Name: Hamnet
Rating: 4.177690582959642 (446 reviews)
ISBN: 9786051982304

Maggie O&039;Farrell

Hamnet

Maggie O'Farrell

'Dazzling. Devastating' Kamila Shamsie 'Stunning... deserves to win prizes' Marian Keyes A stunning new departure for Maggie O'Farrell's fiction, HAMNET is the heart-stopping story behind Shakespeare's most famous play. On a summer's day in 1596, a young girl in Stratford-upon-Avon takes to her bed with a fever. Her twin brother, Hamnet, searches everywhere for help. Why is nobody at home? Their mother, Agnes, is over a mile away, in the garden where she grows medicinal herbs. Their father is working in London. Neither parent knows that one of the children will not survive the week. Hamnet is a novel inspired by the son of a famous playwright. It is a story of the bond between twins, and of a marriage pushed to the brink by grief. It is also the story of a kestrel and its mistress; flea that boards a ship in Alexandria; and a glovemaker's son who flouts convention in pursuit of the woman he loves. Above all, it is a tender and unforgettable reimagining of a boy whose life has been all but forgotten, but whose name was given to one of the most celebrated plays ever written.

The language, the characters drew me in, as the storyline weaves this intricate forwards and back-telling of time pulling moments and meaning and feeling to be closely intertwined together. Moving! Timeless, whilst holding true a real sense of another time.

Beatrix

here's where things get a little complicated for me.

The beginning of this novel, had me wondering whether I was the target audience to fall in love with this book. And then came these non linear stories one after the other. And then a flea comes by, and I ask myself, why am I still here, oh yes, I don't like to quit. So I slog on. And then Maggie writes about love, oh how wonderful.

And then, around the middle of this novel, you get reeled in. It doesn't stop. It's like you get caught up in a storm and you want out truly for you know how it ends and it ends badly but you want to see the end of it.

And then Maggie writes not only about love, but grief, the kind of grief one can understand only when they've lived it. The kind of grief that overcomes a soul to the point of no return. A mother who has lost a child and a part of her body, a father who years later, is still trying to find out a way to keep his memory alive.

Maggie knows how to write pain, and by the end I am left numb. So yeah. It's not a 5, and it's not a 4. It's not somewhere in between, and I wonder whether I'll revisit this again some day.

diya

here's where things get a little complicated for me.

The beginning of this novel, had me wondering whether I was the target audience to fall in love with this book. And then came these non linear stories one after the other. And then a flea comes by, and I ask myself, why am I still here, oh yes, I don't like to quit. So I slog on. And then Maggie writes about love, oh how wonderful.
And then, around the middle of this novel, you get reeled in. It doesn't stop. It's like you get caught up in a storm and you want out truly for you know how it ends and it ends badly but you want to see the end of it.

And then Maggie writes not only about love, but grief, the kind of grief one can understand only when they've lived it. The kind of grief that overcomes a soul to the point of no return. A mother who has lost a child and a part of her body, a father who years later, is still trying to find out a way to keep his memory alive.
Maggie knows how to write pain, and by the end I am left numb. So yeah. It's not a 5, and it's not a 4. It's not somewhere in between, and I wonder whether I'll revisit this again some day.



some points strictly for sentimentality — i was not completely immune to o'farrell's tugging of heartstrings. a (rather verbose) portrait of grief, love, and loss. but i enjoy my purple prose, and can probably tolerate it more than others. for myself i can say more about what didn't work in this than what did: while i did like agnes being this sort of elf, wood sprite, fae being, or anything adjacent, i'm not sure i fully warmed up to the idea, considering the kind of book this is. i wondered if this woman from history couldn't have just been... ordinary? or would that not be as interesting? or is imagining a woman as all-knowing and strange and eccentric and special the only way we can write these retellings? i'm not very sure. an appreciated consequence of this was how she described the world around her, which was an advantage in o'farrell's storytelling. it gave the air in this book a sort of magical realism... then again, i would've preferred a grounded approach, but i enjoyed the fantastical aspect. the non-naming of shakespeare was a bit odd. if it was an attempt to decenter him in this agnes-centric book, the sole absence of his name just gives him more focus because of the oddity. i assume people reading this would know it's about shakespeare anyway, not to mention the notes at the start of the book. there was also this continuous focus on his bruise by his abusive grandfather's hand that ultimately ended up as nothing... which is a shame because i was looking forward to it having more importance, as i also did for other parts of this book

