Bridgerton: A Discussion, Part IV
This week we discuss Bridgerton in five posts. You can find the first three here:
Part I is centered on the show’s worldbuilding and production values, on its treatment of race, and on Lady Whistledown.
Part II focuses on the show’s matriarchs–the queen, Lady Violet, Lady Danbury, and Lady Featherington.
In Part III we talked about Simon and Daphne’s courtship.
And now for today’s discussion:
TRIGGER WARNING:
Spoiler: Show
Simon and Daphne (Regé-Jean Page and Phoebe Dynevor): Part B—the marriage
Janine: So—this was when things between Simon and Daphne came to a head, and it wasn’t pretty. We start with a honeymoon period where they jump each other’s bones at every opportunity but things quickly fall apart when Daphne realizes that Simon misled her as to the kids issue. Contrary to what he’d said, he could have them. He just didn’t want to. Daphne then decides to take matters into her own hands and rape Simon to steal his seed.
This for me was beyond the pale. If this was the husband making holes in his wife’s diaphragm, or the infertility doctor inseminating all his female patients’ ova, we would be completely disgusted by the behavior. It’s wrong, no ifs, ands or buts.
Some black viewers feel that there’s a racist aspect to the rape, and while I don’t feel qualified to comment on that, I think it’s important to listen to them. There are posts on the topic online and I encourage readers to seek them out.
Still, personally, I’m very fond of redemption stories and I might have appreciated the direction this story took more if we’d seen Daphne show remorse. Instead she acted like she was the wronged party. The way this was written, she didn’t even come around to understanding (and “forgiving”) him until she found his childhood letters to his father.
Daphne should have understood, at least on some level, that she had violated him immediately afterward. It also would have helped a great deal if, after she’d read the letters, she’d understood, even more and in her bones, just how harmful what she’d done was to him and to his trust in her. If she’d then asked for his forgiveness and told him that she loved him and wanted to be with him whether or not they had kids and Simon had, after that, decided that he wanted children after all, it would have been a more convincing and less frustrating happy ending.
But none of this happened. The show was written in Daphne’s POV more than in anyone else’s, and Daphne was spoiled and overprivileged. This, too, was not acknowledged.
Regé-Jean Page did an exceptional job here. He made me feel that Simon’s statement that he couldn’t have kids was more a miscommunication than a deception. If there was any intent there, it was to avoid reopening his painful past and to confide in Daphne so she would understand the reason he couldn’t marry her. He was trying to keep from marrying her at the time so it isn’t as if he used the statement to entrap her in a childless marriage.
There is a scene that takes place after the rape, on the stairs, where things get hot and heavy. Daphne suggests they go to the bedroom to finish, and Simon immediately pulls away. The look in Page’s eyes was wounded. That was a terrific acting choice. Page was showing us what the writers didn’t—that his character had been violated and traumatized, and was now afraid of his wife.
Layla: The controversial scene between Daphne and Simon was most interesting to me as an example of how coercive behavior permeates all aspects of a relationship—the lies and trauma between Daphne and Simon manifest tragically in intimate violations and small coercions. The marriage becomes about power and the sex becomes a power play—not about pleasure or intimacy but coercion and violence. A marriage with a foundation of mistrust and deception will not be fertile—literally and metaphorically.
Daphne’s actions are reprehensible, and a violation of her husband’s body and trust for which she is forgiven much too easily. While I never found Simon’s reasons for deceiving her compelling —it felt more like he was doing what he was doing out of fear, and lack of direction, than from conviction or strong feeling—her betrayal of her husband during an act that requires trust was horrible and selfish. Daphne’s anger did not justify her behavior at all. I found her to be childish immature and whiny in this portion of the narrative.
One final note—there is a long and ugly history of violence on black bodies, especially in the history of American slavery and in imperial and colonial contexts. It was not addressed in the show, but that the black object of desire is also an object of violation is problematic.
Anthony (Jonathan Bailey)
Janine: I liked the way the show developed Anthony through both his relationship to his sisters, Daphne and Eloise, and his liaison with his mistress, Sienna. Early on he overprotects Daphne, causing her suitors, who aren’t good enough for him, to stay away. We see just how hypocritical it is when he pines for Sienna who is a commoner and a kept woman. Do you feel the show was using him to comment on the double standard between men and women? I did.
I can’t say I liked Anthony—there was a moment when he shared a smoke with Eloise that brought out the brotherliness in his character in a positive way and that was the closest I came to feeling fond of him. But regardless of likability I did feel that he added a lot to the show.
I liked the actor Jonathan Bailey’s choices in the role, the way he would have Anthony fling himself onto a sofa, for example. Jonathan Bailey acts with his whole body and I really like the physicality he brings to the role. There’s something restless about him.
Layla: Excellent point! And he’s always watching the clock, waiting for the next responsibility.
I didn’t like him much either and I don’t think we are meant to like him. He’s in a really difficult position and plays a difficult role—the reluctant patriarch. Unlike Simon who is sexy and seems carefree (of course he’s not) and whose smiles come easily, Anthony is morose and harried.
I have to say I was shocked when the show’s first episode featured a very explicit sex scene between Anthony and Sienna soon after the opening credits. This honestly set me up to dislike him—he engages in casual sex, he times it and he does it in public in front of his servants! It just struck me as everything I dislike about gentleman of the time, he is privileged, wealthy and self-involved.
He only takes interest in his sister’s plight when his mother urges him to do his duty. The central conflict for his character is that the obligations of his duty conflict with his desire to pursue his own pleasures. I know lots of people loved his relationship with Sienna, the opera singer, but I personally did not like it. I didn’t think the two actors had chemistry and their relationship lacked depth.
Janine: That’s a great point I didn’t think of. There isn’t much depth there, unlike with some other relationships in the show. Even relatively minor ones like Colin/Marina.
Layla: It’s not a really innovative or new re-imagining of that trope of the wealthy lord and the poor working girl. I never understood why he liked her so much—beyond her representation of a kind of freedom, and freedom of choice, that he doesn’t have. For example, he doesn’t seem to appreciate art or her truly lovely singing voice. He continues to pursue her when she’s said no but it seems a desperate bid to hold off his responsibilities and not because he loves her.
In that way he was like Daphne—he is doing his duty, but being made miserable by it. He doesn’t have to pretend as she does, so you’re right, he is a figure of commentary on the double standard.
Final thought—the actor himself is quite attractive (far more than the other two brothers!) so I am interested in how he would be written as a hero in the second season (if he is in fact the hero.)
Janine: I didn’t find any of the actors playing the Bridgerton men that attractive, TBH. But as I said to a friend, it was necessary. It made Regé-Jean Page’s handsomeness all the more dazzling, pointed clearly to him as the leading man. And as my friend then said, if they’d all been gorgeous it would have been a CW show, not Netflix.
—-
Join us for our last Bridgerton discussion post, where we cover the topics of feminism and of the writing.
Yeah. That scene. We are meant, I think, to view Daphne’s sense of betrayal as more important than Simon’s, which NO. But where did everyone/writers think this was going to go when you have a happy and enthusiastic sexually-active relationship? Daphne could STILL have become pregnant despite Simon’s heroic efforts because that’s how reproduction works. Even if Simon wouldn’t have known that, modern writers do. So … what? WHAT?!
Instead of the horror they chose, there were other roads that would have led to a better resolution; I mean, we’re already dealing with a glorious fantasy so why not deviate from the book for this? Simon could have said that he refuses to have children, without even going into his childhood trauma/vow, and Daphne would have to make her decision based on something less ambiguous than the way we know he meant “can’t”. Saying he can’t have children makes him immediately sympathetic and that’s an unnecessary deceit, IMO.
Simon: You can’t marry me.
Daphne: Why not?
S: I do not want children and I know how much family means to you. You can’t make that sacrifice.
D:
S.
D: But …
S: This isn’t negotiable. Not gonna happen.
D: Why …
S: Reasons. Take it or leave it. Not budging. Your call.
Then, of course, when vigorous/frequent intercourse reveals the flaw in Simon’s heroic efforts to avoid conception, they can break out the biology books and share an ah ha moment. Simon can share all re: his original vow, crisis resolved and they can continue with their alphabetically-named offspring.
Obviously I have WAY too much time on my hands, but this is one of the things about conflict in romance that we see too often: lack of communication, prevalence of hand-wavy communication, big misunderstandings, trauma, lather, rinse, repeat. Granted, this story takes place in a time where many women referred to their husband by last name, but there are still non-anachronistic ways to work around this.
Next: Anthony.
Janine, your comment about Anthony flinging himself onto a(ny) sofa reminded me of the man who went through life supremely confident that the world would shove a chair under his ass any time he chose to sit down. Wish I could remember the source of that, it certainly fits.
As one of the nearly-amorphous Bridgerton men, he is and remains awful for all the reasons you both mention above. There will need to be some breathtaking personality changes for me to think of him any other way. As a character–not by any means the actor–Anthony chews up every interaction by being astonishingly arrogant, overbearing and clueless. Ugh.
BTW, I thought Benedict shared a cigarette with Eloise, who I mistakenly called Emily yesterday. Maybe both brothers sat with her on the swings?
I have enjoyed this discussion immensely, as you can no doubt tell. Thank you for all of it.
Anthony’s boots look awfully loose. Aren’t they suppose to be so tight that his valet has to wrestle them off?
@Darlynne: So I guess Simon didn’t try using French letters?
Yes, you’re right, they could have gone the route you describe. But I think they wanted more drama and to draw out the season for at least the eight episodes. Had Daphne gotten pregnant, what would have been the conflict then? They’d need to come up with something without making Simon really unlikable by having him reject Daphne or their baby. It’s out of character for him to do something like that. If they’d thrown in something unrelated to this issue it would have been a kitchen sink plot.
I also have an additional theory about their choice, which is that since the book was written TV shows have gone in the direction of more moral ambiguity and more antiheroes. Making this Daphne’s decision helps them keep up with the zeitgeist of the times. One of the things that pissed me off most is that Daphne never told Simon that she loved him and wanted a happy marriage with him with or without kids. She never acknowledged that he had a right to reproductive choices. But I guess that too is in line with TV show trends—we almost never see an antihero / antiheroine apologize and redeem themselves. They stay reprehensible until the end.
@Jayne: Nope, no. No French letters (or as the French called them, English hats).
@Jayne, while Anthony’s boots seem a bit loose, I love the outfits and the aesthetic. Also, I covet his boots for myself!!
@Janine, I really love your comment about the show’s writers going the morally ambigous route–lets face it, controversy sells, and that scene has certainly been controversial and much talked about. Also sex sells and I think since they included all the other sex, they had to leave or include this one. I must say also, that even though I could imagine other conflicts between them, this one was a high drama one that raised the stakes for viewers and audiences.
@Darlynn, while your right that actor Anthony “chews” his scenes (so funny and so right!!) I love a redemption story. I am eager to see how his arrogant annoying character can be changed. In his own way, hes a good foil for Simon who is not only smoking hot, but also charming. Anthony has potential to be hot (in my opinion) but he’s not charming at all. So it will be a different kind of love story—in fact I would love to see an antagonistic one!!!
@Darlynne: I just checked and you are right. It was Benedict who smoked with Eloise, not Anthony. That makes Anthony even less appealing.
@Layla: Good point. That scene makes for terrific clickbait.
