fauxpunk's review against another edition
1.0
Dear Lord, this was awful.
AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL.
I don't know what Card was thinking with this one at all. It's a re-telling of Shakespeare's Hamlet....that completely contradicts the actual play and turns a compelling tragedy into 96 pages of beige prose and stilted dialogue. The changes to the story, are ludicrous and insulting. (Spoiler alert: Hamlet's dad is a pedophile)It's as if Card didn't understand the play at all. Card used to be a very good writer, but I don't think he's produced anything even halfway decent since Shadow of the Giant. I'm glad that I bought this used for two dollars rather than give money to Card for this garbage.
AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL.
I don't know what Card was thinking with this one at all. It's a re-telling of Shakespeare's Hamlet....that completely contradicts the actual play and turns a compelling tragedy into 96 pages of beige prose and stilted dialogue. The changes to the story, are ludicrous and insulting. (Spoiler alert: Hamlet's dad is a pedophile)It's as if Card didn't understand the play at all. Card used to be a very good writer, but I don't think he's produced anything even halfway decent since Shadow of the Giant. I'm glad that I bought this used for two dollars rather than give money to Card for this garbage.
mabeebe's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
kellyhitchcock's review against another edition
3.0
My TikTok review: https://www.tiktok.com/@kellyhitchcockpairings/video/7105214201588714794
olityr's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
This was a great retelling of hamlet with a focus on fleshing out the characters motivations and thought processes. The final twist at the end was very dissatisfying.
drealuc's review against another edition
1.0
I love pretty much every Orson Scott Card book I read but I can’t recommend this one at all. True to form, there is quite a bit on introspection on the main characters part, and plenty of philosophical dialogue. It would have been a 3 or 4 star book if it hadn’t been for the twist ending which was quite dark and traumatic. If, like me, you read OSC for an enjoyable escape into fantasy, stay far far away from this one.
prussianblue's review against another edition
1.0
TW: This review contains mention of pedophilia, child sexual assault, and homophobia as it appears in the story.
One of the worst 2 hours and 46 minutes of my life.
(For full clarity, I did go into this knowing it would be bad. But it's bad.)
First off, the writing is bland, boring, uninteresting, nondescript, and utterly unengaging. The only reason I was able to get through this in one sitting is because I was listening to it as an audiobook. There's no description of anything, ever, certainly not from anything other than visual input. It's just brutalist drivel. Card keeps breezing past entire (compelling) scenes in just a sentence or two. It feels more like a plot draft than a novel(la).
I do like Hamlet. I do enjoy adaptations of Hamlet. But this is just homophobic garbage! The idea that being sexually assaulted by King Hamlet as children is what made Laertes, Horatio, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern is....revolting. It's horrendously insensitive to victims of CSA and terribly homophobic. I can't explain how uncomfortable this makes me.
It removes all nuance from Hamlet's character. Firstly, one of Hamlet's defining traits in the original text is his disdain due to his mother marrying her brother-in-law - it drives almost all of his actions in regard to Gertrude. This version simply has him not care about the incest at all, for some reason. He rarely waffles over actions, he never seems to carry any guilt, he is staunch in his religious beliefs, i.e. literally the antithesis of the point. What's the point of even making it a Hamlet adaptation at this point? Just pick a different character. Or don't write it at all.
Hamlet goes to university for four years and then his father dies, but Gertrude is 35. If Hamlet was 14 when he first went to university, which is what I find cited as a young but normal age to go to medieval university, Gertrude was 17 when he was born, which just feels strange. The emphasis on how young she is borders on creepy. Ophelia barely exists in this, and her death is simply breezed past. Card doesn't care about writing women and it shows.
The ending...I can't properly summarize everything wrong with the ending before the universe caves in. This ending singlehandedly dug Shakespeare out of his grave just to break every one of his bones, grind them into a fine powder, and sprinkle the dust onto the stage of the Globe from the heavens while Hamlet plays below. Which sucks, because "Horatio killed King Hamlet" COULD actually be kind of interesting, maybe, if done right. This is not done right.
a couple less serious critiques:
-Horatio would never call a woman a whore :(
-I need to scrub the words "watch Ophelia grow fat with babies" out of my brain with a potato scrubber, holy water, and bleach.
-Why would Gertrude try to hit him?
-"poison is a woman's tool" what ARE you on about sir
-Hamlet isn't supposed to question whether it is or is not Claudius behind the curtain. He's supposed to just go for it BECAUSE he's been so reluctant to act, and then his mistake only makes him become more reluctant to act.
Don't read this book!
One of the worst 2 hours and 46 minutes of my life.
(For full clarity, I did go into this knowing it would be bad. But it's bad.)
First off, the writing is bland, boring, uninteresting, nondescript, and utterly unengaging. The only reason I was able to get through this in one sitting is because I was listening to it as an audiobook. There's no description of anything, ever, certainly not from anything other than visual input. It's just brutalist drivel. Card keeps breezing past entire (compelling) scenes in just a sentence or two. It feels more like a plot draft than a novel(la).
