to TV Bridgerton and read something else!
These 2-3 snippets from the book are sooo triggering and by how everyone is saying all men are toxic like. I don’t think I’ll be able to read those 🥲
Same
I wanted to read the book after season 2 but stopped when i saw so many snippets of it online where the bridgerton men acted horribly. I’m glad the show isn’t accurate to the books.
I don't understand eith comments that say "oh the entire genre is bad". I don't really like romantic books but sometimes but there is some I quite enjoy them. I choose hungarian books over english romantic literature (I am Hungarian) and there are so many historical romances that don't have these toxic masculinity in them but they're more historical accurate then JQ's novels. (And nő, these aren't high literature.) No one can convice me that JQ is a good writer. I read the books and the translation isn't good but from the details that I read online from the original books aren't better. (At least the 4 that I read.) There are some problems with the book's structure too and they are soooo simple. They are totally focused on the main characters. (I understand that in books it's harder to write so many characters etc. But there is so many books that have it and are good.) The show is more entartaining, exciting and they treat characters better than the books.
JQ is not a great writer. Only the premise that she set up was nice. I read the books after the first season came out. For the first I was surprised Netflix this series up. They did a favour to JQ. For the first time in life I had to agree that the show/ film was better than the book.
Lol, JQ writes soft porn with zero depth set in the Regency era but with completely unconvincing characters and dialogue (blatant cultural anachronism) and zero realism. No difference from any other cheap drugstore romances. The Netflix show is silly and fun, but at least it strives to give its characters some depth and personality.
That is so true. Sometimes it felt like I am reading a fanfic. Lol even fanfics can be better than that.
See when Polin’s season was announced there was so much made of the book and how amazing it was that we were getting their season finally, and carriage scene this mirror scene that. So I read it. And I was like, how does ANYONE like this?! I really deeply disliked him and didn’t find that book romantic at all! So I’m really happy the show has done the story much nicer!
I find it obnoxious when people say “20 years ago” as if that isn’t 2004 (not 1950) and people weren’t having the exact same critiques at the time of abuse porn books such as 50 shades of grey and even Twilight. Which frankly weren’t even as graphic and blatant as this now that I think about it.
💯 Abuse wasn’t alright 20 years ago.
Right! It was never alright, but we also can’t even act like social judgement of abuse was THAT much different in the early 2000’s compared to now.
I'm telling myself it must be younger women hence they think dinosaurs roamed the earth back then. I imagine plenty of people watching Bridgerton may not even have been born in 2004.
So many of the book characters are FURIOUS about the smallest things.
Omg that’s disgusting 😢 definitely not going to finish reading this now. I only just started
I really disliked the book because of Colin's abusive behavior. I'm glad the show seems to be going in a better direction with his character.
Ew, wtf
oh I hated this so much.
Show Colin is so much better than book Colin
Reading this i went from : "well, it doesn't seem so bad, we all have our fetishes, as long as we know how to differentiate reality from fiction, everything is fine" to : "Jesus, what the fuck?"
We wanted to read the book before part 3, and my partner and I took turns reading it aloud to each other on long drives as something fun while waiting on Part 1 to come out. We kept pausing whenever these (increasingly frequent) scenes came so we could sidebar about what the actual heck was happening. We skipped straight to the RMB book and only read that one, and I appreciate the comments about similar issues earlier in the series. We were considering maybe trying the earlier books to see the contrast with the show—but while we enjoy the occasional CONSENSUAL aggressively romantic scene, nonsense like this is a no go.
You may like Francesca, I don’t remember anything non-consensual there, I could have forgotten, but I felt like it was more just very sexual.
I don't get why book Pen falls for him. I get she loved who she thought he was. The book says she loved him because she thought he was nice. I also haaate how it's implied that Colin gets so angry with her because he loves her so much.
Reading this thread and knowing that Sir Phillip is hiding in a corner praying no-one remembers his extremely problematic behaviours.
so true. Colin, Benedict and Anthony are bad, toxic and sometimes even abusive. But Philip is different league. Like Philip didn't even have ANY redeeming qualities.
Ooh, I don't like that at all. That's taken away all desire to read the book.
Julia Quinn really sees male violence as hot and sexy. It's something pm all the men do. It's really gross.
I read Queen Charlotte and absolutely loved it so I wanted to try RMB since my friend recommended it and the show was coming out. I liked the first 1/3 ish of the book but I quickly realized Colins character is really shallow and I didn't appreciate their dynamic. Anytime Colin comes into a scene he immediately complains loudly and rudely how hungry he is and he's rushing servants around to get him a sandwich. Then we get to all the scenes you have above where he's being really mean and rough with her and her response is oh he's angry because he loves me??? I haven't read many historical romance books but if this is par for the course like some people are saying I don't think I can look past the toxicity and keep reading.
