Hamlet's Father

by Orson Scott Card, Tom Kidd (Illustrator)

We all know Shakespeare's classic ghost story--the young prince Hamlet's dead father appears to him, demanding vengeance upon Hamlet's uncle Claudius, who has usurped the throne and, to add insult to injury, married Hamlet's mother.

Hamlet dithers and delays, coming up with reason after reason to postpone his vengeance. But it's not for the reason Shakespeare told us. It's because Hamlet keeps discovering evidence that things are not quite what they seem in the Kingdom of Denmark--and never have been, throughout Hamlet's entire life.

Once you've read Orson Scott Card s revelatory version of the Hamlet story, Shakespeare's play will be much more fun to watch--because now you'll know what's really going on.

Genres: Fiction, Audiobook, Shakespeare, Historical Fiction, Fantasy, Retellings, Classics

92 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Orson Scott Card is an American writer known best for his science fiction works. He is (as of 2023) the only person to have won a Hugo Award and a Nebula Award in consecutive years, winning both awards for his novel Ender's Game (1985) and its sequel Speaker for the Dead (1986). A feature film adaptation of Ender's Game, which Card co-produced, was released in 2013. Card also wrote the Locus Fantasy Award-winning series The Tales of Alvin Maker (1987–2003).
Card's fiction often features characters with exceptional gifts who make difficult choices with high stakes. Card has also written political, religious, and social commentary in his columns and other writing; his opposition to homosexuality has provoked public criticism.
Card, who is a great-great-grandson of Brigham Young, was born in Richland, Washington, and grew up in Utah and California. While he was a student at Brigham Young University (BYU), his plays were performed on stage. He served in Brazil as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and headed a community theater for two summers. Card had 27 short stories published between 1978 and 1979, and he won the John W. Campbell Award for best new writer in 1978. He earned a master's degree in English from the University of Utah in 1981 and wrote novels in science fiction, fantasy, non-fiction, and historical fiction genres starting in 1979. Card continued to write prolifically, and he has published over 50 novels and 45 short stories.
Card teaches English at Southern Virginia University; he has written two books on creative writing and serves as a judge in the Writers of the Future contest. He has taught many successful writers at his "literary boot camps". He remains a practicing member of the LDS Church and Mormon fiction writers Stephenie Meyer, Brandon Sanderson, and Dave Wolverton have cited his works as a major influence.

Reviews

[Manny]

For the Celebrity Death Match Review Tournament



The Muppets Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Meets Winnie-the-Pooh (conclusion)

The story so far:

Hamlet (Kermit) is strangely unconcerned about multiple murders and Ophelia's suicide. What really bothers him is that he's thrown out his old Pooh Bear toy (Fozzy) and replaced it with a plush Piglet (Miss Piggy).

HAMLET:

[Pours himself a stiff drink, knocks it back, then pours another one]

My God, I need a glass or two of rye
Denmark is Denmark, that is, I am I

[Enter POOH'S GHOST]

STATLER:

Watch out! Behind you!

WALDORF:

As Orson Scott Card would say!

STATLER:

Har!

[HAMLET spins round and sees the GHOST. He recoils involuntarily, shielding his eyes]

POOH'S GHOST:

Tiddley-pom.

[HAMLET retreats further, until his back is to the wall]

HAMLET:

What man dare, I dare
Come to me not as red-besweatered bear
As armed rhinoceros, aye, or Hyrcan tiger
Take any shape but that, and my firm nerves
Shall never tremble!

POOH'S GHOST:

And I, of soft toys most deject and wretched,
That suck'd the honey of thy music vows --

HAMLET:

Silence! Silence I beg!

POOH'S GHOST:

Nay, but to live
In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed,
Stew'd in corruption, honeying and cuddling up
Over a piglet's sty --

HAMLET:

O, speak no more;
Mine own words, daggers, enter in mine own ears;
No more, sweet Winnie!

[A NEW FORM has entered the shadows. It is as yet impossible to see what it is]

STATLER:

Watch out! Something from Down Under!

WALDORF:

As Orson Scott Card would say!

STATLER:

Har!

HAMLET:

Mercy! Another spectre, yet more monstrous!

ATTENDANT:

Liege, 'tis naught... aaaargh!

OMNES:

Aaaargh!!

HAMLET:

Aaaargh!!!

[Exit, pursued by a kangaroo]

STATLER:

Who won?

