Thursday, October 2, 2025

TV Review: Bon Appetit, Your Majesty

Outlander meets Iron Chef in this addictive time travel K-drama rom com


When it’s time for your next guilty pleasure, Netflix’s Bon Appetit, Your Majesty has a tasty twelve course menu for your indulgence. The twelve episode series follows the adventures of a confident, modern-day French-trained chef, who falls through time to ancient Korea and lands in the court of a tyrannical young king who has a demanding palate for gourmet food when he isn’t tormenting his subjects. The new series is a romantic combination of the time travel elements of Outlander, the tyrant king and daily survival of Scheherazade in The Arabian Nights, and the intense cooking competition of Food Network shows like Iron Chef, Top Chef, and Chopped. As the stressed chef tries to find a way back to her own time, she must survive the dangers of ancient life and the palace’s political intrigue, while being forced to prepare meals for an angry young king who will kill her if the food displeases him. Despite a fair amount of drama and bloodshed towards the end, the story is primarily humorous with appealing enemies to lovers, mistaken identity, and fish out of water story elements.

The story starts in modern day France where elite chef Yeon Ji-young (Im Yoon-ah), wins an international cooking competition and is headed back to her home in Korea. Her father asks her to get a copy of an antique cooking manuscript from an academic colleague. During her flight home, the ancient book pulls her through a time travel portal to Korea in the Joseon Era. She soon encounters an angry, pompous young man Yi Heon (Lee Chae-Min). Not realizing he is the king, she assumes he is from a movie set and he believes she is a witch / spirit creature due to her strange clothes and manner of speaking. King Yi Heon’s intention to kill her for annoying him is interrupted when an archer assassin shoots him and Ji-young reluctantly keeps him from bleeding out and cooks for him while hiding out in the home of a local girl who befriends her. When the king is rescued, Ji-young finds herself in prison for her disrespect to the king. But the king is intrigued by her unusual cooking and orders her to become his chief royal cook. However, he promises to execute her if she serves something he doesn’t like. Over time the two grow closer despite their bickering and they bond over food. However, due to the king’s past tyranny, multiple enemies are plotting his demise and Ji-young finds herself in danger as assassins target the king and those close to him. In particular, the king’s uncle, Prince Jesan (Choi Gwi-hwa) and one of the king’s consorts, Kang (Kang Han-na), are determined to overthrow Yi Heon.

The series uses elements of Korean history with King Yi Heon inspired by (and recognized by Ji-young) as a real life sixteenth century tyrant known for his cruelty due to the murder of his mother. The balance of upsetting, true history with the rom com elements creates an interesting contrast. In Bon Appetit, the king is grieving the murder of his mother by undisclosed members of the royal family (and with collusion of others). This occurred when he was a child and he is determined to solve the mystery of her execution. Due to his bitterness, he treats his own people with contempt and cruelty, taking land, executing or exiling dissenters and earning the anger of his political rivals who seek to dethrone him. Ji-young’s presence and influence over the king gradually creates an alternate history timeline as she persuades the king to be more compassionate. Despite the general elements of lightness, there are moments where otherwise likeable characters admit to having done terrible acts. Additionally, although there are several strong female characters in the story, the historical context makes it clear that women are treated as commodities and are offered as tribute or payment in negotiations.

The villains are, unfortunately, mostly two dimensional and lack subtlety. So viewers are subjected to the evil uncle’s villainous laugh and the consort’s perpetual sneer. Initially, there seems to be no clear motive articulated for their desire to overthrow the king. However, a consideration of the real life history as well as the show’s backstory adds some context for the escalating hate and reciprocal violence between the tyranny of the grieving king and his political rivals’ vengeance.

Against that historical backdrop, we still have a swoony rom com love story between the arrogant king and the spunky modern chef. Bouncy rom com music alternates between intense moments as Ji-young tries to convince the king that she is from the future and needs to find the ancient book to portal her way back home. There are funny moments where the king struggles to understand Ji-young’s modern slang and, despite his tyrannical tendencies, endures her lecture on consent when he unexpectedly kisses her. Ji-young also has her medieval bestie Gil-geum (Yoon Seo-Ah) who provides comic relief elements along with the comedic royal kitchen team who struggle to warm up to the idea of a woman as the head chef.

However, the true heart of the show is not the romance, or the political intrigue, it’s the cooking. Each episode is named after a particular dish or cuisine and Bon Appetit unapologetically treats viewers to a detailed examination of unique ingredients, thoughtful preparation techniques, and the emotional power of cooking as a means of human connection. When people taste Ji-young's cooking they enter a fantastical sensory realm where the taste of the food is conveyed through dramatic visual symbolism in a way that is reminiscent of the Food Wars anime. In an homage to Food Network shows like Top Chef and Chopped, Ji-young repeatedly finds herself racing against the clock and cooking with her life on the line. In fact, a particularly long food competition arc stretches over four episodes in which Ji-young and her team face off against three sharp Ming chefs with the fate of the kingdom at risk. Their competition leads to the invention of the pressure cooker and lots of dangerous adventures outside of the kitchen.

The two lead characters have great chemistry and the journey feels like an authentic, slow-burn redemption story. However, that kind of potential happiness is fighting against the truth of history and the consequences of hate. As the last episodes grow more grim and violent, beloved characters meet their end and it becomes hard to imagine how things will conclude. But this story is a fantasy that leans into the fantastical when it needs it. Bon Appetit, Your Majesty ultimately brings the tale to a satisfying, although stressful, ending that’s literally and figuratively a chef’s kiss.

--

The Math

Highlights:
  • Time loop, time travel, portal fantasy
  • Tropey villains and supporting characters
  • Gorgeous food explorations
Nerd Coefficient: 7/10

POSTED BY: Ann Michelle Harris – Multitasking, fiction writing Trekkie currently dreaming of her next beach vacation.

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Realm of the Elderlings Project: The Rain Wild Chronicles, Book 1: Dragon Keeper

The character arcs are familiar, but it's all in service of building something new 

We are on to the fourth subseries of this fantastic saga! The Rain Wild Chronicles is, in a way, atypical of a Robin Hobb series, largely because it is strikingly lacking in misery and structural complexity. The character motivations are straightforward and driven by no more than the usual amount of discontent with the status quo; the main character arcs mostly avoid catastrophe, except inasmuch as a lively flood or brief skirmish enlivens typical fantasy plots; and the plot is a very simple quest structure. We don’t even get the Fool, in any of his many identities. At the end, the evil are punished (hooo boy, are they ever!), the good are rewarded, dragons kick ass, and. . .  fin. 

By now, I’ve reread enough Robin Hobb to recognize that the character arcs are mostly recycled from previous books. This is not a criticism; more an observation. Hobb evidently had a lot to say about certain types of personal journeys, and she didn’t say it all the first time round. Take Alise Finbok, the dragon scholar who yearns to study dragons, yearns so hard that she insists that a study trip up the Rain Wild River be included as a condition in her marriage contract. This is her only point of joy in a loveless marriage to a husband who is powerful and overbearing, who oppresses her and belittles her and makes her feel small. When she finally gets the opportunity to travel to the Rain Wilds and observe the dragons, she is disappointed to find the creatures so different from how she’d expected them to be. Yet nevertheless she takes advantage of circumstances and manages to remake herself  into a new person in their company. She is thus freed from her asshole husband, and learns what it is to be loved and valued for her own skills and self and personhood. This is a lovely character arc. It is also in many ways a repeat of Serilla’s arc from the Liveship Traders. Serilla, recall, begins her arc as the companion of the asshole Satrap of Jamaillian, who belittles her, ignores her experience and political acumen, and tries instead to treat her as a sexual object. She finds her purpose in her scholarship of the history and politics of Bingtown. When she finally gets the opportunity to travel to Bingtown, she is disappointed to discover that the life she’d imagined for herself there is not feasible. Yet nevertheless she takes advantage of circumstances and – with some false starts – manages to remake a new existence for herself, freed from the asshole Satrap, and – if not loved and valued – at least respected for her knowledge and experience. The worst parts of Alise’s story are really not all that terrible compared to Serilla’s. As I’ve said, these books lack the typical Hobbian misery that we see elsewhere, and Alise’s arc is shifted substantially upward on the despair-to-joy spectrum. But still: the shape of the arc is the same.

Likewise, Sedric, Alise’s childhood friend and the amenuensis-cum-secret-lover of her dastardly husband, gets his own dragon-fueled redemption arc that feels a lot like Malta Vestrit’s. But again, like Alise’s, it’s a bit gentler. Malta, recall, starts as the most glorious 13-year-old brat who has ever bratted, and ends as a full-ass Elderling, negotiating the fate of nations. Both Malta and Sedric begin their respective stories sheltered and selfish, accustomed to a life of pampering and wealth, and ready to make all kinds of foolish decisions to pursue that comfort without thinking through or properly understanding the consequences of their decisions. 

The particularly interesting contrast between these two arises from how respective horriblenesses are tempered. Malta is a literal child at the start, and whomst amongst ust has not indulged in 13-year-old brattiness? Sedric, by contrast, is a full-grown adult. He regularly travels internationally, and has a firm grasp on politics and trade. He knows the consequences of his actions, or should know, and that expectation of competence makes his behaviour much harder to forgive. Consider, for example, his decision to accompany Alise to the Rain Wilds, where he will acquire dragon parts to sell to the Duke of Chalced. These dragon parts represent the sole chance of saving the dying duke’s life, so Sedric expects to get a huge payoff upon delivery. 

What Sedric doesn’t seem to realize is that this is, on many levels, a terrible idea. Leave aside the ethics of butchering and selling sentient creatures for medicine, and think about the politics for a moment. The Duke of Chalced is dying. Dragon parts can save him. Dragons can only be found in the Rain Wilds. Last time Chalced tried to make trouble in that part of the world, Tintaglia fought them off, but Tintaglia is not here anymore.  So why in the world would Sedric want to (a) demonstrate to the desperate Duke of Chalced that life-saving resources are to be found in the Rain Wilds, and (b) do it at a time when Tintaglia is no longer defending them against Chalced? Sooner or later, the saying goes, there is always war with Chalced. Sedric’s actions are going to make it much sooner than later.

Malta’s brattiness is tempered by the fact that she’s a child. What excuse does Sedric have? In a word: Hest. Hest is Alise’s asshole husband, but he is also Sedric’s lover, and he is a classic narcissistic asshole. He glamours Sedric with  his handsomeness, his masterful exercise of wealth and power and taste; and he combines that glamour with a fair amount of manipulative emotional abuse. It is to please Hest that Sedric suggests Alise as a potential wife, and coaches Hest on how best to win Alise’s agreement for a marriage of convenience. It is to please Hest that he indulges in really foul semantic wordplay when Alise tries to invoke the clause in the marriage contract that dissolves the union in the event of infidelity. Oh no, says Hest, I’ve never slept with any other woman, right Sedric? And he is right: He’s not sleeping with women — because he’s sleeping with men. Sedric knows perfectly well that it makes no difference to Alise which people Hest is sleeping with. What matters is that she’s found evidence of infidelity and wants to invoke that contractual provision to dissolve her marriage. But because of her mistaken assumption that Hest is exclusively attracted to women, Hest wriggles out of the accusation. And because Alise has been friends with Sedric so long, she trusts him when he backs up Hest’s word; and so because of Sedric, she loses her opportunity to end her miserable marriage. Sedric is friendly, but he is not a friend.

As with Malta, Hobb does not insist that we feel sympathy for Sedric, at the start. The facts and actions and motivations are simply presented to us, and we are left to draw our own conclusions. Is Sedric a victim of domestic abuse, too enthralled to his abuser to do the right thing, for fear of the consequences for his own well-being? Or is he just a weak, sad man, who will prey on dragons and betray his friends to please an asshole he’s sleeping with? For my part, I am intellectually aware of the former interpretation, but emotionally I really lean toward the latter. Malta as a 13-year-old brat was gloriously, hilariously smackable. Sedric, as a full-grown failure of a man, is just sad. 

Let us turn now to the themes. Thematically, this book is fantastic. We’ll start with Tintaglia. Recall that we left the Liveship Traders trilogy with magnificent Tintaglia shepherding a massive tangle of 100 serpents to cocoon and transform into dragons, ready to take to the skies. We left the Tawny Man trilogy with the discovery and rescue of Icefyre, another adult dragon, mating with Tintaglia and ensuring another generation of eggs on the way. But the consequence of these triumphs is that Tintaglia abandons the Rain Wild dragons. When they were her only hope for the continuance of her species, she had time to help feed the pathetic specimens that emerged on the riverbed outside the Rain Wild city of Cassarick. But now, with a proper dragon at her side, she has no use for them. 

Yes, it is selfish. It puts the individual above the community. But this is how dragons are. They are not human. They do not have human-like loyalties to each other. And this ruthless, selfish independence works very well if you have the capacities of a dragon, if you can hunt and fly and feed yourself and defend yourself. Dragons are strong. Humans are squishy and weak. 

So humans must form societies to compensate for their squishy weakness, societies where they combine their capacities and work for the good of the whole, rather than the individual. This is especially important in an environment as harsh as the Rain Wilds, where people struggle to bear children, become disfigured with growths and scales as they age, and sicken and die young. However, this harshness of the environment, and the need to focus on the collective good, engenders harshness in its treatment of individuals. Any child born too ‘changed’ from the start is exposed at birth, to die. The reasoning of this regularly practiced infanticide is that these infants will only ever turn out to be a burden to society, sickening early, and unable to bear healthy children of their own. Why, conventional wisdom asks, must society welcome and support people who cannot contribute to the next generation? 

So life in the Rain Wilds is governed by these questions: How much of a burden of dead weight can a society bear? How much must an individual contribute before they are allowed to be a member of that society? Under what circumstances is it permissible to kill babies? It’s all very ‘Cold Equations’.

It’s an uncomfortable kind of conversation, and it’s not made any easier when we consider the case of Thymara, one of the primary viewpoint characters. Thymara is a young woman who ‘should’ have been exposed at birth. She was only given a chance at life because her father decided at the last minute to defy custom and expectation, and bring her back home, to raise her and train her in hunting and foraging and all the other life skills that Rain Wilders need to master for survival. It turns out that Thymara is an excellent hunter and forager. She brings in far more food than she eats. In her particular case, then, it would have been a mistake to leave her to die. Even if she never has a baby, and does not contribute to the next generation, her contributions are still a net positive to society.

But by even having this conversation, and pointing out that Thymara is a contributer rather than a burden, we are conceding an important point – namely, that it is reasonable to evaluate people’s right to live in a society as a function of their numerical contribution.1 This reasoning needs only a statistical evaluation of expected value in the long term aggregate to justify and indeed require infanticide. Sure, in Thymara’s case, to be sure, there is no danger of her being a burden, because she grew up to be a good hunter. But statistically it was unlikely, so in the long run, just to be sure of optimizing the collective good . . . 

It’s the Tragedy of the Commons pitted against the belief that killing babies is bad. And every member of the Rain Wilds knows this. There’s a wonderful moment quite early on, where Thymara’s father points out how good a hunter she is, and his companions get all shifty and uneasy. Because every Rain Wild parent who’s ever left a child to die, after nine months of hope and fear and love and waiting, after hours of agonizing labour and the crushing grief at seeing one’s baby born with claws instead of fingernails – those parents are not comforting themselves with calculating expected values. These parents are not thinking well, in the aggregate, statistically these changed children consume more than they produce, so society as a whole is stronger if. . . No. Rather, these parents are looking at Thymara and thinking, if I had possessed the strength of character; if I had defied the rules, then my little one might be here today, like she is.

So: what does society do with these extraneous people, the ones who should be dead, the ones who cannot produce a new generation? Well, if you have a bunch of dragons wallowing on your doorstep, hemmed in by trees and flightless; sickly and stunted and unable to hunt, consuming far more than they produce, the answer is clear. You pull up your algebra notes, combine like terms, and offer the deadweights a job: Lead the dragons upstream, hunt for them, tend to them, and find them a new place to live, far away from here. 

This gives us the heart of the plot: two sets of outcasts, human and dragon, must work together to find a new place to live. And they both engage in this endeavour whole-heartedly. They do not feel like they have been cast out of their homes, rejected by their society – though they absolutely have been. The humans are the rejects of the Rain Wilds, and the dragons have been entirely abandoned by Tintaglia. Nevertheless, they see it as an opportunity to build a new future. 

But they approach this opportunity with a different end goal in mind. The humans are released from the constraints of the Rain Wild society, freed to negotiate a new set of customs, and figure out how far their new freedoms can take them. They envision an entirely different society, built from scratch, attuned to their own specific needs. By contrast the dragons don’t hope to build something new. Their entire abnormal life, stunted and sickly, flightless and wallowing in mud, has been an education in how the old ways were better. Yet they cannot recover anything resembling those old ways without the help of their human keepers, and so the very task of returning to their former greatness is going to require a certain amount of concessions to circumstances. 

Next month, we’ll see how those concessions work out, and what kinds of negotiations the humans and dragons must make with each other in their quest for a new home, and the new type of society they must build together.



1 This type of reasoning is not restricted to fantasy settings. UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced this week that  immigrants must now perform unpaid labour as a precondition for the right to live in the UK.  

References

Hobb, Robin. Dragon Keeper [Harper Voyager, 2009]. 

CLARA COHEN lives in Scotland in a creaky old building with pipes for gas lighting still lurking under her floorboards. She is an experimental linguist by profession, and calligrapher and Islamic geometric artist by vocation. During figure skating season she does blather on a bit about figure skating. She is on Mastodon at wandering.shop/@ergative, and on Bluesky at https://bsky.app/profile/ergative-abs.bsky.social