Anyone read Hamnet - thoughts?

[BecauseOfIndia]

I'm currently about two thirds of the way through Hamnet - a book that obviously was a big seller and received glowing reviews. I'd be really interested to know other people's thoughts on it, because it seems to me that it contravenes all the 'rules' of novel writing that we wannabe novelists are continually told we have to follow. I'm not a big fan of 'rules' but I keep coming up against this idea that there are 'ways of doing it' in novel writing – particularly if you want to get an agent.

The first thing about Hamnet is that it has a very long winded (and in my opinion – extremely boring) opening. We are constantly told to dive straight into 'the action' (assuming there is any...).

The second point – and this is very relevant to my wip - is that the reader knows from the outset what is going to happen – we know Hamnet dies. So why carry on reading?

I was lucky enough to receive free manuscript assessment of my novel and one of the negatives was that in one of the storylines (it is dual timeline) the reader knows from the outset that the character is going to die. The critique said that because of this there wasn't enough suspense. I suppose I'm thinking – well, in Hamnet Maggie O'Farrell spends a long time dwelling on Judith's illness – when we, the reader, know that she lives and that it is Hamnet who dies. So I could say the same thing – where is the suspense, the intrigue? Perhaps the point is it just isn't that kind of book. I'm enjoying reading it because the prose is so beautiful, not because I can't wait to see what happens.

Would love to know others thoughts on this?

Can't give a technical appraisal because I don't have the expertise. But I found Hamnet disappointing too. In contrast to her other novels

It sounds like you're reading it from the perspective of a whodunit and this isn't that, so different set of "rules" if that's an appropriate term. I've got it on my list having started it but then found something I'd rather dive into so I'm curious to see what others think.

If you are writing a thriller of any kind then obviously it spoils it for the reader if they know who dies in advance. Hamnet is not a thriller, though, so those rules don't apply.

I really enjoyed it. It's not a thriller. Absolutely not.

I thought it was beautiful, really beautiful. I suppose the "suspense" (wrong word) lay in the fact that the reader knew Hamnet would die yet he's alive and well, unlike his sister, at the beginning of the book.

Regarding advice given to wannabe novelists- I'm not one so probably not best placed to advise but I'd imagine if you're an established author you can break the "rules" and don't have such a hard sell to a publisher, as you're already known.

I would say, hugely simplistically probably, that in literature it is more about what the book has to say about life, the universe and everything, giving insight into our experiences of this world in a poetic and beautiful way, than it is about plot development. Does anyone read or watch Romeo and Juliet now and not know they are both going to die? But we still think it’s a great play. Even at the time most of Shakespeare’s plays were based on existing stories, and obviously in his histories the audiences would know what was going to happen.

It is one of the few books I’ve read this year (I lost my mojo after being a very avid reader). Despite knowing the ending I was drawn into the story and characters completely. I thought it was beautifully written and told a story of such great grief.

I thought Hamnet was a masterpiece. The quality of a book is not derived from points such as whether or not the reader is in suspense as to where the story is going (unless the genre is crime/thriller), but quality of writing. I read a much-vaunted bestseller this summer (Malibu Rising by Taylor Jenkins Reid) and couldn't understand the hype. It was absolute tosh. Writing style was "tell" rather than "show" the characters' emotions and personalities - very two-dimensional. Maggie O'Farrell on the other hand is (in my view) extremely skilled in building character in a way that really draws you in.

I think Maggie O’Farrell doesn’t have to follow the ‘rules’

I agree with pp, it's a gorgeous book and very moving, despite knowing what would happen. The rules can be broken or bent...

Yes, absolutely. It was a portrait of grief, of a marriage, of different relationships, not a suspenseful novel.

I'm now curious about what aspiring novelists are advised - sounds like you could take much of it with a pinch of salt!

I thought it was very heavily influenced by the Wolf Hall series in the sense that it imagines the internal life of real historical figures, but this took more liberties and wasn't quite as good, I felt it was Wolf Hall lite at times. However I still admired the way she brought the characters to life, I found it very moving at points and totally believable as a portrait of a family.

I think it depends on the quality of writing and the 'genre' under which it falls. For literature, certainly the story is carried by its language and the depth of different perspectives of the characters themselves. These are the key things. Not plot.
For something more 'general/popular' fiction I would say that this doesn't hold true. A lot of writing is quite mediocre and therefore requires suspense to keep us reading.

Most rules are there to be broken.
I read it earlier this year and really enjoyed it. Beautifully written and thoroughly engaging.

I thought Hamnet was a disappointment. I kept waiting for it to get good. There were two key chapters which were good but the rest squandered the source material. So many missed opportunities in it.

I adored it. It was a character study of a woman rather than a whodunnit. I love novels set in a time or place that is unfamiliar to me as I learn so much. The study of grief and love was so moving. Honestly Maggie Farrell is a master at her trade.

Agree with the Wolf Hall Lite comment, but I still loved it - I don't think that diminishes it. It's absolutely "show don't tell" writing - in the smallest details as well. There are so many great novels where really nothing much happens - while everything happens. It's like watching The Power of The Dog for the plot...that isn't what it's about.

Interesting thoughts, and many chime with my own. I personally am drawn more to quality of writing than plot. I suppose some novel are just 'telling a story', whereas others have something more to 'give' - in a philosophical way.

I should have made it clear in my original post that my wip isn't a thriller or whodunit, so I was bewildered by the idea that every storyline has to be suspenseful.

I started Wolf Hall knowing who would live and who would die but that didn't spoil story. It's how you get there that matters.

I was a bit underwhelmed by Hamnet. I normally find any novels involving the death of children very moving ( eg Cromwells daughters deaths in Wolf Hall) but had very little reaction to Hamnets.

I thought it was overwritten with too much description and do wish she had avoided the cliché of any strong woman character having "witchy" powers.

I adore Maggie O'Farrell's writing. Hamnet is glorious. It's not about what happens but how it happens.

She's a very skilled writer.

That you know he dies is very much the point - it's a book about grief and how it impacts a relationship above all so I think it works very well that way. Made me cry buckets, but maybe because DS was a similar age to Hamnet when I read it

Meh, I started it and didn’t finish it despite being several chapters in. And I love the author and her other books and even went to see her this summer - a talk about her latest book The Marriage Portrait which sounds fabulous. Maybe I should pick up Hamnet again but my recollection is I didn’t really feel drawn in at all and I was frankly a bit bored. The scenes were so bloody long and drawn out. Also all the hype meant I had high expectations so it was even more disappointing. Then again maybe it’s too highbrow for me.

I will be honest - I felt the same in the beginning, it took me ages to get into it. I was stuck on a 5 hour ferry crossing and had nothing else to read so I persevered and I'm glad I did. I still don't think it's a 'masterpiece', as I find myself questioning the 'point' of it. It is constantly described as a study in grief, but Hamnet doesn't die until near the end. It's a build up to his death, and some of it feels very contrived to me. However - it is worth reading for the prose alone I feel.

As a generalisation, I think 'the rules' apply to genre fiction rather than literary fiction, which is what Hamnet is.