What do you think?
Rate this book
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
Listening Length: 9 hours and 40 minutes
It is a tale of ghosts, of madness, of revenge - of old alliances giving way to new intrigues. Denmark is changing, shaking off its medieval past. War with Norway is on the horizon. And Hamlet - son of the old king, nephew of the new - becomes increasingly entangled in a web of deception - and murder.
Struggling to find his place in this strange new order Hamlet tries to rekindle his relationship with Ophelia - the daughter of Elsinore's cunning spy master, a man with plots of his own. Hamlet turns for advice and support to the one person he can trust -- Young Yorick, the slippery, unruly jester, whose father helped Hamlet through a difficult childhood. And all the while the armed forces of Fortinbras, prince of Norway, start to assemble, threatening to bring down Elsinore forever.
Beautifully performed by actor Richard Armitage ("Thorin Oakenshield" in the Hobbit films), Hamlet, Prince of Denmark takes Shakespeare's original into unexpected realms, reinventing a story we thought we knew.
It is a tale of ghosts, of madness, of revenge - of old alliances giving way to new intrigues. Denmark is changing, shaking off its medieval past. War with Norway is on the horizon. And Hamlet - son of the old king, nephew of the new - becomes increasingly entangled in a web of deception - and murder.
Struggling to find his place in this strange new order Hamlet tries to rekindle his relationship with Ophelia - the daughter of Elsinore's cunning spy master, a man with plots of his own. Hamlet turns for advice and support to the one person he can trust -- Young Yorick, the slippery, unruly jester, whose father helped Hamlet through a difficult childhood. And all the while the armed forces of Fortinbras, prince of Norway, start to assemble, threatening to bring down Elsinore forever.
Beautifully performed by actor Richard Armitage ("Thorin Oakenshield" in the Hobbit films), Hamlet, Prince of Denmark takes Shakespeare's original into unexpected realms, reinventing a story we thought we knew.
10 pages, Audible Audio
First published May 20, 2014
78 people are currently reading
1177 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 361 reviews
June 27, 2014
Richard Armitage needs to narrate all the audiobooks ever. His voice is magnificently toe-curling.
June 10, 2014
Shakespeare purists may not appreciate this novelization of his Hamlet, but I liked it a lot. I thought it was a good adaptation.
Being a lover of audiobooks, I was excited when I heard about Richard Armitage as narrator. I've listened to some of his other book narrations and he is fantastic. He creates distinct voices for each character and because he's an actor, he performs the book more than mere reading. He is flawless and I thoroughly enjoyed his interpretation of each person.
I highly recommend Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.
Being a lover of audiobooks, I was excited when I heard about Richard Armitage as narrator. I've listened to some of his other book narrations and he is fantastic. He creates distinct voices for each character and because he's an actor, he performs the book more than mere reading. He is flawless and I thoroughly enjoyed his interpretation of each person.
I highly recommend Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.
April 3, 2015
I enjoyed this. It was fun. I recommend it.
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is a reworking of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The story has become more of an action-filled thriller, while the ethical and psychological issues still remain. As explained in the two afterwords, one by each of the two authors, Shakespeare's Hamlet has been reworked, just as what we today most commonly see on the stage is also a reworking of Shakespeare's original. There exist in fact several “original versions”; scenes and lines present in one are lacking in another. Furthermore 1800 and 1900 interpretations have changed the originals. It is also pointed out that the history, as it is presented in the story, is not correct. Neither was it correct in Shakespeare’s original. Norway never controlled Denmark; the reverse is true. It is also mentioned that the story is based on an earlier legend, the legend of Amleth, chronicled by Saxo Grammaticus in the 1200s. The afterwords are great!
I recommend this book because you get a fun, exciting retelling of the Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The relationships are filled out. Events that happen off stage in the play take front stage in the book. The dialogs are modern, and this did bother me occasionally, but not often. I admit, when Hamlet exclaimed "Bullocks!" I was a bit thrown. A few additional characters are thrown in (Yorick and Gregor). Yorick is a clever invention. Why he was added is also explained in an afterword. He is a wonderful addition! Voltemand’s role is expanded. The central questions – is Hamlet sick, is he feigning insanity and why does he feel as he does - are fleshed out. Polonius is wicked, but how should we view Claudius? Ophelia is an interesting character. This is not only a tragedy and an exciting story, but also a character study too. Pirates and ghosts and murders galore. A story of revenge... and love.
Well known lines which we have all heard before are thrown into the dialogs.
Richard Armitage reads the audiobook. Well, I don’t seem to love his performance as much as others. He doesn’t just read the lines, he acts them. Most people love this. I could hear when Yorick, the jester, was speaking. I loved his voice. Others I could not distinguish between. It bugged me that Öresund is not correctly pronounced, but I doubt this will bother non-Scandinavians. The Danes sounded so darn English!
I had lots of fun listening to this.
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is a reworking of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The story has become more of an action-filled thriller, while the ethical and psychological issues still remain. As explained in the two afterwords, one by each of the two authors, Shakespeare's Hamlet has been reworked, just as what we today most commonly see on the stage is also a reworking of Shakespeare's original. There exist in fact several “original versions”; scenes and lines present in one are lacking in another. Furthermore 1800 and 1900 interpretations have changed the originals. It is also pointed out that the history, as it is presented in the story, is not correct. Neither was it correct in Shakespeare’s original. Norway never controlled Denmark; the reverse is true. It is also mentioned that the story is based on an earlier legend, the legend of Amleth, chronicled by Saxo Grammaticus in the 1200s. The afterwords are great!
