Reviews with content warning for Bullying - If We Were Villains

I was so hyped for this book and truly wanted to love it - unfortunately, while it had a few fleeting moments of some very lovely prose, it ended up feeling like a bit of a pretentious mess. Multiple, long scenes that were basically play-by-plays of Shakespearean stage productions. Inexplicable switches into script-style dialogue that disrupts the flow terribly: (not from the book, just an example)

Meredith: "Where did Alexander go?"
Me: "I don’t know."
Wren: "I'm worried about him."

...and then switches back just as abruptly, like it forgot it wasn't a screenplay for a second. Scenes that end abruptly for poetic/dramatic effect and then don't adequately explain what happened next. And I wanted a lot *more* of a relationship dynamic that was only lightly explored in the last 10% or so of the book.

The thing is, I actually *like* Shakespeare, quite a bit. The course I took on his plays was one of my favorites in university, and I still have a Complete Works anthology on my bookshelf. But I don't know, this book just made me roll my eyes a lot. At least the author acknowledges that the characters talking to each other in rapid-fire Shakespeare quotes about mundane things like they're ye olde Gilmore Girls (my own analogy, not hers) *is* super pretentious, in her ending notes. This book is for someone, maybe, but for the most part, it's not for me.

Content Warnings

alrsto's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.75

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS. They're marked, but if you continue reading, you're doing so at your own risk.

There were things I really liked about this book and problematic things that kept me from loving it.

Likes: I have only a passing knowledge of Shakespeare, but I know enough to see how this story echoes Shakespeare's tragedies, complete with characters making choices and then wrestling at length with the consequences—especially the internal (psychological) consequences.

The second time I read the book, I noticed some subtle, Shakespeare-esque foreshadowing that I couldn't see, and thus didn't appreciate, during my first read, when I was just wondering what's going to happen next.

I also have a big soft spot for a ensemble cast, especially where the characters have a history and the various interpersonal relationships between them inform how they get along with each other, as well as the narrative.

I liked the (to me) subtle depiction of an unacknowledged love between two characters that I gradually realized was an undercurrent propelling many of the characters' decisions—sometimes in ways they realized, sometime in ways they didn't seem to.

I felt the same pleasant frustration I do when reading romances: "For heaven's sake, would the two of you finally hold each other, kiss, and admit that you're in deeply love with each other already?!"

Finally, I appreciated that there was an interesting moral question left open for pondering at the end.

That moral question: Oliver's decision to take the fall for the murderer may have been motivated by love. But did he really do the murderer any favors? Or did he inadvertently inflict more psychological suffering on them by not allowing them to clear their conscience and receive punishment?

Problems: I could have used a little more history about the groups' years at the school before their fourth year, in which the story takes place.

Knowing more about how they became the clique that they are and how the various sub-relationships within the clique have evolved and changed over the years would have made their decisions and actions more understandable.

I also thought the murder victim was one-dimensional and too thinly drawn.

What was Richard like before the events of the story? The other characters react to his physical bullying as if it were new, yet none of them spend much time wondering why he's suddenly so physically abusive with them. Where did they think his newfound sadism was coming from?

Was that physical bullying, in fact, not really a surprise to them? If so, why? Had his bullying been more subtle in the past, perhaps taking the form of emotional and/or verbal abuse? Had it started out with "teasing" that could have at first been written off as "just a joke" or the recipient being "sensitive" if they felt hurt?

Or did he always have an obnoxious, outsize ego or a wildly moody temperament that the rest of the group was so used to putting up with that they didn't realize it was gradually morphing into something sadistic and sinister?

Without a richer group history and a more robust picture of the victim, I was puzzled about why the other six members of the group chose the actions (and inactions) they did in response to him.

I found the scenes where the characters act out Shakespeare scenes—specifically the Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet sequences—long and tedious. I don't think they added enough to the story or advanced the plot enough to justify their length.

I also wonder how plausible it is that college actors would be thrown into acting out parts of plays without rehearsal or even knowing who was playing what parts beyond their own.

I could have used less of the characters speaking in Shakespeare lines to each other in their everyday conversations.

