Reviews with content warning for Alcohol - If We Were Villains

I wanted to like this book, I was so hopeful from the book description that it would be just my thing, but no. I hated it. It tried to be a Shakespearean Secret History and failed at both. None of the characters felt like real people, their motivations were ridiculous, and they were all selfish, narcissistic, self-obsessed assholes. Asshole characters are fine, I don’t have to like the characters to like the story, but the plot also just didn’t do anything for me. I think this is another book that could have been good, I liked the premise a lot and love an academic setting, but ultimately it just fell short for me.

Also, even though the author is a woman, the depiction of Meredith in particular felt extremely misogynistic to me. All the women characters felt underdeveloped compared to the men, and the women only really exist to bolster the male drama. They rarely interact with each other, and when they do they treat each other badly. They are just unfleshed out tropes. And maybe that’s the point somehow, they each fill a typical Shakespearean female archetype, but if so it was very badly done. Wouldn’t pass the bechdel test, that’s for sure.

Station Eleven did what this was trying to do with Shakespeare much, much better.

Content Warnings

monkitty's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious reflective tense slow-paced

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

5.0

Solo estábamos nosotros: nosotros siete y los árboles y el lago y la luna y, por supuesto, Shakespeare. Él vivía con nosotros como un octavo compañero de piso, un amigo más viejo y sabio, perpetuamente fuera de vista, pero siempre presente en nuestra mente, como si acabara de salir de la habitación. «Poderosa es la fuerza de la poesía celestial».

Content Warnings

augustrogue's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious reflective sad tense slow-paced

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

1.0

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

weirdassfanta's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional mysterious sad tense medium-paced

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

5.0

Ouch.

Ok, so I know people say this is a rip off the secret history, but I don’t care at this point. I’m also glad I read this before the secret history, so I can appreciate this book for what it is. I’ve been an emotional wreck every time I chose to pick up this book, and I fear I will be every time I think of it as well. I don’t think I can stand to hear criticism on this book and I wish I could rate it more than 5 stars. From the first page, I could tell it was going to be a book I devoured, and I ranted about it to my mom every time I put the book down. The tension between the characters had me in a choke hold, and I didn’t see the end coming.

James is alive and they lived happily ever after guys, they have to or else I will continue crying for days.

I am ready to show up at the author’s house and demand even just one more page after that cliffhanger? kind of?? This book is one of my favorites and I will cherish it deeply. If you want to read this, I suggest reading this before the secret history if you want to enjoy it for what it is by itself. It hurt but that’s how you seem to know it’s a good book. I suggest you read it if you’re looking for some mentally ill young adults in school trying to choose if they want to kill or kiss each other.

Content Warnings

shay_talksbooks's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional mysterious

Loveable characters? It's complicated

4.25

Read for the cjtalks book club pick for August (although this book has been high on my to read pile for a while!)

Set at a performing arts college, that solely studies and performs Shakespeare's works, we follow a group of drama students as they enter their final year of study. One of the main actors is found dead, and the mystery of how and why is narrated by their fellow actor Oliver (no spoilers, the death is on like page 5 or something)

This was a mystery filled with twists, turns and reveals. It was chocked full of Shakespeare quotes and re-enactments of the plays (my favourite was 'watching' the Macbeth scenes come alive), but I wouldn't say you would have to know his works to enjoy or understand what's happening. The whole book was very dark academia, and filled with tension and atmosphere...and I loved it!!

ML Rio came out swinging with this debut novel, and I can't wait to read what they write next!!

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

More...