I recommend this book because you get a fun, exciting retelling of the Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The relationships are filled out. Events that happen off stage in the play take front stage in the book. The dialogs are modern, and this did bother me occasionally, but not often. I admit, when Hamlet exclaimed "Bullocks!" I was a bit thrown. A few additional characters are thrown in (Yorick and Gregor). Yorick is a clever invention. Why he was added is also explained in an afterword. He is a wonderful addition! Voltemand’s role is expanded. The central questions – is Hamlet sick, is he feigning insanity and why does he feel as he does - are fleshed out. Polonius is wicked, but how should we view Claudius? Ophelia is an interesting character. This is not only a tragedy and an exciting story, but also a character study too. Pirates and ghosts and murders galore. A story of revenge... and love.
Well known lines which we have all heard before are thrown into the dialogs.
Richard Armitage reads the audiobook. Well, I don’t seem to love his performance as much as others. He doesn’t just read the lines, he acts them. Most people love this. I could hear when Yorick, the jester, was speaking. I loved his voice. Others I could not distinguish between. It bugged me that Öresund is not correctly pronounced, but I doubt this will bother non-Scandinavians. The Danes sounded so darn English!
I had lots of fun listening to this.
September 1, 2018
"No my heart just can't hide that old feelin' inside
Way deep down inside
Oh baby, you know when I look in your eyes I go crazy."
I Go Crazy, Paul Davis, 1977
4.6 - audiobook
A splendid piece of entertainment. One of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies retold in modern day language in the form of a short novel performed by the supremely talented British actor, Richard Armitage.
Mr. Armitage doesn't just read or narrate, he performs this novel adaptation of Hamlet, employing different voices and tones without annoying sound effects or technical feats. It is amazing what a great actor's voice and talent can produce.
Way deep down inside
Oh baby, you know when I look in your eyes I go crazy."
I Go Crazy, Paul Davis, 1977
4.6 - audiobook
A splendid piece of entertainment. One of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies retold in modern day language in the form of a short novel performed by the supremely talented British actor, Richard Armitage.
Mr. Armitage doesn't just read or narrate, he performs this novel adaptation of Hamlet, employing different voices and tones without annoying sound effects or technical feats. It is amazing what a great actor's voice and talent can produce.
December 10, 2014
A pretty thoroughly re-imagined story. If you are a purest that thinks that any treatment of this story is an affront to the Bard, then you probably need to move your snobby little self down the aisle to read something else. I thought it was clever, imaginative, and fun. And no one other than Richard Armitage ever should be hired to read a book again. Thorin has the voice.
December 4, 2014
Richard Armitage = perfection. I swear, the man could read the phone book and I'd listen to it. What a voice! I really hope he does more audiobooks in the future. I'd give the story itself 4 stars, but his narration adds on a star. I liked the different voices he used for each characters and as I'm sure others have said, he really acts this more than just reading it. He really made the story come alive for me.
November 7, 2014
I'm not going to lie: I wouldn't have picked this up had it not been narrated by Richard Armitage. I enjoyed it, though, and Richard's narration more than earned it the final, firth star.
I've only half read the play years ago, so I can't say I would have noticed most changes if it weren't for the authors' afterword. Part of my winter break plans is to (re)read some classics, so I'll try rereading the original play. Maybe my view of this will change afterwards, but I doubt it.
I've only half read the play years ago, so I can't say I would have noticed most changes if it weren't for the authors' afterword. Part of my winter break plans is to (re)read some classics, so I'll try rereading the original play. Maybe my view of this will change afterwards, but I doubt it.
October 5, 2019
Who doesn't want to listen to Richard Armitage's VERY nice voice narrating the story of Hamlet?
I'm already a puddle
I'm already a puddle
January 23, 2015
Brilliant! Sublime! Refreshing! And surprisingly gratifying.... I'm ecstatic I read (nay, listened to) this, and I recommend it without hesitation.
How many times have you seen Hamlet performed? (If you've never seen the show performed, and you don't know the familiar story, I wonder how you'd receive this adaptation. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this gripping, carefully crafted retelling of the story stood on its own, with no history or preconceived notions. But that's a guess, and I assume that, in this day and age, Hamlet remains one of he most ubiquitous staples of the stage, also accessible as a popular movie....) How many different productions, sets, costumes, settings, epochs, and approaches have you seen employed? Isn't that one of the great attractions of Shakespeare: that the work is so amenable to varied interpretation and reinvention???? If so, than this audio book is pure genius.
But let me get one key thing out of the way: if you consider yourself a purist, and if you believe (although I'm not sure how you could believe this) that there is a single, definitive, authoritative, unabridged, "original" version of Hamlet that you accept and elevate above all others, then this inventive, expanded, embellished, enlivened, and enriched version is not for you! Briefly, the authors demonstrate no hesitation in not just altering, but stepping outside of, and adding to, the skeleton of the familiar play.
Also, let me be clear, Richard Armitage is an exquisite, polished, eminently entertaining audio book reader. I understand that many have purchased this audio book just to bask in the glow of his artful, perfectly paced, and captivating narration - in retrospect, that makes sense to me.
More broadly, the whole - story, ornamentation, interpretation, exposition, prose, narration, and production - is a splendid experience.
Non-spoiler tip - to inform your perspective and enrich the experience, be absolutely sure to consume the authors' afterword(s). Icing on the cake. Informative, interesting, intelligent.... Great stuff.
