#I think the episodic nature of a romance novel series presents inherent difficulties

[maddie-grove]

I know it was a natural decision due to the popularity of the books, but the Bridgerton novels are in almost every other way a particularly tricky choice if you’re going to adapt a historical romance series into a serialized TV show in the 2020s, thanks to:

The sheer number of books. There’s no way Netflix was ever going to get around to all eight of the main series. This might not seem like a big deal—no one ever relies solely on the interest of book fans when a book is adapted—but tapping into the lucrative romance market had to have been a consideration, and more of that audience could have been retained if it wasn’t clear from the jump that the adaptation would fall so short of being complete.

The existence of characters who are children in early books but adults in later books. And, really, the prominence of child characters, period. It would have been a lot simpler, timing- and labor-wise, to go with a series with fewer sassy tweens running around.

The relative sameness of the books. It’s not such an issue if you’re reading the books as they come out every year or so, or leisurely catching up with them years down the line, but I think with a show it becomes really obvious that you can easily condense the eight siblings into approximately five siblings: Anthony (type-A eldest son), a Benedict-Colin hybrid (aimless dilettante), a Daphne-Francesca hybrid (chill yet proper older daughter), an Eloise-Hyacinth hybrid (less chill nonconformist younger daughter), and a Gregory-Hyacinth hybrid (baby). Make one of them kind of an outsider who doesn’t vibe much with the Bridgertonian whimsy (probably the Daphne-Francesca) and you’ve got everyone basically. I’m saying this as a Gregory girl. Unfortunately, condensing the siblings would be an even more controversial move than just letting the series trail off.

The relative scarcity of side plots (multi-book or otherwise). The only real multi-book arc (aside from foreshadowing of future romances) of any note is the mystery of Lady Whistledown, which is solved halfway through the series. Generally side plots are resolved in one book. This is tough on a serialized TV show. Other romance series have more robust multi-book plots (Elizabeth Hoyt is good at these).

The lack of diversity. Romance novels are generally very white, and also just really normative in lots of other ways, and that was even more the case in the 2000s than now. But even by those standards, the Bridgerton novels are homogenous. Obviously this can be changed in adaptation, and it was changed in adaptation (although, from what I’ve seen people say, to limited satisfaction), but more diverse historical romance series do exist.

The rape scene in the first book/season. I almost didn’t list this, because it was a total unforced error in both media, IMO. It serves the exact same function as if they’d had an ugly verbal argument about having children. It ultimately doesn’t matter to either character or their relationship in-story, and I don’t think it’s even supposed to be titillating. I was honestly shocked when the show kept it in (and made it way worse by making the victim black and the rapist white…and also made it more…something…by having Daphne do it angrily rather than as a furtive attempt at getting pregnant). Still, many romance novels have no rape scenes. Let alone one of the most notorious female-on-male rape scenes of the genre.

Again, obviously they took what they wanted from the books and added in their own stuff, and I suppose that worked out for them just fine. It’s just interesting that there are popular romance series that would have been way more workable.