Sign in with Facebook
Nona's Reviews > Casa Starling
Casa Starling
by
by
2.5* with extra points for the cat.
To paraphrase a Romanian saying, not too too, not very very... As a long-time lover of Gothic literature, both classic and contemporary, I have high expectations when publishers label a novel as Gothic. Unfortunately, except for the atmosphere, "Starling House" had nothing memorable. And it reminded me of many other books or movies; it started feeling like a "Beauty and the Beast" retelling and ended with strong "Stranger Things" vibes.
It's messy, meta, and moody gothic. That is the only way I can define it. It has the ingredients of Southern Gothic - a decaying house full of secrets, an outcast protagonist, and a sense of creeping doom. Opal, our protagonist, is poor and stuck in a dead-end life in Eden, Kentucky, a town that offers nothing but bleak futures and whispered legends about Starling House, a cursed mansion on the outskirts of town. Starling House was built by E. Starling, a mysterious 19th-century writer whose book, "The Underland", became a cult classic. Its only inhabitant is Arthur, the grumpy, reluctant heir who is clearly hiding something.
Opal, who needs money to send her very smart brother to a private school, takes a job as the housekeeper at Starling House. From there, the story spirals into a mix of supernatural horror, reluctant romance, and "chosen one" nonsense.
The good: atmosphere and the house. The biggest strength of "Starling House" is its setting. The house itself is alive, watching, breathing, shifting. The descriptions of its rooms and its connection to the strange forces lurking beneath Eden are beautifully bizarre. The house itself feels like a character. I also liked how Harrow captured the slow decay of small-town poverty, the weight of generational trauma, and the suffocating desperation of people with no way out.
And then there's the cat - an absolute menace and, hands down, the best character in the book, other than the house itself.
The bad: Opal (So. Much. Stupidity.) The main characters are both insufferable, but Opal takes the prize for the most annoying character of the year so far. Yes, she's had a hard life, but she makes one mind-numbingly dumb decision after another - she lies constantly, even when it makes no sense, she refuses to tell her younger brother about the school because� reasons?, she has zero regard for ethics (stealing, manipulating and justifying everything as if she's the only person who has ever suffered), she's wildly entitled, acting like the world owes her something, and she's supposed to be smart and resourceful, but she consistently makes reckless choices.
Her character arc doesn't feel earned. It's just a series of bad choices that somehow lead to a heroic moment.
At its core, "Starling House" follows a familiar "Beauty and the Beast" structure: a young woman enters a cursed house, gets close to its brooding inhabitant, and uncovers the dark secrets within. There's even a library with hundreds of books, because... of course there is! But instead of a romantic redemption story, it's more about facing down monsters, both literal and metaphorical. Opal, of course, is Special and somehow the only one who can fix everything.
None of the twists are shocking, and the pacing drags at times. The final act is chaotic, full of rushed explanations and conveniently resolved conflicts.
The novel is incredibly self-aware, playing with genre conventions and tropes in a way that constantly reminds you that it knows it's a story. Which... ok, I like meta on a typical day, but self-awareness alone doesn't make for compelling storytelling. Instead of undermining clichés, it just points at them.
The bottom line - "Starling House" does a good job with its atmosphere, but disappoints in its character development. I enjoyed the eerie descriptions and the house that feels more alive than the people in it. But the characters have no depth, logic, or even basic human decency, which left me feeling frustrated. The cat and the house? Fantastic. Everything else? Meh.
To paraphrase a Romanian saying, not too too, not very very... As a long-time lover of Gothic literature, both classic and contemporary, I have high expectations when publishers label a novel as Gothic. Unfortunately, except for the atmosphere, "Starling House" had nothing memorable. And it reminded me of many other books or movies; it started feeling like a "Beauty and the Beast" retelling and ended with strong "Stranger Things" vibes.
It's messy, meta, and moody gothic. That is the only way I can define it. It has the ingredients of Southern Gothic - a decaying house full of secrets, an outcast protagonist, and a sense of creeping doom. Opal, our protagonist, is poor and stuck in a dead-end life in Eden, Kentucky, a town that offers nothing but bleak futures and whispered legends about Starling House, a cursed mansion on the outskirts of town. Starling House was built by E. Starling, a mysterious 19th-century writer whose book, "The Underland", became a cult classic. Its only inhabitant is Arthur, the grumpy, reluctant heir who is clearly hiding something.
Opal, who needs money to send her very smart brother to a private school, takes a job as the housekeeper at Starling House. From there, the story spirals into a mix of supernatural horror, reluctant romance, and "chosen one" nonsense.
The good: atmosphere and the house. The biggest strength of "Starling House" is its setting. The house itself is alive, watching, breathing, shifting. The descriptions of its rooms and its connection to the strange forces lurking beneath Eden are beautifully bizarre. The house itself feels like a character. I also liked how Harrow captured the slow decay of small-town poverty, the weight of generational trauma, and the suffocating desperation of people with no way out.
And then there's the cat - an absolute menace and, hands down, the best character in the book, other than the house itself.
The bad: Opal (So. Much. Stupidity.) The main characters are both insufferable, but Opal takes the prize for the most annoying character of the year so far. Yes, she's had a hard life, but she makes one mind-numbingly dumb decision after another - she lies constantly, even when it makes no sense, she refuses to tell her younger brother about the school because� reasons?, she has zero regard for ethics (stealing, manipulating and justifying everything as if she's the only person who has ever suffered), she's wildly entitled, acting like the world owes her something, and she's supposed to be smart and resourceful, but she consistently makes reckless choices.
Her character arc doesn't feel earned. It's just a series of bad choices that somehow lead to a heroic moment.
At its core, "Starling House" follows a familiar "Beauty and the Beast" structure: a young woman enters a cursed house, gets close to its brooding inhabitant, and uncovers the dark secrets within. There's even a library with hundreds of books, because... of course there is! But instead of a romantic redemption story, it's more about facing down monsters, both literal and metaphorical. Opal, of course, is Special and somehow the only one who can fix everything.
None of the twists are shocking, and the pacing drags at times. The final act is chaotic, full of rushed explanations and conveniently resolved conflicts.
The novel is incredibly self-aware, playing with genre conventions and tropes in a way that constantly reminds you that it knows it's a story. Which... ok, I like meta on a typical day, but self-awareness alone doesn't make for compelling storytelling. Instead of undermining clichés, it just points at them.
The bottom line - "Starling House" does a good job with its atmosphere, but disappoints in its character development. I enjoyed the eerie descriptions and the house that feels more alive than the people in it. But the characters have no depth, logic, or even basic human decency, which left me feeling frustrated. The cat and the house? Fantastic. Everything else? Meh.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Casa Starling.
Sign In »