WALDORF:

Pooh!

STATLER:

Yeah, Hamlet stinks!

WALDORF:

As Orson Scott Card would say!

STATLER:

Har!

Match point: Bear and friends

[mark monday]

i'm just going to repeat Katie's great comments:

"Awesome. Because just what Hamlet needs is rampant homophobia and dumbing down of the moral questions. There is nothing entertaining about this version, there is nothing to keep reading because he's taken away all moral ambiguity, all questions of life and death. Also, you can't make someone gay by raping them. The end."

what happened to Card? what made him go insane over the years? after reading his various anti-gay tracts, i can't help but wonder if he was a victim of some sort of sexual abuse himself... the past trauma now resurfacing and being ignorantly projected towards a hatred of gays. i've seen that with some folks. a sad thing. is Card exorcising his personal demons?

i'm reminded of the televangelist Joyce Meyer. although not viciously homophobic, like Card she has stated that gays are gay because they have been sexually molested. she's also talked about her own sexual abuse as a child. in an interview, she stated that "People choose their sexuality", and then went on to say that she "chose to be heterosexual". does she not understand what she is saying about herself - that she is a closeted lesbian? it is terrible how early sexual trauma can really twist a person up sometimes.

i just can't come to grips with how Card, the empathetic and rather wise humanist of Ender's Game and especially Speaker for the Dead, has turned into the horrifying, hate-filled asshole of the Card today. it's so strange. something traumatic must have happened. the man needs therapy.

[Katie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Awesome. Because just what Hamlet needs is rampant homophobia and dumbing down of the moral questions. There is nothing entertaining about this version, there is nothing to keep reading because he's taken away all moral ambiguity, all questions of life and death.

Also, you can't make someone gay by raping them. The end.

[Mimi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hilariously bad

The premise is an explanation--of sorts--for Hamlet's continuous dawdling, but written badly. The writing by itself is strange and the narrative is interrupted often by Orson Scott Card's personal views of... well, no need to repeat them here since we all know that they are. Contrary to the brief summary, there really is no twist on this Shakespearean classic; the "twist" is only a reiteration of Mr Card's personal views. I found the whole thing predictable.

I couldn't sleep last night and had forgotten my current reads at the office, so a friend sent an audible code for this novella with the note "for shits and giggles." And I did have a good laugh, not because it's funny but because it got published and you're expected to pay money for it. Hilarious.

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 3 out of 5]

A simplistic but sometimes compelling reinterpretation. Of course, points taken away for inserting plot elements to further the ends of the reinterpretation. A better attempt would be to only try and reinterpret existing events and not include new ones just to drive the new plot. 85/100 for the attempt Uncle Orson.

[Karl · Rating 2 out of 5]

This awful book is an ARC of the re-telling of Shakespeare's Hamlet story.

The illustrations and dust jacket by Tom Kidd make this book worth keeping.

What is it our mom's used to say "If you can't say anything good, Don't say anything." is totally applicable to this book.

[Wealhtheow]

I'm astounded that this got published in the first place. Here's a straightforward review of some of the novella's problems. I can't say I ever read Hamlet and thought, y'know what this needs? Less emotional, moral and linguistic complexity, more barely serviceable prose and homophobia. I mean, that just never crossed my mind. I guess that kind of out-of-the-box thinking is why Card can charge $35 for a novella.

[Christian · Rating 1 out of 5]

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."

[Amelia Halgren · Rating 1 out of 5]

I liked this book ...right up until the end. But not for the reason that others are maligning it.

I disagree with other reviewers that call this a homophobic work. The textual basis for this asessment could just as easily yield the conclusion that Hamlet's father was "evil" because he committed rape; the only act described as evil is that of force or coercion, not that of a homosexual act. (Every evil act has its root in the forcible exertion of one's will over that of another.) The only consensual homosexual relationship described in this book is that alluded to between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. There is speculation that their relationship is perhaps a consequence of their early abuse but it is not described as being wrong or evil, just unconventional. It is reasonable to specualate that the victims of such repeated violence might be impacted psychologically. Card even describes how the sexual lives of several of the boys were impacted by such violation. But because Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not described as 'evil' I disagree that Card intended to call homosexuality evil, whatever his personal feelings may be. Horatio's near sexual assault of his page indicates to me that the theme of this book is actually that evil begets evil.

