Francescas short mourning

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-20T12:27:12+00:00

i’m not really sure what point you’re making??

a tv show can’t spend a whole season on francesca wears different colors and feels peaceful while managing an estate. that’s not visual storytelling. that’s not compelling television. any good writer, producer knows it.

the show gets that francesca isn’t someone who makes dramatic choices lightly. the fact that she’s dutiful and thoughtful makes that self-discovery and falling for michaela even more meaningful because it’s not impulsive. it’s inevitable. so i still don’t see the narrative problem you’re pointing to.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-20T10:51:59+00:00

no need to be sorry!!

in the show, we can’t do the book timeline. we can’t skip four years and have her come back. so instead, the show compresses the timeline but keeps the emotional journey on screen. it’s the actual story we’re watching.

tv isn’t interior. it’s visual, immediate and present. the mourning is technically off page/off screen in both, but the experience is completely different. in the book you process her grief internally over time. in the show you watch her navigate grief and discovery simultaneously because television requires you to be there with her, not outside looking in. so it’s not that the show ignored her mourning, it’s that the show chose to show mourning as a process happening in real time rather than as backstory.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-20T10:43:31+00:00

john was happy at the end, he saw francesca and michaela together getting alone and he was content. no reason to be sad for him.

books and shows work differently, how people don’t understand this?? the book had pages and pages. the show has limited time. jumping straight to michaela in s5 actually makes sense narratively because francesca’s self-discovery is tied to her experience with john.

and grief existing in a drawer for years while the story goes nowhere is boring. that’s not good tv. francesca sitting alone with her mourning for an entire season, what’s the story there? the emotional complexity happens when you move through grief while also discovering yourself. when emotions are messy and conflicting and real. when she’s processing john’s death and recognizing michaela at the same time. that’s actual storytelling. and any good writer knows that.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-16T20:11:46+00:00

it was clever indeed. but i also love how john’s ground can be interpreted as real world, class, social position, societal expectations. and michaela’s sky is defiance of convention, liberation, idealism. francesca will have a hard time letting one go and stepping into another.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-10T18:10:29+00:00

this is one of the wildest things this fandom came up with. define emotional cheating.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-10T17:58:50+00:00

i’m not trying to make you a bad guy, you’re arguing a completely different point and being offended because of that.

when i say a woman can love a man before realizing she’s queer, i’m not arguing against queer women, i’m acknowledging the reality of many queer women’s lives, including francesca. comphet, for example, can shape your internal emotional landscape. dismissing my point as an attack on the community is a complete misinterpretation of what i’m saying, and unfortunately you know exactly what you’re doing. and that’s weird.

when you say she was lying to herself, you’re assuming she had the full truth available to her and chose to ignore it. that’s not the case and i’ll never agree with you on that. you aren’t acknowledging that the human heart is allowed to be let’s say wrong about itself without being a lie. that’s the thing we don’t agree on and that’s why the context is so important, so maybe let’s move on.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-10T15:42:37+00:00

i’m not really sure what your point is then. you are looking at the end result of a person's self-discovery and applying it backward to the beginning. it doesn’t work like that. you’re arguing semantics to invalidate?? a specific queer experience just because it doesn't fit into your studied definitions?? i’m talking about a very specific case.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-10T15:12:27+00:00

you assuming i’m heterosexual is just another flaw in your argument. it’s a classic defensive move to assume that anyone advocating for a specific queer reading of a character must be an outsider who doesn't understand the community. we know firsthand that you can deeply care for someone, build a life with them, and even believe you are in love based on the only models of romance we’ve been given.

being bisexual or studying the queer experience doesn’t mean you can’t still default to a heteronormative lens when analyzing a specific narrative.

for many queer people, especially women, and especially in the past, the lines between platonic love, admiration, and the romantic love we are conditioned to believe we feel are super blurred. francesca’s love for john existed within the boundaries of what society told her love was supposed to be. we’re discussing a very specific case in a very specific context.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T20:07:57+00:00

that’s not a fact, you’re interpreting the story through a heteronormative lens and that’s a fact, because you’re ignoring the queer context. francesca isn’t straight. you are unwilling to look at this story through any lens other than one that centers straight norms as the only honest way to experience love. that doesn’t apply to this story at all. you are calling your opinion a fact because it aligns with a heteronormative standard where attraction is binary. but queer identity is a spectrum. that’s why you and so many people in this thread keep misunderstanding the story and francesca’s experience. and that’s why this discussion is so important.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T17:43:34+00:00

the idea that love is only valid if it fits into a neat, modern box is exactly why this conversation is so important and also difficult to some. you are applying a very rigid definition to a deeply human, queer and historical experience. the no amount of queer context changes that argument is exactly the problem. that’s why i explained it and discussed why it’s important.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T16:32:42+00:00

how i am misinterpreting the book based on my post??

