Reviews...
Jan. 1st, 2021 09:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Making my way through Bridgerton - I've seen episode 4 now, which actually address the race question, making me wonder about the academics and critics. Rhimes is admittedly subtle in how she deals with it in the early seasons of her series, then slowly as they move forward, she starts to be less so. Laying the groundwork, and kind of sneaking it in there - so she hooks the white racist liberals who have no clue they are racist, and wham.
I applaud her for it, actually. Grey's Anatomy started off with mainly a white cast, and the black characters in the supporting or background roles, as time wore on, the white characters slowly disappeared, and more and more of the black characters gained prominence. Racism was addressed in the decision to go against racial stereotypes and preconceptions. There were interacial relationships, and no one comments on them. There are black chief's of surgery, and chief of residents, and they are people first and foremost. It's not colorblind casting. Baily is a black woman. Her culture is intact. Chief Webber is a black man. But they are more than that, their blackness or race doesn't define them, it's not who they are, any more than they are just a doctor, just a man, just a woman, just cis-gender or heterosexual. Rhimes also gradually inserts homosexual relationships into her shows, and lesbian, and bisexual, and transgender, but she does so with little commentary. Just people. Just life.
Some viewers need to be hit over the head with this, but I prefer the subtle approach. Mainly because reality isn't people screaming in your face. A lot of people didn't realize how racist our society still was when Obama was elected, because they didn't see the subtle indications. If it wasn't in their face 24/7, they didn't see it. Rhimes is subtle. She's a single black mother, whose favorite show was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Think about that for a minute. Buffy was a late 1990s, early 00s show - and at that time the studio and network execs did not do diverse casting. Whedon wanted a POC as Buffy but the studio execs wanted a blond. He also wanted a POC as Cordelia (specifically the actress who played Kendra), they nixed it. This was typical of television studios in the late 1990s. You couldn't find many interracial casts. Grey's was actually groundbreaking as was The Wire. And Rhimes couldn't have Grey's lead with a black cast, she had to cast whites in the lead roles. Scandal came later - and even with Scandal, most of the cast was white - that wasn't Rhimes choice.
In the romance genre, specifically British Regency Historical Romances, in which this series is adapted from - race is the elephant in the room. And it is beginning to stink. Race. Gender politics. And class. Anyone who has read a lot of historical romances over a long period of time, and watched the kerfuffle that erupted at the end of 2019 in the Romance Writers Association - knows that racism is a huge issue in this genre. Recently Courtney Milan wrote and published a novel about a Half-Chinese Duke and Chinese Sauce Cook, with acclaim. And Meredith Duran a few years back published the Duke of Shadows - a Half-Indian Duke. So there's precedence for this. But it hasn't been until recently, and it's been a fight.
One of the justifications in the "kerfuffle" on Twitter from the "white" historical romance novelists for their work is that it fit the historical period. But, they wrote Chinese characters in a stereotypical manner, and a degrading one. They tried to excuse it by - well everyone wrote it that way back then. There was equally a view that the romances had to be historically accurate, and there just weren't POC in British Aristocracy back then. An argument that doesn't quite work when 90% of the historical romance novels are well, shall we say, less than historically accurate? Also, how do you know? All we know of that time period is what other people wrote about it. And a lot of the writing of history is by white men, and women with agendas. As my father taught me - history is in the hands of the historian.
Rhimes when she chose to adapt Bridgerton much like Lin Manual did with Hamiliton- decided to handle "Racism" in an interesting way - she did diverse casting, but not colorblind casting.
In episode 4 there's a discussion between the Duke of Hastings and his Aunt, both black, about how King George changed their lives when he married Queen Charlotte (a black queen). "We used to be two societies," claims Duchess of Aysberry. "Once King George chose Queen Charlotte, and elevated us, giving us titles, he made two societies one. Now we co-exist. All because of love, love conguers all."
"Does it?" he counters. "King George could change his mind at any time. If Queen Charlotte died or fell out of favor - we'd be back to where we started. How is that love conquering all? We are in a precarious position, you must see that?"
He sees what she doesn't. And I've been watching closely - and seeing it as well. There aren't that many black gentry. Women have no rights to speak of, and are little more than property to bear children. A fact that Eloise bemoans constantly. The servants do all the work with little to no applause, unseen. Downton Abbey kind of romanticized the relationship. But here, they aren't seen because the gentry don't wish to see them. It's actually a source of humor in places - and biting at that - when they go downstairs to have hot milk and realize they can't figure out how to light their own gas stove, which the servants do daily. Or Eloise who searches her nanny's and mother's housekeeper's room for evidence of Lady Whistledown thinking her mother's housekeeper must be it. "And you are supposed to be the smart one?" Her mother's maidservant states, with incredulity laughing her head off. "Honestly, do you think we have time to write such things? A servant? Really? If I were writing this and making that amount of money, do you really think I'd be working for you? Get out of my room."