I understand the authors also did Macbeth - I'm off to add that to my to-do list. I can't wait!
How many times have you seen Hamlet performed? (If you've never seen the show performed, and you don't know the familiar story, I wonder how you'd receive this adaptation. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this gripping, carefully crafted retelling of the story stood on its own, with no history or preconceived notions. But that's a guess, and I assume that, in this day and age, Hamlet remains one of he most ubiquitous staples of the stage, also accessible as a popular movie....) How many different productions, sets, costumes, settings, epochs, and approaches have you seen employed? Isn't that one of the great attractions of Shakespeare: that the work is so amenable to varied interpretation and reinvention???? If so, than this audio book is pure genius.
But let me get one key thing out of the way: if you consider yourself a purist, and if you believe (although I'm not sure how you could believe this) that there is a single, definitive, authoritative, unabridged, "original" version of Hamlet that you accept and elevate above all others, then this inventive, expanded, embellished, enlivened, and enriched version is not for you! Briefly, the authors demonstrate no hesitation in not just altering, but stepping outside of, and adding to, the skeleton of the familiar play.
Also, let me be clear, Richard Armitage is an exquisite, polished, eminently entertaining audio book reader. I understand that many have purchased this audio book just to bask in the glow of his artful, perfectly paced, and captivating narration - in retrospect, that makes sense to me.
More broadly, the whole - story, ornamentation, interpretation, exposition, prose, narration, and production - is a splendid experience.
Non-spoiler tip - to inform your perspective and enrich the experience, be absolutely sure to consume the authors' afterword(s). Icing on the cake. Informative, interesting, intelligent.... Great stuff.
I understand the authors also did Macbeth - I'm off to add that to my to-do list. I can't wait!
February 27, 2024
Both this novelization of Hamlet and Hartley & Hewson's novelization of Macbeth number among my favorite-ever adaptations of the plays. They are imaginative, exciting, and thrillingly paced, capturing the high emotional pitch of dramatic tragedy. They are also exquisitely attentive to the Shakespearean texts. Hartley and Hewson know the plays intimately, and they know the critical questions that continue to preoccupy readers and critics. (What parts of Hamlet's madness are feigned, and what real? Why is Ophelia so feisty at the beginning of the play and so infuriatingly passive later on? Where in the world did those pirates come from?) Their elaborations of the Shakespearean plays offer imaginative answers to these and other cruxes with humor, wit, and intelligence. Can't recommend highly enough.
December 23, 2014
This was so good. I listened to the audiobook, and I was totally engrossed. If my family tried to talk to me while I was listening to this, they got a quick "Shsh!" This is a novelization of Shakespeare's play. I'm so impressed with how the writers fleshed out the story and created a thriller. I truly felt like I was listening to one of the greatest stories told expertly. As for the narration, Richard Armitage has the best voice, and it was a pleasure to listen to him.
June 15, 2014
Richard Armitage did a fantastic job narrating this novel.
December 12, 2016
I have nothing really to report about this book, an updated retelling of the play. The best thing about it is the narration. That was excellent.
March 18, 2016
I think this version of Hamlet: Prince of Denmark is nicely done, and superbly narrated. I power-walked extra hour just so I could listen more of the audiobook. Highly recommended.
July 8, 2016
4,5 *
Geplant war ja den Roman zu lesen (hören) um das Stück besser zu verstehen. Ohne Shakespears Hamlet jetzt komplett im Gedächtnis zu haben: Es kommt mir vor, als hätte der Roman die Handlung erweitert, teilweise etwas abgeändert oder anders interpretiert. Ich muss das noch überprüfen, aber alleine die Inhaltsrecherche im Internet bestätigt meine Vermutung. Jetzt könnte man anfangen sich darüber zu mockieren. Einen Teufel werd ich tun. Ich fand diese Version unterhaltsam, spannend und in sich stimmig. Das Grundgerüst dürfte Shakespears Werk entsprechen und was in vorhandene oder geschaffene Lücken gefüllt wurde ergibt Sinn. Mir hat es Hamlet näher gebracht. Außerdem macht es Lust darauf sich nochmal mit dem Dänenprinz zu beschäftigen.
Kurz zum Hörbuch: Richard Armitage liest großartig, was mich nicht überrascht, aber trotzdem freut!
Geplant war ja den Roman zu lesen (hören) um das Stück besser zu verstehen. Ohne Shakespears Hamlet jetzt komplett im Gedächtnis zu haben: Es kommt mir vor, als hätte der Roman die Handlung erweitert, teilweise etwas abgeändert oder anders interpretiert. Ich muss das noch überprüfen, aber alleine die Inhaltsrecherche im Internet bestätigt meine Vermutung. Jetzt könnte man anfangen sich darüber zu mockieren. Einen Teufel werd ich tun. Ich fand diese Version unterhaltsam, spannend und in sich stimmig. Das Grundgerüst dürfte Shakespears Werk entsprechen und was in vorhandene oder geschaffene Lücken gefüllt wurde ergibt Sinn. Mir hat es Hamlet näher gebracht. Außerdem macht es Lust darauf sich nochmal mit dem Dänenprinz zu beschäftigen.
Kurz zum Hörbuch: Richard Armitage liest großartig, was mich nicht überrascht, aber trotzdem freut!
