The description for The Wonderling describes it as Dickensian and steampunk, and I can’t agree more with those two descriptors.

Bartok writes and incredibly bleak, melancholic story–I pictured it as a mixture of Dickens and Lemony Snickett–but in the end, hope and perseverance persist in Arthur and his friends long enough that they’re able to save the day. However, while this theme of “don’t lose hope” is always present, even it cannot permeate the bleakness of it all. It can be depressing, but even during the most sad parts, Arthur still remains a strong character and never forgets Trinket’s words to be hopeful.

Speaking of Trinket: OH MY GOODNESS TRINKET AND PEVILL ARE SO FRICK-FRACKING ADORABLE, I CAN’T EVEN. They were my favorite characters, not only for their brain-melting adorableness, but also because they were strong and not afraid to break molds. Trinket is an amateur inventor and Pevill is a brave little mouse that would likely feel quite at home in Redwall Abbey.

All of the Groundlings were difficult to imagine, as they were all various shades of animal. Some were mostly human, aside from a few traits, but others were almost purely animal, right down to their size, but were still human. The illustrations definitely will be helpful to imagine what each of the characters look like, but it didn’t detract from my enjoyment of the story one bit.

This is a great book for middle schoolers, but high schoolers and older will certainly find enjoyment in it as well. I can definitely see it as being an amazing read aloud book for younger kids, since some of the vocab and themes are complex and lend themselves to discussion.

Although the themes in this book–never lose hope, good triumphs evil, be true to yourself even when you’re not encouraged to be–are fairly typical, they were all written very well, with good characters you could sympathize with, evil characters you could easily hate (with a light dusting of sympathy), and settings that have amazing ambiance. While it’s certainly not a “fluffy” read, it’s a lovely example of quest-type bildungsroman storytelling.

Thank you to NetGalley for providing me with a free copy to review!

(Cross posted on my blog

been reading some younger age books to give my brain a lil break from heavy stuff, The Wonderling is an excelldnt book for young readers and does have something to offer for older readers as well :) some of the passages are genuinenly beautiful, or sad, some are hopeful and inspiring. its a well paced fun adeventure through some beautiful setpieces. the way nature and animals are handeled is beautiful, and i really respect a book that tries to instill a love and respect for all our friends on earth, plants and animals included, and The Wonderling accomplishes that with flying colors. I genuinely love this book, and will absolutely encourage my kids to read it (when i have some). incredible read for any age, highly reccomend :3

Loved the characters! Very good book.

We loved this story about Arthur and his friends. My 7 year old daughter and I listened to this wonderful tale on Audible. The narrator, Simon Vance gave each character life with the richness of his voice. It was wonderful to follow the main character's quest to find himself. His innate sense of self to forge along with the hope that all would turn out well was heart warming.

We look forward to the next adventure with Arthur and his friends. Thank you!!!!

Fantastica, dirigida especialmente para niños. Una lectura amena que puede ser completada en un día con bastante dedicación. Bastantes elementos fantásticos y el desarrollo de la historia te mantiene intrigado, por saber que será lo que ocurra acontinuación. Ansioso por la segunda parte por publicarse.

The Wonderling: My Kindle Review

A very intriguing and otherworldly fable that follows a one eared foxling

It's fine. I can see why Candlewick is really excited for this book; it's crisply written, it's got a lot of quirk, and its Dickensian influences are fairly obvious.

But like, that's it. Its racial metaphors are poorly defined and the problem with it being a pretty clear Dickensian send up is that Dickens did a lot of this already, and it doesn't improve on some of his faults, like "good" characters who aren't particularly defined in their "good"ness. I get that memorable villainous characters are a Dickens hallmark, but his "good" characters have always been incredibly bland and this book doesn't improve on that. The villain is fleshed out in this one, which is an improvement. She comes with motivation, bitterness, and backstory, but her good sister is just good! Just good! It made me feel overwhelmingly sympathetic to the villain, but it doesn't even use that unfairness as the reason she deserves some empathy. It ends with a trite little "she was small once", like a lifetime of neglect and overt favoritism shouldn't probably be discussed more extensively? Especially when it's clearly the defining aspect of her past? I'm fine with "cool motivation, still murder", but her motivation is barely even touched on outside of the book telling us what it is. Considering Phoebe is such a total non-entity in this book, probably could have used that to flesh out both the sisters as opposed to just dumping it in the middle of the book and then having Phoebe be this randomly angelic pure being with no personality who wanders in 20 pages before the book is over to give it a happy ending.

At the same time, I rarely felt a special-ness to Dickens characters, and Arthur is covered head to toe in it. The book is like "you're the Wonderling!" at the end, and I was put off entirely. What does that mean? Is that good? I assume so? I assume that it's good and special because Arthur is the main character, but that's the only reason. What IS a Wonderling? Should I care? I don't know and the book is over! So I don't! I guess people were waiting for him and he's special and stuff. His unique ability helps a bit in the book, and could be making a point about language and culture divides but if that's what was intended then the poor racial allegories I mentioned earlier make it a little muddled.

It's fine. It's a fine book. It's just fine. The only reason I don't give it 2 stars is that I recognize that it's only me being incredibly unimpressed by this, but it's... it's fine. That's just. All it is.