To the surprise of absolutely no one, none of the comparisons slapped on this book applies. Neither "The Bear and the Nightingale" (unless you squint hard and count the Russian folktale influences) nor "Juniper & Thorn" (except maybe the overhype), and much less "Spinning Silver" (not even remotely similar unless you squint harder and count the courtesy title "pan" as a similarity) and definitely not "Howl's Moving Castle." (Who thought of the last one?)
But that is 100% on the publishers, who don't seem to consider the damage this kind of advertising does to début authors by creating expectations they can never meet. There are other ways to attract readers of a certain genre and type of book that don't involve pitching the apprentice against the master, and I wish publishers would use those instead. Many début authors have been burnt in the eyes of readers for these marketing tricks.
That's a discussion for another day, now let's get to the book at hand...
If you're in the mood for a nice and straight-shooting Cottagecore story with Slavic folktale inspirations, this is the book for you. It's not a book you can read in one sitting due to length and bloat, but it isn't a complex or demanding read at all. Just do not expect plotting complexity, do not expect much in terms of worldbuilding, and do not expect much of the characters beyond what is offered either.
To me, House of Frost and Feathers was easy to compartmentalise and enjoy the positive offered overlooking the negatives, which were mostly "what could have been" type of observations. For making a clear case for or against this book to potential readers, I'll break it down by points:
The Good:
It has a nice all-female cast of characters, each of them strongly crafted. I liked all three of them: Marisha, Olena, and Baba Zima. Even the evil female villain is done well, if a bit tropey.
My personal favourite was Olena, and although she did have a good portion of the plot to herself, I do wish she had been the main girl instead of Marisha. So much about her is implied instead of said, and she's an interesting girl. I appreciated that she wasn't made to be a pretty bombshell and that she couldn't use koldunry to get rid of her disabilities (nor did she want to). Very refreshing to have a character like that, for once.
The story is broadly a Baba Yaga tale, but so spread out that you can't call this a retelling. Too much mishmash of elements to be one. Like that Baba Zima is the "good" side of the legendary Yaga, but the "bad" side of Yaga is another Baba. And the role of Vasilisa is split between Marisha (the "beautiful" version of Vasilisa) and Olena (the "brave" version of Vasilisa). And there's a house with chicken legs that is the same one from the Baba Yaga folktales. And that's where similarities end, for the most part, because those familiar with the Baba Yaga and Vasilisa the Beautiful/Brave folktales will pick on small details and homages throughout.
It's a setting that does lack the same solidity of Arden or Novik's Slavic folkloric fantasies, but it does provide a workable slate to paint the plot on.
The Bad:
I can't believe I'm going to say this, allergic to demanding romance as I am, but this story would've been much better WITH romance. Specifically sapphic romance, and should've skipped the hetero romance it had.
I'll explain it: Marisha and Olena have great chemistry, great rapport, and generally great dialogue. True, it still works perfectly as friendship, stories of positive female friendships in fiction are much needed, so I'm not arguing that there should have been romance between these two. What I'm saying is, that if there had to be romance at all, it should've worked better with these girls than between Kiril and Marisha, for example. Olena and Valdim work better as there's a backstory to their feelings, but the other one was . . . last minute pepper thrown in to the soup that didn't require spice.
Succinctly: there should've been no romance at all. It was perfect without. And to be honest, it isn't like the romance that exists does anything, it's hardly a blip on the radar, more an afterthought than a bothersome plotline.
Secondly, the story should've been shorter. Much shorter. Maybe hardly over a novella-length book, because it's so bloated in the middle it's ridiculous. The beginning and the ending are excellent set up and wrap up pieces, but the middle takes up over 60% of the plot for . . . what? Domesticity. It's one domestic scene after another, which I suppose makes sense for a character-driven story. But even character-driven stories can be streamlined, and this needed the hanging fat cut out. You feel like you're about to sleep during this portion of the book, and for me it's singlehandedly why it wasn't more enjoyable. I love my cozy cottage slice of life lull as much as any fan of the style, but don't overdo it to the point of boredom.
Thirdly, the Slavic fairy tale atmosphere isn't as developed as it should. If you changed the names of the characters to something Western European, you'd not notice much difference between this and any witch coven in the forest setting as in many Cottagecore and mainstream Fantasy involving sorcery & witchcraft. There's so very little of the setting we see that it could've anything, and what gives it a "Slavic" flavour isn't so much what we are shown but what we are told in terms of names. Call a witch a koldunya and her arts or coven a bolshina, and that is it. None of the attached lore and spirits and rituals and beliefs of Slavic folklore is present. It's generic witches with Russian names, very basic and underdeveloped.
The time period is also vague and generic, because of how little outside of the house with legs and the occasional street/house in town we see. You could always ignore this in favour of the characters, but for those that like a more solid sense of time and place, this might not work.
The Ugly:
This is a bit of a nitpick, but it does add to the above point on vagueness of the time and place and culture: The names and naming convention of the characters is strange.
It's evidently meant to evoke a Russian emvironment, and for the most part isn't incorrect. But . . . it shows that the author isn't familiar with the Russian naming convention, because she has:
- People introduce themselves by their nickname and patronymic. E.g. Dunya Ignorovna. This can't be done in the Slavic way of addressing people; when you call people this way, you have to use their name and patronymic, not their nickname.
- People go by their nickname all the time. At least, we never hear Marisha's name, she's always her nickname, and other characters are also never called by their name. They're Volya, Dima, Dunya, etc, etc. And whilst it's not incorrect to go by nickname alone, it's not exactly the norm to never use one's name and call elders and people of other social strata by their nickname only.
- Some of the patronymics are either poorly spelt or wrong. Ignorovna? I hope that was a typo and she meant Igorovna. But then how do you explain "Simonevna" instead of Simonovna, or "Elyasevna" instead of Ilynichna?
In sum, all of this could be overcome by better research and more editing; this book definitely needed more work on it to fulfill its potential. 2.5 stars it is!
I received an ARC through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.