The Shakespeare Secret
|
|
I started reading "Shakespeare's Secret" with a degree of enjoyment, not only do I love a good mystery but have also long been a fan of the Bard, since the cradle really. Not for my brother and I the usual childrens' bedtime stories; we were read the sonnets. Imagine my disappointment - nay, horror - when I stumbled on a gross blunder. I cannot imagine how a woman of the author's alledged scholarship could have let it slip in. Furthermore, her editor(s) should have spotted it. One of the clues Kate homes in on is the quote: "All that glitters (sic) is not gold". "Glitters" is incorrect, Shakespeare wrote "glisters". She compounds the mistake by mentioning that Kate needs a letter transcribed exactly, each spelling error, quirk of punctuation and idiosyncracy faithfully copied. I shall finish the book although this glaring faux pas almost made me throw it across the room in disgust.
|
|
Subject - good; style - confusing
|
I have to agree with most reviewers here in that though the subject matter is fascinating in itself and has awakened in me a debate that I was blissfully unaware of until now, the style of the writing is very confusing. You're not quite sure whose speaking sometimes, if in fact someone is speaking; and the bit about Oxfordians and Oxonians confused me utterly as Carrell didn't make it clear that Oxford was a bloke. Another part is the whole "Don Quixote" bit; I gathered that the story of "Cardenio" is from this piece of literary work, but I was totally confused about the link between it and Shakespeare.
On the whole it is an interesting and exceedingly well-researched piece of work, but the author sometimes gets a bit carried away with her own breadth of knowledge and tries a bit too hard to impress this upon the reader.
A satisfactory read.
|
|
|
Oh dear
|
|
Reading the back of this book it is easy to get excited. An unheard of author (To me anyway) and then you could tell yourself you may have found a new popular author such as Dan Brown and you could tell people you knew Carrell's work before fame had struck. BUt getting into the tale it is obvious that the author knew alot about shakespeare and i have to admit i learnt a little about the great bard, but the story is very simple and there is nothing that would surprise anyone and some of the escapes are clumsy and childish. If the author had gotten a good editor, then this version would have been tweaked and enhanced and some of the writing improved and then we may have found this up on the screen as it has that Da Vinci code style that is easy to transfer, but sadly it will be condemned to mediocrity to many and even worse, the bin, for others
|
|
|
Oh dear
|
|
This is sub-Da Vinci, needlessly convoluted and choppy without being tense, full of barely realised characters and in general really really dreary. Obviously a great deal of background knowledge, but it is dropped in great undigested chunks.
|
|
|
Uninspired unconvincing nonsense
|
|
This is a De Vinci code copycat novel; it would be foolish therefore to expect believable characters, a plausible plot or a truly surprising ending. However, we do have a right to expect a well-paced, intriguing story, some interesting historical facts and a few unexpected twists. None of these requirements are met. This is a dull written-by-numbers novel with a heroine remarkable only for her stupidity and a hero straight out of Mills and Boon. And guess what - Shakespeare couldn't have written his plays because he didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge. Perhaps the author went to Oxbridge with the publisher; I can't think of any other reason why this would be published.
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada