Scan barcode
A review by bhnmt61
Hamnet by Maggie O'Farrell
5.0
First of all, let me say for the record that Maggie O’Farrell’s writing style drives me crazy. The piling up of metaphors, of lists, of examples and details and arcane items. The sheer excess of verbiage. Every time I read one of her books, once I get back in the rhythm, I can skip entire paragraphs, even pages, as she piles on the words. Not a fan.
But what she does in spite of that—some might say because of it— is tell a great story. I’m not a Shakespeare expert, but I’ve studied him enough to get the nods to the brief details that are known about his personal life. I appreciated her explanation of how he came to leave Stratford, why Anne never joined him in London, and why he would leave Anne the second best bed, as he famously did in his will (which survives).
But what I appreciated most of all was O’Farrell’s love for Shakespeare. It is all the rage in the US right now to tear people down. Shakespeare has been one of those victims— there are dozens of theories as to why he didn’t write the plays, couldn’t have, wouldn’t have, he was practically illiterate, he had only a small town education (see, I’m writing like O’Farrell now). I am firmly of the opinion that this is born either of snobbery- he couldn’t have been a genius if he wasn’t educated at Oxford or Cambridge — or out of that vicious need to tear people down. If everybody else thinks he’s a genius, let me tell you why he was nothing special.
But I don’t buy it. In the tightly knit theater community where Shakespeare worked for decades, people would have known. I’m a firm Stratfordian (ie, I believe he wrote all of the plays and poems attributed to him, maybe sometimes in collaboration). And I loved that this retelling of his life through the eyes of his wife Anne/Agnes gives him back to me as a real, plausible person who really did do the things I want to believe he did. There are plenty of people who will tell you the book blurb details, so I won’t repeat them. I’ll just say that I ended up loving this book in spite of the surfeit of words.
But what she does in spite of that—some might say because of it— is tell a great story. I’m not a Shakespeare expert, but I’ve studied him enough to get the nods to the brief details that are known about his personal life. I appreciated her explanation of how he came to leave Stratford, why Anne never joined him in London, and why he would leave Anne the second best bed, as he famously did in his will (which survives).
But what I appreciated most of all was O’Farrell’s love for Shakespeare. It is all the rage in the US right now to tear people down. Shakespeare has been one of those victims— there are dozens of theories as to why he didn’t write the plays, couldn’t have, wouldn’t have, he was practically illiterate, he had only a small town education (see, I’m writing like O’Farrell now). I am firmly of the opinion that this is born either of snobbery- he couldn’t have been a genius if he wasn’t educated at Oxford or Cambridge — or out of that vicious need to tear people down. If everybody else thinks he’s a genius, let me tell you why he was nothing special.
But I don’t buy it. In the tightly knit theater community where Shakespeare worked for decades, people would have known. I’m a firm Stratfordian (ie, I believe he wrote all of the plays and poems attributed to him, maybe sometimes in collaboration). And I loved that this retelling of his life through the eyes of his wife Anne/Agnes gives him back to me as a real, plausible person who really did do the things I want to believe he did. There are plenty of people who will tell you the book blurb details, so I won’t repeat them. I’ll just say that I ended up loving this book in spite of the surfeit of words.