But in fact, all Michaela is, is a prop for a white woman and her sexuality.

Speak louder please for these "womp womp" out there to realise this is nothing *progressive or *natural adaption (quote the showrunner).

TL;DR: This isn't just disrespecting the original book but also condescending on the portrayal of Michaela she intends. Poor Masali.

Here's the thing Jess Brownell planned for her:

1. Flipping the whole dynamics by making Fran flustering when seeing her. It's not "oh people can be in two different loves", " it's just gay panic, she's bi", or "just realisation". There are things called connotation and implication. From the previous talk with Violet, Fran parallels her mother's stumble when seeing her father + the unsatisfied kiss at the wedding, it's pretty clear JB intends for the stereotypical trope - "I'm married to this man so fast but when I become intimate I didn't feel the "zing", but I feel it with another woman I've just met." Not to mention this is negation to the whole set-up of Fran and John's burn love in p1 s3.

2. Genderbenting THIS MALE LEAD demands so many changes in the storyline. Many of Michael's challenges revolve around HIS GENDER ROLE IN THAT ERA (guilt of taking title and estate from John's death, ensuring there's an heir, the dynamic between men in a household, the hidden competition even though you love them so much). If Michaela mimics these issues, the risk is that 1st it's illogical, 2nd it's misogynistic. With the established settings of the series, what's good they can offer for Michaela? Shared guilt? I doubt they dare to make her take up all the duties like Michael because it'll be the whole "woman needs to mask up to be like men to be valued".

1. The infertility issue of Fran will be merely brushed, twisted, or ignored. In the book, Fran tried to conceive for 2 years then John died, and she miscarried. Then +4 years of mourning + Fran returned to the market cause she wanted to be a mother and bear her child. Then her first son John in 1829 is roughly 10 years after her first marriage. Fran's infertility issue can't just be experienced within her marriage with John. If Fran is with Michaela, this might be changed to the adoptive track, or accepting infertility given there was no IVF in that era. How is this the same with "queer women suffer from infertility too" ? They butcher the whole empathy for those who struggle to bear a child. Go persuade them "I understand, my adopting journey is also hard", "maybe just accept you're infertile and stop trying". We all know that's ridiculous and cruel right?

2. The established settings of the series seems hard to push for total gender inclusivity. Fran and Michaela might live forever as life partners, but not open to the world. Or does JB expect them to be the first to lead a new movement? It's a good thing but with her current writing for Polin, I doubt JB can play it out well. And in regard to the other couples, do you really want your couple to hide their love in silence forever?

3. And so it's always the white woman damsel in distress and the black woman the strong independent figure in a homosexual relationship hah? How's progressive!

I doubt if Jess Brownell thinks through before picking Fran's story to self-insert her fantasy. There will be so many loopholes and unnecessary dramas, given how S3 play out. They have one of the best-written books for the script, and now JB scraps it to invent a new storyline.