well. so there’s nothing explicitly wrong with it, as long as you choose to view it as a standalone tv show - rather than as an adaptation of a pre-existing book. personally, i didn’t hugely enjoy it as a tv show either, but as an adaptation of the little fires everywhere book, it thinks it fails on several levels at understanding mia as a character. the mia in the show is a very very different character than book mia, which is not inherently a bad thing when we’re talking about adaptation - but many of the core themes and traits of her character were switched out for seemingly no reason in ways that did not make sense, which i find frustrating as a fan of the book.
first of all, book mia is heavily implied to be aromantic and asexual - she explicitly states that she has never experienced sexual nor romantic attraction to anyone in her life, nor has ever thought much about it until confronting the issue w her teenage daughter while trying to give her relationship advice. one of the key themes to mia’s story in the book is that the path of her life has been defined by choices made out of love for her daughter. in a story concerned with the meaning and experience of motherhood, mia’s all consuming love for her daughter, which is arguably framed as the “love of her life”, is a central theme of her story and experience of motherhood. she says, quote: “The only thing that had given her that feeling [that electric warmth] had been art-and then, of course, Pearl.” therefore, you can understand my confusion at the show’s decision to switch out her love for her daughter to… a romantic relationship between 18-year old mia (who is estranged from her family, struggling financially and has just moved to a new city on her own) and her photography professor, a significantly older woman whom she idolises. this change feels both unnecessary and out of place because it fundamentally seems to misunderstand the core of what mia’s story was about in the book. motherhood was her all consuming love. and this change becomes extra egregious to me as a book first fan who very much saw mia as an aroace character whose life was fulfilled by and defined by choices made out of this all consuming platonic love. in the book, her professor served as a mother figure to mia (which again, ties in with the themes of the story - mia’s parental abandonment, then finding a mother elsewhere). so again, i just have to ask how changing the narrative to reframe their relationship, and the “love of mia’s life” this way, was meant to come off. that being said, it is an adaptation - so okay, fine, changes are made. i’m genuinely happy for anyone who saw age gap yuri and got joy out of that, even if it frustrated me. however, it’s not just that they so fundamentally altered mia’s story - i also disliked the way this romantic relationship was written. like, it’s objectively pretty quote unquote problematic - which tbc is not something i shy away from - that being said, there is absolutely no engagement on the show’s part with how this relationship might come off (in terms of its very unequal power dynamics - and how it can possibly be seen as grooming, essentially). it’s just framed as a beautiful and idyllic romance that defined the course of mia’s life. it’s also just, in my opinion, pretty rushed and underdeveloped? which again feels extra egregious to me as a book fan… because why do this entire plotline and then barely put any effort into developing it…?
there are other things about the show i don’t love either, just in terms of mia’s very different characterisation and the pacing, but those are all things i can chalk up to a matter of personal preference. overall, i’m just frustrated with the changes the show made to mia’s story for no ostensible reason - did they think she NEEDED a romantic relationship to be a more complex and interesting character? they change her to be far more proactive than she is in the book in terms of getting herself involved in the adoption dispute, so it’s my impression that they felt she was perhaps too, i don’t know, uninteresting or passive? which is insane to me because she is by far the most compelling and layered character in the book. if you ask me. anyway those are just my two cents. there’s nothing wrong with liking the show as it’s own standalone thing! but as an adaptation, i think it’s really disappointing, as a fan of mia. hope this all makes sense!