December 31, 2014
I loved this book and enjoyed it a lot. I wish I could think of something insightful to say about it, but it was just a great read/listen. Richard Armitage was a great narrator. I was able to get lost in the story in part because of his wonderful narration. I felt like every word, every sentence was important, so if I got even a little distracted, I'd back it up and listen to that part again. I sometimes started whole chapters over again. This did not detract from my enjoyment at all. It's the type of book that I think I could listen to once a year or so and discover something new each time. Great book, great listen.
July 19, 2019
I get what commentators have said about it not being about regurgitating Shakespeare, and how we should judge it on its own merits. Unfortunately, I really didn’t get it. It seemed to suffer from not giving enough time to developing the story, but rather seemed hell bent on rushing through the action, and I really wonder how much I would have really understood if I hadn’t had previous knowledge of the play. I guess I am one of a very small minority who found it a little boring among a large majority who loved it. There’s no accounting for taste.
February 2, 2015
Richard Armitage narrating. Damn, this is really good.
January 24, 2020
This is such a fantastic novel version of Hamlet. I studied Hamlet when I was at school and this version captures all the tragedy, sadness, lies, greed and deceit in a fast paced story that really captures the imagination. Yorrick is a big part of this story in variation to how Shakespeare imagined and I liked his character and his relationship with Hamlet alot.
The narration of this story is outstanding - it's not just narration, it'smore of a performance - and Riichard Armitage does a stunning job! All the characters have distinct voices - which is no mean feat given the number of characters! He does a huge variety of accents, complete with personalities and mannerisms so you always know which character is speaking. The expression and pace is perfect. He really brings this story to life. It's the best performance of any audiobook I've heard. Just brilliant.
The afterward by the authors is also really interesting and I learned a few things about the play which I hadnt known, despite having studied it! Given the age of this play, it's still relevant to modern audiences and retains all the essentia, featureszof my personal favourite of Shakespeare's works.
The narration of this story is outstanding - it's not just narration, it'smore of a performance - and Riichard Armitage does a stunning job! All the characters have distinct voices - which is no mean feat given the number of characters! He does a huge variety of accents, complete with personalities and mannerisms so you always know which character is speaking. The expression and pace is perfect. He really brings this story to life. It's the best performance of any audiobook I've heard. Just brilliant.
The afterward by the authors is also really interesting and I learned a few things about the play which I hadnt known, despite having studied it! Given the age of this play, it's still relevant to modern audiences and retains all the essentia, featureszof my personal favourite of Shakespeare's works.
February 5, 2020
Hi, I'm Anna and I have basically been thinking about Hamlet non-stop since I've been 17, and also, incidentally, have been working on, for the last year, my own Hamlet retelling, because, as Hartley mentions in his afterword, you'd think I would have said everything there is to say about Hamlet at this point, but alas, I will not shut up. I am, of course, paraphrasing.
The first thing is that this is, all things considered, a fairly faithful retelling of Hamlet. When Fortinbras enters the scene to look at what's happened, and if Horatio is the only one around to tell the events, it wouldn't look any different than the play, but because of a few important changes Claudius is the tragic hero, and Hamlet a mere victim, which is interesting, but really does a lot to lessen the role and responsibility Hamlet has in the events of the play. It is Claudius, who murders his brother with good intentions who is solely responsible for the destruction at the end of the play. Hamlet is his bereaved and misguided nephew he loves, who he never wanted to kill, who dies as a final consequence of Claudius' love for Gertrude. Blood beckons blood as it were, and Claudius cannot escape the consequences of this not because he is the villain but because he is the tragic hero. Of course, then the title of this novel is misleading - this book is hardly about Hamlet at all, except that he's one sad, 27 year old BABY who gets dragged into this mess because of some misplaced duty he has to a father and king who never loved him, or potentially anyone. Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius, um, at all, I think. Claudius boldly, nobly accepts his death as the only outcome, having seen the destruction he has caused. In what is the end of the third act Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius because of the love he has for his uncle who was more of a father to him than Old Hamlet ever was. I think the premise has promise and it was executed well enough to see Claudius - the villain - cast in the new light of Tragic Hero. It leaves a lot of room of the authors to reinterpret the rest of the story and characters, but it does leave Hamlet in an awkward space, imo.
I have some General Misgivings about the characterization of Old Hamlet as a Bad Guy that have a lot to do with how Hamlet is insistent on mourning his father, and me accepting Hamlet as the ultimate unreliable narrator. I have significantly fewer General Misgivings bout the characterization of Claudius as a nuanced character because he is a living character in the play and his love for Gertrude seems real and genuine. This Claudius was noble, cautious, loving, and being manipulated by the villains in the play: Polonius and Voltimand.
The choice to play Polonius as a villain makes sense. While I usually prefer readings of him as a genuine if bumbling and ambitious fool who falls victim to Hamlet because he is incapable of like, minding his own business, I also believe the characters is more cunning than a lot of the rest of court (and my classmates in 11th grade) were willing to believe. It is he who really schemes to kill Old Hamlet, and it is he who suggests Claudius send Hamlet to his death. This is okay and could be...cool, even...if not for his callousness, and that he gets very little out of this arrangement. The OTHER choice of villain, Voltimand, who has been scheming for much longer to take Polonius' place and to, I don't know, cause general unrest in Denmark, is INSANE. It's one of three choices this novel made that I am still trying to grapple with because I cannot even imagine how they GOT here. Voltimand, oh you remember him from 1.2? He's the ambassador who went to Norway to tell Fortinbras' uncle that Fortinbras was causing a scene. Yeah, he's a major villain who gets his comeuppance in the fourth act in this novel. He is more than treacherous and scheming - he is violent, assaulting and eventually murdering Ophelia.
