What If Romeo and Juliet Live ... And Their Daughter Sucks?

A Daughter of Fair Verona by Christina Dodd

Pages: 286 Genre: historical fiction, mystery, romance

Rating: 1.5 Star

Kindle Highlights

Everyone knows and loves the story of Romeo and Juliet. They fall in love at first sight, but their warring families cause chaos and heartbreak to surround them, until the two lovers are found dead. Except, that's not actually how the story ended. Romeo and Juliet survived, miraculously, and went on to have a whole host of children. The first is their daughter, Rosaline, who is now almost 20 and desperately trying to maintain her status as an unmarried spinster. Her parents have tried to set her up before, but she's successfully found a better match for all her would-be-husbands. Until this time, when she's matched up with Duke Stephano. Rumor has it, he's killed his last three wives, and while Rosaline doesn't want to be next, she can't foresee a way out of this. Even when she meets a young man who she finally — finally — feels to be her One True Love. That is, she can't see a way out until the Duke is found dead, stabbed, during their betrothal party. It seems that everyone, even Rosie, has a motive to kill this man, but when more bodies start piling up, Rosie knows she has to unmask the killer before she finds herself next at death's door.

This book certainly sounds cool, right? Looks can be deceiving, and in keeping with the tradition of Shakespearean tragedies, this book starts off in a rough spot and gets worse and worse as it continues. Except, this time, the real loser is me.

I don't want to accuse the author of anything, but it certainly feels to me like she does not actually like the story of Romeo and Juliet. The original play is a backdrop for an otherwise-unrelated historical fiction novel that, at best, will openly mock the original play and, at worst, will ignore it entirely. There's no mention of all the seemingly still-carried-out murders that surrounded Romeo and Juliet, which is odd considering it is close family and friends who died. And all of the politics is just forgotten. Romeo and Juliet themselves seem to retain very little of their original characteristics. Rosaline mocks the idea of poetry, she complains that her parents were too juvenile in a way that felt more suited for a high school freshman's book report, and she was far too aware of the notoriety of her parents' story for it to make sense in this context. If you're reading this book because you love "Romeo and Juliet," the play, then you're going to leave disappointed.

This book reads as if it's all one big joke. It's making fun of me for liking "Romeo and Juliet," and the writing was so juvenile that it didn't seem to take itself seriously in the slightest. This book wanted to be modern and quirky so badly, but with half the writing in poetic and formal writing, everything "modern" became corny.

For example, the first line of the book is: "My name is Rosie, Rosaline if I'm in trouble, and I'm the daughter of Romeo and Juliet."

And the sense of humor was very childish. I understand that Shakespeare himself was no stranger to the occasional crass joke, so this isn't a matter of sophistication. But the jokes in this book weren't funny or clever, they were just childish. Romeo — the Romeo, arguably the paragon of romantic literature (not that the original play is particularly romantic, but you know what I mean) — in a moment when his beloved Juliet is sad, starts farting to distract from a woman being upset. Why? I don't know.

Romeo and Juliet were not the only ones characterized poorly. Rosaline is written awkwardly. She's a modern feminist, I guess, but her activism doesn't go further than "I'm better than everyone." Also, her narration was incredibly difficult to follow, which makes for a confusing mystery. She was constantly contradicting herself. Her characterization changed often depending on whatever the plot needed her to be.

Both potential love interests were weak. The Prince had potential until the ending, which ruined him for me entirely (and Rosaline was not nearly mad enough). Lysander was creepy — although our resident feminist didn't seem to care — or he was nothing. And none of the side characters were notable enough to care about. I mean, I don't read a lot of historical fiction romance. Is this the standard? Are we meant to just silently comply with men who are gross because of the time period while our leading ladies are feminists in order to still allow the reader to self-insert? Surely not.

In fact, I would argue there were many instances of this book seemingly asking us to laugh off concerning sexual behavior. When Juliet gives birth to Rosaline, she's 13. If we're changing the original story, could we not age her up just a little bit? That poor girl's body — and then she just kept having kids! Rosaline talks frequently about the sex life of her parents, in a way that makes it very clear the narrator is aware of "Romeo and Juliet," the play and makes it less clear that she's their daughter. And the ending is bizarre. I don't want to spoil it (other reviews mention it, if you're curious), but one of the love interests does something very concerning, and Rosaline is more bothered by the principle of the thing than the actual situation that occurred.

Honestly, there were brief moments in this book that I liked. There was a large section in the middle that I didn't love but also didn't hate. It was fine. I enjoyed the way fictional-Verona was built out, and sometimes I even found it funny. But the worst moments far outweighed the best, and I fundamentally can't get behind a book inspired by a different work of art that seemingly despises its source material.

That being said, I will be reading the sequel. It seems to be referencing "Hamlet," and that play I do know.