Friday, April 29, 2022

A Professor Passes on Western Civilization and Disciplined Inquiry. Her Students Surprise Her

 

When Teacher's Back is Turned Jacob Taanmann

A Professor Passes on Western Civilization and Disciplined Inquiry
Her Students Surprise Her


Professor Josephine K surveyed her classroom. It was ugly. The cinder block walls were painted the gray-green of old pus. A misguided architect had placed this classroom's single row of hopper windows so high so that no student or teacher could glimpse outside. Spring was out there. Winter's monochrome and claustrophobia had retreated. Eye-popping color and wide open spaces replaced snow and cold. This wasn't a prestigious university, but you couldn't tell that from the grounds. Acres of rolling, green hills seemed to extend all the way to the Manhattan skyline. Professor K was on this campus so long ago that she remembered the World Trade Center punctuating that skyline.

 

Overhead fluorescent lights seemed to tinge everyone in the class with a touch of gray-green. Prof. K was always surprised when she had to make a library or conference run to the nearest Ivy League school. Ivy League students all looked like they'd stepped out of a Vanity Fair multi-page ad for designer clothes. Perfect teeth, posture, hair, accessories.

 

Not on this campus. These students were up all night working at a bakery. Or these students were first generation and their mamas proved to themselves that they'd overcome homeland oppression and poverty by stuffing their children with Little Debbie Cakes until they were obese. Or these students were, for reasons Prof. K might never know, without easy access to bathroom facilities and basic hygiene rituals. Prof. K liked to move around the classroom, and she always had to brace herself passing through some students' territories; the odor was gag-inducing. Clothes were never new, always whatever was closest to hand. Even the youngest faces were etched with anxiety; prescription-or-recreational-drug-induced lethargy; or the kind of sadness that should only drench the face of a much older person. And then there were the faces ready for combat, the kind of facial expression that silently shouts, "You want a piece of me?"

 

What would a stranger see who walked into this room? An obese girl whose leggings barely completed the forced march around her buttocks; leggings that not only didn't conceal, but that enhanced to topographic-map-intensity, the cottage-cheese-like cellulite of her thighs. The boy with the nervous tick. A short, skinny kid whose mere physical appearance seemed an engraved invitation that any bully could decipher. A 19-year-old girl sneaking glances at her phone because she left her two toddlers in her parked car. She couldn't pay the daycare bill.

 

The one thing they all had in common was that they had nothing in common. A few were black, but "black" meant born in Newark, NJ, to descendants of slaves. Or born in Guyana and spent early years barefoot and in a shack. Or born to two doctor immigrants from Nigeria and now a straight A student and headed to a free ride at an Ivy League grad school. A few were white and "white" meant a very good high school student who was cut from his college of choice because they weren't taking any more white males; rejected by his dream, he came to this campus, and has resented it ever since. "White" also meant a 17-year-old cancer survivor, not assured of many more years, but getting a college degree just in case they come up with a permanent cure. In any case fulfilling the dream of going to college was better than sitting at home, passively waiting for the Grim Reaper. Many students were various versions of the catchall term, "Hispanic:" Caribbean, Mexican, Peruvian.

 

That's what a stranger would see. That's what Prof. K saw when she first walked into the class, five months before. She saw an ugly room and students who didn't look happy, or even capable of happiness.

 

That very first day, as she always did on every first day, she required all students to introduce themselves and one other student to the class. She learned that the girl in the overstuffed leggings was writing a romance novel – and was producing publishable prose. She learned that the angry white boy was taking care of a father with lung damage caused by his work as a fireman. She learned that the frail looking student lived in a haunted house. She didn't believe in ghosts, but his account was mighty convincing.

 

Over the course of the semester, this ugly room and its ragtag students was transformed from a pumpkin to a magical carriage, just like in the old Disney Cinderella cartoon. Prof. K would be crying when she exited this room. Today was the last day. It had been one heck of a semester. But, then, it was always one heck of a semester.

 

The four, ugly walls of this classroom were her castle keep. She had to push so much out, to nurture anything of value within.

 

"Oh, yes, I let them use their phones in class. So what if they are playing games or doing Facebook? If they are not interested in the class, that is not my concern." "Sure, let them arrive late. This is a commuter campus. They are coming from jobs. We have to be flexible." "Oh, all my students call me by my first name." Prof. Josephine K heard her fellow professors voice these opinions of modern pedagogy. Prof. K wanted all of that kept out of her classroom, as if it were the plague, a microbiological threat to the life she hoped to cultivate. A life that many of her students had never been exposed to.

 

She demanded that they arrive on time. That they put their phones away. That they raise their hands and be recognized before speaking. That they address their fellow students by name, and make eye contact with them. That they read. Write. Think.

 

Prof. K remembered that terrifying phone call on the first day of the semester. It was her boss. Why would a boss call her at home? She hadn't felt this nervous since nuns called her parents to report an infraction. Her boss told her that her syllabus had traumatized a student, and the student had complained to a dean. "Your syllabus says that students must attend class if they want to pass. We can't make such extreme demands."

