![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
So Patricia C. Wrede has her on days and her off days, and Snow White and Rose Red, which was my thesis-distraction book, is not really representative of her most on days.
The book is a perfectly serviceable retelling of the fairy tale in Elizabethan England, with bonus cameos from the ever-handy John Dee, but the characters never really reach any level of distinct personality and everyone's motivation is sort of murky at best. I think perhaps the problem is that Wrede sticks a little too close to the fairy-tale style of tell-not-show, which, while, again, a perfectly reasonable stylistic choice, doesn't really allow much character depth. Also I lost track of how often this basic exchange was repeated throughout the story:
Rosamund, aka Rose Red: Mother, let's do something dangerous!
Blanche, aka Snow White: I think we have a good reason to do this dangerous thing . . .
Mother: But it could be DANGEROUS!
Rosamund: But I am a spunky female character who gets annoyed when she isn't allowed to do dangerous things!
Blanche: And I am a slightly more thoughtful yet still active female character who would also like to be involved!
Rosamund: Anyways, what's the worst that could happen?
Blanche: True, we are unmarried young ladies going off into the woods, but we'll be careful. And it isn't like either of us is named Janet.
Mother: Fine, go off and do your dangerous thing. BUT DON'T GET BURNED AS WITCHES.
This is pretty much the extent of the characterization of these three. Except all in Elizabethan dialect - which was like the rest of the book, in that it was perfectly serviceable and not incorrect, but never felt quite natural. And I know Wrede can do natural-sounding historical chatter, because she pulls it off perfectly in Sorcery and Cecelia. (Obligatory shout-out: actually, the only author I can think of right now to pull off entirely natural-sounding Elizabethan is Kage Baker. Whom I love.) So, end verdict - I don't want to trash the book, because it's not terrible really, but it's definitely not the best example of Wrede's work. Also, it suffers in comparison to other retellings in the Fairy Tale series like Pamela Dean's Tam Lin and Jane Yolen's Briar Rose, both of which do something much more with their source stories than just retell them - but I should say that I may have been judging it more harshly than is fair, because I have kind of an addiction to fairy-tale reworkings, and what I am looking for in my favorites is not necessarily the same as what someone else might want.
The book is a perfectly serviceable retelling of the fairy tale in Elizabethan England, with bonus cameos from the ever-handy John Dee, but the characters never really reach any level of distinct personality and everyone's motivation is sort of murky at best. I think perhaps the problem is that Wrede sticks a little too close to the fairy-tale style of tell-not-show, which, while, again, a perfectly reasonable stylistic choice, doesn't really allow much character depth. Also I lost track of how often this basic exchange was repeated throughout the story:
Rosamund, aka Rose Red: Mother, let's do something dangerous!
Blanche, aka Snow White: I think we have a good reason to do this dangerous thing . . .
Mother: But it could be DANGEROUS!
Rosamund: But I am a spunky female character who gets annoyed when she isn't allowed to do dangerous things!
Blanche: And I am a slightly more thoughtful yet still active female character who would also like to be involved!
Rosamund: Anyways, what's the worst that could happen?
Blanche: True, we are unmarried young ladies going off into the woods, but we'll be careful. And it isn't like either of us is named Janet.
Mother: Fine, go off and do your dangerous thing. BUT DON'T GET BURNED AS WITCHES.
This is pretty much the extent of the characterization of these three. Except all in Elizabethan dialect - which was like the rest of the book, in that it was perfectly serviceable and not incorrect, but never felt quite natural. And I know Wrede can do natural-sounding historical chatter, because she pulls it off perfectly in Sorcery and Cecelia. (Obligatory shout-out: actually, the only author I can think of right now to pull off entirely natural-sounding Elizabethan is Kage Baker. Whom I love.) So, end verdict - I don't want to trash the book, because it's not terrible really, but it's definitely not the best example of Wrede's work. Also, it suffers in comparison to other retellings in the Fairy Tale series like Pamela Dean's Tam Lin and Jane Yolen's Briar Rose, both of which do something much more with their source stories than just retell them - but I should say that I may have been judging it more harshly than is fair, because I have kind of an addiction to fairy-tale reworkings, and what I am looking for in my favorites is not necessarily the same as what someone else might want.
no subject
Yeah. And there are ways that following the structure works, but I think it depends on the story, and how many dark and creepy issues there are to explore within it. (Uh, again, my bias towards the creepy side of fairy tales may be showing juuust a little here.) Snow White and Rose Red is actually pretty sweet, as fairy stories go!
(Well, I mean. I know when it happened to ME, I was fine, but I find it unrealistic to expect everyone to have my excellent coping skills in these matters. *solemn*)
no subject
*nodnod* Yeah. And I think it often works better in a short story than a novel, too. In a novel the lack of depth really shows up clearly if you're not very, very careful. (And creepiness! :D :D I mean, er.)
(It is true. *solemn* We can't all be you, try though we might!)
no subject
(You have, and I ENDORSE.)
Yeah, I agree. In a novel you really have to come up with something that enhances the story conceptually to make it long enough to properly be a novel!
(I know. I try to think of the little people.)