What do you think?
Rate this book
Gertrude and Claudius
Gertrude and Claudius are the “villains” of he the killer of Hamlet’s father and usurper of the Danish throne; she his lusty consort, who marries Claudius before her late husband’s body is cold. But in this imaginative “prequel” to the play, John Updike makes a case for the royal couple that Shakespeare only hinted at. Gertrude and Claudius are seen afresh against a background of fond intentions and family dysfunction, on a stage darkened by the ominous shadow of a sullen, erratic, disaffected prince. “I hoped to keep the texture light,” Updike said of this novel, “to move from the mists of Scandinavian legend into the daylight atmosphere of the Globe. I sought to narrate the romance that preceded the tragedy.”
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
80 people are currently reading
1793 people want to read
About the author
John Updike
862 books2,432 followersJohn Hoyer Updike was an American writer. Updike's most famous work is his Rabbit series (Rabbit, Run; Rabbit Redux; Rabbit Is Rich; Rabbit At Rest; and Rabbit Remembered). Rabbit is Rich and Rabbit at Rest both won Pulitzer Prizes for Updike. Describing his subject as "the American small town, Protestant middle class," Updike is well known for his careful craftsmanship and prolific writing, having published 22 novels and more than a dozen short story collections as well as poetry, literary criticism and children's books. Hundreds of his stories, reviews, and poems have appeared in The New Yorker since the 1950s. His works often explore sex, faith, and death, and their inter-relationships.
He died of lung cancer at age 76.
He died of lung cancer at age 76.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 258 reviews
December 3, 2016
In grade 11 English, I read Hamlet for the first time. Back then, Shakespeare wasn't an author I independently found brilliant -- he was just a guy I felt I had to love (you know that kid -- the one who loves English class and passionately devotes themselves to the classics because they don't have their own taste yet? that was meee). Still: I had my favourites. And I remember, vividly, reading Hamlet and watching Kenneth Branagh's adaptation in my last November of high school ---- and falling, so hard. I wrote my assignments ravenously: obsessed with Ophelia's character, mad for her relationship with Hamlet, aching for the language. Much more than a favourite, even then.
As with all of Shakespeare's bests: Hamlet returns to me, often without expectation or warning. At first, it came to me for Ophelia, for Hamlet and Ophelia, for the darkness and the angst of both. Later: the existentialism, the allegory. Always the language. The power of this play, of all his plays, rests in the stunning possibility of the text: the throwaway lines that run rampant, allowing for every charged little heart-head combination to play at interpretation. And you can't genuinely read Hamlet without your heart.
Textual possibilities, sometimes, get realized -- sometimes in academia, sometimes in conversation, sometimes in fanfiction. And my friends, if you for a hot minute do not consider Gertrude & Claudius (or Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, for that matter) fanfiction: you have no idea what fanfiction actually is. John Updike: take it to A03. You're a fic writer. And this exploration of possibility, this gorgeous writing, this alternate perspective, this elaboration, this explosion of beauty: this is fanfiction at its goddamn finest.
Because, you see, here's the thing: I finished this book vibrating, prisming, eyes wide at 1am. Thinking to myself I know what comes next. My entire interpretation of the play shifted sideways. Desperate to teach it differently this year. And if it hadn't been about Hamlet's mother, his uncle, if it hadn't subtly referenced quotations and moments from a play so meditated upon? If it had just been a story about a torrid middle-aged affair in medieval Denmark, would it have left such a bleeding goddamn wound? Maybe: it is objectively gorgeous, the characterization fantastic, the tension between Gertrude and Claudius fucking palpable. But -- I doubt it. This book sparkles on its own, but Hamlet spins it into a supernova.
This isn't a bad thing. It's just something to acknowledge: no review is objective. What we have loved and hated always leads us one way or another.
And of course -- these things change. I am 30: no longer a little 16-year-old snorting at Hamlet's wordplay and eyes-wide at Ophelia's madness. They still twist in me, will always twist in me -- but I am older. The possibilities of Gertrude, of Claudius, of their story -- so artfully, so heartwrenchingly, articulated here -- are starting to twist more profoundly.
This book stands on its own, without question, and Updike: can't wait for more of ya shit, buddy.
But I come away glassy-eyed at the genius of Shakespeare: his plays laid bare by centuries of exploration, and the realization that, actually, we've barely taken off the winter coat.
And guys, fanfiction ---- don't you sell that shit short: it's doing some heavy, gorgeous work.
Soundtrack: Beautiful Machines' Bridges album, specifically "Real Love."
As with all of Shakespeare's bests: Hamlet returns to me, often without expectation or warning. At first, it came to me for Ophelia, for Hamlet and Ophelia, for the darkness and the angst of both. Later: the existentialism, the allegory. Always the language. The power of this play, of all his plays, rests in the stunning possibility of the text: the throwaway lines that run rampant, allowing for every charged little heart-head combination to play at interpretation. And you can't genuinely read Hamlet without your heart.
Textual possibilities, sometimes, get realized -- sometimes in academia, sometimes in conversation, sometimes in fanfiction. And my friends, if you for a hot minute do not consider Gertrude & Claudius (or Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, for that matter) fanfiction: you have no idea what fanfiction actually is. John Updike: take it to A03. You're a fic writer. And this exploration of possibility, this gorgeous writing, this alternate perspective, this elaboration, this explosion of beauty: this is fanfiction at its goddamn finest.
Because, you see, here's the thing: I finished this book vibrating, prisming, eyes wide at 1am. Thinking to myself I know what comes next. My entire interpretation of the play shifted sideways. Desperate to teach it differently this year. And if it hadn't been about Hamlet's mother, his uncle, if it hadn't subtly referenced quotations and moments from a play so meditated upon? If it had just been a story about a torrid middle-aged affair in medieval Denmark, would it have left such a bleeding goddamn wound? Maybe: it is objectively gorgeous, the characterization fantastic, the tension between Gertrude and Claudius fucking palpable. But -- I doubt it. This book sparkles on its own, but Hamlet spins it into a supernova.
This isn't a bad thing. It's just something to acknowledge: no review is objective. What we have loved and hated always leads us one way or another.
And of course -- these things change. I am 30: no longer a little 16-year-old snorting at Hamlet's wordplay and eyes-wide at Ophelia's madness. They still twist in me, will always twist in me -- but I am older. The possibilities of Gertrude, of Claudius, of their story -- so artfully, so heartwrenchingly, articulated here -- are starting to twist more profoundly.
This book stands on its own, without question, and Updike: can't wait for more of ya shit, buddy.
But I come away glassy-eyed at the genius of Shakespeare: his plays laid bare by centuries of exploration, and the realization that, actually, we've barely taken off the winter coat.
And guys, fanfiction ---- don't you sell that shit short: it's doing some heavy, gorgeous work.
Soundtrack: Beautiful Machines' Bridges album, specifically "Real Love."
June 10, 2018
Premessa: non cercato, capitato per caso in casa mia e poi ruzzolato sul mio comodino.
Non male l'idea del prequel dell'Amleto, per il resto la solita storia di infedeltà coniugale; si lascia leggere, per carità, ma in giro se ne trovano a dozzine; consigliato solo agli amanti del genere.
Ultima osservazione di natura sociologica: vi si ritrova l'antico complesso d'inferiorità degli scandinavi nei confronti di noi mediterranei, ma, purtroppo per noi, anche questa è acqua passata.
Non male l'idea del prequel dell'Amleto, per il resto la solita storia di infedeltà coniugale; si lascia leggere, per carità, ma in giro se ne trovano a dozzine; consigliato solo agli amanti del genere.
Ultima osservazione di natura sociologica: vi si ritrova l'antico complesso d'inferiorità degli scandinavi nei confronti di noi mediterranei, ma, purtroppo per noi, anche questa è acqua passata.
November 11, 2023
An exceptionally well written story by Updike of the events leading up to Shakespeare's Hamlet. I read Hamlet almost sixty years ago and really didn't recall a lot about it but as I was reading Updike's book it all came back to me. He really brought the characters of Gertrude and Claudius come to life with their love affair and the reasoning behind the kings murder. An excellent read.
September 29, 2009
Entering Kornborg Castle in Denmark requires the visitor to not only approach the castle on foot, but to also cross two moats. It is after the first moat, the one with the swans, that Kornborg's purpose becomes manifest. It is quite clear that the purpose of the structure is not to be a castle but to be a fortress and to enforce the collection of sound duties for which it was built. The harsh fact of warfare greets the visitor with an absence. There was a beautiful fountain until the Swedes invaded and stole it (don't worry, plenty of things in Denmark were taken from the Swedes, so it all works out). Kornborg lacks the charm of a Renaissance palace such as Rosenberg Castle. It is stark. This is not to say the castle is not fascinating. Of particular interest to a visitor are the casements. Once a part of the castle that served as barracks, which constantly flooded, today the casements house pickled herring and Holger the Dane. Kornborg’s, and its town, claim to fame lie in their association with a famous work of literature, Hamlet, and the castle itself is better known as Helsingor Castle (Helsingor being the town).
The town capitalizes heavily on its connection with one of the world's most famous plays. There is Hamlet's well, Hamlet's tree, and Ophelia's grave, which is in a park that seems way too close to a casino. Strangely, she is also the only the grave there. Despite these relics, the town does not seem to embody the play. It is too charming, and not at all melancholy. But Kornborg Castle is a different story entirely. The castle breathes power and melancholy. Perhaps this is due to the connection to a fictional depressed prince. Perhaps it is due to the unpleasant living conditions that the soldiers had to suffer though, wading though ankle deep water in their sleeping quarters. More likely, it is due to the fact that Queen Caroline was imprisoned here after her coup against her husband, Christian VII, whose sanity was not stable and whose lover was Katrine with the Boots. Queen Caroline lost power, saw her lover beheaded, was imprisoned and never saw her son or daughter again. Eventually, she was sent into exile. That's not only sad, it's tragic.
Because of its starkness and mood, Kornborg suits the story of Hamlet perfectly. What better setting for a story of palace murder, incest, death, and sex?
Apparently, there are many better settings because very few adaptations seem to make use of the castle. Brannagh's excellent movie version of the play would've been out of place at Kornborg. Brannagh's Hamlet is too much of a Renaissance prince. What about Gibson, you ask? That was Medieval. True, but it lacked the Sound, which has become a part of the castle itself. And Olivier's? There is not enough room for the funeral procession at Kornborg.
John Updike, however, presents the story of Hamlet in such a way that it finally seems to take place in Kornborg Castle.
The plot of Updike's novel is concerned about what happen prior to the start of the famous play. He gives the reader the back story of Gertrude, Claudius, and Hamlet Sr. as well as bit more information about Polonius and Ophelia.
Updike uses the langue to capture the feeling and place. He melds Shakespeare with the original story. The book reads like the bastard child of Shakespeare and a scop. It is startling, but strangely enough it works.
The character that shines the most is Gertrude. Updike draws from Shakespeare's presentation but deepens the character. The reader sees her drafted into a marriage that she does not want, of her peace with that marriage, of her sleeping. The reader sees her awakened as a person, finally living instead of just being the cipher she is though Hamlet's eyes.
Claudius too is as close to redeemed as anyone can bring him. Updike paints him almost as a knight errant, whose feelings for Gertrude never seem in doubt. This matches the play, for Claudius loves Gertrude his afterword, Updike hints that he wrote the book in part to offer solutions to those puzzling questions of Hamlet, such as the age of Hamlet, the time of the story, as well as the cover up. Updike does this well and with a degree of believability. More importantly, he gets the attentive reader to think more deeply about the play, and challenges the more readily accepted and established view.de up until the end, where he decides he loves his life and power more (and then is killed). Additionally, Updike shows a man who is perhaps more like his brother than he realizes, and what power and the desire to keep it, can do.
Hamlet is present, though in a shadowy, forceful and threatening way. Here, Hamlet becomes the rotten aspect of Denmark. The book, like the play it draws from, is a tragedy, for the reader knows the final fate of all those involved. It is this tragic, futile, melancholy feeling that matches the castle of Kornborg so well. It is wonderful to read the story of Hamlet set in the correct place and time.
The town capitalizes heavily on its connection with one of the world's most famous plays. There is Hamlet's well, Hamlet's tree, and Ophelia's grave, which is in a park that seems way too close to a casino. Strangely, she is also the only the grave there. Despite these relics, the town does not seem to embody the play. It is too charming, and not at all melancholy. But Kornborg Castle is a different story entirely. The castle breathes power and melancholy. Perhaps this is due to the connection to a fictional depressed prince. Perhaps it is due to the unpleasant living conditions that the soldiers had to suffer though, wading though ankle deep water in their sleeping quarters. More likely, it is due to the fact that Queen Caroline was imprisoned here after her coup against her husband, Christian VII, whose sanity was not stable and whose lover was Katrine with the Boots. Queen Caroline lost power, saw her lover beheaded, was imprisoned and never saw her son or daughter again. Eventually, she was sent into exile. That's not only sad, it's tragic.
Because of its starkness and mood, Kornborg suits the story of Hamlet perfectly. What better setting for a story of palace murder, incest, death, and sex?
Apparently, there are many better settings because very few adaptations seem to make use of the castle. Brannagh's excellent movie version of the play would've been out of place at Kornborg. Brannagh's Hamlet is too much of a Renaissance prince. What about Gibson, you ask? That was Medieval. True, but it lacked the Sound, which has become a part of the castle itself. And Olivier's? There is not enough room for the funeral procession at Kornborg.
