Chasing Shakespeares : A Novel

Rating:
Summary: So many problems... where to begin?
Review: As an English student myself who has spent a substantial amount of time with Shakespeare, I was thrilled to see a fictional "thriller" about his life hit the stands. Unfortunately, "Chasing Shakespeares" is a mess from the get-go, and any at least semi-literate person (i.e. its intended audience) will find it disappointing.
Where to begin? First thing first: this is a thriller after all, so one would presume it required a plot with at least a modicum of suspense, let alone a plot to begin with. This book had neither. The "plot" consists entirely of observing the main character reading in the library, with the "suspense" generated by the main character himself as he takes minutiae garnered from the works of other already-published writers and uses them as proof of his theory. This books reads as if the author found some potentially interesting tidbits about the life of Shakespeare but, like the main character, didn't have actual proof to write an academic, scholarly work, so she took the easy way out and included some half-truths and random information in writing a novel that wasn't burdened by the necessity of actual research. Most importantly, there is simply no conflict to create tension--there is no race against the clock, and the letter supposedly authored by Shakespeare ostensibly driving the plot recedes into the background until the very end, with everything in between completely unattached from whether or not the letter is authentic.
Secondarily, but as important, the writing is just plain bad. Sentence structure, diction, and figurative language is at an elementary school level. Infantile expressions like "He was lying like a rug" were routinely used. There was no depth to the writing style whatsoever. Additionally and amazingly, there is an unnecessary abundance of curse words. The two main characters drop the f- and s- bombs with no reason to the point that it actually gets in the way of whatever flow the words might otherwise have had. I cannot even count the number of times "F***ing Earl of Oxford" must have appeared. The protagonist even uses "s***" with his professor!
Lastly, the characters are simply ridiculous. The two principal characters, Joe and Posy, are written as if Susan Smith had never spoken to somebody in his or her mid-20's before. They talk like children and curse endlessly, jump to absurd conclusions, and think of themselves as the center of the world. Other characters are written unrealistically as well. Posy's father, Ted Gould, hosts a dinner party and proceeds to harass his guests in a manner that even the most obnoxious Hollywood kingpin would never conceive of in any company.
In the end, I read just to get to the end, only to find that an ending never really came. It's historical thrillers like these, ostensibly academic yet written like brainless beach reading, that make us appreciate books like The DaVinci Code, a historical thriller that actually seeks in creating tension and which didn't even have academic expectations to live up to. The fact that I would devote so much energy to this review indicates how much I think you should avoid wasting your time with this book!

Rating:
Summary: Please Stick to Reisden and Perdita Next Time
Review: I couldn't wait to read this book because I loved her trilogy, particularly the Vanished Child, which was one of the best books I've ever read, and I like Shakespeare. BUT, this book was really quite poor. I had trouble even following the arguments/plot, and the lead female character was, "like so annoying." This was akin to Patricia Cornwell's ridiculous attempt to write about Jack the Ripper. Smith, like Cornwell, needs to stick to what she does best, which appears to be psychological mystery like the Reisden/Perdita series.

Rating:
Summary: disappointing
Review: I found this thoroughly disappointing, as a fan of Shakespeare and as an avid mystery reader. It's interesting to me that the writer includes a tangential story within the story about a play that seems to have been written by two authors, thus helping (or not) the theory that Shakespeare could have been a number of people. Interesting, because this novel seems to have been written by two people, or at least by one author who tacked on the second half of the book as an afterthought. The book starts off strong, but gets lost along the way, mired in dialogue that goes over the head of the average reader. Most of the dialogue reads like a cocktail party conversation between two academics, or an inside joke to which the Average Joe reader is not ever a party to. Even being familiar with the cast of characters of the time, with Shakespeare and his contemporaries, I still found it difficult to stay with some of the conversations and the dialogue here. The second half of the book falls flat, as if the writer had a great idea, then was sidetracked and picked up the writing of the second half months later, in a rush to finish to get it to her publisher. Overall, I was disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: found very little to like about this one
Review: I had high hopes for this book-Shakespeare as a major focus, academia as a major setting, a plot that called up memories of Possession by A.S. Byatt, one of my favorite works. Unfortunately, the book fell far short, and would have even had my expectations been a lot lower.
It is, of course, unfair to hold it up to the high standards of Possession, so I'll just be quick and kind and say despite surface similarities, neither the plotting nor the style come close to matching that of Byatt's work. That said, how does it fare on its own? Still not so hot.
The characterization is weak-the rich, spoiled female lead speaks more like the concept of a rich, spoiled girl than a real person and it would be hard to come up with too many times where the supposed academic male main character acts as an academic would. Too often common sense behavior or just plain normal behavior is replaced with "the characters need to do this for sake of plot" behavior, something you can overlook once or twice but not as often as happens here.
The plot itself, trying to trace the authenticity of a letter allegedly written by Shakespeare where he denies authorship (which leads into a broader journey to determine the authorship question) starts off with the reader having to suspend a lot of disbelief and continues in that vein throughout. Again, once or twice is fine, but eventually disbelief weighs a bit too heavily.
As to the literary mystery, well, since the author says in a preface that some of the material is wrong, the reader is already pre-disposed to not care too much since he/she knows the author has "cheated" and stacked the deck somewhat by putting false information into the characters' mouths or hands. The literary history itself comes in too many name/place/date-filled chunks so that the reader is more mystified than made curious or enlightened. And too often the characters seemed to leap on tenuous links and take them immediately as "proof".
As the book went on I found I cared little about the authorship question and less about the two main characters. Uninterested in the plot, unconcerned about the characters, all that was left was the style, which while serviceable couldn't overcome the major weaknesses. By the end, I admit to skimming just to see what happened. If this plot interests you and you haven 't read Possession, do so. If it interests you and you have read Possession, read it again. But this one I just can't recommend.

Rating:
Summary: Couldn't finish it
Review: I loved the idea of this novel, but I hated the execution - it was boring! The controversy over Shakespeare can get quite technical, and I thought a good mystery novel would lighten things up. And while I did not expect a definitive answer to the authorship question, I did expect to be informed and entertained. To me, Smith's characterizations seemed bizarre and annoying. Maybe some scholars really do talk and act like this story's hero and heroine, Joe and Posy, but I don't like them any better for it. Joe is a poor, working-class redneck, but he is a gifted graduate student. Posy is a rich, spoiled valley girl who is also a gifted graduate student. On the surface, these two are an odd couple, but underneath, they are both serious, passionate about Shakespeare, and have hearts of gold. Unfortunately, they both use profanity so often their mouths belong in the toilet. I guess the author wanted to show us ignorant readers that scholars, even Shakespeare scholars, can be down-to-earth real people. Even though this is a novel, it's hard to keep track or make sense of the arguments over Shakespeare. Again, in a word, boring (I didn't even finish it).

Rating:
Summary: A fun, literate page-turner
Review: I read this book over the summer and loved it. The story was believable and kept me interested. The main characters were likeable and the author's way of approaching the rather "dry"/ academic subject of the Shakespeare authorship was well done and accessible. I didn't know much about the authorship controversy before reading this book, but I found the theories explored both easy to follow and ultimately intriguing. However, what I enjoyed most about this book was the way Sarah Smith depicted Boston and contemporary/ Elizabethan London, and allowed me to escape to these places in an instant.

Rating:
Summary: A fun, literate page-turner
Review: I read this book over the summer and loved it. The story was believable and kept me interested. The main characters were likeable and the author's way of approaching the rather "dry"/ academic subject of the Shakespeare authorship was well done and accessible. I didn't know much about the authorship controversy before reading this book, but I found the theories explored both easy to follow and ultimately intriguing. However, what I enjoyed most about this book was the way Sarah Smith depicted Boston and contemporary/ Elizabethan London, and allowed me to escape to these places in an instant.

Rating:
Summary: Discover the Shakespeare game
Review: I think this is a great book. I read many plays by Shakespeare, but knew almost nothing about the authorship controversy, and would be unlikely to ever gather enough interest to read a non-fiction article or book on this subject. It takes great skill for an author to introduce such a topic in a work of fiction. While I only partially followed her discussions about good and bad verse, the arguments were rich and entertaining. Also, I greatly admired the author's ability to spin such a spectacle of wild tales, and yet keep the story together in the end. Her knowledge of nuances of the academic environment is also precise. I give this book a definite ``thumbs up''.

Rating:
Summary: Great Escapism!
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed this novel. I got very caught up in the historical references and the intrigue. Although the author freely admits to embellishing or fabricating some of the literary references and historical events, I found this story to be very thought-provoking. Even folks who don't consider themselves to be Shakespeare fans would enjoy this one - a little romance, a little mystery, and a lot of literary education. Anglophiles will love the description of modern-day London!

Rating:
Summary: I love Shakespeare but...
Review: I'm not made to feel anything for about the two main characters in this book! Both are snobs, but of a different sort. Neither has a redeeming quality.

They go traipsing off to London to meet another unlikable person who is supposed to validate a letter is a forgery, but at this point we really don't care.

We are told things that any reader of Shakespeare know, but aren't told things that--unless you are ardent student of the Shakespeare controversy--you don't know!

Really a shame that it wasn't written better.