I'm really excited about all of these, but yeah I hope the Evaristo is a good one - and not a victim of the award-induced hype.
I should have added that I am also awaiting a copy of Hamnet. I'm intrigued by that one, too, especially since O'Farrell wasn't necessarily on my must-try radar.
I am *very* wary about that one ... my reticence with regard to all Shakespeare-related fiction is pretty much on the same level as that with regard to ACD-, Christie-, and Austen-related pastiches. I'll happily let you have first go at it! :)
On a related note, though, did you see that Kathryn Harkup's third book is about the deaths in Shakespeare's plays? (Or did she happen to talk about it at the last event you went to?) I may have just ordered (and already received) that one. In both print and audio. :D
Oh, I am not having any high expectations for Hamnet at all, but I got a little carried away with the book hauling last week. What can I say...? Anyway, I'll happily volunteer as guinea pig for this one. I get the same hesitation about some topics, authors, etc. and this is also why I Jo Nesbo's Macbeth will probably be the very, very last book I read from my 2020 Mt. TBR shelf (and why it's on the specific "to-read" shelf in the first place) but Hamnet I can probably do.
Re Harkup - She didn't mention in Feb but I arrived late for the poison tea party and missed the introduction, then got tied up in catching up with a friend who also went to the event, so I may have missed it. I'll go and check it out now, tho. Thanks for the heads up.
I have to confess that Harkup jumped to a fairly high rung on my TBR when I discovered her book.
As for Nesbo's "Macbeth", I'm hesitant about that one chiefly because "The Snowman", in parts, went way beyond what I am willing to tolerate in books, and because for all I have heard, "Macbeth" easily matches that level. That said, pastiches of Shakespeare's plays often simply bore me (Atwood's "Hag-Seed" being a positive exception) -- it's the "RL as a basis for a novel" stuff that gets me riled in Shakespeare's case. I think the reason I'm not fundamentally bothered by pastiches of the plays is, in part, because Shakespeare himself stole so much of his material from others; and more fundamentally, he didn't create / set his plays in one single consistent world (like Austen, ACD, and Christie), so as long as a pastiche creates its own world in turn, it's tolerable and the only remaining question is whether it measures up to the original (which most often it doesn't). Whereas I'm royally p*d off at the level of conspiracy theories and wild speculation revolving around Shakespeare's real life and times as it is, so every novel using the bits we actually know for sure as a starting point and then spinning its own tale from that material is (conceptually) adding yet more to the level of speculation and make-believe and, hence, to my level of aggravation.
In that case, Upstart Crow may not be for you at all. Tho, they are not trying to push any particular ideas about his biography as it is a comedy that doesn't take itself seriously. Still, if messing with Shakespeare's biography annoys you, then Upstart Crow probably will.
I should have added that I am also awaiting a copy of Hamnet. I'm intrigued by that one, too, especially since O'Farrell wasn't necessarily on my must-try radar.
On a related note, though, did you see that Kathryn Harkup's third book is about the deaths in Shakespeare's plays? (Or did she happen to talk about it at the last event you went to?) I may have just ordered (and already received) that one. In both print and audio. :D
Re Harkup - She didn't mention in Feb but I arrived late for the poison tea party and missed the introduction, then got tied up in catching up with a friend who also went to the event, so I may have missed it. I'll go and check it out now, tho. Thanks for the heads up.
As for Nesbo's "Macbeth", I'm hesitant about that one chiefly because "The Snowman", in parts, went way beyond what I am willing to tolerate in books, and because for all I have heard, "Macbeth" easily matches that level. That said, pastiches of Shakespeare's plays often simply bore me (Atwood's "Hag-Seed" being a positive exception) -- it's the "RL as a basis for a novel" stuff that gets me riled in Shakespeare's case. I think the reason I'm not fundamentally bothered by pastiches of the plays is, in part, because Shakespeare himself stole so much of his material from others; and more fundamentally, he didn't create / set his plays in one single consistent world (like Austen, ACD, and Christie), so as long as a pastiche creates its own world in turn, it's tolerable and the only remaining question is whether it measures up to the original (which most often it doesn't). Whereas I'm royally p*d off at the level of conspiracy theories and wild speculation revolving around Shakespeare's real life and times as it is, so every novel using the bits we actually know for sure as a starting point and then spinning its own tale from that material is (conceptually) adding yet more to the level of speculation and make-believe and, hence, to my level of aggravation.