The only people who have power are the men, but they too are trapped by the alleged power they have been given. The women wield power through innuendo, gossip, and flirtation. Manipulation mainly. While the men do it with fists, pistols, and money (if they have it) and title. It's a battle of wills, but a subtle one. Unlike romantic and rather violent series like Outlander or Vikings, the violence is subdued and verbal. The action pushed by dialogue not sword fights. You have to listen closely, and watch closely to see it - it's not thrown at you with a hammer.
Well, except for the gender politics which kind of is. Gender politics is front and center in the Regency Romance Novel. Not race, and only sometimes class. It's really a novel about a battle between the sexes, the women trying through love and affection to obtain some semblance of power. Also, the romance novel acts in some respects as female erotica - it delves into forbidden female desires.
Much maligned by the academics and Literary canonites, the romance genre has gotten a bad name. Perhaps it's jealousy or envy? I've often wondered if that may well be the case. Because romance writers make a lot more money and publish a lot more books than anyone in the literary or academic fields.
It's the biggest selling field out there.
And up until recently, it was hard to find diverse romances, or non-traditional ones. Now you can.
Sticking with Bridgerton - and applauding it for forcing a couple of crucial conversations to the fore. Also it's doing well on Netflix, so we may get a second season.
If I were, however to compare it to anything, it would be to Sandition, not Outlander. Actually it reminds me a lot of Andrew Davies' Sandition with the black heiress, and the boxing. Except unlike Davies' series, we get the happy ending. I actually like it slightly better in places than Sanditon, the characters are more interesting. It also reminds me of The Tudors, and The Great. Although I couldn't get through either of those because I didn't like the male lead at all, and the women got on my nerves.
Outlander reminds me more of Game of Thrones, to be honest. It's hyper-realism and I don't really like hyper-realism. Was discussing this with mother tonight, and she agreed. She said her difficulty with books/shows like Outlander and Game of Thrones, was well her problem with John Jakes historical novels. She'd read them for a while then gave up - why, because Jakes felt that historical accuracy was torturing, raping, and horribly killing people. And sorry, no, this wasn't the case for everyone.
She felt it was exaggerated and over the top, and jarring. I agree - it's what took me out of Outlander and why I gave up on the series. I was also bored. So there's that.
I'm admittedly moody though. I liked the first half of Outlander the series, S1, so much so I'd bought the DVD. Only to give it away, when I read the book and gave up on it. I probably shouldn't have read the book. My mother did too. We'd discuss it over the phone, and discovered a mutual dislike for the heroine, who we felt was whiny and irresponsible. And it reminded us both of the boddice rippers in the 70s. We've both read better books in that genre, and well, you all know my issues with Time Travel. It irritates me.
2. I've decided I'm addicted to chocolate. I had some, and my irritation disappeared. Like a salve or something. Spoke to mother tonight. She was funny. Apparently my father asked her if she lived nearby.
Mother: Yes, I do. (Pause) Who do you think I am?
Father: I don't know.
Mother: I'll give you a hint - I've been married to you for years. I sleep with you every night and I live with you.
Father: Oh, right, (says her name).
Mother: When he asked about all the people in the room today, I told him that I shot one of them - and that ran them off. (Mother is starting to get violent towards father's imaginary people.)
Me: You shot one? Okay, that's creative.
Mother: I thought so.
Mother: Your brother and his wife took your niece on a walk today. She complained the whole way.
ME: Oh dear. Didn't like it, eh?
Mother: Said it was so cold, where are we even going, this is so boring, why do we have to do this..
ME: What did they do?
Mother: They made fun of her.
Yes, this is my family - we make fun of ourselves, each other, and people in general. All except my mother's sister.
Me: We all have this odd offbeat sense of humor, of snark and friendly ribbing.
Mother: except for my sister.
Me: You're sister needs to take herself less seriously and lighten up.
Mother: Agreed. She's gotten better. My mother felt the same way.
Life is painful. Helps to laugh at it.
3. His Dark Materials S2
Finished watching His Dark Materials S2 today. It's not as good as S1.
But I kind of knew that going in.
I think it veers from the books a bit, but I don't remember enough of the books to be certain. I'm almost positive that Lee Scorsby died in the third book saving Lyra's life, not in the second saving Will's father's, only to have the guy die saving Will's.