I think it very well might. I haven’t read the book but see this post about Simone Ashley joining the cast in the role of Kate, Anthony’s love interest. They describe her character as one who “suffers no fools—Anthony very much included.”
https://tvline.com/2021/02/15/bridgerton-season-2-kate-cast-simone-ashley/
BTW I am so glad that they cast a South Asian character as Kate since South Asians are a sizable minority in today’s Britain.
Asking for your definition of rape in this context. Simon did not refuse sex, in fact he welcomed it and participated gladly, but when Daphne took control so that he could not withdraw early, did that make it rape? I totally agree that it was not right on Daphne’s part to force parenthood on Simon if he did not wish it, but it still seems somehow qualitatively different to me than forcing sex on an unwilling partner – not necessarily better, but different.
@Susan/DC: I hemmed and hawed about this one too, but in the end it boiled down to a sex act that Simon did not agree to, even if he agreed to sex. Comparable to a situation where a couple agree to sex but the man decides to take his lover anally without previously ascertaining that his partner is consenting to this aspect of their encounter.
Also, if we define consent as stopping at any point during the sex act when your partner indicates that is what they want, then there’s also the fact that at some point Simon said “Wait, wait,” and Daphne kept going. “Wait” is not the same as “No” or “Stop” but it still should be respected IMO. I do see where you are coming from, though.
TBH I think deliberately forced conception is worse than rape because although rape can create lifelong trauma, forcing someone to have a child they don’t want has even bigger consequences, not only for that person but quite possibly for the child too. If the child is abused by their resentful parent because of that it is even possible for a pattern of abuse that lasts for generations to result.
I remembered this scene in the book and HATED it. It’s been a while, but it was even worse in the book because Simon was drunk? (I’m not completely sure, but I remember it being something like this).
I was surprised to see them put it in the show because of all the issues with it (and the whole part about Simon deceiving Daphne, and the unreliable method of contraception). It was an opportunity to shift away from a bad storyline, but they didn’t take it.
@Layla, the second book is very antagonistic and a lot of fun. I only read the first four, but it’s my favourite of them, so I am very much looking forward to season 2.
I disagree that Simon did not intentionally mislead Daphne. He knew she was ignorant of sexualising in general and I think the character was lying to himself if he thought she understood.
The Daphne/Simon relationship fell down hard after the marriage and the show never redeemed either of them in my eyes. Daphne’s behaviour was unacceptable but so was Simon’s. I never bought into the resolution which makes me very concerned for Anthony’s story in season 2. Season 1 did not show the complexity of his character, nor the neuroses that are explored in the book. This is also the problem when you make an anachronistic show like this and imbue it with a lot of 21st century sensibility with random 19th century behaviour.
@Janine: @Susan/DC: One legal definition of rape is specific about penetration and I agree that isn’t the case here. What appalls me is the idea of someone, as I think you said earlier, Janine, perforating a condom or diaphragm, or sabotaging any other form of birth control in order to cause pregnancy. If I can’t stomach that behavior from a man, I certainly can’t condone it from a woman. Rape may not be the right word here, I just can’t think of another. The, iirc, horror on Simon’s face said it all.
So Daphne knows Simon can ejaculate well before this, but hasn’t put it together with conception until after the talk with her maid. There was nothing then for her to prove, right? The whole scene was unnecessary except for the shock value. It doesn’t matter, I realize that, but I want my glorious fantasy to at least make sense. 0_o
@Sydneysider: With regard to the other books / seasons, I only read book one and book six (Francesca’s book) and I thought the latter was much, much better.
A friend told me that she likes book four, Penelope and Coin’s book, best. I am really curious to see what the show does with it. The lead characters of that book are both unconventionally short, and Nichola Coughlan is also plump. I’m hoping they get to be the central characters in season four but I fear that the show will lump them in with another couple’s story because of their unconventional appearances. Time will tell.
@Bronte: I can buy that Simon was lying to himself, but if so, does that count as deliberate cruelty or deliberate wrongdoing? I am not sure.
@Darlynne: Yeah I thought the aftermath of that scene had plot holes and inconsistencies. I discuss that a bit in today’s post. There were definitely things in the show that made little sense.
I also have a big problem with calling what Daphne did “rape” in the series. Simon is not only a willing, but enthusiastic participant, every time they have sex -including that time. His only problem is that he wants to control conception and keep Daphne completely ignorant. He had no objections to the sex, so it really isn’t rape, you could call it ‘forced conception”. It’s nothing like the examples used of people not agreeing to anal sex or other acts. There is no difference between the sex they previously had except with respect to him trying to avoid conception.
He’s not intoxicated or (unlike Daphne) ignorant of anything to do with sex. His only protest is a faint “wait” (does he even say “stop” ? I’d have to watch again to see). She’s the tiniest actress imaginable who looks like she weighs 90 pounds so she certainly didn’t overpower him even when she is on top. When you factor in her ignorance and how he deliberately misleads her (his excuse that he thought she “knew” is not even plausible based on their previous discussions and how she behaves) that I’m always stunned when Daphne is painted by so many (particularly female) reviewers as the “evil villain” and Simon, who has ALL the knowledge, power, money, control and freedom is somehow always forgiven and excused for what he does quite deliberately.
Their power imbalance is so egregious and the “misunderstanding” about his sterility is completely based off his willfully avoiding stating the truth to Daphne. When Daphne does engage in her “experiment” she’s not even sure she’s correct in her assumptions as she had to try to piece the information together from what little bits she could pick up from the Housekeeper. It’s only from Simon’s reaction that she gets confirmation that her theory was correct.
I also agree that how Simon handles it makes no sense as even in the early 19th century people must have known that “method” of birth control had its risks. Simon, as worldly and experienced as he was, surely would have known of condoms so if he thought Daphne knew what was going on, why wouldn’t he have used those as well?
I remember back when Susanne Brockmann was writing her Troubleshooter series and the Sam and Alyssa storyline was going on many readers were incredibly sympathetic to Mary Jane (?) even though she sabotaged Sam’s condoms to deliberately get pregnant and “force” Sam to marry her. I wasn’t as sympathetic to her then as she was clearly the deceiver as IMHO Simon is here.
What Daphne does is clearly wrong, but considering she is acting out of confusion and ignorance and everything Simon does is with complete knowledge and control I see him as far, far more in the wrong and the cause of more of the problems in the relationship.
@Christine: I thought Daphne clearly knew what was what when that scene took place; she had talked not only to the housekeeper but also to her personal maid, who explained it, and she saw Simon spilling his semen on the floor, she looked at that floor. By the point she forced him to come inside her it was crystal clear. She was doing it out of anger and hurt feelings and to get him back. It was premeditated.
By the way, there are (as Courtney said in the previous post’s comment thread) plenty of people defending Daphne. Whether or not you view it as rape, it’s a horrible thing to do—at the very least comparable to poking holes in a diaphragm or inseminating a woman’s egg without her consent. People’s reproductive choices should be their own, not forced on them.
Additionally, even if we set aside the scene where she asks her maid to explain it and the scene where she sees his semen on the floor as well as Simon’s statement that he thought she knew, I don’t see how Simon is the only deceiver in the relationship. During the duel scene he did not ask her to marry him. She announced that she was accepting a proposal, even though the proposal had never been issued. That Simon was willing to marry her even after she lied was fortunate for her and honorable of him.
@Janine, I stopped at book four. It’s not bad, but I was getting tired of the series. At least in the books, Penelope is “heavy” initially, but then gets thinner. So we’ll have to see, but I’d be surprised if the show moves away from some plot aspects…considering the ones they kept in for book one!
@Sydneysider: Thanks. That is a bit of a bummer.
Enjoyed this post a lot.
Quick note about Anthony in this season: I had a much better time with him as a character once I started thinking of him as the antagonist. Not a villain, but he’s an obstacle for the main couple to overcome–Simon’s friendship with him is part of the reason he’s tangled up with Daphne at all, and his high-handedness with Daphne is just not helpful.
As for the controvery–I’m not sure I’d call it a rape but I wish there were a word for what I *would* call it, the way that we can talk about manslaughter as being different from murder. Or murder in hot blood vs. cold blood. Because to my mind what makes that moment awful isn’t *just* that Simon withdraws his consent–it’s that Daphne is fully aware that she’s about to do something he doesn’t want. She’s explicitly treating the intercourse as a ‘test’ and the chain of logic in her head pretty explicitly relies upon the idea that *if Simon fails her ‘test’, then he deserves her violation*.
Basically: if it hurts him, he deserves to be hurt. And that kind of thinking is just so awful.
But really, I think the biggest problem I had with the Daphne/Simon relationship is that it’s a pretty classic case of characters who never resolve conflicts–they just bandaid over them with sex. That started during the courtship and continued afterwards. It’s one reason why the staircase scene (and I really enjoyed the discussion of how Page’s acting really elevated it, because I agree) stuck out in my mind. It just really captured the essence of their relationship, which was overall very unhealthy. They NEEDED to talk–they’d been needing to talk for a long time–but both of them only knew one way to reach out to the other & were upset to realize that it didn’t solve anything.
@Erin Satie: Great point about Anthony. I didn’t think to look at him that way.
I forgot to make the point you make (though I thought of it earlier, before this post was written), that Daphne knew Simon didn’t want children, and she still went ahead with her plan. That’s a big part of what makes it feel like a violation to me. It’s heartless.
Excellent point about the non communication. What did you think about the resolution of the Simon / Daphne conflict? Did it seem hand wavy to you? I thought it was a papering over what was a deeply wrongful act and I wanted, at the very least, for Daphne to apologize and agree to try for a loving marriage whether or not they had children.
Janine–the point I’m making is a little bit different, because I’m incorporating a bit of what Christine is arguing. Daphne allowed for two possibilities with her test: either Simon finishes inside her and all’s well, no harm done, or Simon tries to pull out, proves himself guilty of betrayal, and deserves her violation.
Daphne clearly hopes for the former & I think she’s shown that she would have been pretty supportive of a sterile husband. But since the latter turns out be true, she can do her worst. Not just for selfish purposes but as a kind of punishment, a tit-for-tat, the old ‘you punch me and I’ll punch back but three times harder’. If she were really angling for kids, she could have tried to persuade him, to change his mind and heart, in so many different ways! She chose the option that would *destroy* all those options. She acted out of anger & her goal was to do harm.
As for the conclusion, I’ve only watched up to episode 7. It sounds like I’ll be disappointed by episode 8.
@Erin Satie: Yeah, I understood what you were saying, it’s just that your comment reminded me of my earlier thought. I should have communicated that more clearly.
To go off on a tangent again—I don’t see how Simon deserved her act whether or not he was guilty. To steal someones reproductive choice away from them, in full knowledge that their choice is opposite, is a kind of rape for me. We can argue over semantics but it is a violation that occurs during sex, which, as Layla points out, is an act of intimacy and trust.
I agree Daphne would have supported an infertile husband but that’s not the same as supporting a husband who chooses to remain childless. And that I would like to have seen her do.
Let me know what you think about episode eight! I am sorry we’ve spoiled parts of it for you.
Oh, he did *NOT* deserve it. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear. Across all these posts you can probably get a sense of how I think the Daphne/Simon relationship goes, which is that they’re trapped in a downward spiral where they do increasingly awful things to one another & it culminates in Daphne raping Simon. (TBH I’m a little uncomfortable with calling it a rape but all the other words seem to downplay the severity so it’s still the closest).
