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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.