“Every life has its kernel, its hub, its epicenter, from which everything flows out, to which everything returns.”
Hamnet by, Maggie O’Farrell has been floating around the book world for a little over a year with overwhelmingly rave reviews, not to mention that it won the 2020 Women’s Prize for Fiction. This novel, focusing on Shakespeare’s wife Agnes and how the death of their son Hamnet, who died of the Bubonic plague, impacted their lives. O’Farrell mainly hones in on Agnes and Shakespeare takes a back seat - as his name is never mentioned in this 367 page novel.
Unpopular opinion: I found this novel boring and cliche from beginning to end. I don’t dislike Hamnet, I’m just not impressed. Let’s break this down:
This novel is broken into two parts. The first part goes back and forth between the summer of 1596 and 15 years prior. Historical fiction novels use this plot device a lot and the first few times I read this literary tactic, I was like, “Ok, cool.” Now, I’m like, “Ah, we’re doing this…again?!” I do appreciate that this did not carry over into Part Two.
O’Farrell also uses a really interesting writing tense in Hamnet; it’s intriguing but translates a oddly and clunky at times. It’s written in the present tense, but also uses a lot of passive voice. Passive voice has it’s place - it emphasizes the person or the object that an action happens to, intensifying their experience. This makes sense in this novel, because O’Farrell is really trying to evoke the emotional experiences of these characters to the reader. However, this coupled with O’Farrell’s lyrical and extremely descriptive prose got tedious and actually weighed down her prose. I love descriptive writing, but I also like balance. I found myself getting frustrated because I felt like I had to wade through material that was denser than needed, which is why passive voice is often corrected to active voice.
I don’t care for Agnes; how she is characterized didn’t work for me at all. Agnes is portrayed as a “seer,” headstrong, “otherworldly”, she’s seen as a witch from the perspective of others, and angsty. I got strong “not like other women!” characterization here and it was a bit cliche for me. Teenage me would have been all over this portrayal of Agnes, but as I’ve gotten older, I appreciate it when an author shows me, instead of hammering a point home constantly. Don’t get me wrong, I like a strong female lead, but when her traits are the cliche traits that a strong female lead has been given time and time again, I just yawn. Lastly, her hand pinching to get a lead on other people’s thoughts really rubbed me the wrong way. Her daughter, Susanna, would hide her hands to keep her thoughts private and sometimes Agnes would try to forcibly take hold of a person’s hand to intrude on their thoughts. Homegirl, that’s how you get clocked in the face. Our minds/thoughts are the one place where we have complete privacy; no one has a right to break in on them and if I was in this book and she tried this on me, I would have told her to meet me at outside at 5PM. Get ready to throw hands. Next.
Judith, however worked for me, as Hamnet’s twin. I found her to be the most interesting character and the one I felt for the most. Twins have a connection that people can’t fathom, unless they have a twin, and I like how O’Farrell hones in on this.
“What is the word, Judith asks her mother, for someone who was a twin but is no longer a twin? … If you’re a wife, Judith continues, and your husband dies, then you’re a widow. And if its parents die, a child becomes an orphan. But what is the word for what I am?”
Overall, though, I felt that all of the characters were pretty static and one-dimensional; they didn’t change much. Also, other than the death of Hamnet, the plot is quite loose. Literary, typically focuses on the characters, with less plot. Commercial fiction usually focuses more on the plot than the characters. This isn’t an official rule, but this is how it’s typically skewed. Hamnet has a loose plot and unchanging characters, so when I take away the lyrical prose and Hamnet’s death, I don’t have much left.
I want to finish on positive note, because like I said, I don’t dislike this novel. There is one chapter that was absolutely brilliant and it saved this whole story for me. The Flea! O’Farrell describes how the plague spread and how it came to infect Hamnet. This is where the writing style she chose really works - it’s cinematic and gives the reader a panoramic view; if this was translated to the screen, I could see it being shot with drones and B-roll, with dramatic orchestral music. Kudos to O’Farrell for making fleas exciting!
One last thing - some food for thought, if you will - this novel takes place, technically at the beginning of a pandemic. O’Farrell could not have possibly predicted the state of the world when her novel hit shelves. When we look at the music albums, movies and books that win awards in a particular year, we also have to look at what the current events were that year. If you pay attention, you’ll see a correlation and can often predict which titles will be nominated and awarded. Take that for what you will.
So there we have it folks, my breakdown of Hamnet and why it’s just “okay,” to me. I didn’t dislike it but I’m not floored. I appreciate what O’Farrell did here and I like that I was able to fly through this novel quickly after finishing complex texts like The Brothers Karamazov or Lolita.
Rating: 3/5.
Like my bookish content? Follow me on Instagram for more!What are you reading this month?
Post a Comment