eravoez commented on a post from the Pagebound Club forum
Note: I'm using Bridgerton as an example because it's the most recent and widespread phenomenon and it can be applied very broadly to other stories too â that's why I didn't post this on the Bridgerton forum.
Okay, I feel like this is the only place I can come to for a good-faith discussion. I canât have this conversation over Instagram or Twitter without people thinking Iâm trying to attack them. But Iâm genuinely curiousâand maybe a little bit miffedâbut I promise Iâm trying to understand.
So, as you know, Bridgerton recently announced that Francescaâs story will be the main focus of season 5, and a lot of people donât like thatâespecially a lot of straight women. And this just makes me question everything, including what allyship actually means.
Because these straight women are the same women who wereâokay, âfrothing at the mouthâ is not the right phraseâbut who really, really enjoyed Heated Rivalry. They were sharing it and supporting it like nobody else. But when Francescaâs story is changed to be a lesbian romance, suddenly people donât like it.
So my question is: why?
And I already know some of the arguments. One is that she needs time to grieve. But Bridgerton has said there will be a two-year time skip. Another is that sheâs dealing with infertility, and that somehow doesnât âmake senseâ in a lesbian romance. But queer people also experience infertility. Thatâs a very human experienceâitâs not different for queer people versus straight people. Then thereâs the argument that theyâre changing too much from the books in the name of inclusivity (changing Michael to Michaela) and that changes how Francesca's story will play out or how they will miss out on the things that Michael does as a man (and that, to me, feels like misogyny). But Bridgerton has always changed things. Sophie isnât Asian in the book. Neither is Kathani Sharma (Changed to brown from a white woman). Every single season has made inclusive changes. Even Benedict is queer in the show, and that wasnât in the booksâat least not from what Iâve seen people say online.
And peopleâespecially straight womenâwere very supportive of Benedictâs queerness. So why is Francescaâs storyline so controversial? Why?
Iâd genuinely like to know your thoughts, especially if you're someone whoâs straight and also enjoyed Heated Rivalry. Why do you think youâor other straight womenâfeel this way about the storyline? Because to me, it feels like thereâs a kind of cognitive dissonance: enjoying and consuming gay romance, but not giving the same love to lesbian romance. Iâve seen people say, âWell, Iâm straight, so of course Iâll enjoy gay romance moreâI want to view menâs bodies.â And honestly, that feels like it might be tied to internalized misogyny. Iâve also heard people say that gay romance gives women space to explore sexuality without without the pressure patriarchy puts on womenâs bodies. But gay romance is still a story about men, from menâs perspectives. You canât really get more patriarchal than thatâitâs still centered on men.
If anything, I feel like consuming women-centered romance would be less patriarchal.
Another argument I saw was that in gay romance, you donât have to deal with the concept of pregnancy. But thatâs also true for lesbian romance. So Iâm just⊠Iâm genuinely curious. I know some nuance and tone might get lost in a post like this, but I really do want a good-faith discussion.
Why is it such a big deal to straight women that this storyline is different from the books, when previous seasons were also incredibly differentâand were given so much love? Why do straight women enjoy gay romance more?
I'm only putting forth my counter arguments here for the arguments I've already heard, so you know that I've researched about the topic to form my opinions. But maybe you can go ahead and give me another perspective?
eravoez made progress on...
eravoez started reading...

The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women
Naomi Wolf
Post from the Cuentos completos 2 forum
"Un libro, una comedia, una sonata, no necesitan regreso ni ducha; es ahĂ dĂłnde somos lo mĂĄs que podemos ser."
eravoez commented on eravoez's update
eravoez paused reading...

Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction
James Fulcher
eravoez wrote a review...
That last oage really stuck w me. Even the tiniest event can create a tear.
eravoez finished a book

Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
Mark Fisher
eravoez started reading...

Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
Mark Fisher
eravoez started reading...

Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction
James Fulcher
eravoez wrote a review...
Loved the first half and the themes of this one, but sadly the verbose spoken-word style that it takes towards the 3rd party simply wasn't for me. Do not regret picking up tho, even if it was not my thing stylistically.
eravoez finished a book

The Nickel Boys
Colson Whitehead
eravoez commented on a post from the Pagebound Club forum
For artists who read, do you get inspired to create by the books you read? Iâm especially curious about art that isnât a literal translation of a book (like fanart) but more as a response to it.
Which do you find yourself being inspired by the most? Characters, settings, atmosphere, themes, or something else?
I'm trying to push myself to paint every day, just for practice. I typically create bigger projects but I'm testing myself to do more smaller, less time intensive pieces. I've been inspired by a couple books lately, mostly the atmosphere and themes, and it got me thinking because I tend to see more character art than anything. Do we just not advertise it as much?
If you make art: how do the books you read show up in your work, even when no one else would recognize the reference? If you donât: do you notice certain books changing the way you see art?
Also I would absolutely haaaaate if you posted pictures of your bookish art đ
Talk art to me!