shockingly, i cared. i don't know how i did, because frankly there is not much written of the characters' relationships. i maintain the fact that i would have liked more of the present and not the past; we spend so much time catching up to the present with hamnet until at the end all we have of him is his birth and death. but i did care, which i'm not sure if it speaks from my love of siblings (that i could reconcile hamnet with myself, apart from the workings of the book, that i, too, can try and thwart death if it is possible to take their place from its grasp), or from the picture of death being painted here that i personally connected with from seeing what happens to the people left behind. i loved these parts of the book the most, i think. the most i felt connected with this book was the chapter of hamnet's decision to lie down beside judith, take her hand, and try to will death to take him instead. despite the fact that this shouldn't have worked, it was a cute nudge to the well-known 

hamnet choosing death because he knew what the outcome he wanted was, what the truth of the matter is, unlike hamlet's famous soliloquy. he had no uncertainties aside from what happens after death, all he knows is that it would be an unbearable world without his twin sister. this is the choice, the action he chose to make

as someone who does love shakespeare, i was always of the opinion that hamnet's death did bleed into the writing of hamlet. despite the very loose plot connections, which this book does point out, and the fact that i believe twelfth night is still a more overlooked example of shakespeare's grief (or maybe that's my twelfth night bias talking), i think it's a bit insulting to think someone like shakespeare did not take notice that his new play's title has the same name as his deceased son's. two characters even share the name hamlet in this play: a father and son, the father is even a ghost; or more accurately, an apparition. so yes there isn't any outright evidence, but it would be remiss to think just because we cannot see it plainly doesn't mean it's not there, considering how much shakespeare infamously tried to root out his history and personality from his plays. i appreciate how o'farrell tried to look it at it from that point of view, even trying to give a hypothesis as to how the two are connected. do i agree with everything she laid out? no. do i still have appreciation for it? yes. i like the bit about shakespeare inserting himself into this ghost, this need for exchange, this process of grief. i am rather okay with the way it ended, though i did want just a bit more

i find this book hard to put a star rating to. i both enjoyed it and not. hm

shen

He, Hamnet, decrees it. It shall be.


some points strictly for sentimentality — i was not completely immune to o'farrell's tugging of heartstrings. a (rather verbose) portrait of grief, love, and loss. but i enjoy my purple prose, and can probably tolerate it more than others. for myself i can say more about what didn't work in this than what did: while i did like agnes being this sort of elf, wood sprite, fae being, or anything adjacent, i'm not sure i fully warmed up to the idea, considering the kind of book this is. i wondered if this woman from history couldn't have just been... ordinary? or would that not be as interesting? or is imagining a woman as all-knowing and strange and eccentric and special the only way we can write these retellings? i'm not very sure. an appreciated consequence of this was how she described the world around her, which was an advantage in o'farrell's storytelling. it gave the air in this book a sort of magical realism... then again, i would've preferred a grounded approach, but i enjoyed the fantastical aspect. the non-naming of shakespeare was a bit odd. if it was an attempt to decenter him in this agnes-centric book, the sole absence of his name just gives him more focus because of the oddity. i assume people reading this would know it's about shakespeare anyway, not to mention the notes at the start of the book. there was also this continuous focus on his bruise by his abusive grandfather's hand that ultimately ended up as nothing... which is a shame because i was looking forward to it having more importance, as i also did for other parts of this book

shockingly, i cared. i don't know how i did, because frankly there is not much written of the characters' relationships. i maintain the fact that i would have liked more of the present and not the past; we spend so much time catching up to the present with hamnet until at the end all we have of him is his birth and death. but i did care, which i'm not sure if it speaks from my love of siblings (that i could reconcile hamnet with myself, apart from the workings of the book, that i, too, can try and thwart death if it is possible to take their place from its grasp), or from the picture of death being painted here that i personally connected with from seeing what happens to the people left behind. i loved these parts of the book the most, i think. the most i felt connected with this book was the chapter of hamnet's decision to lie down beside judith, take her hand, and try to will death to take him instead. despite the fact that this shouldn't have worked, it was a cute nudge to the well-known To be, or not to be. hamnet choosing death because he knew what the outcome he wanted was, what the truth of the matter is, unlike hamlet's famous soliloquy. he had no uncertainties aside from what happens after death, all he knows is that it would be an unbearable world without his twin sister. this is the choice, the action he chose to make

