Hamnet

i could not for the life of me get myself to continue this, i haven't a clue why.. might pick it up at a later time!

Fabulous! Her writing is magical and the story draws you in, even if you don't know much about Shakespeare.

Did not like it unfortunately, felt overwritten.

My book club discussed this last night (well, as much as we could discuss it with two of the three attendees not having finished it). We agreed that the language and storytelling was beautiful.

When I first heard about this book, my instinct was to avoid it like the plague (har). A story about the loss of a child, and the associated grief? Right now, that's not for me. I've experienced the loss of a child. My daughter was stillborn three years ago. I know that grief intimately. Maybe someday in the future, I will be interested in revisiting this and seeing it through the lens of a farther-off past, but at this moment, I don't feel like I have enough distance to actively want to read about the grief of losing a child.

All that, and yes I still would have tried to get further through it for book club, because I am a Good Little Reader and I like talking about books even when they're difficult subjects. But the library sucked it back from me, and alas I didn't get more than halfway through. But my friend Jen confirmed last night that this was probably going to be really hard for me if I continue through the second half, so I think I'm going to let it lie, for now.

Hamnet is een alternatieve schrijfwijze van Hamlet, en het boek beschrijft het (korte) leven van deze zoon van Shakespeare. De focus ligt op zijn moeder en zussen, Shakespeare zelf is grotendeels afwezig.

“She, like all mothers, constantly casts out her thoughts, like fishing lines, towards her children, reminding herself of where they are, what they are doing, how they fare.”

“An Hamnet? Her unconscious mind casts, again and again, puzzled by the lack of bite”

Hamnet overlijdt op zijn elfde, onder nogal dramatische omstandigheden – zijn tweelingzus krijgt eerder de builenpest, en de aandacht gaat vooral naar haar. Hartbrekende hoofdstukken.

Vier jaar later schrijft Shakespeare Hamlet, na zich grotendeels uit het gezinsleven te hebben teruggetrokken.

Zijn vrouw krijgt dat via-via te horen, en begrijpt het niet – hoe kan hij de naam van haar zoon daarvoor misbruiken? Haar (voor die tijd best bijzondere) bezoek aan Londen om het met eigen ogen te zien is erg ontroerend.

“And Hamnet? The mind will ask again.”

Prachtig. Lezen!

I could not get past the writing style. I totally believe some people were into this, I was just not one of them. There was almost no plot. Instead the whole book was setting the mood of a scene, sometimes for pages and pages. At one point it took a character a chapter to walk around a room and forget what they were looking for, at another point 5 pages to walk a few steps down some stairs, with endless asides to describe the light hitting an object evoking at least three metaphors. My eyes glazed over. After describing something tiny with such momentous detail you think that would be significant to the plot in some way, but nope, nothing follows, just more description of something equally irrelevant. The characters did not grow or change or even have personalities. The book was basically a a few vaguely connected scenes stretched as far as they could go, drowned in some wordy but arresting visual imagery.

i initially DNFd this book back in 2022 during the summer of finishing year 13 and starting uni; i DNFd it because i was trying to figure out what i wanted to take with me to uni. now that i’m going into my third and final year of my undergrad, i’ve had time to read. i enjoyed the storyline in the first part of the book, but then the second part i think just should’ve been a chapter or two followed by an epilogue. i don’t think it was worth the pages it was…

Gorgeous, engrossing, and thought-provoking. A fictional speculation on the connection between the real-life death of Shakespeare’s son, Hamnet, and his subsequent writing of Hamlet, which dramatized the relationship between a father and son in death. My only criticism is that the book’s idealization of Anne Hathaway felt overdone, but even that idealization was enjoyable if I let go and allowed myself to partake in the modern fantasy of the perfectly wise healer-witch-rebel woman.

First of all, I loved the writing. The story was a little hard to get into, but ended up being very moving. The writing for me ended up being a little too dense which led to some skimming in some areas.

Sometimes I think, “I could write a book.” Then I read a book like Hamnet and it humbles me as I think “I could never tell a story this well.” This book was perfection, the writing - incredible, the story - incredible, the emotions - I felt all of them. The way Maggie O'Farrell captured the grief of losing a child had me SOBBING! During part 2 I had to put the book down because I couldn't read through my tears. Everybody has to read this book once in their lifetime! I'm now on my historical fiction journey.

“She grows up feeling wrong, out of place, too dark, too, tall, too unruly, too, opinionated, too silent, too strange. She grows up with the awareness that she is merely tolerated, an irritant, useless, that she does not deserve love, that she will need to change herself substantially, crush herself down, if she is to be married. She grows up, too, with the memory of what it meant to be properly loved, for what you are, not what you ought to be. There's just enough of this recollection, alive, she hopes, to enable her to recognize it if she meets it again. And if she does, she won't hesitate. She will seize it with both hands, as a means of escape, a means of survival. She won't listen to the protestations of others, their objections, their reasoning. This will be her chance, her way through the narrow hole, at the heart of the stone, and nothing will stand in her way.”

It's been a minute since I've cried this hard at a book. I will admit that it took me a minute to really get into this book, the first half dragged a bit for me but once I passed the threshold into the second half, I read the rest in one sitting. Maggie's writing just melts into your skin in ways that few authors have been able to do for me. We've learned so much about Shakespeare and talked of him so much over the years but know so little of his family so this story, though fiction, was a breath of fresh air.

Quaint, simple, grief

“She discovers that it is possible to cry all day and all night. That there are many different ways to cry: the sudden outpouring of tears, the deep, racking sobs, the soundless and endless leaking of water from the eyes. That sore skin around the eyes may be treated with oil infused with a tincture of eyebright and chamomile. That it is possible to comfort your daughters and assurances about places in Heaven and eternal joy and how they may all be reunited after death and how he will be waiting for them, while not believing any of it. That people don't always know what to say to a woman whose child has died. That some will cross the street to avoid her merely because of this. That people not considered to be good friends will come, without warning, to the fore, will leave bread and cakes on your sill, will say a kind and apt word to you after church, will ruffle Judith's hair and pinch her wan cheek.” (287-288)

“She grows up, too, with the memory of what it meant to be properly loved, for what you are, not what you ought to be.”

I'm struggling to come up with words that would effectively explain just how Hamnet made me feel.

O'Farrell's writing was so beautifully crafted that I felt like I was submersed into the story as a character myself with how deeply impacted I felt by the events of the story. I found myself taken aback with how I felt like I was grieving along with them. It takes a very talented author to do that and I'm now upset that this is the first work of hers that I have picked up.

I, sadly, am too familiar with loss and the way it was depicted in Hamnet was extremely close to home. Grief affects everyone in many different ways and no one is ever going to deal with it the same as others and this is a perfect portrayal of that.

Hamnet took one small piece of history that is often overlooked, unspoken of or unknown. This is exactly what historical fiction should be.

I can't wait to see more from this author.

I enjoyed this book! We all know the play, but it would be interesting to know what their conversation about it was.

PS. It's interesting the playwright's name was NEVER mentioned! I love that!

Le doy una calificación totalmente subjetiva solo porque me enamoré de Agnes.

Maravilhoso!

DNF Lo dejo a la mitad. Hay muchos buenos libros por leer como para perder el tiempo en uno que claramente no es para mí. Le sobran palabras, frases, incluso párrafos enteros. La trama totalmente desdibujada y oculta bajo toneladas de prosa superflua y pretenciosa.

Englannin maaseudulla nuori poika yrittää löytää apua sairastuneelle kaksossiskolleen Judithille. On vuosi 1596, eikä kotona ole ketään. Äiti on hoitamassa mehiläisiään, isä on kaukana Lontoossa. Muut perheenjäsenet ovat kuka milläkin asialla. Poika, Hamnet, etsii vaarinsa käsineverstaasta ja unohtuu tutkailemaan sitä, kun paikka on kerrankin autio ja muutoin lapsilta kielletty. Kauempaa kuuluva ääni herättää kuitenkin Hamnetin muistamaan tehtävänsä ja hakemaan apua.

Tämän kiivaan säntäilyn ohessa Maggie O'Farrell onnistuu kuvaamaan perheen dynamiikkaa, ympäröivää arkitodellisuutta ja ennakoimaan tulevia tapahtumia. Toinen luku jättää kuitenkin kiihtyvän tilanteen taakseen ja hyppää ajassa viisitoista vuotta taaksepäin, jolloin Hewlandsin tilalla nuori latinanopettaja opettaa talon poikia. Tympääntynyt latinanopettaja katselee ikkunasta ulos, kun niitynreunaan ilmestyy metsästä tuulihaukkaa kantava nuorukainen. Lähempänä nuorukainen osoittautuukin naiseksi. Latinanopettajan mielessä ei käy ajatuskaan, että haukankasvattaja olisi talon esikoistytär; hän ajattelee tätä vain piikatyttönä.

Niin vain tuulihaukkaa pidellyt nainen on talon tytär Agnes, taloa hallitsevan leskirouvan tytärpuoli, jolla on maine omituisena tai hassahtaneena, jopa vähän hulluna. Latinanopettaja saa Agnekselta haluamansa suudelman, mutta vasta kun Agnes on puristanut häntä peukalonhangasta pitkään, kasvoillaan tulkitseva ja selvittävä ilme. Latinanopettajan rakkaus syttyy ja saa vastakaikua.

Näitä kahta aikatasoa O'Farrell Hamnetissa rakentelee rinnakkain. Toisaalla on sairastuva lapsi: kuumetta, märkäpesäkkeitä, siis ruton merkit, jotka eivät lupaa mitään hyvää. Toisaalla on latinanopettajan ja Agneksen tarina, jossa hansikkaantekijän pojasta ja hulluna pidetystä nuoresta naisesta tulee Hamnetin ja Judithin vanhemmat. Miksi isä on poissa Lontoossa, miksi äiti on jäänyt lasten kanssa kotiin Stratfordiin? Mitä lapsen sairastumisesta seuraa perheelle ja vanhempien väliselle rakkaudelle, jota on muutenkin koeteltu?

Latinanopettajaa ei kirjassa nimetä, mutta mikään suuri mysteeri hänen henkilöllisyytensä ei ole. Ratkaisu on O'Farrellilta oiva. Tämä kirja on kertomus Hamnetin isästä, mutta samalla ei ole. Hamnet ei ole mikään elämäkertaromaani suuresta näytelmäkirjailijasta, vaikka tosiasioihin perustuukin niiltä osin kuin yli neljänsadan vuoden takaisia tapahtumia kuvaava romaani voi perustua. Ura teatterintekijänä ei juuri näy romaanissa; se on vain elementti, joka vie isän pois perheensä luota. Teatteri näkyy poissaolona, tyhjyytenä; se on aukkopaikka, joka lukijan on itse täytettävä.

Pääosaan nousee ennemmin Agnes. Hän saa kirjan parhaat palat. Agnesin synnytykset, esimerkiksi, ovat hurjan väkevää tekstiä; ne ovat vaikuttavimpia synnytyskohtauksia, joita olen koskaan lukenut. Agnesin suru sairaan ja lopulta kuolleen lapsen äärellä on riipivää. Myös näytelmäkirjailija saa käsitellä surunsa omalla tavallaan. Tarina käynnistyy vähän hitaasti, koska O'Farrell pohjustaa sitä paljon ja monin tavoin, mutta palkitsee sitten kärsivällisen lukijan perinpohjaisesti. Hamnet on hieno kirja ja sen loppuhuipennus on upea.

Teoksen suomentanut Arja Kantele on tehnyt hienoa työtä. 1500-luvun lopun maailma tulee lähelle. O'Farrellin rikas kieli ja taidokas dialogi henkilöiden erilaisine oppineisuuden asteineen välittyy suomeksi kirkkaasti. Hamnet on todellinen lukunautinto historiallisten romaanien ja syvien inhimillisten kokemusten kuvauksen ystäville.

This is a book about loss, about a mother's love for her children, and also a glimpse ito what life was like in the 16th century in rural England.

It won the 2020 Women's Prize for Fiction, and while I don't think it was must read, I do think it was a good read!

This is well-written and enjoyable literary fiction.

I don't recommend it to anyone who is looking for a fast-moving plot or lots of action. You will be disappointed.

If you love slow-moving stories, character development, and an emotional deep-dive, pick this one up.

I loved the book, but I hated that the author gave Shakespeare's wife super powers.

4.5
Loved the majority but it got a little tedious towards the end

TW: Child death

3.5/5 - I have so many complex feelings about this book so let me try and list them down simply. This is by no means a bad book, but it is also a very triggering book. As a first-time and new mom of a baby who has a few surgeries planned, this was not an easy book to read for me. However, there are reasons why I didn't mind going through with it instead of simply DNFing it despite the triggers.

From the blurb and even from the first page of this book, you know that Hamnet dies before you even begin. The rest of the book is really just like watching a train wreck in agonizingly slow motion. Not just the train wrecking itself, but also the factors leading up to a train wreck, like a driver falling asleep or a conductor missing a light. You see every tiny detail that leads up to the big tragedy of this book. But I appreciated this point somehow, that we spend most of the book seeing the tragedy coming and mentally bracing ourselves for it, and that's probably why I managed to make it through the book.

The most triggering parts of the plot for me was in the very final (and long) chapter. I'll skip over describing the chapter, but I skimmed through at least the first half of it because I knew I wasn't mentally or emotionally ready to read that kind of detail yet.

The complexity of my feelings is with how the major theme of the book, the death of a child, is dealt with. I'm not sure if I'm a huge fan of how it's treated here.

Everyone knows this book is about William Shakespeare's wife Agnes and their three children. Two major factors rubbed me the wrong way, although to differing extents. Shakespeare's name is not mentioned a single time through this book, and he's not even referred to as “William” at all. He is the only character in this book to not even be referred to by name. I suppose there might be a reason for it - that his fame is enough to drown out every other character in this book, and since this book is meant to shine the spotlight on them, O'Farrell felt the need to put Shakespeare in the darkest corner of the room. I guess that's fine, but after an entire book of reading him being referred to as “the bridegroom”, “her husband”, “the son”, “the father”, etc. it just started feeling a little gimmicky and like we're just dancing around the obvious. You know that psychology thing where if you were asked not to think of a pink elephant, you would do exactly just that? This basically felt like that. Shakespeare is referred to in all the book's marketing materials (obviously for publicity purposes), but then in not acknowledging this story is also about him, it just felt like - we all know this already, why don't you just come out and say it?

Another thing is how Agnes has some magic powers and this is basically infusing some magical realism into their life stories. Her mother has mysterious origins and Agnes ends up inheriting some of this witchcraft by genes or something, because her mother dies in childbirth when Agnes is still a young child, barely out of toddler-hood. There's a magicky vibe throughout the story because of this which, again, I felt like it didn't need to be there. It almost made Agnes feel a bit like “not like other girls”, but medieval witch-style. Perhaps some part of her magic was meant to add to the foreboding and the suspense, since she can see the future and see how people's lives end, she knows that she only has 2 children around her deathbed but she gives birth to 3, but I just felt like the magicky elements took away from the central tragedy somewhat, and clothed it in this wispy ethereal covering. The death of a child is raw and traumatic and indescribably excruciating, and while some parts of the book does some justice to the depth of pain in that grief, I feel like some parts of it felt a bit distracted by the magic.

I'm just also imagining if the real Agnes had read this book, how would she feel if she read her life story but interwoven with some (probably) false magic elements just to make it more appealing to the masses or to give her story more suspense? I'm not sure if I'm describing this well, but it just felt like if I was the woman involved here, it'd seem pretty disrespectful to my story and my grief to weave random fantastical elements just to make my story feel more interesting to a random audience. Sure, Agnes lived 500 years ago and is in no danger of feeling disrespected at this point, but the story of mothers/parents being anxious about their child's health and also the tragedies of mothers/parents having to endure the untimely loss of their children still goes on universally, so I'm seeing it from that perspective as well.

O surpriza placuta si din ce am inteles, cat se poate de exacta din punct de vedere al intamplarilor din viata reala.

Hamlet is centered around Agnes, William Shakespeare's wife: her relationship with her family, her husband and her children. Maggie O'Farrell chooses to emphasize the fact by never writing the name William. This is true for the entirety of the book, except the second part is also an exploration of grief.

It is pretty evident from the book that O'Farrell knows how to write, she does have that kind of style some would associate with literary fiction. However, I feel like she, at times, overdid it with the descriptions and lingered too long on them, to the point where you could skip some parts and not miss out on anything.

Even though I overall enjoyed the book and how some themes were wrought, something was amiss for me in the second part: not enough delving into her children (I'm trying not to spoil anything, but if you've read it you'll most likely know what I'm talking about) and, ironically, some plot points regarding Shakespeare (his infidelity and brushing aside of it, lack of depth (regardless of the book not being about him. He's still a central part to the story)).