 

She wanted to dig a moat around her classroom. She wanted to erect high, impenetrable walls. She wanted control over the drawbridge, to allow in, only, that which served her goal. She wanted her students to think.

 

Her syllabus told students to go to the bathroom before and after class, not during class. This shocked them. Not to wear baseball caps in class. "Apparel communicates to the body, and to the audience: this is what I am about. We are not here as part of a sporting or social event. We are here to serve truth." Students would get up and charge out of the room, with promises to report her.

 

"Report me? Get in line," she'd say.

 

She was ready to be hated. She was ready to be fired. But she was determined to teach. Because she was once one of them. She was once the fat girl coming off of an eight-hour shift as a nurse's aide, still wearing a pink polyester uniform; or from cleaning houses, still smelling of Clorox; or with sawdust in her eyebrows, after doing the university's carpentry, to make school possible. She was dyslexic, outside of her natal culture, not speaking her first language. And she had discovered, in classrooms like this, truth. And she wanted others to have access to that.

 

The other professors taught a relativism that mocked the very idea of truth. She wanted, within this castle keep, to let students know that truth matters, and that they could get as close to truth as anyone else, using time-tested methods inherited through Western Civilization from the Greeks on down.

 

Truth is abstract. How to communicate that abstraction to someone whose first language is not English? How to communicate the value of truth to someone who is just attending college to go through the motions necessary to get a degree? How to inspire students whose friends didn't get degrees, but made good money, legally or not? How to bring on board students whose friends did stick it out, who laid out the massive expense for tuition, and ended up working produce at Shoprite? How to get past the message from parents who somehow both wanted a child with a college degree, but who had complete contempt for intellectual activity? Who actually punished their children for "wasting time" by reading when they should be looking after abuela? How to communicate to that student that this wasn't going to be like other classes, where you didn't show up, or showed up late, or showed up on time and used your phone to text with your friends throughout class, and still got an A, if you could, at the last minute, pump out a three-page paper on how oppressed you were and how much America sucked?

 

"You've just been told that you have a brain tumor," she said to her students. "Or your mother. Or your kid. A brain tumor. What do you do? You go to the internet. You find a website that recommends that you drink apple cider vinegar and take coffee enemas. You do that, then, right? Because you found it on the internet. So it must be true, right?"

 

The students would stare at Prof. K. Were they supposed to be taking notes? Would "Coffee enemas cure cancer" be on the final exam? The embittered, smart white guy couldn't wait till class was over, and he could tell those high school friends, who had gone on to more prestigious universities but who had stuck with him through his disappointment, that he was paying tuition to hear some lunatic tell him that coffee enemies cure brain tumors. Which had nothing to do with the subject matter, and wasn't on the syllabus at all.

 

"It's not true," she finally said to her students. "You know it's not true. Coffee and cider vinegar don't cure cancer. Look, you can speak up in this class. If someone says something absurd, you can object. You should object. Every time you sit still when a professor says something absurd to you, you are practicing to be a cog. Not your best self. Not an integral, thinking, being made in the image and likeness of God. Not an active participant in democracy. The key is to object in a civil, scholarly way. Don't shout or throw tomatoes or post an anonymous critical comment online along with my name and address. Tell me to my face why you know something is not true. Why you know that if you, or someone you love, God forbid, is diagnosed with cancer, you will not dose that person with vinegar and coffee."

 

And they'd be stumped. How do you differentiate between fact and fiction? The standard in other classes worked like this: My tribe, true; enemy tribe, false. A "white man" was not my tribe. Without that standard, how do you find truth? And then how do you disagree without cancel culture's tools of rage? These questions segued into the semester-long conversation about the scientific method, and peer-reviewed scholarship, and cui bono, and Occam's razor – all terms they seem never to have heard, previously.

 

She remembered meetings with other, tenured and tenure-track professors. These meetings always seemed to begin with a joke about how stupid the students were, and how much better it would be to be on a more prestigious campus, though the view of Manhattan's skyline reminded professors why they wanted to be here. With good traffic, you could make it downtown in an hour. But, yes, it would be so much better for the career if one had better graduate students with whom to conduct serious research.

 

Prof. K wanted to scream during those comments. The tenured professors weren't just talking about their students, they were talking about her students, and they were talking about her. Similar professors from similar prestigious universities had said similar, disparaging things about her and her classmates when she was an undergrad decades ago. Ultra-liberal professors with hip "No Nukes," "Save the Whales," "My Other Car Is a Broom" "Love Makes a Family," and "McGovern" bumper stickers would say, in class, to their students' faces, that the nature of a less prestigious school made it difficult, if not impossible, to get to the heart of this essay, this poem, this theory, this work of art. There was this better world out there – Greenwich Village, Princeton, Cambridge, Provincetown – where the really smart, sophisticated people hung out. And this artist, this theory, this theorem, would be understood there. By the better people. Who, it was understood, would not, as most of these students did, attend church, or live at home with their parents, or work blue-collar jobs, or vote Nixon, or feel constrained by having been brainwashed by capitalism and the bourgeois work ethic.

