Customer Reviews

Mistress Shakespeare: A Novel

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"The rendering of my thoughts, emotions and experiences is part comedy and part tragedy as well as history, for life is such a mingling. And so, I write this report of the woman born Anne Rosaline Whateley, she who both detested and adored a man named William Shakespeare."

Now comes the tale of the great bard of Avon, wonderfully humanized and told from a woman's viewpoint. Anne Whateley, William Shakespeare's first --- and secret --- wife, pens her story in five acts. More than a love story, it is a romantic chronicling of the writer's career, his greatest love and his forced, loveless marriage.

As youths in Stratford-Upon-Avon, Anne Whateley and Will Shakespeare were great friends. She had a talent with words such that she could inspire the poet even when he was a mere lad. The two sparred with each other by dueling with couplets, striving to outdo the other with their cleverness. They spent many happy days romping around the English countryside as children. Intrigued in the way of carefree young people, they slaked their curiosity by experiencing their world to the fullest.

But as they grew, so did their desires, and they found themselves almost unwittingly becoming lovers. Driven not by lust but by something much larger, they forever hungered for each other, feeling wretched in the times they were apart. Some people are simply meant for each other, and so it was with Anne Whateley and Will Shakespeare. But their happiness was not to be so simple, for another Stratford girl, Anne Hathaway, laid claim to Will as the father of her child. There was nothing to be done but for Will to marry her.

Heartbroken, Anne Whateley moved from Stratford to London, where she could try to mend her emotions. Her beloved Shakespeare would remain in Stratford with his new family, giving her a chance to try to forget him. With a love as deep-rooted as Anne Whateley's, forgetting was not something she could do easily. She was miserable without him, aching for the next time she would see him, feel his touch and hear his voice.

In the meantime, she began to test the climate in London for Will's writing, for though she cursed him for his attachment to his Stratford wife --- chosen or not --- she could not rid herself of wanting him. If London wanted him, too, then she could once again help him with his writing. And if they became close in other ways --- well, she would face that if it happened.

History tells us that Shakespeare wrote prolifically while living in London, but Miss Whateley's history tells us of him as a person, in his depressions, anger and passions. Why did he write "Romeo and Juliet"? For whom were the sonnets written? Where did his inspiration come for "The Taming of the Shrew?" Anne Whateley will tell you she saw herself in many of the plays' scenes and characters. It may be true. She had Shakespeare's ear, and his love. The other Anne had his children, but never his heart. This pair may be Shakespeare's real star-crossed lovers.

MISTRESS SHAKESPEARE could be called "The Tragedy of Anne Whateley," for she had beauty, brains and strength, but not the one thing she truly wanted: to be recognized as Mistress Shakespeare. In the end, she had to be content to know that she was. Karen Harper's beautiful yet sad love story will touch the hearts of every romantic and thrill Shakespeare fans, if for no other reason than the period detail and depth of emotion she gives us with this striking novel. History never pleased so much as this tale. Absolutely riveting.

--- Reviewed by Kate Ayers

I know little about the actual historical basis for this novel, but certainly enjoyed this take on Shakespeare in love. Ann Whateley is a strong woman in the cast of Elizabeth I herself, and her independence and creativity serve as Shakespeare's inspiration for many of his works. I was less delighted with her willingness to accept the poor behavior meted out by her true love, though the author did do a good job capturing the duality of Anne's feelings of love and hate.

Will Shakespeare is presented as a flawed man first, undeniable genius second. His efforts to write while earning enough to support his growing family are complicated by the complex political situation that thrives on suspicion and uncertainty. In the end, Shakespeare chooses to live in London and to write with his love, but he never really seems to acknowledge the harm he has done to both of the women in his life.

At heart, this novel is a love story, and it succeeds as such. Unfortunately, Harper falls into the trap of attempting quasi-period speech and her efforts fall flat. I found that when the characters lapsed into period language, the entire momentum of the narrative came to a halt. If it hadn't been for the language, I would have gone 4 stars, but as it is can only give this novel 3.5 stars.

