CDN$ 18.50
FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25.
Temporarily out of stock.
Order now and we'll deliver when available. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your account will only be charged when we ship the item.
Ships from and sold by Gift-wrap available.
Mistress Shakespeare has been added to your Cart
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

Mistress Shakespeare Paperback – Jan 5 2010

3.0 out of 5 stars 1 customer review

See all 10 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
New from Used from
Kindle Edition
"Please retry"
Paperback, Jan 5 2010
CDN$ 18.50
CDN$ 1.05 CDN$ 0.01

Harry Potter Coloring Book Deal
click to open popover

No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 448 pages
  • Publisher: NAL; Reprint edition (Jan. 5 2010)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0451229002
  • ISBN-13: 978-0451229007
  • Product Dimensions: 13.8 x 2.2 x 20.9 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 363 g
  • Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars 1 customer review
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #1,859,194 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  •  Would you like to update product info, give feedback on images, or tell us about a lower price?

Product Description

About the Author

Karen Harper is a New York Times– and USA Today–bestselling author whose novels, both historical and contemporary, have been published worldwide. A former college and high school English instructor, Harper now lives in Columbus, Ohio, and Naples, Florida, and frequently travels around the country to promote her books and speak about writing.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.



When I opened my door at mid-morn and saw the strange boy, Ishould have known something was wrong. I'd been on edge for threedays, not only because of the aborted rebellion against the queen, butbecause Will and I were at such odds over it—and over our ownrelationship.

"You be Mistress Anne Whateley?"

My stomach knotted. The boy was no street urchin but was wellattired and sported a clean face and hands. "Who wants to know?" Iasked as he extended something to me. He must have a missive sayingsomeone was ill. Or dead. Or, God save us, arrested.

"'Tis a tie from a fine pair of sleeves meant for you with othergarments too, once adorning Her Majesty's person," he recited ina high, singsong voice as he placed a willow-green velvet ribbonlaced with gold thread in my hand. In faith, it was beautiful workmanship.

"Didn't want me carrying all that through the streets," he added.

"'Tis all waiting for you at the Great Wardrobe nearby."

"I know where that is, lad, but have you not mistook me foranother? I have naught to do with the queen's wardrobe."

"Three figured brocade gowns, two fine sleeves with points andribbon ties, a butterfly ruff and velvet cloak for the Lord Chamberlain'splayers to use at the Globe Theatre. Since they be busy today, Iam to fetch you to receive the garb."

Of late certain nobles had given me donated garments to pass onto Will's fellows. I'd done many things for the players behind thescenes, as they put it. I'd once helped with costumes, and that at courttoo. In the disastrous performance but three days ago, I'd held thebook and prompted the players. I'd copied rolls for Will and his fellowsas well as taken his dictation. Many knew I had helped to providethe fine cushions that padded the hard wooden seats beneaththe bums of earls and countesses who graced the expensive galleryseats at the Globe. So mayhap the word was out that I was the Jack—or Jill—of all trades at the Globe.

Yet things from the queen's wardrobe? It was said she had morethan two thousand gowns, so I supposed she could spare a few. TheShakespeare and Burbage company had performed before the courtboth at Whitehall and Richmond, but after the catastrophe of theEssex Rebellion, three days ago, Her Grace was donating personalpieces to them? Surely, she had heard that they had staged Will'sRichard II, a play some whispered had intentionally incited the rebellionagainst her throne.

I'd told Will—another of our arguments—that promoting thattragedy at that time could be not only foolhardy but fatal, so thankthe good Lord the Virgin Queen valued her favorite plays and players.The promised garments must be an olive branch extended tothem. At least this would prove to Will once and for all somethingelse I'd argued for years. Elizabeth Tudor was a magnanimousmonarch, not one who should be dethroned or dispatched beforeGod Himself took the sixty-seven-year-old ruler from this life."One moment," I told the boy. "I must fetch my cloak, for thewind blows chill."

And blows ill, I thought, as I put away the pages of As You Like It,so-called a comedy, for it was larded with serious stuff. Will and I hadbeen feuding over what was love, and I was looking at a copy of hisrole as Jaques, the part he'd written for himself. Like this character,Will had been "Monsieur Melancholy" lately and, looking closer atJaques' lines, I'd been appalled by what I'd found. And though Willand I were not speaking right now, I meant to take it up with him too.More than once he'd stripped our tortured love bare for all London tosee, devil take the man, and he meant to do it again in this play!