It does get a bit heavy-handed in its metaphors. But the casting continues to be spot on, and I like the twist. That said, I find it a little preachy/ranty in regards to the authoritarian religion bit. HBO - this works better, than it did in movie theaters. They'd never get away with that in the movies. In fact, the movie got blasted by the Catholic Church who felt, and rightfully so, slandered by the text.
I kind of hand-waved a lot of this when I read the books, helped by the fact that I have my own difficulties with the Judeo/Christian religion. This actually really is a biting critique of Judeo/Christian religions and Muslim religions or authoritarian based, patriarchial religion. And it was counter to CS Lewis's pro-Authoritarian based patriarchial religious novel, aka Chronicles of Narnia. (I hand-waved that in the Chronicles of Narnia as well, also I think it helped that Lewis isn't nearly as heavy handed with his metaphors.) Pullman outright states they are going to take down the authority - aka God. And Lyra is meant to be Eve, and to fall, bringing about the end of Paradise, and the advent of knowledge.
It's grating, but I love Lyra, and Will, and all the characters. Also Ruth Wilson is rather brilliant as the complicated Mrs. Coulter. There's also a strong theme about agency, and how growing older is not a bad thing. Pullman had issues with how Lewis and other writers romanticized childhood and placed it on a sort of pedestal. Arguing that growing older and becoming an adult is not a bad thing. In the Narnia books - only children can travel to Narnia, when they grow older - they can't go, and slowly forget. Pullman found that to be offensive. He also had problems with the latent misogyny in the Narnia novels. It helps if you see Pullman's novels as a kind of a critique of the Narnia style fantasy novel. Lev Grossman's The Magicians is equally a critique of that style novel but in another way.
His Dark Materials - is revealed in this season. What they are is Angels. And there are two sides. The bright side, who is supporting Asrael and Mary Malone (a former nun), and the dark side that is with Mrs. Coulter. With Lyra and Will between them. Lyra rules the Golden Compass, and Will the Subtle Knife which cuts between worlds. (And yes, the sexual connotations of both are deliberate. Will and Lyra represent Adam and Eve, with Mary Malone apparently playing the serpent. The fall is Will and Lyra's discovery of each other , and love, I think. It's not clear. The third book was confusing. I'm curious to see how it is developed.
Overall a good adaptation of the books, as I remember them. But problematic in some of the same ways. Golden Compass is still by far the best of the three. This season like the prior one, ended on a cliffhanger. More of one actually...curious to see how it gets wrapped up, assuming the pandemic doesn't get in the way of things.
4. Finished Great Pottery Throw-Down
I didn't like Series 3 as well as the prior two. Series 1 is by far the best, and Series 2 isn't bad. The change in judges and hosts kind of weakens things. Although in some respects the new host is better equipped and less awkward. The new judge is in contrast more awkward and less equipped.
The challenges got on my nerves a bit at times in the third series - there was way too much emphasis on decoration and illustration. It's pottery not drawing class. And I felt the judging was far too subjective in the third season. Jacob who had a crack in his toilet, beat out Matt as potter of the week - when Matt's toilet was flawless. Granted the design/illustration could be more bold - but that's a subjective thing. Also Rosalind won - top
potter based on her illustrations, not on the actual pots. It felt flawed to me, somehow.
Curious to see if they pull off a fourth season.
I applaud her for it, actually. Grey's Anatomy started off with mainly a white cast, and the black characters in the supporting or background roles, as time wore on, the white characters slowly disappeared, and more and more of the black characters gained prominence. Racism was addressed in the decision to go against racial stereotypes and preconceptions. There were interacial relationships, and no one comments on them. There are black chief's of surgery, and chief of residents, and they are people first and foremost. It's not colorblind casting. Baily is a black woman. Her culture is intact. Chief Webber is a black man. But they are more than that, their blackness or race doesn't define them, it's not who they are, any more than they are just a doctor, just a man, just a woman, just cis-gender or heterosexual. Rhimes also gradually inserts homosexual relationships into her shows, and lesbian, and bisexual, and transgender, but she does so with little commentary. Just people. Just life.
Some viewers need to be hit over the head with this, but I prefer the subtle approach. Mainly because reality isn't people screaming in your face. A lot of people didn't realize how racist our society still was when Obama was elected, because they didn't see the subtle indications. If it wasn't in their face 24/7, they didn't see it. Rhimes is subtle. She's a single black mother, whose favorite show was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Think about that for a minute. Buffy was a late 1990s, early 00s show - and at that time the studio and network execs did not do diverse casting. Whedon wanted a POC as Buffy but the studio execs wanted a blond. He also wanted a POC as Cordelia (specifically the actress who played Kendra), they nixed it. This was typical of television studios in the late 1990s. You couldn't find many interracial casts. Grey's was actually groundbreaking as was The Wire. And Rhimes couldn't have Grey's lead with a black cast, she had to cast whites in the lead roles. Scandal came later - and even with Scandal, most of the cast was white - that wasn't Rhimes choice.
In the romance genre, specifically British Regency Historical Romances, in which this series is adapted from - race is the elephant in the room. And it is beginning to stink. Race. Gender politics. And class. Anyone who has read a lot of historical romances over a long period of time, and watched the kerfuffle that erupted at the end of 2019 in the Romance Writers Association - knows that racism is a huge issue in this genre. Recently Courtney Milan wrote and published a novel about a Half-Chinese Duke and Chinese Sauce Cook, with acclaim. And Meredith Duran a few years back published the Duke of Shadows - a Half-Indian Duke. So there's precedence for this. But it hasn't been until recently, and it's been a fight.
One of the justifications in the "kerfuffle" on Twitter from the "white" historical romance novelists for their work is that it fit the historical period. But, they wrote Chinese characters in a stereotypical manner, and a degrading one. They tried to excuse it by - well everyone wrote it that way back then. There was equally a view that the romances had to be historically accurate, and there just weren't POC in British Aristocracy back then. An argument that doesn't quite work when 90% of the historical romance novels are well, shall we say, less than historically accurate? Also, how do you know? All we know of that time period is what other people wrote about it. And a lot of the writing of history is by white men, and women with agendas. As my father taught me - history is in the hands of the historian.
Rhimes when she chose to adapt Bridgerton much like Lin Manual did with Hamiliton- decided to handle "Racism" in an interesting way - she did diverse casting, but not colorblind casting.
In episode 4 there's a discussion between the Duke of Hastings and his Aunt, both black, about how King George changed their lives when he married Queen Charlotte (a black queen). "We used to be two societies," claims Duchess of Aysberry. "Once King George chose Queen Charlotte, and elevated us, giving us titles, he made two societies one. Now we co-exist. All because of love, love conguers all."
"Does it?" he counters. "King George could change his mind at any time. If Queen Charlotte died or fell out of favor - we'd be back to where we started. How is that love conquering all? We are in a precarious position, you must see that?"
He sees what she doesn't. And I've been watching closely - and seeing it as well. There aren't that many black gentry. Women have no rights to speak of, and are little more than property to bear children. A fact that Eloise bemoans constantly. The servants do all the work with little to no applause, unseen. Downton Abbey kind of romanticized the relationship. But here, they aren't seen because the gentry don't wish to see them. It's actually a source of humor in places - and biting at that - when they go downstairs to have hot milk and realize they can't figure out how to light their own gas stove, which the servants do daily. Or Eloise who searches her nanny's and mother's housekeeper's room for evidence of Lady Whistledown thinking her mother's housekeeper must be it. "And you are supposed to be the smart one?" Her mother's maidservant states, with incredulity laughing her head off. "Honestly, do you think we have time to write such things? A servant? Really? If I were writing this and making that amount of money, do you really think I'd be working for you? Get out of my room."
The only people who have power are the men, but they too are trapped by the alleged power they have been given. The women wield power through innuendo, gossip, and flirtation. Manipulation mainly. While the men do it with fists, pistols, and money (if they have it) and title. It's a battle of wills, but a subtle one. Unlike romantic and rather violent series like Outlander or Vikings, the violence is subdued and verbal. The action pushed by dialogue not sword fights. You have to listen closely, and watch closely to see it - it's not thrown at you with a hammer.
Well, except for the gender politics which kind of is. Gender politics is front and center in the Regency Romance Novel. Not race, and only sometimes class. It's really a novel about a battle between the sexes, the women trying through love and affection to obtain some semblance of power. Also, the romance novel acts in some respects as female erotica - it delves into forbidden female desires.
Much maligned by the academics and Literary canonites, the romance genre has gotten a bad name. Perhaps it's jealousy or envy? I've often wondered if that may well be the case. Because romance writers make a lot more money and publish a lot more books than anyone in the literary or academic fields.
It's the biggest selling field out there.
And up until recently, it was hard to find diverse romances, or non-traditional ones. Now you can.
Sticking with Bridgerton - and applauding it for forcing a couple of crucial conversations to the fore. Also it's doing well on Netflix, so we may get a second season.