No, what I dislike about this book is that no hope of redemption is left to the dead. Hell is the only conclusion given. I dislike such a hopeless philosophy.

[Chelsea Sawyers · Rating 1 out of 5]

A slap in the face of anyone who appreciates Shakespeare's classic.
Add in anti-gay sentiments and horrible droning prose, and you wonder why someone would write a book based on a play they seem to hate.

[Gosia Elwertowska · Rating 3 out of 5]

Orson Scott Card used to be one of my favourite writers. His storytelling and imagination in Ender series as well as in Alvin Maker series are superb. He leaves a lot for the reader to interpret and discover rather than spelling all the details out which always leaves a bit of a mystery and his books always make me think. His other books: Lovelock, Enchantment and Pastwatch are also forever on my fav book shelf. I lost track of his works in the late 90ties, and although I read some of his Women of Genesis books Sarah and Rebekhah. I have not read much about the author then, or about his views. I later found out about The Book of Mormon and his conservative views, I suppose related to his religion. This did not diminish the value of his past books for me, but I must admit I approach every new book of his I read with caution (some of them are from ages ago, but I have not had access to them then so they are "new" to me). His views on homosexuality expressed publicly over 30 years ago (not so uncommon then) have not been publicly changed or revoked in spite of a massive change in culture in the whole Western World and I always try to see if I find anything disturbing in the books content that would confirm he tries to slip poison to (especially young) readers.

This book touches on the controversial subject somewhat and his style of writing leaves a gap for interpretation - does he in any way blame child abuse on someone becoming homosexual in later life? Or is it just a mention of mental struggles someone goes through after surviving abuse? Is he writing from a view of any personal experience? Maybe some repressed feelings or emotions? But let's leave the controversy behind and focus on the book.

The story is not a long one by any means - we are introduced to the characters we know from one of the most known plays in the world so the introductions are short. I admit I enjoyed it. It's not by any means an interpretation of Shakespeare's Hamlet, for me it is an alternative story woven on a familiar frame. For me Card still remains a great storyteller, and as long as his books contain such a deep compassion for others as he had shown in Speak for the Dead and Xenocide I will leave the controversy on the side for when it is no longer possible to ignore.

[Contrarius · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this years ago, but I just discovered that I never posted my review of it. So here it is, from back in 2012 --

Pretty dumb story, all in all. Some humorous lines, but over all kind of pretentious and kind of tiresome, with some fairly unbelievable secrecy thrown in just to make things more interesting. For me, about the most interesting thing in it was that the ghost lied. Somehow, it never occurred to me before that a ghost could have the intellectual capacity to lie.

Most of the story doesn't say anything overt about either pedophilia or homosexuality. A few things can be inferred if you already know the end.

At the Big Reveal, it turns out that Horatio has killed the king. The king had repeatedly raped Horatio, Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern while they were all children. He never raped Hamlet, and Hamlet never knew what was going on. And it's clearly stated that the king was NOT interested in adult men, only children.

Of the five boys:

1. Hamlet -- who was never raped -- seems to be homosexual or bisexual. He is never depicted as acting on either impulse.

2. Horatio -- appears to be generally heterosexual, but also has an impulse (which he resists) to molest a young male page -- and that drives him to kill the king.

3. Laertes -- is never depicted as either homo or het, but is depicted as impotent in general.

4. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are both gay -- but since they were always depicted together in Shakespeare anyway, there's no big shock about that one.

Over all, this appears to be more a condemnation of pedophilia than anything else.

Even after Hamlet learns the truth, he still calls Horatio "the one good man still living". Hamlet dislikes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern after he returns from Heidelberg, but only because he knows they have agreed to spy on him. They aren't depicted as being evil in any way, they're just loyal to King Claudius.

Interestingly, the last lines of this novella appear to contradict one of the main themes of Ender's Game. In EG, Ender is not morally held to blame for his actions because he doesn't have full knowledge of the effects of those actions -- basically, he has good intentions. In stark contrast, in "Hamlet's Father" Hamlet also has good intentions and doesn't mean to do evil -- he kills Claudius because he believes that Claudius killed Hamlet's father, he kills Polonius because he thought Polonius was Claudius hiding behind a curtain, and he kills Laertes by sheer accident. Nonetheless, the closing lines of the story make it clear that Hamlet is going down to hell along with his father. So Ender gets off the hook, but Hamlet doesn't.

[Craig Childs · Rating 4 out of 5]

This story is a revisionist retelling of Hamlet. It first appeared in Marvin Kaye's 2009 anthology The Ghost Quartet; then it reappeared in 2011 as an illustrated 92-page hardcover by Subterranean Press (1000 numbered copies, each signed by the author).

OSC provides a plausible answer to the question that scholars have debated for centuries: Why was Hamlet so quick to swear to avenge his father's death, but then hesitate time and again to kill his uncle Claudius?

It's necessary to be familiar with the original play in order to appreciate the subtext and irony of the story. For the most part, OSC sticks to the events of the original, adding back story and explaining young Hamlet's motives. However, the surprise reveal in the final scene requires significant departures from the Bard's original ending.

The only part of the story that fails to work are the scenes where Hamlet pretends to be insane to avoid suspicion of treason (which were also the weakest scenes of the play as well).

This is a strong novella, although probably not enough to deserve a standalone volume and a $25 price tag. This is the second time Orson Scott Card has tackled Shakespeare's characters in his fiction. His novel Magic Street brought the fanciful characters of Midsummer Night's Dream into an urban fantasy setting.

[Diane · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am really glad that I listened to this as an audiobook while doing something else that was constructive. if I had been reading it myself, I would have rued the time spent.

The 'story' of Hamlet is simplified, rather like reading one of the old Classic Comics of my youth. The BIG disappointment comes at the end, after we've gone through the scene of everyone killing everyone else, or themselves, and Horatio confesses to killing King Hamlet because he sexually abused the Companions when they were boys. And the last thing we see is the ghost of the king, laughing in a corner, but then he goes to Hell, while all the other ghosts go to Heaven! If I had the physical book in my hands, I would have thrown it across the room, then picked it up and thrown it in the trash!

I don't feel bad about including 'spoilers' in this review, if I save even one person from reading this trash, I will feel that I've done my duty to humanity in this matter!

[Charlie Nelson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn't see that coming. I know several kids that had been molested by an adult. It really causes them all sorts of issues that are difficult to deal with. Some became suicidal, or violent. Another just seemed to become a shell of a person. I can't help wondering if the author had known someone in his life who had underwent that torment. I have to give the author credit for dealing with a touchy subject so well.

[Junie · Rating 1 out of 5]

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!

[Q. · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"
-Hamlet, William Shakespeare

I judge a book by two things; the quality of the writing and the content within the writing. The quality of the writing in this book is pretty good, unfortunately it's the content that is f*#king awful (specifically the ending). "Hamlet's Father" as some may have guessed is retelling of Shakespeare's play with one of the worst twist endings ever written. The events of the novel unfold similarly for the most part as the play until the last five or six pages when it's revealed the ghost of Hamlet's father wasn't being truthful about who killed him. This could have been a great moment because in the original work (and this novel) the idea of the ghost being untruthful (knowingly or not) or the ghost being some evil spirit or a demon intent on misleading Hamlet is brought up and pondered by the protagonist. Any number of brilliant twist endings could have been implemented here but no Card had to insert his own warped views into the story and reveal that Hamlet's father was a pedophile who sexually assaulted pretty much all the young men in the story as children (which the story says turned them gay BTW) and purposely mislead Hamlet to not only to get revenge on those the King hated but also get Hamlet sent to Hell so the King can sexually assault him for eternity.

WOW!!!

I didn't think it was possible for a book to turn from pretty good to utter shit in the space of a few pages, but rest assured it can happen. The only thing that's worst than the utterly wasted potential of this very well written book is Card making the utterly false and monstrous claim that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected. I'll never understand how the man that wrote the two masterworks "Ender's Game" & "Speaker for the Dead" birthed this monstrosity.

[Homicidal Muffin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this story. No, it's not like the original and not supposed to be. I see nothing homophobic about this book at all. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing and should never be compared to one another.
As for the author's personal feelings about homosexuals, I could care less. So he's a homophobe, so what? I've got breaking news, not everyone has the same opinion and just because their opinion is not the same as mine or yours doesn't mean they don't have the right to have it. That's how life is, you suck it up and move on. Most men hate fat women but I don't lose sleep over it. If you don't like the author because he's a homophobe then don't read his books. Why read them knowing he's a homophobe then criticize his book as being homophobic. Which again it wasn't, unless you consider pedophilia the same as homosexuality. If that's the case I recommend you consult a dictionary and the law.

