Scan barcode
A review by crufts
The Lady's Guide to Petticoats and Piracy by Mackenzi Lee
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.