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 04:05 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.