I am not above following a trend on occasion. Even at our little, highly academic bookshop, Rachel Reid’s Game Changers book series has been flying off the shelves from our (pretty new) romance section. If you don’t quite know what I am talking about, perhaps this will help: the series has been made into a streaming series which goes by the title of Heated Rivalries. (Technically, Heated Rivalries is the title of the second book, and it is one of the two books on which the first season is based. The other is Game Changer, number one.) The streaming series has been called a “phenomenon,” and has been renewed for more. There are six current books, and Reid is continuing.

I have no desire to read the books. I thought I would just catch the streaming series so that someone around the shop knew what was up. It reminds me of Bridgerton (which we’ll talk about in a sec), in that some director-visionary took a book series that was one thing and basically reinvented it for the TV series. I don’t know this for sure because I haven’t read any of it, but I know the structure has been re-worked, and the series is known not only for its spice (very spicy!), but for its developed characters and emotional resonance. People begin watching for the gay sex or because they’re curious about the gay sex or because they’re curious why everyone else is watching, and then they get hooked by the story and the characters.

I wouldn’t call it life-changing, though. And I wouldn’t say I loved it. I enjoyed it and thought it was actually pretty good. I mentioned that it’s really spicy though, and that means it is definitely not for everyone. (Not exactly for me, even, but I found myself not only feeling a little voyeuristic in this world of gay men but also like I was taking a course in male interactions (on every level), which was very interesting. So, pros and cons for me.) I have heard someone complain that this world where hockey players are openly gay is too fantastic, but this world is hard-won over a long storyline, and of course it’s ultimately hopeful; it comes from the romance genre. It is presenting the future that it wants.

I have read a couple of articles about why particularly middle-aged women are reading and watching these series in droves. (Note: I spoke to a straight guy about it, and he said he’s watched it three times already.) I think the most plausible reason is that they are seeing physical and even emotional relationships where there is no power imbalance, and that is both intriguing and desirable. Also, no matter the gender, it is still a love story, and a titillating one at that.

If you are interested in a series that is super spicy and gay (no matter your own orientation), then you might be curious about this one, and you wouldn’t be alone. It’s blowing up. And so are the books.

I already reviewed this series in 2024, after the third season. Here is what I said:

When Shondaland took on the Bridgerton content, she/they clearly brought her/their own vision. (Shondaland is both a person and a team.) The wildly popular TV show is just so different from the books, and I don’t mean just the sort of plot changes, and scenery and character trimmings that are a regular part of the written-to-visual mediums. While Julia Quinn might have had some of the ideas that translated (like feminism and, of course, the main premise and the names and birth order of the siblings), Shondaland took those to places they had never dreamed to go in the book. And perhaps more importantly, Shondaland introduced all sorts of new things–like a ton that has a Black queen with a story, a mystery over who the narrator is, the introduction of more characters who would step into the spotlight in later seasons, and the sense of the ton as a whole, not to mention the royal family–and, yes, twistier plots, deeper characters, tighter and balanced tension, and romances that sizzle.The sexual explicitness is still there–probably even more so in the TV series, at least for the first season–but I was shocked to discover that the fog on my glasses was not just from the steam on the TV but also the mist in my eyes: these characters seemed like they were in love, were conflicted, and were even exploring things I hadn’t seen like that before, including women going into marriage ignorant and naïve. I will not sell to you that this is the best show ever made or even that it lacks any fluff or pandering to audiences, even just being rebellious because; it is chock-full of “intrigue” and eye candy (from the costumes to the beautiful people and, of course, the skin). But it is a show that many people are watching and enjoying, some because of the smut, I suppose, but also many despite it or even intrigued by how it’s handled. I honestly thought I wouldn’t like the show, but I do.

And after watching season four and the spin-off, I am still of the same opinion. It’s certainly still fun to watch. The fairy-tale inspiration for season four was glaringly obvious and therefore kinda made it predictable, but it was basically more of the same and Shondaland is not slowing down on the scenery, the costuming, the intrigue and twisty plots (or the smut). (So far, my favorite season is the second, which means my favorite love story is Anthony-Kate.) What’s more, it is clear that they are doubling down on including characters with different sexualities by hinting that one of the Bridgerton’s themselves ultimate love story will be a lesbian one.

And the series has been renewed for at least two more seasons.

Of note: I also reviewed the first two books in the book series, and I was not a fan. See review HERE.

It’s not a movie, and it’s not even something I can exactly recommend because you can’t go see it (since the production is over), but I went to a local production of Macbeth last week. It was performed by Playmakers, a theater in Chapel Hill with connections to UNC. I can’t believe it, but I have never been to one of their productions before, and I only went because a couple of bookish friends asked me to come with.

We were on the front row, with our heels practically on the stage, which extended out onto the ground and was surrounded on three sides by seats. There was a sort of pond in front of us and even a slow drip coming from the ceiling (on purpose). During scenes such as Lady Macbeth’s washing-her-hands scene, we were definitely in the splash zone. And when the Weird Sisters crouched right in front of us to begin “Double, double, toil and trouble…” I was so happy. Then I caught my friend’s face out of the corner of my eye and looked over, and she was grinning like mad. We were grinning like mad, and it was great.

I have seen a fair number of plays and musicals live in my life, but I can recall only one other Shakespeare play. I have been a Shakespeare fan since I was a teenager and watched plenty of movie versions and even video versions of plays. Live was a different thing. Live, I felt it in my solar plexus. The acting hit harder, and the place—the scenery—was more interesting, more visceral. This might all seem obvious, but I hadn’t thought about it at all. You can’t duplicate a live play (or musical) with a screen. You just can’t.

Which means to say that while I found some fault in the production (though not much), I thoroughly enjoyed it. There was some superb acting (including the Weird Sisters) and some really fun touches (like chalking up the deaths on the wall or the movement of chairs and branches as reusable props). My friends and I are already waiting to purchase our tickets for a couple of plays in the Playmakers’ next season.

Moral of the story: hie thee to your local theatre!

HERE are my reviews of Macbeth and of some graphic novels and movie adaptations.