mkrultra's review
4.0
I liked it! Please keep in mind that I did not read fairy tales growing up and so I got to enjoy this mostly as a creepy collection based on stories I only know in a vague sense at times, but I thought that for the most part they were quite good.
fear_girls_who_read's review
I do not enjoy the writing style or concept. The stories were often unclear until the end and I found it unenjoyable.
jguedes's review
dark
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
eileen_critchley's review
2.0
** ½ I really wanted to love this one. I did enjoy a couple of the stories, my favorite was probably the first one which is a retelling of The Little Mermaid. So it got off to a great start, but many of the stories just didn't hold my attention well. It's a short book, wish I had enjoyed it more.
ewelenc's review
2.0
The problem with a gritty retelling of classic fairy tales is that they were plenty gritty to begin with, so adding more of the same doesn’t change them as much as you might think. Stories in this vein really have to add something different to succeed, and I’m not sure these do. Also, the feminist” twist on several of them is only that the abused female main character gets to kill her abuser at the end, which doesn’t satisfy and still makes it a long story about women being abused in traditional patriarchal fashion and leading a miserable life. I could have read the original, if that was what I wanted.
Like some of the other reviewers, I thought that in many of the stories Ortberg was driving at some message or point that I could not find, even with some focused rereading, and in many stories the world building seemed to fail—the internal logic didn’t hang together well, and some things were “subverted” without a corresponding subversion in things that would naturally follow. Example: there’s a reference to “wasting water” via tears that is lifted straight out of Dune, but later the character is depicted washing dishes in an entire sinkful of water, and “doing laundry” without apparent regard for the waste. Is this just supposed to show that the “godmother” is abusive and controlling, conserving resources that aren’t in short supply? The characters discuss drought later, so apparently not. It just fails to make sense, and not in the way that is apparently intended to make you question traditional assumptions the way Ortberg’s gender play does. There are so many of these instances that it appears to be carelessness, not intentional dissonance.
In short, it was all right, but not my favorite in the “revisited fairy tale” genre.
Like some of the other reviewers, I thought that in many of the stories Ortberg was driving at some message or point that I could not find, even with some focused rereading, and in many stories the world building seemed to fail—the internal logic didn’t hang together well, and some things were “subverted” without a corresponding subversion in things that would naturally follow. Example: there’s a reference to “wasting water” via tears that is lifted straight out of Dune, but later the character is depicted washing dishes in an entire sinkful of water, and “doing laundry” without apparent regard for the waste. Is this just supposed to show that the “godmother” is abusive and controlling, conserving resources that aren’t in short supply? The characters discuss drought later, so apparently not. It just fails to make sense, and not in the way that is apparently intended to make you question traditional assumptions the way Ortberg’s gender play does. There are so many of these instances that it appears to be carelessness, not intentional dissonance.
In short, it was all right, but not my favorite in the “revisited fairy tale” genre.
samplatinum's review
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
oliviak07's review
3.0
As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. " For the second time this year I judged a book on its cover, and again found the experience not equal to the beauty of the book's binding.
While the short story "Cast You Bread Upon the Waters" was a personal favorite, much like Samanta Schweblin's "Mouthful of Birds" the remaining anecdotes failed to satisfy the fantasy fan in me, as well as the horror fan in me. Hopefully a re-read at a later date will change my mind, and I will remain optimistic about that future outcome.
Although this book was not my first round pick, I am sure it will grow a fan base as time goes on.
While the short story "Cast You Bread Upon the Waters" was a personal favorite, much like Samanta Schweblin's "Mouthful of Birds" the remaining anecdotes failed to satisfy the fantasy fan in me, as well as the horror fan in me. Hopefully a re-read at a later date will change my mind, and I will remain optimistic about that future outcome.
Although this book was not my first round pick, I am sure it will grow a fan base as time goes on.
racl's review
The short stories are all retellings, and weren't compelling enough for me to keep going. As soon as I would get invested, the story would end
jobinsonlis's review against another edition
4.0
This really worked for me. I get the sense looking over other reviews that this collection didn't connect with a lot of people but, I don't know, I liked the vibe. It was grisly and bleak but funny in a way that I thoroughly enjoyed. And it's short so that tone didn't wear out its welcome.
yoncassius's review against another edition
5.0
Whimsical and bloody retellings of folklore, with wonderful examples of blue-orange morality and a casual dismissal of traditional gender roles; in these tales, princesses can be boys and married couples decide who takes on the household roles of husband and wife based on their skill and preference, instead of sex.