Rose Daughter

When _Rose Daughter_ came out, I was surprised. I read _Beauty_ when I was ten or eleven and loved it, and I wasn't sure how differently the same person could tell that story. McKinley did an amazing job of it. First of all, you should know that _Rose Daughter_ is not a short book, or a quick book. If you're looking for a quick, light read for a younger reader, _Beauty_ remains a good choice--it's more interesting than the standard version by far, and it tends to stick with you. It's not that she changes the story in this newer version--it's that she gives it a setting, and that the people have far, far more depth. The characters are clearly totally different people from their counterparts in _Beauty_, and the world is different, and it all progresses differently. (The ending, too, seems like she took seriously the joke we all made after watching Disney's final, slightly awkward, transformation--that he looked better as the Beast.) McKinley gives herself more room to maneuver in this version--rightly feeling that she's already told the story the simple way once. Don't get me wrong--it's not like she took the story and changed it, and that's what makes it interesting. The actual differences in simple plot are mostly unimportant. The famous story is more than a theme here. But it's like she looked at what might have really happened, had Beauty and the Beast really happened, to actual people--just in a different sort of world from ours. The words are beautiful; the imagery is amazingly detailed yet concise (here we see the full benefit of McKinley's practice as a children's writer). The characters are people, whom you'd like to meet (or not, where appropriate). She doesn't waste much time on proving that the Beast is really a handsome prince suitable for her heroine--she skips over that, and makes him a character. When he speaks, you feel like you can hear his voice. One of the best sections of the book describes his interest in painting. For just a moment, Beauty--and the Beast--are removed from the fatefull progression of the story, and you can see them as people, as they might have been if there weren't any enchantment at all. Suddenly it's easy to believe that they'd fall in love. Another thing McKinley changes is the reason the Beast is a Beast. Without spoiling the story, it's not the usual simple answer of fairy-tale arrogance. He's not just a rude or cruel prince, the sort that no heroine ought to love but this one does anyway because she is so good that she improves him. He has his faults, but he's not annoying, and the more interesting questions that come up have to do with what it actually means to be human. Which is quite an improvement. The book is romantic in an older sense (exciting and more than a little dramatic, especially when it comes to roses). There aren't any simpering scenes of clichéd storybook Disney Princess romance here. Beauty eventually realizes she's in love, and she does what she thinks sh

Thank goodness for Robin McKinley, who writes stories for those of us who grew up loving fairy tales (but who also found ourselves wishing for stronger heroines or more interesting resolutions). I'd somehow missed "Rose Daughter," although I'm a fan of all of McKinley's books (and "Sunshine" and "the Hero and the Crown" are books I'd grab if my house was burning down. They're that wonderful). However, I had read her telling of "Beauty" years ago and loved it. Yet I was pleasantly surprised to find that I loved "Rose Daughter" even more. The two sisters to the protagonist are as fascinating, brave, and interesting in their own rights as she is, and the heroine is intelligent, courageous, and quietly extroardinary. My favorite aspects of this novel, though, were twofold: The roses, and the Beast. I'm not a plant person -- I look at a plant, and it promptly lets out a little sigh and falls over dead. But this book made me feel a little of what it must be like to be a gardener. I've never read anyone who writes about roses the way McKinley does here. They come alive on the page. And then there is the Beast, who is just as beastly as ever, but who is also brilliant, fascinating, and well, by the end, weirdly attractive. By the end we are able to see the Beast's beauty for ourselves, without easy resolutions or big Disney moments, and that's the most extroardinary thing of all about this telling. A beautiful, haunting book, and easily appropriate for readers 13 and up -- don't miss.

This is easily my favourite Beauty and the Beast story - the imagery and characterization outshines anything else. Beauty's sisters are given names and fleshed out...they have strengths and weaknesses, like anyone else. Roses figure heavily in the story - they are a metaphor for hidden beauty and a crucial plot point, and serve to weave everything together. The only fault in this book is the length. It's too short, and the final explanation of the Beast's enchantment is slightly confusing and a little weak (but the tilt factor gets it five stars anyhow). In any other book, this would be a major problem. But here it's only a minor stumbling block for the nitpicky (like me)...here, the how and why of the spell are minor details. They do not detract from the overall story, which is rich and strange and beautiful. If you have a choice between reading "Beauty" and "Rose Daughter", pick this one.

Okay, I read all the customer reviews about "Rose Daughter." As a lot of them were pretty negative with a lot of stuff to back it up, I prepared to read the book with my most discerning mindset. McKinely had done "Beauty" and I was sure that was all she could get out of the Beauty and the Beast story. I was surprised. "Rose Daughter" is absolutely beautiful. The story is done in a fantasy style, with rich, vivid descriptions and word usage. It is so hard to find writing like that anymore. It makes a novel so much more artsy and absorbing. The book has a darker side, and is almost a mystery, in a certain sense. There are spells, sorcerers, simularcums, stuff that "Beauty" didn't have. Don't get me wrong, "Beauty" is fantastic, and not worse than "Rose Daughter." But the two books have so many differences that they just can't be compared. The ending, to say the least, wasn't quite what I expected, but nonetheless, I enjoyed it. =D I probably wouldn't have done what Beauty did, but then again, I have a twisted sense of morals. Hehe. Anyway, I don't see why so many didn't

I, like other McKinley fans of long standing, felt many trepidations about reading this new telling of the story of Beauty and the Beast. McKinley's first version (Beauty) has been a favorite of mine for years and I wasn't sure if I was ready to risk not liking one of her books or, worse yet, damaging my long-held wonder for this gorgeous fairy tale. I agonized for a bit and decided to risk it. Then I read it in one day. True, it lacks some of the fantasy-come-true elements of Beauty and some of McKinley's earlier books, but what it has instead is a realism that is utterly captivating. It is truly the work of a refined intellect, and one can clearly see the beautiful maturity of the author revealed in this book.Everyone will of course compare this book with Beauty (I do, myself), but they are unlike in the way that wildflowers and roses are unlike. Each has spectacular lovliness, but where the wildflower is untamed beauty, the rose is cultivated, perhaps more deeply wondrous.Which do I prefer? Both, of course.