"We're off straightaway then," the lad called over his shoulder asI followed him out the door into the courtyard. I lived in the largeBlackfriars precinct, but it was still a goodly walk to the Wardrobe.Ever since I'd set foot in London eighteen years before, I'd loved thisarea and Will did too. When we were young and even more foolishthan we were now at thirty-six years of age, Blackfriars was our fantasticalplace. We'd oft pretended we owned a fine brick mansion setlike a jewel in green velvet gardens among homes of the queen'snoblemen and gentry.

And to think that Gloriana herself had dined at Blackfriars earlierthis year in the Earl of Worcester's house! She'd been met at the riverand carried up the hill on a palanquin, I recalled with a sigh. AtBlackfriars too the queen's noble cousin, the Lord Chamberlain, theplayers' patron, lived in elegant style in Hunsdon House. Maybe, Ithought, his lordship had put in a good word for Will and his menin this Essex mess, so the queen had decided not only to forgive thembut to reward them.

Still hieing myself along apace with the boy down the public streetedging the area, I had to watch where I stepped to avoid the reekycentral gutter and the occasional pan of slop thrown from upperwindows. Others were abroad, but the streets still seemed greatlyforsaken in the wake of the ruined rebellion. The half-timbered facadesand their thatched brows frowned down on us, making thenarrow streets even more oppressive.

We entered through the eastern gatehouse I so admired. As ever,I craned my neck to savor the venerable grandeur of its three stories.Its diamond-paned windows gazed like winking eyes over the citywith fine views of mansions and their great privy gardens, old BridewellPalace across the Fleet to the west, the city walls and even thebustling Thames.

Will and I had once found the gatehouse's lower door ajar. Holdinghands, we'd tiptoed up the twisting stairs. Standing stripped ofgoods, the rooms were being whitewashed for new owners. Suchnarrow but elegant, sunny chambers!

"Next time 'tis offered, I'll buy it for you," Will had promisedgrandly, though he had but three pounds to his name after sendingmoney back to Stratford.

"Says you, the dreamer, my marvelous maker of fine fictions," I'dretorted. But our lovemaking had been very real, and I yet treasuredthe memory. Nor, I told myself, would I forget this one, for I'd neverbeen inside the vast structure that housed the queen's wardrobe, thatwhich was not of immediate need and kept at Whitehall Palace.

I'd adored Elizabeth of England from the first moment I'd seenher, gorgeously gowned, on a white horse, when I was but eleven andshe'd come to visit her favorite, the Earl of Leicester, near my homein Warwickshire.

The boy led me round the corner into an alcove hidden from thestreet. He knocked thrice upon it.

"Do you serve Her Majesty?" I asked while we waited.

"I serve those who serve her," he said only.

I meant to question him further, but the door creaked open andan old woman with face wrinkles like cobwebs stood there with hersleeves rolled up. She wore a broadcloth apron as if she were tendinga kitchen. "Follow me," she said, not waiting for introduction orcomment. The boy did not enter with us but closed the door behindme. It thudded nearly as loud as the beating of my heart, which Itold myself was only from our quick pace and my excitement to seethis place.

"Farthingales here. Watch your head," the old woman muttered.I trailed her through a narrow alleyway of swinging metal hoops,like lonely bird cages, over which the queen's elaborate kirtles andpetticoats would be draped. We plunged down an alley of sweetsmellingsleeves arranged by color, though the limited lantern lightmade the rich tawny, ruby and ivory hues all seem dusky. Bonedbodices came next, then an aisle of fur-edged capes and robes. Of asudden, the sweet scent of lime and lavender from the garmentschanged to some sharp smell that made me sneeze.

"Camphor to keep out moths," my guide said.

I jammed a finger under my nose to halt a torrent of sneezes. Themaze deepened: swags of green and white Tudor bunting lined theway, then dusty, draped flags and battle banners. Suddenly, my stomachclenched with foreboding. Why would not the garments to begiven me simply be ready at the door? We seemed to have passedfrom attire to military materials. As we rounded the next corner, myworst fears leaped at me from the shadows.

