A review by rrrebekahmay
Love Lessons by David Belbin

2.0

I have mixed feelings about this one. I read it while I was still in school, I must about been around 14 at the time, and recently I decided to see if I could find it. (I had no idea what it was called or who it was by so it's a bit miraculous that I did find it.) I don't remember having any strong feelings about it at 14, and I don't have any strong feelings about it now.

Love Lessons is about a student/teacher relationship. I'd read reviews about how there was an interesting dynamic in this one because Rachel (the student, 15 years old) initiates the relationship and that she knows exactly what she wants. Ultimately, I still think Mike (the teacher, 23 years old) took advantage, but I'll talk about that later.

The writing in this wasn't the greatest. This is quite a well known book, it did very well in the UK when it was first released in 1998 - wow that seems so long ago! - and its author, David Belbin, was actually the first person to introduce a gay character into YA fiction, or at least as far as I'm aware. He writes about controversial topics, which I appreciate, but his writing style just isn't for me. I felt like I was reading a book for kids, which I guess, in a way, I am but I prefer YA books that assume their readers have a bit of a higher reading level. The story itself is so-so. There's not a lot you can do with this sort of relationship: student meets teacher - they fall for each other - they have to keep their relationship a secret. Within that David Belbin did well in writing from a teenage girl's perspective. Interestingly, his young man wasn't quite as good, though I can't really comment on that from personal experience since I'm female, but going by the 23 year old men I know he was very immature at times, especially in his relationships with other people.

It's hard to review this book without talking about the content. Maybe this is spoilery? I don't know, but I'm going to talk a bit about Rachel and Mike's relationship. At first, I wasn't sure what my opinion on this was. Yes, Rachel makes the first (and second) move, she's definitely to one who initiates the relationship. But does that mean that Mike was justified in going out with her? I think no. It's kind of hard to tell what's right or wrong in these circumstances. Rachel wasn't groomed, she wasn't manipulated, she wasn't forced to do anything she didn't want to do. She was doing what normal 15 year olds do in relationships, except she wasn't in a relationship with another teenager. She was in a relationship with someone in a position of power and authority over her.

I definitely think that Mike was kidding himself a bit. He wanted her to be mature, so that's what he told himself she was. He told himself that she knew what she wanted, she knew what she was getting herself into. She didn't. She's FIFTEEN. I thought I was the shit when I was 15. I thought that I was grown up and that I knew what I wanted in my life, in my relationships. Of course I didn't. There were multiple times that I can recall where I let myself be manipulated and taken advantage of because I thought it was what I wanted, only to find afterwards that I didn't want to be a part of it at all.

Did Mike genuinely fancy Rachel? Probably. But not in the same way Rachel fancied him. You can see it in the differences in what they enjoyed about spending time with each other. Rachel liked spending time with him, the feeling of being loved and not being alone. Mike enjoyed the sex, and the thrill of the secrecy. That much is obvious in the way he continues his behaviour, even after everything that has happened, with other girls at the sixth form he moves onto.

I also really liked the little bits about how the girls were the ones to feel pressured to be the ones worried about contraception, about how they were the ones who had to go to the clinic and be on the pill because boys don't like faffing about with condoms

We've all been there.

Overall, Love Lessons was ok. The writing wasn't great, the story is what it is. I enjoyed revisiting this, but I probably won't read it again.