[Tara · Rating 1 out of 5]

A highly edited and extremely subjective retelling of Hamlet.
The only reason I made it through this book is because I like the original. Fortunately it's short.
A disappointing one from Orson Scott Card, who is usually a very engaging writer.

[Kendall Carroll · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've read a lot of Hamlet retellings that are terrible but that I end up giving a somewhat decent review, because I really love Hamlet. Even if the author added nothing to it, it's a low bar to clear for me to just enjoy the story of Hamlet told in a million different ways. But this was a bad book and an outrageous retelling of Hamlet, which means there was really nothing redeeming about it. OSC didn't card about Hamlet (by his own admission — he finds Hamlet to be a "dithering hero" and is uninspired by revenge plots), so he didn't seem to care about adding anything to the story. Instead, he used it as an avenue to spew his horrifically homophobic rhetoric with an ego that claims that this story will make Shakespeare better because it tells you what's actually happening.

As a heads up, I'm going to spoil this story. Everything worth caring about it stolen from Hamlet, and everything else is unforgivably bad. No one else should waste their time on it when there are so many better options, so just accept my spoilers and go on with your life. Content warning for homophobia, childhood sexual assault (CSA) and pedophilia once I start talking about the ending.

I'm a big fan of people taking classic stories and bringing them into a new era. Especially Hamlet, which has so many fascinating avenues to follow. But what kind of ego do you have to have to retell a story that you don't even like? A retelling with no love for the original is always going to feel like a waste of time. And I can assure you that OSC is not as close to the literary expertise of Shakespeare as he apparently believed himself to be.

It was really funny to me to realize after reading that OSC doesn't like Hamlet the character, because I found this version of Hamlet (in his childhood) to feel very reminiscent of Ender. At the beginning of the story, I was really into the depiction of this character. As someone who is typically a Hamlet Apologist, I liked a version of Hamlet that was kind with good intentions. Of course, I'm not the most adept at audiobooks, so I'm sure in hindsight there were a lot of red flags that I missed.

As with many retellings, this started to fall apart for me once we caught up to the events of the play. OSC rushes us through, skipping most of the plot points and instead engaging Hamlet and Horatio in nonstop dialogue. I didn't hate this, but it was strange for Hamlet to be rock-solid in his beliefs and ideology. Hamlet's key characteristic is his uncertainty — being a "dithering hero" and all. And I understand making a story your own in a retelling, but once again this makes me question what the point of this story was. Because it's not just his indecisiveness. Hamlet is a character that feels very deeply, but he's entirely unbothered by most things that happens. His father's death is at most an inconvenience, he's kind of bothered by his mother's implied adultery but only on an ideological level, he seems vaguely annoyed at having killed Polonius, and he doesn't care about Ophelia's death in the slightest. Why retell Hamlet if you're going to strip it down and make it entirely unrecognizable?

The answer comes when we reach the ending. The "big twist" of this retelling is that the King is a pedophile who preys after young men, specifically Hamlet's companions. This includes all of them: Horatio, Laertes, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern. He tried to go after Hamlet himself but was stopped by Gertrude. The King died not from Claudius' hand but by Horatio's, who goes to kill the King after a moment where he was preying on another young man. He stops himself, realizing he's continuing a cycle of abuse, and goes to kill the King. Claudius and Gertrude find him and, in support of his actions (because they knew the King's abhorrent behavior) help cover up the murder. The story fully ends with Hamlet killing himself instead of Horatio and going to hell with his father, who basically promises to assault him for all eternity.

So there's our answer. OSC didn't care about retelling Hamlet, he only cared about finding a way to peddle his insane homophobia. Because this was a horrific handling of CSA in a piece of literature. It's vaguely implied that the King's actioned made many of the boys gay (other than Laertes, who is instead dealing with physical damage). Ros and Guild are off together elsewhere, and Horatio obviously was inappropriate with the younger boy and (at least to my understanding) has some feelings for Hamlet. That's obviously not how being gay works, nor is it how sexual trauma works. OSC can claim that it's not homophobia because he's written gay characters before, or because he's not "intentionally" connecting homophobia to pedophilia, but that's exactly what he was doing. Gay people are not all pedophiles, nor are they gay because of childhood trauma.

