Why do you think William Shakespeare goes unnamed in the novel? Would you have recognized him as the great playwright without knowing this was his family's story?

Why do you think William Shakespeare goes unnamed in the novel? From how he is described—as a Latin tutor, with a diminutive stature, et cetera—would you have recognized him as the great playwright without knowing this was his family's story?

I think the author wanted this story to be about Agnes and not to revolve around Shakespeare, though he certainly was an important part. Yes, I think any reader would have known it was about Shakespeare given the title of the book. There have been many books recently bringing attention to the wife of a famous man, and it’s fascinating to discover what they bring to the overall story. Recently I read The Magnificent Lives of Marjorie Post, plus there have been books about Einstein’s first wife and of course, Ann Morrow Lindbergh.

I agree the story was centered on the whole family, Agnes in particular and I think everyone would know it was Shakespeare. The name Will was used a few times. Mentioning that the father was a glove maker was what made me certain it was about Shakespeare.

I agree that the author wanted this book to be about Agnes. I also agree that due to the name of the book readers would know that the young man Agnes falls in love with is William Shakespeare. I was so taken with her personality that I now want to read more books about her.

I knew the husband was Shakespeare after I read the book jacket and the quotes and descriptions on the cover and at the beginning of the book, so I can't really answer this question.

I, too, knew before starting the novel that it was about Shakespeare. With Hamnet being so close to Hamlet, I think the title may have given it away as well. If not for those two things, though, I really doubt I'd have known until maybe late in the book.

I think this was smart of the author. Many of us have preconceived ideas of what Shakespeare was like, and by leaving him unnamed the author was able to give him more shape rather than just spout what everyone already knows about him. It made the novel feel fresh, more like historical fiction and less like a fictionalized biography.

I think the author intended us to look at the families relationships particularly in dealing with love and loss, for those familiar with the famous playwright and his play, you would recognize who it probably was but it wasn’t necessary to know to understand the stories important topics

It was unnecessary to name the father of Hamnet - we all know who it is - and it gave the story some freedom to pursue the family's story. I liked the idea that Anne - sorry Agnes - had some special talents of her own that fascinated Will. It may be fiction, but it gave depth to their relationship that we could not previously even imagine. The " second-best bed " explanation was especially lovely and deeply moving.

The story is, of course, about Agnes and the family, more than the playwright. Not being a particular Shakespeare fan, still I assumed from the title that this would be about him. It became pretty obvious early on that the Latin teacher would become the great playwright. The subtitle "A Novel of the Plague" would actually be more to the point, but might not sell as many books. Who would buy it with that as primary title? I enjoyed the story and the development of Agnes from weird village girl to wife and mother, and village healer.

Not sure, but perhaps to focus the reader's attention to him as a husband and father rather than a London luminary. Also to have us see the story through the perspective of the families in Stratford. He wasn't there very often so he was without name, rather he was Agnes' husband, Mary's son, Bartholomew's brother-in-law, Hamnet's father.
\
I may be obtuse but other than the book's title I would not have associated it with Shakespeare.

I knew from promotional material when the book was first published that it was about Shakespeare. But when I realized he was never named in the book, I started wondering how soon I would have recognized Shakespeare just from the clues in the book. The fact that his father was a glover was a clue, as were the names of his children.

Leaving him unnamed, shifts the focus from him to Agnes and the rest of his family.

Because I knew it was about Shakespeare, the descriptions of Agnes with her falcon took me back to the time I visited Anne Hathaway's farm. They still do falconry demonstrations there.

By not naming Shakespeare O'Farrell was able to put more emphasis on Agnes and the family. But from the book caption and such, I knew it was about Shakespeare but yet the story seemed to dwell more on the family.

By not naming Shakespeare outright the story can easily shift between characters without a need to focus too much on the famous individual in the family, and without feeling like the author should get back to "that" story. During the earlier part of the novel telling some of the backstory about his life before he found acclaim as a playwright, I would not have necessarily figured out immediately that it was Shakespeare's life being described.

By leaving William Shakespeare unnamed the focus remains on Agnes as it should be. Everyone else in the story would take a backseat to him. As written, readers can see how important the other characters are.

I didn't think there was any reason for it as the name Hamnet was so close to Hamlet. Also, I think it was the author's strategy to give you hints as to who he was, which they did a good job.

William Shakespeare was a secondary character in the novel and by leaving him unnamed he remained ancillary rather than the focus of the novel. Although Agnes is the central character, titling the book Hamnet gives homage to main storyline of the book and events related to his character.

Yes, I would have know it was Shakespeare. I feel the author wanted us to focus on Agnes as the main character and her change as the story progressed. Adding Shakespeare’s name would have been the focal point and not Agnes. Great tactic not to name him.

I would not have known it was Shakespeare until near the end. I really liked that story development.

I liked how the author set this up so that we focus on Agnes and other family members. I didn't know that Hamlet and Hamnet were interchangeable until I read the early portion of the book.

I think that Shakespeare isn’t identified other than by his relationship to his family and the people of Stratford because that focused the story on Agnes and the children. It also represented his distance from his family for most of their lives.
I knew that the husband was Shakespeare from the book’s initial publication information.

I think it was clear from the early pages that the father was Shakespeare. Since I’ve studied Shakespeare and was familiar with the name Hamnet, it seemed an easy conclusion. The backstory about the family, the glovemaker, place and time…filled in and made Shakespeare more fully rounded.

I guess I am the outlier here and the least intellectual. I have never read Hamlet and I didn't know this was about Shakespeare until the very end of the book. While I was reading I kept trying to figure out the relationship between Hamnet and the Shakespeare play...duh!

I specifically wanted to read the book because I had read it was about Shakespeare. But I loved that while he was very important to the plot, he was not central. Shakespeare scholars constantly bring up his mysterious life in London away from his family. The novel makes his distance plausible but maintains his very strong human bonds with his wife and children. I hope it was so.