Scan barcode
A review by orionmerlin
The Wishing Spell by Chris Colfer
adventurous
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
Characters: 6/10
Alex and Conner at least had a pulse, which is more than I can say for some of the side characters who barely scraped by with a personality. Goldilocks and the Evil Queen had their moments, but a lot of the cast felt like they were assembled straight out of a "Fairytale Tropes 101" manual. I was mildly invested in the twins' journey, but let’s be real—some of these characters had the depth of a kiddie pool.
Alex and Conner at least had a pulse, which is more than I can say for some of the side characters who barely scraped by with a personality. Goldilocks and the Evil Queen had their moments, but a lot of the cast felt like they were assembled straight out of a "Fairytale Tropes 101" manual. I was mildly invested in the twins' journey, but let’s be real—some of these characters had the depth of a kiddie pool.
Atmosphere/Setting: 6/10
The Land of Stories had its moments of magic, but did I feel fully transported? Not really. Some places, like the Charming Kingdom, got some solid description, while others felt like they were sketched out in a rush and left me squinting for details. The action scenes had energy, sure, but the immersion level was hit-or-miss—like a theme park ride that forgets to turn on half the special effects.
The Land of Stories had its moments of magic, but did I feel fully transported? Not really. Some places, like the Charming Kingdom, got some solid description, while others felt like they were sketched out in a rush and left me squinting for details. The action scenes had energy, sure, but the immersion level was hit-or-miss—like a theme park ride that forgets to turn on half the special effects.
Writing Style: 6/10
Colfer’s writing is functional—simple, straightforward, and easy to digest, which is great for a middle-grade audience but not exactly groundbreaking. The prose wasn’t painful, but it also wasn’t memorable. The dialogue had a habit of over-explaining things like a teacher who doesn’t trust you to do the reading. It kept me reading, but let’s just say I wasn’t itching to highlight any particularly dazzling sentences.
Colfer’s writing is functional—simple, straightforward, and easy to digest, which is great for a middle-grade audience but not exactly groundbreaking. The prose wasn’t painful, but it also wasn’t memorable. The dialogue had a habit of over-explaining things like a teacher who doesn’t trust you to do the reading. It kept me reading, but let’s just say I wasn’t itching to highlight any particularly dazzling sentences.
Plot: 6/10
It moved at a decent pace, but let’s be honest—this story isn’t breaking any new ground. Some moments, like the Evil Queen’s backstory, had actual emotional weight, but the journey itself felt like a very safe, paint-by-numbers fairytale adventure. Satisfying? Sure. But if you’ve read any fairytale retelling in the last decade, you’ve basically read this one too.
It moved at a decent pace, but let’s be honest—this story isn’t breaking any new ground. Some moments, like the Evil Queen’s backstory, had actual emotional weight, but the journey itself felt like a very safe, paint-by-numbers fairytale adventure. Satisfying? Sure. But if you’ve read any fairytale retelling in the last decade, you’ve basically read this one too.
Intrigue: 6/10
Was I hooked? Occasionally. Did I have to force myself to keep going? Also occasionally. The premise had potential, and I wanted to see where it went, but there were plenty of points where I could easily close the book and forget about it. The whole "fairytales but make it interconnected" thing is fun in theory, but in execution, it never really grabbed me by the collar and demanded my attention.
Was I hooked? Occasionally. Did I have to force myself to keep going? Also occasionally. The premise had potential, and I wanted to see where it went, but there were plenty of points where I could easily close the book and forget about it. The whole "fairytales but make it interconnected" thing is fun in theory, but in execution, it never really grabbed me by the collar and demanded my attention.
Logic/Relationships: 6/10
The sibling dynamic was the highlight here—Alex and Conner actually felt like real kids, which was nice. But the world-building? Inconsistent at best. The book leaned hard on the "you already know fairytales, so just go with it" approach instead of making the world feel like it had its own rules. Some parts just didn’t add up, and while I wasn’t expecting Tolkien-level depth, a little more thought would’ve gone a long way.
The sibling dynamic was the highlight here—Alex and Conner actually felt like real kids, which was nice. But the world-building? Inconsistent at best. The book leaned hard on the "you already know fairytales, so just go with it" approach instead of making the world feel like it had its own rules. Some parts just didn’t add up, and while I wasn’t expecting Tolkien-level depth, a little more thought would’ve gone a long way.
Enjoyment: 6/10
It was fine. Not great, not terrible—just fine. The fairytale elements had their charm, and there were moments of fun, but the predictable plot and uneven execution made this one of those books you enjoy while reading but forget about a week later. If you’re a die-hard fairytale fan, you might get a kick out of it. If not? Meh.
It was fine. Not great, not terrible—just fine. The fairytale elements had their charm, and there were moments of fun, but the predictable plot and uneven execution made this one of those books you enjoy while reading but forget about a week later. If you’re a die-hard fairytale fan, you might get a kick out of it. If not? Meh.