Within a dimly lit grotto of garments, behind a small portabletable sat a man simply but finely attired all in black; his amber eyesshone flatly, like an adder's. It took me but a moment to realize Iknew him—that is, I knew who he was. I had glimpsed him at courtthe time the players had taken me with them. His hunchback formwas unmistakable. For months, the whole city had talked of naughtbut the bloodless battles between this man and the Earl of Essex. Ifhe was here to see me—or I to see him—I dreaded to know why.

Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury, the queen's closest councillorand chief secretary, was the avowed enemy of Elizabeth's former favoredcourtier, Robert Devereaux, Lord Essex, and his compatriotthe Earl of Southampton, the men who had led the rebellion againsther. It was through Cecil that the two earls had been arrested andrightly so. It was through Cecil that Will's patron, the Earl of Southampton,was being held prisoner in the Tower under the same terriblecharges as his friend Essex.

"That is all," Cecil spoke to the woman, who scurried away.I remembered to curtsy. I was pleased it was quite a steady onebecause my legs were starting to shake. I saw we were not alone; twomen—guards or secretaries?—sat at another table off to my left side.Had I been snared in a trap baited with the promise of royal garmentsonly to be summoned to an inquisition?

"I do indeed have the pieces of cast-off wardrobe for the playersyou were promised, Mistress Whateley," Cecil said as if he'd read mymind. "I do not speak untruths or half-truths, and I pray you will noteither. I must inform you that, since Her Majesty much enjoys thetalents of the Globe's players, I can only hope they will be able toremain at large to put the royal items to good use as costumes in theirdramas."

After that initial assault, I could scarce catch my air. The memoryof my dear, doomed girlhood friend Kat leaped into my mind's eye,for I felt like that—trapped, floating face up, exposed, bereft of help,hope or even breath.

"Fetch a seat for Mistress Whateley, Thompson," Cecil said, anda man jumped to obey. It was some sort of folding camp stool. Iperched poised on the edge, telling myself to sit erect and to showcalm and confidence no matter what befell. Oh, yes, I could be aplayer too. And I was not such a country maid that I did not knowthis was to be a war of wits, and that this one the rabble called RobertusDiabolus—Robert the Devil—had the upper hand.

I tried to buck myself up: however much at odds Will and I werenow, had I not been so close to him and the players that I was wellarmed with clever turns of phrase? I knew how to listen well for cuesbefore responding. Yet this was the man who had inherited Sir FrancisWalsingham's dreaded web of intelligencers, who had broughtdown the lofty likes of Essex and Southampton and had made mincemeatof lesser men and women like Will's kin.

"Thank you for your consideration, my lord," I said before hecould speak again. The words, too many, I warrant, tumbled from mymouth. "For the seat, I mean, but I am also grateful for the gift ofHer Majesty's cast-off garments to the Lord Chamberlain's Men, notonly for them but for myself—to be able to merely care for them. Weall honor our queen."

"Do we all?" he parried. "Mistress, I need straight answers fromyou. I have not hauled in the players themselves—yet—because Icannot abide prevarications or histrionics offstage. I have it on goodauthority you are forthright and have spoken your mind to the Globe'sactors. And I will have you speak plainly here."

"Of course, my lord, but I cannot see why we must meet in sucha place, away from others—"

"I did not think," he interrupted, "knowing Will Shakespeare asintimately as you do, a covert meeting was something new to you."My insides lurched. He knew about me and Will. How much didhe know, from how far back? He must be punning upon the wordknowing in the biblical sense and be aware that Will and I had metsecretly off and on for years. And worse, that I had been questionedonce before by someone from Her Majesty's government about whereWill Shakespeare's loyalties lay.

I fought to compose my features. Our eyes met and held. His facewas not uncomely, but he was so misshapen in bodily form it was saidthe queen called him her Pygmy. I knew of nicknames that couldsting, for I was of half-Italian blood and had oft been called Gypsyor Egyptian.