(Unless the point of it was for us, the reader/observers, to feel as annoyed with it in the way the characters' fellow students likely would have been annoyed with it, thinking the Shakepeareans were cliquey and full of themselves. In which case, mission accomplished!)

Finally, I have to wonder why James and Oliver couldn't admit to being in love, or at least attracted to each other.

For one thing, Alexander, another member of their clique, is dallying with another man, and no one seems surprised or judgmental about it.

For another, sure, it was the late 1990s and pre–social media. LGBTQA+ issues weren't as widely discussed by as many people as they are now.

But Dellecher was an arts school where theater was a big deal. Even Shakespeare nerds would have been aware of the greater US theater scene, including Rent taking Broadway by storm in 1996.

Would being queer, gay, bi, and/or pansexual—or even just sexual experimentation—really have been that shocking, verboten, or problematic in this context?

Did James, Oliver, or both just not want to be labelled as gay, perhaps because they thought it would limit their acting career prospects? Did they know (or suspect) Richard was a homophobe whose reaction would be unbearable if they were a couple?

Or was this a more garden-variety case of two members of a close-knit group being attracted to each other but not wanting to admit it, the same way many main characters in romance novels don't—because true love can be scary and/or cause a big disruption in the group if revealed?

Whatever the case, I think if we'd known more of the group's history, more about Richard, and more about the context, James and Oliver's inability to admit feelings for each other might have made a little more sense.

Content Warnings

boliv3's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional reflective tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

The epilogue felt like a harried explanation, but otherwise the book had me in a chokehold and gave me characters I probably won’t forget.

Content Warnings

lanfearious's review against another edition

Go to review page

mysterious reflective sad medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.5

Interesting foray into the interpersonal relationships between 7 undergraduate theatre student majors and the mystery behind what happened in their 4th year.

Content Warnings

masonwe's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious sad tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.5

Content Warnings

vidotson's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious reflective tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.0

Content Warnings

sealbrecht's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional sad medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

2.5

Content Warnings

mikathereviewer's review against another edition

Go to review page

2.0

First of all we have plays, mention of poetry and of course acting.
Personally, the touch of a play while reading was really cool. We get dialogue only, acts and more. The last play I read was really fun so seeing one now again makes me remember that I didn't read them in a while.
The acting was relatable as I am or rather was an actor myself. That's also the reason I wanted to read this book. Not 'cause of the Shakespeare and other historical stuff but the acting.

Some parts were actually crazy/interesting to read about as the book didn't really had the 'it was boring/too slow' problem.
Some examples:
Scene I Act IX was so crazy. Like it felt like real betrayal but also not. And what did James even imagine? What was that aaaah.
The II. Act was so sad. Especially scene II, I feel so bad for James.

I also think that Oliver has some character depth (Especially in the III. Act as we get to know his family)

The whole drama was the only reason I was still indulged into reading this. It kept me reading.

Since I didn't read the book for the historical stuff I got a bit irriated by the fact that Shakespeare got mentioned often. And with often I mean very often. I get it that's the theme/topic for Year 4 and our protagonists also play historical figures, but honestly it could have been mentioned a bit less and more story instead. It got too much that I, at some point, skipped the Shakespeare parts.
Also the book isn't very original if over 50% of it is just Shakespeare.

Never have I ever as an actor reinterpreted/recited my lines as first of all no one would understand, except me and secondly that's usually a thing poets do and not actors. The kids in this story did this and it made me feel weird. Just use your official lines and learn them properly.

The characters were so weird sometimes and before someone tells me: Some theatre kids are actually weird. Yes SOME and that's no excuse to include only weird characters.

We never got an explanation why Richard was so mad at some point. Never. Why was he? That apparently didn't happen the years before so that must have triggered something, but we never get any explanation. The other character also have no depth and they all fell flat (except Oliver, as mentioned above)

Meredith was such a useless character who was only depictured as a wh0re the whole time.

They did use for real, without jokes, as sexual orientation 'sexually amphibious'

The ending was so predictable. It was right the person you would feel suspicious at first. The ending is nothing shocking.

31. July 2024

Content Warnings

More...