If I were, however to compare it to anything, it would be to Sandition, not Outlander. Actually it reminds me a lot of Andrew Davies' Sandition with the black heiress, and the boxing. Except unlike Davies' series, we get the happy ending. I actually like it slightly better in places than Sanditon, the characters are more interesting. It also reminds me of The Tudors, and The Great. Although I couldn't get through either of those because I didn't like the male lead at all, and the women got on my nerves.
Outlander reminds me more of Game of Thrones, to be honest. It's hyper-realism and I don't really like hyper-realism. Was discussing this with mother tonight, and she agreed. She said her difficulty with books/shows like Outlander and Game of Thrones, was well her problem with John Jakes historical novels. She'd read them for a while then gave up - why, because Jakes felt that historical accuracy was torturing, raping, and horribly killing people. And sorry, no, this wasn't the case for everyone.
She felt it was exaggerated and over the top, and jarring. I agree - it's what took me out of Outlander and why I gave up on the series. I was also bored. So there's that.
I'm admittedly moody though. I liked the first half of Outlander the series, S1, so much so I'd bought the DVD. Only to give it away, when I read the book and gave up on it. I probably shouldn't have read the book. My mother did too. We'd discuss it over the phone, and discovered a mutual dislike for the heroine, who we felt was whiny and irresponsible. And it reminded us both of the boddice rippers in the 70s. We've both read better books in that genre, and well, you all know my issues with Time Travel. It irritates me.
2. I've decided I'm addicted to chocolate. I had some, and my irritation disappeared. Like a salve or something. Spoke to mother tonight. She was funny. Apparently my father asked her if she lived nearby.
Mother: Yes, I do. (Pause) Who do you think I am?
Father: I don't know.
Mother: I'll give you a hint - I've been married to you for years. I sleep with you every night and I live with you.
Father: Oh, right, (says her name).
Mother: When he asked about all the people in the room today, I told him that I shot one of them - and that ran them off. (Mother is starting to get violent towards father's imaginary people.)
Me: You shot one? Okay, that's creative.
Mother: I thought so.
Mother: Your brother and his wife took your niece on a walk today. She complained the whole way.
ME: Oh dear. Didn't like it, eh?
Mother: Said it was so cold, where are we even going, this is so boring, why do we have to do this..
ME: What did they do?
Mother: They made fun of her.
Yes, this is my family - we make fun of ourselves, each other, and people in general. All except my mother's sister.
Me: We all have this odd offbeat sense of humor, of snark and friendly ribbing.
Mother: except for my sister.
Me: You're sister needs to take herself less seriously and lighten up.
Mother: Agreed. She's gotten better. My mother felt the same way.
Life is painful. Helps to laugh at it.
3. His Dark Materials S2
Finished watching His Dark Materials S2 today. It's not as good as S1.
But I kind of knew that going in.
I think it veers from the books a bit, but I don't remember enough of the books to be certain. I'm almost positive that Lee Scorsby died in the third book saving Lyra's life, not in the second saving Will's father's, only to have the guy die saving Will's.
It does get a bit heavy-handed in its metaphors. But the casting continues to be spot on, and I like the twist. That said, I find it a little preachy/ranty in regards to the authoritarian religion bit. HBO - this works better, than it did in movie theaters. They'd never get away with that in the movies. In fact, the movie got blasted by the Catholic Church who felt, and rightfully so, slandered by the text.
I kind of hand-waved a lot of this when I read the books, helped by the fact that I have my own difficulties with the Judeo/Christian religion. This actually really is a biting critique of Judeo/Christian religions and Muslim religions or authoritarian based, patriarchial religion. And it was counter to CS Lewis's pro-Authoritarian based patriarchial religious novel, aka Chronicles of Narnia. (I hand-waved that in the Chronicles of Narnia as well, also I think it helped that Lewis isn't nearly as heavy handed with his metaphors.) Pullman outright states they are going to take down the authority - aka God. And Lyra is meant to be Eve, and to fall, bringing about the end of Paradise, and the advent of knowledge.
It's grating, but I love Lyra, and Will, and all the characters. Also Ruth Wilson is rather brilliant as the complicated Mrs. Coulter. There's also a strong theme about agency, and how growing older is not a bad thing. Pullman had issues with how Lewis and other writers romanticized childhood and placed it on a sort of pedestal. Arguing that growing older and becoming an adult is not a bad thing. In the Narnia books - only children can travel to Narnia, when they grow older - they can't go, and slowly forget. Pullman found that to be offensive. He also had problems with the latent misogyny in the Narnia novels. It helps if you see Pullman's novels as a kind of a critique of the Narnia style fantasy novel. Lev Grossman's The Magicians is equally a critique of that style novel but in another way.
