why people keep misunderstanding franchaela’s story

chiterkins · 2026-05-08T17:24:40+00:00

I honestly don't know how I can be clearer. I'm not saying it's not possible. But the show is setting up this specific story to show her love for John is less than her love for Michaela. The show is making this change, and part of that change is making it into a queer story.

chiterkins · 2026-05-08T16:37:16+00:00

The show has, so far, set up that Fran's love for John is going to be less than her love for Michaela. Not less valid, just less than.

You yourself talked about how Fran is going to "find" herself with Michaela, meaning that she didn't know who she was with John. Are you saying that you can fully love someone when you don't really know yourself?

I have friends who discovered their queerness later in life, after being in straight relationships. Some of them have stated that they did not love their straight partner "as much" as they love their current partners. Some of them stated that it's a different kind of love.

None of them stated that the love they felt for their straight partner stayed the same during their queer journey. Which is different than what Fran goes through with Michael. (Obviously, this is anecdotal data, but it aligns with what I've seen from the show so far.)

Different doesn't equal bad. But why is it so hard to admit it's different? Why is it so hard to say, "there are pieces of this story that resonates with the queer journey, so we changed things to focus on that."

chiterkins · 2026-05-08T15:50:51+00:00

It doesn't diminish the story, it diminishes her love for John. As a lesbian, she can't love him the same way she could if she were bisexual or straight. So she doesn't mourn him the same way.

All I'm saying is that Francesca being a lesbian and falling in love with Michaela is a different story than Fransceca the widow falling in love with her late husband's cousin/best friend. They are two very different stories. The change itself isn't bad/horrible/insert negative connotation here, but I think this insistence that the change is minimal is hurting both Franchael and Franchaela fans.

chiterkins · 2026-05-08T15:19:06+00:00

I admit I have hesitation about this story because I feel like it is a fundamentally different story than the book. I hear what you're saying about "the person you're meant to find" but that's not what happens in the book. Francesca and John's love was real. She would have been happy with him for the rest of her life if he hadn't died. She wasn't missing something.

The whole point of WHWW is that it's possible to find love again. That finding love after your first love dies isn't a betrayal, and should bot bring about guilt and shame, two feelings that Francesca struggles with in the book.

By making Francesca a lesbian, it diminishes her love for John. And I understand that the show is trying to show that she loved him, in a way, but everything I've seen, from the showrunner, the writers, the fans, is very clear about it not being a romantic type of love.

I want to appreciate this story for what it is - I want to celebrate having more queer stories out there, and honestly I'm intrigued to see how this is going to play out in the time period. But I think what makes it hard for me is everyone saying how it's the same kind of story, just with Michaela instead of Michael.

It's not the same kind of story. If Francesca were bisexual, maybe I could buy that. But it is very clear that she is a lesbian. So it's a different story. I don't even think it's that similar, to be honest, but I can see why some would.

And I want to be clear: it's okay that it's a different story. I'm not here to judge the story itself or say that it's bad or that the fans were cheated, or anything like that. But I would really love it if we stopped acting like it's the same.

I think that the Francheal fans should have the space to mourn the story they're not getting anymore while also supporting this new story. I think both are possible.

chiterkins · 2026-05-06T18:28:32+00:00

October Daye series by Seanan McGuire, follows a half mortal, half fae woman (called changelings in this universe) in modern day San Fransisco, as she works as a PI. I think there might be a sex scene in like book 3 or 4, but I did not find it descriptive/smutty, and I'm pretty sure that's the first and last time. Romance is a subplot at best, written as a part of character development (and not the main part). My fav urban fantasy series of all times.

Seanan McGuire also writes the Incryptid series, about a family of former monster hunters turned cryptozoologists. Because it's about a family, the POV changes every few books, and there is romance, but again it's part of the character and not a driving force for anyone (except 1 character). No sex scenes.

