WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS BELOW
 |
| “We're not courting trouble...Flirting with it, at most.”- The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue, Mackenzi Lee |
But as Monty embarks on his Grand Tour of Europe, his quest for a life filled with pleasure and vice is in danger of coming to an end. Not only does his father expect him to take over the family’s estate upon his return, but Monty is also nursing an impossible crush on his best friend and traveling companion, Percy.
Still it isn’t in Monty’s nature to give up. Even with his younger sister, Felicity, in tow, he vows to make this yearlong escapade one last hedonistic hurrah and flirt with Percy from Paris to Rome. But when one of Monty’s reckless decisions turns their trip abroad into a harrowing manhunt that spans across Europe, it calls into question everything he knows, including his relationship with the boy he adores.
Remember how I said that Life: An Exploded Diagram is historical fiction for those who love history? Well, The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue is the opposite of that.
Okay, I'm being mean. But if you actually enjoy history and are expecting to harvest any new knowledge about the 18th century, don't pick this one up. If you want a decadent tour of Europe long before two world wars ravaged it don't pick this up. If you want gorgeous descriptions of 18th century architecture, dress, or art don't pick this one up. Basically, if you want historical fiction at all, don't pick this one up.
Well, I'm being a little harsh here. But in my defense, I wanted an 18th century version of The Luxe, dammit (Anna Godbersen, get on that please). I wanted fun, brain melting trash with tons of pretty dresses and a cute gay romance. I wanted lighthearted adventures around old world Europe. And for the first 100 or so pages, that's what I got.
Well, kind of. Right away, there were far too many tropes that I cared for in both historical fiction and regular contemporaries. The asshole dad, for one. That's one trope I'm fucking sick of, to the point where whenever I see it, that book doesn't have a chance in hell of getting a five star rating. Lazy goddamn writing. Also, can I just say that people hit their children back in the 1700s and it wasn't nearly as big of a deal as Lee treated it to be. She is committing the cardinal sin of inserting modern morals in a non modern (or Early Modern) society and that pissed me off. I don't care if you don't agree with it, that's how things were done back then and we can't fix it now.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. I could have dealt with a few tropes if the book ended up being as fun as it seemed for the first 100 pages. I mean, sure, would I have wanted a few more descriptions of Paris or other beautiful European cities, most definitely. In fact, the lack of descriptions made me nervous- how can Lee write a book about a Grand Tour of Europe and not write about the cities? Or the clothing! I get not everyone's as into historical clothing as I am, but that's a must for any fun fluffy historical fiction book.
But then, after 100 pages, the book seemed to take a strange, messy turn. It seemed that Lee suddenly got bored with the book she was writing and just decided to start winging it. I didn't have a problem with it taking on a more action-adventure vibe until we got to Barcelona and a little voice in the back of my head said "Isn't this just like Marina?" And of course, I started comparing the two and I'm sure you could guess which came out on top. Marina just did that whole Frankenstein-esque plotline so much better than this book, and, hell Marina even did city descriptions 110% better than this book and it wasn't even about a goddamn journey around Europe. Marina made me feel like I was in Barcelona, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, in this book Barcelona could have been Naples, for all I knew. It made me wonder if Lee has ever even left the United States, though her author biography seems to claim otherwise.
Not to mention, the writing declined in quality after the first 100 pages. While I wasn't in love with the style at first- thought it was a bit try-hard- I still thought it was nice that Lee tried to mimic the way people spoke back then- she did it in a very cliche manner, but I could have dealt with it. Instead, as the book progressed the narrative sounded more and more like a contemporary, again making me think the writer lost interest in the book she was writing or decided it was too much effort. In that respect she reminded me of the way Katherine Longshore writes, a dissonant blend of anachronisms and historical vocabulary. The word sloppy came to mind, unfortunately.