His Dark Materials - is revealed in this season. What they are is Angels. And there are two sides. The bright side, who is supporting Asrael and Mary Malone (a former nun), and the dark side that is with Mrs. Coulter. With Lyra and Will between them. Lyra rules the Golden Compass, and Will the Subtle Knife which cuts between worlds. (And yes, the sexual connotations of both are deliberate. Will and Lyra represent Adam and Eve, with Mary Malone apparently playing the serpent. The fall is Will and Lyra's discovery of each other , and love, I think. It's not clear. The third book was confusing. I'm curious to see how it is developed.
Overall a good adaptation of the books, as I remember them. But problematic in some of the same ways. Golden Compass is still by far the best of the three. This season like the prior one, ended on a cliffhanger. More of one actually...curious to see how it gets wrapped up, assuming the pandemic doesn't get in the way of things.
4. Finished Great Pottery Throw-Down
I didn't like Series 3 as well as the prior two. Series 1 is by far the best, and Series 2 isn't bad. The change in judges and hosts kind of weakens things. Although in some respects the new host is better equipped and less awkward. The new judge is in contrast more awkward and less equipped.
The challenges got on my nerves a bit at times in the third series - there was way too much emphasis on decoration and illustration. It's pottery not drawing class. And I felt the judging was far too subjective in the third season. Jacob who had a crack in his toilet, beat out Matt as potter of the week - when Matt's toilet was flawless. Granted the design/illustration could be more bold - but that's a subjective thing. Also Rosalind won - top
potter based on her illustrations, not on the actual pots. It felt flawed to me, somehow.
Curious to see if they pull off a fourth season.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 11:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 03:11 pm (UTC)Also it's not supposed to be historically accurate. And it's not taking place in actual Britain - it's Alternate Universe.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 03:38 pm (UTC)Whatever. It's still way too early (later eighteenth/early decades of nineteenth century) for domestic gas-usage - I don't think it was even in use for domestic, as opposed to street/industrial, lighting, that early. I don't think you can get away with passing it off as 'it's AU' unless you're also introducing a lot of other later industrial developments.
Having been writing in the period myself, I've done a lot of nit-picky research on this kind of thing!
*If he is never subject to mental problems at all, it is really, really AU! see The Madness of King George.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 03:49 pm (UTC)It's an adaptation of a historical romance novel written by an American who knows less about British history than I do.
This is why I avoid a lot of US legal procedurals and criminal procedurals - I know they are getting everything wrong. And it bugs me. I'm insanely nit-picky about it. My Aunts, who were nurses in hospitals, don't tend to watch Grey's Anatomy and medical dramas - because they are completely wrong. They make fun of Grey's Anatomy. While I make fun of most mystery novels - I mean I'm sorry, you can't get a good fingerprint off of a glass service, it's not possible - particularly a window or a drinking glass - partial maybe, but there's a lot of factors involved. And witnesses don't confess on the stand - come on.
None of Shonda Rhimes television series are realistic or accurate. Grey's Anatomy is not realistic in the least, nurses and doctors make fun of it. Scandal? Is pure satire, and crazy.
I have a feeling you probably should avoid things like Bridgerton? Or you could watch it and nit-pick it to death. LOL!
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 05:14 pm (UTC)The fashion, etiquette, phraseology, food, architecture and manners appear to be spot on. As does the gentries relationship to the servants.
As far as I can tell. At least they favor what is seen in most historical romance novels.
Also from my reading of SmartBitches and various romance reviews on Amazon, and all the romance novelists I've seen or followed online - yeah, I think they are catering to the folks who think they are experts on the etiquette/chaperonage and fashions of the day. There's a formula to the historical romance - in which it has to have certain things in it or the readers will nitpick. They aren't historians, but they do have a rudimentary knowledge of it - so they get jarred if anything doesn't fit with that knowledge. For example? If a character says "fuck" - they'll get upset. Or if there isn't a ball, and isn't a focus on gowns, and if the gowns don't fit the fashion of the period - they'll get upset.
What most romance readers know about British History they gleaned from reading romances of this sort. I'm willing to bet Julie Quinn (the author of the books in which the series is based) doesn't dig any deeper than that. (I haven't read her books yet - but I have them in my queue, will let you know if they are similar.)
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 02:41 pm (UTC)"The only people who have power are the men, but they too are trapped by the alleged power they have been given. The women wield power through innuendo, gossip, and flirtation. Manipulation mainly. While the men do it with fists, pistols, and money (if they have it) and title."
This is my problem with this genre. I really dislike a society structured like that, though I recognize it's reasonably true to the historical record. My favorite character is Eloise because she seems to be the only one to reject the premises out of hand. Her brothers can't find a way to escape society's rules even as they struggle with them. Daphne simply is better at playing society's game -- with the mild exception of having the goal of love rather than straight out manipulation, and even then she succeeds mostly because she's so damn good at the game.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 03:09 pm (UTC)Well, it's not meant to be a mini-series, but an on-going series. This season is laying the ground work for season two. I don't know if you've watched other Shonda Rhimes series? But what she does is lay ground work and slowly explore an over-arching theme as we go. With subtle touches. I think there are lot of things alluded to in this season that will be explored in greater depth in later seasons, should the series continue.
I've not seen past episode 4, but it's not the only mention, just the only "verbal" one. There's a lot of it in episode 3 - where the Duke's father discusses why he needs a son to carry on the title for his people and himself. How hard the title was to come by. And why he gets so upset with how his son talks.
Also the Duke's best friend, the boxer, who cannot rise to that level and his wife.
It's very subtle. But it's there.
And there's a clear indication that what the Queen determines - everyone goes by. It is in a way an examination of the authoritarian rule. The Queen bestows the title, the Queen determines who the most accomplished and successful debutant is, the Queen determines the fashion - the biggest moment in a girl's life is being presented to a Queen. But if the Queen dies - then someone else determines it. It's at her whim. Everything is at her whim. The two people with the most power, ironically, appear to be two women, the Queen and Lady Whistledown - and they are vying for it. Lady Whistledown is constantly trying to undermine the Queen's.
Then above both is the never-seen, only referred to King. We don't see him. He doesn't attend the balls. And it's his power that gave the Queen hers.
I really dislike a society structured like that, though I recognize it's reasonably true to the historical record
You aren't supposed to like the societal structure. Did you like the societal structure in Game of Thrones and The Wire?? All three are critiques of the societal structure depicting why it doesn't work. Some more satirical than others.
Also, that is our societal structure - whether we wish to see it or not. Always has been, and it's what we are battling now in the culture wars. It's good you don't like it - because that way you can work to change it. Rhimes and others who write or adapt these genres - often do it as a critique of the societal structure. True, some writers romanticize it or prefer it, but most don't. All the romance novels I have read critique it - much like this one does. Daphne has a lengthy monologue in episode 4 where she tells her brother that she has no power, that she can do nothing and it is at their whim. She says the same earlier in another episode. In fact, almost all the conversations and banter are about the unequal balance of power.
Daphne has no other choice but to play the game. Eloise, likewise, has no choice. She's younger, and right now allowed to do as she pleases, but it won't last. There are no opportunities open to her - if she wants to continue her way of life. This is made clear in various monologues - Eloise states as much to her brother Benedict, who can pursue his dreams - and she pushes him too - so she can live vicariously through him.
But by the same token, Lord Anthony wants to be free of his duties. He wants to marry the opera singer. Who, in turn, appears on the surface to be freer than all the other women - because she is pursuing her art. But at what price? Doomed to live on the outskirts? Never to quite obtain acclaim? Always requiring a male sponsor or male patron? Someone to "fund" her and keep her in style? If she has a child by them - the child will have no support, or very little, and be an outcast. He can't marry her. And if she marries a working man or a merchant, he'll forbid her from performing.
It's a society that depicts what women go through - and had to go through - through most of the 20th Century. Even now, women struggle to get ahead - and often because of "other women". Remember our argument on the ATPO Board with a woman regarding whether there could be female fire fighters? Or how about Hillary attempting to become President of the US and losing to a misogynistic creep?
Historical Romance novelist often are discussing the gender politics of today within the guise of the gender politics of yesteryear. Stating love conquers - yet it doesn't quite. Showing how women struggle to be equals, and how. You shouldn't have to be a fighter to do that.
I get not liking that - but I'm not sure it's fair to critique a genre or a show for what it is supposed to do and trying to do.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 04:33 pm (UTC)More seriously, the PM (Portland) and Foreign Secretary (Castlereagh) were running the show at this time. I think they were still "consulting" with Prince George even if, in practice, he had little to say about it.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 11:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 05:03 pm (UTC)Also, this is Shondra Rhimes/Chris Van Dusen..it's not Andrew Davies or Julian Fellows...and it's adapted from Julie Quinn not Madeline E. Robins or Jane Austen, which means...I have a feeling it will never be made clear. Rhimes isn't interested in world-building details - she was a Buffy fan. Her world-building is kind of like Whedon's, on the clumsy side.