Cecil's enemies called him simply the Hunchback, and duringthe rebellion, someone had scrawled on his front door, in a nearquote from Will's description of the hunchback King Richard III,HERE LIES THE TOAD! I well knew that playwrights had been imprisoned,tortured and killed for slanders stuck on doors in London."Let me speak plain, mistress," he said when I did not flinch underhis gaze and did not respond again. "It is well known that Shakespeareand his fellow players performed The Tragedy of King RichardII, at the behest of the Earl of Essex and his dear friend-in-armsSouthampton, just before the recent rebellion. I am certain I need nottell such a devoted friend of the playwright that scenes are in thatdrama that advocate the overthrow of a sitting monarch by a favoriteof the English crowds."

"It's just a play, my lord, employing the past and hardly predictingthe future." I saw where he was going now but had no notion of howbest to navigate the dangers. "Indeed, the Lord Chamberlain's Menwere paid a goodly sum for performing it," I continued. "They hadno political statement to make, but simply needed the money, fortypieces of silver, so—"

"It should have been thirty pieces of silver!" he exploded, smackinghis palm on his table, making it jump and shudder. "They are Judases,as much favor as Her Grace has shown them! And, yes, mistress, Ihear you repeat the name of the Lord Chamberlain, as they bear thequeen's cousin's name as patron. But," he said thrusting up both handswhen he saw me ready to protest, "I know Will Shakespeare's breadis buttered on the other side too, for he's been cozy with Southamptonfor years, and the Shakespeare family has a convoluted, questionablepast as Catholics and rebels!"

I was dumbfounded. He knew about Will's beginnings, familyconnections, his life from the earliest days. Then he could ruin Willwith this—ruin me too.

"All I can tell you of my Warwickshire friend Will Shakespeare inall this," I said, fighting again to control my voice, "is that he praysthat your lordship and Her Gracious Majesty will spare the life ofhis friend and sponsor the Earl of Southampton. He merely did afavor for him and for the needed money. He meant no politicalstatement."

I was lying and I felt myself begin a fiery blush from the tip of myears to my throat. I could only pray that the tawny hue of my skinhid that. And here I was fighting for Will when I could have strangledhim with my bare hands but three days ago.

"Both earls' coming trials will decide all that," Cecil said, "but wecan hardly claim that poets and playwrights are above such politicalfrays, can we? Praying we forgive Southampton, that's what he's beenup to, eh? More like, London's favorite playwright has been writingsomething else to stir up sedition. Ben Jonson went to the Marshalseaprison five years ago for a slanderous play," he went on, jabbing afinger at me like a scolding schoolmaster. "Thomas Kyd was questionedunder extreme duress and, sadly, died soon after. ChristopherMarlowe—"

"Was supposedly accidentally stabbed in a tavern brawl," I daredto interrupt. My Italian blood was up; I could not help myself. Atleast he seemed not to know of my past with Southampton or Marloweeither. "And," I plunged on, "it was said Marlowe was an informerfor Sir Francis Walsingham, so I'm not sure what it behoovesone to be an informer, as it's whispered his demise could have beenan assassination and not an accident!"

"Ah," he said, and his mouth crimped in either annoyanceor amusement. "The beauty does have hidden fangs as well as aclever brain."

We stared at each other in a stalemate but hardly, I thought, atruce. Air from an unseen source shifted a battle banner behind hishead. One of Jaques' lines from As You Like It leaped through mymind to taunt me: "The worst fault you have is to be in love."With a shudder up my spine, I realized then what I said in thenext few moments could save Will or damn him to torture, imprisonmentor even death.

"But tell me," Cecil said, leaning on his elbows and steepling hislong-fingered hands before his mouth, "before we go on, exactly whatis William Shakespeare to you? Here you are, an exotic woman, atempting vixen, when he has a wife and family back in Stratford-Upon-the-Avon. Tell me true, Mistress Anne Whateley, what is theman to you?"

That, I thought, was the question. For nearly two decades, sinceeven before the day he'd publicly, legally wed Anne Hathaway, I'd notonly loved but loathed William Shakespeare to the very breadth anddepth of my being. What was he to me and I to him? God's truth, inmy pierced and patched heart, I, Anne Rosaline Whateley, was aboveall else, the first Mistress Shakespeare, Will's other wife.


I would not have anyone believe I am untutored nor ignorantof how one's life's story is commonly constructed. I admit theprevious scene of dialogue with Robert Cecil in London is nottruly a prologue, for much of what I will write next camebefore. After all, an old adage says, "What's past is prologue."But you see, that confrontation with Cecil caused me tosearch my soul to record my life. What, indeed, am I to Willand to others? What and who am I to myself?

Having inspired characters in Will's plays and workedclosely with him in many ways—ah, both of us love to rhyme—I have decided to arrange the events of my story as if it were afive-act play, that is, divided into the major parts of my life andstory. As Will wrote for a play last year, "All the world's a stageand all the men and women merely players." And since I havethe London playhouses and their people in my blood as fiercelyas does he, I shall relate my narrative in such a pattern.

This tale will reveal not only my life but Will's, so entwinedare our plots, so to speak. Sometimes I fear his rivals will consignhis work to oblivion, or that theatrical tastes may shift yetagain and judge him of no account, or that plague or the pratingPuritans will shut down the playhouses permanently. If so,I pray this account will let others know him and his work evenbetter—and justify my part in his life too.

The rendering of my thoughts, emotions and experiences ispart comedy and part tragedy as well as history, for life is sucha mingling. And so, I write this report of the woman bornAnne Rosaline Whateley, she who both detested and adored aman named William Shakespeare.

Customer Reviews

3.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See the customer review
Share your thoughts with other customers

Top Customer Reviews

Format: Hardcover
Actually, it had started out brilliantly. As someone who has a prolonged and protracted relationship with The Bard, I was constantly pleasantly surprised in so many instances by what Ms Harper was getting right, how dead-on her instincts were in this piece of gutsy speculative historical fiction. The premise made me grin. Her evocation of life in Stratford had me nodding my head. In fact, almost everything based in their (Anne Whateley's and Shakespeare's) hometown was lovingly related, and with just the right amount of indulgence.

And then the story moved to London.


If I had to be harsh...and I do, because if you're going to set the bar as high as Ms Harper did here, with Shakespeare (maybe the only way to raise the bar would be to write the secret married life of Jesus), then you better be prepared to take your lumps...I'd say that there are a handful of areas where she fell down. Stumbled...then fell down quite without any grace...and then crawled.

The first would be her tendency to spoon-feed. There are simply too many instances where she provides what amounts to 'exposition-through-dialogue'. And they all made me wince. Seriously; if your readership is aware of the backstory, you don't need to spoon-feed. And if they're not- Well, it's doubtful they're going to be reading it. (Of course, I could be way off-base, and be ignoring the notion that there's a sub-genre thing going on here, a smarmy, hug-yourself-til-it-hurts, historical-romantical-chicklitical genre... OK; now I'm getting mean. I apologize.) I've always felt that it's best to execute at as high a level as possible; those for whom the piece is written will be thankful, and those who have to strain to keep up will be rewarded in the end in unexpected ways.
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) HASH(0xa06ed318) out of 5 stars 26 reviews
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa0b62120) out of 5 stars History never pleased so much as this tale. Absolutely riveting. March 4 2009
By Bookreporter - Published on
Format: Hardcover
"The rendering of my thoughts, emotions and experiences is part comedy and part tragedy as well as history, for life is such a mingling. And so, I write this report of the woman born Anne Rosaline Whateley, she who both detested and adored a man named William Shakespeare."

Now comes the tale of the great bard of Avon, wonderfully humanized and told from a woman's viewpoint. Anne Whateley, William Shakespeare's first --- and secret --- wife, pens her story in five acts. More than a love story, it is a romantic chronicling of the writer's career, his greatest love and his forced, loveless marriage.

As youths in Stratford-Upon-Avon, Anne Whateley and Will Shakespeare were great friends. She had a talent with words such that she could inspire the poet even when he was a mere lad. The two sparred with each other by dueling with couplets, striving to outdo the other with their cleverness. They spent many happy days romping around the English countryside as children. Intrigued in the way of carefree young people, they slaked their curiosity by experiencing their world to the fullest.

But as they grew, so did their desires, and they found themselves almost unwittingly becoming lovers. Driven not by lust but by something much larger, they forever hungered for each other, feeling wretched in the times they were apart. Some people are simply meant for each other, and so it was with Anne Whateley and Will Shakespeare. But their happiness was not to be so simple, for another Stratford girl, Anne Hathaway, laid claim to Will as the father of her child. There was nothing to be done but for Will to marry her.

Heartbroken, Anne Whateley moved from Stratford to London, where she could try to mend her emotions. Her beloved Shakespeare would remain in Stratford with his new family, giving her a chance to try to forget him. With a love as deep-rooted as Anne Whateley's, forgetting was not something she could do easily. She was miserable without him, aching for the next time she would see him, feel his touch and hear his voice.

In the meantime, she began to test the climate in London for Will's writing, for though she cursed him for his attachment to his Stratford wife --- chosen or not --- she could not rid herself of wanting him. If London wanted him, too, then she could once again help him with his writing. And if they became close in other ways --- well, she would face that if it happened.

History tells us that Shakespeare wrote prolifically while living in London, but Miss Whateley's history tells us of him as a person, in his depressions, anger and passions. Why did he write "Romeo and Juliet"? For whom were the sonnets written? Where did his inspiration come for "The Taming of the Shrew?" Anne Whateley will tell you she saw herself in many of the plays' scenes and characters. It may be true. She had Shakespeare's ear, and his love. The other Anne had his children, but never his heart. This pair may be Shakespeare's real star-crossed lovers.

MISTRESS SHAKESPEARE could be called "The Tragedy of Anne Whateley," for she had beauty, brains and strength, but not the one thing she truly wanted: to be recognized as Mistress Shakespeare. In the end, she had to be content to know that she was. Karen Harper's beautiful yet sad love story will touch the hearts of every romantic and thrill Shakespeare fans, if for no other reason than the period detail and depth of emotion she gives us with this striking novel. History never pleased so much as this tale. Absolutely riveting.

--- Reviewed by Kate Ayers
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa0b62174) out of 5 stars Enjoyable look at Shakespeare in love Feb. 8 2009
By C. Quinn - Published on
Format: Hardcover
I know little about the actual historical basis for this novel, but certainly enjoyed this take on Shakespeare in love. Ann Whateley is a strong woman in the cast of Elizabeth I herself, and her independence and creativity serve as Shakespeare's inspiration for many of his works. I was less delighted with her willingness to accept the poor behavior meted out by her true love, though the author did do a good job capturing the duality of Anne's feelings of love and hate.

Will Shakespeare is presented as a flawed man first, undeniable genius second. His efforts to write while earning enough to support his growing family are complicated by the complex political situation that thrives on suspicion and uncertainty. In the end, Shakespeare chooses to live in London and to write with his love, but he never really seems to acknowledge the harm he has done to both of the women in his life.

At heart, this novel is a love story, and it succeeds as such. Unfortunately, Harper falls into the trap of attempting quasi-period speech and her efforts fall flat. I found that when the characters lapsed into period language, the entire momentum of the narrative came to a halt. If it hadn't been for the language, I would have gone 4 stars, but as it is can only give this novel 3.5 stars.
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa0b625ac) out of 5 stars ...and it had started out *so* well... Aug. 21 2009
By Schmadrian - Published on
Format: Hardcover
Actually, it had started out brilliantly. As someone who has a prolonged and protracted relationship with The Bard, I was constantly pleasantly surprised in so many instances by what Ms Harper was getting right, how dead-on her instincts were in this piece of gutsy speculative historical fiction. The premise made me grin. Her evocation of life in Stratford had me nodding my head. In fact, almost everything based in their (Anne Whateley's and Shakespeare's) hometown was lovingly related, and with just the right amount of indulgence.

And then the story moved to London.


If I had to be harsh...and I do, because if you're going to set the bar as high as Ms Harper did here, with Shakespeare (maybe the only way to raise the bar would be to write the secret married life of Jesus), then you better be prepared to take your lumps...I'd say that there are a handful of areas where she fell down. Stumbled...then fell down quite without any grace...and then crawled.

