skybalon's review against another edition
4.0
So [a:Arthur Phillips|16223|Arthur Phillips|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1300779822p2/16223.jpg] is one of my favorites so I'm predisposed to like this book. And it really doesn't disappoint. A story of the son of a con man who spends the whole book basically conning the reader, while complaining about being the son of a con man. And of course a whole phoney play by Shakespeare. Just read it--it's worth it.
katiep481's review against another edition
3.0
I think I would have liked this more of I knew more about Shakespeare. The twist at the end is interesting and explains the tone of the book, but it came at the end of the book so the tone was hard to get through up until then. Some interesting thoughts in there but for me were too imbedded in things that I couldn't quite care about.
pbobrit's review against another edition
4.0
I really enjoyed this book. It is a very clever piece of writing. The core is the first publication of a previously undiscovered Shakespeare play 'The Tragedy of Arthur', which is given to us in glorious footnoted detail in the later stages of the book (I kind of wish someone would put the play on). the preceding two-thirds of the book is an 'Introduction' written by the discoverers son, the author Arthur Phillips. The Introduction takes the form of a "memoir" where the author not only details his life up to the point of the publication of the play but more importantly focuses his relationship with his dad who has an occupation that would lead one to doubt the authenticity of the play. This is a clever book, where every aspect of it has some meaning in telling the story. It does have a bit of a slow start, but it is well worth pushing through, as by about page 50 you'll probably be hooked.
storytimed's review against another edition
1.0
Couldn't finish it. Features not only one but two lesbians kissing men for whatever stupid reason, an entirely too twee love of self-reference and a whole lot of blathering and self-pity.
barkylee15's review against another edition
3.0
I am going to say that I am basically done with this book. Not sure if I want to muddle through the fake Shakespeare play at the back or not yet, I might tackle it slowly. I was not a huge fan of the writing of the book but surprisingly enough I still think I can say I liked the book. The narrative jumped around far too much for my taste, but despite that I can't say that I disliked the story. I am very curious to see how much of the book is true of the author-is it all completely fiction or semi-autobiographical?
alcyon_alcyon's review against another edition
3.0
I love the idea of this book, but as usual there is something about the author's tone that I can't stand. Kept wanting to return it to the library, but have to find out how the scam comes together.
jessicaz's review against another edition
3.0
I loved the conceit of this book more than I loved the book itself, I think. But I really really liked the conceit, and I think I would maybe try to read it again someday...
I also want a t-shirt that says "I am the deathsman of repose"
Also sorry to anyone who is not me who reads my reviews, I normally just do them as notes to myself.
I also want a t-shirt that says "I am the deathsman of repose"
Also sorry to anyone who is not me who reads my reviews, I normally just do them as notes to myself.
kjboldon's review against another edition
4.0
For the 11/13 meeting of Books and Bars, which will have a video chat with the author. Dilemma: to read the "play" or the "intro" first? I'm going with the play. Nope, changed my mind. The Intro was the way to go.
A fun, meta-fictional Shakespearean romp.
A fun, meta-fictional Shakespearean romp.
lgiegerich's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting premise, points awarded for an excellent shakespearean pastiche, but ultimately sort of smarmy and irritating.
palliem's review against another edition
3.0
This book was interesting, though not quite what I expected when I bought it. The narrator (named Arthur Phillips) is the son of a famous and very successful forger who claims to own a lost play of William Shakespeare's--The Tragedy of Arthur. The story is told in the form of an introduction to the original text. It is up to the reader, as he/she reads the story of the play's discovery, to decide if the play is authentic or not. At the end of the novel (or "introduction") is the text of the play. The story in the introduction was interesting and certainly entertaining, but--though I love Mr. William Shakespeare--I found the text of the play at the end a bit long and not very compelling. While the faux play at the end is well-written and the notes (by the forger's son) are amusing, ultimately, I found the novel more entertaining without it.