Maybe this is why I prefer to read fairytale retellings (in novel form) rather than the original fairytales themselves. I find myself constitutionallyMaybe this is why I prefer to read fairytale retellings (in novel form) rather than the original fairytales themselves. I find myself constitutionally incapable of caring about short stories as much as I care about novels/novellas. For the life of me, I cannot overcome the degree of disconnection I feel every time I read a short story, so perhaps I just need to stop trying. (If you saw me ordering a collection of short stories from Thriftbooks last week, first of all, there’s an extenuating circumstance, and second of all, no, you didn’t, shut up.)
Regrettably, this anthology did my relationship with the genre no favors. There were a couple of good stories in here, certainly, but unfortunately these were the exception. In general, if the plot and exposition were decent, the writing was painfully weak. If the writing was good, there were bothersome gaps in plot, structure, characterization, pacing, etc. There were also several grammatical errors and formatting issues, which are always annoying in a published piece of literature.
Short stories usually require in medias res openings, and in my experience, most short story authors end up overcompensating for this, failing to achieve a golden medium of backstory exposition that flows naturally with the narrative and instead info-dumping in a way that’s even more inorganic than info-dumping usually is, due to the constricted length of the story. This anthology was no different – although The Ties We Weave and Bind, the last retelling in the collection, did a significantly better job with this. It was also, I believe, the strongest piece overall and certainly my favorite. (Of course, in the interests of full disclosure, I had read it individually, before this anthology’s publication, but my opinion still stands.)
I’m not going to review each story individually (although I am tempted), because doing so would feel like spreading pointless negativity about an anthology I was allowed to read for free. The star rating I’ve given the collection is simply the average of the ratings I’d give each story.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for a review....more
I’ve said before that I will always cry over Beth March, no matter what, and this book proved me right, but in a totally unexpected way.
I’m getting ahI’ve said before that I will always cry over Beth March, no matter what, and this book proved me right, but in a totally unexpected way.
I’m getting ahead of myself, though. So Many Beginnings, as the subtitle indicates, remixes Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women by keeping the Civil War timeline but setting the story in Roanoke Island’s Freedpeople’s Colony and centering on a recently liberated Black March family. And you guys, it’s brilliant.
The way that Morrow synthesizes the original material with the new context without sacrificing either is truly incredible. The March sisters’ aspirations, struggles, and victories are (obviously) quite a bit more compelling in this scenario, and the histories Morrow weaves for each one make so much sense in light of both Alcott’s characterization and their reimagined circumstances. For instance, Meg’s position as a teacher in the colony is both a nod to OG Meg’s governess occupation and to this Meg’s backstory as the “companion” to her enslaver’s daughter: forced into acting as a “playmate” for the privileged girl, Meg received an (compulsory and deeply twisted) education that she can now reclaim.
There are so many details like that in this book, so many examples of strikingly skillful plotting (and researching – see Morrow’s author note at the end of the novel). It simultaneously does and doesn’t feel like a brand-new Little Women. The girls’ original personalities are preserved, but they are given more depth, more direction, and more dignity. They clearly homage the source material, but they are unmistakably and gloriously their own. In fact, while I deeply love the original, I probably prefer these March sisters, and I’m extremely grateful to Morrow for writing them the way that she did. Every slight change she made feels authentic and fitting and right, like she’s doing each girl’s character the full justice that one or another of them always seems to be denied, whether in the original or in the screen adaptations. Just look what we get in this book:
✥ a Meg (Margaret) who’s given just as much narrative focus and significance as any of the other sisters
✥ a Jo (Joanna) who doesn’t take literally every single opportunity to antagonize Amy, is still “fiery” but doesn’t indulge a pitifully explosive temper, and isn’t generally obnoxious
Naomi Novik puzzles me. She has an obvious love of storytelling, and I always enjoy her work. At the same time, however, her pacing choices are perpleNaomi Novik puzzles me. She has an obvious love of storytelling, and I always enjoy her work. At the same time, however, her pacing choices are perplexing. Her tales tend to unspool in long, meandering plot threads, and while that’s not necessarily a bad thing, I do think it jeopardizes the focus of her novels. I get lost, sometimes – what exactly is she trying to say, here? Why does she feel that this anecdote, this scene, this character, this name are important to the narrative? Why does she take this many pages to tell a story that could be just as – if not more – effectively told in half as many?