My point is not that Simon deserves it–two wrongs don’t make a right & what Daphne does is very, VERY wrong–but it’s my way of understanding Daphne’s mindset. To my mind, blaming this on Daphne’s desire to have children is a much more sympathetic framing than she deserves. Her chain of logic is that *if* Simon has betrayed her, *then* he deserves to be betrayed in turn, and her goal is to cause maximum harm.
I agree, it would have been nice to see them explore the idea of choosing to remain childless–and privately grappling with the novel idea that reproduction should be a choice. Maybe follow along as Daphne tried to imagine a different future for herself. And maybe have Simon grapple with the shame and embarrassment that she’d be putting up with? There was that conversation where the housekeeper pointed out that the previous duchess was constantly shamed for being childless & Daphne would get the same. But that kind of development would require a much stronger, healthier foundation and frankly, the Simon/Daphne relationship did not strike me as a healthy one, at all, except for maybe half an hour or so during the fake dating phase.
I really thought they were horrible for one another & I’m not sure why anyone expected 8 episodes of them treating one another terribly would lead me to any other conclusion.
@Erin Satie: I apologize; I didn’t think you believed Simon deserved what Daphne inflicted on him; my defense of Simon arose because I am still meditating on Christine’s comment and her statement re Simon that “I see him as far, far more in the wrong and the cause of more of the problems in the relationship.”
I’m still grappling with that point of view. She has an interesting thought, one that is worth considering, about Simon having “ALL the knowledge, power, money, control and freedom.” I don’t see the power imbalance as so gaping as she describes–he is black and she is white, and she has the benefit of a happy childhood and a big and loving family, while Simon carries a history of child abuse, and as you pointed out, some greater freedom is afforded to her through her marriage to him–but certainly he is privileged in ways she isn’t.
I think, too, that Layla’s statement in the prior post that she can see why Daphne would want Simon but not why Simon would want Daphne plays a role in my tendency to view Simon’s actions as not nearly as damaging. I felt, even before the rape, that he in some ways got the–raw is too strong a word so I’ll use lesser–deal. His personal qualities, even putting aside his title, are more worthwhile than hers. This is one of the key reasons for why the balance of power between seems less unequal to me.
More than anything else, after his sacrifice of his unmarried state with the understanding that they would have no children, Daphne’s forcing him into bearing the force of her choice on the matter seems heartless to me. I agree with you that Daphne acts partly out of a desire to avenge herself and cause maximum harm and that their marriage is an unhealthy one.
But who is it unhealthier for? And who is the more healthy, less selfish and more humane of the two? Maybe “the long and ugly history of violence on black bodies” which Layla points out is also a factor in my judgement, but my answer is Simon. I am interested in your thoughts on the balance of power between them and how it plays out in their relationship (as well as your thoughts on this once you view the final episode).
Yes. Your ideas here are excellent. I also think it would require more nuanced writing than the show’s writers provided. It’s a show that puts entertainment value ahead of fully teasing out the conflicts. I felt that way about Penelope’s choices vis a vis Marina too. When Marina drank those teas and got herself sick in the attempt to abort her child, I thought Penelope would be more devastated and guilt stricken. Had the teas been stronger, Marina might have died and Penelope’s exposure of Marina’s pregnancy played a big part of what led up to Marina’s decision. I thought that Penelope’s love for Colin and certainly, her relationship with Marina, might be unhealthy too.
I did not expect a healthy and satisfying conclusion to the Daphne / Simon relationship but that was partly because I remembered being infuriated by the book when I read it 15-20 years ago and because blog posts alerted me to the wounding nature of Daphne’s actions went similarly unaddressed by the show. I might have if i hadn’t known that, though.
I don’t mind unhealthy relationships in books as long as those relationships become healthier as the story progresses. I don’t say healthy, but healthier. If the characters are better off in the end than they were at the beginning that can satisfy me. I don’t see that this was the case here though, particularly for Simon.
Janine, your moderating tone about the unhealthiness of the relationship was a good check to me. I shouldn’t go overboard because I, too, really enjoy watching people wrestle toward a better balance. It can be really satisfying.
I think part of the problem here is that you can say, “Well, he kinda got roped into that marriage at the duel, he should be able to set some conditions,” and then I’d say, “Yeah but he chased her into that garden, which was colossally stupid because *he* had chosen the clean break so it was his job to stick to the plan and also it was an obvious danger to her reputation.” Every bit of bad behavior is caused by the previous bit of bad behavior.
That being said, who has the power there? I mean, it depends on if you want the Watsonian or the Doylist answer. And even then it’s muddy, because it’s not clear how much real world history crosses into the fantasy. From a Doylist perspective, a black man as a victim of sexual violence who’s expected to stay married to his unrepentant white abuser? Yikes.
From a Watsonian perspective, the power of a husband over a wife in Regency England was very nearly absolute. Daphne has exactly as much power as Simon gives to her, and he can take it away at any moment. He could, if he really wanted, kick her out of all his houses and then on top of it if she got a job to make ends meet he could confiscate all her income and then if she had an affair to get a protector he could sue the protector for damaging his property. (And that is how the law would have phrased it.) And then he could beat her in public and if she tried to divorce him for it, she’d lose.
Since Simon is a decent person, and he’s not going to do any of that. But like, man. He really has a lot of power over her.
I feel like I need to say that I don’t really like the character of Daphne, at least in the TV adaptation. They removed everything that was interesting, unique and sympathetic about her from the book (her warm friendly nature, the fact that she’s “friendzoned” by most of the male ton because she’s so “comfortable” to be around, her independence and the fact that she’s on her second season and far from the “diamond” of the first water admired by the Queen). The show made her into the cool, reserved prom queen who is willing to do almost anything to make a brilliant marriage.
I also understand that Rege Jean Page is an incredibly handsome and charismatic actor. I haven’t seen a “debut” performance garner so much admiration, talk and traction since Brad Pitt came on the scene in Thelma and Louis or Colin Firth revitalized his career by diving into the water in Pride and Prejudice. He’s already being wagered on as a potential new James Bond. He’s also one of the most classically handsome men I’ve ever seen. He, for lack of a better word is practically flawless.
All that being said, I still can’t wrap my head around a lot of the discussions on the Daphne- Simon dynamic. Not just here, but across the internet. Everyone is more than entitled to their opinion and it’s clear a lot of people feel the same way. I’m not trying to pick on anyone’s opinion I’m just trying to understand it a bit more because it’s clear I’m looking at it from a completely different angle.
I think one problem is that people are looking at Daphne and judging her as a 21st century woman rather than one of her time. I also think she’s getting the (unfair) brunt of the blame. If Simon, a worldly, rich, educated Duke known for having a number of mistresses and vowing never to marry, FOLLOWS Daphne, a pretty uneducated, untraveled, unworldly, young debutante who is kept ignorant by her mother (and is at risk of being married off on her brother’s whim to a horrible man) into the gardens knowing he doesn’t wan’t a wife or marriage, knowing she is practically engaged to another man and needs to make a good marriage and that he can ruin her reputation and waltz away if he wants to, but chooses to seduce her in the open- why does he get credit for agreeing to marry her? He’s awful for not staying away from her in the first place. Sure, she didn’t push him away -but she was very clear what the stakes were for her and what she wanted. I can’t imagine a bigger power imbalance than theirs.
Janine mentioned that the huge imbalance is lessened by the fact that he is black man and she is a white woman, but where in the land of Bridgerton is this ever a problem? Sure in 21st century America is a huge factor but that isn’t where the story takes place.
It’s made reference to that The Queen has been instrumental in breaking racial barriers, implying things were not always as equal, but it really doesn’t make sense or is ever explained as Simon’s father was a Duke, the most powerful and prestigious title outside of the royal family and surely his lineage preceded the Queen’s marriage. (The show really drops the ball in addressing this.) Simon is considered the catch of the season, Lady Danbury is portrayed as the most powerful social influencer outside of the Queen and Marina becomes the darling of the social season. There is never any indication in “Bridgerton-land” that being black is any kind of social handicap or has negatively impacted Simon’s life in any way. His abuse as a child was awful but I don’t see how that impacts the power balance between Simon and Daphne either.
Her happy childhood doesn’t give her any power or any more social currency and in the show they even destroyed the kind of relationship she has with Anthony in the book. They made him into the kind of man who would marry her off to a horrible would be rapist against her will, and they made her strong willed mother into a weak woman controlled in many ways by her oldest son. She has a man running the family that cares about appearances and social standing but not her feelings.
So on one side you have a Duke, the most powerful title in the English peerage, with money education, looks, experience and the backing of Lady Danbury, the second most powerful woman in England (at least societally). It’s made clear over and over in this society that all the advantage is on the side of the men. We literally see Anthony half naked, having sex with his mistress outside against a tree but if it’s even rumored Daphne was alone for a minute with a man unchaperoned, she would become a pariah.
Simon knows all this and further knows Daphne is so ignorant she doesn’t even know her own body, let alone how sex works. He follows her into the garden, knowing the risks and that Daphne is completely without experience of men. He “seduces” her to a certain degree, knowing she’s made a very advantageous match to a royal and knowing he has no intention of every marrying. When caught, he refuses to marry her, agrees to a duel with her brother and finally relents to marry her when she risks her life showing up. Instead of telling her the truth and letting her decide if she still wants to marry him under those conditions, knowing that a married woman’s status and security is based on having a family and knowing that is all Daphne wants out of life, he deliberately misleads her about his sterility. He chooses to imply he cannot have children rather than state he has a vendetta against a dead parent and wants to end the Ducal line. (But didn’t prevent him from having an active sex life with many precious mistresses).
Daphne marries him and he avoids her at first, making her think he hates her rather than having a conversation with her. When they reconcile, he engages in frequent, enthusiastic sex with her (again never having a single conversation, even though he knows how completely ignorant she was and wasn’t embarrassed at all previously to tell an unmarried debutant about masturbation so he’s not shy) and never bothers to share that he’s engaging in (very unreliable) birth control methods.
Are we really supposed to believe he thinks Daphne got such a complete sex education talk from her mother than she also covered contraception at a time when the goal of every aristocratic marriage was to produce an heir? When even the church preached against such practices? He really thought Daphne understood everything including why he was pulling out and never had a question or concern about it? Or does it make much more sense that he just preyed on her ignorance and feigned ignorance himself that she didn’t know. Or even tried to tell himself she didn’t know.
It also doesn’t make sense to me that Daphne is suddenly supposed to “know” exactly what Simon is doing and how everything works based on what she gleaned from a couple of conversations. And that what she does is some deliberate, ruthless act rather than her trying to confirm what she thinks is true. Sure she is hurt and angry and that feeds into it after she sees how he reacts.
Sure, if we are looking at a 21st century woman with all the corresponding agency and knowledge who is willing to sabotage condoms or a diaphragm that’s a heinous, intentional, criminal act. But putting that kind of blame on Daphne seems absurd to me. If it were the same situation in the 21st century and it happened between a man and a young woman in some kind of cult or community with no access to the internet, information or education for the woman (even if it were a willing marriage) would you be blaming her the same way?
@Erin Satie: It has to be a combination of Watsonian and Doylist interpretations in my opinion. Watsonian is murky because it’s a show that presents a fantasy about the Regency era but Doylist is clearer because we’re watching it in the 21st century and we know what our 21st century mores are. But I would say the answer is maybe a bit more Doylist than Watsonian? Because the show itself signals so clearly that it’s a fantasy. So I guess I have to ask, is the show’s presentation of regency society more fantasy than reality, or more reality than fantasy? And here I fall on the side of fantasy—I think it signals that very clearly—but others may disagree.
