Bridgerton 📖 or 📺

[Anonymous]

This is probably the wrong place to ask but I’m hoping for real opinions. I’ve read tons of romance but NO historical fiction. I think I’m ready to dip my toe in the water. Obviously the Bridgerton series is a cultural phenomenon. Should I read the books, or is this a rare instance where the TV adaptation is better than the written version?

[Anonymous]

The show is very different from the books.

I hated the books. For example, Colin only falls for Pen when she loses weight. She gives up writing to help him publish his travel journals.

Benedict blackmails the woman in his book into dating him.

Anthony kicks Kate in the stomach while she's hiding under his desk knowing that she can't make any noise because someone else is in the room. The bee scene is cringe - he starts sucking on her chest after the bee stings her, his mother and others come upon them and they are forced to marry.

The show took the ideas of the books and improved upon them, IMO.

[Anonymous]

I read quite a few of the books and the prequels.

The book that matches Season 1 of Bridgerton is pretty good. There's also a prequel where a woman accidentally gets abducted onto a British spy ship.

All of the books are light, somewhat formulaic, and easy to read. I think I read three in one weekend.

I like the show for its diverse casting, revisionist history, and gorgeous costumes. On balance the show is more appealing.

[Anonymous]

The books are easy reads, great for escapism. I have only watched Season 1 of the show. Some of the characters are terrible in the books (also hated the Colin/Pen book).

I'll likely watch the other seasons, but I am happy I read the books first.

[Anonymous]

If you've never read any historical romance, it's hard to tell if you'd like them. They are about 20 years old, and stick to the fairly standard tropes of standard regency romance. I found the writing to be a little stale, to be honest. The main male character is always "roaring" his disapproval at something in the first book. There's lots of balls and dancing and etiquette. The series was very popular with regency romance readers before the Netflix adaptations were announced - following the entire family in the series was sort of novel, watching as they all grew up and found matches. They managed to hit different romance tropes for each book - enemies to lovers, friends to lovers, etc etc. But, at the same time, reading them now, there are what are considered to be problematic situations/themes as others have mentioned.

I do think the series is something else entirely. The revisionist history, the diverse casts, the music - it's just a visual spectacle that you don't get in the books, AND there's been subtle (and not so subtle) updating to make them more palatable for modern audiences.

They are fast easy reads - you could try the first and if you don't like it just drop it and watch the show, and think of the show as something different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you've never read any historical romance, it's hard to tell if you'd like them. They are about 20 years old, and stick to the fairly standard tropes of standard regency romance. I found the writing to be a little stale, to be honest. The main male character is always "roaring" his disapproval at something in the first book. There's lots of balls and dancing and etiquette. The series was very popular with regency romance readers before the Netflix adaptations were announced - following the entire family in the series was sort of novel, watching as they all grew up and found matches. They managed to hit different romance tropes for each book - enemies to lovers, friends to lovers, etc etc. But, at the same time, reading them now, there are what are considered to be problematic situations/themes as others have mentioned.

I do think the series is something else entirely. The revisionist history, the diverse casts, the music - it's just a visual spectacle that you don't get in the books, AND there's been subtle (and not so subtle) updating to make them more palatable for modern audiences.

They are fast easy reads - you could try the first and if you don't like it just drop it and watch the show, and think of the show as something different.

But it's not! This is a standard formula for historical romance series. It's why I was somewhat disapointed that Bridgerton was picked. There are so many issues with the books. Book one has a scene that is dubious consent at best and full on SA at worst.

Other regency romance series that follow families:
The Bedwyns - Mary Balogh
The Wescots - Mary Balogh (books are always start with "Someone to ___")
The Trewloves - Lorraine Heath (series is called Sins for All Seasons)
The Dressmakers - Loretta Chase
The Mackenzies and McBrides - Jennifer Ashley (based in Scotland, hilarious, just moved into the second generation when she took a break)
The Hathaways - Lisa Kleypas
The Ravenels - Lisa Kleypas
The Cynsters - Stephanie Laurens (this one might go three generations)
Pennyroyal Green - Julie Anne Long (flips between two families)
The Fitzhugh Trilogy - Sherry Thomas (lots of angst here)
Somerset Stories - Mimi Matthews

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you've never read any historical romance, it's hard to tell if you'd like them. They are about 20 years old, and stick to the fairly standard tropes of standard regency romance. I found the writing to be a little stale, to be honest. The main male character is always "roaring" his disapproval at something in the first book. There's lots of balls and dancing and etiquette. The series was very popular with regency romance readers before the Netflix adaptations were announced - following the entire family in the series was sort of novel, watching as they all grew up and found matches. They managed to hit different romance tropes for each book - enemies to lovers, friends to lovers, etc etc. But, at the same time, reading them now, there are what are considered to be problematic situations/themes as others have mentioned.