 

"Our students are not mentally retarded!" Prof. K shouted, more vehemently than she had hoped, at one staff meeting. "They can learn just as much as anyone! We just have to raise the bar and make sure that they make it over that raised bar. As long as we keep lowering the bar, as long as we keep assigning A grades for mediocre work, we sabotage our students. It's not fair for us to complain about their performance when we are the ones shaping their performance with our teaching, our evaluations, and our expectations."

 

Everyone stared at her. The meeting paused. And then it picked up again, and no one referred back to what she said.

 

But the "Our students are so inferior" lament was not the worst thing she heard at a staff meeting. Nor was the frequent and gratuitous knocking of Christianity. The worst thing she heard was "Our students would have no interest in / ability to understand / use for that."

 

"Our students, being majority minority, would have no interest in Shakespeare … dead, white males … Ancient Greece … the rigor of a formal research paper … Standard English … The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."

 

She knew they were lying. She knew students came to this country, to this college, wanting to master the riches of civilization. She encountered the students' yearning in their efforts at hypercorrect speech patterns, in their awed mention of cousins who had gone to more prestigious schools, in their references to their parents' dreams for them, in their grasping at any excuse to drop a famous name into a conversation. "As Socrates said … " they'd begin. They wanted someone to know that they had heard that name. "Socrates." And they wanted to be guided to being able to drop that name with more skill. "Did I get that right? Will you talk to me as if I am one of you? Can I be part of this now?" their eyes begged, after they dropped famous names.

 

Powerful professors were deciding that minority students, poor students, students from the inner city, had no place in the most advanced traditions of Western Civilization.

 

"I use rap lyrics in class … I have them research questions on their phones in class … whoever gets the first answer gets a prize … sonnets are a white form and minority students don't respond well to them … they don't like rigid writing rubrics. I show them something like the George Floyd video and have them write about their feelings. Very successful."

 

Four gray-green cinder block walls. She had worked on those walls with the diligence of a medieval mason. She had practically earned a signet ring with a square and compass insignia. Inside these four walls, a student who may or may not be dead from cancer in a few years researched a final paper topic that had nothing to do with cancer. She got to lose herself in the search for truth. A resentful young white man became best friends with someone whose parents were born in Nigeria. A conspiracy theorist switched from "doing your own research," meaning, in his mind, finding websites that fed his private fears and rages, and dipped into peer-reviewed articles, and decided that he was wrong about something: "Maybe vampires don't exist!"

 

And then there was Sancta. When Prof. K walked into the class the very first day, her eyes met with Sancta's, and Prof. K knew she would either win Sancta over, or she would be defeated by Sancta. Prof. K was not to be defeated.

 

Sancta was big and hard. She was from a violent and notorious ghetto. When she told other students where she was from, they waved their hands as if they'd touched something hot. The good, white student sat as far away from Sancta as he could get. He just didn't want any of that drama, and he knew drama was inevitable.

 

Sancta was rude, obscene, disruptive. One day, Sancta tried to convince the class that "The Jews" had carried out 9-11. Sancta was genuinely innocent when she insisted on this. Sancta had no idea why it was outrageous or even controversial to pin 9-11 on "The Jews." In Sancta's tiny universe, that "The Jews" had carried out 9-11 was knowledge, not hateful conspiracy. Sancta had almost certainly never had any close contact with Jews in her life. And she had already learned, not just to hate Jews, but to regard them as non-human, as diabolical. Sancta worked in a neighborhood where young black men regularly were seen in surveillance videos beating up on Jews.

 

Prof. K said, "This is really interesting, Sancta, because I am Jewish, and I disagree with you." Prof. K wasn't Jewish, and she would, before the semester was over, reveal the ruse she was using. She wanted Sancta, simply, to think, and letting Sancta know that Jews are real people, people she might meet in real life, shook Sancta up enough that she began to think and behave differently.

 

Do I punish this student in front of the rest of the class, as an object lesson? Do I ignore her? Do I try to befriend her? There were so many different methods. You tried one, you moved on to another, you tried to stitch together enough minutes devoted to learning, not to trying to get Sancta to focus. One day Prof. K tried pizza. She brought a couple of fresh, hot pizzas into class and distributed the slices. That seemed to win some over. But what ultimately worked with Sancta seemed to be what Prof. K had been trying all semester. Truth. Thinking. Being introduced to one's own mind, one's own questions, one's own path of discovery through the routes laid down by scholars long past.

 

Sancta wanted to know something. Prof. K helped Sancta to find the right peer-reviewed articles, to ask the right questions, to fashion the right thesis statement, to devise a research design, to carry that research out. Sancta and Prof. K worked on the project after class in a shared adjunct office. Sancta would stick around the office longer and longer, even after her work was done. One day, Prof. K realized, "My God; this girl loves me." And Prof. K felt very embarrassed. She had no idea what to do with love. She'd been working too hard on building a castle keep, within which scholarship could take place.

 

But it didn't matter that Prof. K didn't know what to do with Sancta's love, because, as happens every semester, the semester was now over. And Prof. K would never see any of these young people again.

 

"So, today's the last day," Prof. K said to the class. The students looked, as they always looked, bored. Prof. K soldiered on. She'd been teaching long enough to know that "Students look bored" didn't always mean that students were bored.

 

"Remember when you were writing your final papers, and I gave you such a hard time about placing the period outside the parenthetical citation, rather than inside? And you became so angry, and said, that's such a petty thing, what difference does it make?

 

"Well, here's what difference it makes. After you leave this room, and this campus, you are going to want to continue making your life better. You are going to apply for jobs. And the person hiring you may not be smart enough or careful enough or have enough time to discover what you have to offer. They will end up judging you on something petty, like whether or not you know where to put a period after a parenthetical citation, or some other task that proves that you know how to follow instructions. As the saying goes, 'Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.' Learn where that period goes and put it there. Then, once you've taken care of that, expand your wings, and make your unique contribution.

 

"Why did I work so hard to hammer all that into you? Because the world is a tough place, and I want you to be ready for it. I want you to conquer it. Not with rage or nihilism but with your blossoming beauty. Every spring new flowers knock our eyes out, and make us forget last year's flowers. Do that. Be that. Be the new blossoms.

 

"I hope that whatever else you've learned in this class, you've learned enough about the search for truth, that if some pompous person tries to belittle you or talk down to you or pull the wool over your eyes with some statement you don't really understand, you can deploy what you learned in this class. Throughout the rest of your life, people are going to throw information at you, as if you were a soldier on a battlefield bombarded with information.

 

"'Buy this! Sign up for this! Worship this! Join this!'

 

"Pitchmen of various types will toss big words at you, packaged in incomprehensible sound bites: 'Remember what the Nazis did! So sign this petition!' Or, 'We can't take that route! Remember what happened to the Albigensians!'

 

"Now you know how to handle that. If someone tells you to remember what happened to the Albigensians, or mentions some other word you're not familiar with, you can research it. You don't have to stumble alone in the dark. You won't be intimidated. You'll be able to keep your head and your self-confidence in spite of any confusion you might feel. You'll know how to find out exactly who the Albigensians were, and why this person brought them up. Use your tools for finding truth, and come back at that person with all you've got, all you learned in this class. Goodbye now, and have a great life."

 

That was it. Prof. K said her goodbye. The students would leave the class, and, alone in the room, she could shed a few tears before beginning her own way home, and the preparations for next semester.

 

But something was wrong. The students were not leaving. The class period was over. They had to leave. Go to other classes, go to their jobs, go get their kids. But they just sat there. Prof. K had no idea what was going on, or how to react.

 

Sancta raised her hand. Prof. K wanted to say, "Sancta, it's the last day. You don't have to raise your hand any more." But Prof. K said, "Yes, Sancta?"

 

"You have to tell us," Sancta said.

 

"Yeah, you have to tell us," the young white man said.

 

"You can't let it go at that," said a student in the back who had barely spoken all semester.

 

"What?"

 

"About the Albigensians."

 

"Who were they? You have to explain. Tell us the story. What happened," they had to know before they could leave, "to the Albigensians?"

 

Prof. K wanted to die and go to Heaven right then. But she did not. She gave a brief talk on the Albigensians, on the last day of class, a beautiful spring day.

 

Our students can't do that.

 

Yes, they can.

 

Our students don't need that.

 

Yes, they do.

 

Our students won't benefit from that.

 

Yes, they will.

 

These events occurred almost ten years ago. The barriers to conveying Western Civilization and scholarly methods to students are higher today than they were even then.

 

Prof. K, a humanities and social sciences person, knows one thing about physics. Pendulums swing. She hopes that when the wild swing of recent years reaches some equilibrium, it will be in a place where students are taught about truth, about scholarship, and about a history that, no matter their skin color or economic background, rightfully belongs to them.

 

Danusha Goska is the author of God through Binoculars: A Hitchhiker at a Monastery

Sunday, April 17, 2022

Bridgerton 2: Jonathan Bailey's Anthony Bridgerton, Simone Ashley's Kate Sharma, Austen Adaptions, and Entertainment for Women


 There's a lot of serious stuff going on in the world and I want to talk about a Netflix romance series, "Bridgerton." I think entertainment is as serious as it gets. How we tell stories, what stories we tell, for whom we tell stories, about whom we tell stories, and what we tell ourselves about the stories we tell all direct our behavior. Fictional stories inform real life.
 
"Bridgerton" is a Netflix miniseries. It began airing in December, 2020, for eight episodes and eight more episodes appeared in 2022. It is based on romance novels by Julia Quinn. The series chronicles the loves of the wealthy, aristocratic Bridgerton family of a widowed mother and her eight children. They live in Regency-era England, that is the early nineteenth century. This is the same time setting of Jane Austen's novels. "Bridgerton" is very popular, having set viewership records for Netflix.

"Bridgerton" made headlines for two reasons. One, it has a multiracial cast. The 2020 episodes featured a torrid love affair between Simon, Duke of Hastings and Daphne Bridgerton. Simon was played by Rege-Jean Page, a tall, slender, stunningly handsome black man, and Daphne was played by Phoebe Dynevor, a tiny, ethereal white actress. Queen Charlotte, Lady Danbury, and a couple of other main characters are also played by black actors.