@Christine: I agree on Daphne in the book vs. on the show. My memory of book Daphne is fuzzier than yours (it’s been 15-20 years since I read The Duke and I) but I remembered her as being a nice, warm person which irked me all the more because her actions were so reprehensible (Simon was even drunk in the book, and he specifically tells her to stop) yet everyone (both in the book and among the readers I knew) kept thinking of her as a nice person even after that. I think the show’s depiction of her as not so nice makes it easier for viewers to condemn her and her actions but of course, it’s also that times have changed and consent has become more paramount in our view during the intervening years.
You and Erin both make a great point about Simon following Daphne into the garden. I didn’t think it so bad because it happens in romance novels all the time but of course you are right that if we apply it to the actual regency (rather than the fantasy version of it) he is putting her reputation in grave danger.
Re his race, sure, but now you’re cherry picking—he has all the power over her because here the rules of the actual regency, not the show, apply vs. she has no power over him because here the rules of the show vis a vis race do apply.
This is a difficult discussion to have because it’s not 100% clear what rules apply on the show and what ones don’t. For example the duel is because of a scandal that hasn’t yet materialized despite the fact that the duel would cause a worse scandal. I think the show swings back and forth about what the rules are according to what is convenient for the writers.
What doesn’t swing is that we’re watching it in the 21st century where a black man is betrayed at a time of intimacy and vulnerability means a lot. Readers and viewers always (in part) apply their own mores to the books they read. For example, if in a medieval romance the heroine was made to wear a chastity belt by the hero, it wouldn’t matter that in their era this was accepted a much as it would that in our era it’s not.
Also, if Simon did to Daphne what she did to him—say, he was unfamiliar with diaphragms and she concealed the knowledge that she was using one, having only told him that she is infertile, then then would you still be on his side rather than hers when he, on top and refusing to wait when she asked him to wait, deliberately ejaculated inside her to “test” her?
Where I was going with the childhood thing is that Simon, who was abused as a child, is more likely to fall into an unhealthy pattern in the relationship (a healthy marital relationship wasn’t modeled for him) and also, more vulnerable to being wounded by a betrayal because he bears old but still painful wounds. Of course, Daphne doesn’t know it, but it does even up the power between them some that she has so much power to hurt him.
I would also postulate that he loves her more than she loves him. But I only feel this way because, to paraphrase Layla, I understand what she sees in him but not what he sees in her—and so I feel he must be really smitten to overlook so much. I saw his following her into the garden in that light, that he was overcome by his feelings and that it caused him to follow her though he knew better. It was not premeditated. Whereas Daphne’s decision to make him ejaculate inside her was vengeful and pre-planned. All that I’ve said about Simon here, though, is very much in the eye of the beholder and I can understand why you feel differently.
You make some good points in the rest of your post and I agree with many of them. There is one area where I don’t. I don’t think a person would have to be educated on contraceptive methods specifically to understand what Simon is doing. If they have enough sex ed to know that a man gets a woman pregnant by ejaculating inside her they can certainly put two and two together and get to four. If you know that semen is the key to pregnancy and your husband consistently pulls out and ejaculates elsewhere than inside you, it seems to me that it would be clear. And it is evident that Daphne knew that after the second talk, when, in the first, the housekeeper referred to “good strong seed.”
Christine, I think a lot of those points have come up in this discussion. I know I’ve been pretty hard on Simon in a number of my comments because he does more than his fair share to derail their marriage.
But no amount of explanation can take away the fact that Daphne made Simon do a thing that he had repeatedly shown he was unwilling to do. She doesn’t need to be modern, or educated, to know that’s wrong. Sex had been a primary form of connection between them. She doesn’t need to be modern, or educated, to understand that she’s poisoning that well.
You can strip away all the discourse and all the history, everything, and boil it down to two people alone in a bedroom doing something that requires a lot of trust and vulnerability, and it’s clearer than ever that betraying that trust and exploiting that vulnerability is really wrong.
@Erin Satie: Well said.
@Christine: Christine I too didnt like Daphne! I dont remember the books (am I wrong or in the minority in saying that after reading so many Julia Quinn books, they all blend together?). totally love and agree with the ‘prom queen’ comment. Also Rege Jean Page. Hard to like Daphne when the actress playing her is so bland and boring, and Rege Jean Page is so hot and so charismatic. Are you maybe implying that one reason people are so sympathetic to the Duke is because of Rege Jean Page and his likeability?
I’m sympathetic to your perspective and see where your coming from. I see where your coming from–and I dont judge Daphne so harshly either. In the end, I felt she didnt pay the ‘price’ for her actions really. She was forgiven too easily for me, but not because her actions were so reprehensible, but because it just really didnt feel like she cared about how she hurt Simon, and her relationship.I’m goint to say something that might be controversial (hopefully not!!) but I think the rush on the internet and in general to condemn Daphne has a lot to do with the current political environment, the aftermath of movements like #metoo. From that stems a desire to be really rigorous in the face of any kind of perceived or depicted incidences of sexual assault and that means widening the scope of that also–so its not something that has to stand up to a court of law, per se, but its something icky and speaks of violation anyway. For me, it was a violation of trust and intimacy in the marriage, so it was horrible for that reason. I didnt really see her as a villain, and neither was he. They were both horrible in different ways to each other, and it felt like how tragedies unfold–tit for tat until someone gets really hurt. Her act was vengeful and spiteful but he was also, as you said, the one with all the power. I understood some of her anger–and her grief—to be denied something that she wanted so much, from the one person she had come to trust (and love.) The scene where she gets her period was really powerful for me, watching Simon’s face, and then seeing her grief. Women bodies have been historically been the site of so much control–and women were denied so much access to thier own bodies, or were seen as just bodies, for procreation or for sex, that for her to feel grief about the ways she couldnt control her body–that felt painful to me.
but it all boils down to–what is acceptable within the bounds of a relationship? And in the end, if Simon forgives her, why cant ‘we’ ?
final thought–i agree that most viewers are watching and judging the show through a 21st century lens. Its hard to imagine any other way to see it, especially when it presents itself as a fantasy of history. So I agree with you that we are judging her by a modern standard, but thats a fault of the show itself.
In fact, thier whole relationship to me wasnt that romantic–it was fun to watch and I knew it would have a happy ending, but it didnt leave me on the edge of my seat wondering what would happen and they never had that sexual chemistry or great tension that defines some great on screen couples.
@Erin Satie: agree!! Thats my whole point about how her violation of thier intimacy–of the trust between them as a married couple and in thier most intimate acts and space–violates the whole relationship. It bleeds into other areas, outside of sex, and she never really atones for it. Simon can be hurt by sex, he can be hurt by a violation of intimacy in his marriage, even if he is a man. and a powerful one at that. As you said so nicely, they are two people alone in a bedroom, naked to each other in every way that matters.
@Janine: beautifully said janine! I guess I think two things–on the one hand, the show as you imply, operates more firmly in the fantasy territory than the historical. And its a racial fantasy as well as a historical one. So part of that is in some ways erasing race–the show doesnt talk about it really, or address it. and the real measure of difference and power is class–the duke has power as a duke, the queen as a monarch, the aristocratic ladies and gentlemen (by contrast we have the modiste or Sienna who dont have that power). Discussions of gender and inequality seem seem to be more important and central than anything like race or class–we have Eloise foregrounding it for us! Marina’s plotline is all about that too.
On the other hand– you cant produce any narrative, fantastical or realist, in which miscegenation is so central without calling up some of the loaded racial history behind it. I think this is more of a loaded issue in the US context, but I wonder what others think. I mean, how would the scene between Daphne and Simon play out if they were both the same race? I admit that when I first saw it, the violation of thier marital bond was the most striking ( thier race didnt really impact me on first viewing it)
I just want to add also–even if the show is written and produced in the 21st century, and depicts a racial fantasy as well as a historical one– its responding to modern audience’s desire to see diverse bodies on the screen. The history of visual images of racialized bodies is neverthless always a haunting presence. I dont think we could see
I never said what Daphne did wasn’t wrong, in fact I clearly stated it was very, very wrong. Saying Simon was wrong also, and much more frequently, doesn’t clear Daphne of her own wrong doing. They are both at fault. Thinking Simon isn’t a saint doesn’t mean I think Daphne is one. They are both wrong and both do bad things. Daphne does one very bad thing. Simon does a series of selfish, bad or self serving things during the course of their relationship.
I don’t excuse Daphne, but I also don’t look at her as I do a 21st century woman any more than I do Simon as a 21st century man. You have to consider the characters in the context of the show and their time period as presented.
Simon was wrong repeatedly as he used his advantage and power over and over on Daphne for their entire relationship. He controlled every aspect of their relationship from what they did to where they went even ending it abruptly at one point. Every sexual act before the time when Daphne takes control is portrayed as completely under his control and at his direction. The only time we see Daphne initiate or take any control in the bedroom is when she gets on top that time. Every aspect of their courtship, marriage and lives is entirely under his control and at his convenience.
Simon never communicates anything to Daphne, every piece of information she gets about him she has to ferret out from someone else or second hand letters. Simon really gives nothing of substance to the relationship, he sleeps with her and enjoys that aspect of their marriage but he never talks with Daphne to discuss their sex life, private life or his history knowing how completely ignorant she is in every way. Even by the end when they reconcile to live “happily ever after” his main contribution to solving the problem of their marriage is that he decides not to move to another country. It’s up to Daphne to discover everything about his relationship with his father, his childhood and figure out why he acts as he does.
Janine said “ would also postulate that he loves her more than she loves him. But I only feel this way because, to paraphrase Layla, I understand what she sees in him but not what he sees in her—and so I feel he must be really smitten to overlook so much. I saw his following her into the garden in that light, that he was overcome by his feelings and that it caused him to follow her though he knew better.”
I feel this is a reaction to your feelings about Simon/Rege Jean Page vs Daphne/Phoebe Dynevor rather than what is in the story or on the screen. Daphne is the one who risks everything because of her feelings for him. Simon has nothing to lose and Daphne has everything to. We are specifically shown several characters that represent what Daphne could become with the wrong steps. Simon can walk away unscathed. And if Daphne is the diamond of the season, a protégée of sorts of the Queen, sought after by a Prince and someone Simon loves spending time with, why is it so hard to see what he could see in her? If Daphne didn’t love him why would she give up a royal marriage to a young, handsome, kind royal? Marriage wise you can’t aim any higher than the royal family.
Janine said “re his race, sure, but now you’re cherry picking—he has all the power over her because here the rules of the actual regency, not the show, apply vs. she has no power over him because here the rules of the show vis a vis race do apply.
This is a difficult discussion to have because it’s not 100% clear what rules apply on the show and what ones don’t.”
I disagree, the show makes very clear it’s applying all the rules of the Regency period. It even spoon feeds us the ideas that women are treated badly and men have all the power by changing characters from the books and adding more female characters to highlight this oppression.
Violet Bridgerton of the books is a confident, widowed woman in control of her whole family but in the series they made her a retiring, weaker woman under the authority of her oldest son. Eloise of the books is an early Emma Woodhouse. She’s not someone who rails against the injustices of marriage and men, she partakes in six seasons doesn’t meet anyone she wants to marry and has a wonderful, comfortable life with no inducements to change it despite several proposals. It’s only when her closest friend and brother marry that she realizes she may be missing out on something and decides to look into marrying. The characters of Marina, Sienna and the dressmaker are written in to show how women are subject to rules men aren’t and how men control everything and ruin lives. Pretty much the entire show has been adapted to show how bad the plight of women is at the time and how little power and agency they have. The only really 100% happy female character is Lady Danbury who is a wealthy and powerful widow.