I mean I'm not even sure it is the George with the mental health issues. He appears to be ruling the government, while she attends social functions, and looks rather bored, sniffing snuff.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 06:41 pm (UTC)Also, I was right it's extremely clumsy on the details. In episode 5 - she takes off a necklace on the deck of a terrace. Never puts it back on and leaves it there. It's an expensive jeweled necklace that Prince Frederick from Prussia gives her. We never it again. I spent a good portion of that episode and the next wondering what about the necklace. She doesn't worry about it. No one does. I finally decided that the writers forgot about it, and it's just sitting on the terrace. Maybe some servant took it? And a made a killing at a pawn shop? I could write a fanfic about that necklace.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 11:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-03 12:21 am (UTC)For me, it's continuity issues. If you have a plot point or do something with a prop, it should be followed up on. I got upset with Game of Thrones for their editing and continuity issues in the last two seasons - it threw me out.
I'm willing to handwave a lot. Also since I don't know certain things - I wouldn't notice that potatoes is a crop in an Eastern European Medieval Setting is an anachronism. If I did know - it may jar me. But plot and story continuity will bug me. (Although I am more forgiving than most - or I wouldn't be able to watch Grey's Anatomy and General Hospital.)
I had similar issues with Wonder Woman 1984 - it was little continuity details that bothered me. I kept wondering about the poor guy Steve Trevor possesses. And what happened to Minerva, who we don't see again after a certain point. Or how did they get the 1940s plane to fly? Or why is Steve wearing a fanny pack? (Actually that was my difficulty with it - too many small details bugged me.)
So yeah, it can be little things.
Oh ETA: I remember being impressed with an urban fantasy writer who went out of her way in a story to explain that alcohol is the worst thing you can pour on a wound. (Alcohol as in whisky, etc. It makes it worse.) She apparently knew this from real world experience and it was driving her crazy that everyone kept doing that in movies and books.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 04:05 pm (UTC)You're right about me not liking the social structure of the other shows either. I guess I see the Romance genre as generally approving, even glorifying that structure rather than trying to undermine it. Of course, since I don't generally read or watch the genre I'm probably not sensitive to subtlety on that score. But my favorite character on GoT (Arya), like Eloise here, rejected the whole idea rather than trying to succeed within the confines of the existing system. I'd say GoT and The Wire were far more obvious in their critiques of the society than Bridgerton. Subtlety may not be my strong suit.
I just found it hard to sympathize with Daphne because she wasn't struggling to *reject* the system, but to succeed in it. Succeed on some of her own terms, but that's only at the margins. Again, this may change in subsequent seasons.
I'm totally with you on the gender politics. That issue is certainly there; even someone as fortunate as Daphne suffers from them. I just think it gets somewhat confused with class politics in Bridgerton, making it harder for me to tell sometimes when it's one and when it's the other (as with the boxer and the racial subtext). That's not to deny that the two are intertwined even today.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 04:57 pm (UTC)Also, I watch it for the relationship drama. I don't really care so much about the other - does it glorify it? No, not really. I mean I don't want to be Daphne. Daphne doesn't want to be Daphne. She's struggling to survive. Eloise - by the way - eventually marries too in the books, after being a spinster at 28 and having missed her chance.
The problematic nature of the romance genre, which I handwave, because you kind of have to - is that happiness is marriage and a family. But I can handwave it, because genre often will undercut it by depicting unhappy marriages, and people who are happiest after their husband has died - and now, as a widow, they are finally free. There's all sorts of nice undercuts in the genre. But to find them - you do have to be a fan of it.
And it's not for everyone.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 09:29 pm (UTC)I agree with you on Eloise - favorite female character as well, also I love the actress - I've seen her on other things. (Actually I've seen everyone - if you watch any BBC or British dramas, you've seen the cast before.)
Also, Shondra Rhimes tends to have issues with continuity and plotting. She's really good at relationship drama or melodrama, but sucks at the details. Reminds me a lot of Joss Whedon in that context.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 05:11 pm (UTC)I didn't initially realize that Bridgerton was based on a series of books by Julia Quinn. I don't know how much of the alternate history stuff is in the books and how much of the is unique to the show.
no subject
Date: 2021-01-02 05:21 pm (UTC)I've not read the books yet - but one of the critics of the show stated in a blurb that they were disappointed to find that the alternate universe bit of diverse casting wasn't in the books.
It's actually why a lot of people, myself included, were surprised Rhimes chose the Bridgerton series to adapt. There are other books out there, historical romances, that have diverse cast. Sherry Thomas, Loretta Chase, Courtney Milan, Alisha Cole, and Meredith Duran have all written them. I'm not quite sure why they chose a series that didn't. It's very interesting.