First off, don't GET ME WRONG, I DO really like "Beauty" overall. It IS A GOOD BOOK; no one is debating that here, as can be seen from the fact that I have given this novel a solid four stars. 
 HOWEVER, it is NOT (repeat NOT) the masterpiece its fans seem to think it is. 
 It seems that every time a novel comes out based on Beauty and the Beast or any fairytale even remotely similar to Beauty and the Beast, some wiseguy has to whine that they'd rather be rereading "Beauty" by Robin McKinley "than this crap". 
 My question: well, then, WHY AREN'T YOU??? 
 I CAN understand the comparison to Rose Daughter (which I deeply dislike, largely for its ending) as it is another DIRECT adaption of Beauty and the Beast and by the same author. Heck, I'll even AGREE that "Beauty" is a million and one times better than the aforementioned novel! But for people to bash novels like Sun and Moon, Ice and Snow or North Child or Till We Have Faces for "not being Robin McKinley's Beauty" is plain stupid. 
 None of those books are direct adaptions of Beauty and the Beast, they just share some similar themes, and they are MEANT to be completely different kinds of novels than Beauty was. I mean, it's sort of like comparing Ella Enchanted to the Jim Henson version of Sapsorrow. They're two TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS! 
 Not to mention, I'm sorry but Beauty is NOT all that great. It's just not. 
 Yes, its a pretty story, with charming expansive images from the original fairytale, the writing is cute, and the characters are overall very likable. But even the author herself, as it was her debut novel, doesn't seem to think it was her best work. I'm not saying it's not good, but let's not try and sell this thing as the next War and Peace either, shall we? 
 I will say, however, (minor spoiler alert) that the ending of Beauty is VERY well done. I liked Beauty's reaction to the beast becoming a prince and how he didn't remember his own name and had still aged SOMEWHAT during his time as a beast. It was very clever.