Book Reviews: What's In a Name?

I've read two Shakespeare-related books recently (I know, such an English major), and they could NOT be more different! So different that it amuses me.

1.

The first was called Shakespeare Was a Woman & Other Heresies: How Doubting the Bard Became the Biggest Taboo in Literature, by Elizabeth Winkler, which I got from the library.

When I say that I am not recommending this book, I mean generally, because it isn't a topic that most people will be interested in such a deep dive into. No judgement, I swear! It's not for everyone, fine and valid. But if you look at it and think, oh, interesting, then I do recommend it. 

I will note that the author is not strongly pushing that a woman wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford; I almost feel the title is a bit of click-bait, since the was-it-a-woman argument is probably the least developed. But she did a lot of research and talked to a lot of people on multiple sides of the argument (there's only "both sides" if you simplify it to yes-William and no-William, but there are a lot more sides than that once you're in), and I found her writing compelling me to agree with the no-William side, though not 100% convinced for any of the choices she presents. If I had to pick one, I would probably go with Christopher Marlowe, but is that just because he was the last one she digs into? Maybe? I don't know, she makes such a good case for him...

Anyway! A good book for those who are interested.*
*I once read a movie review where the reviewer's attitude was a very dismissive, almost contemptuous, 'if you like this sort of thing, you'll like this movie,' and I was incensed, so I hope I'm not striking that tone here. No condescension at all from me.

2.

The second book is one I got an advance copy* of, called Hamlet is Not OK, by RA Spratt, which is a young adult (or maybe more young reader/middle grade) book and comes out in July.
*Thank you to IPG/Penguin AU for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley. All opinions are my own.

In the book, Selby is in trouble for blowing off her homework, and ends up with a tutor who helps her get into Hamlet--literally. (This is not a spoiler, as it's part of the initial description that they wind up within the play.) I liked Selby, even if I didn't relate to her (I mean, how much could I relate to someone who hates reading? though I appreciated the distinction she makes between reading and stories): she's written very believably, and her voice and attitude come across strongly. 

Also, the implausible plot is handled very plausibly, if that makes sense. With the caveat that I was reading this as a 55-year-old, not a teenager, and as one whose favorite Shakespeare play has always been Hamlet, so I know it very well, I absolutely enjoyed the book. There were a few plot twists that really got me, too! but I'll avoid the spoilers on that. Two thumbs up.

As a side note, both books mention a couple of things:

• Freud--I didn't know how much he was interested in Shakespeare.
• cryptic (in 1, discussion of the use of cryptic messages being common back in the day, and in 2, "And yet every line of dialogue is as confusing as a cryptic crossword."

Not groundbreaking, I know, but I wanted to point it out.

Have you ever read two books that both did and didn't tie together like this? Do you think you would have noticed if you hadn't read them one after the other? It's not quite the same thing, but I used to read a lot more mysteries, until I hit a long string of serial killers and just got fed up with it.