In reviewing The Twisted Ones, I would be correct in summarising the plot as such:
A young women with a silly nickname, recently single, upends her life and moves to a kooky new location to assist a family member in need. In moving, she is thrown into a world of magical intrigue. She befriends a zany local barista as the mystery at the heart of the magic unfurls. Eventually, she travels to a fantastical world accompanied by a sassy, fishnet wearing side kick, gets stuck there for a time, and must find a way to return to life in the Real World.
The trouble is… I could also explain The Hollow Places, the other T. Kingfisher novel I read right before The Twisted Ones, using exactly the same plot summary. Yes, even the barista and the fishnets.
That doesn’t necessarily make The Twisted Ones bad. I mean, obviously I liked The Hollow Places enough to immediately seek out another Kingfisher novel to read. But it was such a similar story in some many ways that it felt… lazy.
I would have preferred if ‘Carrot’ (the young women in The Hollow Places) and ‘Mouse’ (the young women in The Twisted Ones) were, in fact, the same character. They were written entirely interchangeably, with very similar mannerisms and ways of speaking. These two novels were so closely entwined, Kingfisher should have leaned into the similarities and just connected the two. It wouldn’t have been hard. But to not do that and pretend to have written another distinct story? It rubbed me the wrong way.
Overall, I’ll give it 2 deer skulls out of 5. I don’t think I’ll return to the Kingfisher well and draw from it again, for fear of risking reading the same novel a third time.