I agree that the show does a poor job of conveying many things, but it very deliberately chooses to show that the black characters have every bit as much status and agency as any of the other characters and that The Queen, Lady Danbury and Simon are at the top of the social hierarchy in money, status and influence.
Bridgerton had several choices to decide how to present its diverse cast. It could go the Hamilton route and just cast the roles color blind with no explanations, choose a fantasy or alternate history-as many Steampunk books do, or make it solidly historical with some explanation of how and when things occurred. It chose the last one but did a terrible, nonsensical job implying that Queen’s marriage changed everything when it didn’t fit the timeline.
It could have said it occurred during the English Civil War, giving almost 200 years for society to be completely diverse (but it also seemingly wanted the Queen to have played an important role). So it threw a couple of lines in rather than taking the time and crafting something that was thoughtful and made sense. It wanted to have its cake and eat it too by having the two main black actors address the situation without making it too serious or take over too much of the plot. Trying to say Simon is at a disadvantage based on anything from the book or the show is like trying to argue Aaron Burr in Hamilton experiences prejudice because of the actor who played him, and that’s simply not the case or anything Bridgerton presents.
One of the main problems of this adaptation is that it wants to retain the problems of the book (which frankly is a very weak book and shocked me when I read it because it is so well loved and popular) while sanding many of the rough edges off of the characters and their actions.
Book Simon is an angry, forceful character who deliberately keeps Daphne in the dark for his own agenda. He’s threatening and bullying when he discovers what Daphne did and as I recall there is at least the apprehension of physical danger from him. Daphne, while generally more interesting and likable in the book, deliberately takes advantage of a very drunk Simon to initiate sex and it is what enables her to physically hold him down in a much more shocking scene than what happened on the TV show. The TV show wanted to soft pedal both characters so it had Simon making a flimsy excuse about thinking Daphne knew and it presented 90 pound Daphne somehow controlling a stone sober Simon (at twice her size and weight) during sex. On the TV show there is no reason why Simon can’t just disengage from Daphne as he usually does- she doesn’t have him tied up. I guess it’s supposed to be that he’s just so caught up in what’s happening which is illogical based on how determined he is in the other scenes.
My disagreement with many of the arguments made here is that they pick and choose what to accept from the story as presented and what to ignore.
@Layla: Good points all. I think what you said about erasure of racial history is important, and on further thought I agree with you and Christine that gender and class disparities matter a lot more than racial ones in the fantasy that the show presents.
Yes! You’ve articulated what I tried to say much better than I did.
@Christine: Lots and lots of good points here and I agree that Simon’s harmful actions toward Daphne dragged out longer, and consisted of a series of actions, even if I do not see them in as harsh a light.
Still, I come back to the fact that I don’t think his *intent* was to hurt Daphne. Whereas I do think her intent was to hurt him and in my eyes, that pain does go deeper because of his history of having been abused.
I saw his failures to communicate with her about his upbringing in the light of his abuse as well—it can be extraordinarily to open up about these kinds of experiences (I know this from personal experience) and indeed, some people never do, even in years of therapy.
Therapy did not exist in this world and men are expected to be outwardly strong to a greater degree than women. To speak of something that might cause him to break down and cry with his new wife is asking a lot. I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been better if he had shared it with her but I don’t think it was his obligation to do that so soon after marrying. I’m honestly not sure if it’s a spousal obligation at all.
But aren’t the actors a big part of what’s on screen? In a television show, the actors bring a lot of the portrayal to their characters. Their facial expressions, gestures, vocal tones, physical actions (such as with Jonathan Bailey throwing himself on couches as Anthony), etc., tell us a lot about how to view the characters as do their costumes, (think Lady Danbury with her regal collars vs. Lady Featherington with her kitschy fabric dresses) and props (the queen’s dogs for example, or Lady Danbury’s stick). A character can show a reaction to Lady Whistledown’s pamphlets without even using words—with a squint, a gasp, a laugh, and each of the three would tell us something different about that character.
Between high school and college I had the experience of working on theater productions in many ways, some of them with a professional theatrical company. I was a dresser, assistant stage manager, assistant to the costumier, actress, playwright, director, and once, sitting in for the stage manager (probably my favorite of all these; in hindsight my greatest regret is that I never got to do the light board). And so I’m influenced by these experiences when I say that it makes no sense whatsoever—to me anyway—to try to separate the actors and story when they are part of the story, or even, if you’ve somehow divorced them, to assume the story is necessarily what’s primary. It’s all of a piece, that’s what a television show is.
That’s another example of the writers going with what’s convenient rather than what makes sense. Ditto the usefulness of withdrawal as a method of birth control, although we should put that one on Julia Quinn.
Yes, all right, fair. But isn’t that also a part of a reading or television viewing experience? We bring our own baggage to these experiences and they affect what strikes us as more important or less. Race many not matter in the world of the show but it matters a lot in our own world, for example. A viewer who is black or brown may be triggered by something that wouldn’t trigger me (I’m white). Would I not then be compartmentalizing something the black or brown viewer would not be able to compartmentalize? Such are all our experiences of fiction; we have different ways to measure what we read or watch.
@Janine, I agree that I don’t think Simon’s intent was to hurt Daphne. However, I think part of this was because he didn’t really spend a lot of time thinking about her feelings in this regard. I recently finished The Crown season 4 and Simon in some ways reminds me of Charles, but less jerky. His wife having her own ideas, desires and views about the marriage/relationship just isn’t something that comes up, for either man. In both circumstances, this unsurprisingly leads to serious marital problems.
Simon wasn’t obligated to share his childhood, though this would be part of building a deep relationship. He was obligated to be honest about his lack of desire, rather than lack of ability, to conceive. This was fundamentally quite dishonest and took advantage of Daphne. I think the show could have gone beyond the book and gotten into rebuilding the trust in their relationship…this part was glossed over (and I think in the book as well?).
@Christine, I was also surprised by some of the choices the show made. They had a lot of opportunities to shift away from some of the problems in the book, but didn’t. I’m curious about how some issues in the later books will be handled.
I feel like neither Daphne nor Simon gave meaningful consent to certain parts of their sexual relationship. Daphne’s actions are overt, and Simon certainly did not consent to having reproductive sex with her. Simon’s actions are more subtle, but Daphne made a lifelong commitment to a man who told here he could not have children, not to one who wasn’t willing to do so. That misrepresentation on Simon’s part was deliberate; did he think she would determine he wasn’t worth it if he’d told her the truth? As it is, Daphne did not consent to sex with someone who would deliberately try to avoid conception. That Simon’s violation is not as explicit doesn’t make it any less of a violation. It still doesn’t lessen what Daphne did. They should have both behaved like adults, but that would have been a very different conflict.
I’d like to think that Quinn would have written that scene differently today, and handled the conflict in a more nuanced way. The show was written and produced in 2019/2020, so they have even less of an excuse.
On a lighter note, it still bugs me to see Violet Bridgerton referred to as Lady Violet and not Lady Bridgerton.
I want to say thanks for all the great analysis I’m really enjoying the thought and time everyone is putting into their posts as well as the responses to what I have said.
In response to Janine’s statement “ Yes, all right, fair. But isn’t that also a part of a reading or television viewing experience? We bring our own baggage to these experiences and they affect what strikes us as more important or less. Race many not matter in the world of the show but it matters a lot in our own world, for example. A viewer who is black or brown may be triggered by something that wouldn’t trigger me (I’m white). Would I not then be compartmentalizing something the black or brown viewer would not be able to compartmentalize? Such are all our experiences of fiction; we have different ways to measure what we read or watch.”
Yes of course we all have unique experiences we bring to what we read or watch. I guess my point is this show is the brainchild of Shonda Rimes, probably the most influential and successful woman of color and person of color working in TV today (with the possible exception of Oprah Winfrey). Certainly the most successful in TV drama.
She hand picked Rege for Simon and selected The Bridgerton books herself. This is a woman who clearly understands racism, has experienced it her entire life and addresses it in her work regularly. If the show presents a Regency England where the most powerful and influential figures are people of color, and discrimination based on race is not a factor then that is a creative choice I will respect. I have zero doubt she and the other creators of the show are unaware of racism or discount it in any way.
This is the (in many ways) fantasy world she presents and wants to explore. While I will question aspects of the show that I think are poorly done, I am not going to write things in that aren’t intended any more than I will be like the litany of people on the internet who complain “there were no black Dukes” or “Queen Charlotte wasn’t REALLY a black woman”. I fully accept racism is real, that Ariana Grande songs are anachronistic for the Regency period and that women of 1813 weren’t really wearing glitter and diamanté covered prom gowns. But that’s not the world the show has created. It’s clear to me the show wants to present attractive, intelligent people of color in real positions of power and explore male- female dynamics and power issues so that’s what I am analyzing.
I do think it’s interesting that Simon gets a pass on sharing his feelings with his wife as it’s not era appropriate but Daphne gets no concessions about being a completely ignorant early 19th century girl/woman.
One thing I notice across the board with many shows and discussions is that there is a large contingent of female viewers who skew heavily towards the male star/character of the show. Whether it’s Jamie from Outlander or Simon from Bridgerton there is often a different scale for judging them and the women whether it’s Claire or Daphne or Bree. Maybe it’s because the female roles are “place holders” as some have argued in romance novels and many female viewers think they “don’t deserve” the male character because he’s more appealing to them than the female star or character. I think Daphne is resented for being the “prom queen” and too popular. It’s easy to like and cheer for underdog Penelope but despite her hardships in the show, Daphne doesn’t get a lot of sympathy. Perhaps it’s the cool demeanor of the character and the performance (there was a whole article on the actress’s “neck acting” recently) that turns some female viewers off when they are supposed to relate to her.
@Rose-I agree with every part of this wholeheartedly! Rose said “I feel like neither Daphne nor Simon gave meaningful consent to certain parts of their sexual relationship. Daphne’s actions are overt, and Simon certainly did not consent to having reproductive sex with her. Simon’s actions are more subtle, but Daphne made a lifelong commitment to a man who told here he could not have children, not to one who wasn’t willing to do so. That misrepresentation on Simon’s part was deliberate; did he think she would determine he wasn’t worth it if he’d told her the truth? As it is, Daphne did not consent to sex with someone who would deliberately try to avoid conception. That Simon’s violation is not as explicit doesn’t make it any less of a violation. It still doesn’t lessen what Daphne did. They should have both behaved like adults, but that would have been a very different conflict.”
@Christine: Thanks to you Christine and to everyone who has commented contributed and read the posts. This has been a really fun and engaging discussion and I also have enjoyed everyone’s perspectives and input.
The point you make about the show being a fantasy and Shonda Rhimes is a great one—
“This is the (in many ways) fantasy world she presents and wants to explore. While I will question aspects of the show that I think are poorly done, I am not going to write things in that aren’t intended any more than I will be like the litany of people on the internet who complain “there were no black Dukes” or “Queen Charlotte wasn’t REALLY a black woman”. I fully accept racism is real, that Ariana Grande songs are anachronistic for the Regency period and that women of 1813 weren’t really wearing glitter and diamanté covered prom gowns. But that’s not the world the show has created. It’s clear to me the show wants to present attractive, intelligent people of color in real positions of power and explore male- female dynamics and power issues so that’s what I am analyzing.”
