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?

Some of the poignancy and sadness surely comes from knowing what is going to happen when the characters don't? Also, I agree with pp, rules are for beginners, not established and highly respected writers.

Rules are not laws, tend to be for beginners and are genre-dependent - the expectations for action/a non-boring introduction for a literary novel are miles away from a thriller, for example. Did anyone read the Wolf Hall trilogy expecting a different ending for the protagonist?

Ha - while I didn't expect a different outcome in Wolf Hall, I did find myself hoping for another one. It still seems incredible to me that Henry VIII was able to dispose of Cromwell so lightly.

I found Hamnet uneven - it seemed to sag a bit in the middle. It wasn't perfect. But some of the writing was incredible - the journey of the flea, the details of that time and the way she was able to weave a story from timeless details like hands, birds, apples etc.

I do remember reading somewhere that she rewrites and rewrites - maybe 25 drafts - and you can see the craft and precision in her sentences. She also has a loyal following from publishing for so long and her readers will go with her even when she tries something new.

Following on from I am, I am, I am it was amazing to see her dive into something completely new.

It's been adapted for the stage - for the RSC - they are doing the timeline differently. I'd love to see it - but I'm not sure I'm emotionally able to. My DH lost his son and I think it might all be too raw.

Inspired by this to read Hamnet. It's a historical novel and with most historical novels we know the ending if they are about real people, e.g. I am reading Falls the Shadow, which is about the thirteenth century revolutionary, Simon de Montfort. We know he and several of his sons died at the battle of Evesham and knowing this is part of the experience of reading the story. It's not a thriller or a detective story. Historical novels have different rules (accuracy is a good one).