I might be biased.
You see, since I was young, The Count of Monte Cristo has been one of my favorite stories. That probably says a lot about me in ways that aren't all great, but the point is, I know this tale. I know everything Tara Sim takes from it in this update, how she revamps it and how she uses it as a base.
And as a Count of Monte Cristo story...it just doesn't really work.
I don't think it works all that well as a standard YA, either.
The thing I have realized about The Count of Monte Cristo is that it's not actually that easy of a tale to recreate. It's complex, and there are several factors that are absolutely necessary to exploit if you want to pull off the same level of emotional depth and suspense.
First of all, the revenge needs to be personal. And when I say personal, I mean personal.
Edmond Dantes is betrayed by close friends and associates, people who he truly believed, and had for many years, were his friends. And they betrayed him from possibly the worst place - their own greed, and jealousy. You could say that Dantes was naive to trust them, that he should have been able to see their baser natures taking over. But you can clearly also say that this sort of baser nature is one that should never in a good, true society take the place of loyalty and friendship. You can easily see where each of these people turned to their worst selves when they had every opportunity not to, and therefore they can "deserve what they get."
In Sim's book, yes, the men are terrible. But what they've done to Amaya isn't exactly personal. She was a child sold to a debtor ship as a slave. Yes, they ruined her life. But they didn't ruin her life, specifically. They ruined dozens, hundreds of people's lives. She didn't even know their names before she was taken to her Chateau d'If. They "deserve what they get," of course, but in such a generic way that really she might as well just become Dany, take down all the slaver nations, and be done with it.
So, strike one: Revenge is a good idea in this one, but not any more than it is in really just about any standard "YA girl takes back her kingdom/city/family/life from a bad regime" story. Of which there are many.
The second factor is, bizarrely, redeemability.
Yeah you wouldn't think in a story about utter revenge and Yeah, F***ING KILL HIM EDMOND YOU GREAT AVENGING ANGEL OF DEATH that the make-them-dead characters in question should be redeemable.
But, they are. And it's important.
You see, in The Count of Monte Cristo, Dantes doesn't return to France until many, many years have passed. He's aged enough to be unrecognizable, and every person on his hit list has had a long time to grow families and careers of their own. They've become in many ways new people, though their vices remain the same. And most importantly, they've become unquestionably important to and often loved by others. They mean something to others, and often they themselves have grown enough to, if not fully realize their crimes, at least be capable of moving on from them. It's truly possible in every case to question, by the end, whether these men truly should die, whether the crimes they committed, however awful, were really enough to damn them entirely so many years after the fact.
Sim's book touches on this a little. She involves the children of the main needs-to-die guy, and has her Countess feel badly about screwing things up for them if she does get her revenge. But her villains are only that - villains. They have literally no redeeming characteristics at all. And when Amaya becomes the Countess, it has only been about a year, perhaps two years at most, since she was on her debtor ship. So everyone on her hit list committed many of their crimes recently, and in fact are still in the midst of committing them, and yet more crimes on top of that. There's no question as to whether these men should be taken out of commission - the son even comes to the conclusion himself, before even meeting Amaya, that his dad is no good.
So, strike two: Where's the ethical drama? If the villains are just villains, what makes this any different from any other YA story out there of "girl gets back at evil men"?
Third, and I could probably go on but this will be the last, the timeframe I have just mentioned. It's really quite crucial.
In The Count of Monte Cristo, Dantes has many, many years to perfect his visage as the Count. He is proven, several times, to be a master actor, and has built and used his wealth very independently since gaining it initially from the island. He does not attempt to strike until he knows, for certain, that he is capable of winning, and exactly how he will go about it. He has ironclad plans. We don't even see his perspective directly most of the time - that's how important it is for the reader to believe he has it all in the bag. It's only a matter of should, rarely ever could.
In Sim's book, as I've mentioned earlier...not so much.
Amaya is still young. She's being put up to everything by the Abbe Faria character, who pulls her strings at every turn. We see from her perspective that she's afraid of failing, that she feels out of place, that she questions her own capabilities constantly. She's been "trained" to be a Countess, rather briefly. She hasn't come into it on her own, hasn't created her own character and owned it. She doesn't know exactly how to leverage her own gained wealth and status.
So, strike three: How can Amaya be any different than a standard YA protagonist if she isn't given the chance to really flourish? If she constantly needs to question herself, constantly feels like a failure, instead of being allowed to be the absolutely chilling badass that is the basis of the Count's character?
Ultimately, as a Count of Monte Cristo novel, Scavenge the Stars fails on every truly important level.
And because it fails at being a true reboot of The Count of Monte Cristo, it also happens to fail at being a unique YA.
There's nothing much new here, from any of the other "girl gets revenge" stories we've had in the past 5-10 years or so. Just the basic homage to Dumas's template.
And what little there is that's new is...Not the most interesting.
I'm not sure if anyone here has ever heard of an anime/light novel called "Spice and Wolf?" But it's the best analog I can think of.
In "Spice and Wolf," we have a wolf deity hanging around with a merchant. Fun. But it rapidly devolves into a story about, of all things, currency. How it's spent. The different kinds. Trade.
I stopped watching the thing at about episode 3, because it bored me to tears.
Now a lot of people LOVE "Spice and Wolf," partly because of that sort of granular detail, and partly for the characters, etc. It just wasn't for me. It wasn't exciting, the way a wolf deity tends to promise an anime will be.
Scavenge the Stars turns out to be mostly about counterfeit coin. Who's making it, what it is, where it's going, how it's going to destabilize the relations between the three major countries, yadda yadda yadda.
The Count of Monte Cristo stuff really seems to be here mostly to carry the dullness of that background plot. But because all of the most crucial, dramatic parts of The Count of Monte Cristo aren't here, it's not able to do that.
So we're left with another "Spice and Wolf" situation, where maybe currency is your thing? But if it's not...Boy, are you not going to be interested in this at all.
I'll give this one two stars because I didn't really hate it. Maybe someone less acquainted with The Count of Monte Cristo wouldn't see what it's missing, and would like it.
But the main thing is, it made very little impression on me. What wasn't dull was just okay. I'm pretty sure I will have forgotten I ever read this one in about a month.
And I'll go back to enjoying my ethically questionable Angel of Death story in peace.