(The romance in Uprooted, specifically, is also pretty half-baked. I’m willing to believe it, but I need you to give me a more fully fleshed out reason to believe it. Bickering and sex are all well and good, but 300+ pages of one-sided bickering and two sexual encounters do not a sufficiently developed romance constitute.)
Sure, this has some cheesy moments. Sure, the pacing is off. Sure, the insta-love is irritating. Sure, the characterization is a little uneven.
But yoSure, this has some cheesy moments. Sure, the pacing is off. Sure, the insta-love is irritating. Sure, the characterization is a little uneven.
But you know what? It also delivers one of the most wholesome takes on the Cinderella tale I've yet encountered. Yay for stepmothers who are actually amazing, for blended families that mainly just ✨get along✨, for a unique and satisfying setting, for a stronger emphasis on platonic guy/girl relationships than on romantic guy/girl relationships, and for a generally winsome, soothing fairytale retelling. I'll be coming back to this one, for sure....more
Another satisfying installment of the Once Upon a Western fairy tale retellings, My Rock and My Refuge features my favorite love story in the series sAnother satisfying installment of the Once Upon a Western fairy tale retellings, My Rock and My Refuge features my favorite love story in the series so far. It is what we could call swoon-worthy. ...more
I'd deduct half a star for some cavalier discussions of abortifacients, but other than that, this was FABULOUS. I read it pretty quickly, as I was tryI'd deduct half a star for some cavalier discussions of abortifacients, but other than that, this was FABULOUS. I read it pretty quickly, as I was trying to finish it on December 31 (which I technically did, just not in my time zone, lol), so I look forward to rereading it at a later date, when I can savor it a bit more....more
I was lucky enough to receive a copy of this book through the author's Instagram giveaway. I'm a lifelong fan of The Nutcracker in almost any form, soI was lucky enough to receive a copy of this book through the author's Instagram giveaway. I'm a lifelong fan of The Nutcracker in almost any form, so I'll take any chance I can get to read a new retelling.
True to form, I enjoyed my time with this book! The wintry setting, the old fairytale flavor, the emphasis on color -- all of this suited me to a 'T'.
That said, Drosselmeyer's Dream is, according to the preface, a publication of a story that the author wrote as a teenager. And . . . you can tell. There is a good bit of derivative/simplistic writing here. There are also some significant gaps in plot structure and characterization. (The story has great potential; it simply suffers from incomplete development.)
I don't judge the book too harshly for any of this, however, and there are three reasons for that:
1) The author acknowledged in the preface that, if she had written it today, it would be a very different book. The choice to leave it as it is seems to have been a deliberate one, at least partially motivated by a desire to retain the familiar simplicity of its traditional children's story aesthetic. Thus, even though I would still contend for more substantial revision, I respect the author's creative vision for her own story.
2) I am in no position to criticize anyone for their teenage writing, because here's a sample of my own tween brilliance: "I shall see you again when summer's magnificency is upon us." (Yes, "magnificency". I blush.) None of the writing here is anywhere near so egregious.
3) Again, it's a Nutcracker retelling; and again, I almost always love those, no matter what their flaws. ...more
Outstandingly rich, textured, and immersive atmosphere in this one. The plot is (for the most part) cleverly executed, drawing inspiration from multipOutstandingly rich, textured, and immersive atmosphere in this one. The plot is (for the most part) cleverly executed, drawing inspiration from multiple fairytales and myths and weaving them all together with impressive seamlessness and precision.
Unfortunately, some of the characters dampened my enjoyment. Tatiana was a selfish idiot. Cezar was a little too convincing (I'm all for accurate portrayals of toxic masculinity, especially in semi-historical contexts, but Marillier did it a bit too well in this instance and I genuinely just did not want him to show up anymore). Drăguța was despicable and horrifying (if you're one of the people who think the enchantress from "Beauty and the Beast" had a screwy system of ethics, check out this piece of work).
Also: The "Princess and the Frog" fairytale works when either A) the frog immediately tells the princess his plight and convinces her to kiss him as a spell-breaking favor, thus quickly restoring both to the same species and paving the way for a plausible romance between them; or B) the princess turns into a frog herself at the moment of the kiss, thus also quickly restoring both to the same species and paving the way for a plausible romance between them. It does not work when the princess and the frog remain respectively human and amphibian for the majority of their relationship and somehow cultivate a romantic connection during that time. Despite our universal affection for the aforementioned "Beauty and the Beast" fairytale, we are not generally, as a society, about that bestiality life. This has been a PSA.
Still, complaints aside, I will definitely be keeping and rereading this book....more
Loading...
