What do you think?
Rate this book
Chasing Shakespeares: A Novel
After two Harvard graduates discover a letter that appears to have been penned by William Shakespeare, the find offers promise to the career of one and challenges the other to prove the letter is a forgery.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2003
18 people are currently reading
345 people want to read
About the author
Sarah Smith
16 books67 followersSarah Smith has been interested in ghosts and storytelling since she was four. Her sitter told her Japanese ghost stories at night, which she retold on the schoolbus the next morning. When she heard the story of the haunted house and the Perkins Bequest, she knew she had to write about it. No one knows what became of the real Perkins Bequest. She hopes The Other Side of Dark may help solve the mystery.
The Other Side of Dark is her debut novel for young adults.
Sarah studied English at Harvard (where she hid out in the library reading mysteries) and film in London. She is the bestselling author of an adult mystery series set in Edwardian Boston and Paris; two of the books have been New York Times Notable Books of the Year, and one was a London Times Book of the Year.
She has also written a novel about the Shakespeare authorship, Chasing Shakespeares, and actually discovered a "Shakespearean" poem by another candidate. She is currently writing a novel about the Titanic.
Visit her online at www.sarahsmith.com and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/sarahwriter. Read her short stories for free at BookViewCafe.
"
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews
March 9, 2021
When I read it in the Aughties I can tell you I wasn't excited by it. I liked being in the academic world enough to keep reading, and while I felt there was a lot of research that underpinned the action, I wasn't always as unaware of its thoroughness as I'd've liked to've been. I'll never seek out another Sarah Smith novel (are there any?) but it wasn't Time Wasted.
June 11, 2011
My mother adored this book, and I found it clever and entertaining but am not sure it would hold one's interest unless already obsessed with the 16th century (like me).
One does not need to be interested in the Shakespeare authorship issue to enjoy the book but a certain familiarity with English literature is helpful. My friends got lost in the characters and might have been better off with a chart of some kind. I do think the ending was very clever and regret they gave up too soon.
Smith also captures what I imagine to be the real angst experienced by many graduate students in the arts: the yearning to discover some new theory, let alone a new work by an admired author; the pressure to write about a topic not already done to death; and the financial and career concerns. Having spent my college career studying Renaissance literature, I got a tiny taste of this and while I loved the material I read (and will always have a weakness for Thomas Wyatt) I could imagine how discouraging it would be to compete with other aspiring grad students, faculty, and enthusiasts for a literary break...
One does not need to be interested in the Shakespeare authorship issue to enjoy the book but a certain familiarity with English literature is helpful. My friends got lost in the characters and might have been better off with a chart of some kind. I do think the ending was very clever and regret they gave up too soon.
Smith also captures what I imagine to be the real angst experienced by many graduate students in the arts: the yearning to discover some new theory, let alone a new work by an admired author; the pressure to write about a topic not already done to death; and the financial and career concerns. Having spent my college career studying Renaissance literature, I got a tiny taste of this and while I loved the material I read (and will always have a weakness for Thomas Wyatt) I could imagine how discouraging it would be to compete with other aspiring grad students, faculty, and enthusiasts for a literary break...
May 18, 2012
I am a Shakespeare girl to the end, a staunch Stratfordian in an increasingly Oxfordian world. Like Joe Roper, I want Shakespeare to be Shakespeare too -- but what if? Sarah Smith captures beautifully the terrible spiritual, even moral, ambivalence that lies at the heart of the Shakespeare authorship question. Was Shakespeare Shakespeare? Does it matter if he wasn't? For once, a writer manages to present, via good swift fiction, a strong case for Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, while comprehensively cataloguing all the reasons why we care so passionately about the reality of the glover from Stratford. An outstanding entertainment that I will read many more times.
July 26, 2010
I read this book during a trip to Hawaii. I read it on the plane, in my hotel room (in fact, the pages are now warped because I dropped it in my bath), on the beach, and then, after I got home, I read it all again.
I bought the book hoping it would be a bit like "Possession" by A.S. Byatt, a literary mystery with a romance, yet more interesting because the author of the disputed material would be real, would be Shakespeare.
What I found was that the characters were real, too.
I could identify with Joe, trying to imagine himself as a biographer of Shakespeare, trying to imagine who he might be, could be, while not realizing that his life - as it was - was also a story worth writing. And when he loses his religion - ah, I could identify with that as well.
The mystery of the authorship question was quite enough to keep me reading. The scraps of paper, the little crumbs of clues, certainly intrigued me, as did the unfolding drama between the characters - Joe, Mary Cat, Posy, the Goscimers. I liked the contrast between Joe's Dad and Posy's father, between Mary Cat's dilemma and Joe's and Posy's, all trying to determine who they were, and overcome the barriers on the way. All defining themselves, even as Joe tried to define who Shakespeare really was.
But ah, the treachery. As insidious as Cecil's. It took me by surprise and was the direct cause of the aforementioned book-dunking.
Having reached the end of the story, I immediately wanted to reread it, to catch for myself more of the clues. To me, that's the sign of a good, involving book - that I don't want it to be over.
I highly recommend the book. Read it twice. And oh, one note of correction - the 1947 Buick was actually highly reliable.
I bought the book hoping it would be a bit like "Possession" by A.S. Byatt, a literary mystery with a romance, yet more interesting because the author of the disputed material would be real, would be Shakespeare.