I've thought Long and Hard about Ophelia over the last few days (months, years, whatever) because she presents me with a Problem - the problem, of course, is the desire to rewrite her story in a way that is palatable, a way the returns her the agency that other characters in the play strip from her. This novel does a good job stripping her of agency - and having it be calculated and on purpose in the case of her father, out of concern from her brother, and out of spite and to get back at Polonius from Hamlet. It also strips her of the little agency she is able to exercise in the play. Ophelia's suicide is important to me, as is her madness. She is relegated to simply a victim when her only choice in the play, the only time she speaks what she thinks, is too stripped away. She is murdered, buried with the common people because Voltimand says she killed herself and was written off as crazy. Oh sure, Hamlet knows, but at what cost? Ophelia's madness and suicide is important, and I think people don't want her to ever get there, they think it would be better, that she would be a Stronger Female Character if she was more than her madness, but the reality of Ophelia's situation is that her madness and her grief is deserved, and having her be assaulted and murdered then slandered after her death, in an effort to make her Less Crazy or to expose the violence that is enacted on her makes the whole thing a lot worse. I genuinely hate! that this novel took the only choice she makes, her only act of agency, and turns it into violence. It's also a choice I understand.
Okay, so Yorick? The explanation for Yorick is that they didn't want Hamlet to be doing soliloquies (fair - especially because this is a Thriller and not the Existential Nightmare that is typically what we think of his Hamlet. In theory, I'm getting there, but SPOILER, I don't think this is a fair assessment of Hamlet the play) and so instead gave them back to him in dialogue, and that to do Hamlet without Hamlet talking to Yorick would do a disservice to literature or something. It's an interesting concept. Yorick was executed after learning of Claudius and Gertrude's affair by Old King Hamlet. He told Polonius, who told both Old Hamlet and Claudius and so is the indirect cause of the madness of the play that follows. He is immortalized not in a skull (though ALSO in a skull) but in the humiliating statues and paintings of him Old Hamlet puts up of him after his death, and is Hamlet's mind. While the ghost of the king might be real, the ghost of Yorick is less certain. Hamlet is the only character to interact with Yorick, and Yorick disappears once Hamlet starts to interact with the play at large. Also, he's the only character who has any meta-knowledge of the play Hamlet, so I became aware that Yorick (pretending he is Young Yorick) was at the very least a ghost long before Hamlet did. He functions in much the same way as the soliloquies do, asking Hamlet to same questions about life and death and justice, and as Hamlet really is just talking to himself, it's fine. But also, he replaces Horatio. At first I thought I was imagining it, since in my own work I have given Horatio a more major role, but there are several scenes in which Yorick replaces Horatio. Sure Horatio disappears for all of the second and much of the third act but he is important as a grounding character to Hamlet and to others. He is relegated in this work to the role he has in many adaptations (except for one I watched over the summer where he was very earnest and very ridiculous, but the whole adaptation was such a hot mess it like, honestly barely counts): Hamlet's second. If you need a sounding board for Hamlet's soliloquies Horatio is right there, and while Yorick is, in this adaptation, a perfect person to reflect on who is Uncle and who is Father are, because Yorick was a victim of all of this, I think Horatio could have been brought to center stage and we could have lost Chaos-Demon-Yorick altogether. Also, the idea that he acts as Hamlet's foil is, at this point, laughable. Not that he doesn't act as Hamlet's foil, but that if there was ever a character in the history of literature who did not benefit from having a foil it was Hamlet. He has a foil, okay! Every where you look in Hamlet there's a character who can act as Hamlet's foil. There is no reason to create a new character to serve this purpose.
Lastly, in their afterword, AJ Hartley talks about Hamlet as thriller: this novel cements Hamlet from the play as the Least Reliable Narrator, imo, because the political conflict that is happening outside the walls of Elsinore is completely made into a non-issue until the final scene. But with the majority of this novel taking place from Claudius' point of view, Fortinbras' nonsense is front and center and drives much of the plot. Hamlet's madness is a destabilizing force, and Voltimand and Polonius both are seemingly working against Denmark. The King, in the last act, desperate to save his family but not a warrior like his brother, makes a deal with Fortinbras to take Denmark if he will let him and Gertrude escape and leaves the civilians alone. Hamlet is a prophesied "Danish Arthur" who is meant to save Denmark, born on the very day that Old Fortinbras was slain, but Hamlet, alas, is Hamlet and is woefully unsuccessful and not even a major player in the events that transpire. Also, I resent that Hamlet, as it is, is not a thriller, not plot driven. The first two acts are about Hamlet waiting and biding his time and feeling sorry for himself, but the second half of the play, starting from the mousetrap scene and until the very end, are definitely Thrilling; they're driving. Hamlet, mostly, is about Hamlet desperately trying to have the events of Hamlet not happen, and you know he's aware of it because he writes his own play. We never seen the end of the mousetrap, but how do we think it ends? Good because Hamlet's deluded himself? Unlikely! But once Hamlet puts his plan in motion, there is no stopping any of it. (Incidentally, the grave yard scene is important because it is a break! from the chaos.)
Anyway, this is good, it obviously is well-informed, and very entertaining. There were some choices I never would have made in a million years, but apart from the choices about Ophelia and Horatio, none of them were bad. It's also both too reliant on the text of Hamlet and disregards it at strange times. Four Stars!