I agree with what your saying and in my earlier comment I noted that what the show is most interested in is gendered dynamics within marriage and courtship, and also issues of female ambition and worth. Issues of class and wealth seem to be of interest also, and in some ways, the show functions as an interrogation of wealth and its advantages–sort of like, what problems do the wealthy and elite have? Well, issues of power, issues of sex and intimacy, issues of performance visibility and worth, etc. In that sense, the racial interest thats generated or rather the objections to racialized figures is a political reaction from viewers of the show, and I think that focus or interest comes from the current political moment were in. So any depiction of racialized characters–fantastical or not–would probably elicit a critical response. It will be interesting to me to see how the show will develop with other new characters who dont fit a black/white dynamic–South Asian, Asian, etc.
I also have said and will reiterate here that I celebrate the presence of non white actors and figures and that for me that works so well as a fantasy!! I loved the actors who played Marina and Simon and Lady Danbury and the Queen.
You make a really great point here:
“Whether it’s Jamie from Outlander or Simon from Bridgerton there is often a different scale for judging them and the women whether it’s Claire or Daphne or Bree. Maybe it’s because the female roles are “place holders” as some have argued in romance novels and many female viewers think they “don’t deserve” the male character because he’s more appealing to them than the female star or character. I think Daphne is resented for being the “prom queen” and too popular. It’s easy to like and cheer for underdog/\.”
This is totally true! And it seems women are the ones doing the judging. But its interesting that the show creator–a woman–has Daphne the heroine, be such a weak and listless character. I again think this is an issue of acting more than writing, but your comments did resonate with me. Having said that, ,there are ways to have a ‘prom queen’ type be interesting and complex and relatable. Like Emma Woodhouse from Austen.
Rose’s comment is also a really great one!!! Lack of respect in one area of a relationship bleeds into other areas, leading to escalating misunderstandings. Thats one thing the show did really well–showing us that.
@Christine: Thanks to you Christine and to everyone who has commented contributed and read the posts. This has been a really fun and engaging discussion and I also have enjoyed everyone’s perspectives and input.
The point you make about the show being a fantasy and Shonda Rhimes is a great one—
I agree with what your saying and in my earlier comment I noted that what the show is most interested in is gendered dynamics within marriage and courtship, and also issues of female ambition and worth. Issues of class and wealth seem to be of interest also, and in some ways, the show functions as an interrogation of wealth and its advantages–sort of like, what problems do the wealthy and elite have? Well, issues of power, issues of sex and intimacy, issues of performance visibility and worth, etc. In that sense, the racial interest thats generated or rather the objections to racialized figures is a political reaction from viewers of the show, and I think that focus or interest comes from the current political moment were in. So any depiction of racialized characters–fantastical or not–would probably elicit a critical response. It will be interesting to me to see how the show will develop with other new characters who dont fit a black/white dynamic–South Asian, Asian, etc.
I also have said and will reiterate here that I celebrate the presence of non white actors and figures and that for me that works so well as a fantasy!! I loved the actors who played Marina and Simon and Lady Danbury and the Queen.
You make a really great point here about different standards for judging female characters.
This is totally true! And it seems women are the ones doing the judging. But its interesting that the show creator–a woman–has Daphne the heroine, be such a weak and listless character. I again think this is an issue of acting more than writing, but your comments did resonate with me. Having said that, ,there are ways to have a ‘prom queen’ type be interesting and complex and relatable. Like Emma Woodhouse from Austen.
Rose’s comment is also a really great one!!! Lack of respect in one area of a relationship bleeds into other areas, leading to escalating misunderstandings. Thats one thing the show did really well–showing us that.
@Sydneysider: I agree that Simon was obligated to tell Daphne the truth about his aversion to conception. But didn’t Christine bring up his not telling Daphne about his childhood as an example of non-communication and that Daphne had to investigate / find out for herself? I disagree there and I was also upset when Daphne found his letters and went through them. Letters are personal and if they were put away in a desk then maybe she could have considered that he might have a reason for keeping them private? Perhaps snooping is understandable do a degree, especially a marriage like theirs, where she knows so litte about her husband. But it still upset me.
Also, while I agree he was obligated to tell her the truth of how he felt about having children, it’s hard for me to see how he could possibly have done that without going into how his father abused him.
@Rose:
As I said earlier (I think to Erin in Part I), he was trying to do the honorable thing and dissuade her from entering a childless marriage (thinking that she wouldn’t want that) when he told his lie. He expected her to lose her desire to marry him, not to announce that she accepted his proposal when he’d never even made one (and talk about non-consent there). If anything he was being selfless then.
Later—yes, he should have told her but it would have required him to reopen a painful wound. So if he rationalized that he thought her mother had already explained things to her, that was at least partly why.
I find that a very plausible reason, actually. A lot of abused children feel they aren’t worth anything, that there is something intrinsically bad about them and that’s why their parents didn’t treat them lovingly.
@Christine: Yes, the discussion is wonderful, I’m enjoying it very much too.
I actually was just using the way we read or watch across racial identities as an example of how a book or a show can provoke a different reaction in one reader / viewer than another, not addressing the issue specifically in this show.
However, since you’ve brought it up: Obviously neither Shonda Rhimes or anyone else on her staff is unaware of the issue of racism nor did they set out to include a scene that might trigger some viewers. or at least upset them. To say that a person from a marginalized group might craft a fictional work that has these effects on other people of that group due to the history they and members of earlier generations of their family have endured is not an insult.
Unintended consequences can happen to anyone who produces a fictional work whether or not they belong to marginalized group. Some black readers have said they were deeply unhappy with the scene for reasons having to do with the history of racism so I think we can conclude that both these things can be possible at the same time.
To give a personal example, I’m Jewish and I am unhappy with aspects of Raiders of the Lost Ark, mainly the treatment of the Ark and the treatment of Nazis (I can go into it in more detail if you like but I don’t want derail the conversation). But Raiders was made by Steven Spielberg and he is Jewish and informed.
I’m not suggesting that racism is a big thing in the world of Bridgerton series, I’m saying that racism a big thing in our own world and that these two worlds are constantly intersect when we watch the show. If people had somehow watched Bridgerton in the 13th century, their responses would be different than ours today. Right? That’s because our world matters too, not just the world in Bridgerton. We can’t all set aside our baggage and so it’s the intersection of our own time and place as well as our own personal experiences with the time /place/experiences of the characters that can make us view a scene such as that one differently than we would had Simon been played by a white man.
That is actually not at all true (re Daphne). If she had been a 21st century woman that clueless I would have been throwing my shoe at the screen because how could any woman of her age have not known these things in the age of the internet? That the storyline is even remotely believable and that Daphne is even remotely understandable is due in large part to the regency setting. So you see, I do give her a pass (a big one) because of her 19th century ignorant female background. It’s just that my pass doesn’t extend as far as yours.
It’s funny your bring up Outlander, I’ve always felt Jamie is a terribly bland Marty Stu character and i hoped that Sam Heughan would bring some dimension to the role but no such luck. On the TV show Clare is a far better character though I don’t like her either. I didn’t care for either of them in the book.
@Janine, I think he could have said that he did not want children. She may have asked for a reason, but he didn’t have to give that. This would have at least been a honest answer. Now, maybe the dueling ground wasn’t the place for it, but at some point he should have been honest. There are many ways to rationalise it, but at some level it comes down to them entering a permanent partnership and he hasn’t been up front about something critical. I can’t really excuse that.
I do agree with your point about marginalised groups…I don’t want to derail, but I despise Spielberg’s Schindler’s List to the extent I have never finished it, and find it sad that it’s one probably of the most watched Shoah movies.
There’s so much great stuff to respond to I almost don’t know where to start. Please forgive me if I miss something or someone here.
Layla said “ . It will be interesting to me to see how the show will develop with other new characters who dont fit a black/white dynamic–South Asian, Asian, etc.”
Yes! I am so interested to see how the character of Kate is handled. Unlike “The Duke and I” I thought “The Viscount Who Loved Me” was absolutely charming and funny. I am so concerned that they have just ruined the character of Anthony and he will be seen as completely unlikable after how he was written this season. Next season has the potential to be really fun.
An interesting thing to note is that they are changing Kate’s last name from a typically English sounding one to a South Asian one. This is important as Kate is portrayed in the book as the less attractive (brunette) sister compared to her dazzling blonde half sister (they share a father).
By making both characters (presumably) South Asian the show is a avoiding a really potentially awkward situation where the other sister is some other ethnicity. No matter what the other ethnicity would have been, it would have looked really, really bad to have one sister and ethnicity represent the “less attractive” one even if she is the “star” of the book/series. We saw really no concession to changing the names or anything else related to the change of ethnicities in the first series, so I am taking this to mean they are reacting to people’s criticisms regarding the Simon-Daphne situation and making changes to make the circumstances fit better. Or perhaps I’m just reading too much into it?
I’m very excited to see that they are really diversifying the cast even more as they go along, as many had pointed out that Asian and South Asian actors were not well represented in the first series.
Janine said “To give a personal example, I’m Jewish and I am unhappy with aspects of Raiders of the Lost Ark, mainly the treatment of the Ark and the treatment of Nazis (I can go into it in more detail if you like but I don’t want derail the conversation). But Raiders was made by Steven Spielberg and he is Jewish and informed.”
Actually, I’d love to hear more about that! (I am the original derailer for sure) but the way these discussions flow so organically is just so interesting. I love what everyone is bringing to the table.
And I agree completely about what you are saying about people’s reaction being so personal. There isn’t a single solitary “Black experience” or “Jewish experience” or fill in the blank of the group.
I know people love Sarah Maclean’s “Eleven Scandals to Start to Win A Duke’s Heart” and I actively despise it. It seems like the heroine is a bad caricature of the feisty Italian female that Gina Lolobrigida (whom I incidentally love) would have played back in 1960. I can just hear her yelling “I don’t have to make sense! I’m Italian!”
Janine said “It’s funny your bring up Outlander, I’ve always felt Jamie is a terribly bland Marty Stu character and i hoped that Sam Heughan would bring some dimension to the role but no such luck. On the TV show Clare is a far better character though I don’t like her either. I didn’t care for either of them in the book.”
Interesting! That’s the minority opinion for sure as most people in Romancelandia have strong opinions about usually one or the other, or both. I agree Jamie is a Superman kind of character who basically is Uber capable and can survive anything, but I do see him portrayed with flaws. He’s also one of the few Catholic characters that actually act Catholic (to me anyways). I brought him up because for years I have seen women write that he is the only reason they read Outlander, like Outlander etc. There’s a whole cult of Jamie. I like the character as well but I couldn’t have enjoyed the books (at least the first few) if I didn’t like Claire as well.
Sydneysider said “@Janine, I think he could have said that he did not want children. She may have asked for a reason, but he didn’t have to give that. This would have at least been a honest answer. Now, maybe the dueling ground wasn’t the place for it, but at some point he should have been honest. There are many ways to rationalise it, but at some level it comes down to them entering a permanent partnership and he hasn’t been up front about something critical. I can’t really excuse that.”
Yes, I agree. If Simon really wanted Daphne to understand and make an informed decision he would have told her flat out he never wanted children.
Sydneysider said “I do agree with your point about marginalised groups…I don’t want to derail, but I despise Spielberg’s Schindler’s List to the extent I have never finished it, and find it sad that it’s one probably of the most watched Shoah movies.”