as someone who does love shakespeare, i was always of the opinion that hamnet's death did bleed into the writing of hamlet. despite the very loose plot connections, which this book does point out, and the fact that i believe twelfth night is still a more overlooked example of shakespeare's grief (or maybe that's my twelfth night bias talking), i think it's a bit insulting to think someone like shakespeare did not take notice that his new play's title has the same name as his deceased son's. two characters even share the name hamlet in this play: a father and son, the father is even a ghost; or more accurately, an apparition. so yes there isn't any outright evidence, but it would be remiss to think just because we cannot see it plainly doesn't mean it's not there, considering how much shakespeare infamously tried to root out his history and personality from his plays. i appreciate how o'farrell tried to look it at it from that point of view, even trying to give a hypothesis as to how the two are connected. do i agree with everything she laid out? no. do i still have appreciation for it? yes. i like the bit about shakespeare inserting himself into this ghost, this need for exchange, this process of grief. i am rather okay with the way it ended, though i did want just a bit more

i find this book hard to put a star rating to. i both enjoyed it and not. hm

Helena

Adele Etheridge Woodson

Best book of 2025. So insanely beautifully written.

Pilar Abreu Fernandez

A tale of love, loss, mourning and grief. Following Agnes, Shakespeares wife, we see the daily toiles of the woman from the countryside. Missing her husband who moves to London to regain his spark, he pursuits his dream and achieves his goal of master playwright. However, the petulance targets his family and kills his only son. The rest of the book follows each family member and their way of grieving; Shakespeare’s being writing a play to keep his son’s name alive. Hamlet; the story of the half delirious king. Hamnets name lives on forever in the museum’s and libraries across the world. 

surtified™

The way a mother’s grief is articulated in this book is the most harrowing I’ve ever read and probably the most accurate description of grief I’ve read to date. Worth a read just for those two chapters tbh. Balled my eyes out.   

If you love or have an interest in Shakespeare and the history and myths surrounding him, this is such a good read. Although, I don’t think you need to know much to read it tbh. 

Anisah Osman Britton

The way a mother’s grief is articulated in this book is the most harrowing I’ve ever read and probably the most accurate description of grief I’ve read to date. Worth a read just for those two chapters tbh. Balled my eyes out.   

If you love or have an interest in Shakespeare and the history and myths surrounding him, this is such a good read. Although, I don’t think you need to know much to read it tbh. 

Sarah Chauvidon

« O mektup. Ne var ki o mektupta? Onu rahatsız eden, takıldığı şey hanımlardan söz edilmiş olması mı? Hiç sanmıyor. Daha çok kağıttan yayılan bir his. Kocasının yazdığı sözcüklerin arasından buhar gibi yükselen o sevinç. »

ceren koc

I hate to do this to one of my very dearest friends, whom i love and always value her book recs to the highest esteem. Even if it did take me a year and a half to get to this recommendation . Anyways Jacqui, this one just wasn’t it girl. When we meet next i’ll be keenly listening to your take and to what i happened to miss on this one. But for me, this was some sort of pandering, plotless, period piece that kind of failed to capture the shakespearean era of england because it was just spinning off to nowhere. 

First half of the book i couldn’t get the characters straight. Didn’t know who was married to, fancying, related to who. I felt slightly intrigued by this awkward youth who hit it off with the flower child witch lady. But that didn’t really ended up amounting to anything in the end.  I digress 

part 2- there’s a mean dad and a tough older brother who maybe will contribute to some throwing of fisticuffs and stimulate my drooping eyelids. Nope 

part 3- absent husband. And someone, a daughter, is going to die. for like half the book. Now at this point i’m thinking wait! Maybe this is a ghost story. I never read Hamlet but i think there’s a ghost. Someone dies, but not who you thought, but i hadn’t built and affinity for this character because the development lacked so i didn’t really mind. 

