Am Anfang habe ich die ganze Zeit darauf gewartet, dass das Kind endlich stirbt, damit die Geschichte losgehen kann. Irgendwann habe ich mich dann aber in der tollen Sprache und immersiven Geschichte verloren und war einfach glücklich dabei zu sein. Maggie O'Farrell beherrscht die Mythenmetzsche Abschweifung in Perfektion. Aber dadurch zieht sie die Lesenden auch mit, immer tiefer in die Geschichte hinein. Alles ist so lebhaft beschrieben und so gut mitzufühlen, dass es schwerfällt, das Buch aus der Hand zu legen.

Wow! Made me cry and feel nostalgic for a time I didn’t exist. Reading this in london was something else. Loved it!

Apparently, it's ✨ Sad Book September ✨, because ✨ Sad Book Summer ✨ wasn't enough for me. 

Reading Hamnet right after A Little Life was... a choice. I had heard great things about Hamnet, and several semi-reliable sources said that it made them cry. That being said, A Little Life kind of ruined everything for me. (Not in the sense that it ruined my life, just in the sense that I don't think I'll ever read any character study that is that good.) Hamnet was good, but it didn't nail the slow pace, intertwining story lines, or long character descriptions in the way that other books I've read recently have. 

My main complaints were as follows:

1. We hear WAY TOO MUCH about Agnes's life pre-Hamnet. Yes, it's great. Yes, it's kind of interesting. But there's so much of it. Her entire childhood story, how she met her husband, and everything about her family could have been condensed into one chapter, but Maggie O'Farrell really tried to drag it out FOREVER. 

2. There were some overall great moments and the plot was good, but it really dragged. Again, a lot of the little details felt unnecessary and they just really weighed the whole novel down. 

3. The two connecting stories didn't play out as well as they did in Young Mungo, which was a little disappointing. While they connected nicely at the end, they felt too far apart in the beginning, and I found myself wanting to skim Agnes's early chapters in favor of Hamnet's story.

4. Four million things were happening in this book: Agnes's story, Hamnet's story, so many different POVs... I just kept getting lost. Unless Hamnet was being directly referenced, it was easy to forget that this book was even about him. 

5. Agnes's chapters were not needed. After

Hamnet's death

, the novel slowed down even more, and while I loved the last ten or so pages, the fifty that led up to them were so boring and unnecessary.

What I did like included: 

1. It was sad. And I love sad books. I didn't cry, but I nearly teared up a few times here and there. It felt so, so real. Agnes's grief was tangible, and it stayed with her for so, so long. The different reactions to loss (anger, crying, depression, etc.) were explored in such a delicate yet unflinching way. 

2. It really was rather interesting. I never knew that Shakespeare had children. In fact, when I was reading Romeo and Juliet a few years ago in eighth grade, I was convinced that Shakespeare was made up. I spent weeks researching conspiracy theories about other poets who could have been the 'real' Shakespeare, only to determine that I was wrong. But Hamnet was such a good insight into both life in general in very old Europe and specifically Shakespeare's life. It also correlates nicely with some of our recent units in AP World, so that's fun!

3. Not to be dramatic, but I would die for Judith. She was so sweet and cute and lovely, and I felt so bad for her. We all need a Judith in our lives. Go be a Judith. 

Overall, 4/5 stars. It was good, but not my favorite. It was also super slow paced, and despite not being very long, it took me several weeks to read. I'm unsure what my next book of ✨ Sad Book September ✨ will be, so maybe I'll take a break and read something more upbeat.