Again, I find this so interesting. I didn’t know that Spielberg was looked at in this way by so many people. I’d love to hear more (if it’s not pulling us too far afield).
@Sydneysider & Christine: Yes I agree that Simon could and should have told Daphne the truth. It would have been difficult to do before the wedding given how carefully young couples were watched and how little privacy they were accorded. But perhaps he could have worked something out and even if not I agree he should have told her once she started asking questions. I’m just putting forth some reasons why it might not have been easy, both in terms of his having been abused and also (a point I have not made before) that after she announced their engagement, to break it off would have created a scandal, one that would have hurt Daphne’s reputation. I’m sympathetic to his position more than I am to Daphne’s and see what she did as the greater wrong. Still, I agree in the main. He should have told her.
Re Stephen Spielberg, what was your issue with Schindler’s List? I never saw the movie but I did read Thomas Keneally’s book (aka Schindler’s Ark in some countries). I thought it was good if very painful reading. I never saw the movie because i worried that it would be traumatizing for me. Many people have recommended it to me, though, and only one person criticized it.
W/r/t Raiders of the Lost Ark, I thought it trivialized the Shoah, the Nazis and WWII. They are chasing after the ark because that’s supposed to win the war? How about all the men who died fighting in that war? It wasn’t them who turned the tide? If the ark ensured their victory, does that mean that their sacrifices weren’t needed?
Further, the Ark of the Covenant is the lost but nevertheless holy chest designed and required by God as the holding place of the two tablets of the commandments. Few objects are more sacred in Judaism orthodox, I think, and certainly ultra orthodox Jewish people consider it sacred and sacrosanct. Using it in pop culture is, I suppose, inevitable, but it’s nevertheless disrespectful to these people.
Worst of all, though, in my eyes, is the treatment of the Nazis and their presentation as cartoonish villains. The Nazis were real people, same as you and me, with much similar good and bad qualities. Portraying them in a cartoonish light makes it easy for audiences to divorce themselves from the harrowing evil that the Nazis commitment, so that the viewer can then think, Those people were villains, nothing like me. In other words, such portrayals of the Nazis (and in other movies of Hitler too) aid in the process of shrugging off our collective responsibility to be vigilant where bigotry is concerned, to accept that genocide can happen anywhere, including where we live, and to commit ourselves to watch out for hatred of any one group as well as to acknowledge our culpability where we are culpable.
On a related topic, in the late 1990s the Italian director Roberto Benigni (he is not Jewish but his father imprisoned in an Italian concentration camp for a while) made a movie called Life is Beautiful. It deals with how the Shoah played out in Italy. The first half is lighthearted and the second tragic and devastating. Many Jewish people felt that it trivialized the Holocaust. I personally liked it but I can understand why others found it offensive. However, I was irked that Stephen Spielberg was among them. When Benigni won an Oscar Spielberg refused to clap. Oh, the hypocrisy.
Christine— W/r/t Eleven Scandals to Start to Win a Duke’s Heart, I read a very little of it, just the beginning, and quit mainly because I felt I was starting from the middle of the story. I meant to go back and start with book one but never did. But I too was irritated by the stereotypical portrayal of the Italian heroine. My maternal grandfather was (Jewish) Italian, born in Rome, and I also lived in Israel until age eleven. So I’m familiar with the hot-tempered, hot-blooded Mediterranean stereotype that is often applied to the Spanish, Greeks, Italians, etc. and it bugs me.
So here’s something I wondered about in the series, which sort of bears on the question of Simon as a husband. There was that whole sequence where after Simon realizes that his steward was crooked, he holes up in his office and gets to work. There’s a montage where Daphne wanders around, kind of adrift, and every time she seeks out Simon for company he’s busy. Finally, Daphne kind of pushes into his space and he notices her and then they immediately have sex on his desk.
This doesn’t really go anywhere–the show transitions pretty quickly after that to the pregnancy drama–which made it frustrating, but it seemed to *suggest* that Simon was disposed to be neglectful or disinterested in Daphne.
I wondered why the sequence made it into the show at all, since if it’s not developed it’s just taking time away from other issues which also needed further development, but it was one of those moments where I was really anxious on Daphne’s behalf, wandering around in this strange place, without any friends or family for company, trying to figure out what to do with herself. Which she’ll have to do, sooner or later, but the sense of being left to sink or swim was vicariously painful for me.
I guess I feel like, at that moment, Simon thinks that he can have his cake and eat it too. He gets a wife, and an active sex life, and he gets to keep his vow. And it seems he’s content enough to invest in the role of ‘duke’ in a way that he never has before, so he’s happy and ready to make a big change in his life, but then…? Why ignore Daphne? It was so odd.
@Christine, I am also excited for the second book. It was my favourite of the 4 Bridgerton books I read and it has an enemies-to-lovers feel. I think Anthony’s jerkishness may play well here, since in the book they spark off each other quite a lot. I’m excited about Kate’s casting and can’t wait for the second season.
@Christine and @Janine, I’m pretty sure this is not a widely shared view of Schindler’s List. A friend of mine is the grandson of camp survivors and has no problem with it. My issue is that, despite being a film about the Shoah, it basically focusses on the perpetrators like Goeth and the “good Germans” like Schindler, while there are few meaningful Jewish characters. It felt like the Jews were in the film to die en masse and make the audience feel sad. The only Jewish character I can remember who was somewhat fleshed out was the accountant…which is certainly an interesting choice on Spielberg’s part considering the stereotypes about Jews and money.
I think The Counterfeiters is an example of a good Shoah movie. The Jewish survivor is front and centre, and the evil of the Nazis is shown without getting into cartoonish portrayals. The Reader also has a good, non-cartoon portrayal of a Nazi and doesn’t shy away from what they did. I don’t think either of those films had Jewish directors, although I could be wrong about that.
@Erin Satie, that is a good point. I guess it does show his lack of emotional involvement at that point, but it doesn’t go anywhere after that. It may highlight their different expectations of the marriage.
@Erin Satie: Great point! To me, I read that scene or series of scenes as a kind of justification for or rationale for why Daphne behaves as she does later. She is driven to it! And in a lot of ways, his behaviour is cruel and neglectful. Love your point about his having his cake and eat it too—yes hes flourishing, having great sex, enjoying Daphne’s company when he wants at dinner, and finally doing his ‘duty’. She, meanwhile, is cast adrift and kind of lonely. I didnt think he was ignoring her–just relegating her to a comparmentalized box–shes good for intimacy/sex, and dinner convo. When its time to work, shes superflous! I guess it kind of makes a comment about the kids/childlesness–we see a glimpse into what her life might be without kids. Its kind of a bleak portrait of what it would be like for her without children or the ability to build a family like her origin family. Just great sex and meandering through hallways (although I’m not sure the sex being that ‘great’!). Until they overcome that central conflict, thier relationship wont be able to reach that second level of intimacy and love.
@Janine: I’m just curious Janine, not to waylay the great convo were having about the show, but does what your saying mean that an event like the Holocaust can only be understood through particular lens/genres? That for example, the dissonance your talking about comes from the mix up or mash up of comedy/adventure/romance with tragedy/history?
@Janine: oh and I agree with you about the depiction of villains as cartoonishly evil–thats a point that Primo Levy famously makes when writing about his time in a concentration camp. That being able to confront the reality of ‘evil’ or cruelty as quotidian and part of human life, rather than a kind of exception, is important to being vigilant about its continued (expected) reappearance.
@Christine: the thing is , I think that Simon is a bit conflicted. He doesnt want children because of the trauma of his childhood and his anger at his father–I never felt that it was such a deep seated belief or conviction (like some people I know today who dont want children because they dont want to contribute to environmental degradation or population growth, or dont want to pass on hereditery illlnesses, or simply dont want to focus on children in thier relationship.) It was an abstract idea or concept for him, I think–and in that, he only clings to it because he can get away with it. After the sex scene with Daphne when that is shattered, his response is not so much about the possiblity of kids–rather, its the betrayal from Daphne.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUIN04iIJrM
heres the funny SNL sketch I referenced if anyone is interested!
@Erin Satie:
I felt that way about the scenes where it’s clearly shown that the housekeeper is getting the wrong impression of Daphne and that she disapproves of Daphne as a result. This went nowhere and felt extraneous to me. I concluded that the writers felt that they needed a filler conflict to take up some empty time before the real conflict (over Simon’s purported infidelity) came to a head. I see the stuff about Simon being caught up in straightening out the dishonest steward’s mishandling of his property and finances as another thing of that kind. Not an indication that Simon will neglect Daphne in the future (the tonnage of sex makes me feel otherwise) but that the writers felt that they needed to put something there.
@ Erin Satie & @ Layla: I agree Daphne’s life felt somewhat sad and empty with Simon’s attention elsewhere. I cut him slack though because of the bad steward. I thought that once the steward stuff was cleaned up Simon would be caught up and have more time for other stuff, including Daphne.
On the other hand there was some truth there too. A lot of childless aristocratic women led empty lives in the 19th century. They were also pitied if they had no kids as well as seen as failing to fulfill their primary duty (I wish we’d seen a bit of these two things in the show, but I suppose they wanted to show that Daphne wanted a big family because she loved kids and not because it was expected of her to have some). There was charity work, visiting with tenants, having neighbors over and embroidery for women of the aristocracy to do but I’m not sure how much else.
However, children were typically given to nursery maids, governesses and tutors to raise, and boys sent to boarding school at a young age. Their mothers didn’t play a huge role in their rearing. I read (well, skimmed) a book about nannies in the Victorian era once and some of the boys they raised grew up to be more attached to them than to their mothers.
@Layla: Not exactly. Life is Beautiful, which I liked but lot of Jewish people didn’t, had a first half that was romantic and lightly comedic. But its second half was, as I said before, tragic and devastating. For me it worked because it didn’t fail to show the Shoah as a horrific series of acts for the purpose of ethnic cleansing, and it also showed the utter heartbreak of it.
I think that movie is an exception, though, and I said, many Jewish people were offended by it. Their offense is completely understandable, even though I didn’t feel it.
What I want from any work in which the Shoah plays a role is for the hopelessness, pain and horror of the Holocaust to be shown. For how harrowing and traumatizing (in a way that often carries through generations) it was to be portrayed. That two out of three Jews living in Europe at that time were killed, that when it was over and even the luckiest, the ones who escaped the fate of the camps, found that when they came back to their native countries they couldn’t find many of their relatives, acquaintances and friends. At minimum that (though of course there is much worse).
This is why I’d rather not see it in the romance genre. I feel that to write a successful romance these things would have to be trivialized since we are dealing with uplifting endings in the genre, and perhaps romanticized too, because romance by its nature romanticizes a lot.
I debated this with another romance reviewer once and I felt like we were at cross purposes. She insisted that a romance could be successful even if the characters were concentration camp survivors. I said I did not think the Holocaust could be done justice to in such a book. We went back and forth about it and finally she said she said it didn’t matter if the Holocaust was done justice to, that it wasn’t needed for the romance to work. If I remember right I quit the conversation soon after that because the conversation was starting to trigger me.
Perhaps there is a way for a romance to do justice to the Holocaust yet be successful as a romance too, but I can’t think of one. The triggering part of the conversation was the idea that the success of a romance was central but Holocaust representation didn’t matter as much. So I guess my bottom line on this issue is that I can’t answer whether some genres should stay away from it or not, but I feel that Holocaust representation should be executed well in any work in which it the Shoah plays a role.