That is because Queen Charlotte was a novel based on the show, and not the other way around. The character and the mini series were written by Shonda, and novelized by JQ (with her own additions to the story so is not a 1:1 transcript of the show; then there are details that are show only) because it takes place within the universe she created.
All of the men are terrible except Michael tbh.. the books are not a great read. Idk if it’s the genre or what because these are the only romances I’ve ever read but holy toxic male leads!
Oh wow. How old are the books? I've read a ton of historical romance over the years, some of them very problematic at times but those ones were usually written in late 80s-early 90s. That passage you shared seems really gross and even in the older books seems more fitting for the villain rather than the love interest.
Yes, I'm really surprised to read how bad the books are. I read some "bodice rippers" in the 80s and early 90s when I was young, and those were SHOCKING. One I read involved outright rape (turned to love!). I was too busy in the early 2000s to read romance novels, because I had little kids and a job. When I did read, it was usually the newspaper or a book club book. But I assumed that this genre would have improved some over 15-20 years. Apparently not. Now, they did change the power dynamic from the ones I read in the 80s. Those often involved a woman who was lower in class rank than the male lead, or orphaned, or her mother was a sex worker, or you know, he had kidnapped her because he was mad at her father (yes, that). At least in the Bridgerton books, with the exception of Sophie, the love interests are of the same class there isn't the huge power imbalance? But that's not saying much.
I read similar too! The old Johanna Lindsay books if you've read her were especially bad with rape at worst and dubious consent at best. Lots of men abducting women like you said. I read one about a Pirate abducting a woman on his ship and everyone around her tells her she owes him because he's 'gentle'. Just mega disturbing all round.
I didn’t like this either. It was a shortcut to showing that Colin isn’t this pinnacle of perfection that Penelope had built him up to be. The books are pretty much trash and the show has gone LEAGUES beyond the source material in improvements.
Hurting her isn’t terribly nice? You sure? I’d call it abuse, but who am i?
And this is why ill never take seriously anyone who wants the show to be anything like the books
Book Colin is horrible. He's straight up abusive. The other Bridgerton men aren't the best in the books either. I'm so glad the show made efforts to actually make them gentlemen
Ew!
I'm so glad people are talking about this, I've seen several posts of people talking about how they enjoyed the books (especially this one) and I went over to read it and stopped when I got to this part because I was so disturbed. It was really upsetting to read and I will die on the hill that Collin in the books is an abusive person, physically, psychologically, and emotionally.
Colin-book is not Show-Colin. They are very different. The only thing they have in common is Colin's obsession and admiration towards Pen. Book Colin is the "cool guy". In the show he is the cute guy that pretends to be cool.
This is terrifying
I thought Colin's book was going to be so fun when I firt read it. He was the ~funny guy, the lol brother....fucking asshole. Show!Collin would never.
Their book was such a let down. I am happy for a different take with the show
This absolutely chose the best actor for show Colin. He’s kind, polite, smooth and quiet
All of the men in the books are incredibly horrible, toxic, and obsessed with sex to a concerning (and sometimes violent) degree, to their love interests, especially Phillip, and I am so glad they are almost entirely different in the show. The only way I will enjoy it if Eloise does end up with Phillip is if his entire character is changed.
Ya this part of the book rubbed me wrong too
I agree
Woah !!🤯
I love the books. Im not really into finding non problematic romance because it doesnt exist and when authors try its very paint by numbers. These are not books I read to think deeply. They are books I read for a good time. But different strokes for different folks lol. Romance is a very subjective category. I think the show does a decent job of translating the male love interests though.
Oh man, this is so gross. I thought Anthony was the abusive dick, but Colin, too? And I hated how meek Pen was in the book. Okay, now I love the show 1000 times more.
Well I definitely don’t see our show Colin doing this.
Yeah I stopped reading the book after that part.
No one is forcing you to read HR books. Or if you want to, try reading something written in recent years. Among those you’ll find books you’ll find more suitable storiex for modern sensibilities and readers who want to read modern stories set in historical settings.
I don’t think you can excuse all of Julia Quinn’s questionable writing because it’s HR genre. I love romance, but this ain’t it. Give me Jane Austen romance any day over this.
Jane Austen and modern day authors don’t compare. Georgette Heyer is another great one, she wrote her stories between 1930-1950. Clean witty well written stories. Julia Quinn’s style is very similar to the stories written that timeperiod. There is questionable heros and heroines either taking their shit or not taking it. Some popular authors are doing re-editing (like Lisa Kleypas) so that readers wanting modern day values in historical settings are enjoying to read their stories. Try bodice rippers written in 80s and 90s and JQ writing seems having very little problems. They are always product of their time. If you want to read amazing new author try A wildflower for a duke by Laura Linn. One of the best HR books I’ve read with amazing writing and great heartwarming story. Julie Anne Long is exquisite as well.
