"She had fallen in love and traveled to a foreign land to start a new life, only to realize she had been tricked. She had endured years of abuse. And now a real fairy godmother was telling her she was, in fact, not the heroine of her own tale, but the villain in someone else's."
TL;DR: WUT did I just read.
An origin story for Lady Tremaine (of Disney's Cinderella) that attempts to...IDK. Give her a backstory? Make her sympathetic? It's unclear. It's a retelling/spinoff of the Cinderella story that doesn't really contribute much to the tale, bogged down by subpar, cringey writing. I am honestly 100% baffled by how many 5-star reviews this book has.
Vibes: Once Upon A Time meets Great Expectations and Rebecca -- but, like, C-list versions of those stories.
Character MVP: Honestly? No one. I felt very little for any of these characters; they were all very flat -- as fairy tale characters tend to be, but given that this is a novel, I expected more.
Verdict: I know this is part of a series, and, full disclosure, I haven't read any of the other books. I may go back and start at the beginning, because apparently the first ones are better...?
But this book *can* function as a stand-alone, although I imagine certain parts will make more sense in the context of the larger world that Valentino has constructed. And my frustrations don't stem from those "I don't get the full import" moments -- they stem from the characters/writing style and just the overall point of the story.
First -- I *love* retellings. I love fairy tales. I love Disney. I love all of these things and wanted to enjoy this book. But I also feel like my bar is perhaps a bit high when it comes to retellings. In grad school, I took a class on fairytale retellings and Cinderella was our case study: we looked at several of the fairy tale versions and how the tale evolved, picture book adaptations, middle-grade and YA novels. And the one thing we agreed on is that an effective retelling has to do "something" new with the story: tell it from the POV of a minor character (like Philip Pullman's I Was A Rat) or explain why Cinderella was so obedient (like Gail Carson Levine's Ella Enchanted). Those sought to address some part of the story and explain it or transform it.
Here? I honestly don't know what the point was. At first, I thought Valentino was going to question the larger issues of fairy tales -- why stepmothers are always evil (because we can't vilify bio-moms, obviously) and engage with issues of predetermined endings based on arbitrary standards of morality (princess = good; stepmother = evil). But...she didn't. Because...
(2) Lady Tremaine is a textbook 'passive character.' *EVERYTHING* that happens, happens TO her; she has no agency, takes no action.
And at first, I also thought this was supposed to engender sympathy towards her -- she was a caring, kind, loving woman and she's not a villain!
But...she's kind of selfish, self-centered, and vain. She read like a teenager, instead of the middle-aged woman she was supposed to be. She made one decision -- to leave her daughters at home while she went on a vacation (because she was simply exhausted, even though she saw her kids for what? Like an hour a day? The rest of the time they were with their nanny) and then allowed herself to be manipulated into things. There are so many red flags along the way, but she never once slows things down and then is "surprised" and "shocked" at how unhappy she is. Really? The handsome guy who didn't actually propose to you and demanded you get on the next boat to go to him turned out NOT to be your happily ever after?
The matter of the cursed brooch just makes it worse: it effectively removes any agency from her decisions. She's cold and cruel because the thing is like a Horcrux -- amplifying her worst traits and drawing out the evil in her. It's not *really* who she is; she's affected by the brooch.
But then -- in the end, even though the Fairies and Witches basically admit that Cinderella's father is the real villain, they punish her anyway. So what's the point? There's no redemption arc or even a chance; she just goes all Miss Havisham and then "dies." She was initially (supposed to be) a good person, she got drawn into a predetermined role to be a villain despite that, and a cursed brooch made her even worse: which everyone acknowledged, but didn't seem to matter.
This was what I loved about Once Upon A Time -- and Regina's character especially (but also Hook): as ridiculous and campy as it got, the show really attempted to show how "evil isn't born, it's made," so that you understood *how* they became villains -- but it also showed how complex that was. Lana Parilla's Regina was the best character on the show because of the depth and nuance she brought to Regina -- even though she was a "villain," there was still good in her, which was fostered until it bloomed. (Ugh. That's a cheesy line. But the point is, the villains got chances to be good. Here? No chance for Lady Tremaine.)
*sigh*
But Anastasia and Drizella, who don't have much of a presence and have even less to redeem them -- they get their happily ever after? Why?
I wasn't a fan of how the three of them (including Cinderella) were depicted. I actually don't think the 1950 animated Cinderella is as much of a pushover as scholars/critics sometimes make her out to be; she's got a bit of a sassy side and she rebels in her own quiet way.
But here? She's...flat. She's either impossibly innocent & insufferably obedient or she knows of her role in the story and what has to happen for her to marry the king. Either way -- she's presented as spoiled; her father gives her everything she wants after her mother's death the same way Lady Tremaine spoils her daughters. But Cinderella turns out fine, and Anastasia and Drizella are horrible spoiled brats. But, if Lady Tremaine is kind and Sir Richard is cruel, how did that happen? What does that say?
At least it was a quick and easy read...even if we still don't know Lady Tremaine's first name.
I received an ARC from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.