#it’s mostly bc men who cheat and are obsessed with getting with a bunch of women

[erinarigby]

reading about how paul was two timing multiple women always pisses me off because i dislike men who think they can fuck as many women as they want and are unfaithful, however i am fine with him cheating with john i love that😊

[kathonydaily]

Thank you for your insights into the romance genre! I had no idea the genre was so formulaic. TVWLM was the first romance book I ever picked up (if you don’t count Austen), and I was very disappointed. What captivates me about Bridgerton S2 is how realistic it is- the leads who are flawed and layered but act from good intentions. I love how they capture the recklessness of your 20s of being made to make adult, life-altering decisions without the wisdom of experience. (I don’t get all the hate for Edwina either- she’s supposed to be like 18?? Of course she’s naive, she’s practically a child!) The book (and book Anthony’s appeal) was as much nonsense as Byron’s pathless woods. ;-) Do you think it’s healthy for the romance genre to have this kind of man (who gets off on making women cower, trips his wife in the epilogue) to be the prototype for the male protagonist? I don’t get why book Anthony likes book Kate other than he had a sex dream about her and she can stand up to him a tiny bit more than the other debs. Show Anthony and Kate are definitely souls that recognize each other through and through, with shared values and vision.

Which brings me to my other question of what exactly is a rake? I totally agree with you that show Anthony was monogamous, cared for Siena and tried to make it work, and went to brothels for physical release as was expected for men of his position. LWD called him a capital R rake bc this was still looked down upon in regency society. Book Anthony seemed to be simply a f****boy. Anyone I know who has tried to reform a book Anthony has gotten a divorce. I don’t think these guys change (short of straight up spiritual conversion) and he would cheat once Kate stops being perky and exciting (after 4 kids!) Julia Quinn’s version is pure fantasy. I wonder what is the appeal of the books for readers if it is so disconnected from reality? Simply escapism (though setting oneself up for messed up relationship standards)?

I’m sooo grateful for your account where us Kanthony stans can be unhinged and obsessed together!

I do believe the books are just a fun read and nothing to take too seriously. Or at least that's how I read them. You spend like a couple of hours not thinking about real life and being involved in a total fantasty historical romance. However I want to add that Julia wrote these books like 20 years ago and it shows. Nowadays the best selling authors in the genre write men in a less problematic way. There are also a bunch of authors who has a better writing style than Julia and write more in depth characters. She's not the best storyteller out there IMHO. That's also why I mostly enjoy the changes they made in the show, for me in the majority of cases they made the story and the characters better. A faithful adaption wouldn't have been well recieved by the general audience nowadays IMHO.

And I totally agree that the characters in the show felt more real and human to me, they all fuck up in a way or another, but with good intentions in mind. And those are the best type of characters and the ones I personally root for. I don't want perfect characters, I want messy and flawed characters who learn from their mistakes, because well, it's definitely a human thing to do and one I can relate to.