The first thing is that this is, all things considered, a fairly faithful retelling of Hamlet. When Fortinbras enters the scene to look at what's happened, and if Horatio is the only one around to tell the events, it wouldn't look any different than the play, but because of a few important changes Claudius is the tragic hero, and Hamlet a mere victim, which is interesting, but really does a lot to lessen the role and responsibility Hamlet has in the events of the play. It is Claudius, who murders his brother with good intentions who is solely responsible for the destruction at the end of the play. Hamlet is his bereaved and misguided nephew he loves, who he never wanted to kill, who dies as a final consequence of Claudius' love for Gertrude. Blood beckons blood as it were, and Claudius cannot escape the consequences of this not because he is the villain but because he is the tragic hero. Of course, then the title of this novel is misleading - this book is hardly about Hamlet at all, except that he's one sad, 27 year old BABY who gets dragged into this mess because of some misplaced duty he has to a father and king who never loved him, or potentially anyone. Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius, um, at all, I think. Claudius boldly, nobly accepts his death as the only outcome, having seen the destruction he has caused. In what is the end of the third act Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius because of the love he has for his uncle who was more of a father to him than Old Hamlet ever was. I think the premise has promise and it was executed well enough to see Claudius - the villain - cast in the new light of Tragic Hero. It leaves a lot of room of the authors to reinterpret the rest of the story and characters, but it does leave Hamlet in an awkward space, imo.
I have some General Misgivings about the characterization of Old Hamlet as a Bad Guy that have a lot to do with how Hamlet is insistent on mourning his father, and me accepting Hamlet as the ultimate unreliable narrator. I have significantly fewer General Misgivings bout the characterization of Claudius as a nuanced character because he is a living character in the play and his love for Gertrude seems real and genuine. This Claudius was noble, cautious, loving, and being manipulated by the villains in the play: Polonius and Voltimand.
The choice to play Polonius as a villain makes sense. While I usually prefer readings of him as a genuine if bumbling and ambitious fool who falls victim to Hamlet because he is incapable of like, minding his own business, I also believe the characters is more cunning than a lot of the rest of court (and my classmates in 11th grade) were willing to believe. It is he who really schemes to kill Old Hamlet, and it is he who suggests Claudius send Hamlet to his death. This is okay and could be...cool, even...if not for his callousness, and that he gets very little out of this arrangement. The OTHER choice of villain, Voltimand, who has been scheming for much longer to take Polonius' place and to, I don't know, cause general unrest in Denmark, is INSANE. It's one of three choices this novel made that I am still trying to grapple with because I cannot even imagine how they GOT here. Voltimand, oh you remember him from 1.2? He's the ambassador who went to Norway to tell Fortinbras' uncle that Fortinbras was causing a scene. Yeah, he's a major villain who gets his comeuppance in the fourth act in this novel. He is more than treacherous and scheming - he is violent, assaulting and eventually murdering Ophelia.
I've thought Long and Hard about Ophelia over the last few days (months, years, whatever) because she presents me with a Problem - the problem, of course, is the desire to rewrite her story in a way that is palatable, a way the returns her the agency that other characters in the play strip from her. This novel does a good job stripping her of agency - and having it be calculated and on purpose in the case of her father, out of concern from her brother, and out of spite and to get back at Polonius from Hamlet. It also strips her of the little agency she is able to exercise in the play. Ophelia's suicide is important to me, as is her madness. She is relegated to simply a victim when her only choice in the play, the only time she speaks what she thinks, is too stripped away. She is murdered, buried with the common people because Voltimand says she killed herself and was written off as crazy. Oh sure, Hamlet knows, but at what cost? Ophelia's madness and suicide is important, and I think people don't want her to ever get there, they think it would be better, that she would be a Stronger Female Character if she was more than her madness, but the reality of Ophelia's situation is that her madness and her grief is deserved, and having her be assaulted and murdered then slandered after her death, in an effort to make her Less Crazy or to expose the violence that is enacted on her makes the whole thing a lot worse. I genuinely hate! that this novel took the only choice she makes, her only act of agency, and turns it into violence. It's also a choice I understand.
Okay, so Yorick? The explanation for Yorick is that they didn't want Hamlet to be doing soliloquies (fair - especially because this is a Thriller and not the Existential Nightmare that is typically what we think of his Hamlet. In theory, I'm getting there, but SPOILER, I don't think this is a fair assessment of Hamlet the play) and so instead gave them back to him in dialogue, and that to do Hamlet without Hamlet talking to Yorick would do a disservice to literature or something. It's an interesting concept. Yorick was executed after learning of Claudius and Gertrude's affair by Old King Hamlet. He told Polonius, who told both Old Hamlet and Claudius and so is the indirect cause of the madness of the play that follows. He is immortalized not in a skull (though ALSO in a skull) but in the humiliating statues and paintings of him Old Hamlet puts up of him after his death, and is Hamlet's mind. While the ghost of the king might be real, the ghost of Yorick is less certain. Hamlet is the only character to interact with Yorick, and Yorick disappears once Hamlet starts to interact with the play at large. Also, he's the only character who has any meta-knowledge of the play Hamlet, so I became aware that Yorick (pretending he is Young Yorick) was at the very least a ghost long before Hamlet did. He functions in much the same way as the soliloquies do, asking Hamlet to same questions about life and death and justice, and as Hamlet really is just talking to himself, it's fine. But also, he replaces Horatio. At first I thought I was imagining it, since in my own work I have given Horatio a more major role, but there are several scenes in which Yorick replaces Horatio. Sure Horatio disappears for all of the second and much of the third act but he is important as a grounding character to Hamlet and to others. He is relegated in this work to the role he has in many adaptations (except for one I watched over the summer where he was very earnest and very ridiculous, but the whole adaptation was such a hot mess it like, honestly barely counts): Hamlet's second. If you need a sounding board for Hamlet's soliloquies Horatio is right there, and while Yorick is, in this adaptation, a perfect person to reflect on who is Uncle and who is Father are, because Yorick was a victim of all of this, I think Horatio could have been brought to center stage and we could have lost Chaos-Demon-Yorick altogether. Also, the idea that he acts as Hamlet's foil is, at this point, laughable. Not that he doesn't act as Hamlet's foil, but that if there was ever a character in the history of literature who did not benefit from having a foil it was Hamlet. He has a foil, okay! Every where you look in Hamlet there's a character who can act as Hamlet's foil. There is no reason to create a new character to serve this purpose.
Lastly, in their afterword, AJ Hartley talks about Hamlet as thriller: this novel cements Hamlet from the play as the Least Reliable Narrator, imo, because the political conflict that is happening outside the walls of Elsinore is completely made into a non-issue until the final scene. But with the majority of this novel taking place from Claudius' point of view, Fortinbras' nonsense is front and center and drives much of the plot. Hamlet's madness is a destabilizing force, and Voltimand and Polonius both are seemingly working against Denmark. The King, in the last act, desperate to save his family but not a warrior like his brother, makes a deal with Fortinbras to take Denmark if he will let him and Gertrude escape and leaves the civilians alone. Hamlet is a prophesied "Danish Arthur" who is meant to save Denmark, born on the very day that Old Fortinbras was slain, but Hamlet, alas, is Hamlet and is woefully unsuccessful and not even a major player in the events that transpire. Also, I resent that Hamlet, as it is, is not a thriller, not plot driven. The first two acts are about Hamlet waiting and biding his time and feeling sorry for himself, but the second half of the play, starting from the mousetrap scene and until the very end, are definitely Thrilling; they're driving. Hamlet, mostly, is about Hamlet desperately trying to have the events of Hamlet not happen, and you know he's aware of it because he writes his own play. We never seen the end of the mousetrap, but how do we think it ends? Good because Hamlet's deluded himself? Unlikely! But once Hamlet puts his plan in motion, there is no stopping any of it. (Incidentally, the grave yard scene is important because it is a break! from the chaos.)
Anyway, this is good, it obviously is well-informed, and very entertaining. There were some choices I never would have made in a million years, but apart from the choices about Ophelia and Horatio, none of them were bad. It's also both too reliant on the text of Hamlet and disregards it at strange times. Four Stars!
November 21, 2017
I'll admit it, Richard Armitage is the reason I used one of my audible credits for this, and he does a fantastic job with it. As for the book itself, I'm torn. It opens from the point of view of old Hamlet, plotting to kill Claudius and Gertrude. It's compelling. It stays compelling throughout. But some of the characters are almost made cartoonishly villainous. Claudius becomes pitiable, Polonius cold and heartless, a wretched and thoroughly disgusting character. Laertes and Hamlet both are bratty (that's not new) and cruel to Ophelia. The twist on Ophelia's character was interesting and rather well done, which makes her ultimate fate that much worse. I enjoyed this version of Gertrude as well. History has not been kind to these women.
December 30, 2019
Very clever, and done quite well. The more you've been steeped in the play, the more you will enjoy this cup of tea. If you've read it once or a long time ago, consuming this book may be like drinking tinted water. (I need a better metaphor though because I don't think this tea can be too strong.)
I did not expect to like this book, but I was pleasantly surprised. The beauty of the novel is that the authors are able to flesh out portions of the play you've always wondered about.
I very much like what they have done with the characters. They have become even more lifelike and complex than their counterparts in the play.
The more you know the play, the more gems you'll see twinkling in these pages. Just like reading Shakespeare, eh?
For you true Hamlet nuts, you'll appreciate the epilogue. The authors discuss the genesis and transformation of the play from legends (and other works like The Spanish Tragedy, mentioned in the novel by the players) to Q1 to Q2 to the play we read today. This epilogue makes me appreciate how the changes crafted into the novel came from a place of reverence by scholars of our beloved play. Respectfully and beautifully done!
I did not expect to like this book, but I was pleasantly surprised. The beauty of the novel is that the authors are able to flesh out portions of the play you've always wondered about.
I very much like what they have done with the characters. They have become even more lifelike and complex than their counterparts in the play.
The more you know the play, the more gems you'll see twinkling in these pages. Just like reading Shakespeare, eh?
For you true Hamlet nuts, you'll appreciate the epilogue. The authors discuss the genesis and transformation of the play from legends (and other works like The Spanish Tragedy, mentioned in the novel by the players) to Q1 to Q2 to the play we read today. This epilogue makes me appreciate how the changes crafted into the novel came from a place of reverence by scholars of our beloved play. Respectfully and beautifully done!
July 17, 2014
I was really torn by this at first. It's not a paraphrase as much as a reimagining and a filling-in-the-blanks. Because of this, Hartley has no interest in following canon or "sticking to the story". Since Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare, it felt really wrong at first. But I was enthralled by the story...by what people knew, and who, and when. All of the characters are well-colored and vivid, and I couldn't stop once it got going. Excellent work all around. I'm not sure I'd recommend you read this IF YOU'VE NEVER READ HAMLET, because it would definitely color your view of it. But as your second viewing of the classic story? Totally.
