not to say bridgerton is s miracle of modern cinema. but why isnt a single gay regency good
notes on things about queer regencies that are bad and ponderings upon the regency genre as a concept: 1. i think like a decent amount of romances written today they fall prey to the Therapy Is Sexy attitude that no amount of historical trapping will ever make not jarring. relatedly. its not enough to say 'homosexual' you do actually have to research historical understandings of sexuality and queer culture i think. 2. and related to this you have to let your principals be monumental asses to each other.its like some of you bavent read pride and prejudice seriously. which 3. hm well not to say your characters have to adapt fully the sentiments of the period but like they should exist as background u know? 4. this one is maybe more controversial also but you need to have charavters that arent the two mcs and maybe a younger sibling. who will personify the scanadalized ton in a vacuum BOOOORING u r all boring. 5. im that one friend thats too shakespeare but like i think many regency novels would be improved if the authors framed them less like a romance plus cravats and more like a comedy of manners. plus cravats also lol. but i think inchresting how the genre of regency has lost this framing so quickly ?? put more social commentary and negotation back in the regency novel. this is also why 6. and this one is. definitely personal but idk if its possible to untangle regency romance from an ending of marriage/working everyone back around to an acceptable normative uninterrupted society. to me that narrative of conservative restabilization is kind of at the root of it for better or worse. not that it cant be done but i cant quite see my way to it
My hypothesis (or rather, the hypothesis we keep coming back to in my research group) is that romantasy has replaced the Regency romance because you can do all the ballrooms and aristocracy and rigid social rules without having to grapple with The Empire of It All and also The Cisheteropatriarchy, which is valid but also shows a distinct lack of imagination. I do think another significant part is an inability to divorce (pun intended) the idea of the Happily Ever After from monogamous marriage, but also I suspect a lot of people enjoyed Bridgerton but then did not get good recs for reading Regency romance and were turned off by what they read (such as the Bridgerton books, which are not at all what I would recommend to someone new to the genre in 2020). There are definitely authors who were doing funky stuff with the genre but you had to know what to look for!
I've enjoyed Cat Sebastian's queer Regencies, The Ruin of a Rake really leans in to how artificial the strictures of Manners are and she has some interesting thoughts about class she keeps coming back to. (Unfortunately there is an unforgivable dearth of f/f Regencies and the ones I have read really did not do it for me.)


















