Scan barcode
A review by rookeatsbooks
An Education in Malice by S.T. Gibson
adventurous
dark
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
For some godforsaken reason, I finished this book in one day. In the little praise I'll offer for this book, I guess it means I was intrigued enough by the plot to keep reading. BUT, and this is a big but, the writing is quite poor. I googled the author mid-read, thinking that this book must have been written by a teenager with a dark academia tumblr obsession. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
My biggest problem with this book is Gibson's tendency to tell and not show. The first 20-30% of the book is infodump exposition about "This is how Laura feels about this. This is how Carmilla feels about this. And they're both sooooooo mad at each other and have such a tense rivalry (You believe me, right?)" Also, a nitpick but Gibson's tendency to start multiple chapters with "Month verbed XYZ'" made me want to bash my head against a wall. Find a better way to make time transitions!
The telling instead of showing was especially notable when considering that a huge theme in the story is love and obsession and the ways that they cross over onto each other and can make people do crazy things. This is all fine and dandy, except for the fact that none of the writing makes you feel like any of these people are genuinely obsessed with one another. I didn't feel any chemistry or magnetism between the characters and considering that one of the main conceits of the plot is Laura and Carmilla's academic rivalry and competition for De Lafontaine's attention, you would think that DLF would actually be an interesting character. Wrong! In addition, I lost my mind over the sheer amount of times you read "Laura hates Carmilla. Carmilla hates Laura. But Laura's obsessed with Carmilla. And Carmilla's obsessed with Laura" in so many words. Again, show don't tell.
The prose was also bland. All of the reviews claiming that it's lush and beautiful and whatever........ have you read good prose? There was a lot of "devouring" and "feverishly" and things of the sort and it comes off both incredibly pretentious and also like Gibson didn't want to put the effort into describing things in an interesting way. There are many sections where she just spells out exactly what she wants you to deduce thematically from a situation and so many overwrought metaphors that I wanted to vomit.
For your viewing pleasure, here is a passage that made me audibly say "barf" out loud because of the cliche, overplayed, and just dumb and cringey figurative language:
(Not major spoilers since this is tagged as a romance, but spoilered just in case)
She kissed me with a martyr's agonized desperation, like I was the only sword she ever wanted to fall on. I kissed her right back like the cutting edge of a blade, trying to inflict as much damage as possible.
Honorable mentions:
Bound by blood and secrecy, with no recourse to anyone but each other. It would almost be romantic, under more advantageous circumstances.
"I'll go first, Carmilla said, draping herself elegantly across the couch. Everything she did was elegant.
I've always had the strangest instinct to run towards whatever is hurting me, to bare my neck to any predator that caught my scent
Love is sacrifice, Professor. Whether it's you on the butcher's table or not, someone always bleeds.
Also, completely separate conversation that I do not have the brainspace to go over in this review, but you would think that someone who writes queer romance would possibly realize that framing lesbians (or sapphic women in general) as predatory monsters who prey on younger women *cough cough, De Lafontaine* is problematic??? Like did the author think about the implications of that for more than 10 microseconds.
In conclusion, I don't know what possessed me to read this trainwreck of a book but I would not reread. I was so hyped by the premise and was severely disappointed by the execution. Rather than a thoughtful reimagining of Carmilla in an invigorating setting, it came off as a wannabe The Secret History with half the wit or writing skill.
My biggest problem with this book is Gibson's tendency to tell and not show. The first 20-30% of the book is infodump exposition about "This is how Laura feels about this. This is how Carmilla feels about this. And they're both sooooooo mad at each other and have such a tense rivalry (You believe me, right?)" Also, a nitpick but Gibson's tendency to start multiple chapters with "Month verbed XYZ'" made me want to bash my head against a wall. Find a better way to make time transitions!
The telling instead of showing was especially notable when considering that a huge theme in the story is love and obsession and the ways that they cross over onto each other and can make people do crazy things. This is all fine and dandy, except for the fact that none of the writing makes you feel like any of these people are genuinely obsessed with one another. I didn't feel any chemistry or magnetism between the characters and considering that one of the main conceits of the plot is Laura and Carmilla's academic rivalry and competition for De Lafontaine's attention, you would think that DLF would actually be an interesting character. Wrong! In addition, I lost my mind over the sheer amount of times you read "Laura hates Carmilla. Carmilla hates Laura. But Laura's obsessed with Carmilla. And Carmilla's obsessed with Laura" in so many words. Again, show don't tell.
The prose was also bland. All of the reviews claiming that it's lush and beautiful and whatever........ have you read good prose? There was a lot of "devouring" and "feverishly" and things of the sort and it comes off both incredibly pretentious and also like Gibson didn't want to put the effort into describing things in an interesting way. There are many sections where she just spells out exactly what she wants you to deduce thematically from a situation and so many overwrought metaphors that I wanted to vomit.
For your viewing pleasure, here is a passage that made me audibly say "barf" out loud because of the cliche, overplayed, and just dumb and cringey figurative language:
(Not major spoilers since this is tagged as a romance, but spoilered just in case)
Honorable mentions:
Also, completely separate conversation that I do not have the brainspace to go over in this review, but you would think that someone who writes queer romance would possibly realize that framing lesbians (or sapphic women in general) as predatory monsters who prey on younger women *cough cough, De Lafontaine* is problematic??? Like did the author think about the implications of that for more than 10 microseconds.
In conclusion, I don't know what possessed me to read this trainwreck of a book but I would not reread. I was so hyped by the premise and was severely disappointed by the execution. Rather than a thoughtful reimagining of Carmilla in an invigorating setting, it came off as a wannabe The Secret History with half the wit or writing skill.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Drug use, Gore, Sexual content, Violence, Blood, Murder, and Alcohol
Minor: Confinement, Homophobia, Infidelity, Misogyny, Racism, Death of parent, and Abandonment