I have a lot of convoluted thoughts about An Education in Malice. I am a HUGE fan of Carmilla by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu (waaaay better than Dracula), so reading this book was an obvious no-brainer.

Now I knew going into this that S. T. Gibson changed a lot of the story, and it was only loosely based on the original. Carmilla and Laura are still the names of the leads, and Carmilla does ultimately become a vampire... she just isn't one at the start of An Education in Malice. Once I got that realization out of the way, I was able to immediately enjoy the story more because names and sapphic vampires were the only similarities.

My biggest writing issue lied in the first third. The writing was HEAVILY telling rather than showing. It felt like Gibson wanted to depict the girls in such specific ways that she forget to let the reader run wild with our own interpretations. It started to aggravate me because the telling was constant, never-ending. Maybe I just got used to it by the other thirds of the book, but I was not happy about that portion of the writing style.

Also, I don't think this book knew what it wanted to be. The first third felt wholly different to the middle third and finally the last third was something else too. The groundwork for the end did not even become apparent to readers until well over 50%. Now I'd argue that's because De La Fontaine was the main antagonist for the first half, besides the academic rivalry between Carmilla and Laura, but then that changed when Isis—De La Fontaine's sire and lover—appeared. The story just didn't feel like it knew what to do next, so it threw newer and newer plots that felt out of left field. And I haven't even brought up the vampire party/orgy that happened mid-way through the story. Like... what?! Honestly, I really liked that scene and Magdalena's (the hostess vampire) whole vibe and court, but it lasted such a short amount of time! She only appears at the end to essentially replace De La Fontaine and sire Laura. I wanted more build up!!!

Lastly, I understand why De La Fontaine was placed within this story, but I don't think this novel fully expresses the toxic power dynamic between De La Fontaine and Carmilla specifically. Laura is only partially applied to this because she doesn't feel as connected to De La Fontaine. De La Fontaine readily abuses Carmilla, particularly mentally. Carmilla is a senior in college throughout this book, so I'd assume 21-22 years old, but she has been manipulated since she arrived at De La Fontaine's door (probably 18 years old) to become her pet for blood because Carmilla was obsessed with her poetry. Even without the vampire element, De La Fontaine is Carmilla's teacher. Carmilla is a vampire because of De La Fontaine's mistakes in letting Isis near the girls. While Laura gets a choice from Magdalena to become a vampire, Carmilla does not because she was sliced at the throat by Isis. She was dying, and De La Fontaine made the decision for her to save her life. De La Fontaine is also overtly possessive, obsessive. I can’t help but think that Carmilla’s vampirism was what De La Fontaine wanted in the first place, a way to separate Laura and Carmilla... and then the redemption arc for De La Fontaine. I honestly thought De La Fontaine was going to slice her own throat after killing Isis. I REALLY thought she would, and when that didn’t happen, when Carmilla and Laura make PLANS with her to meet up later in life, I was aghast.

All around this book should have been about Carmilla and Laura. I wish the girls met in school and then Carmilla was turned by someone that wasn't in the book much. We could have seen their growth together as a pairing without the interruption of characters like De La Fontaine. Lean into the original text and have Carmilla on a spree for blood. It was as simple as that! I just felt icky whenever De La Fontaine was around, and for the abuse to be forgiven so easily upset me. I loved the bond between the girls, and that's the reason I finished this, but the story made me certainly work in finishing it.