You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Scan barcode
Reviews tagging 'Medical content'
The Lady's Guide to Petticoats and Piracy by Mackenzi Lee
45 reviews
water_violin's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
funny
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence, Blood, Medical content, and Injury/Injury detail
Moderate: Addiction, Chronic illness, Emotional abuse, Gun violence, Homophobia, Kidnapping, Grief, and Colonisation
Minor: Child abuse, Drug abuse, Drug use, Racism, Slavery, Vomit, Religious bigotry, Death of parent, and Sexual harassment
taigah's review against another edition
adventurous
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny, Violence, Blood, and Medical content
Moderate: Drug abuse and Alcohol
thebookpaiges's review
adventurous
funny
inspiring
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism, Violence, Medical content, and Classism
Moderate: Cursing, Blood, Kidnapping, and Alcohol
Minor: Ableism, Alcoholism, Racism, Acephobia/Arophobia, and Fire/Fire injury
pattyblom's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Interesting story about Felicity in the 1700's trying to become a doctor. Reading this without reading the first book i think i'm missing some background information and therefore some depth in her character. Which is why its a nice read but not very gripping.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny, Sexism, and Medical content
Moderate: Addiction, Violence, and Death of parent
Minor: Animal cruelty
infinitefandomstrash's review
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
lighthearted
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
I loved it, your honor <3
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny, Sexism, and Medical content
Moderate: Addiction, Adult/minor relationship, Gun violence, Violence, Blood, and Colonisation
Minor: Animal death, Chronic illness, Homophobia, Slavery, and Death of parent
livruther's review
adventurous
hopeful
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
As far as I’m concerned, Mackenzi Lee can do no wrong. I really enjoyed this book. Tbh, my least favorite thing was the plot. Like the dragon thing was so weird??? But I loved the setting, the writing, and the characters. Felicity is such an interesting protagonist and obviously I LOVE monty & percy more than life itself. They are so sweet and the way that they both put their struggling careers on hold just to come find Felicity was the sweetest thing ever. Besides the dragons, there were some other things that bothered me.
1) Felicity’s characterization doesn’t quite match “Getting Lucky” bc in that, she is not at all homophobic, and she very explicitly speaks about sex with Monty, but she seems uncomfortable with the idea of sex in this.
2) She mentions being homophobic bc of the Bible, but she doesn’t mention all the sexism in the Bible. I felt like she should have mentioned that.
3) Felicity honestly didn’t seem as upset as I felt like she should be when she found out that her hero was a POS. He was basically her whole life’s inspiration and she was just like, a little bit mad that he actually sucked.
2) She mentions being homophobic bc of the Bible, but she doesn’t mention all the sexism in the Bible. I felt like she should have mentioned that.
3) Felicity honestly didn’t seem as upset as I felt like she should be when she found out that her hero was a POS. He was basically her whole life’s inspiration and she was just like, a little bit mad that he actually sucked.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Sexism, Blood, Medical content, and Injury/Injury detail
Moderate: Addiction, Chronic illness, Drug use, Gore, Gun violence, Homophobia, Violence, Toxic friendship, Alcohol, and Colonisation
Minor: Child abuse
crufts's review
adventurous
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
3.0
I enjoyed the prequel/sibling book The Gentleman's Guide (review linked here), but The Lady's Guide didn't hit the mark for me.
Sexism vs gender equality is a crucial theme in this story following Felicity Montague. However, Felicity talks about sexism in broad statements that aren't drawn from her experiences. This makes the novel start to sound like the author's essay on gender equality, instead of a novel about Felicity Montague that has gender equality as a theme.
For example, Felicity visits a medical school to request admission as a student. As she walks through the vaulted halls, she see wall after wall full of men's portraits - not a single woman in sight.
And she thinks along these lines: "I look up and see picture after picture of men who have spent generations barring women from joining their halls."
But why does logical, rational Felicity make this conclusion about the men in these portraits?
It may well make sense that Felicity comes to this conclusion. She lives in an extremely sexist setting, after all!
But to the reader, who does not live in Felicity's setting, it seems like a weirdly abrupt and broad conclusion to make. WHY did Felicity look at a wall of portraits and determine that the subjects of the portraits have spent generations barring women from joining their halls?
Did Felicity read about these men beforehand and hear troubling news about their discriminatory practices? Did she hear about some other woman who had applied to the school and been rejected or ridiculed? Did she simply find it suspicious that a school which claims to welcome applicants fairly doesn't have a single woman's portrait amongst its walls of heroes? What specific experience did she have?
I think the most effective choice would be to have Felicity think back to her many, many rejected applications (which is why she's finally conceding to make an appointment under false pretenses). She could look up at those portraits looming down at her, and imagine the portraits of the many women who (like her) would have been rejected from the school. That's real and specific, and so it emphasizes the real adversity Felicity faces.
If Felicity's conclusions aren't tied to specific experiences she's had, they begin to sound like overly-blunt moralizing (see Anvilicious). It's like the author is trying to talk directly to the reader from her modern perspective looking back at the sexism of the 1700s, instead of Felicity (a specific human being with her own specific experiences) telling her story to the reader.
This problem continues once Felicity gets into the meeting with a panel of all-male med-school staff. She comments that she has trouble looking into the "hawk-black eyes of a man who has never been denied anything in his life".
Again, how does she come to this conclusion? Felicity knows nothing about this person except that he's a male medical school administrator. For all she knows, he was born into the depths of poverty and worked his way up. He might be living with a chronic illness which prompted a desperate interest in medicine. He might be working hard to financially support a charitable cause. Or perhaps none of these things are true - but how does Felicity know that?
As before, Felicity's conclusion would be more effective if there was more explanation behind it. Perhaps she noticed a gold pin on this guy's lapel that indicated him to be the son of a famous trust fund family or something like that. Even better if she were to look around the table and see that all of these men are wearing heavy silver watches, have their wigs done up to the nines, are wearing expensive-looking suits, etc etc. Show the privilege you're trying to assign to these guys, don't tell it like you're writing an essay.
I also found the language flowery at times, e.g.:
Sexism vs gender equality is a crucial theme in this story following Felicity Montague. However, Felicity talks about sexism in broad statements that aren't drawn from her experiences. This makes the novel start to sound like the author's essay on gender equality, instead of a novel about Felicity Montague that has gender equality as a theme.
For example, Felicity visits a medical school to request admission as a student. As she walks through the vaulted halls, she see wall after wall full of men's portraits - not a single woman in sight.
And she thinks along these lines: "I look up and see picture after picture of men who have spent generations barring women from joining their halls."
But why does logical, rational Felicity make this conclusion about the men in these portraits?
It may well make sense that Felicity comes to this conclusion. She lives in an extremely sexist setting, after all!
But to the reader, who does not live in Felicity's setting, it seems like a weirdly abrupt and broad conclusion to make. WHY did Felicity look at a wall of portraits and determine that the subjects of the portraits have spent generations barring women from joining their halls?
Did Felicity read about these men beforehand and hear troubling news about their discriminatory practices? Did she hear about some other woman who had applied to the school and been rejected or ridiculed? Did she simply find it suspicious that a school which claims to welcome applicants fairly doesn't have a single woman's portrait amongst its walls of heroes? What specific experience did she have?
I think the most effective choice would be to have Felicity think back to her many, many rejected applications (which is why she's finally conceding to make an appointment under false pretenses). She could look up at those portraits looming down at her, and imagine the portraits of the many women who (like her) would have been rejected from the school. That's real and specific, and so it emphasizes the real adversity Felicity faces.
If Felicity's conclusions aren't tied to specific experiences she's had, they begin to sound like overly-blunt moralizing (see Anvilicious). It's like the author is trying to talk directly to the reader from her modern perspective looking back at the sexism of the 1700s, instead of Felicity (a specific human being with her own specific experiences) telling her story to the reader.
This problem continues once Felicity gets into the meeting with a panel of all-male med-school staff. She comments that she has trouble looking into the "hawk-black eyes of a man who has never been denied anything in his life".
Again, how does she come to this conclusion? Felicity knows nothing about this person except that he's a male medical school administrator. For all she knows, he was born into the depths of poverty and worked his way up. He might be living with a chronic illness which prompted a desperate interest in medicine. He might be working hard to financially support a charitable cause. Or perhaps none of these things are true - but how does Felicity know that?
As before, Felicity's conclusion would be more effective if there was more explanation behind it. Perhaps she noticed a gold pin on this guy's lapel that indicated him to be the son of a famous trust fund family or something like that. Even better if she were to look around the table and see that all of these men are wearing heavy silver watches, have their wigs done up to the nines, are wearing expensive-looking suits, etc etc. Show the privilege you're trying to assign to these guys, don't tell it like you're writing an essay.
I also found the language flowery at times, e.g.:
"Miss Montague," he says, his tone the auditory equivalent of looking down his nose, which he is also doing, as he's seated higher than me.
This could have been:
"Miss Montague," he says, looking down his nose at me.
If you tell the reader a character is looking down their nose, our imaginations will fill in the rest. We understand that they're placing themselves above someone else and that their tone is sneering. You don't have to give us the play-by-play.
However, I'll note that this flowery language was already a minor problem in The Gentleman's Guide and wasn't something new in this novel.
On the positive side, it was fun to see more of the friendship between Felicity and Percy. In The Gentleman's Guide we always saw them quietly talking to themselves at the back of the scene while self-centered Monty failed to notice. Felicity was also the first to understand how Percy wanted his epilepsy to be treated, and we see this in her matter-of-fact discussion of the practical concerns. Also, the cameos of Percy and Monty going about their everyday life was faithful to the first novel; their characters seemed consistent.
Although I wasn't a fan of The Lady's Guide, I still enjoy Mackenzi Lee's writing style overall and I'll definitely check out her following book (The Nobleman's Guide to Scandal and Shipwrecks).
However, I'll note that this flowery language was already a minor problem in The Gentleman's Guide and wasn't something new in this novel.
On the positive side, it was fun to see more of the friendship between Felicity and Percy. In The Gentleman's Guide we always saw them quietly talking to themselves at the back of the scene while self-centered Monty failed to notice. Felicity was also the first to understand how Percy wanted his epilepsy to be treated, and we see this in her matter-of-fact discussion of the practical concerns. Also, the cameos of Percy and Monty going about their everyday life was faithful to the first novel; their characters seemed consistent.
Although I wasn't a fan of The Lady's Guide, I still enjoy Mackenzi Lee's writing style overall and I'll definitely check out her following book (The Nobleman's Guide to Scandal and Shipwrecks).
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny and Sexism
Minor: Medical content
The setting is rife with sexism, and gender equality is a running theme in the book.laurajeangrace's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
mysterious
fast-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
3.75
Content Warnings
Moderate: Addiction, Adult/minor relationship, Confinement, Death, Gun violence, Misogyny, Sexism, Violence, Blood, Medical content, Medical trauma, and Injury/Injury detail
Minor: Drug abuse, Drug use, Slavery, and Death of parent
onefineelephant's review
adventurous
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.5
9/10. I loved this book. I wasn't aware that Monty and Percy would make an appearance in this one, but I'm glad they did. The exploration of asexuality/aromanticism was really awesome and well done (but I'm not asexual or aromantic so don't just take my word on it). I also really enjoyed the exploration and tensions of female friendship. And I loved how Felicity had to grapple with the notion of feminine + strong women instead of one or the other. Both Johanna and Sim were such fresh characters, I enjoyed them both a lot. Highly recommend.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Animal cruelty, Animal death, Confinement, Cursing, Death, Drug abuse, Drug use, Gun violence, Misogyny, Sexism, Violence, Blood, Medical content, Kidnapping, and Injury/Injury detail
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Death of parent, Fire/Fire injury, Toxic friendship, Abandonment, Alcohol, Colonisation, and Classism
elliizzzabeth's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
relaxing
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Enjoyable second installment in the Montague siblings series. I don't think it was quite as good as the first book but that may be because I found Monty a lot more loveable than Felicity. She is so painfully "not like the other girls" and the first half of the book beats you over the head with the fact that she is a woman and so the men ignore her. Once the story got going, it was just as exciting and fun as the first. I also liked the discussions of Felicity's (what I assume is) asexuality. Looking forward to the 3rd installment :)
Content Warnings
Graphic: Medical content
Moderate: Misogyny and Blood
Minor: Drug use
Obviously Felicity wants to become a doctor and so there is a lot of discussions of medical procedures as well as her tending to some serious injuries which often involve a lot of blood.