What I found was that the characters were real, too.
I could identify with Joe, trying to imagine himself as a biographer of Shakespeare, trying to imagine who he might be, could be, while not realizing that his life - as it was - was also a story worth writing. And when he loses his religion - ah, I could identify with that as well.
The mystery of the authorship question was quite enough to keep me reading. The scraps of paper, the little crumbs of clues, certainly intrigued me, as did the unfolding drama between the characters - Joe, Mary Cat, Posy, the Goscimers. I liked the contrast between Joe's Dad and Posy's father, between Mary Cat's dilemma and Joe's and Posy's, all trying to determine who they were, and overcome the barriers on the way. All defining themselves, even as Joe tried to define who Shakespeare really was.
But ah, the treachery. As insidious as Cecil's. It took me by surprise and was the direct cause of the aforementioned book-dunking.
Having reached the end of the story, I immediately wanted to reread it, to catch for myself more of the clues. To me, that's the sign of a good, involving book - that I don't want it to be over.
I highly recommend the book. Read it twice. And oh, one note of correction - the 1947 Buick was actually highly reliable.
August 11, 2016
What if Shakespeare wasn't the author of The Sonets?
The subject of this book is quite interesting, the author made an extensive research work but I found this book will be more appropriate as a non-fiction book instead of a historical mystery genre.
Also the contemporary aspects involving the main characters makes the reader loose track of the main plot.
The subject of this book is quite interesting, the author made an extensive research work but I found this book will be more appropriate as a non-fiction book instead of a historical mystery genre.
Also the contemporary aspects involving the main characters makes the reader loose track of the main plot.
June 16, 2016
"History is a point of view, over the same city, perhaps, but from a thousand eyes, not one." "There's no one map, one story, one way to get to one truth; there is no single London and no single Shakespeare, no fact as sure as a story."
Wonderful literary history! ...about how we make our heroes, and how they make us.
Wonderful literary history! ...about how we make our heroes, and how they make us.
November 17, 2011
Shakespeare's biography has always presented problems to scholars. For many writers, the lack of definitive detail indicates that the so-called "Bard of Avon" was not the author of the plays. Dense and complex books put forward arguments for, among others, Francis Bacon, Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Oxford. One of the most exhaustingly thorough attempts was Charlton Ogburn's 892 page The Mysterious William Shakespeare:The Man and the Myth which argues for Oxford as the author of the plays. Ogburn's book plays a foundational role in Sarah Smith adventurously playful fiction. Long ago I wrote a thesis on Shakespeare and in a completely rare moment of procrastination read Ogburn's book. For this reason alone I found Smith's book a delightful read. She presents the players and the contending points of view in a through and jaundiced manner. Her protagonist imagines distant connections and events in a throughly realistic manner. Or at least without subjecting them to close analysis which in a novel like this that would only spoil the fun. If one has ever come across the authors of the Shakespeare controversy even in a glancing manner this book is warmly recommended and even if you're never touched on the subject this novel will introduce the controversy in a light and humorous manner.
February 27, 2016
Almost anything about Shakespeare fascinates me, and this well-written book was no exception.
Smith, who has a doctorate in English literature, succeeds in making a compelling novel out of a literary quest. She takes on the controversy about who wrote Shakespeare's works.
A doctoral student who believes that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare finds a letter that makes him wonder whether the Earl of Oxford was the author. He meets a young woman graduate student who strongly believes that Oxford was the author, and they go to England to pursue the question.
Smith really knows her stuff, though the book was published before James Shapiro's nonfiction book Contested Will, which I think decisively shows that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. I very much enjoyed this book.
Smith, who has a doctorate in English literature, succeeds in making a compelling novel out of a literary quest. She takes on the controversy about who wrote Shakespeare's works.
A doctoral student who believes that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare finds a letter that makes him wonder whether the Earl of Oxford was the author. He meets a young woman graduate student who strongly believes that Oxford was the author, and they go to England to pursue the question.
Smith really knows her stuff, though the book was published before James Shapiro's nonfiction book Contested Will, which I think decisively shows that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. I very much enjoyed this book.
July 4, 2017
1.5/5 stars. If you are enamored of the 16th C, and Elizabethan history, then perhaps this book will resonate with you. It took be about half of the book to keep the historical characters straight, and then I still wasn't sure I always knew who married whom, or why it mattered. I distrusted "Posy" from the start - too bad "Joe" didn't. And the subplot of "Mary Cat" going off to be a nun rather than staying in graduate school had so little relevance to anything that it was just filler trying to make a this a more palatable modern novel.
February 13, 2023
This is a reasonable entertaining novel. The problem I had reading this novel was constantly thinking of all the things it could have been, but wasn't. Normally, I do not like critiquing an artwork based on what it isn't. I like to stick to what is there. In this case, though, I kept getting distracted from the reading as my mind wandered toward imagining the same material written differently.