 

The idea was inclusivity and justice. It's a pretty stupid idea because, of course, as is necessary in the romance genre, the leads have to be very slender and freakishly gorgeous. There's a gif of Rege Jean Page taking off his shirt, and he appears to have no bodyfat and amazingly well defined chest and abdominal muscles. Romance storylines, just like romance actors, especially from the Regency era, revolve around the lives of the one percent. The leads are rich, privileged, young, healthy, attractive, and their biggest worry is what gown to wear to the ball.

 

So, no, there is nothing "inclusive" or "just" about telling stories about rich privileged, genetic jackpot winning black people alongside rich, privileged, genetic jackpot winning white people.

 

The multiracial casting was justified with a Woke legend that Queen Charlotte was actually black. Queen Charlotte wasn't black, but if enough Woke websites say she was that's as good as a time machine that can rewrite history.

 

So, the first season, the multiracial cast just struck me as stupid.

 

This season, the multiracial casting didn't bug me. In fact I enjoyed it. It was cool to see so many different types of faces on characters. Black actress Adjoa Andoh stars as Lady Danbury, a widowed mover and shaker who is intimate with the queen and who plots other people's lives for them. Andoh is a ham and she chews scenery and steals scenes. She's fun to watch.

 

Golda Rosheuvel is mixed race. She plays Queen Charlotte, and I love her. Queen Charlotte's husband is the notoriously mad King George. You see the world-weary sadness and resignation on Charlotte's face. Her scenes with her mad husband are heart-wrenching. Rosheuvel is manipulative, selfish, spoiled, imperious, sentimental, and kind, by turns. She's giving a great performance in a silly romance series and she really deserves better material.

 

"Bridgerton" would be infinitely less worth watching without Andoh and Rosheuvel, so, yes, hurrah for multiracial casting.

 

The second "Bridgerton" feature that made headlines was the sex. "Bridgerton" included a lot of nudity and simulated sex scenes.

 

A&E released the hugely popular 1995 "Pride and Prejudice" miniseries. In that miniseries, I don't think that the leads, Colin Firth as Darcy and Jennifer Elle as Elizabeth Bennett, kiss once. Maybe they kiss once. If they did kiss, it was so forgettable, I can't remember it. Okay, the internet is telling me that there was one kiss in the series, but you had to watch 359 minutes to get to that kiss.

 

Which brings me to this. Bill Maher once said that "Men's sexual fantasies disgust women and women's sexual fantasies bore men."

 

I think that's true. I think men and women are different. I think that there are such things as "men" and "women." I hear I could get kicked off Twitter for saying these transgressive things. One reason I'm not on Twitter.

 

For my money, the hottest scene in A&E's "Pride and Prejudice" is this. Elizabeth Bennet has made clear to Mr. Darcy that she does not like him. Circumstances conspire to land both of them in his house. His vulnerable young sister is playing piano (or harpsichord? Spinet?) As Bennet plays, Darcy watches her. The look in his eyes … and I don't even have to finish that sentence. The look in his eyes. Elizabeth can't even see him; her eyes are on the sheet music. Darcy, is just looking at her and O My Deity. That is the single hottest movie scene I've ever seen.

 

And if that were not enough excitement! A catty woman mentions the name of a man who broke Darcy's younger sister's heart. The sister fumbles on the piano, and Elizabeth rushes to rescue her, and to rescue the moment, without anyone being embarrassed. Elizabeth, ever so slowly, raises her eyes and makes momentary eye contact with Darcy. It's just so beautiful!

 

This scene takes place in a roomful of people. Everyone is fully dressed. There's hardly any dialogue at all and zero physical contact. Sexy. Hot. Unbearably hot. I can't watch the scene without reacting.

 

In contrast to this hot scene that involves zero physical contact at all, there's the hot scenes that men like. Use your imagination.

 

"Women prefer softer porn," said Senator Howell Helfin, as played by Chris Farley, in a Saturday Night Live skit satirizing the Clarence Thomas hearings. "Women like something with stories and costumes that will transport them to another place and time. Their inhibitions are loosened by escape when they are allowed to fantasize about another era. Women don't like close-ups of oversized genitalia. That's never gonna turn them on." chimes in Senator Strom Thurmond, as played by Dana Carvey.

 

Are most women like this? Do most women prefer subtlety and depth?

 

I don't know. I do know that Jane Austen's novels have not been out of print since 1832. There's no sex and no nudity in those books. There is story, there is depth, there is relationship. And women can't get enough of them.

 

I also know what couples look like. There is a plethora of young, beautiful women married to older, uglier men. Yes, these men are smart, deep, successful. But still old and ugly. There's nothing like that on the other side. You're not going to find young, hot guys marrying older, uglier, but smart, deep, successful women.

 

Men and women are different.

 

A&E's "Pride and Prejudice" might be dismissed as junk food, as candy, as escapism. But it's actually pretty deep, as are all of Austen's works. A woman's life rises or falls on her relationships, primarily on whom she is able to attract as a husband. Single women, even in our enlightened day and age, are poorer than men or married women. "Single women are more than three times as likely than married women or married men to live in poverty" (source). Elizabeth Bennet's carefully deployed smiles, eye contact, costumes, and witticisms carried the key to her lifelong fate.

 

There's a centuries-long debate on this topic. Contemptuous readers, usually men, dismissed Austen as "trivial." After all, there are no knife fights or sex scenes in Austen novels. One essay in this scrum is entitled – beautifully – "The Profundity of Trivial Things."

 

For women, eye contact matters. For women, kindness matters. For women, the whole story matters, from the first moment "He looked at me!" For women, how society, from your mother to your best friend to your social circle, matters. This is why I value the A&E "Pride and Prejudice." Because it honors what matters to women. Even though it is an escapist fantasy, it touches on real life themes, and treats them respectfully.

 

Nudity and graphic sex scenes strike me as more of a male thing. But women are rushing to watch "Bridgerton." Thing is, they are rushing to watch "Bridgerton" season 2, and season 2 has much less nudity and sex. So there's that.

 

The soft core porn in Bridgerton 1 is very much geared toward women, not men. Daphne has sex with one man, Simon. She loves him and he loves her. They marry and are committed for life. He will become the father of her children. Daphne is no man, she's no James Bond. She's not screwing a series of younger, very attractive nymphomaniacs whom she uses and then tosses aside. For James Bond, his sexual conquests, his "Bond girls," are mere sidelines, less important than the gadgets in his guns and his cars. His main story is about how manly and masterful he is at shooting, killing, fighting, and dominating. Daphne is all about her family. Simon, naked, muscly, ridiculously handsome Simon, is the center of her entire world.

 

I watched Bridgerton 1 because I wanted to write about the multiracial casting. That essay is here. I didn't enjoy it and I fast forwarded a lot. I was curious about Bridgerton 2. I thought I'd have a look. Season 2 caught me by surprise. I actually cared. I cared about what "Bridgerton" was doing right, and because I cared about that so much, I also cared about what "Bridgerton" did, for me, that was wrong.

 

"Bridgerton 2" focuses on the oldest Bridgerton, Anthony (Jonathan Bailey). He's meant to be 30 years old. Anthony is seeking a bride. He decides to marry Edwina Sharma (Charithra Chandran), but he is secretly in love with her older sister, Kate Sharma (Simone Ashley). For eight episodes, Anthony politely pursues Edwina by sipping tea with her, while secretly lusting after Kate. Around Kate, his muscles pop out of his cheeks, his nostrils flare – he is inhaling Kate's scent, that of lilies – and his knuckles grip tightly. Kate and Anthony's faces get closer and closer and you think they are about to kiss, but then they pull back, because, "I am a gentleman!" There is a lot of yearning and delayed clinching.

 

Men scoff at romance. They say, "It's so predictable. You know which characters are going to get together. There's no suspense."

 

It's true. You can usually tell which characters are going to get together in the end just by looking at the movie poster. No one can look at the poster of "When Harry Met Sally" – actually no one could hear the name of that movie – without realizing who is going to end up marrying whom.

 

The reward, for a romance fan, is not something so cheap and shopworn as mere "suspense." Rather, the reward is insight into human nature. The question romance asks is not so much "who" as "how." Women aren't ready to have sex with any attractive man they meet. They need a little more. What is that little more?

 

Elizabeth and Darcy, Harry and Sally, are both couples who hate each other when they first meet, and their lives take them apart from each other. Harry marries another woman; Elizabeth almost ends up with Lieutenant Wickham. But life, and the plot, and human nature, intervene, and Elizabeth discovers Darcy's true nature and learns to respect and admire him – and also to be amazed by his big, fat income and Pemberley, his big, fat mansion that will someday be hers. Harry and Sally support each other through heartaches and even try to fix each other up with blind dates, and through that process, they realize that "You are the last person I want to talk to before I go to sleep at night." Romance plays on the little details that cause people to love each other past that first attraction or repulsion. For a man, a woman is attractive because she is hot and she is available. A woman needs more, and romance provides that more. You see his and her characters develop, and see those characters mesh in a way that would work in a lifelong commitment.

 

I tuned in to "Bridgerton 2" to see HOW Anthony would end up with Kate instead of Edwina.

 

Bridgerton gets many aspects of escapist entertainment for women right. I like looking at the clothes. In day to day life, I am allergic to fancy clothes. If I had been born with that perfect body I might be a clothes horse. But I wasn't. I have the shoulders and arm length of a guy. I know because I wear men's clothes. When I try to wear women's clothes the shoulders are never wide enough and the sleeves are never long enough. With my body, I would look stupid in anything feminine. Also, I don't live a feminine life. I need clothes for hiking, for cleaning house, for sitting at a computer for hours at a time typing. So though I'm not into clothes in the real world, I am very much into clothes in the reel world. I want to see intriguing costumes onscreen. Bridgerton's characters change clothes in every scene. Queen Charlotte wears a different, even more bizarre wig every time she appears. Her last wig was almost as tall as she is. Simone Ashley, who plays Kate Sharma, has the distinctive ashy dark skin tone of Tamil people. Kate frequently wears midnight blue and that shade of blue against Ashley's skin is perfection.

 

Women and girls are central in Bridgerton in a way that we just aren't in real life. Women and girls are never this central in entertainment for men or mixed audiences. Only female audiences want to see entertainment with this many females onscreen.

 

The female characters in Bridgerton are not just hot chicks serving as arm candy for male leads. Bridgerton females range in age from Hyacinth, the youngest Bridgerton, who is meant to be 11 years old, to Lady Danbury, played by an actress who is 59 years old. Eloise, who is supposed to be 18 but acts more like 14, is the youngest character given much screentime and plot engagement. So far, Hyacinth is just the pesky little sister in the background. Each female character is given a story, agency, complications. Violet, the widowed matriarch, is a loving maternal presence, deferential to her oldest son, who is now the head of the family. She hangs back, but when she does choose to speak, she speaks depth. In a flashback, we see the trauma of the birth of her final child. The attending physician asks Anthony if he should save Violet or the baby, who is badly positioned. Should he cut the mother, and save the baby, or cut the baby, and save the mother, he asks Anthony, as Violet screams in pain.

 

Eloise is kicking and screaming against being pushed into a cookie cutter feminine mold. She wants to think, and her first crush is on a boy who thinks. He's working class, though, so it's hard to see how this relationship can go anywhere. The boy is not Eloise's most important relationship. Her most important relationship is with Penelope Featherington, another teenage girl. They have a fight that is as epic as any fight between two men in a Bond movie, but much more believable, and, ultimately, more important.

 

Lady Danbury runs everyone else's life. Queen Charlotte is complex.

 

Eloise has heart to heart talks with her older brother, Benedict. Anthony makes it a point to dance with his little sister, Hyacinth. Older women, Lady Danbury, Violet, and Queen Charlotte, tell younger males how to behave.

 

Bridgerton is a series where females, from adolescents to widows, matter. They don't just matter to each other. They matter to the Masters of the Universe, the young, hot guys.

 

That's very, very good. Clothes. Women mattering.

 

There's a great deal of emphasis on speech. Females are more verbal than males.

 

A trans person writes to me sometimes. This person is a very talented writer. This is someone who identifies as male, though being XX. I have never met this person in real life, so I have no previous memory of "he" as "she." And yet I can never think of "he" as "she" because this person writes like a girl.

 

I'm a language person. Language matters to me. Even punctuation matters to me. Women and men don't just use speech differently, women and men use punctuation differently. Trans extremism asks me to shut down the parts of my brain that assess biology, and also language.

 

Bridgerton's action is mostly talk. And clothes. Kate's midnight blue cape flying in the wind as she rides on horseback. I'm not thinking about the horse. I'm lusting after a midnight blue cape, and the skin tone that would work perfectly with that midnight blue cape.

 

Why set your story in the Regency period? Why not just make a series about a family of eight and their romantic adventures in 2022?

 

I think the Regency period is chosen because its societal norms meet women's needs.

 

Years ago, I met a man through a political event. He invited me to his apartment for dinner. I went. He had a spacious apartment in a nice Manhattan neighborhood and he served me a nice meal. After dinner was over, he asked me, very casually, to spend the night with him. I declined. I was astounded. He had made zero effort to seduce me. He was totally oblivious to my lack of interest in him. I'm painfully aware that society now offers women and girls few reasons to say no nowadays. The Sexual Revolution supposedly lowered all barriers to sex. Except, women and girls don't want to have sex with every man they meet.

 

Jane Austen paints a Regency world where strict social expectations ruled how men and women could make contact. Men and women, according to these rules, could not have casual sex. So they had to come up with some other way to connect. These strict rules worked for women. At least the women who choose, generation after generation, to read Austen think so. They want a world where men have to work to gain women's favor, and those men have to do that without immediate sexual intercourse. Sex takes on new importance exactly because it is so difficult to obtain, and so forbidden. Men have to give women witty conversation, and significant eye contact, patience, respect, and time.

 

Another way to achieve that same goal is to force your leads apart somehow. Anthony loves Kate, but for reasons I never understood, he proposes marriage to Edwina, her little sister. Older sister Kate, who insists that she hates Anthony, hovers in the background. Anthony and Kate trade barbs. At Anthony and Edwina's wedding, Kate drops her bracelet to the floor, and Anthony rushes to pick it up. Only then does Edwina suddenly realize that Anthony has been in love with Kate this whole time.

 

Jonathan Bailey, who plays Anthony, is one hell of an actor. He is apparently a stage actor as well, and he's gay. He's currently starring in a play titled "Cock." I guess it doesn't take place during the Regency period. Or I guess it could, if it were about poultry.

 

Bailey's performance in "Bridgerton" is powerhouse. I can't remember the last time I've seen anything quite like it. He reminds me a bit of Ralph Fiennes in "The English Patient." In that movie, Fiennes also was intense and romantic. Bailey also reminds me of Rudolph Valentino.

 

Bailey is not the handsomest man in the world, but he brings so much intensity, conviction and focus to his role that he is irresistible. He plays Anthony so thoroughly that I really believe I'm looking at someone named Anthony Bridgerton who lived 200 years ago, and that's remarkable, because the series revolving around Bailey is pretty absurd and unreal. It's plainly fantasy.

 

Bailey's depiction of a young man who watched his father die and who had to take on the burden of the entire family, who is tight-assed, rigid, humorless, arrogant, selfish, priggish, domineering, hypocritical, hot-headed, and undone by love for Kate Sharma, is utterly believable, and even poignant. He reminds me of my older brother Mike, who played daddy and mommy to me when we were kids and poor and both daddy and mommy were away all day and much of the night at minimum wage, manual labor jobs.

 

So, yes, Bailey's performance is entirely believable.

 

But it's also completely a performance from a romantic fantasy. Bailey is, as his part demands, larger than life, melodramatic, swoon-worthy, hot-as-hell, and entirely worthy to occupy the front cover of a romance novel.

 

I tuned into "Bridgerton 2" casually, but I sank into "Bridgerton 2" as if it were a vat of hot chocolate, because I was so moved by, and so fascinated by, Jonathan Bailey's performance as Anthony.

 

Simone Ashley, who plays his love interest, Kate Sharma, is supernaturally beautiful. She has huge eyes, and a doll's perfect nose, lips, and chin. Her skin is flawless. She has enough hair for four people. She is tall and even her thighs, visible in "Bridgerton 2" are slim.

 

She'd make a great runway model.

 

I never believed in Ashley's Kate Sharma. I never saw warmth, or desire, or humor, or anything other than an exquisitely beautiful face. I don't know if Ashley received poor direction or if she's a beginning actress. Yes, other voices see Ashley very differently, and praise her performance. For me, there was nothing there.

 

But it's more than Ashley's onscreen flatness. Kate Sharma is the single worst romance heroine I've ever encountered. Kate is a psycho. She's a character from a Hitchcock movie, not a Regency romance.

 

Kate Sharma is schizophrenic. With her little sister Edwina, Kate is a submissive masochist. Kate refuses to live her own, entire life, insisting on trying to give her life to her little sister Edwina. She does this because she was the child of her father's first wife. After his wife died, he married again, to Lady Mary, and Mary and her father gave birth to Edwina. Then her father died, and Kate was left as the daughter of a woman who did not give birth to her. Kate feels she must justify her existence, so she puts Edwina first in all things, and refuses to marry so that Edwina can find a husband.

 

Behind the scenes, though, passive aggressive Kate is doing everything she can to sabotage Edwina's happiness. Kate puts Anthony's hand on her, Kate's, breast. Kate drops her bracelet to the ground at Edwina's wedding. Kate, full of guilt, tries to jump a horse over a hedgerow in a rainstorm, and ends up fallen and unconscious. Kate is a freaking mess. She's a character from a dark Freudian case study, not a romance!

 

With Edwina, Kate is a submissive. With everyone else, Kate is a virago. I can hunt! I can assess horse flesh! I can do code! Kate insists, aggressively and obnoxiously. She isn't believable at any of this. Katherine Hepburn could convince me, in any movie, that she was the superwoman she claimed to be. Simone Ashley did not convince me that Kate could diagram a sentence. She doesn't come off as smart or competent. Just as, endlessly, pretty.

 

"Bridgerton" never made clear to this viewer why Anthony couldn't court Kate, if he was so attracted to her, rather than Edwina, whom he acknowledges throughout the series he doesn't love. So the yearning scenes are just dumb, gratuitous, laughable manipulation of the viewer. Clearly someone said, "Women like yearning scenes. Throw in some of those." And Anthony and Kate are forever getting close enough to kiss, panting, and not kissing. Without any reason whatsoever.

 

And the "how" here is totally screwed up. Anthony is a domineering, dutiful, humorless oldest brother. Kate is a domineering, dutiful, humorless oldest sister. These two would make each other miserable.

 

This is all made so much worse by Edwina, as played by Charithra Chandran. Chandran is not as unnaturally perfect as Ashley, but she's very, very pretty and full of dimples and charm. Her character, Edwina, is a classic little sister – eager to please, a bit naïve, but with a loving heart that will mature beautifully. She'd make the perfect wife for stuck-up Anthony.

 

"Bridgerton 2" pairing Anthony / Bailey with Kate / Ashley was a major blunder.

 

And I have to think that that blunder was informed by exploitation of, rather than use of, women's romance conventions. The writers get it that women like lengthy courtship rather than immediate intercourse. They get it that women like yearning scenes. They get it that women like spunky heroines. The writers tossed all these conventions into a blender and gave us a pastiche of conventions, rather than anything with any depth. Escapist entertainment based on Austen novels is also, upon further inspection, actually pretty deep. The more you look at "Bridgerton 2," the more shallow manipulation you discover. Jonathan Bailey's and Charithra Chandan's terrific performances are wasted in an exploitative pretend women's art, rather than real art that touches on real life.

 

But, you know what? It was still fun to watch, as the world goes straight to hell.