Read on Twitter
Thread: A lot of my reactions to Bridgerton are connected to the fact that the other new period piece I watched lately was The Personal History of David Copperfield.
We’re here to talk about inheritance, literary and otherwise.
We’re here to talk about inheritance, literary and otherwise.
Copperfield, like Bridgerton, is an adaptation of a British empire-set book which poses questions of class, money, and marriage. Like Bridgerton, it added actors of color to an initially white-only story. Both adaptations approach that lack as a problem in need of correcting.
Copperfield just did it. No explanation needed. Why is Rosalind Eleazar playing Benedict Wong’s daughter? Because they’re both great, and people of color exist, that’s why. We’re invited to assume Black, Brown, and Asian people belong.
Bridgerton takes a different tack. The show gives us a reason for why Black aristocrats exist. There is a a before and after, and Black characters express anxiety about things reverting.
The audience is asked to think of Black characters’ social success as precarious.
The audience is asked to think of Black characters’ social success as precarious.
This adds an uneasy layer to Simon’s vow not to have children. He’s not just a hero with daddy issues now: he’s a Black aristocrat determined to have no descendants. Are we meant to read this as holding back Black progress in the show’s world?
If so, how are we to interpret it, when the reason Simon does end up having children is because a white woman insisted he should? Even aside from That Scene, there is a sense that Daphne as a heroine knows what Simon needs more than Simon does.
Back to Copperfield: it has (spoilers) an HEA — between two people of color. It’s hard not to think this is part of why it feels like as many of the costume drama set aren’t talking about it. Luckily we now have Carole Bell’s incisive review: https://time.com/5883126/the-personal-history-of-david-copperfield-review/
Copperfield also made significant fix-it-style changes to the events of the book. Priority was given to how the story would land with new/modern viewers; if they want the original, the book’s right there. They skipped a childbirth death, and declined to kill a Black character.
Rather infamously at this point, Bridgerton kept the most-critiqued scene from Quinn’s book mostly unchanged. And that’s how we got a white woman violating a Black man’s consent, for his own ultimate good, and maybe also for the good of all Black aristocrats.
Because if there’s one thing romance and especially historical romance has baggage about, it’s the importance of babies to happiness. I wrote last year about how many romance readers think an HEA only counts if there are babies: https://twitter.com/o_waite/status/1112062334212554753
Regency romances often deal with ideas of dynastic marriage: lots of characters in lots of books talk about the value (or lack of value) in “good breeding.”
This language takes on unpleasant baggage when we apply it to characters of color.
This language takes on unpleasant baggage when we apply it to characters of color.
Bridgerton doesn’t present Black characters as inherently less worth marrying — anymore. Isn’t that the whole context around Queen Charlotte and Black aristocrats? “The king fell in love with one of us,” is the line. Surely a lot of people still remember the before times, right?
Simon (and Marina) are clearly desirable. But neither enjoy or gain power by being the focus of social desire: Marina is leered at and worse, and Simon is accosted by (mostly white) women to the point of needing a cover story to fend them off. They become desirable acquisitions.
And here’s where the what-if moment failed for me: I can believe in Black nobles. (They existed!) I can believe in a world without racism.
I cannot believe one Black ruler made racism suddenly not matter to a previously racist populace.
Examples: Meghan Markle, Barack Obama.
I cannot believe one Black ruler made racism suddenly not matter to a previously racist populace.
Examples: Meghan Markle, Barack Obama.
So Bridgerton is trying to pass off as a fluffy fantasy what seems more like a deeply unresolved paradox. And the pressure to cement an inheritance for your children is absolutely central to that paradox.
Daphne has a dynastic duty to get married and provide children so the Bridgertons and her future husband’s family can pass wealth along. But she also sincerely wants to be a mother.
The show does absolutely nothing to untangle this paradox, either.
The show does absolutely nothing to untangle this paradox, either.
The more Daphne comes to feel for Simon, the more her yearning for motherhood is framed as personal desire/choice. And when her choices turn out to conflict with Simon’s — she takes away his ability to choose.
There is a long and painful history of marriage being used to shift wealth from marginalized groups to more powerful. For instance, this thread mentions Sarah Rector: https://twitter.com/choctawfreedmen/status/1340395364768247814
Now’s a good time to mention Racheline’s brilliant observation about the compliance wing and the liberation wing of the romance genre, and ask how that lens applies here. https://twitter.com/racheline_m/status/1319657948264660999
Which is to say: is Simon’s HEA ultimately one of liberation or compliance? Romance heroes often have to change in important ways, but there are unique challenges for Black heroes, as Piper Huguley has discussed: https://twitter.com/piperhuguley/status/1066333676731068416
My problem with Bridgerton is that the story seems pro-liberation for the white lead, and pro-compliance for the Black lead.
She gets his wealth and title and influence for her family and the children and he gets That Scene and no apology or amends.
She gets his wealth and title and influence for her family and the children and he gets That Scene and no apology or amends.
This is the difference between representation and decolonization. We can put all the Black faces we want on screen, but what good is that if the story tells us that Black characters (Simon, Marina) must suffer so white characters (Daphne, Penelope) can get what they want? https://twitter.com/ebonyteach/status/1344766399495991299
Adjoa Andoh’s Lady Danbury is glorious, and Regé-Jean Page is doing some of the finest leading man work romance has seen since Firth. But their brilliance is hemmed in by the story’s flaws and inconsistencies. I hoped for better from Will’s and Marina’s arcs, too.
Someone lately asked if we really thought Shonda was really making this show for white women.
It’s a great question. And before I watched the show, I’d have said no.
But now ... if this was made for Black women, where are their HEAs? Where are their friendships and communities?
It’s a great question. And before I watched the show, I’d have said no.
But now ... if this was made for Black women, where are their HEAs? Where are their friendships and communities?
I just feel like we ought to be able to ask for better BIPOC rep than a show called Bridgerton with nine white Bridgertons at the center.
