"Rothbarte gives me a look midway between resentment and pride. "You were always too clever, weren't you? Impatient, reckless, but clever when forced to be.""
(Thank you, NetGalley for the ARC!)
A Treachery of Swans is about the black swan of Swan Lake, a young girl willing to do anything to be loved as she is and gain the power she rightfully deserves even if it means harming those she cares for the most. Even if it means trapping and impersonating her once closest friend, Marie d'Auvingy, and seeking the ruin of the Kingdom. The unfortunate part is that I do not believe her.
This story is one that is character-driven being completely focused on Odile. For that, the entire story suffers due to her being a frustrating character to follow.
Poranek wants the audience to believe that Odile is cunning, sly, viciously manipulative, but she isn't. Odile, when told she needs to act convincingly like Marie, she actively doesn't. She will tell the audience "I know what Marie would say in this situation, but that response is annoying, so I choose not to say it. She barges into rooms, speaks out of turn, acting completely unlike how Marie had been conducting herself in the years following the necklace incident (which from this point on I will refer to as necklace-gate), and sees no consequence. It seems the excuse for why Marie (who is Odile in disguise) is acting so out-of-character is that Anne, the prince's stepmother, doesn't like her. For that reason, Odile is not questioned. In cases where others should find this sudden "wild" behavior of Marie suspicious, no one does, because the author requires Odile to be a prolific actor, she doesn't write Odile to be one.
Further, Odile solves only one aspect of the story's mystery. The other aspects are explained to her, typically by Marie, at length. At one point Marie says she read a journal, explains a key aspect of the mystery, then in the following chapter when she discusses this with the big bad, she's called clever. She didn't solve anything. Why is she being praised for Marie reading one book? It's lackluster, as you're constantly being told that Odile is the one to watch, the villain in the wings, and she's not... particularly good at anything. She's broody in an inauthentic manner. You don't enjoy watching her in the slightest.
Further, we have to discuss necklace-gate. Long story short, Odile and Marie, when they were 13, had a falling out because Marie didn't stand up to her mother to "protect" Odile and Odile stole (and then eventually returned) the necklace she had come to the palace with the intent to steal. The consequences of Odile stealing and returning the necklace are bad for Marie, but Odile sees no consequence. She tells us that while she is threatened with punishment for wearing this necklace when she shouldn't have, no punishments actually come. So, you wonder where her burning feelings of "betrayal" come from, considering in this flashback she continues to speak incredibly poorly of Marie. They are supposedly friends, the best of friends, yet Odile refuses to see Marie's struggles and talks down on her. Few teeny moments where Odile has spurts of affection for Marie doesn't save their interaction. Odile doesn't convincingly like Marie. I cannot stress that by this poorly written flashback ruins the rest of the story.
This leaves us with Odile and Marie's romantic relationship, of which they do not have. There are hardly any scenes where the tension feels genuine. It's there because it has to be. Marie has this unwavering, unconditional love for Odile which is strange considering Odile treats her like garbage pretty much at any chance she can get. The one moment where Marie feels wronged by Odile, she forgives her a few chapters later in a single conversation. No tension. No concern. What's the purpose in this? I suppose it's attempting friends to enemies to lovers but it's completely one sided. The chemistry is nonexistent because there are hardly scenes for Marie and Odile to interact in. While the romantic relationship is a subplot, that doesn't mean their entire relationship to one another doesn't take narrative precedence. They're on the cover together!
All of this made me think of the anime Princess Tutu, a story that uses elements of Nutcracker, Cinderella, Ugly Duckling, and Swan Lake to tell its own fairytale. Rue, the black swan of the story is a villain as well, one who manipulates and hurts the person she claims to love and care for the most. She does these things because it is the kind of love she receives from her father and, therefore, believing it is the only kind of love that exists. When she realizes what she has down and how terrible she has been to this person, she takes ownership of her wrongs and while despairing, finds a way back to that person and apologizes. Odile, in A Treachery of Swans is hand waived all responsibility of her actions by Marie, who suffered the most because of Odile. And we can discuss the moral gray areas of abused individuals becoming abusers but point blank I think there should be an understanding that you are responsible for what you have done and should apologize. Odile... girl. It makes you wonder why this character was chosen as the main POV to begin with.
There's even more I could sit here and discuss, but this is already too many words. This last part I want to offer some recommendations. If you want a dark, brooding main character that feels as though they are responsible for a terrible occurrence who falls in love with a lighthearted "always hopes for the best" kind of person, read A Dark and Drowning Tide by Allison Saft. It's written similarly and hits most of the same plot beats as this book but does so in a better manner. The "Odile" of that book is a "villain" for pretty justifiable reasons and while you're hoping for her to make different choices, you root for her nonetheless. The second would be Princess Tutu a 20 year old anime that handles the conversation of abuse and the cyclical nature of abuse very well in comparison to A Treachery of Swans.
2/5 Stars. The bones are pretty, but the substance significantly impairs what could have been.