This is slightly less boring than both Robin McKinley’s version of this story, if only because it is shorter. On the other hand, since the author admits that it is essentially a re-write of both those texts, it is this the most unnecessary of the three.

I suppose this micro-genre of European fairy tales rewritten by a US woman for a US audience is not intended for me. I’m certainly finding nothing to enjoy in flat retreads of a well-know narrative with added American English terminology, US-centric references, and affectedly quaint naming conventions, which have the most minor variations and thus give the impression of reading multiple drafts of the same book. I just don’t see the point. 

This version is also one of those books where the protagonist is always biting her lip and similar cliches, which doesn’t help matters.

Also, towards the end of the book we hear of the deaths of a large number of characters, prior to the events of this book. These deaths are dealt with rather callously, which puts a bit of a dampener on any attempt at a happy ending. 

Maybe it’s specifically the authors’ understanding of Beauty and the Beast that’s the problem? I just can’t get behind the idea that the central motif of that particular tale is or should be gardening. Which apparently sets me aside from McKinley and Kingfisher both. I’ll be reading each of their attempts at Sleeping Beauty soon, so I can only hope that they don’t carry their horticultural obsessions over to that particular tale. It’s a big risk though. Sleeping Beauty does have all those brambles to write about …