John Updike, however, presents the story of Hamlet in such a way that it finally seems to take place in Kornborg Castle.
The plot of Updike's novel is concerned about what happen prior to the start of the famous play. He gives the reader the back story of Gertrude, Claudius, and Hamlet Sr. as well as bit more information about Polonius and Ophelia.
Updike uses the langue to capture the feeling and place. He melds Shakespeare with the original story. The book reads like the bastard child of Shakespeare and a scop. It is startling, but strangely enough it works.
The character that shines the most is Gertrude. Updike draws from Shakespeare's presentation but deepens the character. The reader sees her drafted into a marriage that she does not want, of her peace with that marriage, of her sleeping. The reader sees her awakened as a person, finally living instead of just being the cipher she is though Hamlet's eyes.
Claudius too is as close to redeemed as anyone can bring him. Updike paints him almost as a knight errant, whose feelings for Gertrude never seem in doubt. This matches the play, for Claudius loves Gertrude his afterword, Updike hints that he wrote the book in part to offer solutions to those puzzling questions of Hamlet, such as the age of Hamlet, the time of the story, as well as the cover up. Updike does this well and with a degree of believability. More importantly, he gets the attentive reader to think more deeply about the play, and challenges the more readily accepted and established view.de up until the end, where he decides he loves his life and power more (and then is killed). Additionally, Updike shows a man who is perhaps more like his brother than he realizes, and what power and the desire to keep it, can do.
Hamlet is present, though in a shadowy, forceful and threatening way. Here, Hamlet becomes the rotten aspect of Denmark. The book, like the play it draws from, is a tragedy, for the reader knows the final fate of all those involved. It is this tragic, futile, melancholy feeling that matches the castle of Kornborg so well. It is wonderful to read the story of Hamlet set in the correct place and time.
March 1, 2020
Ενδιαφέρον και γι αυτούς που έχουν διαβάσει τον ΑΜΛΕΤ του Σαίξπηρ αλλά κι γι αυτούς που δεν τον έχουν διαβάσει. Η ιστορία της οικογένειας του Άμλετ πριν από το θεατρικό έργο του μεγάλου συγγραφέα. Η οικογένεια του Άμλετ μέσα από ένα ενδιαφέρον χρονικό της Δανίας αλλά και των γύρω σκανδιναβικών χωρών. Είναι καλό βιβλίο και μου κάνει εντύπωση που έχει περάσει, τουλάχιστον στην Ελλάδα, χωρίς ν΄ αφήσει κάποιο ουσιαστικό αποτύπωμα....
August 29, 2011
Gerutha marries Horwendil and has son Hamleth but falls in love with her husband's brother Feng. I mean, Geruthe/Horvendile/Hamblet/Fengon. I mean, Gertrude/Hamlet/Hamlet/Claudius. Why do their names keep switching, again?
I hadn't meant to go on a Hamlet fanfic kick, I swear. I'd only wanted to try reading Updike for the sake of being well-read. But the library only had the most recent Rabbit book. So I grabbed this one instead. Oy. I can't decide if this lets me off the hook from ever reading Updike again, or whether I chose a minor work/failure and really should give him a second try for fairness' sake.
The pretentiousness of the language in this book knows no bounds. I suppose he's trying to sound Shakespearean/Danish epic-y/literary all at the same time. It ends up with just these endless rolling phrases that will not stop despite your desperation to get to the end of a freaking paragraph.
Also deeply problematic is the repeated assertions that Gerutha does some action or feels a certain way because of her womanly nature. Over and over and over again, we're reminded that because she's female, she's inherently weak. Repeatedly we're told that she has trouble keeping one man in mind while another one is before her. Now, there's a certain degree that's historically accurate. But honestly, it's said so many times, by so many people including the narration, that I can't help but begin to feel that Updike genuinely believes that all women share a certain softness, warmness, motherliness, weakness that's inherent to all, interchangeable, women.
The weirdest part is the changing names. As time passes and Gerutha grows from a teenager to the mother of a thirty-year-old man, periodically everyone's names will shift with little or no explanation. At the same time, I feel like the language becomes slightly less overwrought and slightly more modern with each shift, to end in something more like a literary modern translation of Shakespeare instead of a ridiculously ornate attempt to sound like a badly written fantasy novel with too many literary flourishes. I suppose there's supposed to be a deep meaning here, as the Danish kingdom becomes less pre-medieval and more pre-Renaissance with the increase in knowledge being passed back from the universities. Or maybe it's that the story becomes less archaic-simplistic about a girl who marries a king and more "modern" about complex family drama. Honestly, though, it's just pretentious and annoying.
Unforgivably, though, this sheds no new light on the story for me. I feel like the reason to rewrite a classic work of literature from someone else's view is to bring a new perspective. There's nothing new here. Claudius killed his brother so he could have his brother's wife and crown; Gertrude screwed him anyway; Hamlet's a self-absorbed asshole. Yay. And?
I hadn't meant to go on a Hamlet fanfic kick, I swear. I'd only wanted to try reading Updike for the sake of being well-read. But the library only had the most recent Rabbit book. So I grabbed this one instead. Oy. I can't decide if this lets me off the hook from ever reading Updike again, or whether I chose a minor work/failure and really should give him a second try for fairness' sake.
The pretentiousness of the language in this book knows no bounds. I suppose he's trying to sound Shakespearean/Danish epic-y/literary all at the same time. It ends up with just these endless rolling phrases that will not stop despite your desperation to get to the end of a freaking paragraph.
Also deeply problematic is the repeated assertions that Gerutha does some action or feels a certain way because of her womanly nature. Over and over and over again, we're reminded that because she's female, she's inherently weak. Repeatedly we're told that she has trouble keeping one man in mind while another one is before her. Now, there's a certain degree that's historically accurate. But honestly, it's said so many times, by so many people including the narration, that I can't help but begin to feel that Updike genuinely believes that all women share a certain softness, warmness, motherliness, weakness that's inherent to all, interchangeable, women.
The weirdest part is the changing names. As time passes and Gerutha grows from a teenager to the mother of a thirty-year-old man, periodically everyone's names will shift with little or no explanation. At the same time, I feel like the language becomes slightly less overwrought and slightly more modern with each shift, to end in something more like a literary modern translation of Shakespeare instead of a ridiculously ornate attempt to sound like a badly written fantasy novel with too many literary flourishes. I suppose there's supposed to be a deep meaning here, as the Danish kingdom becomes less pre-medieval and more pre-Renaissance with the increase in knowledge being passed back from the universities. Or maybe it's that the story becomes less archaic-simplistic about a girl who marries a king and more "modern" about complex family drama. Honestly, though, it's just pretentious and annoying.
Unforgivably, though, this sheds no new light on the story for me. I feel like the reason to rewrite a classic work of literature from someone else's view is to bring a new perspective. There's nothing new here. Claudius killed his brother so he could have his brother's wife and crown; Gertrude screwed him anyway; Hamlet's a self-absorbed asshole. Yay. And?
January 5, 2014
It makes me smile when I read through some of the reviews for this book. People take a personal affront from Updike for even using beloved Hamlet as a backdrop. The ludicrously pretentious comments on the language, and motivations of characters.
Like all Updike novels, it is written beautifully. Never at any moment did Updike even attempt to sound like Shakespeare. How could he?
Really, I would recommend this book for people who haven't read Hamlet, or at least people not in love with it.
I have read Hamlet, in fact every Shakespeare play, which isn't my favorite. I find it fascinating to see what one the greatest American writers thought of Hamlet.
Long story short, it was an entertaining novel, that takes nothing away nor adds anything to the Shakespearian play, Hamlet.
Take it as it is people!
Like all Updike novels, it is written beautifully. Never at any moment did Updike even attempt to sound like Shakespeare. How could he?
Really, I would recommend this book for people who haven't read Hamlet, or at least people not in love with it.
I have read Hamlet, in fact every Shakespeare play, which isn't my favorite. I find it fascinating to see what one the greatest American writers thought of Hamlet.
Long story short, it was an entertaining novel, that takes nothing away nor adds anything to the Shakespearian play, Hamlet.
Take it as it is people!
March 11, 2016
Dazzling backstory to the Hamlet play
April 18, 2011
i was looking for something different than the modern novels i usually read and found it. i dont really know the story of Hamlet so was not preoccupied with the trajectory of the characters but was intrigued that this was a prequel to the famous Shakespeare story. the characters in this northern european kingdom, transitioning from paganism to christianity, are not fully developed and are more like actors on a stage (fittingly). Updike's beautiful prose evokes a tragic castle in a far away time and land of cold, low light on the bogs where kings and queens try to create their own destinies but are burdened to follow the cruel, fatal steps of so many royal lineages. short, fun read; beautifully spun language.
October 29, 2007
If you have ever read Updike, his plots are seldom far from his penchant adultery/struggle between moral confines and open sexuality. Which is why you don't read Updike for his plots - you read him almost entirely for his style. He's a wordsmith, who takes time with every turn of phrasing. It makes him a tiresome read for any but those who appreciate linguistic play just for its cleverness. Presumptuous, but still, well deserving of its accolades.
February 10, 2025
I actually mostly disagree with Updike's interpretation of what happened in the events before Hamlet, but this imaginative prequel was so breathtaking that I need to give it five stars. Updike seamlessly changes his normal prose style to match the now antiquated prose of Shakespeare's Hamlet, which is an impressive feat in and of itself. And he also changes the character's names in each part of the book, a bold choice that reflects the evolution of the traditional Danish tale, an interesting and effective homage to literary history. This was entertaining and fleshed out, drawing from some of the inconsistencies in Shakespeare's play, and the purpose, I believe, isn't to add anything to the play's understanding; it's just fun.
May 2, 2020
A literary treat not to be missed, Updike's Gertrude and Claudius begins the Hamlet story when his mother, at age 16, is forced by her father the king, to marry a neighboring noble -- a brutal, but effective warrior and leader. It's a political marriage, that makes the groom the heir apparent. She objects, but obeys -- such is her duty. He treats her roughly, but passionately; and she, despite learning to enjoy his forceful pleasure, feels less than loved by him.
The story is told in three parts, in each of which the main characters take on new names, as the political and social environment in Denmark changes, and in keeping with the layers of legend on which the Hamlet story is built. Gerutha becomes Geruthe, then Gertrude. Her father is first called Rorik, then Rodericke. Her first husband changes from Horwendil to Horwendile to Hamlet (the elder). His brother goes from Feng, to Fengon to Claudius. The son's name evolves from Amleth to Hamblet to Hamlet (the younger). Meanwhile the Lord Chamberlain shifts from Corambus to Corambis to Polonius.
Part 1 begins in the crude and bloody medieval world of Vikings. The kingdom is nominally Christian, having recently been converted by order of a recent king, as a political ploy, to ally them with the Holy Roman Empire. But old beliefs are still strong. Far away, in Mediterranean lands visited by Feng, other belief systems and modes of living prevail.
In Part 2, the realm is more civilized, with more Christian notions of the role and duties of a king as God's anointed, and with Christian conscience tempering brute passion. Notions of courtly love are powerful, but not strong enough to keep Geruthe and Fengon apart.
Part 3 feels modern, with each character psychologically unique. In the relationship of Gertrude and Claudius, passionate love, personal ambition, and feelings of obligation and guilt are intertwined in interesting ways. The two of them feel very real. Their motivations and actions seem inevitable based on their well-established personalities.
On the one hand, this is a story of post-menopausal passion which stands on its own -- the uncontrollable love of a 59 year-old man for a 47-year-old woman.
On the other hand, this is a clever commentary on the Hamlet story, providing interesting and credible new insight into the relationship of Hamlet with his mother, father, and uncle, and the cultural environment in which his story unfolds.
Both Claudius and Gertrude are portrayed as justified in their actions. Their love has grown over many years. And Claudius (without the knowledge of Gertrude) murders the old king out of self-defense -- after the king discovered their affair and was ready to take his revenge on the two of them and also on Polonius, their co-conspirator. And it is Polonius who gives Claudius the information and the key his needs to catch the king alone at this desperate moment.
Here and there, Updike scatters delightful passages that play on what we all know about Shakespeare's Hamlet. For instance (p. 34), "As the powers of language and imagination descended upon him, the boy dramatized himself, and quibbled over everything, with parent, priest, and tutor. Only the disreputable, possibly demented jester, Yorik, seemed to win his approval: young Amleth loved a joke, tot he point of finding the entire world, as it was composed within Elsinore, a joke. Joking, it seemed to his mother, formed his shield for fending off solemn duty and heartfelt intimacy." Later, King Claudius provides this analysis of Hamlet's character and its origins (p. 189), "The King was stern and commanding; he loomed to the boy like a god, in armor, on horseback. Yorick was the closest to a human father young Hamlet had, but was a drunken rascal, and could act as mentor in nothing but antics and folly." Hence, Yorick, who never appears directly, comes across as Hamlet's Falstaff; and Claudius as a sensitive, understanding and even a loving step-father.
Meanwhile, Gertrude, too, seems to understand Hamlet, though her perspective is quite different from that of Claudius or of Polonius, who wants to force Hamlet and Ophelia apart in order to trick him into taking her more seriously, indirectly, deviously moving him in the direction of marriage. (pp. 188-189) "Gertrude impatiently heard in all this the doddering Lord Chamberlain's faith that human affairs could all be managed, manipulated with cogs and ratchets like millwheels and clocks, by a clever enough puppeteer. Her own sense was of tides, natural and supernatural, to which wisdom submits, seeking victory in surrender. The young lovers should be, she felt, left alone in desire's grip, to be lifted by it above the maze constructed by their elders. But in these opinions she knew Polonius and Claudius both would call her sentimental and irrational, yielding up all initiative to God, like a benighted peasant woman or infidel Muhammedan."
The book ends ironically at the point in the story where the play begins. "The era of Claudius had dawned; it was shine in Denmark's annals. He might, with moderation of his carousals, last another decade on the throne. Hamlet would be the perfect age of forty when the crown descended. He and Ophelia would have the royal heirs lined up like ducklings. Gertrude would gently fade, his saintly gray widow, into the people's remembrance... He had gotten away with it. All would be well."
The story is told in three parts, in each of which the main characters take on new names, as the political and social environment in Denmark changes, and in keeping with the layers of legend on which the Hamlet story is built. Gerutha becomes Geruthe, then Gertrude. Her father is first called Rorik, then Rodericke. Her first husband changes from Horwendil to Horwendile to Hamlet (the elder). His brother goes from Feng, to Fengon to Claudius. The son's name evolves from Amleth to Hamblet to Hamlet (the younger). Meanwhile the Lord Chamberlain shifts from Corambus to Corambis to Polonius.
Part 1 begins in the crude and bloody medieval world of Vikings. The kingdom is nominally Christian, having recently been converted by order of a recent king, as a political ploy, to ally them with the Holy Roman Empire. But old beliefs are still strong. Far away, in Mediterranean lands visited by Feng, other belief systems and modes of living prevail.
In Part 2, the realm is more civilized, with more Christian notions of the role and duties of a king as God's anointed, and with Christian conscience tempering brute passion. Notions of courtly love are powerful, but not strong enough to keep Geruthe and Fengon apart.
Part 3 feels modern, with each character psychologically unique. In the relationship of Gertrude and Claudius, passionate love, personal ambition, and feelings of obligation and guilt are intertwined in interesting ways. The two of them feel very real. Their motivations and actions seem inevitable based on their well-established personalities.
On the one hand, this is a story of post-menopausal passion which stands on its own -- the uncontrollable love of a 59 year-old man for a 47-year-old woman.
On the other hand, this is a clever commentary on the Hamlet story, providing interesting and credible new insight into the relationship of Hamlet with his mother, father, and uncle, and the cultural environment in which his story unfolds.
Both Claudius and Gertrude are portrayed as justified in their actions. Their love has grown over many years. And Claudius (without the knowledge of Gertrude) murders the old king out of self-defense -- after the king discovered their affair and was ready to take his revenge on the two of them and also on Polonius, their co-conspirator. And it is Polonius who gives Claudius the information and the key his needs to catch the king alone at this desperate moment.
Here and there, Updike scatters delightful passages that play on what we all know about Shakespeare's Hamlet. For instance (p. 34), "As the powers of language and imagination descended upon him, the boy dramatized himself, and quibbled over everything, with parent, priest, and tutor. Only the disreputable, possibly demented jester, Yorik, seemed to win his approval: young Amleth loved a joke, tot he point of finding the entire world, as it was composed within Elsinore, a joke. Joking, it seemed to his mother, formed his shield for fending off solemn duty and heartfelt intimacy." Later, King Claudius provides this analysis of Hamlet's character and its origins (p. 189), "The King was stern and commanding; he loomed to the boy like a god, in armor, on horseback. Yorick was the closest to a human father young Hamlet had, but was a drunken rascal, and could act as mentor in nothing but antics and folly." Hence, Yorick, who never appears directly, comes across as Hamlet's Falstaff; and Claudius as a sensitive, understanding and even a loving step-father.
Meanwhile, Gertrude, too, seems to understand Hamlet, though her perspective is quite different from that of Claudius or of Polonius, who wants to force Hamlet and Ophelia apart in order to trick him into taking her more seriously, indirectly, deviously moving him in the direction of marriage. (pp. 188-189) "Gertrude impatiently heard in all this the doddering Lord Chamberlain's faith that human affairs could all be managed, manipulated with cogs and ratchets like millwheels and clocks, by a clever enough puppeteer. Her own sense was of tides, natural and supernatural, to which wisdom submits, seeking victory in surrender. The young lovers should be, she felt, left alone in desire's grip, to be lifted by it above the maze constructed by their elders. But in these opinions she knew Polonius and Claudius both would call her sentimental and irrational, yielding up all initiative to God, like a benighted peasant woman or infidel Muhammedan."
The book ends ironically at the point in the story where the play begins. "The era of Claudius had dawned; it was shine in Denmark's annals. He might, with moderation of his carousals, last another decade on the throne. Hamlet would be the perfect age of forty when the crown descended. He and Ophelia would have the royal heirs lined up like ducklings. Gertrude would gently fade, his saintly gray widow, into the people's remembrance... He had gotten away with it. All would be well."
Read
March 4, 2025no me puedo creer que me haya tenido que leer una precuela horny de Hamlet para el Máster but here we are.
April 23, 2024
I've never seen a book manage to pull-off such strong poetical intrigues since Herman Hesse. I absolutely fell inlove with it.
August 2, 2019
Fan fiction can be hit or miss, but Updike's take on the lead-up to "Hamlet" did make me question a few aspects of the story. Is Claudius's primary motivation love or power? Or does it segue from one to the other? How much does Gertrude love King Hamlet? In the original text, all the vehement protestations of her love come from King Hamlet's ghost and Hamlet; it might be possible that they both misread the situation. I had also been under the impression that act I, scene ii, where Claudius addresses his kingdom and Hamlet, is the wedding reception itself. Updike challenges that assumption. The book also (possible spoiler) has Polonius involved and Gertrude completely unaware, answering questions my students often ask about who knows the truth.
One aspect of Gertrude and Claudius's relationship that is clarified, even if it's only Updike's take on it, is that it begins before King Hamlet's death. While the affair is happening, I find it interesting that Gertrude, presented throughout most of the book as one whose life is not truly her own, becomes the one in charge. I see it as getting to the point where she is using both men simultaneously to accomplish her own ends, a trait that is largely absent throughout most of the story.
The text itself, and Updike's borrowing from earlier versions of the story, is interesting (albeit occasionally unnecessarily wordy), and it provides a glimpse of King Hamlet & Claudius's histories as well as Gertrude's. In fact, the story should probably be called "GERTRUDE (... and Claudius)" as 90% of the book focuses on her and her life. It's also interesting to see more of the Norse influence on the story. The contrast between King Hamlet's power-centric mentality and Claudius's more cerebral approach is reminiscent of Thor and Loki. This is further supported by Claudius referring to his brother as "the Hammer" and Claudius's own castle being named Lokisheim.
One aspect of Gertrude and Claudius's relationship that is clarified, even if it's only Updike's take on it, is that it begins before King Hamlet's death. While the affair is happening, I find it interesting that Gertrude, presented throughout most of the book as one whose life is not truly her own, becomes the one in charge. I see it as getting to the point where she is using both men simultaneously to accomplish her own ends, a trait that is largely absent throughout most of the story.
The text itself, and Updike's borrowing from earlier versions of the story, is interesting (albeit occasionally unnecessarily wordy), and it provides a glimpse of King Hamlet & Claudius's histories as well as Gertrude's. In fact, the story should probably be called "GERTRUDE (... and Claudius)" as 90% of the book focuses on her and her life. It's also interesting to see more of the Norse influence on the story. The contrast between King Hamlet's power-centric mentality and Claudius's more cerebral approach is reminiscent of Thor and Loki. This is further supported by Claudius referring to his brother as "the Hammer" and Claudius's own castle being named Lokisheim.
March 15, 2011
3 1/2 stars
This Hamlet prequel is carefully and delicately crafted, and I loved Updike's portrayal of the characters. Since I'm in a Hamlet seminar, we've been playing around with the circumstances surrounding King Hamlet's death, and I'm fond of this version - that Claudius and Gertrude loved each other well before the murder. Updike made Claudius exactly as he should be - sexy and only as villainous as he needs to be. Gertrude was a bit too passive and lovable for my taste, as I've always thought of her as a beautiful powerful woman, yet I did like seeing her this way. I simply loved that Hamlet was a minor character, and that it was all told from Gertrude's point of view. I've really never liked Hamlet, and have always thought him whiny and self-serving - Laertes is my favorite character in the play. Oh, I almost forgot. Ophelia was perfect. Wispy and ethereal, with the ability to go insane quite easily. I also quite liked the subtle use of Hamlet quotes worked into the text. Brilliant.
This Hamlet prequel is carefully and delicately crafted, and I loved Updike's portrayal of the characters. Since I'm in a Hamlet seminar, we've been playing around with the circumstances surrounding King Hamlet's death, and I'm fond of this version - that Claudius and Gertrude loved each other well before the murder. Updike made Claudius exactly as he should be - sexy and only as villainous as he needs to be. Gertrude was a bit too passive and lovable for my taste, as I've always thought of her as a beautiful powerful woman, yet I did like seeing her this way. I simply loved that Hamlet was a minor character, and that it was all told from Gertrude's point of view. I've really never liked Hamlet, and have always thought him whiny and self-serving - Laertes is my favorite character in the play. Oh, I almost forgot. Ophelia was perfect. Wispy and ethereal, with the ability to go insane quite easily. I also quite liked the subtle use of Hamlet quotes worked into the text. Brilliant.
September 28, 2016
So much... unnecessary sex... SO MUCH.
Eh. Bland, unengaging, too straightforward and unsurprising to warrant any kind of emotion. It's basically every "bored housewife living in the lap of luxury hates her legitimate marriage and has an affair with the dangerous hotter guy" story, except Gertrude is even more annoying because she just flip-flops between the two men. When your female lead's most important attributes include "cares most for whatever man is in front of her," you've got a problem.
Did I mention that there's a lot of unnecessary sex and sex talk? Ugh.
Eh. Bland, unengaging, too straightforward and unsurprising to warrant any kind of emotion. It's basically every "bored housewife living in the lap of luxury hates her legitimate marriage and has an affair with the dangerous hotter guy" story, except Gertrude is even more annoying because she just flip-flops between the two men. When your female lead's most important attributes include "cares most for whatever man is in front of her," you've got a problem.
Did I mention that there's a lot of unnecessary sex and sex talk? Ugh.
May 19, 2021
Updike here creates an extended prologue to "Hamlet", with different characterizations of King Hamlet, Gertrude, and Claudius. Hamlet is a minor character in this story.
September 2, 2018
In High School I read Hamlet and a few other Shakespeare plays. The typical list was Merchant of Venice, Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliette and Hamlet. Since I wasn't in the AP English curriculum, we read one Shakespeare play per year. We were on our own if we wanted to read other of his plays. We never really had experience with making ourselves familiar with what happened before the action of the play began. The plays, as read, simply jump into the action. Who ever read the forward or afterwords at that time? Julius Caesar, for example, has practically no history written in it. It is action, action and "et tu Brutus" and some more action. There may be some hints at the beginning of the play about the historical timing of the play but again once the action starts the play proceeds on its own tempo and story line to the tragic end. The Merchant of Venice is self contained, but Romeo and Juliette could use some historical perspective on how the Montague and Capulet feud started. But, as I recall, the historical perspective of Shakespeare plays played no part in my struggles with Shakespeare, whose language was as difficult as any foreign language to understand at first reading. The only prequel that students pined for in English class was for the sexual adventures of Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale in the Scarlett Letter. A Shakespeare prequel was never demanded by the students, for as we all knew it would be tedious reading and extra testing material.
But now, half a century later, I picked up Gertrude and Claudius at a used bookstore. My first inclination for buying this copy was curiosity. Yes, the ghost tells Hamlet that his brother had killed him and then married his wife, but the ghost never really went into the details as to what happened. And besides, if Shakespeare had chosen to write the prequel, it probably would not have been told from the woman's perspective. I've heard of the play Gildenstern and Rosencratz are Dead, but have not seen or read the play (I will now probably seek it out). So, my thoughts went, why not another book from the perspective of the characters circling Hamlet. And yes, the book was fun to read.
Updike's language makes the reading a little challenging. But as I was struggling with some of the author's vocabulary I was impressed of the research he must have done to familiarize himself with medieval armor and dress, castle architecture, falconry. Updike even has a small section of his novel where he describes a piece of embroidery that the Queen Gertrude had started but never finished where he educates the reader on the different types of stitches that one might see in an art piece. I suggest that if you read the book that you keep Google, Youtube and a dictionary close at hand to understand the images that Updike attempts to convey to his reader. Tangentially understanding the description does add to the amount of time necessary to read the book.
As to the story, I thought that one could understand the frustrations that had to be experienced by people such as Gertrude who were not considered independent people but who were controlled by the men surrounding them. Gertrude would have preferred marrying for love, but such was not to be the case and was betrothed to Horwendil (Hamlet's father). Horwendil to Gertrude is not the man she wishes for, even though he is considered a savior of Denmark. He is older than she and seems cold and unromantic. Hamlet, obviously has to appear in the story, but he is relegated to the sidelines. We only seem to see glimpses of him, first as a precocious child and as he grows up as an unloving youth and finally as an adult who seems to have no interest in his own destiny as king and who is filled with anger at his mother's and Claudius union so soon after the death of his father. Gertrude, of course would be frustrated by a son who shows little love toward her and a husband who seems to show little interest in her as he goes about the business of ruling his kingdom. She is however, taken by Horwendil's brother Feng (Claudius) and later toward the end of her middle age strikes up an affair with him with the help of Corambis (Polonius) and other non Shakespearean characters. Once the affair starts, it is destined to be discovered by the king who, upon its discover, threatens to punish Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius and all who conspired. This forces Claudius' hand to protect his own survival - he kills the king thus saving himself and his accomplices. The scene in the garden where Claudius pours the poison in the King's ear and then makes his escape is very tense. Claudius has to commit the perfect crime, for he cannot be suspected by anyone and must maintain alibis in order for the court to accept the death of the king as an accident, in this case the bite of a serpent.
Everyone in this novel is somewhat sympathetic. Gertrude needs to be satisfied with love and she finds it in Claudius. Claudius seems to be a nice guy who tried to stem his love for Gertrude by escaping to other lands in order not be tempted by Gertrude but on his final return to Denmark sees himself still smitten by Gertrude who reciprocates his feeling and therefore are no longer able to ignore their feelings toward each other. And although she is no longer in her youth he still loves her. Polonius wants to help the queen, although at first is unaware that he is helping her in satisfying her lust for Claudius. And the king, even though he wants to exact revenge for being deceived, seems reluctant to mete out the punishment, but realizes that the consequences of the conspiracists must be met.
The book ends with Claudius having assumed the cloak of king and marrying his beloved Gertrude, Polonius having escaped death for being part of the conspiracy and Hamlet returning to the kingdom at the behest of Claudius and setting up the scene for Shakespeare's Hamlet.
All in all a good read.
But now, half a century later, I picked up Gertrude and Claudius at a used bookstore. My first inclination for buying this copy was curiosity. Yes, the ghost tells Hamlet that his brother had killed him and then married his wife, but the ghost never really went into the details as to what happened. And besides, if Shakespeare had chosen to write the prequel, it probably would not have been told from the woman's perspective. I've heard of the play Gildenstern and Rosencratz are Dead, but have not seen or read the play (I will now probably seek it out). So, my thoughts went, why not another book from the perspective of the characters circling Hamlet. And yes, the book was fun to read.
Updike's language makes the reading a little challenging. But as I was struggling with some of the author's vocabulary I was impressed of the research he must have done to familiarize himself with medieval armor and dress, castle architecture, falconry. Updike even has a small section of his novel where he describes a piece of embroidery that the Queen Gertrude had started but never finished where he educates the reader on the different types of stitches that one might see in an art piece. I suggest that if you read the book that you keep Google, Youtube and a dictionary close at hand to understand the images that Updike attempts to convey to his reader. Tangentially understanding the description does add to the amount of time necessary to read the book.
As to the story, I thought that one could understand the frustrations that had to be experienced by people such as Gertrude who were not considered independent people but who were controlled by the men surrounding them. Gertrude would have preferred marrying for love, but such was not to be the case and was betrothed to Horwendil (Hamlet's father). Horwendil to Gertrude is not the man she wishes for, even though he is considered a savior of Denmark. He is older than she and seems cold and unromantic. Hamlet, obviously has to appear in the story, but he is relegated to the sidelines. We only seem to see glimpses of him, first as a precocious child and as he grows up as an unloving youth and finally as an adult who seems to have no interest in his own destiny as king and who is filled with anger at his mother's and Claudius union so soon after the death of his father. Gertrude, of course would be frustrated by a son who shows little love toward her and a husband who seems to show little interest in her as he goes about the business of ruling his kingdom. She is however, taken by Horwendil's brother Feng (Claudius) and later toward the end of her middle age strikes up an affair with him with the help of Corambis (Polonius) and other non Shakespearean characters. Once the affair starts, it is destined to be discovered by the king who, upon its discover, threatens to punish Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius and all who conspired. This forces Claudius' hand to protect his own survival - he kills the king thus saving himself and his accomplices. The scene in the garden where Claudius pours the poison in the King's ear and then makes his escape is very tense. Claudius has to commit the perfect crime, for he cannot be suspected by anyone and must maintain alibis in order for the court to accept the death of the king as an accident, in this case the bite of a serpent.
Everyone in this novel is somewhat sympathetic. Gertrude needs to be satisfied with love and she finds it in Claudius. Claudius seems to be a nice guy who tried to stem his love for Gertrude by escaping to other lands in order not be tempted by Gertrude but on his final return to Denmark sees himself still smitten by Gertrude who reciprocates his feeling and therefore are no longer able to ignore their feelings toward each other. And although she is no longer in her youth he still loves her. Polonius wants to help the queen, although at first is unaware that he is helping her in satisfying her lust for Claudius. And the king, even though he wants to exact revenge for being deceived, seems reluctant to mete out the punishment, but realizes that the consequences of the conspiracists must be met.
The book ends with Claudius having assumed the cloak of king and marrying his beloved Gertrude, Polonius having escaped death for being part of the conspiracy and Hamlet returning to the kingdom at the behest of Claudius and setting up the scene for Shakespeare's Hamlet.
All in all a good read.
December 6, 2025
j'ai cru que j'allais jamais finir ce livre il est si ennuyant serieux !! apres 1 mois et (presque) demi dessus j'ai enfin fini et il m'inspirait trop de malaise pour que je le lise alors que je l'ai toujours gardé dans mon sac.. Gertrude se victimise tout au long du roman ce qui la rend tres franchement détestable je prefere l'interpreter comme étant calculatrice et ayant totalement conscience de ses choix, +je sais pas pourquoi Updike insistait à ajouter des scènes d'intimité qui sont juste gênantes voire répugnantes il abuse sur ses descriptions, + j'ai trouvé le rythme si lent et c'était pas une bonne chose car il se passait rien et ça a juste rendu ça encore plus ennuyant.. j'accepte l'interprétation de Claudius par contre qui est plus qu'acceptable. en plus j'ai du acheter le livre parce que la bu m'a forcée à le rendre apres 1 semaine d'emprunt. et ca m'a couté 13 pounds. il fallait que je me défoule quelque part
February 13, 2023
A prequel to Hamlet? Why not? This book is beautifully written and tackles many questions Shakespeare's modern audiences may have by telling the backstory through the eyes of Gertrude, Hamlet's mother. Of course, Updike has to draw on his own understanding of the play, so there is plenty to quibble with but overall an intriguing read that reminded me of many reasons why Hamlet continues to intrigue us. Gertrude, the mother of an adult son although barely past middle age herself, Claudius, the brother who gains a queen and also a kingdom but is plagued by guilt, Hamlet, the son who will risk his mother's life and his kingdom's peace on the word of a ghost.
February 28, 2019
3.5* I found this pretty enjoyable. I had to read this for a literature class, and i much enjoy this over any shakespeare play.
March 5, 2023
good for her
April 17, 2024
To read, or not to read, that is not a question...you must read it!
August 6, 2024
“Men must play with death, to make it less terrible when it comes.”
October 18, 2022
Hamlet, from his mother Gertrude's point of view. A luscious read. I may never view Shakespeare's original in the same way again.
August 23, 2011
I was surprisingly not impressed with this book. John Updike is generally creative and descriptive, but this book seemed to me a collection of cliches about medieval Denmark: the woman who feels trapped by her role, the younger brother jealous of the successful older one (they're even dark and blond, respectively), the novelty of objects from far-away countries, the isolation of royalty who are closest to their personal servants, tiresome elderly advisers - the list goes on. I had expected him to really take this prequel he's created to a Hamlet level, but there's nothing in here of the play's dark themes, it's deep questions of right and wrong, or its complicated characters. (He's even managed to reduce Ophelia to banality. King Hamlet worries that she's not quite stable, but her one brief appearance shows only normal nervous-teenage-girl behavior with a sort of weird look in her eye. Not that memorable.) I was disappointed that the characters - who he had a chance to develop here, since they're not all strongly defined in the original play - turned out to be totally predictable. He does do a good job of making Claudius a sympathetic character, and a preferable one to King Hamlet, without making you feel that Shakespeare wronged him (he still deserves to die). But there are lots of things here - the fragility that regicide brings to a court, the complicated relationship that Gertrude COULD have had with Hamlet (she avoids him here), and the political climate of Denmark that made Hamlet so indecisive - that he ignored or glossed over. I hate to criticize Updike, but I don't think this is his best work.
February 26, 2014
I feel like by not loving a John Updike book I will need to turn in my "literary snob" card. Alas...it's true.
I found this book rather boring and inane. I found the main character, Gertrude (called by her more original name Gerutha, to be annoying, simpering, and just dumb. I didn't like any of the characters, at all. Doesn't help that from the get go you know she sleeps with her husband's brother--generally not a likable thing to do.
This is what I hate about reading books that I know the plot outline. You spend the book waiting for the things you know will happen to happen instead of enjoying things as they happen. Why I read the book before the movie. Unless it's twilight, in which I avoid both.
I read somewhere that this was riddled with hidden meaning, how it was in three acts like the play, how it evolved, blah blah blah. All I know is that Gertrude was unlovable as a main character, Hamlet a distant whank, and the Claudius character, Feng, to be the only guy in the book I really enjoyed. He was this rather lovable scamp that I admit to loving whenever he came by. In fact, just by his presence, I found Gertrude less annoying. Until she went into detail about the naughtiness...then it was just weird. You don't expect tinges of 50 shades in Updike. Honestly, it felt like I was watching porn with my grandpa--not that I have, but that kind of level of "WHERE DO I LOOK TO AVOID LOOKING AT ANYTHING."
I think if I LOVED Hamlet as a play I would like this book. It's pretty much Shakespeare fan fic. But like all fan fic, you're probably better off sticking with the original.
I found this book rather boring and inane. I found the main character, Gertrude (called by her more original name Gerutha, to be annoying, simpering, and just dumb. I didn't like any of the characters, at all. Doesn't help that from the get go you know she sleeps with her husband's brother--generally not a likable thing to do.
This is what I hate about reading books that I know the plot outline. You spend the book waiting for the things you know will happen to happen instead of enjoying things as they happen. Why I read the book before the movie. Unless it's twilight, in which I avoid both.
I read somewhere that this was riddled with hidden meaning, how it was in three acts like the play, how it evolved, blah blah blah. All I know is that Gertrude was unlovable as a main character, Hamlet a distant whank, and the Claudius character, Feng, to be the only guy in the book I really enjoyed. He was this rather lovable scamp that I admit to loving whenever he came by. In fact, just by his presence, I found Gertrude less annoying. Until she went into detail about the naughtiness...then it was just weird. You don't expect tinges of 50 shades in Updike. Honestly, it felt like I was watching porn with my grandpa--not that I have, but that kind of level of "WHERE DO I LOOK TO AVOID LOOKING AT ANYTHING."
I think if I LOVED Hamlet as a play I would like this book. It's pretty much Shakespeare fan fic. But like all fan fic, you're probably better off sticking with the original.
January 1, 2014
Who hasn't been forced to read Hamlet before they were "ready" for it? Even in college I wasn't ready, so I got back to Shakespeare years later and I still felt bedeviled by its mysteries -- one of the most notorious being Gertrude's decision to marry Claudius. I was pleased, a bit tickled, to find out that none other than John Updike had written a fanfic prequel on that very topic. Of course being Updike it was entertaining, intelligent, and beautifully written. Heck, I also found it persuasive, and just as enlightening as any critical treatise that offers up the same theories, e.g. that Gertrude and Claudius lusted after each other for years before they got married. Updike also makes Polonius an accomplice.
Other ideas of Updike's, not all of which I agree with, but which are plausible: Hamlet is 30 (I think he's 20 tops), Hamlet is a dweeb, Hamlet's father was a vengeful tyrant, Claudius was every bit the second son and born loser, and Gertrude was stronger before she married Claudius than after.
As others note here, the language is something else. Updike is the consummate craftsman and shapeshifter. He speaks in the time and voice of his characters like no other writer I know of. I found the dense, ornate, antique style incredibly evocative -- but your mileage may vary. At any rate, the book is short.
Other ideas of Updike's, not all of which I agree with, but which are plausible: Hamlet is 30 (I think he's 20 tops), Hamlet is a dweeb, Hamlet's father was a vengeful tyrant, Claudius was every bit the second son and born loser, and Gertrude was stronger before she married Claudius than after.
As others note here, the language is something else. Updike is the consummate craftsman and shapeshifter. He speaks in the time and voice of his characters like no other writer I know of. I found the dense, ornate, antique style incredibly evocative -- but your mileage may vary. At any rate, the book is short.
March 1, 2021
This book was awful, which was disappointing because I love Shakespeare's Hamlet and I was really interested to see how Updike would handle the relationship between Gertrude and Claudius. Not very well, is the answer. Gertrude is insipid and unlikable, resentful of her son (how dare he not love her and her every action!) and is really pretty boring, as far as protagonists go. Beyond the tedious characters, though, is Updike's confusing mix of overblown dialogue and descriptions. ("Concupiscence" was his favorite word in this novel, repeated over and over and OVER.) He also described sex in such an off-putting, formal-yet-gross way (talking about Claudius's "rethickened horn" and describing Gertrude's, er, NETHER region as a "hairy hell-hole" actually had me laughing and retching in equal measure). The only part I really liked was when Updike brought out lines from Shakespeare's original play--which left me feeling like I should probably just close the book and reread the play.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 258 reviews