I do think the series is something else entirely. The revisionist history, the diverse casts, the music - it's just a visual spectacle that you don't get in the books, AND there's been subtle (and not so subtle) updating to make them more palatable for modern audiences.

They are fast easy reads - you could try the first and if you don't like it just drop it and watch the show, and think of the show as something different.

But it's not! This is a standard formula for historical romance series. It's why I was somewhat disapointed that Bridgerton was picked. There are so many issues with the books. Book one has a scene that is dubious consent at best and full on SA at worst.

Other regency romance series that follow families:
The Bedwyns - Mary Balogh
The Wescots - Mary Balogh (books are always start with "Someone to ___")
The Trewloves - Lorraine Heath (series is called Sins for All Seasons)
The Dressmakers - Loretta Chase
The Mackenzies and McBrides - Jennifer Ashley (based in Scotland, hilarious, just moved into the second generation when she took a break)
The Hathaways - Lisa Kleypas
The Ravenels - Lisa Kleypas
The Cynsters - Stephanie Laurens (this one might go three generations)
Pennyroyal Green - Julie Anne Long (flips between two families)
The Fitzhugh Trilogy - Sherry Thomas (lots of angst here)
Somerset Stories - Mimi Matthews

I disagree with you. A lot of the series you've listed here came after Bridgerton books started (or is a trilogy, which is not the same). I think this is something that Julia Quinn really helped to popularize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you've never read any historical romance, it's hard to tell if you'd like them. They are about 20 years old, and stick to the fairly standard tropes of standard regency romance. I found the writing to be a little stale, to be honest. The main male character is always "roaring" his disapproval at something in the first book. There's lots of balls and dancing and etiquette. The series was very popular with regency romance readers before the Netflix adaptations were announced - following the entire family in the series was sort of novel, watching as they all grew up and found matches. They managed to hit different romance tropes for each book - enemies to lovers, friends to lovers, etc etc. But, at the same time, reading them now, there are what are considered to be problematic situations/themes as others have mentioned.

I do think the series is something else entirely. The revisionist history, the diverse casts, the music - it's just a visual spectacle that you don't get in the books, AND there's been subtle (and not so subtle) updating to make them more palatable for modern audiences.

They are fast easy reads - you could try the first and if you don't like it just drop it and watch the show, and think of the show as something different.

This is good advice. The first book is one of the better ones, so if you don't like it, you can just chalk it up to not your thing.

[Anonymous]

i really enjoyed Poldark--the books and the recent TV series adaptation, with Aiden Turner.
---
If you don't want a series, try Middlemarch (the novel). There are several film versions. The book is wonderful, but please know it's not a traditional romance. Many of the marriages are unhappy, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i really enjoyed Poldark--the books and the recent TV series adaptation, with Aiden Turner.
---
If you don't want a series, try Middlemarch (the novel). There are several film versions. The book is wonderful, but please know it's not a traditional romance. Many of the marriages are unhappy, for example.

I love Middlemarch but yes— not light or breezy nor about particularly happy relationships. But a superb novel!

FWIW, I couldn’t get through a few chapters of Bridgerton but found the show (at least season one) fun and engaging.

[Anonymous]

I love historical fiction and some good romantic comedy books BUT I did not care for the Bridgerton books at all! Too fluffy and not at all like the show from a tone perspective.

[Anonymous]

After a bunch of my friends really enjoying the show (which I don’t have time to watch), I started reading the books. I dislike them quite intensely, I think because there are a ton of great ideas there but somehow instead of really exploring the possibility of eight different personalities and interests and sibling dynamics, the author has basically chosen to write the same character eight times.

Oh, and I hate that none of the women get substantial hobbies except Penelope, who gives hers up after marriage to minister to her husband. The men are allowed hobbies but they never talk about them during their POV sections so it really makes me the reader doubt they actually care about them.