Part 4- Husband still absent but also still in love. Not much happens but he has money now. 

epilogue- it’s about hamlet, written by shakespeare, but also not really about them, just like kind of. 

*sigh of relief as i open a different book and think of ways to not upset jacqui by shredding her reco. How’d i do babe?? 

connor arnette

I hate to do this to one of my very dearest friends, whom i love and always value her book recs to the highest esteem. Even if it did take me a year and a half to get to this recommendation . Anyways Jacqui, this one just wasn’t it girl. When we meet next i’ll be keenly listening to your take and to what i happened to miss on this one. But for me, this was some sort of pandering, plotless, period piece that kind of failed to capture the shakespearean era of england because it was just spinning off to nowhere. 

my experience went as follows. 

First half of the book i couldn’t get the characters straight. Didn’t know who was married to, fancying, related to who. I felt slightly intrigued by this awkward youth who hit it off with the flower child witch lady. But that didn’t really ended up amounting to anything in the end.  I digress 

part 2- there’s a mean dad and a tough older brother who maybe will contribute to some throwing of fisticuffs and stimulate my drooping eyelids. Nope 

part 3- absent husband. And someone, a daughter, is going to die. for like half the book. Now at this point i’m thinking wait! Maybe this is a ghost story. I never read Hamlet but i think there’s a ghost. Someone dies, but not who you thought, but i hadn’t built and affinity for this character because the development lacked so i didn’t really mind. 

Part 4- Husband still absent but also still in love. Not much happens but he has money now. 

epilogue- it’s about hamlet, written by shakespeare, but also not really about them, just like kind of. 

*sigh of relief as i open a different book and think of ways to not upset jacqui by shredding her reco. How’d i do babe?? 



I came into this one a little bit skeptical, being a fictionalized biography of sorts. The book did not fall into that trap at all. It's an immensely well-crafted story about life, in all its heart-wrenching beauty. 

Frederik De Bosschere

elizabeth

We so often think of Shakespeare as an otherworldly talent. There's legend spun around him. He's practically worshipped (and I'm not exempt; my own admiration of Shakespeare made me interested in this novel in the first place). 

O'Farrell strips William Shakespeare of this sort of supernaturalness. He's unnamed, and his character is more defined by his actions toward his family (good or bad) than his talent or success. O'Farrell takes all the myth she removes from William and bestows it onto his wife, Agnes, who becomes the central character. She's enchanting and ethereal but earthy and grounded. 

There isn't much story in Hamnet. But, thanks to O'Farrell's prose and her taking plenty of time to flesh out characters' backgrounds and personalities, the plot doesn't necessarily feel thin or fluffy, just slow.

Luke Harkness

I didn't get Hamnet at first I was confused as to what was going on and where it was going. However, about halfway through the book, it clicked and I fell in love.

Utterly beautiful. Utterly compelling. 

Read my full review on www.lukeharkness.com

Lindy

Maggie O'Farrell's novel Hamnet tells the story of how the death of Will Shakespeare's son impacted the development of his most famous play. Albeit light on the historicity (no mentions of a particular Thomas Kyd tragedy or the possible 1587 Ur-Hamlet here!), Hamnet is set in a world where child mortality is high, death during childbirth is common, and at any point one's whole family could perish from bubonic plague; the thematic throughline from Hamlet to Hamnet is grief. 

Rarely is it the case that the protagonist the reason I like a book less than I think I ought to, but I cannot get behind most the creative choices behind Agnes as a character. She's presented as a witch-goddess with a literal evil stepmother and mysterious knowledge of future medical practices. I don't think this serves the story well, as in terms of structure, affect, etc. the novel clearly attempts naturalism. (Compare to, say, Laurus which is decidedly and purposefully not.) Additionally, I didn't like that what I supposed would be a main theme based on the description -- an artist's responsibility to those whose lives are drawn upon in their work a la The Story of the Lost Child-- only factored in the last twenty percent and felt underdeveloped.

Hamnet

Reviews

Highlights