The novel has a fairly popular premise - a historical mystery supposedly uncovered through modern time semi-professional investigators. Thus, there is a bit of The da Vinci Code lurking here, though without all the grandiose spy-movie embellishments, and without all the disingenuous claims of historical revelations "they" don't want you to know. Smith's ambitions are more homely. The story follows the first-person narrator, Joe Roper, as he goes on a literary adventure to try to "find" Shakespeare. Joe is a graduate student at Northeastern University, struggling to find a dissertation subject, and feeling inadequate for his hick Vermont upbringing. His main intellectual goal is to write the biography of Shakespeare that fills in the famous missing seven years between his leaving Stratford and arriving in London. Joe is responsible for cataloguing a donated collection of 16th-century documents related to Mary, Queen of Scots. Most of the items are easily detected forgeries, but he finds a letter that appears to be genuine, and seems to be written by Shakespeare claiming that he had not written the works attributed to him. Before Joe can have the letter validated, in walks rich, flamboyant graduate student from Harvard, Posy Gould. She is convinced that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, is the real Shakespeare, and that Joe's letter proves it. To convince Joe, she pays for him to go with her to London where they can research all that is known about Shakespeare and de Vere. This is the contemporary story, pitting working class Joe as champion of working class Shakespeare, against aristocrat Posy championing aristocrat de Vere.
Working behind this story is the history of Elizabethan England, especially the machinations of William Cecil, Robert Cecil, and the dastardly things they did to Edward de Vere. Herein lies one of my criticisms of the novel. The historical information is handled through long information dumps in conversation, half the time over coffee. This method makes it hard to keep track of all the names and complicated relationships between the historical figures. That is the point at which my mind wanders into imagining a better way to manage the historical part. For me, that would be to write the historical part as a novel. Granted, this would make Smith's novel twice as long, but for me it would be twice as interesting. I keep imagining how these people would be as characters in a story. The back and forth between the historical and contemporary events would demonstrate a great amount of writing skill and really propel this novel.
We also see Joe become lured into and trapped by a conspiracy, or at the very least a crank theory, that has him abandon all that he claims to hold dear - data, facts, research, plausibility. He gives these things up to instead follow surmises, hunches, interpretations, and that good old fallacy of the conspiracy minded, searching for evidence to fit an already determined conclusion. Thus, in the end, Joe is ruined for not very good reasons. I don't think that Sarah Smith wanted to portray the matter this way. She wants the reader to conclude something about the power of imagination. However, the conclusion I come to is that this imagination is corrupted in service of an idea that will lead Joe to lose everything he values and give him nothing of value at all.
The positive for this novel are that, for the most part, the story is entertaining. Smith has done a tremendous amount of research, and never goes wildly off script, historically speaking, which makes this novel far better than The da Vinci Code. It is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in the authorship question about Shakespeare's works. Smith strikes a pretty good balance in presenting both sides of the Stratford vs. Oxford debate.
The novel has a fairly popular premise - a historical mystery supposedly uncovered through modern time semi-professional investigators. Thus, there is a bit of The da Vinci Code lurking here, though without all the grandiose spy-movie embellishments, and without all the disingenuous claims of historical revelations "they" don't want you to know. Smith's ambitions are more homely. The story follows the first-person narrator, Joe Roper, as he goes on a literary adventure to try to "find" Shakespeare. Joe is a graduate student at Northeastern University, struggling to find a dissertation subject, and feeling inadequate for his hick Vermont upbringing. His main intellectual goal is to write the biography of Shakespeare that fills in the famous missing seven years between his leaving Stratford and arriving in London. Joe is responsible for cataloguing a donated collection of 16th-century documents related to Mary, Queen of Scots. Most of the items are easily detected forgeries, but he finds a letter that appears to be genuine, and seems to be written by Shakespeare claiming that he had not written the works attributed to him. Before Joe can have the letter validated, in walks rich, flamboyant graduate student from Harvard, Posy Gould. She is convinced that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, is the real Shakespeare, and that Joe's letter proves it. To convince Joe, she pays for him to go with her to London where they can research all that is known about Shakespeare and de Vere. This is the contemporary story, pitting working class Joe as champion of working class Shakespeare, against aristocrat Posy championing aristocrat de Vere.
Working behind this story is the history of Elizabethan England, especially the machinations of William Cecil, Robert Cecil, and the dastardly things they did to Edward de Vere. Herein lies one of my criticisms of the novel. The historical information is handled through long information dumps in conversation, half the time over coffee. This method makes it hard to keep track of all the names and complicated relationships between the historical figures. That is the point at which my mind wanders into imagining a better way to manage the historical part. For me, that would be to write the historical part as a novel. Granted, this would make Smith's novel twice as long, but for me it would be twice as interesting. I keep imagining how these people would be as characters in a story. The back and forth between the historical and contemporary events would demonstrate a great amount of writing skill and really propel this novel.
We also see Joe become lured into and trapped by a conspiracy, or at the very least a crank theory, that has him abandon all that he claims to hold dear - data, facts, research, plausibility. He gives these things up to instead follow surmises, hunches, interpretations, and that good old fallacy of the conspiracy minded, searching for evidence to fit an already determined conclusion. Thus, in the end, Joe is ruined for not very good reasons. I don't think that Sarah Smith wanted to portray the matter this way. She wants the reader to conclude something about the power of imagination. However, the conclusion I come to is that this imagination is corrupted in service of an idea that will lead Joe to lose everything he values and give him nothing of value at all.
The positive for this novel are that, for the most part, the story is entertaining. Smith has done a tremendous amount of research, and never goes wildly off script, historically speaking, which makes this novel far better than The da Vinci Code. It is definitely worth reading for anyone interested in the authorship question about Shakespeare's works. Smith strikes a pretty good balance in presenting both sides of the Stratford vs. Oxford debate.
June 18, 2019
Book #: 29
Title: Chasing Shakespeares
Author: Sarah Smith
Popsugar Category: Basic: A book by an author whose first and last names start with the same letter
Popsugar Category: Basic: A book with a two-word title
Goodreads Category: A book by Shakespeare or inspired by Shakespeare
Goodreads Category: A book featuring an historical figure
Goodreads Category: A book with a person's name in the title
A-Z Title: C for Chasing
A-Z Author: S for Smith
Format: Hardcover, Borrowed from a friend
Rating: **** four out of five stars
I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist, with one exception... who wrote Shakespeare? While I will reluctantly admit the most likely author is that famous son of a glove-maker, I'm more than willing to play being an Oxfordian. (Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford). So, a fictional novel about a scholar cataloging a recent library acquision and coming across a letter from William to Edward admitting that he's the true author is something I'm going to be interested in. The author has done her homework and it's been a few years since I've done serious reading on the topic, so I had to make a few notes to double check what's real and what's fictional. The plot has Joe, our scholar, travelling to modern London and trying to imagine what it was like in Shakespeare's time. I enjoyed it, but if you're not into the Shakespeare conspiracy, it may be a so-so book for you.
Title: Chasing Shakespeares
Author: Sarah Smith
Popsugar Category: Basic: A book by an author whose first and last names start with the same letter
Popsugar Category: Basic: A book with a two-word title
Goodreads Category: A book by Shakespeare or inspired by Shakespeare
Goodreads Category: A book featuring an historical figure
Goodreads Category: A book with a person's name in the title
A-Z Title: C for Chasing
A-Z Author: S for Smith
Format: Hardcover, Borrowed from a friend
Rating: **** four out of five stars
I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist, with one exception... who wrote Shakespeare? While I will reluctantly admit the most likely author is that famous son of a glove-maker, I'm more than willing to play being an Oxfordian. (Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford). So, a fictional novel about a scholar cataloging a recent library acquision and coming across a letter from William to Edward admitting that he's the true author is something I'm going to be interested in. The author has done her homework and it's been a few years since I've done serious reading on the topic, so I had to make a few notes to double check what's real and what's fictional. The plot has Joe, our scholar, travelling to modern London and trying to imagine what it was like in Shakespeare's time. I enjoyed it, but if you're not into the Shakespeare conspiracy, it may be a so-so book for you.
August 23, 2025
(3.5 stars) Joe Ryan is a graduate student who has been tasked with reviewing the Kellogg collection of Elizabethan materials along with fellow grad student Mary Cat. Sadly, most of the material is faked. Joe comes from a humble background in Vermont, but he became obsessed with Shakespeare and has been working for his mentors on fact checking their latest book. He is sad when Mary Cat leaves to pursue her desire to become a nun, but even more so when he finds a letter that, if real, may change the course of history relating to Shakespeare. Enter Posy, a Harvard student with a wealthy family. She is disappointed to have been scooped for the collection and wants to be involved. On seeing the letter, she offers to take them both to England to work on determining if it is real. The book goes through their search for evidence and we see Joe’s worry about his loyalty to his mentors and his delight in his first trip abroad. The level of historical facts and details would appeal to those with a love and background in Elizabethan history and Shakespeare and academic research.. At times, the amount of information threatened to bog the story down.
July 17, 2022
I love the plays of Shakespeare. I am obsessed with the language, interested in the plots, and enjoy all the artistic possibility that can be found in his works.
I am not interested in the question of authorship. I tend to believe that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, with a secondary opinion that it doesn't really matter who wrote them. But I figured I would give this novel a try, and see how I liked it.
Alas, I found the story clunky and uninteresting, with characters that I did not care for, and a breathless angst on the central question that I found a bit tedious.
Not the novel for me.
I am not interested in the question of authorship. I tend to believe that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, with a secondary opinion that it doesn't really matter who wrote them. But I figured I would give this novel a try, and see how I liked it.
Alas, I found the story clunky and uninteresting, with characters that I did not care for, and a breathless angst on the central question that I found a bit tedious.
Not the novel for me.
October 6, 2018
I love Shakespeare and there were some interesting parts. For the most part, though, it was a bore. I kept skipping sections and pages just to finish it.
October 14, 2019
One of my 20 best mysteries read in 2003.
October 25, 2019
A fascinating look into the authorship question--Was Edward deVere, the Earl of Oxford the author of Shakespeare's poetry and plays, or did Shakespeare write Shakespeare? A literary paper chase.
April 23, 2020
To be honest it was really hard to follow this book. However, it was very interesting and intriguing near the end. Took awhile to get there though, unfortunately.
July 5, 2023
A novel encompassing the mystery of who Shakespeare was - who knew it could be such fascinating reading!
October 22, 2022
Actual rating: 2 1/2 stars. I tried reading this several years ago,( the book is nearly 20 years old, copyright date: 2003) and remember not being able to get through it due to the continuous stream of crude language. Unfortunately, that is still the worst part of the book, and while I don't like it any more now than I did then, I persevered because of the premise. I am a devoted member of the "Shakespeare is Shakespeare" school, so I thought I would give the other side a chance to make their case!
At one point, under the onslaught of the author's two-word vocabulary for all things bad, frustrating, and surprising, I came across a passage where the protagonist, Joe, rhapsodizes over a possible Shakespeare line where even the empty spaces between the words have unplumbed nuances of the purest meaning! Yet, we are forced to listen to Joe, as he expresses himself with only the same tiresome obscenities over and over, ad infinitum! My wish for all writers, but especially ones who take on Shakespeare, would be that they peruse his seemingly infinite catalog of juicy insults, and other powerful words that pack a far greater punch than just the same redundant swears. As Joe and Mark Twain both observe: "The almost right word is a lightning bug; while the right word is the lightning bolt."
I wanted to like this book much more than I did. It had such good potential, to present a closer look at the vibrant literary world of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. It did do some of that, but ended up suggesting so many hypothetical theories on the identity and timeline of Shakespeare that it became very confusing with conflicting scenarios. To me, there is not enough justification provided in this book, to warrant a motive for declaring a winner in the authorship stakes. I also felt the ending was both a cop-out and a let down. I tried hard to like Joe and root for him, but I just could never believe in him.
I will say I am glad I read this, if only to learn that I am strong in my own convictions and know I have excellent proofs to back them up!
At one point, under the onslaught of the author's two-word vocabulary for all things bad, frustrating, and surprising, I came across a passage where the protagonist, Joe, rhapsodizes over a possible Shakespeare line where even the empty spaces between the words have unplumbed nuances of the purest meaning! Yet, we are forced to listen to Joe, as he expresses himself with only the same tiresome obscenities over and over, ad infinitum! My wish for all writers, but especially ones who take on Shakespeare, would be that they peruse his seemingly infinite catalog of juicy insults, and other powerful words that pack a far greater punch than just the same redundant swears. As Joe and Mark Twain both observe: "The almost right word is a lightning bug; while the right word is the lightning bolt."
I wanted to like this book much more than I did. It had such good potential, to present a closer look at the vibrant literary world of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. It did do some of that, but ended up suggesting so many hypothetical theories on the identity and timeline of Shakespeare that it became very confusing with conflicting scenarios. To me, there is not enough justification provided in this book, to warrant a motive for declaring a winner in the authorship stakes. I also felt the ending was both a cop-out and a let down. I tried hard to like Joe and root for him, but I just could never believe in him.
I will say I am glad I read this, if only to learn that I am strong in my own convictions and know I have excellent proofs to back them up!
June 25, 2025
“Except do we know how he learned to be Shakespeare?” she said. “Isn’t that what you want to know, how young man Shakespeare got to be Shakespeare?”
I loved the historical characters and events presented in this novel. There was so much new material for me and so much I want to research further. As I read the book I found myself thinking this is really two novels combined into one. First, we have a graduate student looking for a thesis for his PhD and a Harvard student pursuing a controversial theory that Shakespeare's plays and sonnets were actually written by the Earl of Oxford, a noble in the Elizabethan court. Second, there is the Elizabethan history itself with many of the major people of the time and the intrigues of the court, as well as the social, religious, and political forces that were occurring. The second was much more interesting and intriguing to me.
I found the modern part of the novel a little troublesome. The main characters were not very likeable to me. Joe, the grad student, comes from blue collar roots, but has a thirst for education and more academic pursuits. I did like that he honors his small town upbringing and appreciates manual labor and craftsmanship.
When I’m with Dad I drop into talking the way I grew up with. It has its own rhythm. You can say things in it you can’t in graduate-school English. It’s a language to use when you work with your hands, when you frame in walls and set windows.
Also, he can empathize with his mentors, knowing that if his current research is correct it would be devastating to their beliefs and academic standing. Still, he came off as a little too selfish, a little too naive, and with an uncomfortable level of angst.
I didn’t want to check anything. I wanted to curl up someplace quiet and dark where I could be sad about Shakespeare. I wanted to be sad in a dark place and have sex with Posy.
Posy, is delightfully quirky and one would think she is strong and an independent thinker, but that doesn't turn out to be the case. I was hoping for a little more depth (romance?) to their relationship, even if it was only a platonic adventure. As it turns out, the relationship is too real world, and as we know, the real world can suck. Perhaps this is an unfair judgment and is only a case where the author's intent differs from my wishes.
There is a very uncomfortable scene in which Joe's mentor's actions are ambiguous: are they detestable because he fears for his own reputation; or are they honorable and meant to preserve the reputation of his student?
And I knew for the first time what it meant to be a scholar, that even when we’d done the best we could, we’d always have to want to be surpassed, outdated, wrong.
The book is filled with such ambiguities, as are the many theories of who Shakespeare was, and how he came to be Shakespeare. I finished the book with many more questions than answers.
I did find the writing to be smart and engaging, and overall a very enjoyable read. I bought the Kindle version and there are quite a few errors as if the conversion to digital misread some of the words.
I believe God is a librarian. I believe that literature is holy, ... it is that best part of our souls that we break off and give each other, and God has a special dispensation for it, angels to guard its making and its preservation.”
The almost right word is the lightning bug; the right one is the lightning. The almost right life is nothing at all. The right life is dangerous, open-ended, more questions than answers, a map to undiscovered countries.
I loved the historical characters and events presented in this novel. There was so much new material for me and so much I want to research further. As I read the book I found myself thinking this is really two novels combined into one. First, we have a graduate student looking for a thesis for his PhD and a Harvard student pursuing a controversial theory that Shakespeare's plays and sonnets were actually written by the Earl of Oxford, a noble in the Elizabethan court. Second, there is the Elizabethan history itself with many of the major people of the time and the intrigues of the court, as well as the social, religious, and political forces that were occurring. The second was much more interesting and intriguing to me.
I found the modern part of the novel a little troublesome. The main characters were not very likeable to me. Joe, the grad student, comes from blue collar roots, but has a thirst for education and more academic pursuits. I did like that he honors his small town upbringing and appreciates manual labor and craftsmanship.
When I’m with Dad I drop into talking the way I grew up with. It has its own rhythm. You can say things in it you can’t in graduate-school English. It’s a language to use when you work with your hands, when you frame in walls and set windows.
Also, he can empathize with his mentors, knowing that if his current research is correct it would be devastating to their beliefs and academic standing. Still, he came off as a little too selfish, a little too naive, and with an uncomfortable level of angst.
I didn’t want to check anything. I wanted to curl up someplace quiet and dark where I could be sad about Shakespeare. I wanted to be sad in a dark place and have sex with Posy.
Posy, is delightfully quirky and one would think she is strong and an independent thinker, but that doesn't turn out to be the case. I was hoping for a little more depth (romance?) to their relationship, even if it was only a platonic adventure. As it turns out, the relationship is too real world, and as we know, the real world can suck. Perhaps this is an unfair judgment and is only a case where the author's intent differs from my wishes.
There is a very uncomfortable scene in which Joe's mentor's actions are ambiguous: are they detestable because he fears for his own reputation; or are they honorable and meant to preserve the reputation of his student?
And I knew for the first time what it meant to be a scholar, that even when we’d done the best we could, we’d always have to want to be surpassed, outdated, wrong.
The book is filled with such ambiguities, as are the many theories of who Shakespeare was, and how he came to be Shakespeare. I finished the book with many more questions than answers.
I did find the writing to be smart and engaging, and overall a very enjoyable read. I bought the Kindle version and there are quite a few errors as if the conversion to digital misread some of the words.
I believe God is a librarian. I believe that literature is holy, ... it is that best part of our souls that we break off and give each other, and God has a special dispensation for it, angels to guard its making and its preservation.”
The almost right word is the lightning bug; the right one is the lightning. The almost right life is nothing at all. The right life is dangerous, open-ended, more questions than answers, a map to undiscovered countries.
May 23, 2014
I feel like I could write a lot about this book. First off, to people wondering if they should read it: it's not a romance book with a touch of Shakespeare - it is about a study of Shakespeare and Victorian history, with a touch of romance. Just FYI. That in no way diminishes my enjoyment of the book, of course; just that it's directed at a more narrow audience.
I really enjoyed the way Smith wrote the scholarly process of Joe's research. As a linguistics student, I loved how realistically his theory and search progressed. It's very true-to-life that Joe's expectations and hopes weren't easily proved in his findings, and that his mindset had to change as he found out more about the key historical figures.
I'm not a huge history buff myself; the majority of what I know about Victorian politics came from (no joke) a Shakespeare course I took in university. This book, though, did a great job of displaying and speculating on the facts of the times. As the author notes in her Apologies & Acknowledgements, the facts are presented within a fictitious and biased framework; but I still learned quite a lot of new information. The book is a minor lesson in Victorian politics wrapped up a wonderful mystery story.
My main issue with this book was the ending. I understand why the author chose to write it the way she did, but it felt like it was a poor way to end things. Posy's role was especially unsatisfactory; her reactions may not have been out of character per say, but it's frustrating that we didn't get to understand her motivations. It wasn't my favourite ending, but at least it did make me interested in Joe's future and could have left me thinking more about the book. However, turning the last page and reading Smith's Apologies felt a bit of a slap in the face. To be honest, it felt like she was diminishing and dismissing the whole contents of the book and Joe's conviction at the end. It made me feel like continuing to mull over the ideas on the book would be silly, which is certainly not the feeling an author should leave her readers with.
Despite the somewhat jarring conclusion, I did quite enjoy the book and would indeed recommend it to fellow Shakespeare enthusiasts. It was quite an enjoyable read.
I really enjoyed the way Smith wrote the scholarly process of Joe's research. As a linguistics student, I loved how realistically his theory and search progressed. It's very true-to-life that Joe's expectations and hopes weren't easily proved in his findings, and that his mindset had to change as he found out more about the key historical figures.
I'm not a huge history buff myself; the majority of what I know about Victorian politics came from (no joke) a Shakespeare course I took in university. This book, though, did a great job of displaying and speculating on the facts of the times. As the author notes in her Apologies & Acknowledgements, the facts are presented within a fictitious and biased framework; but I still learned quite a lot of new information. The book is a minor lesson in Victorian politics wrapped up a wonderful mystery story.
My main issue with this book was the ending. I understand why the author chose to write it the way she did, but it felt like it was a poor way to end things. Posy's role was especially unsatisfactory; her reactions may not have been out of character per say, but it's frustrating that we didn't get to understand her motivations. It wasn't my favourite ending, but at least it did make me interested in Joe's future and could have left me thinking more about the book. However, turning the last page and reading Smith's Apologies felt a bit of a slap in the face. To be honest, it felt like she was diminishing and dismissing the whole contents of the book and Joe's conviction at the end. It made me feel like continuing to mull over the ideas on the book would be silly, which is certainly not the feeling an author should leave her readers with.
Despite the somewhat jarring conclusion, I did quite enjoy the book and would indeed recommend it to fellow Shakespeare enthusiasts. It was quite an enjoyable read.
April 3, 2009
Sarah Smith’s Chasing Shakespeares was a fun read; I read it all in one day (when I should have been working/sleeping). It was described on the back as “A first-rate thriller…” and it was that, but my favorite parts were the parts that took place in London and Stratford, because they described places I have been and want very badly to go back to.
Joe Roper is a grad student working with an archival collection of Elizabethan documents at Northeastern University in Massachusetts. Joe has wanted to write a biography of Shakespeare since he was 9 years old, so going through this collection is supposed to be a dream come true - except that all of the materials Joe is looking at in the collection are fakes. When Joe comes across a letter that just might be genuine, he gets excited, until he reads it closely and sees that it may prove that William Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the plays attributed to him.
On to the scene bursts Posy Gould, who wants a piece of the archival action, too. Posy is a Harvard grad student looking for a thesis topic and something to make her famous in her own right, instead of always being identified with her rich, Hollywood-producer father. Posy suggests that the two go to London and see an expert to determine if the letter is a fake or not and to do some reserach on Shakespeare and the authorship controversy. It’s the chance of a lifetime, so Joe agrees.
The rest of the book takes place in England with Joe and Posy looking to solve the literary mystery. I won’t say anything more; I don’t want to give anything away! And while I greatly enjoyed the mystery part of the book, my most favorite parts were the descriptions of London and of Stratford. As a first-time visitor to London, Joe is enthralled with everything, and he totally reminds me of how I felt when I went to England in 2004. Indeed, reading the book made me want to go back to England more badly than I have done for awhile. I can’t think of better praise than that!
Joe Roper is a grad student working with an archival collection of Elizabethan documents at Northeastern University in Massachusetts. Joe has wanted to write a biography of Shakespeare since he was 9 years old, so going through this collection is supposed to be a dream come true - except that all of the materials Joe is looking at in the collection are fakes. When Joe comes across a letter that just might be genuine, he gets excited, until he reads it closely and sees that it may prove that William Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the plays attributed to him.
On to the scene bursts Posy Gould, who wants a piece of the archival action, too. Posy is a Harvard grad student looking for a thesis topic and something to make her famous in her own right, instead of always being identified with her rich, Hollywood-producer father. Posy suggests that the two go to London and see an expert to determine if the letter is a fake or not and to do some reserach on Shakespeare and the authorship controversy. It’s the chance of a lifetime, so Joe agrees.
The rest of the book takes place in England with Joe and Posy looking to solve the literary mystery. I won’t say anything more; I don’t want to give anything away! And while I greatly enjoyed the mystery part of the book, my most favorite parts were the descriptions of London and of Stratford. As a first-time visitor to London, Joe is enthralled with everything, and he totally reminds me of how I felt when I went to England in 2004. Indeed, reading the book made me want to go back to England more badly than I have done for awhile. I can’t think of better praise than that!
August 2, 2016
First off, I reserve the right to come back and make this five stars.
I mostly loved this book, which isn't in my usual line. I'm also not a big Shakespeare fan ... he has some gorgeous speeches and could turn a phrase but the sonnets aren't my cuppa, and a lot of his plays I flat out don't think are interesting or enjoyable. They are Big L Literature, though, and the canon-weavers have determined that he's the best of the best.
This book tugs determinedly at loose threads of the tapestry woven up around him; in the afterword, the author describes herself beginning this book not willing to give two minutes' thought to the question of whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare; I was the same. I probably still won't because I'm not swooning over the Bard of Avon, but I will own up to the fact that Sarah Smith wove an awfully appealing story around another potential candidate for the honors. It's a literary whodunit, a romance and a damned fun read, with a treatise on authority, authorship and authenticity running through it. So why not five stars?
The missing star is for Posey Gould, who is a weakly finished character -- to stretch the tapestry analogy, the frayed knot in the cloth.
Still, I liked the book a lot & would recommend it.
I mostly loved this book, which isn't in my usual line. I'm also not a big Shakespeare fan ... he has some gorgeous speeches and could turn a phrase but the sonnets aren't my cuppa, and a lot of his plays I flat out don't think are interesting or enjoyable. They are Big L Literature, though, and the canon-weavers have determined that he's the best of the best.
This book tugs determinedly at loose threads of the tapestry woven up around him; in the afterword, the author describes herself beginning this book not willing to give two minutes' thought to the question of whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare; I was the same. I probably still won't because I'm not swooning over the Bard of Avon, but I will own up to the fact that Sarah Smith wove an awfully appealing story around another potential candidate for the honors. It's a literary whodunit, a romance and a damned fun read, with a treatise on authority, authorship and authenticity running through it. So why not five stars?
The missing star is for Posey Gould, who is a weakly finished character -- to stretch the tapestry analogy, the frayed knot in the cloth.
Still, I liked the book a lot & would recommend it.
June 4, 2009
Hmm. Chasing Shakespeares: A Novel, by Sarah Smith, is not a book that improves on the second read. When I first read this book, about four years ago, I so enjoyed it that I bought a copy for my mother for her birthday. And yes, on this second read, I was still quite interested by Ms. Smith's marshalling of historical facts (?) to fit the theory that a man called the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays, and not a glover named William Shakespeare from Stratford.
But beyond that: oh dear. Clunky characters and wooden prose. And, unintentionally, some tech-based hilarity that even I could grasp. Ms. Smith's book was published in 2000, and her characters are very very very tech savy. I learned about something called a CD-ROM. I also had to laugh when Ms. Smith used the device of having one of the characters, Posy, order a ridiculously complicated coffee drink. This equally clunky signifier was clearly meant to show me, the reader, that Posy was sophisticated, rich, and superficial. I saw that done much more deftly (years and years ago) in the Steve Martin movie L.A. Story.
Final judgment? I'm not buying this book for anyone else for her birthday.
But beyond that: oh dear. Clunky characters and wooden prose. And, unintentionally, some tech-based hilarity that even I could grasp. Ms. Smith's book was published in 2000, and her characters are very very very tech savy. I learned about something called a CD-ROM. I also had to laugh when Ms. Smith used the device of having one of the characters, Posy, order a ridiculously complicated coffee drink. This equally clunky signifier was clearly meant to show me, the reader, that Posy was sophisticated, rich, and superficial. I saw that done much more deftly (years and years ago) in the Steve Martin movie L.A. Story.
Final judgment? I'm not buying this book for anyone else for her birthday.
August 13, 2016
Like many other Shakespearean fans, I cannot help but be intrigued by the question of who really wrote the plays, the "birther" phenomenon. This book takes a look at this provocative idea with a fictionalized approach. But like an earlier reviewer, I felt that the author wasn't quite sure whether she was writing fiction or non-fiction as the book would vacillate between the two. Sometimes, there were too many primary references as if it were a term paper and the author was proving her thesis that Oxford was the author and not Will, the glover's son. I thought her writing was the best when she was describing the countryside, castles, and even the gritty side of London. The descriptions drew me in and kept my attention. I also thought the ending was a bit too ambiguous for my taste, was the letter really a forgery or was it stolen by Posy and company, why was Joe dropped so quickly by his professor, where will he end up, with Mary Cat. Maybe it just reflects the ambiguity about the authorship and whether pursuing the puzzle just leads to an unsatisfying conclusion. The real power is in the words and the legacy of the plays.
February 11, 2013
As the title suggests, the plot of Chasing Shakespeares focuses on the "who wrote Shakespeare" controversy. It's an intriguing book with fascinating historical information. The real wonder of the story is the protagonist, Joe Roper, who perseveres in finding evidence that the Earl of Oxford might have written the plays, even though he really wants Shakespeare, the man from Stratford, to have written them. He also perseveres in spite of the annoying habits of Posy, his fellow traveler and Shakespeare searcher, who says "so" so many times you want to bash her on the head with a hefty copy of The Complete Works of Shakespeare (making sure of course that it's not your favorite copy).
I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
April 18, 2014
I really enjoyed Smith's narrator's first visit to London and Stratford, since I will do that in the fall. His descriptions of the city and the village were my favorite parts of the book, even though I know I will be the ultimate goggle-eyed tourist when I go. I promise, however, that when I visit Westminster, I will not ask the locations of Shakespeare or Queen Elizabeth and her husband's graves. The literary quest were far more readable and interesting than Possession (the Mann Booker winner, which bored me to tears). I loved the passages by Shakespeare strewn throughout, and the authorship question was intriguing. To me the questioning of Shakespeare is sort of like questioning the creation of Earth. It doesn't really matter who did it. Its beauty is just there to enjoy.
March 15, 2008
It took me a little while to remember the names of the Earl of Oxford, etc. when they were referenced, but the author has a handy note at the beginning of the book listing the dukes/earls and all of the names they went by (including their own names). Once I got past keeping them tidy in my mind, it was a good read.
Yes, Posy is an unlikely character, but I understand that she's needed to get things moving as they need to. She's also annoying.
The slightly ambiguous ending left a little something to be desired, hence 4 instead of 5 stars.
Yes, Posy is an unlikely character, but I understand that she's needed to get things moving as they need to. She's also annoying.
The slightly ambiguous ending left a little something to be desired, hence 4 instead of 5 stars.
March 28, 2008
I loved this book because it made me feel part of the story. The main characters of Chasing Shakespeare’s are Joe and Posy. In this book you learn about Shakespeare and his life and his friends. You are capture by the way they learn about Shakespeare but in a fun way. In this book you are inside an adventure and not in a mission. I like the way the author includes love, fun, art and poetic justice. Is a book that true stuff and put you in trying to figure if Shakespeare was ever in Italy with Joe and Posy.
April 22, 2011
A different style of novel from the author of The Vanished Child. Written in a contemporary voice, from the perspective of a graduate student researching the Shakespeare identity theories, it's not as compelling as Smith's other work. Perhaps that's to be expected, seeing as this is dealing merely ("merely"!) with a dead man's identity and the academic future of a doctoral student, rather than child abuse, murder, and repressed memory. Still, if you want a really well-researched, well-told intro to the authorship controversy, this would be a good place to start!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews