Short/unsappy version: is it actually, objectively good? Idk. Will I probably be rereading it for the rest of my life? Yes. Do I recommend it? Yes yes yes ❤️

****

Again, I don’t know if this book is objectively good or not, but it’s got a lot of personal importance/nostalgia for me. My mom and I read this in tandem before she passed her personal copy to me, and it was my first (what I would consider) romantasy book, sparking a lifelong love for the genre.

Whenever I need a sweet comfort book, I find myself here again. Something about our FMC has always really resonated me and this is the first book I remember reading where it felt like somebody like me was being represented - maybe I’m not overtly the strongest, or strongest willed, but I always care, and I love often and with my whole heart, just like she does.

Anyway, I have no clue how it technically measures up, but I strongly recommend at least giving it a shot. ❤️

I loved the first third of this book and then it began to feel more and more like a chore.

I love slower paced fantasy, with plenty of descriptions, flowery (hehe) language, long sections in which the author delves deep into whatever it is they're into at the moment - and I certainly got it here, but without any sort of tension or conflict or barely any mystery to hold it up.

Genuinely interesting characters (Beauty's family!) get sidelined halfway through. The main pair are just so innately good and nice they do not even have to overcome or learn anything (even the Beast, of getting turned into a Beast fame!). The magical side of things is vibe-based, which is alright, except it barely delivers. Sometimes it seems about to explore how gender shapes characters' worldviews and expectations but it never actually does.

It could have been vivid, whimsical, lovingly ambiguous towards its material, and to an extent it is, but for a novel supposedly about roses, it felt stagnant and sorely lacking in thorns.

3.5 stars.

This book had such wonderful promise. I fell in love with the writing and style immediately, thrilled to have found a retelling of "Beauty & the Beast" that still held on to so much from the original French fairy tale. I was flying through, unable to put it down (or stop listening as I tackled CLEAN ALL THE THINGS!).

Then little disturbances started to creep into the tale. Where was Beauty's charm beyond being able to to tend roses? And this Beast, he is already kind and considerate. Where was the beastly element of his self beyond an outward appearance.

And as the crux of the story - a love story where this reader detected no connection or emotion between these two ill-fated lovers -- was upon us, and it fell flat. The story took a short nose-dive from the fairy tale, and in so doing, lost the tension, the love, the morality of the tale and left me empty, and sad. And annoyed. No, I was pissed. This proves that without the morality lesson of the fairy-tale, sometimes the story does not work.

I suppose I can see what the author was trying to go for (the Beast remains in his beastly-visage) but it failed utterly. Still in the outward appearance of a beast, there is no change or growth for Beast to go through. Because he had always been Nice Guy. And Beauty herself remained flat, and she was boring, and in that, there was nothing beautiful or lovely about her at all. Oh, am I supposed to be impressed she has greenwitch properties? That she can make roses bloom? I'd be more impressed if it was a plain girl with a love for books and who had no magical talents who could make roses bloom. Because then it would be love that truly shone forth. But by giving Beauty magic, she is just another sorcerer or witch, and they, without love, can make roses bloom. Isn't that what we are first told?

And all of this was so rushed! It was like, here, let's just in 5 minutes rush through what happened.
But not completely, becuase we need to make big gaping holes. Oh, and contradict things. Yeah,
that makes it so much more enjoyable for a reader. And if it can all not make any sense, tat is even better! I mean, THIS ISN'T EVEN A FUCKNG CURSE. It was a mistake he was made to look like a beast. Oh, and that beast-form is that of those Guardians of the Universe and all the knowledge,
so really the author is trying to say he is a god. ::rolls eyes:: Oh, give me a break, like THAT is supposed to be a great twist and make up for the removal of the fairy-tale curse of ass-hat prince now looks like who he is on the inside? LAME.

And don't get me started on Evil!Sorcerer who is part of the Beast-before-he-was-Beast and OldLady GreenWitch love triangle who just SUDDENLY has the name Strix, and we don't know if his NotACurse Rage!Spell killed him, or if Now!Beast killed him with his Protection!StrikeBackOrWasItAngry!StrikeBack spell, or what. But Strix is still there. Kind of. But not. I don't know. It isn't made clear. But birds start singing again, so who the fuck knows. But let's instead just throw in that line about Beauty's mother looking like she could be Strix's daughter or grand-daughter, and isn't that interesting? But never to bother to explain WHY that is interesting, or where the hell she came from. Transparent!GreenWitch as author stand-in trying to sum up the story in 5 minutes, you suck. And so do you, author. OMG, my rage right now as I go back over this is just climbing and climbing.....

Give me back the fairy-tale lesson, and all the questionable feminist problems it create. Be original in how you untangle those snarls and dodge those thorns. Give me a plain Beauty who does not fit in to her family or town, and a beast who has been flawed beyond his outer appearance.

Now I'm going to go continue sulking and trying to get the bad taste out of my mouth (and imagination) that this book has left me with.

(I'm really pissed!)