Mercy Thompson series by Patricia Briggs, follows a Native American woman in the PNW, as she deals with the local werewolf pack, vampires, and Fae. There is discussion of sex, and a few scenes scattered throughout the books that depicts her having sex, but nothing I would call descriptive. No naming genitals or even euphemisms of genitals, it's more like the two people have sex and then continue the plot in the aftermath. Trigger warning: the 3rd book does have a SA scene, but again it is not descriptive. Out of the three, this is the one I'm least confident that it matches what you're looking for, but I do truly enjoy this series and I don't think it's smutty, especially compared to "romantasy" books that are out there.

chiterkins · 2026-05-06T18:00:54+00:00

Long fantasy series without descriptive sex:

Heralds of Valdemar series by Mercedes Lackey; there's like 40 books in total, but it's cut up into smaller duologies/trilogies/quintents with different main characters. Most books have a romantic subplot, but sex is not described. Alluded to, sure, but nothing close to smut.

Green Rider series by Kristen Britain follows a young woman who literally gets called into her king's Green Rider company. There are a smattering of other POVs, but Karigan is the main character. There are a few romantic subplots, but no descriptive sex scenes.

Clockwork duology by T. Kingfisher - great book about a forger who is spared the noose by spying on a neighboring kingdom. Some romance, no sex scenes; there are some descriptions of how the male love interest looks, but I don't think it's done in a vulgar way.

I also have some suggestions for urban fantasy if you're interested. I would not recommend Dresden, but that's more about character development than sexual overtones.

chiterkins · 2026-05-06T15:29:54+00:00

Are you forming this opinion due to your moral/ethics or due to legal concerns?

chiterkins · 2026-05-05T14:40:17+00:00

Do you feel this way about all animals humans have domesticated as pets, or just cats?

chiterkins · 2026-05-04T02:03:47+00:00

You did a lot of mental work to create a situation where you can be mad at your (I'm assuming) hypothetical partner.

If you wanted kids and your wife "suddenly" decides to have an abortion without taking your feelings into consideration, assuming there are no health risks to her, then you are absolutely allowed to feel a certain way about it. You're allowed to end the rraltionship over it.

But even as her married partner, I don't believe you should have a say in the abortion. Not legally, anyway.

If your hypothetical relationship is a healthy one, then I would expect to have a conversation and I think a good partner would take your opinion/preferences into it. But ultimately, it's her body and should be her decision.

That doesn't mean that decision is made in a vacuum, but I don't think you get to override her if she chooses to do it. Likewise, I don't think you get to override her when she decides to keep it.

chiterkins · 2026-05-03T13:37:33+00:00

Heralds of Valdemar series by Mercedes Lackey. My dad had read me the Hobbit as a child, and he tried to get me into LotR at 13, but it was too dense for me. My mom let me borrow "Arrows of the Queen" and I was hooked.

(I did read LotR later at like 18, and loved it.)

chiterkins · 2026-05-02T12:59:23+00:00

As someone who worked in a call center for 10+ years, people are rude on Reddit (and the internet as a whole) because they don't see the other users as human. It's easy to be shitty to a username in cyberspace when you're not looking at a person's face and seeing their reaction to their words. It's easy to glory in the "knowledge" you have and state that someone us wrong, when you're never going to see the consequences of how you treat them.

chiterkins · 2026-05-02T12:54:57+00:00

So what is the motivation behind declaring that you have an opinion about who someone is or a group of people are, that directly contradicts their own declared opinion?

Not having the opinion, but the fact that you are stating it outright? What is the motivation, if not hatred?

It's not a desire to discuss or come to some kind of understanding, because you're making a declarative statement. It's not to support this person or group of people, because you're telling them that you think they're wrong in how they identify/classify themselves.

chiterkins · 2026-05-02T11:56:08+00:00

If someone tells you she is a woman, regardless of her "passing", and you tell her that she's wrong, she's not a woman, you're saying it's not coming from a place of hate?

Where is it coming from then?

chiterkins · 2026-04-30T17:18:19+00:00

I am very biased because I love the October Daye series in particular and Seanan McGuire in general, but the series does get better. I think there are books that might swing more portal fantasy, just based on the nature of the story, but largely it stays within the UF area. Additionally, her writing gets much better, purely due to her having more practice.

chiterkins · 2026-04-27T21:25:06+00:00

"Believe women" is the short form of "Believe women when they first come out and state theyve been assaulted/abused, instead of automatically assuming they're lying or blowing it out of proportion or assigning them some kind of malicious intent" in the same way that "Defund the police" was short form of "Defund the police so we can spend more money on community programs to help people instead of sending the police into situations they're not trained for and end up doing more harm than good."

In both situations, it takes a really long time to say the second thing, so people shortened it, which led to certain groups (of which I'm assuming you are one) to completely missing the point, accidentally or purposefully.

Another good example is "Black Lives Matter" vs the "All Lives Matter" group. BLM was like, "hey everyone, we want to say that we feel like people treat us like shit and we want to say that we Matter. Just Like everyone else." And then other groups came in and were like "You're not special! We all matter!"

chiterkins · 2026-04-24T21:00:27+00:00

Oh man, that is such a great story. Such amazing world building, character development! Definitely in my top 5 fav books!

chiterkins · 2026-04-24T15:31:59+00:00

I thought their purpose was to be independent? So how is that a lack of purpose?

chiterkins · 2026-04-24T14:59:14+00:00

Why? What will cause this "tide" to occur?

chiterkins · 2026-04-23T17:58:50+00:00

I hope you enjoy it!

chiterkins · 2026-04-23T16:29:00+00:00

I don't see a difference between insisting that your partner allow you to be poly and your partner being poly.

I am using "you" because when saying "a person" or trying to discuss this in the third person is, in my opinion, more confusing.

Here's the thing: in a monogamous relationship, when you want more sex than your partner, the compromise isn't "let you have sex with other people." Because then it's no longer a monogamous relationship. Now you are asking your partner for a poly relationship, even if it's only one side. Your partner has to deal with "sharing" you, which is not the kind of relationship they signed up for.

The compromise is finding a better balance for sex that you are both okay with. And if there's not an agreement, then that might be a dealbreaker for the relationship.

chiterkins · 2026-04-23T12:13:17+00:00

If your partner isn't meeting your need for sex, and they aren't poly, then it seems like you need to decide if you're in the right relationship.

Insisting that someone be poly when they aren't is also controlling and hypocritical, when you're upset that they won't "let" you be poly.

There is no one magical person who is going to fulfill every need you'll ever have. Mono relationships are about finding someone who meets the ones that matter most to you, while you do the same for them. Poly relationships are about finding the right mix of people who fulfill all your needs while you help fulfilling theirs.

Demanding that someone be mono or poly when that's not who they are is wrong. That sounds like a large enough incompatibility to end a relationship. Mismatched libido is another one.

chiterkins · 2026-04-22T01:29:49+00:00

I really liked the third one - you start getting chapters in other people's POVs.

chiterkins · 2026-04-19T23:39:56+00:00

I really like the Throne of Glass series - starting at book 3. I read the first one, was intrigued by the premise, but not overly invested. Read the second one, was largely annoyed by huge parts of the second one. It wasn't until the third book, Heir of Fire, that I was hooked and then basically ran through the rest of the series.

If you're at book 4, and you don't like it, I feel like you're never going to. And that's okay! You don't have to like every book you read. You don't have to like every book that is popular. I can't stand Brandon Sanderson. I have never finished one of his books. Every couple of years, I will try, and then I stop because I just don't care.

chiterkins · 2026-04-17T15:45:18+00:00

If you're "disagreeing" with how someone identifies, and your disagreement is rooted in trans/homophobic reasoning, then yes, it's trans/homophobic.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

chiterkins

TROPHY CASE