On a side note—I think now that most survivors are no longer with us, we will be seeing (indeed, we are already seeing) the memory and horror of that genocide fade from our collective consciousness. Flat, cartoonish portrayals have become more common as a result.
@Sydneysider: About Schindler’s List—that makes sense. I’ve heard a range of opinions over the years, including one person who disliked it and described the movie as “capitalism saves the Jews,” and another who said that the movie did a lot of good in Germany in her native Germany by persuading young people away from Neo Nazi groups.
The prominence of the German characters at the expense of the Jewish ones is a change from the book, BTW. The book covers Jewish people extensively.
I have heard The Counterfeiters is a terrific movie and I’ve wanted to see it for years.
@Janine- thanks for the thoughts on Raiders, I confess I never thought about it that way. I didn’t think the Ark had any impact on the war though, as it was just one group of the archeology zealots and some troops that got taken out by the Ark? It reminded me of the Amy saying on The Big Bang Theory that everything would have happened the same way if Indiana Jones hadn’t gotten involved so him and all his struggles were kind of moot. I think I’m a little numb to religious objects being used as plot points in movies as I can think of a million that involved some miraculous artifact (usually Christian/Catholic and Jewish) to do everything from fend off the devil to fight Vampires. IMHO I think people treat Judeo-Christian religions differently than others (less sensitively) in pop culture and are far less sensitive about using their symbols and imagery.
I think Nazis have become go to villains for many movies as they are the one group that everyone can agree on is just “bad”. As you say, there is no need to try and give any nuance to the roles, they can just be pure evil. From my friends that are older than me and have been directly impacted, even residually, from those horrors it’s their stories of the “friends and neighbors” who turned Jewish families in to get their property as a reward that are some of the most chilling.
I didn’t know you grew up in Israel, I had the pleasure of going there several years back and it’s one of my favorite places I have ever visited. I don’t think people can understand the mix of religion and cultures there without seeing it first hand.
Erin Satie said “ I guess I feel like, at that moment, Simon thinks that he can have his cake and eat it too. He gets a wife, and an active sex life, and he gets to keep his vow.” That’s part of what I was trying to say in that Simon gets everything his way and never has to give on anything. Daphne has to come and fit into his life and his rules and he shows up for dinner and to direct their sex. He never has to really explain himself or apologize or try to build anything with his wife. Daphne does her sleuthing and interviewing and beats herself up over what she did and gets through it on her own. Simon shows up for the party.
Sydneysider said “ I’m pretty sure this is not a widely shared view of Schindler’s List. A friend of mine is the grandson of camp survivors and has no problem with it. My issue is that, despite being a film about the Shoah, it basically focusses on the perpetrators like Goeth and the “good Germans” like Schindler, while there are few meaningful Jewish characters. It felt like the Jews were in the film to die en masse and make the audience feel sad.”
Although I never considered that before I can understand this point of view. The Jewish characters have no agency and the bulk of the story is mainly about two (Christian?) German guys.
@Layla- From reading the book I remember Simon as just obsessively consumed with getting revenge and spiting his father even posthumously. His whole life is built around the father still and that’s the only reason he doesn’t want children. There’s a whole subplot about letters his father wrote to him and gave to a friend to deliver to Simon. Simon wants to burn them unread and has all kinds of ideas of what the father might have written to him after ignoring him his whole life. He doesn’t want them but puts them away at Daphne’s urging and years later reads them to find out it’s nothing personal or important in them, just some boring stuff about the estate. Simon was obsessed with his father but the father didn’t even really think or care much about Simon.
@Janine- I have to agree with you regarding Holocaust set romances. While people are free to write whatever they wish, I could never read one or stomach one. The kind of black miasma of despair that hangs over my mind when I think of anything associated with it just smothers the idea of romance and light. I can’t marry the two in my mind.
Janine said “On a side note—I think now that most survivors are no longer with us, we will be seeing (indeed, we are already seeing) the memory and horror of that genocide fade from our collective consciousness. Flat, cartoonish portrayals have become more common as a result.”
This is something I think of so often, how it’s just not part of the public consciousness as it used to be and should be. Growing up, the horrible lesson of that part of history was on TV in productions like Holocaust and in the books we read in school like The Diary of Anne Frank or in fiction purchased through the Scholastic book catalogues. The Sunday newspaper would carry stories in the Parade section about survivors and what they had suffered. I grew up hearing “Never Forget” and was kind of surprised that people had to vow that, because it seemed impossible people could ever forget something that terrified me more than any manufactured horror story could. Now the knowledge seems to be slipping away according to polls and studies. The Armenian Genocide is almost completely forgotten and the Holocaust is known of only by 1 in 10 people under 40.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by these figure when people are gasping with shock over how Charles treated Diana back in the 1980’s and 1990’s in The Crown. It’s ancient history to them. I suppose we have to hope that Netflix decides to cover the topic of the Holocaust in some series and put it back in the public’s eye.
@Janine, that’s interesting. I haven’t read the book and it’s good to know it doesn’t do that.
@Christine, I liked the Crown. I was surprised that they left out some of the more salacious things like the tampon phone call. The performances are great. Charles is very indifferent. Diana is there as a means to an end, and he wants everything his way: stay at Highgrove, do his gardening, see his mistress, etc. The idea that Diana is a person with wants and needs in the relationship doesn’t exist for him. I said this upthread, but there are a lot of parallels with Simon. Obviously, some clear differences in terms of the ending, but there are similarities!
@Christine, upthread (or maybe on another thread?) I saw a lot of parallels with Charles and Simon. Charles isn’t malicious, at least not initially, he’s just indifferent and wants everything his way. He wants to stay in the countryside, spend time with his mistress, do his gardening, etc and Diana’s wants and needs simply don’t enter into it. He doesn’t see her as a partner or a person with wants and needs. He’s genuinely surprised that she wants more than a standard “duty only” aristocratic marriage from him.
I did a long Twitter thread (rant) on this. I was so disappointed by the depiction of this in the show. Because Daphne never reckoned with her behaviour – she never aknowledged the harm or sought forgiveness, her violation of Simon’s body went completely unaddressed. If the show wanted to keep the conflict about Simon not telling her he did not want children rather than that he could not have them, then there were a number of ways to do it. For example, he could have just lost control during sex and been unable to withdraw (this is something that actually happens after all!) and then there’s no rape at all. Then, Simon could have been upset he hadn’t withdrawn, the truth could have come out and Daphne’s betrayed hurt would have made more sense. So would Simon’s refusal to have intercourse again afterwards. Or, Daphne could have just confronted him after she learned the truth from her maid. Instead, the show went for some kind of halfway house which did not help.
That Simon is Black made it even worse. A white woman violating a Black man’s body is even worse. I know the show is a fantasy but viewers in the real world watch it and they bring their experience to that experience. Showing this as “okay”, not even addressing it, no apology, no remorse, no negative consequences of note for Daphne at all is just offensive.
The other thing I realised about Daphne and Simon after I finished the series is that I did not really believe in their TV HEA. It seemed that Daphne needed a baby to keep her busy and occupied because Simon was too busy (even on their honeymoon!) to do anything other than bonk her all over the property. They didn’t really talk – he kept dismissing her because he was busy doing paperwork. I didn’t really see in the show how they would go on together. I didn’t get a sense of partnership in their marriage. I wonder if we will see more of Daphne and Simon in future series or if they will be relegated to (essentially) extras? I hope the former actually. There are things that could be developed even in small ways between Daphne and Simon. And, it would not go amiss for Daphne to have a revelation about how messed up her behaviour was to give Simon a heartfelt apology. (#notoverit clearly! LOL)
@Kaetrin: Those are interesting ideas for how the show could have changed the storyline to make it more acceptable. However I don’t think Simon refusing to have intercourse would have made sense—they did have condoms and sponges in those days. He could have insisted that they use both as well as withdrawal. IMO in the main the show was going for the antihero trope since it’s so popular in television shows and in that way the rape served their purposes.
Your point about how race enters into the rape equation—yeah, it’s an important point. That came up in our discussion above as you can see, but perhaps we should have said more about it.
The HEA did not work for me but more because Daphne didn’t love Simon enough to see that she was wrong much less to apologize and tell him it was okay if they had no kids. It made no sense for them to separate over this if they loved each other. After all she was happy and in love with him when she thought he was infertile, how hard should it be to accept his wishes after being forgiven? I’m still bitter too.
As for Simon’s neglect of Daphne a couple of our commenters brought that up in this thread. I didn’t notice until it was pointed out because I put his work focus down to having to undo everything his bad steward had done. But it’s a good point nevertheless.
I would have liked to see both characters working in their spheres of influence taking interest in each other’s work and slipping out from their duties to make love some of the time, too. After they married the show used sex scenes as a shortcut to show their happiness. That was good but not enough. I wanted to see their friendship, their interest in each other’s lives and their flirtation continue too.
@Janine: yes, this: “I would have liked to see both characters working in their spheres of influence taking interest in each other’s work and slipping out from their duties to make love some of the time, too. After they married the show used sex scenes as a shortcut to show their happiness. That was good but not enough. I wanted to see their friendship, their interest in each other’s lives and their flirtation continue too.”
As for the first point, after their big scene though Simon did refuse to have intercourse with Daphne because he didn’t want to get her pregnant so I think if the showrunner/director/scriptwriter could use that device then they could have used it other times IMO.
@Kaetrin: Re the withdrawal issue—yeah you’re right. It’s been a few weeks and I don’t remember what I was thinking when I posted that comment. Unless maybe I thought you meant that they could have had him refuse multiple times? I think if they had done that it might have become unintentionally comical to the viewers who knew barrier methods were in existence, but maybe they could have made it work. And I don’t think that’s what you were actually saying.
It occurs to me as I think further that if Simon didn’t want his father to have any descendants he could have just suggested to Daphne that they raise an orphaned child. Adoption as a legal option did not exist at the time but informal adoptions did. I suppose then we would have no story but it’s an obvious compromise that should have worked and yet was never mentioned. So in addition to all the other problems with the story, that storyline also suggests (intentionally or not) that biological children are superior to adopted ones.
I really do think that when it comes to Daphne’s rape of Simon, characterization was the writers’ primary concern and they wanted to give their show some antihero flavor. That’s a very popular and ubiquitous trope in television. I wouldn’t even be surprised if that rape was part of what drew them to the Bridgerton series.
Look at how they portrayed Anthony, whom they are setting up to be a central focus next season, They introduced him as unlikable within the first minute or two that he was on the screen—to paraphrase Layla, watching the clock while fucking outside in full view of his servant. And how callous that is to Sienna, whom he later claims to love. So I think they wanted Daphne to be a somewhat morally ambiguous figure.
I’m curious to see how future MCs will be portrayed since some of them are perfectly nice people in Julia Quinn’s books. There’s a biting tone to the show that isn’t in the books (as far as I remember from the ones I’ve read) and the controversy certainly hasn’t hurt their ratings.
@Susan/DC: Totally Agree. This was NOT rape because she did not “force” it on him. He appeared to welcome it. But: it was done with deception, that’s true. Not sure if that makes it rape.
@Martha Woodworth: You can look at it as consent but I would argue it’s not informed consent. Just as we feel that women should know what acts they are consenting to, I feel that everyone should be able to count on their partner to get their consent before they make an active effort to turn them into a parent. In some ways I see it as worse than rape, because if a child results, the consequences are even more long-lasting.
This was a fun discussion and Layla and I are planning a second one for season 2 that we’re hoping to have up in two weeks.