January 22, 2015
This was an outstanding book. As the author said in the end notes, it was not his intention to replace the play, but to grow a new thing from it and indeed he did, adding depth and richness to the classic tale about the unintended consequences of our actions and the sword of revenge that cuts both ways.
I recommend it.
I recommend it.
January 3, 2015
Magnificent performance by one of my favorite voices, Richard Armitage (cue swoon!) I also really loved this book. I was amazed at the power of the writers to bring the tragedy to life from so many different viewpoints, digging deep into the story. It was very well written and I have to agree with the award for Audiobook of the Year. What a great team.
July 18, 2017
Ok so there's one reason, and one reason only, I picked this up: It says "narrated by Richard Armitage" on the cover.
Where was I?
Right. So the narration, as expected, was excellent. But then, the man could read the phone book and I would probably still pay good money for that. Kidding. I hope... But in all seriousness, the man is one amazing narrator. He can make even any story come to life, and just listening to his beautiful voice will be worth it. If you have never listened to him read anything, I suggest you start with Venetia or David Copperfield.
As for his book? I wish I had read what it was about first (not that it would've kept me from buying it. See above reason ;)). I honestly expected a novel about Hamlet, but still with the familiar characters. Instead, this was a total re-imagination which changed every character (save Hamlet) completely and kept only the very basic plot (father dies, his brother marries his wife/widow, the ghost appears, and in the end everyone dies): Hamlet sr. was an abusive and violent man whom everyone hated; Polonius is no longer a doddering old fool, but a tyrannical, abusive spymaster; Claudius no longer the spiteful usurper, but a man who just did what he had to do (i.e. killing his brother) to be with the love of his life; Ophelia a total doormat who let everyone just walk right over her (and who had Hamlet's baby at some point...)... This might be a bold and masterful stroke of genius for some, but I just didn't enjoy it for some reason. Also, what made no sense to me: The turning point of the play is Hamlets' realization that there is absolutely nothing he can do to avenge his father's death. But here . Now, I don't mind a good re-telling, I can even enjoy something like "She's the Man", but this just didn't work for me.
I did love the fact that the authors included good old Yorrik. It was nice to see him be a part of things for once, and I liked the story they came up with for him.
So to sum up: 5 stars for the wonderful narration + 2 for the plot = a solid 3 stars
Where was I?
Right. So the narration, as expected, was excellent. But then, the man could read the phone book and I would probably still pay good money for that. Kidding. I hope... But in all seriousness, the man is one amazing narrator. He can make even any story come to life, and just listening to his beautiful voice will be worth it. If you have never listened to him read anything, I suggest you start with Venetia or David Copperfield.
As for his book? I wish I had read what it was about first (not that it would've kept me from buying it. See above reason ;)). I honestly expected a novel about Hamlet, but still with the familiar characters. Instead, this was a total re-imagination which changed every character (save Hamlet) completely and kept only the very basic plot (father dies, his brother marries his wife/widow, the ghost appears, and in the end everyone dies): Hamlet sr. was an abusive and violent man whom everyone hated; Polonius is no longer a doddering old fool, but a tyrannical, abusive spymaster; Claudius no longer the spiteful usurper, but a man who just did what he had to do (i.e. killing his brother) to be with the love of his life; Ophelia a total doormat who let everyone just walk right over her (and who had Hamlet's baby at some point...)... This might be a bold and masterful stroke of genius for some, but I just didn't enjoy it for some reason. Also, what made no sense to me: The turning point of the play is Hamlets' realization that there is absolutely nothing he can do to avenge his father's death. But here . Now, I don't mind a good re-telling, I can even enjoy something like "She's the Man", but this just didn't work for me.
I did love the fact that the authors included good old Yorrik. It was nice to see him be a part of things for once, and I liked the story they came up with for him.
So to sum up: 5 stars for the wonderful narration + 2 for the plot = a solid 3 stars
May 25, 2021
This fairly mediocre audible recording is salvage somewhat by a interesting after word at the conclusion of the novel by the two authors who talk about the history upon which the novel is based and the manner in which it was written. It was apparently created especially for the use of audible. Since I am not especially enamored of or familiar with Shakespeare nor of the Knights of old, this presentation did not particularly appeal to me at all. I guess my lack of appreciation for Shakespeare is especially disquieting since I am a 20th-century English major more by accident then by desire. I gave it three stars rather than two more because of its good intentions then because of my appreciation for it.
January 17, 2025
I still prefer the original.
December 5, 2017
*5 stars*
I'll admit it... I cheated a bit by choosing this to fulfill the classic requirement for a reading challenge. But holy crap!!! This novelization of the play was exciting, fun and best of all, narrated by Richard Armitage.
This may not appeal to a Shakespeare scholar but I would wholeheartedly recommend this to someone who's interested in the story of Hamlet but is hesitant to tackle the play. I've read both, I loved both, but I have to admit that this version was way much more fun!
Book 10 of my 2017 MacHalo Reading Challenge complete! Two more to go!!!
I'll admit it... I cheated a bit by choosing this to fulfill the classic requirement for a reading challenge. But holy crap!!! This novelization of the play was exciting, fun and best of all, narrated by Richard Armitage.
This may not appeal to a Shakespeare scholar but I would wholeheartedly recommend this to someone who's interested in the story of Hamlet but is hesitant to tackle the play. I've read both, I loved both, but I have to admit that this version was way much more fun!
Book 10 of my 2017 MacHalo Reading Challenge complete! Two more to go!!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 361 reviews