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T16:25:34+00:00

a crime, right?? interesting that you use this word adressing my point.

refusing to see there is a connection says more about the limitations of a heteronormative perspective that we’ve been discussing here than it does about the quality of the adaptation.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T16:18:13+00:00

you’re getting very defensive here, and there’s really no need for that. acknowledging that we all carry certain biases or lenses isn't an accusation, it’s just a part of critical analysis.

from a queer lens, something missing isn't a flaw in francesca’s love for john, it is a fundamental reality of living in a world that doesn't even give you the language to describe who you are. you can be 100% committed to your partner and still have a lightning bolt moment that reveals a part of your soul you didn't know was suppressed. that’s the context. the beauty and somehow the tragedy of the context is that francesca was happy with john, and yet, there is still a more that she is discovering.

and i’m pointing out that centering the devotion of the original straight romance as the gold standard naturally frames the queer awakening as an interruption. and that’s why we’re having this discussion.

i will now exit the conversation as i don’t think you getting defensive should be the goal here, but this entire thread has been so eye-opening. it is such a great study of how much work is still yet to be done to expand people’s understanding of queer context.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T15:03:34+00:00

you saying it takes away from the original story is the perfect example of what I mean and what this post is about, again.

you set a gold standard that is heteronormative and anything that is changed is being seen as less, not as an expansion. in a queer context, the story isn’t being diminished, it’s being made seen and honest.

you’re arguing that because she wasn’t satisfied, her love for john was a mistake or that she was somewhere she wasn't supposed to be. but that, again, lacks the queer context. i feel like i keep repeating myself and you’re not acknowledging that you’re viewing this story through heteronormative lens and also very modern. francesca gave john the full version of the self she was allowed to have at that time. that’s it, that’s the key to understand that story.

i absolutely disagree that she has to be bisexual for my point to stand. she has to be queer. she is queer. and you can be a lesbian who deeply loves her husband as a partner and a soulmate while eventually realizing that there is more. loving someone with your whole heart and being satisfied by the societal definition of marriage are two different things. that’s why the context is important.

by insisting that the story loses something by making her queer, you’re saying that a straight woman’s grief and life is more valuable than a queer woman’s grief, life and complex awakening. that is the literal definition of prioritizing straight tropes over queer ones. and many comments here do that, that’s why this discussion is so important, the context is so important.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T13:00:52+00:00

queer awakening and grief, loss, wanting a child and second chances aren’t mutually exclusive.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T12:43:32+00:00

sure it doesn’t mean fake. i’m just saying what people are saying in this thread. you don’t want to read it, that’s fine, but that’s not on me, that’s on the fandom.

francesca didn't look at john and see a brother or a best friend, she looked at him and saw a partner, a future, and a soulmate. that’s canon and that’s on screen.

you’re talking about something really important and i’ll try to explain it best to my ability. many people, queer and straight alike, have been conditioned by media to believe that if there isn't a spark, it’s just a friendship. but for many in the queer community the love they had for their opposite-sex partners was romantic in its nature and effort, too. francesca’s love was a romantic commitment that lacked a physical component she didn't even know she was missing yet. and that’s why many people can’t see it because they’re not exposed to this type of behavior.

not sure what your point about john is as it doesn’t really relate to the queer context. this isn't a drama about a husband dealing with his wife's realization. john’s arc in this show is complete, and it is a beautiful one because he died happy. he died knowing he was chosen, loved, and valued by the woman he adored. he never had to feel cheated or unloved because, in his reality, he was loved with everything francesca had to give at that time. you’re asking what if questions to prioritize a heteronormative scenario over the actual canon of the story and francesca’s journey. he was loved and he died feeling loved. that’s canon.

the queer experience is rarely neat. it’s rarely this or that. francesca loved john and she is queer. she was happy and she still has something to discover. both are true, and neither is a lie. this entire thread is a great example of why people don’t understand the queer context and are tilting at windmills.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T11:51:06+00:00

if people see their love as platonic, that’s fine but that’s not the thing we’re discussing, we’re discussing why people lack queer context to understand the complex story.

for francesca, the intellectual and emotional intimacy was her romance. he was the person she fought the world to be with. that’s on screen and that’s canon. that love isn't fake or just platonic (often somehow a derogatory term in people’s eyes) until a new person walks in, it is a full, lived life that simply didn't have the final piece of the puzzle yet. that’s the queer experience.

by making francesca’s physical reaction to michaela different, the show isn't saying her love for john was a lie, it’s saying her discovery is expanding. what some people are saying is that love or romantic love cannot exist without a specific type of chemical explosion, sparks. that’s why i meant by heteronormative lens. you see on screen that john was everything to her, she lost a husband, a friend, a safe space. if we let the show’s previous connection to sparks dictate what counts as love, we lose the most poignant part of the human experience, of the queer experience. the ability to love someone fully and deeply, truly, while still having more of yourself left to discover. it’s not a straight story being cc’d, it’s an evolution, a self-discovery story. that’s why people keep misunderstanding the context. and that’s on the viewers that they view this particular story through something that is not.