The first would be her tendency to spoon-feed. There are simply too many instances where she provides what amounts to 'exposition-through-dialogue'. And they all made me wince. Seriously; if your readership is aware of the backstory, you don't need to spoon-feed. And if they're not- Well, it's doubtful they're going to be reading it. (Of course, I could be way off-base, and be ignoring the notion that there's a sub-genre thing going on here, a smarmy, hug-yourself-til-it-hurts, historical-romantical-chicklitical genre... OK; now I'm getting mean. I apologize.) I've always felt that it's best to execute at as high a level as possible; those for whom the piece is written will be thankful, and those who have to strain to keep up will be rewarded in the end in unexpected ways. But to 'write down' is not doing anyone any favours. Unfortunately, 'Mistress Shakespeare' has a decidedly 'written down' feel to it. Much to Shakespeare's detriment.

The second is the tendency towards melodrama. Granted, when we're looking at a tale that has as one of its dual centers The Greatest Wordsmith That Ever Lived, there's bound to be some degree of excess. But I would have preferred this be found less in overwrought purple prose from the narrator's point-of-view and more... Well, more organically occurring. (My guess as to why this is an element of the novel is that Ms Harper maxxed-out her talent in putting this one together. She has the chops for so much...but this was never going to be a literary masterpiece...and yet from my perspective, it deserved to be.

Thirdly? Dialogue. Ugh.

Fourthly... I don't think I've ever come across an instance where the writing was of such a high calibre and yet so many false steps were taken. Especially when it came to Anne Whateley's reactions to certain interludes and incidents. Most remarkably considering the writer is a woman! I was saying out loud 'No, no, no!' on countless occasions, when she'd have Whateley going right, when clearly, anyone could see she'd be far more inclined to go left.

Perhaps much of the perceived weakness of the London part of the tale has to do with the fact that she was able to take more liberties with the Stratford portion. Once Shakespeare was in London, it was more a question of connecting the dots concerning the plays' débuts, historical events, and social landmarks. There is little to grip you, enthrall you...and really, if that's not what's going on when a story about Shakespeare is being told, then something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

I'm glad this book was written. And I'm especially glad I read it. As someone who has his own literary history with speculative fiction revolving around The Bard, it was a pleasure to read so cogent a take on this 'tale never told'; the author truly knew of what she wrote. I just wish it had been of a higher pedigree, is all.

(Personal rating: 7/10)
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa0b6296c) out of 5 stars Great idea - "shaky" execution Jan. 13 2012
By Ripple - Published on
Format: Paperback
The conceit of "Shakespeare's Mistress" is that Shakespeare was married to Anne Whateley the day before he was married to Anne Hathaway, and Anne W remained the love of his life, with an affair (if you can have an affair with your "wife") continued in London where the same Anne was also the famed "dark lady" of his sonnets. There is some basis for this theory in that the parish records do show a mysterious entry into the register for just such a contract the day before the Hathaway marriage but although the author claims this is "faction", it's very much at the fiction end of that scale and is really a "what if?" piece.

It starts off reasonably well - well it starts off on a bad foot in fact because the book is written as a first person narrative by Anne W and she displays an idiosyncratic misunderstanding of the term "comedy" when related to Elizabethan drama in the prologue, but putting that aside, the early part in Stratford is entertaining enough in a sort of Tudor romance kind of way. A couple of allusions are rather laid on with a trowel, like the death of a mutual friend in what is clearly the forerunner to the Ophelia drowning in Hamlet scene, although also idiosyncratically it owes more to the Millais painting than the play itself, but it sweeps along in an enjoyable enough manner if you don't take it too seriously.

Then Anne W heads off to London and, rather like Anne H would have felt, I wished she hadn't. The book then starts down a long and slippery slope to ridicule. If that sounds a bit strong, then mayhap you're right. OK - now hopefully some of you have just gone "mayhap? Who uses that word?" That's part of the problem. Karen Harper does.

To my mind, if you are going to write historic fiction, you need to take some decisions before you set off about how you are going to handle language. I'm certainly not suggesting it has to be full of "foresooths" and "yea verilies". But you cannot mix and match like this. For the most part the text is all very modern and readable but Harper is obsessed with certain Elizabethan words and phrases - notably swearing in the form of God's teeth (or `s teeth) and variations thereof, and also the rather more understandable obsession with the word "tussie-mussies". To illustrate how ridiculous this gets, I need to get a bit pedantic for a bit. She has Kit Marlowe (contemporary of the Bard) say at one point "they know I'm an iconoclast - hell's teeth all playwrights are at heart". Kit Marlowe died in 1593. The first recorded use of the word "iconoclast" is 1641 and even then it didn't mean what we use it today to mean and how it is used here. If you use modern meanings then fine, but don't sprinkle arcane Elizabethan swear words after it - it looks (and is) ridiculous. Stuffing the word "tussie-mussie" into a sentence doesn't instantly make it Tudor England.