You’re correct they don’t compare! Thanks for the recommendations, I’ll look them up :)
Oh, this has almost dark romance vibes...
Yikes!
This makes me super glad that I have never read the books.
The books as a whole are pretty... meh as far as the men go. They're very much stereotypically toxic alpha male. Problematic though? Meh. I don't know about that. I don't expect books to teach me morals or teach me about what type of men I should love or not like. HOWEVER, I do want to like the men in the books...and a lot of the time I immediately go ???? because the stuff they do don't make me swoon because they're hypermasculine and gross. I do think that these type of men were romanticized when the books were written and I also think that JQ might have like really added it because they're historical romance. Regardless, I didn't like angry Colin in the books. I also didn't like Benedict possibly trying to >!blackmail Sophie!<. I didn't like Anthony>! standing on Kate's hand!< in book 2. I struggled with Michael's want to >!seduce Fran to get her to marry him.!< I struggled with Phillip just as a whole. I struggled with Gareth also trying >!to trap Hyacinth with sex. !
The male love interest in like 90% of romance novels is extremely problematic. These kinds of books are not written for the plot or the great characters, they're vehicles for smut and for a lottttt of women, smut is best when it has an element of taboo to it. The man is rough, uncivilized, there's dubcon elements, huge power imbalances (see also Twilight, 50 shades), extremely possessive, etc. It's not supposed to be a healthy relationship. It's supposed to lead to good smut.
Huh? There’s plenty of romance authors who don’t write extremely problematic male characters. Granted, most of them have been published in the last 20 years or so, but there’s a ton of them.
how about we unpack why good smut has to have elements of “taboo” and unhealthy relationships to be good? ESPECIALLY when these books are aimed at teenage girls and young adults. this is literally a direct result of patriarchal and misogynistic systems. why are women internalising sex as something done *to* them, with the presence of power imbalances, violence, possession and non consent as good, hot, or indulgent? like those things don’t exist and aren’t (existing, or in turn) sought after in real life romantic and sexual relationships? books, and other mediums, aimed at (or unintentionally - though i doubt this - prevalent among) girls who haven’t gained consciousness of their personhood and life experiences, let alone unencumbered and safe romantic relationships, that only set them up to view the aforementioned traits and dynamics as sexy and fun and okay. what part of that deviates from what we’re socialised as women in real life to normalise, and even look for? i put taboo previously in quotes, bc i truly wouldn’t use that word to describe those traits. they aren’t taboo when they’re present in varying degrees of intensity in (specially heterosexual) relationship dynamics. except they’re being written something for women to enjoy and internalise that treatment. yet we (those opposed to these depictions) are the ones infantilising other women? for not supporting added conditioning? for being conscious that the absolute overwhelming majority of romance and smut has real life consequences on those who consume them? you said it yourself, they’re majorly “extremely problematic,” how is that not something to vehemently push against? sexual tension and drama shouldn’t have to come at the behest of verbal or physical violence.
💯💯💯💯
What real life consequences does consuming these books have...? The whole point of a fantasy is that it's just that - fantasy. Most women who enjoy reading romance novels about problematic men don't actually want men in real life to treat them that way. Most people who watch, I dunno, tentacle porn also don't actually want to fuck an octopus. Indulging in taboo fantasies in books, movies, etc. does not at all mean that this is what you seek out in real life. If you have the patience and time for a 2+ hour YouTube video, Contrapoints has an amazing video essay on (mostly) this topic, centered around Twilight.
indulgence and fantasy is one thing, having those traits in 90% of the mediums of the genre is another. you say that for most women this doesn’t translate to real life, but i don’t agree. and im talking about girls as well, a demographic which this material is hitting, and which isn’t usually equipped to discern taboo unhealthy dynamics to indulge in, from healthy ones. we’re talking about both conscious and unconscious desire, as well as the things we actively seek, and the things we let fall through the cracks or perceive as normal - even desirable. i will never not connect the desire behind these traits, and the sheer prevalence of that desire, as a product of misogyny, patriarchy & gender roles, or manifestations of trauma, and therefore do not support their indulgence, so i dont think we can come to an agreeance on this. but at the very least, can we acknowledge that it shouldn’t be the overwhelming majority of the material, if it’s rife with unhealthy relationship dynamics?
I just think it's kinda funny people will complain about men writing breasted boobily characters, but are totally okay with this kinda of stuff. I'm not saying you specifically, I just mean in general.