This is just an horrendously bad story in every way. It's highly homophobic, it's a disrespectful adaptation, and it's just not a very compelling story. I'm upset that I didn't research this book enough before listening to it, and I'm embarrassed on Orson Scott Card's behalf that it exists. Find literally any other book to read, because you won't miss anything by passing this one up.

[rivka · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hamlet's Father seems ever-so-familiar . . . until it is terribly, horribly, and all-too-believably NOT familiar.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short, fun read. A fun re-interpretation. Impressed with Orson Scott Card’s range (OSC of the now filmed Ender’s Game, and so much other sci fi).
***
Or, so it seemed. I was so pleased by this exploration. But yikes this got dark fast.

I’m no Hamlet, or Amleth (the Norse root story), scholar. And I won’t add actual spoilers, bc it probably is best to let it develop for the reader.

OSC finds one possible solution, based on the half known nature of old myths. I admire him for it, tho I did initially retract a star.

I wish I knew the questions and quotes of Shakespeare’s Hamlet better. And perhaps now it is time to learn them. Because in the “to be or not to be” is a question that of course must find answer. Even in this twisted tale. This fractured play. Even in this version of the ancient half remembered but which cannot be forgotten apparently, Amleth.
***
So, I don’t believe spoilers are a thing generally. What is the point of talking about a book, if we cannot talk of its meaning? And in our solipsistic age, who can I converse with, who has read this book just now, but myself on this page? And who will ever read it but me? And so I work it out just a bit, and show my math scratch, before setting down my type. . . It reminds me of Nietzsche’s quote—

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
Friedrich W. Nietzsche

Now, what is in that ellipse? What was in that ghost . . .

Hm. Here’s a fuller translation? I like the process part. For this Hamlet was remarkable in one respect: he was a good man. He grew into a good man of actions, and a good mind. But in the final process . . .

Fuller translation:
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
***

[Alex Shrugged · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it. I didn't love it... mostly because of the ending which is different from the classic telling of the Tragedy of Hamlet.

The Story: The classic story of Hamlet is told from the point of Hamlet as the neglected son of the Danish King, his father. As in the Shakespeare play, his father is murdered, and Hamlet's mother marries the King's brother who is named King instead than Hamlet who was the heir apparent. (There is a war going on and the barons want a mature King running things.) There is a lot of plotting, secrets and an apparent suicide attempt. Also a successful suicide attempt. People die. A lot of the wrong people die. This is, after all, a tragedy.

Any problems with the story? This retelling of the story of Hamlet is not as strong as the original. It begins some time BEFORE the Shakespeare play begins, giving more background into the person of Hamlet, and his friends. We also meet Yorick... alive! The reasons given for Hamlet to feel so aggrieved seem trivial. Yet, I know people who would get every bit as angry for the same reasons today. It simply doesn't seem logical for a prince to do so.

Any modesty issues? Adultery is implied. Homosexuality and child abuse are accusations that bring light to some of the motivations of the characters. While somewhat believable, it came at me from left field, and I found the whole idea strangely out of place in a retelling of Hamlet. It was also out of place for the author who I always perceived as a religiously conservative man.

So... good writing. That is to be expected from the author. A tough project, rewriting Hamlet. The author almost makes it believable, but in the end, it was just too weird. Sorry.

I will not read this book again.

[Debra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very fascinating twist on the traditional Hamlet. Card gives us a back story for Hamlet's father. Hamlet's father seems to be truly hateful toward his son, Hamlet. He avoids him and denigrates him. He is doing nothing to prepare him to be king. (Although, I agree that that he is not a person you would want to emulate. His mother and companions seem to be the stabilizing influence in his young life. Luckily, Hamlet is surrounded by a group of loyal companions that are their own small family, hanging out and preparing each other for the days that they will be sent out
to do the king's bidding and possibly to fight aggressors.

Hamlet is sent away to be schooled at university Wittenburg in philosophy, math, Latin and the classics. He is summoned to return home upon his father's death. But in the few years he has been away, his companions have been disbanded and he is left with few friends that he can confide in. One by one his youthful companions reassemble to welcome him home. But there is really no place for him. In the short time his father has been dead, his uncle is appointed king by the earls and his mother marries the new king. Hamlet realizes that he is not in line for the kingship and may be in some danger. When he shares this with his companions, they are unwilling to discuss any of this and are more than eager to return to their home countries. But there is a dark secret that the companions are hiding.

