Author Sarah Prineas has an interesting discussion going on in her livejournal on fairy tale retellings. You can read it here.
I’m reposting my own comments here, for my reference and in case any of you want to join the conversation.
For me, I would divide fairy tale retellings that I enjoy into three categories:
1) The almost-literal retelling, which are really more a reinterpretation into more beautiful or poetic language. I used to subscribe to Parabola magazine and they would always have several retellings of this sort — more like short stories where the central events are unchanged, just recast in pretty language. These work, I think, because they are short. So pretty language can carry them.
2) The “bones given flesh” version as another commenter called it — where the central story is there, and the reason that it works as a novel is that the rest of the world has been filled in around it — we get reasons why Rumplestiltskin wants the baby, or why the princess is locked in the tower. The single motif is woven into a greater tapestry. I also did enjoy A Curse as Dark as Gold and McKinley’s Beauty, as examples of this. Or, explanding to myth and “mythic feel”, books like Elizabeth Wein’s The Winter Prince (Arthur) and the Attolia books (not based on actual myths, but I could totally imagine they could be. With these books it’s almost like you’re seeing the real original story, that was simplified and turned around over the years into something told over a campfire or to a child at night. So the appeal is in going deeper, in feeling the setting and the characters richly and truly.
3) The “cool idea” retelling: where the basis of the story is some fairy-tale element or archtype is reinterpreted in a particularly neat fashion. I suspect these are almost always humorous. Ella Enchanted the Enchanted Forest books by Patricia Wrede, for example. For me, these don’t need to be as deep or rich in character or setting, because that’s not why I’m reading them. I’m looking for cleverness and humor and something cool and unexpected. That’s not to say the examples I named are not deep or rich, of course, just that books in this category can get away with being more… over the top? caricatureish?… and I will still enjoy them.
I tend to think that probably a lot of the books that don’t work for me so well fall between these too — they aren’t rich and deep enough to satisfy my one need, nor are they clever or funny enough for the other. Having written this out now I think I was going for category 3 in my own Fortune’s Folly, so I know I did not build my world as richly as other things I’ve written. If I did it over again that’s something I’d probably focus on more, but all I can do now is apply these thoughts to the future.
And one other thought I had: while not a book I think the musical Into the Woods (one of my all-time favorites!) is another example of #3 done well. The setting is straight fairy-tale and some of the characters are very archetypal at times (although they do deepen quite a lot, especially as the story progresses) but it works marvelously. The plot does so many clever things and asks so many interesting questions (and it doesn’t hurt that the music is brilliant).
What about you guys (or, you guys who haven’t already commented on Sarah’s post)? What do you look for in a fairy tale retelling?




