What do You think about Spindle's End (Folktales, #3) (2001)?
Hypnotic, tangled and often impenetrable narrative. The briar roses that grow up around the sleepers in this oddly compelling retelling of the Sleeping Beauty legend are a good metaphor for how McKinley's words coil around each other in paths untraceable by me. There are lovely, memorable passages which exist almost independent of the story, one of which I think I'll keep forever. "What you describe is how it happens to everyone: magic does slide through you, and disappear, and come back later looking like something else. And I'm sorry to tell you this, but where your magic lives will always be a great dark space with scraps you fumble for. You must learn to sniff them out in the dark."At the end I'm left with the feeling of having read a lovely fairy tale, most of which was far beyond my ken.
—Melody
Spindle's End is a re-telling of the Sleeping Beauty fairytale. I love many of McKinley's other "re-telling" stories, like Beauty and The Outlaws of Sherwood. The first three-quarters of this book are no exception.The characters are engaging. The description of life in the little community where Rose (Sleeping Beauty) grows up is so idyllic that you want the book to keep going just so you can read about the town.Unfortunately, the last quarter almost does the book in. The magic in this book shows no particular rhyme or reason, which makes it harder to suspend disbelief. The magic in the last quarter of the book, surrounding the climax, is thick and plentiful. Since the magic seems to follow no rules, the result is rather like I imagine a bad trip on acid would be. It reminds me rather unfavorably of Alice in Wonderland, a book that I have never managed to get through even half of.Thankfully, the climax of this book is short enough that I could get to the happy ending.
—Jared
this was really disappointing. especially after such a fine beginning, with the imaginative world-building, the detail on just everything gloriously written, and some promising characters. and she's clearly engaged in taking apart the fairy tale to take a close look, something that always gets my vote.unfortunately, it doesn't last. too bad. that whole headlong flight of Katriona's with the baby, and how the animals buy in, it's just lovely; i settled in. but Katriona's issues fade into Rosie's issues, and okay Rosie is a headstrong character that damn well ought to work (in this day and age), so i found that promising too. for a while.but it fell apart. the whole idea of the sentient castle was super-neat. and the merrel was cool, though underdeveloped. ultimately, though, Peony had more gumption, more nuance, and more potential than Rosie: but that's not where the story goes. and i liked the silent fairy smith but really, now, shouldn't Rosie have been rescuing him? what with one thing and another, though, the second half of the book is so draggy it was like plowing through a dmanably thick hedge of rose briars to get to the ending. which i had long since figured out anyhow, if suspense was supposed to be a thing. and in the long denouement i realized that way too many of the most potentially interesting characters had just been abandoned along the way.sometimes one has to wonder about the backstory to these things: did the writer lose interest in her characters and story? could she not figure out where to go with it? did her agent/editors make her finish this against her own instincts? the second half really badly undercuts the glories of the first half, in a way that's clearly not intentional. tsk. the whole thing's really too bad.and now i feel like reading another McKillop fairy tale, small and perfect and strange (The Changeling Sea was wonderful). though i also have a whole lot more modern fairy tales piled up, by writers i haven't read yet on the subject. so the little survey continues...
—Macha
