April book club: Hamnet, by Maggie O'Farrell
Our April book club book is Hamnet (published as Hamnet and Judith in Canada), by Maggie O'Farrell.
There is a Guardian review of it here, though depending how much you like to know about a novel before you start reading, you might prefer to wait till you've read the book before reading it. I haven't read the book yet, but I watched the film, and am curious how similar it is to the book.
There is a Guardian review of it here, though depending how much you like to know about a novel before you start reading, you might prefer to wait till you've read the book before reading it. I haven't read the book yet, but I watched the film, and am curious how similar it is to the book.
Comments
I liked the film too.
It's full of implausibilities but who cares?
Ian MacKellen it seems. He slated it.
Sure, she wouldn't have given birth in the woods and would likely have seen plays performed by travelling players in Stratford but so what?
It's engagingly written and packs a punch.
The film is more 'manipulative' and milks the emotion but I can forgive it that. The performances are extraordinary.
I dug the book out afterwards but I could only get beyond the first few pages when I realised it was written in the "historic present" which I can't get on with at all.
1. When you read Hamnet, how much did you know about what it was about? Did you know it was about Shakespeare and Agnes/Anne Hathaway, for instance, and if not, at what point did you realise?
2. Why do you think the author never mentions Shakespeare's name? Did you find this effective or not?
3. How do you feel about an author fictionalising a true event, and one so personal?
4. The first part of the novel alternates between past and present, while the second part, after the death of Hamnet, stays in the present. What was the effect of this arrangement on your reading of the story and your reactions?
5. Very little is known about Anne/Agnes Hathaway. What do you think of the way O'Farrell depicts her?
6. How did you respond to the various characters? Were there characters you warmed to or found frustrating?
7. What parts of the novel really stood out to you?
8. Add a question of your own, if you like, or talk about any element of the novel you found interesting.
I started university intending to major in English literature and be a high school English teacher. I knew a great deal about Shakespeare’s life and there had been a fair deal of publicity about the book before I read it the first time. This was a re-read.
2. Why do you think the author never mentions Shakespeare's name? Did you find this effective or not?
The book really is not about Shakespeare and by not naming him keeps the book from being centre on him. He is absent most of the book but his ghost is present.
3. How do you feel about an author fictionalising a true event, and one so personal?
I think it is fine given how little was known about the life of Hamnet. She treated his character with sensitivity.
4. The first part of the novel alternates between past and present, while the second part, after the death of Hamnet, stays in the present. What was the effect of this arrangement on your reading of the story and your reactions?
The first half was slow developing especially given that Hamnet’s death was not and pre-ordained. The second half gallops more towards its powerful final scene.
5. Very little is known about Anne/Agnes Hathaway. What do you think of the way O'Farrell depicts her?
I think O’Farrell wanted to give Agnes agency and not portray her as simply Shakespeare’s wife. Given how absent Shakespeare was from the scene, it was necessary for her character to be well-rounded.
6. How did you respond to the various characters? Were there characters you warmed to or found frustrating?
Will’s father was a nasty piece of work. What male with a love of Shakespeare’s plays wouldn’t warm to him?
7. What parts of the novel really stood out to you?
The powerful final scene. Remember me.
1. When you read Hamnet, how much did you know about what it was about? Did you know it was about Shakespeare and Agnes/Anne Hathaway, for instance, and if not, at what point did you realise?
Before the book was suggested for the book club I had considered seeing the film and so had read about the story line. I also read a post online by someone who really hated Agnes/Anne in the book as they were sick of witchy women stereotypes and felt she was too modern for her time, which contained a lot of spoilers. Based on not wanting to see a really sad film and the negative book review I chose not to see the film and wondered if I wouldn't like the book. However I actually enjoyed the book and was surprised to find it didn't just focus on Hamnet's death and Agnes' grief and his death actually occurred quite far into the plot, although it was foreshadowed long before.
I had also seen 'All is True' another movie about Shakespeare, set around the same real life events, but with a very different fictional story line. Without giving away spoilers, I much preferred how the family were portrayed in this book, especially Judith.
2. Why do you think the author never mentions Shakespeare's name? Did you find this effective or not?
I didn't notice that Shakespeare's name was never mentioned! It wouldn't have made a difference to me and I can't see the point except for readers who have no prior knowledge and wouldn't know it was Shakespeare.
3. How do you feel about an author fictionalising a true event, and one so personal?
I used to really dislike historical fiction about real people as I do think it is a bit unfair to change people's personalities and beliefs. However, I have come to read historical fiction novels as an alternative world and not consider the fictional characters the same as the real people. In this way I can enjoy the book without getting annoyed or feeling offended for the real life people. However, I find it easier for books like this, that are set a while back in history, rather than those set in the 19th century and beyond.
4. The first part of the novel alternates between past and present, while the second part, after the death of Hamnet, stays in the present. What was the effect of this arrangement on your reading of the story and your reactions?
Although it was interesting reading the fictional account of Agnes' childhood and eventual marriage to Shakespeare, I found the parts of the book set in the present more interesting, though sad.
5. Very little is known about Anne/Agnes Hathaway. What do you think of the way O'Farrell depicts her?
As long as I accepted her as a fictional character who was not supposed to be historically accurate for a woman of her time I quite enjoyed Agnes' 'witchiness'. I liked that her premonitions did not always allow her to make life go as she wanted it to and sometimes led to events she didn't anticipate, like having twins or Shakespeare's affairs. The book would be too idealistic if her premonitions always helped her make good decisions. More like my Nanna's favourite TV show 'The Good Witch' where the character with magic abilities always triumphs over the doctor and disbelieving townspeople.
6. How did you respond to the various characters? Were there characters you warmed to or found frustrating?
Like Caissa, and I'm sure all readers, I found William Shakespeare's father to be a horrible, violent man. I also got frustrated with the denseness of the characters at time, which seemed unrealistic. For example, Agnes' siblings having no idea who Shakespeare was referring to when he asked about the girl with the falcon and Agnes sometimes being confused by things that were obvious and would be to a woman of her intelligence. Also I didn't like that it was just accepted that Hamnet and Judith looked almost identical because they were twins, whereas surely the family would know fraternal twins can look as different as any siblings from each other. I know twins are more common now, due to IVF and better maternal healthcare, but surely there still would be other fraternal twins in their social circles.
As said earlier I preferred the depiction of Judith in this version of the story. The book did a good job of giving all the Shakespeare children their own personalities.
In some countries (I think including Canada, since that was the case when I read it) the book was sold under the title Hamnet and Judith, which I think is actually a better title. Really, it's more about Agnes than anyone, but I liked giving equal time to Judith.
The one reservation I had about the book was Agnes's grief over losing Hamnet. Not that I didn't think it was appropriate for her (and everyone) to grieve so deeply -- I've never bought into the belief that people in the past weren't as attached to their children or didn't grieve them as deeply because there was so much child mortality. There's plenty of evidence from history that parents grieved the loss of a child very deeply.
But the difference from today is -- I don't think that loss would have felt unique and isolating the way it does today, because pretty much every family would have lost a child at some point in infancy or childhood. The way it was portrayed in the book, as I recall, Agnes seemed to experience it much as a modern woman would -- a uniquely terrible experience for her family -- with no sense that other women around her would be able to empathize through having had similar experiences. That was the only part of the book that felt historically "off" to me.
For question 3 above, how I feel about fictionalizing personal stories, as a person who both reads and writes historical fiction, I feel strongly that famous dead people are absolutely fair game for stories and that is in fact often the best vehicle, not for getting specific facts about history, but for getting a sense of how it might have felt to live in a particular time and place.
When I read Germaine Greer's book Shakespeare's Wife, many years before Hannet, I wrote in a blog post:
When I read Hamet, I felt I'd read the book that Shakespeare's Wife made me want to read. I can't remember if Maggie O'Farrell thanked Germaine Greer though!
I haven't re-read Hamnet for this month, but I did see the film recently. I thought the end when Agnes understands that she and Will are mourning the death of their son in different ways was very well done, but like the book it wasn't something I felt able to really engage with. I ought to give the book another go sometime, as I have enjoyed other books by O'Farrell.
I've not ready any other of O'Farrell's books, but will definitely make an effort to get back to this one!