typewriter 's review for:

Mad, Bad & Dangerous to Know by Samira Ahmed

2.5

lighthearted

Plot or Character Driven: A mix

Strong character development: No

Loveable characters: No

Diverse cast of characters: Yes

Flaws of characters a main focus: Yes

---

While the romance in this book was relatively well-executed and I liked Alexandre and Leila, that is where my praise sadly ends. Following is an overly long list of grievances that I will not claim to be at all objective:

• Khayyam seems uncertain whether she is a French girl or an American tour guide. Her internal monologue careens from namedropping her favourite parts of Paris (featuring out-of-place historical context) and feeling conflicted about ordinary parts of everyday French life (if I have to hear "la bise" awkwardly slotted into another sentence I will explode). I feel like the author was trying to both write an insider's perspective and give context to her American readers, which fell flat.
• French words were slotted awkwardly into English sentences throughout, and as someone who can understand both, I found the effect grating and nonsensical.
• I also found that the dialogue at times sounded more like a thinkpiece than two teenagers interacting.
• Despite wanting to go into art history, Khayyam balks at doing her research (not bothering to read Byron's biography) or reading (thinking a 20 page poem is a bother). She also doesn't really seem to like the subjects she is researching beyond uncovering Leila's past and getting into her dream university (though it is never explained why she wants this).
• Every time any piece of European culture or history is brought up, feminism and colonialism are mentioned. My issue is not that these accusations are untrue, but that their repetition made the whole message feel rather hamfisted. It's also bit annoying, and it seems strange to me that Khayyam wants to go into this field at all if all she can think of are its detractors.
• The book also features jarring jokes about these same social justice issues that don't fit with its overall politics, eg. "In France there are no perverts, only prudes" and "If you suggest stealing a necklace from Cartier for the good of the proletariat, then we'll know [that you've started a life of crime]"
• Everyone always agrees with Khayyam and she can do no wrong. She uses two boys for most of the novel but never owns up to it, instead becoming defensive and shifting the blame. She is painfully naive and this doesn't change at all.
• This novel falls into incorrect corset stereotypes: "their corsets crushing their rib but pushing their breasts up perfectly."
• The work is replete with hallmark-like sentiments about history and fate, but neither of the characters ever recognize the importance of just telling history to recognize and learn from the past. Khayyam is focused on what a dead woman would have wanted, ignoring the fact that we presently don't know much about Muslim women in 19th century Europe, and this knowledge could change the way some look at history. Alexandre just cares about preserving Dumas' property.
• The plot as a whole relies overmuch on conveniences to be engaging.
• The book focuses far more on Dumas than on Byron, rendering the title misleading.

I wanted to like this book; from the summary it sounded really cool and overlapped with a lot of my interests. But this book tries to be too many things at once, and ends up doing most of them badly.