I do like Hamlet. I do enjoy adaptations of Hamlet. But this is just homophobic garbage! The idea that being sexually assaulted by King Hamlet as children is what made Laertes, Horatio, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern is....revolting. It's horrendously insensitive to victims of CSA and terribly homophobic. I can't explain how uncomfortable this makes me.
It removes all nuance from Hamlet's character. Firstly, one of Hamlet's defining traits in the original text is his disdain due to his mother marrying her brother-in-law - it drives almost all of his actions in regard to Gertrude. This version simply has him not care about the incest at all, for some reason. He rarely waffles over actions, he never seems to carry any guilt, he is staunch in his religious beliefs, i.e. literally the antithesis of the point. What's the point of even making it a Hamlet adaptation at this point? Just pick a different character. Or don't write it at all.
Hamlet goes to university for four years and then his father dies, but Gertrude is 35. If Hamlet was 14 when he first went to university, which is what I find cited as a young but normal age to go to medieval university, Gertrude was 17 when he was born, which just feels strange. The emphasis on how young she is borders on creepy. Ophelia barely exists in this, and her death is simply breezed past. Card doesn't care about writing women and it shows.
The ending...I can't properly summarize everything wrong with the ending before the universe caves in. This ending singlehandedly dug Shakespeare out of his grave just to break every one of his bones, grind them into a fine powder, and sprinkle the dust onto the stage of the Globe from the heavens while Hamlet plays below. Which sucks, because "Horatio killed King Hamlet" COULD actually be kind of interesting, maybe, if done right. This is not done right.
a couple less serious critiques:
-Horatio would never call a woman a whore :(
-I need to scrub the words "watch Ophelia grow fat with babies" out of my brain with a potato scrubber, holy water, and bleach.
-Why would Gertrude try to hit him?
-"poison is a woman's tool" what ARE you on about sir
-Hamlet isn't supposed to question whether it is or is not Claudius behind the curtain. He's supposed to just go for it BECAUSE he's been so reluctant to act, and then his mistake only makes him become more reluctant to act.
Don't read this book!
thebowandthebook's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
Content Warnings
Minor: Adult/minor relationship, Child abuse, Pedophilia, Rape, and Sexual assault
Spoiler
major plot twist revolves around a MC abusing many young boyscrloken's review
1.0
That was odd.
Orson Scott Card doesn't like Hamlet. This doesn't really surprise me. Card takes a certain delight from having unconventional opinions. He has stated that he doesn't care for dithering heroes nor for revenge. I suspect Hamlet has some issues with revenge as well, hence all the dithering. This is Card's attempt to make it into a story he could enjoy. I find this very concerning.
Hamlet's Father doesn't start with the ghost. The first 30 pages of this 90 page book is about Hamlet's childhood. He was neglected as a child by his Father whom he hates and thinks is a bad king. On the other hand his father was close to all his friends and took them on private hunting trips. I think most readers should be able to figure out the twist when that's revealed, which is about 10 pages in. Hamlet does adore his uncle Claudius though, who we are told would be a better king. We are never told what makes Hamlet's father a bad king other than his, um, proclivities. Hamlet is suddenly sent off to university by his mother. We spent along time in his university years mostly just establishing how great Card's Hamlet is. He's the best swordsman, a great scholar, and has no ambition to rule. He is also almost desperate to become a priest which is implied to be partly because he would like to take a vow of celibacy. He seems disgusted by most women, and finds Ophelia attractive in only an abstract sense.
Hamlet returns to Denmark a third of the way into the story. Then we rush through the story beats of Hamlet minus the interesting bits. Gone is the self doubt, or any doubt. This Hamlet is certain of the existence of Heaven and Hell, he has no doubts of his own righteousness, and even explains how easy morality is. When Ophelia dies he seems disinterested and he never feels bad about Polonius (a feeling shared by pretty much everyone. It was a mistake, why should they care.)
And then he kills Laertes and we learn from Horatio that Hamlet's Father sexually abused them all. An act which he says made Rosencrantz and Guildenstern gay, and turned Horatio into a pedophile. Horatio attempted to molest a boy, stopped himself and ran off and murdered the king. Hamlet's mother, a woman who was aware of all of this, hears Horatio explain it and kills herself.
Hamlet dies at the end and goes to Hell. There he is greeted by his Father who declares that he will enjoy getting to know him.
What is this? This is what Hamlet should have been? What happened to Card? Did he write this just to troll people?
Hamlet in this story is a dull automaton with no doubts, anxieties, fears, or even a personality. His closeness to his mother is only mentioned briefly. He despises women too much to have any interest in Ophelia, and he doesn't care on any level when she dies. It's not that hard to ignore that Card took a rich complex character and did this to him because Hamlet is a terrible character here entirely on his own merits.
Card claims that the accusation that the story was homophobic was incorrect because there's no gay characters in it. I don't know what he's talking about because most of the characters were implied that to be gay and Horatio directly states that after they were molested none of them were interested in women anymore.
Then there's the language. The whole thing is sloppily written. Card is a better writer than this. It feels like it was an early draft for a longer book that he got sick of writing and handed to a publisher.
I don't get what Card was doing here. It doesn't work as a commentary on Hamlet because it's too far removed from the actual play. There's no hint of pedophilia in the play, so making that a central plot point is bizarre. It fails as its own story because the characters are flat and boring and the twist too obvious to have any real punch. Hamlet also hated his father so learning that he was a bad man does little to effect him. The end bit comes especially out of nowhere, and feels weird and nasty and mean-spirited.
It reminds me most of his weird horror novels he wrote. They were strange, mean spirited, disjointed messes. This was only 90 pages long though, and someone else already plotted it. It shouldn't have been that hard to come up with something comprehensible.
Card defends himself saying he has the right to rewrite Shakespeare. I agree. I just wish he would come up with something better than "Hamlet, but without the interesting bits and with a lot more child molestation."
Orson Scott Card doesn't like Hamlet. This doesn't really surprise me. Card takes a certain delight from having unconventional opinions. He has stated that he doesn't care for dithering heroes nor for revenge. I suspect Hamlet has some issues with revenge as well, hence all the dithering. This is Card's attempt to make it into a story he could enjoy. I find this very concerning.
Hamlet's Father doesn't start with the ghost. The first 30 pages of this 90 page book is about Hamlet's childhood. He was neglected as a child by his Father whom he hates and thinks is a bad king. On the other hand his father was close to all his friends and took them on private hunting trips. I think most readers should be able to figure out the twist when that's revealed, which is about 10 pages in. Hamlet does adore his uncle Claudius though, who we are told would be a better king. We are never told what makes Hamlet's father a bad king other than his, um, proclivities. Hamlet is suddenly sent off to university by his mother. We spent along time in his university years mostly just establishing how great Card's Hamlet is. He's the best swordsman, a great scholar, and has no ambition to rule. He is also almost desperate to become a priest which is implied to be partly because he would like to take a vow of celibacy. He seems disgusted by most women, and finds Ophelia attractive in only an abstract sense.
Hamlet returns to Denmark a third of the way into the story. Then we rush through the story beats of Hamlet minus the interesting bits. Gone is the self doubt, or any doubt. This Hamlet is certain of the existence of Heaven and Hell, he has no doubts of his own righteousness, and even explains how easy morality is. When Ophelia dies he seems disinterested and he never feels bad about Polonius (a feeling shared by pretty much everyone. It was a mistake, why should they care.)
And then he kills Laertes and we learn from Horatio that Hamlet's Father sexually abused them all. An act which he says made Rosencrantz and Guildenstern gay, and turned Horatio into a pedophile. Horatio attempted to molest a boy, stopped himself and ran off and murdered the king. Hamlet's mother, a woman who was aware of all of this, hears Horatio explain it and kills herself.
Hamlet dies at the end and goes to Hell. There he is greeted by his Father who declares that he will enjoy getting to know him.
What is this? This is what Hamlet should have been? What happened to Card? Did he write this just to troll people?
Hamlet in this story is a dull automaton with no doubts, anxieties, fears, or even a personality. His closeness to his mother is only mentioned briefly. He despises women too much to have any interest in Ophelia, and he doesn't care on any level when she dies. It's not that hard to ignore that Card took a rich complex character and did this to him because Hamlet is a terrible character here entirely on his own merits.
Card claims that the accusation that the story was homophobic was incorrect because there's no gay characters in it. I don't know what he's talking about because most of the characters were implied that to be gay and Horatio directly states that after they were molested none of them were interested in women anymore.
Then there's the language. The whole thing is sloppily written. Card is a better writer than this. It feels like it was an early draft for a longer book that he got sick of writing and handed to a publisher.
I don't get what Card was doing here. It doesn't work as a commentary on Hamlet because it's too far removed from the actual play. There's no hint of pedophilia in the play, so making that a central plot point is bizarre. It fails as its own story because the characters are flat and boring and the twist too obvious to have any real punch. Hamlet also hated his father so learning that he was a bad man does little to effect him. The end bit comes especially out of nowhere, and feels weird and nasty and mean-spirited.
It reminds me most of his weird horror novels he wrote. They were strange, mean spirited, disjointed messes. This was only 90 pages long though, and someone else already plotted it. It shouldn't have been that hard to come up with something comprehensible.
Card defends himself saying he has the right to rewrite Shakespeare. I agree. I just wish he would come up with something better than "Hamlet, but without the interesting bits and with a lot more child molestation."
melerihaf's review
1.0
I read this because of the line on the back of a novella collection this was part of. It said "What if Hamlet's father was killed by someone entirely unexpected?". That intrigued me, so I read it. And I felt like I wasted my time. It wasn't spooky or scary, just weird and twisted. I think I'm going to have to start actively avoiding Orson Scott Card books in the future. I'm always left feeling unsatisfied by his work.
alex_henault's review against another edition
2.0
I needed something to listen to at work so I thought I would give this a go. I enjoyed it as I listened. However, when I stopped listening at the end of the day I never went back to it. I decided I would rather listen to Hamlet than a water downed version. To be fair I never finished this story so it could have improved, but I rather doubt it.