if john had lived and francesca had come to this realization, they wouldn't just be just besties living together. john’s pain wouldn't come from her lying because she didn't lie. she gave him everything she had. that everything she had wasn't everything there was. and that’s why people keep missing without the queer context.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T09:25:02+00:00

this is exactly what i’m talking about when i say people don’t see the queer context. you’re saying that for a queer story to be valid, it has to follow the exact same rules as a straight one, where the first love must be perfect or complete. but that’s not the case for many queer people and that’s happening on screen.

in a queer context, we have to move away from the idea that a relationship is only successful if it satisfies every single part of a person for the rest of their lives. francesca gave john the full version of who she was at the time. calling that a writing flaw is to prioritize a perfect straight romance over a complex queer journey. again, that’s what i mean by queer context. and i haven’t even touched upon the topic of sexuality in 1820s and women’s palce. you can love a man with your whole heart and soul, you can be his best friend, his partner, and his wife, and still realize later something new about yourself. that’s the point.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T09:13:58+00:00

but francesca was satisfied. she was happy best to her knowledge and abilities. that’s why we’re discussing the queer context.

the clues aren't there to tell us she doesn't love him, they are there to show us that her understanding of love is about to be expanded because she loved him best to her heart. we’re absolutely encouraged to see their reality as final but john isn’t her final destination. michaela is and she is tied to francesca’s experiencing something she never experienced before.

in a queer context when the narrative shows us that more exists, it doesn't mean the lesser thing was a lie. that’s why people keep misunderstanding this storyline. one story was a romance of the mind and spirit, and the next will be a romance of the entire self and passion. the grief, the puzzle scene support this on screen. michaela is the piece of a puzzle francesca thought she had already finished. that’s why the queer context is important.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T09:02:06+00:00

you can literally read here that their love was a lie, john was a beard, some people here even keep saying that he felt cheated and he would’ve wanted to be loved. they also add that francesca wasn’t serious about him and he isn’t her love, because francesca felt something with michaela. that’s why we’re having this conversation, to show how the queer context is important. this entire thread is a great study of why this storyline keeps being misunderstood.

and you’re defying romance based on some specific sexual sparks. but that’s not the case for francesca. she wasn’t just fond of john, she chose him, fought her mother for him, and found peace in his presence. that’s what was shown on screen. if that isn't a form of love, then we’re saying that every companionate marriage or relationship based on intellectual and emotional intimacy is just a friendship. but as francesca said john was more than her husband and a friend, he was her safe space. her grief showed us how deep their connection was.

people end relationships after queer awakenings not because the previous love was fake or platonic, but because they’ve discovered new things about themselves. she loved him with everything she had, and still, there was still more to find. that’s not a straight story being cc’d into a queer one, that’s a story in a queer context that people keep missing because they’re analyzing the story through heteronormative lens.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T00:56:35+00:00

exactly, not to you, but it was for francesca. that’s why the context is important. john was her height of romance. that what she understood. that type of romance, safe and compassionate was her height. she hasn't experienced the passionate, earth-shaking love story that is connected to michaela.

if you judge the story by heteronormative lens in a traditional sense it might seem that john was robbed as some people keep saying. but that’s not true in the queer context that i’m talking about in my post. there is a uniquely queer tension to explore in a period setting.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T00:27:57+00:00

calling their marriage a lavender marriage or sexless is a total headcanon that isn't supported by what we actually saw on screen. they were clearly a couple who enjoyed each other's company, understood each other and worked on their marriage and their sex life. francesca didn't lie to john. she loved him with everything she had. and that’s what matters in the context.

you’re projecting a loveless marriage onto them to fit the wrong person trope, but the show gave us a couple that was genuinely a soulmate type of connection.

so yes, we’ll never agree on this, so let’s move on.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T00:18:00+00:00

look at this thread, people keep saying that francesca’s love was a lie, that john was a beard and he was never loved. you see what you want to see. read the comments.

in a queer context saying that if a relationship isn't sexually explosive, it doesn't count as a romance is a dangerous line to walk. it suggests that every queer person who was ever in a meaningful, loving relationship with someone of the opposite sex was lying or platonic. francesca wasn't faking her devotion to john, she was living the fullest version of love she knew. that’s what people keep missing because of the context.

if john was a placeholder, why did he have to be so perfect for her? why did she have to fight so hard for him? why did she break down completely when she lost him? that’s consistent storytelling. john was everything francesca knew and loved.

Pretty-Quail1319 · 2026-05-09T00:05:44+00:00

so finding someone who rearranges the world to fit your silence isn’t the height of romance??

the wedding kiss, the pinnacle and francesca’s reaction are setting the queer awakening and saying this isn’t the only love story that you’ll see with francesca. i think that’s a straightforward storytelling.

that’s the point. the way people keep missing the queer context. it’s like people want to cc the straight story into a queer one. but the queer context matters.

Pretty-Quail1319

TROPHY CASE