I found the premise of Mistress Shakespeare very interesting, even moreso by the fact that, as the author explains in the Afterword, it seems to be based in fact. First of all, it is well known that William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway did not have a happy marriage. He spent most of his time in London, writing and acting in his plays. Harper surmises the reason is because he was actually betrothed and in love with another woman, Anne Whateley. Historical records actually support this claim; the Worcestershire Records Office shows that on the day before he was wed to Anne Hathaway, William Shakespeare was issued a marriage license to marry someone named "Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton."

Harper takes this small piece of information that most historians have dismissed as a clerical error and fleshes it out into the story of an independent and strong woman named Anne Whateley. Anne is a great character; she is feisty and funny and incredibly stubborn. She doesn't believe that Elizabethan England is a man's world; she takes her inspiration from the queen herself and proves that savvy and smart independent women can make it in the world. Her love story with Will is turbulent and stormy, but it is clear why these two love one another.

The book itself is full of rich, historical details about the time period. Harper obviously did careful research into Shakepeare's life; there seem to be a lot of in jokes that only someone well acquainted with him would appreciate. In order to fully grasp the book, it is necessary to have knowledge of Shakespeare's plays; otherwise many of the references contained within the book will not make much sense.

Mistress Shakespeare is a must for any fans of Shakespeare, and would be enjoyable for any fan of historical fiction. I definitely recommend it.

Actually, it had started out brilliantly. As someone who has a prolonged and protracted relationship with The Bard, I was constantly pleasantly surprised in so many instances by what Ms Harper was getting right, how dead-on her instincts were in this piece of gutsy speculative historical fiction. The premise made me grin. Her evocation of life in Stratford had me nodding my head. In fact, almost everything based in their (Anne Whateley's and Shakespeare's) hometown was lovingly related, and with just the right amount of indulgence.

And then the story moved to London.

Meh.

If I had to be harsh...and I do, because if you're going to set the bar as high as Ms Harper did here, with Shakespeare (maybe the only way to raise the bar would be to write the secret married life of Jesus), then you better be prepared to take your lumps...I'd say that there are a handful of areas where she fell down. Stumbled...then fell down quite without any grace...and then crawled.

The first would be her tendency to spoon-feed. There are simply too many instances where she provides what amounts to 'exposition-through-dialogue'. And they all made me wince. Seriously; if your readership is aware of the backstory, you don't need to spoon-feed. And if they're not- Well, it's doubtful they're going to be reading it. (Of course, I could be way off-base, and be ignoring the notion that there's a sub-genre thing going on here, a smarmy, hug-yourself-til-it-hurts, historical-romantical-chicklitical genre... OK; now I'm getting mean. I apologize.) I've always felt that it's best to execute at as high a level as possible; those for whom the piece is written will be thankful, and those who have to strain to keep up will be rewarded in the end in unexpected ways. But to 'write down' is not doing anyone any favours. Unfortunately, 'Mistress Shakespeare' has a decidedly 'written down' feel to it. Much to Shakespeare's detriment.

The second is the tendency towards melodrama. Granted, when we're looking at a tale that has as one of its dual centers The Greatest Wordsmith That Ever Lived, there's bound to be some degree of excess. But I would have preferred this be found less in overwrought purple prose from the narrator's point-of-view and more... Well, more organically occurring. (My guess as to why this is an element of the novel is that Ms Harper maxxed-out her talent in putting this one together. She has the chops for so much...but this was never going to be a literary masterpiece...and yet from my perspective, it deserved to be.

Thirdly? Dialogue. Ugh.

Fourthly... I don't think I've ever come across an instance where the writing was of such a high calibre and yet so many false steps were taken. Especially when it came to Anne Whateley's reactions to certain interludes and incidents. Most remarkably considering the writer is a woman! I was saying out loud 'No, no, no!' on countless occasions, when she'd have Whateley going right, when clearly, anyone could see she'd be far more inclined to go left.


Perhaps much of the perceived weakness of the London part of the tale has to do with the fact that she was able to take more liberties with the Stratford portion. Once Shakespeare was in London, it was more a question of connecting the dots concerning the plays' débuts, historical events, and social landmarks. There is little to grip you, enthrall you...and really, if that's not what's going on when a story about Shakespeare is being told, then something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

I'm glad this book was written. And I'm especially glad I read it. As someone who has his own literary history with speculative fiction revolving around The Bard, it was a pleasure to read so cogent a take on this 'tale never told'; the author truly knew of what she wrote. I just wish it had been of a higher pedigree, is all.

(Personal rating: 7/10)

I thoroughly enjoyed this retelling of the story of Shakespeare in love, though I'm not sure what (if any) historical truths the novel actually contains. I have always been fascinated, though, by the mysteries surrounding much of Shakespeare's life -- though his writing is so widely studied and appreciated, details of his life story are murky and patchy at best.

Harper's book is primarily a love story, chronicling the lifelong see-saw of feelings between Anne Whately and Will Shakespeare. Anne is a strong and independent woman -- it's a little disappointing, then, that she so completely devotes herself to a man whose affections come and go with the ever-changing political and social scene. Shakespeare is presented as a flawed man with a burgeoning genius talent, a man who never quite understands how his writing and behavior have affected the two women in his life.

Harper's writing is entertaining and for the most part well-crafted - the only times I felt the story floundered occurred when the characters slipped into poorly executed period speak. Because these moments stunted the narrative, I'm giving the book 3.5 stars, but I definitely recommend it for anyone who enjoys Elizabethan history.

This book centers on the premise that William Shakespeare had two wives. That first he married an Anne Whately, until he had to get to married to Anne Hathaway. The author is so obviously well versed in the history of the time period that it makes for a very rich read . . . up to a point. About midway through I started to lose interest. Even though the lead character is in London and getting involved in the theatre scene and the theatre behind the scenes, it is hard to sympathize with a character who is still feeling the sting of scorn and harboring a secret love for a married man with three children. When they are young and immature the love story is plausible, but then after a while it starts to become grating on the nerves. However, the book definitely provides some insight into the life of William Shakespeare and his entire family.

"Mistress Shakespeare" is not a novel, it's a jazzed-up time machine Harper ferries the reader to the late 1500s, through the eyes of Will Shakespeare's disputed first wife and life-long lover. Forget his acknowledged wife, Anne Hathaway, who is rarely mentioned. This is the story of Anne Whateley, who orchestrates Shakespeare's career and influences his writing.

Karen Harper's latest period piece has the reader to see, through the eyes of Shakespeare's disputed first wife Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton, that the Bard wrote many plays for himself, to have the lead role, much as current film icons write, produce, direct and star in their own films. Shakespeare's acknowledged spouse is Anne Hathaway. With whom was Shakespeare in love? That is the question.

Harper defines historical novel, without using cumbersome Olde English, and even has protagonist Anne Whateley call Shakespeare "Will," much as Brits today refer to Princess Diana's eldest son as "Wills." With impeccable historical research, Harper has written a score of Elizabethan-era novels, including nine historical mysteries--starting with "The Poyson Garden"--with the first Queen Elizabeth (who never had an ocean liner named for her) as amateur detective. Harper's Dark Angel earned the Mary Higgins Clark Award by the Mystery Writers of America. Her best-selling The Last Boleyn was re-released in early 2007, for an encore appearance on The New York Times bestseller list.

Harper has the queen's closest councilor opine of Anne Whateley that "The beauty does have hidden fangs as well as a clever brain." Through Whateley, the reader relives a simpler--yet more complex--life in late 1500s London. Anne Whateley began in obscurity but influenced a most famous person. Queen Elizabeth the First is not pleased with Will Shakespeare's literary jab at Her Highness, but Whateley diffuses the situation, by explaining inferences made by characters in one of Shakespeare's plays commissioned by the queen. Elizabeth Tudor comments of Whateley's wit, "Behind every man there is a strong woman." Ay, there's the rub.

Characters tell of customs today borne centuries ago. An infamous London jail is called the Clink; drums pounded as they herald the beginning of a performance are referred to as "drumming up business." This historical novel successfully allows the reader to see the effects of The Plague, when Whately escapes through the window of a house boarded up, to keep a possibly contaminated person from being in the streets. When Anne Whateley is discovered by playwright Christopher Marlowe to be disguised as a boy to protect herself in London's mean streets, Marlowe says, "We're all in disguise one way or the other." With a saucy retort, Marlowe opines that Whateley's "clever and tart tongue is tastier than a sweet one."

Harper successfully weaves history into her tapestry by recanting the beheading of Mary Queen of Scots shortly before sinking of the Spanish Armada in 1588, both of which established Elizabeth Tudor as the dominate monarch, and increased her ability to force subjects to abandon Catholicism in favor of the religion du jour.

Readers are encouraged by Harper to keep dear that "youth and health are 'brief candle[s]' and ... we should yet be reminded to use our 'hour upon the stage.'"

From the couplet in Sonnet 18: "So long as men can breathe and eyes can see, so long lives this and this gives life to thee." With prose as rich as the current queen, "Mistress Shakespeare" gives breath and sight, so that Anne Whateley lives still, though in shadow cast by one who taught many the value of the written word.

---Reviewed by L. Dean Murphy

The conceit of "Shakespeare's Mistress" is that Shakespeare was married to Anne Whateley the day before he was married to Anne Hathaway, and Anne W remained the love of his life, with an affair (if you can have an affair with your "wife") continued in London where the same Anne was also the famed "dark lady" of his sonnets. There is some basis for this theory in that the parish records do show a mysterious entry into the register for just such a contract the day before the Hathaway marriage but although the author claims this is "faction", it's very much at the fiction end of that scale and is really a "what if?" piece.

It starts off reasonably well - well it starts off on a bad foot in fact because the book is written as a first person narrative by Anne W and she displays an idiosyncratic misunderstanding of the term "comedy" when related to Elizabethan drama in the prologue, but putting that aside, the early part in Stratford is entertaining enough in a sort of Tudor romance kind of way. A couple of allusions are rather laid on with a trowel, like the death of a mutual friend in what is clearly the forerunner to the Ophelia drowning in Hamlet scene, although also idiosyncratically it owes more to the Millais painting than the play itself, but it sweeps along in an enjoyable enough manner if you don't take it too seriously.

Then Anne W heads off to London and, rather like Anne H would have felt, I wished she hadn't. The book then starts down a long and slippery slope to ridicule. If that sounds a bit strong, then mayhap you're right. OK - now hopefully some of you have just gone "mayhap? Who uses that word?" That's part of the problem. Karen Harper does.

To my mind, if you are going to write historic fiction, you need to take some decisions before you set off about how you are going to handle language. I'm certainly not suggesting it has to be full of "foresooths" and "yea verilies". But you cannot mix and match like this. For the most part the text is all very modern and readable but Harper is obsessed with certain Elizabethan words and phrases - notably swearing in the form of God's teeth (or `s teeth) and variations thereof, and also the rather more understandable obsession with the word "tussie-mussies". To illustrate how ridiculous this gets, I need to get a bit pedantic for a bit. She has Kit Marlowe (contemporary of the Bard) say at one point "they know I'm an iconoclast - hell's teeth all playwrights are at heart". Kit Marlowe died in 1593. The first recorded use of the word "iconoclast" is 1641 and even then it didn't mean what we use it today to mean and how it is used here. If you use modern meanings then fine, but don't sprinkle arcane Elizabethan swear words after it - it looks (and is) ridiculous. Stuffing the word "tussie-mussie" into a sentence doesn't instantly make it Tudor England.

If that's a little too pedantic for you (and I'd understand if it was) then how about this. A quick school room quiz: in Romeo and Juliet what does the word "wherefore" mean in the context of "wherefore art thou Romeo?" Anyone? If you said "why" then collect a star. If you said "where" go and stand in the corner where you will not be alone. Already there is Karen Harper (who I hasten to add is a former teacher of Shakespeare and claims three decades of study of Elizabethan England) and, if this book is to be believed, also there is a certain William Shakespeare who she quotes using it in the meaning of "where"! Now, I confess to being something of a Bardoholic, but the meaning of "wherefore" in this context is not a little known fact and certainly something you would expect someone with three decades of study to know.

I could go on, but frankly once you suggest Shakespeare doesn't know the meaning of his own words, there's little point.

I won't get into the other factual problems and illogicalities which are too many to mention. Just one example - it is suggested that the reason the Bard had dark skinned women in his plays who liked to dress up as boys is a reflection of Anne W's coloring and penchant for dressing as boys to get out of scrapes when the glaringly obvious (though I acknowledge unprovable) explanation is that the boys he had to use as women weren't allowed on the stage is why he chose this coloring and got humor out of the dressing up stuff. The claim that this is a "what if" fiction rather than any claim to historical accuracy doesn't excuse this in my book.

The rest of the plot takes the few known things in the Bard's life and ensures that plucky little Anne W is plonked at the center of everything. Shakespeare's son's death? Yup, Anne W told him about that. The building of the Globe theater? Yeah, Anne W helped carry the wood. Shakespeare's daughter's marriage to Dr Hall - of course, Anne W introduced them. The Bard's patronage by Henry Wriothesley (to whom the sonnets were dedicated) - oh, Anne W introduced them, don't you know?

The book put me in mind of a reference I once saw for an employee that said "her staff follow her loyally, but more out of morbid curiosity than any sense of leadership". That's what kept me reading. As light Tudor romance goes, there is something of a narrative arc here - but it's Shakespeare's own life, not Anne W's and there's little in terms of sense of time or place. It's all Tudor London though rose-tinted glasses. The idea is intriguing but the execution is simply dreadful. I urge you to avoid this.

I was given this book by a friend to borrow and read. I didn't expect much of it so I guess I went into it expecting to find it dull. I was pleasantly surprised when what I found instead was a very interesting story. It got me curious to find out more so I did some research after reading the book and found that some of it is based on fact. Karen Harper does a great job bringing this story to life, although I agree with most that once they move to London it goes downhill a little. Still, overall I found it a good read and plan on reading more from this author.

Anne Whately has been William Shakespeare's girlfriend and lover since they were children in Stratford on Avon, through until his death. This is the premise of this delightful novel, written as a first person narrative by Anne. The story includes some early incidents in Stratford and, of course, his life in London as the great playwrite.

I am not a fan of first person novels, but this one was very well done with a sweeping and moving account of her life with Will. Included are the key characters in his London life- Chistopher Marlowe (fellow playwrite), James and Richard Burbage (theater owner and actor), and Queen Elizabeth (as a distant character, never involved in the direct story-telling). All lends great legitimacy and interest to this novel.

My wife and I have been attending about 6 Shakepeare plays a year for the past 8 years or so, most by a company in Boston called the Actor's Shakespeare Project. So, we have really gotten to enjoy the plays, and are fascinated by the mysterious Shakespeare. He is mysterious because so little is actually known about him, or tangible evidence of him (letters, scripts, etc). Recently there has been a growth in stories about Shakespeare, most especially the terrific movie Shakespeare In Love. Robert Brustein, founder of the American Reporatory Theater in Cambridge, MA, has written a three play trilogy about Shakespeare's life. We have seen the first two and enjoyed them as well, The last will be performed next year in New York.

This was a really enjoyable book that I could not put down. AND, you do NOT have to be familiar with the plays to enjoy it.

The Kindle edition is fine with no typos- BUT there are extra large breaks between the paragraphs and chapters which is a little annoying.