If that's a little too pedantic for you (and I'd understand if it was) then how about this. A quick school room quiz: in Romeo and Juliet what does the word "wherefore" mean in the context of "wherefore art thou Romeo?" Anyone? If you said "why" then collect a star. If you said "where" go and stand in the corner where you will not be alone. Already there is Karen Harper (who I hasten to add is a former teacher of Shakespeare and claims three decades of study of Elizabethan England) and, if this book is to be believed, also there is a certain William Shakespeare who she quotes using it in the meaning of "where"! Now, I confess to being something of a Bardoholic, but the meaning of "wherefore" in this context is not a little known fact and certainly something you would expect someone with three decades of study to know.

I could go on, but frankly once you suggest Shakespeare doesn't know the meaning of his own words, there's little point.

I won't get into the other factual problems and illogicalities which are too many to mention. Just one example - it is suggested that the reason the Bard had dark skinned women in his plays who liked to dress up as boys is a reflection of Anne W's coloring and penchant for dressing as boys to get out of scrapes when the glaringly obvious (though I acknowledge unprovable) explanation is that the boys he had to use as women weren't allowed on the stage is why he chose this coloring and got humor out of the dressing up stuff. The claim that this is a "what if" fiction rather than any claim to historical accuracy doesn't excuse this in my book.

The rest of the plot takes the few known things in the Bard's life and ensures that plucky little Anne W is plonked at the center of everything. Shakespeare's son's death? Yup, Anne W told him about that. The building of the Globe theater? Yeah, Anne W helped carry the wood. Shakespeare's daughter's marriage to Dr Hall - of course, Anne W introduced them. The Bard's patronage by Henry Wriothesley (to whom the sonnets were dedicated) - oh, Anne W introduced them, don't you know?

The book put me in mind of a reference I once saw for an employee that said "her staff follow her loyally, but more out of morbid curiosity than any sense of leadership". That's what kept me reading. As light Tudor romance goes, there is something of a narrative arc here - but it's Shakespeare's own life, not Anne W's and there's little in terms of sense of time or place. It's all Tudor London though rose-tinted glasses. The idea is intriguing but the execution is simply dreadful. I urge you to avoid this.
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa0b62a50) out of 5 stars From S. Krishna's Books Feb. 8 2009
By skrishna - Published on
Format: Hardcover
I found the premise of Mistress Shakespeare very interesting, even moreso by the fact that, as the author explains in the Afterword, it seems to be based in fact. First of all, it is well known that William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway did not have a happy marriage. He spent most of his time in London, writing and acting in his plays. Harper surmises the reason is because he was actually betrothed and in love with another woman, Anne Whateley. Historical records actually support this claim; the Worcestershire Records Office shows that on the day before he was wed to Anne Hathaway, William Shakespeare was issued a marriage license to marry someone named "Anne Whateley of Temple Grafton."

Harper takes this small piece of information that most historians have dismissed as a clerical error and fleshes it out into the story of an independent and strong woman named Anne Whateley. Anne is a great character; she is feisty and funny and incredibly stubborn. She doesn't believe that Elizabethan England is a man's world; she takes her inspiration from the queen herself and proves that savvy and smart independent women can make it in the world. Her love story with Will is turbulent and stormy, but it is clear why these two love one another.

The book itself is full of rich, historical details about the time period. Harper obviously did careful research into Shakepeare's life; there seem to be a lot of in jokes that only someone well acquainted with him would appreciate. In order to fully grasp the book, it is necessary to have knowledge of Shakespeare's plays; otherwise many of the references contained within the book will not make much sense.

Mistress Shakespeare is a must for any fans of Shakespeare, and would be enjoyable for any fan of historical fiction. I definitely recommend it.