That being said, I like that the books do at least touch on some more complicated relationship situations than “roughly 20-year-old virgin seeks spouse” which is different from all the Marion Chesney I read as a teen.

But if you’re looking for something really excellent in the historical Romance genre, I would recommend Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer, or KJ Charles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i really enjoyed Poldark--the books and the recent TV series adaptation, with Aiden Turner.
---
If you don't want a series, try Middlemarch (the novel). There are several film versions. The book is wonderful, but please know it's not a traditional romance. Many of the marriages are unhappy, for example.

I love Middlemarch but yes— not light or breezy nor about particularly happy relationships. But a superb novel!

FWIW, I couldn’t get through a few chapters of Bridgerton but found the show (at least season one) fun and engaging.

I’ve been reading Middlemarch interspersed with Bridgertons recently (I have Middlemarch out from the library on audiobook, Bridgertons in hard copy) and Middlemarch is so great! Definitely less happy and more complicated than the pure romance but I like the fact that many of the characters are still likeable — at least one gets the impression that the author likes them — and it’s not all unending misery like Thomas Hardy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After a bunch of my friends really enjoying the show (which I don’t have time to watch), I started reading the books. I dislike them quite intensely, I think because there are a ton of great ideas there but somehow instead of really exploring the possibility of eight different personalities and interests and sibling dynamics, the author has basically chosen to write the same character eight times.

Oh, and I hate that none of the women get substantial hobbies except Penelope, who gives hers up after marriage to minister to her husband. The men are allowed hobbies but they never talk about them during their POV sections so it really makes me the reader doubt they actually care about them.

That being said, I like that the books do at least touch on some more complicated relationship situations than “roughly 20-year-old virgin seeks spouse” which is different from all the Marion Chesney I read as a teen.

But if you’re looking for something really excellent in the historical Romance genre, I would recommend Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer, or KJ Charles.

I should add: I have been griping to a friend who’s only watched the show about the books and we’ve concluded that the show is better. Still light and fluffy and silly and somewhat full of plot holes but fun and enjoyable and interesting to watching (and the cast is very attractive). So to answer your question: go with the show much as it pains me to say that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you've never read any historical romance, it's hard to tell if you'd like them. They are about 20 years old, and stick to the fairly standard tropes of standard regency romance. I found the writing to be a little stale, to be honest. The main male character is always "roaring" his disapproval at something in the first book. There's lots of balls and dancing and etiquette. The series was very popular with regency romance readers before the Netflix adaptations were announced - following the entire family in the series was sort of novel, watching as they all grew up and found matches. They managed to hit different romance tropes for each book - enemies to lovers, friends to lovers, etc etc. But, at the same time, reading them now, there are what are considered to be problematic situations/themes as others have mentioned.

I do think the series is something else entirely. The revisionist history, the diverse casts, the music - it's just a visual spectacle that you don't get in the books, AND there's been subtle (and not so subtle) updating to make them more palatable for modern audiences.

They are fast easy reads - you could try the first and if you don't like it just drop it and watch the show, and think of the show as something different.

But it's not! This is a standard formula for historical romance series. It's why I was somewhat disapointed that Bridgerton was picked. There are so many issues with the books. Book one has a scene that is dubious consent at best and full on SA at worst.

Other regency romance series that follow families:
The Bedwyns - Mary Balogh
The Wescots - Mary Balogh (books are always start with "Someone to ___")
The Trewloves - Lorraine Heath (series is called Sins for All Seasons)
The Dressmakers - Loretta Chase
The Mackenzies and McBrides - Jennifer Ashley (based in Scotland, hilarious, just moved into the second generation when she took a break)
The Hathaways - Lisa Kleypas
The Ravenels - Lisa Kleypas
The Cynsters - Stephanie Laurens (this one might go three generations)
Pennyroyal Green - Julie Anne Long (flips between two families)
The Fitzhugh Trilogy - Sherry Thomas (lots of angst here)
Somerset Stories - Mimi Matthews

I disagree with you. A lot of the series you've listed here came after Bridgerton books started (or is a trilogy, which is not the same). I think this is something that Julia Quinn really helped to popularize.

If I'm not mistaken, JQ had written a few books that didn't take off, then she wrote The Duke and I that got some traction. I believe it was Stephanie Laurens who started the popularity of the families with Devil's Bride and the Cynsters that was released in 1998.