WARNING: Be aware that the twist ending is only for adults or older teens.

Card's writing is very clear and captivating. The three audio disk production was well done.

[Sean · Rating 5 out of 5]

Orson Scott Card's alternative take on Hamlet--arguably the greatest literary work of all time--is daring, creative, and surprisingly effective. While Shakespearean purists may dismiss any attempt to reinterpret the Bard's masterwork as heresy, the fact is Shakespeare himself co-opted many of his plays from existing stories, often popular legends but sometimes the work of rival writers as well.

On its own merits, Hamlet's Father is a masterful short novel that explores several subplots within Shakespeare's Hamlet and takes them in some very different directions. The basic story we're all familiar with stays largely the same, but the details pertaining to character background and motivation are distinctly reimagined, leading to some bravura twists.

Card's prose is spartan and the pacing very fast, as is fitting for a novella (a literary form I dearly wish more writers worked with). If there is a serious flaw in the book, it is that the ending seems rushed, even by the standards of the rest of the tale. If Card had invested a little more time in shaping up the climax it would have been even more powerful. Not that the climax isn't already moving, tragic, and more than a little horrifying...

Fans of Hamlet--whether the play itself or any of the several fine cinematic adaptations--should enjoy Hamlet's Father, but for that matter so should those who come to the story for the first time. It's a well-written, artfully conceived and loving supplement to the immortal classic, and a book I wholeheartedly recommend.

[Annalisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoyed this audiobook mostly because of the narrator, Stefan Rudnicki, who did an excellent job reading the book, but found that sometimes I drifted off to sleep because it wasn't all that interesting. I don't normally fall asleep while I'm listening to an audiobook. It is short which is nice about 2 1/2 hours. It does not stay true to the play itself which I found interesting. I did find it to be a bit homophobic which I guess is just the author's point-of-view being reflected in the writing. One could almost not think of it as homophobia and as pedophilia, if it were not for one pivotal scene that clearly makes it about homophobia. It gives a new insight into the King, who was previously a rather minor character but a very important one. There are some aspects that stay true to the Shakespeare play in that death is a theme, and yes pretty much everyone dies. But there is a twist that I did not see coming. For lovers of Hamlet I would not recommend this because it is a reinterpretation and does not stay true to the play itself. One good thing about this version is the language is clear and easy to understand. I can't say I really liked the message or that I would recommend this to many people just because it deals with a pedophile and homophobia.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very polarizing book.

Card tries to retell Hamlet; unfortunately he changes some of the "objective facts" of the story, but enough of it is similar to plausibly be an interpretation of "why" compatible with original story but told from a different perspective. I really wish he'd managed to keep all the major story elements the same just with different interpretation and psychology and "off camera" actions.

There's a huge plot twist in the last 10% of the book which takes it from suspense to shocking, and for a variety of political reasons, makes the book very unpopular with a lot of people.

This might have been 5/5 if he'd successfully avoided changing facts and actions in the story; as it was, a pretty ambitious attempt which falls somewhat short. Still, interesting (and I love the original Hamlet so a riff on it is going to be interesting anyway.)

[Lisa Tollefson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Imaginative, drawing on the play but not bound to it, this book presents sort of a back story to the Hamlet of Shakespeare. It shows the family dynamics, and presents a wholly plausible reason for everyone's behavior. Best, Orson Scott Card (do his friends call him Orson Scott, I wonder) has written it, so I know going in that the words he chooses to use are the perfect ones to tell the story. I just wish his audiobooks were read by someone other than Stefan Rudnicki. I've never liked his voice.

[Leon Baxter · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am a HUGE Orson Scott Card fan, but this did not work for me. I have not read Hamlet since I was in high school. So, I don't recall it very well, but I figured this book would be the back story or a side story that would have been in the vein of Card's works. Instead, this was just Shakespeare. I'm not even sure what all was new since it had been so long since I read the original. I'm guessing we found a secret of Hamlet's father that was not in Shakespeare's Hamlet, but it bored me. I expected more from Card.

[Eleanor · Rating 2 out of 5]

Short retelling and reinterpretation of the classic play by Shakespeare. I really enjoyed the early part of the story about Hamlet's days at school. It was all information not covered in the original play and I found it interesting and informative. I became less interested when this revision departed in major ways from the original and introduced surprising new elements. Overall, I found it to be to great a departure from the original work to be of much value.