top of page
Writer's pictureMegan

The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue, Mackenzie Lee

Rating: 2/5

Spoiler Warning! This review does go into some spoiler-filled detail so if you don't want to know anything crucial to the plot I suggest you skip this one!

Trigger Warnings - As lighthearted as this book tries to be, there are some dark topics in it including racism, slavery, homophobia, physical abuse, and injury detail.


 

I'm going to say this straight away just to get it out the way: I don't like Monty. He was okay at the start, but over the 500 pages of this book, I came to dislike him and his self-centred nature immensely.


The premise is good. I like the premise. That's why The Gentleman's Guide has been on my TBR for literally years. And, to be fair to the book, it has everything I would have liked at about 15 or 16 years old. Feminism, pining, queet relationships, pirates.


Now though? I couldn't see anything but sadness. The narration feels like its trying to be very tongue in cheek, Monty's point of view infusing everything with the general cheer with which he approaches life, but if you think about anyone's situation for more than a minute it's just...sad. Monty, Percy, and Felicity are all in situations they cannot change; as I began this book I wondered where it would end because it's historical fiction - whatever happened would be somewhat in line with history and history did not allow for queer relationship or female doctors in the 1700s. No level of fun narration changes the seriousness of their situations.


Whilst we're on the narration, I'll admit I didn't mind it. Monty's not the smartest tool in the shed, but Lee's writing style did mean that a lot of his personality was revealed in the way he observed situations - looking at attractive people often took precedence over reading people's emotions or looking at the room he was in. A small annoyance was the occassional modern slang that seemed to appear - I could never decide if it was a way they would have spoken in the 18th century or a way to reach out to modern audiences and imply a sort of timelessness to the story. Either way, calling men "lads" and saying something is "well close" or "well smart" felt entirely out of place.


The plot? Well, it's definitely historical fiction, and the idea of a Grand Tour is something I find immensely intriguing, so Monty and Percy travelling around Europe with a chaperone which Monty hoped to escape? Fantastic! And then it just got more and more absurd. I know it's historical fiction but there 's a lot in The Gentleman's Guide that wasn't even close to realistic. Weirdly enough, this didn't actually bother me. Highwaymen and travelling markets, a family obsessed with death, and a band of men newly turned to pirating were all fun ways to drive the plot.


A lack of realism isn't the worst thing in the world.



What drive me mad about this book is Monty's ongoing and infalliable ability to completely miss the point. At the start of the book, we find a gambling addict and alcoholic pining after his best friend and acting in an entirely reprehensible way (by standards of the time, at least). These things don't necessarily make him a bad person, just a bad gentleman. Given his semi-public bisexuality, it's perhaps no surprise that he hates being at home, has a poor relationship with his father, and is clearly depressed.


To begin with, I sympathised with Monty. His depression, clear reliance on alcohol as a coping mechanism, and emerging self-hatred were genuinely elements that I wanted to explore. His love for Percy was, perhaps, the least interesting thing about him.


And yet, he ended up being one of the most disappointing characters I've read. Every single opportunity to improve as a person is ignored or brushed away. Monty himself is oblivious to the plight of others, Percy's race and difficult social standing and Felicity's gendered barriers are things he has never even considered, too wrapped up in himself to see the way others treat his best friend and his sister. And frequently in the first half of the book, the chances he has to learn about them are taken away from him by other characters saying "Monty won't understand" or that he needn't concern himself with it. Which is ridiculous.


But it doesn't matter, because even when he does have the chance to learn, when people do explain it to him, he doesn't get it. When he manages to help Scipio and his crew avoid capture by a French ship by pretending the pirate ship is his, Monty is too busy being offended by a lack of thank you to listen to the people around him explain that his privilege is what saved them and that having to rely on a rich white man to bail you out of trouble is not an easy thing to accept.


I don't know how or why Percy put up with him.


And of course people have made the argument to me that such a frustrating character, someone who makes me talk about him this much, is at least a well-written character.


Maybe.


Except for the fact that it took roughly 450 pages of Monty listening to people explain privilege, of hearing people explaining why their situation is bad, of driving forwards with his need to cure Percy despite never asking Percy if he wanted to be cured for him to change. And let's be real, what changed his mind was seeing a corpse and losing an ear. It wasn't that he finally understood that Percy just wanted to be accepted as a person who just happened to have epilepsy rather than as a person with an incurable disease that must be fought. What happens is he loses his good looks, loses his hearing, and realises he has very little chance of finding any happiness if he returns home because of everything that happened on his Tour. Even at the end, it's still about him.




Okay, I didn't realise I had quite that much anger held in about him. But I stand by it.


I guess I just wanted a fun tour around Europe where Monty tried not to kiss his best friend even though they evidently both love each other, but instead got a weird adventure story involving alchemy and a successful magic...heart...thing? I don't know. It just wasn't what I expected from it.


Please tell me there are others out there that share this opinion? And if you've read the sequel, is it worth giving a go? I'm so interested in Felicty - more than I ever was in Monty - so am tempted to still pick it up. Let me know your thoughts...

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page