If you're going to be historically inaccurate in a period romance for the sake of politically correct diversity - fine. You can be forgiven for that.
If you want to argue that what you're writing is 'fiction' so you're entitled to write whatever you want - fine. It's true. You can.
But.
If you do, if you proceed to go where angels fear to tread, then you had better make damn sure the 'fiction' you're writing is amazing.
Unfortunately, this Bridgerton adaptation by Shondaland is anything but. It has all the 'amazing' of beige wall paper in a beige room with beige furniture. You just get slapped in the face with all the disappointing beige.
Shondaland has completely rewritten the best parts of "The Duke and I" and turned it into a generic shadow of its former glory. All that remains of the original story are bare bones.
Just focusing purely on the story - the shows writing is uninspiringly generic, with tired old storylines introduced.
Why???
If it ain't broken, why fix it?
The original story is amazing. It needed nothing. No fixing. And instead, Shondaland broke it.
Pretty is all well and good on camera, but it's not enough to make a great show. A great show needs more. Where is the humour? Where the sparkling dialogue? Where the personality?
Muscles, beauty and gratuitous sex do not chemistry create. Personality is sexy. Originality is sexy. Humour is sexy. Sexy things the book has in spades. Things this show has not been able to reproduce.
But the worst atrocity Shondaland has committed?
The characters. They lack character.
They have been recreated as barely there shadows of what they are in the books. Almost all of them.
Anthony: Unrecognisable. His treatment of Daphne, his surly immature moodiness, and his wanting to run off with an opera singer. Not Anthony. Anthony always put his family first in the books because he thinks he's going to die young like his father did. He would never have forced his sister to marry anyone. Anthony was charming, confident and kind.
Daphne: In the books she was never "a diamond of the first water". Daphne had been out three seasons already. She was a very likeable, down to earth, easy to get along with, dark haired girl - not a clueless insipid vain blonde. Her friends were the wallflowers. All the gentlemen felt comfortable with her.
Simon: In the show Simon is a bland generic hero. All muscles no brain. No real conversation. No humour. Simons famous stutter makes no appearance whatsoever, except as a child. Simon in the books is reserved but passionate, super smart, longing for family. He is thoughtful. In my opinion this actor had no emotional range. He was wooden. He actually made me yawn.
Simon and Daphne together in the show are also uninspired, lacking real chemistry. In the books they sparked. They were funny. They made you love them as a couple.
Colin: In the books Colin has a way of seeing into people. He is probably the sharpest and most insightful of all the Bridgertons. Colin in the show is a clueless puppy. And his hair is terrible.
Violet: Where was Violets sparkle? Her moxie? In the books she is admired and adored by all her children. Violet has a sly sense of humour, especially when it comes to match making. She outwitted her children. She knew what she was about. She is a respected leader in society. She made things happen. Violet is not the worried lip-biting unsure mother the show has given us.
Lady Danbury: In the books Lady D is sassy, opinionated, and scathing. She says things to throw people off balance. She's feared in general. She's a menace with her cane. The shows Lady D is too refined, too tactful, too nice. Lady D did not openly play match maker with Violet.
Lady Whistledown: She is witty - never truly mean or cruel, which turns out to be Penelopes saving grace in the end. We loved reading Lady Whistledowns humorous observations in the book. The ton eventually see it as a right of passage in society to be mentioned by her. But in the show, they paint her petty, cruel and hated.
Bridgerton Family: The family in the books is loud, boisterous, irreverent, loving and fun. They joke, tease, talk, play and are fiercely loyal to each other. They are all friends, which makes them differ from the usual ton families. In the show, that family makes very little appearance. The family of the show is (for at least 6 out of the 8 episodes), shallow, vain, fraught, disjointed, uncommunicative, distant and, to be honest, a bit annoying. This is not the Bridgerton family of the books.
In short, many of the 'read the books once a year for years' fans, will, like me, be very disappointed with this series. Some adaptation is always expected - but an almost complete rewrite?
Make no mistake about it, Shondaland has rewritten, dismantled or removed the majority of the best parts of 'The Duke and I' for this show.
Let's hope they do better with season two.