But what about the characters? Cliche. For one thing, both Monty and Percy were obviously written by a woman. Monty had the potential for interestingness, with his rakishness, but he fell too much on his rather trope-y background for that. Also, at times he struck me as Lee trying her best to make him into a lovable rogue, on pare with Jack Sparrow, but it didn't work too well. Percy was another potential, but in the end his character turned too much into the token for me to truly like him- I mean, with the exception of his love of music, his three defining character traits- gay, biracial (black), and epileptic- all seemed included for the sake of inclusiveness and thus he didn't seem like a real individual, and frankly it was made even worse by Lee's decision to use first person. Which is a damn shame. It kind of made me want to write a character with those three traits though, and see how much fun I could have with them. Felicity was a cliche and one that I have particular hatred for. You know, the badass, knowledge-obsessed, bookish, ahead of her time historical fiction heroine? I do, unfortunately. I had some hopes for her, too, when she was shown at the beginning of the novel reading "romance novels". I was hoping she would be original, a girl who might be a bit frivolous and someone who maybe even loves fashion and romance and all that, but is still smart and knows how to get what she wants. I mean, this is the 18th century. Women may not have been allowed to have a ton of education, but they could have plenty of power if they knew how to get it. The courtesans in the Sun King's court, for instance, were some of the most powerful women in France because of their close connections to the king. Unfortunately, Felicity's character fell too much back on typical tropes of what a strong female character is, and suffered as a result. And I think my least favorite parts of both these characters is that they could have played the perfect straight men to Monty's antics, but instead every time they would lecture him- and have really good points, too- they always started going on and on about how their lives are so much worse than his. Which got real tiring after a while, because the "who has the worse life" pissing contest could go on without end, especially in historical fiction.
I also felt many things could have been taken out for a more concise narrative. The pirates, for instance, had no real point and easily could have been taken out. Also, they were more romanticised than the goddamn Pirates of Caribbean. Look, I love pirates, but regardless of their race, they were shit human beings who thought nothing of killing women and children and sinking ships for a quick buck. For an author who seems so against the romanticisation of anything in history, I was surprised she made that mistake.
The ending was also stupid and again, unrealistic. I think it would have made for a much better ending if all the characters were forced to confront reality, if Percy had gone to Amsterdam and Felicity to her finishing school and Monty had to take over his father's estate. Sure, it would have been sobering, but ultimately realistic and would have been more in line with the realistic view of the time period Lee had been trying to portray, somewhat. But of course I can't really fault her too much for the fairytale ending, given that this is fluffy historical fiction you probably aren't going to read for a history lesson etc etc etc.
What I wish is that Lee had given us a specific year. Saying the 18th century isn't enough. A lot went down in the 18th century, from the rise of world powers Prussia and Russia, the increasing colonization of the New World, the Second Hundred Years' War (fought in a series of wars that all boiled down to France vs Britain, including the War of Spanish Succession), the Scientific Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, the Financial Revolution and beginning Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, and the revolutions by the end of the century. So a lot of shit went down, and the only war Lee really mentioned was the War of Spanish Succession, because she had to insert watered down European politics in there somehow. She also talked a bit about the Scientific Revolution, in the form of Felicity but then started going on and on about alchemy. A King Louis was mentioned, but King Louises ruled France basically the entire century, until, you know, Robespierre and Napoleon and all that. Anyway, in the book King Louis is mentioned as being sick, but the Sun King died in 1715, which after reading the main text (but before the afternote, which cleared up some confusion) when I was trying to figure out all these dates it seemed like it would have been a good time for the book to take place, it being after the war of Spanish Succession and during the Golden Age of Piracy (which Lee mentions in her author's note in the back), since that ended in 1730. However it seemed like it had been some time since the War ended, and it ended in 1714. Lee also has a couple characters talk about Voltaire's exile in England, which wasn't until 1726 or 1728 (one of those years). The women's fashion at the ball at Versailles was also described as being over the top in a way it wouldn't have been until at least the 1750s. The only thing I'm sure about is that it was before 1770.
So where was I going with this lengthy rant about timeline? Oh yes, if Lee had actually cared about being factual, she would have given us a year. And yes, I consider that a must in historical fiction, because then I can pull in all kinds of fun facts about the context of the time period and all that jazz and the author could have gone into more specifics about the politics, art, scientific discovers and fashion of that particular year instead of giving us the vague overview she did. On the same note, hers is one of the few author's notes I've ever been disappointed in, because she didn't really give a ton of facts and didn't really seem that interested in it. I felt she put it in as a sense of obligation and not because she has any real interest in teaching others, or seemed like she just figured most would skip past it anyway. I mean, she did narrow the decade down to the 1720s, which does make a lot of sense but still, that should have been in the main text. I do, however, have one major correction- Alexander Hamilton wasn't mixed race. He did grow up in the Caribbean, but his mother was half Scottish or British (one of those) and half French Hugenot. While there are rumors, there is no evidence of him actually being of mixed race background and, hate to say it, but most of those rumors were probably started by his political opponents in an attempt to discredit him. Welcome to the 18th century, folks. Dumas, on the other hand, was indeed mixed race, so she at least gets half a point for that.
I haven't read My Lady Jane, but feel like this book is inspired by that one, to some extent. Mostly the fantastical elements in this novel to show the politics of the time. While I'm sure it makes historical politics, much of it heavy and complicated, go down far easier, especially to a lay reader or someone not interested much in history, I don't really like it myself. And the history teacher in me is disappointed by the idea that people need fantasy to become interested in history, especially since the politics are truly fascinating on their own, even more interesting than the clusterfuck that is today's politics (and as an added bonus, you miss out on all the bitterness and resentment that comes with talking about today's politics! Though let me tell you something, you haven't truly lived until you've gotten into a heated debate over Trotsky vs Stalin). But as a whole, I didn't really like the politics parts anyway, because I felt like they were included just as a selling point and took too much away from the idea of a Grand Tour. I would have preferred it if she went the Cabaret approach and had all of this simmering in the background, coming up in the various salons or in the form of letters or newspaper articles during our group's travels around Europe.
I sound like I really hate this book, even though I don't. Sure, I wish Lee had made several other decisions writing this book and I wish she actually sat down and thought about what she wanted the book to be, but I suppose it was fun enough as is. And I admit, my expectations were too high (this was actually my most anticipated book of the year). I liked that it took place in the 1700s, one of my favorite centuries when it comes to fashion and art and politics (though I admit I'm not that into the Scientific Revolution or the Age of Enlightenment) and not WWII like so many other new releases. I liked that it was a male/male romance. I was hoping this book would remind me of Brideshead Revisited, at least loosely.
That being said, this book was easy to lose myself in, and it inspired me endlessly, mostly to create my own version of it. And I did enjoy mentally revisiting Marina, and reminding myself how much I loved it and how much that book stayed with me even though I read it 4 months ago. And I admit, I do love it when a historical fiction novel of any kind gains any form of popularity, especially one with as unique and ambitious an idea as this one. For once, I'm actually excited to see the copy cats. So I can't really say I hate this book. In fact, maybe this book is exactly what this genre needs. For the past four years, historical fiction has fallen into a WWII rut and it needs to end. Hopefully, the popularity surrounding this book will open the doors for new, fun releases. But maybe I'm just getting my hopes up again.
I also felt many things could have been taken out for a more concise narrative. The pirates, for instance, had no real point and easily could have been taken out. Also, they were more romanticised than the goddamn Pirates of Caribbean. Look, I love pirates, but regardless of their race, they were shit human beings who thought nothing of killing women and children and sinking ships for a quick buck. For an author who seems so against the romanticisation of anything in history, I was surprised she made that mistake.
The ending was also stupid and again, unrealistic. I think it would have made for a much better ending if all the characters were forced to confront reality, if Percy had gone to Amsterdam and Felicity to her finishing school and Monty had to take over his father's estate. Sure, it would have been sobering, but ultimately realistic and would have been more in line with the realistic view of the time period Lee had been trying to portray, somewhat. But of course I can't really fault her too much for the fairytale ending, given that this is fluffy historical fiction you probably aren't going to read for a history lesson etc etc etc.
What I wish is that Lee had given us a specific year. Saying the 18th century isn't enough. A lot went down in the 18th century, from the rise of world powers Prussia and Russia, the increasing colonization of the New World, the Second Hundred Years' War (fought in a series of wars that all boiled down to France vs Britain, including the War of Spanish Succession), the Scientific Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, the Financial Revolution and beginning Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, and the revolutions by the end of the century. So a lot of shit went down, and the only war Lee really mentioned was the War of Spanish Succession, because she had to insert watered down European politics in there somehow. She also talked a bit about the Scientific Revolution, in the form of Felicity but then started going on and on about alchemy. A King Louis was mentioned, but King Louises ruled France basically the entire century, until, you know, Robespierre and Napoleon and all that. Anyway, in the book King Louis is mentioned as being sick, but the Sun King died in 1715, which after reading the main text (but before the afternote, which cleared up some confusion) when I was trying to figure out all these dates it seemed like it would have been a good time for the book to take place, it being after the war of Spanish Succession and during the Golden Age of Piracy (which Lee mentions in her author's note in the back), since that ended in 1730. However it seemed like it had been some time since the War ended, and it ended in 1714. Lee also has a couple characters talk about Voltaire's exile in England, which wasn't until 1726 or 1728 (one of those years). The women's fashion at the ball at Versailles was also described as being over the top in a way it wouldn't have been until at least the 1750s. The only thing I'm sure about is that it was before 1770.
So where was I going with this lengthy rant about timeline? Oh yes, if Lee had actually cared about being factual, she would have given us a year. And yes, I consider that a must in historical fiction, because then I can pull in all kinds of fun facts about the context of the time period and all that jazz and the author could have gone into more specifics about the politics, art, scientific discovers and fashion of that particular year instead of giving us the vague overview she did. On the same note, hers is one of the few author's notes I've ever been disappointed in, because she didn't really give a ton of facts and didn't really seem that interested in it. I felt she put it in as a sense of obligation and not because she has any real interest in teaching others, or seemed like she just figured most would skip past it anyway. I mean, she did narrow the decade down to the 1720s, which does make a lot of sense but still, that should have been in the main text. I do, however, have one major correction- Alexander Hamilton wasn't mixed race. He did grow up in the Caribbean, but his mother was half Scottish or British (one of those) and half French Hugenot. While there are rumors, there is no evidence of him actually being of mixed race background and, hate to say it, but most of those rumors were probably started by his political opponents in an attempt to discredit him. Welcome to the 18th century, folks. Dumas, on the other hand, was indeed mixed race, so she at least gets half a point for that.
I haven't read My Lady Jane, but feel like this book is inspired by that one, to some extent. Mostly the fantastical elements in this novel to show the politics of the time. While I'm sure it makes historical politics, much of it heavy and complicated, go down far easier, especially to a lay reader or someone not interested much in history, I don't really like it myself. And the history teacher in me is disappointed by the idea that people need fantasy to become interested in history, especially since the politics are truly fascinating on their own, even more interesting than the clusterfuck that is today's politics (and as an added bonus, you miss out on all the bitterness and resentment that comes with talking about today's politics! Though let me tell you something, you haven't truly lived until you've gotten into a heated debate over Trotsky vs Stalin). But as a whole, I didn't really like the politics parts anyway, because I felt like they were included just as a selling point and took too much away from the idea of a Grand Tour. I would have preferred it if she went the Cabaret approach and had all of this simmering in the background, coming up in the various salons or in the form of letters or newspaper articles during our group's travels around Europe.
I sound like I really hate this book, even though I don't. Sure, I wish Lee had made several other decisions writing this book and I wish she actually sat down and thought about what she wanted the book to be, but I suppose it was fun enough as is. And I admit, my expectations were too high (this was actually my most anticipated book of the year). I liked that it took place in the 1700s, one of my favorite centuries when it comes to fashion and art and politics (though I admit I'm not that into the Scientific Revolution or the Age of Enlightenment) and not WWII like so many other new releases. I liked that it was a male/male romance. I was hoping this book would remind me of Brideshead Revisited, at least loosely.
That being said, this book was easy to lose myself in, and it inspired me endlessly, mostly to create my own version of it. And I did enjoy mentally revisiting Marina, and reminding myself how much I loved it and how much that book stayed with me even though I read it 4 months ago. And I admit, I do love it when a historical fiction novel of any kind gains any form of popularity, especially one with as unique and ambitious an idea as this one. For once, I'm actually excited to see the copy cats. So I can't really say I hate this book. In fact, maybe this book is exactly what this genre needs. For the past four years, historical fiction has fallen into a WWII rut and it needs to end. Hopefully, the popularity surrounding this book will open the doors for new, fun releases. But maybe I'm just getting my hopes up again.
6 out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment