The advantage of reading a so-so novel like The Bookman’s Tale is that while there is minimal payoff, there is also minimal investment. It’s clear from almost the first page that the book will be a quick, mildly entertaining read, and won’t take much time to get through. So we all read it–why not?–and look how many of us there are! This is a nice turnout and I’m learning a lot regardless of the book’s flaws. ignatius and mathmom, the links are great. The Mark Hofmann story is a truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tale. If it had been the plot of a novel, I would have scoffed disdainfully at the idea of a high school underachiever who becomes a brilliant forging, counterfeiting, bomb-making, machine gun wielding, murdering Mormon missionary.
Still looking at ignatius’ links—they’re addictive—and just want to point out this photo of a book from 1598 with a “great shot of the unfortunate early 20th century ‘Do not take from Library’ stamp.” Can you imagine? Today’s librarians (my daughter being one) would die before defacing a medieval text in such a way: http://uispeccoll.■■■■■■■■■■/post/60332087108/thechlazzyclarest-if-i-remember-correctly-this?is_related_post=1
I actually thought one of the more fascinating aspects of this book was about the value of defacing a book. The Pandosto is valuable because it’s covered with Shakespeare’s notes. And people care about the list of owners too. Not too long ago I read a funny little article about taking notes in books.
As a Kindle user, I had to look this one up, and all I can say is: Yep.
http://charlielovett.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/lovett-portrait-Crop-263x300.jpg
Adding to mathmom’s observations re marginalia, this is fun: http://flavorwire.com/394100/classic-books-annotated-by-famous-authors
And for Billy Collins fans: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/17/billy-collins-reads-marginalia/
This article was published last year – pretty interesting. Looks like Jeremy Parrott found his Holy Grail: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/13/dickens-marginalia-famous-contributors-journal-wilkie-collins-elizabeth-gaskell
Love your links Mary. Nabokov wrote better than Kafka, for sure! And drew bugs too!
The Dickens story is fascinating. I wonder why all those authors wanted to be? were forced to be? anonymous.
Count me as another one who figured Peter looked just like the author.
Just finished this last night, and found it mildly enjoyable and a fast read. “BB” certainly bothered me - it stood for “Beloved Brother”? Now how did Gardner think that Alderson would be able to recognize that? But the biggest whopper for me is that Amanda and Peter just happened to purchase a house in the village where Amanda’s unknown ancestor lived and where a watercolor of the ancestor for whom Amanda precisely resembles (!!!) lays hidden in a book.
Following the discussion and great links, thanks @ignatius-
Early in novel, ( I read 102 pages enjoyed it, but for some reason put it down , and now reading many comments about second half, having difficulty getting back into it)
Like everyone, at some point, I specifically needed to see what the author looked like, flipped to back jacket, convinced Lovett was Peter.
While reading this, I kept thinking about two books, *The Da Vinci Code * and Geraldine Brooks, People of the Book.
The whoppers are part of what makes The Bookman’s Tale a breezy read without much substance. Some critics compared the book to Possession and The Shadow of the Wind, but I agree with SJCM that it is far more firmly planted in the realm of The DaVinci Code. Like Dan Brown, Charlie Lovett seems to have done his historical research and it’s fun to see those facts woven into the story, but I don’t think there are any deep, universal themes that either author is trying to relay to the reader.
There is nothing wrong with coincidence as a literary device per se – think of how many of the great writers employ it: Dickens! Hardy! Shakespeare! But “the use of coincidence is only as good as the writer’s skill.” (That’s from this funny short piece: https://kevinbrennanbooks.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2014/07/01/coincidence-i-think-not/)
My initial thought - the name Liz an error not caught by an editor; second thought - well, less a thought than confusion; then I thought as Tiredofsnow did - Liz has been murdered. I think the author intends that reaction as Peter races to reach Liz before murderers do. Once we’re aware that Liz lives, the pesky matter of her ghostly appearance never gets addressed. Perhaps, as Tiredofsnow suggests, we’re to assume that it portends Liz’s future importance to Peter.
I wondered why the author chooses 1995 to represent present day, but decided that it has to do with technology such as cell phones (or the fact that everyone has one today.) Peter can’t just reach Liz with a quick call to her cell.
^ The need for a time period without cell phones is what I thought, too! My daughter and I were talking about this the other day–there are a lot of classic works out there with wonderful twists and turns that never could have been written in the era of cell phones. And yet, when I read a modern day book where cell phones play a role (as they should), it just feels clumsy to me, and somehow already dated, even though that’s the time we’re living in. (Does that make sense?)
Good article from The Guardian on this subject: http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2013/apr/06/mobile-phones-literature-bad-lines
One of the Jane Austen Pride and Prejudice in modern times books had a plot that depended on the lack of cell phones. There was one person with a satellite phone that was important, but everyone else kept missing connections. I agree that great literature is full of coincidences and I was willing to buy that Amanda’s family would turn out to be from the area. That one didn’t bother me!
This isn’t a question I’ve ever lost a minute of sleep over, but if pressed, I’d go with the simplest (Occam’s Razor?) answer and say “Yes.”
For anyone who needs a refresher course on this debate (I did), this is an excellent summary: http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2011/10/did-shakespeare-really-write-his-plays-a-few-theories-examined
And, there is this possibility- a woman Bassano
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/was-shakespeare-a-woman/article1207502/?page=all
If the provincial boy could read, he got the info from books. There’s nothing particularly Italian about Romeo’s Verona. I just figure Shakespeare is really Shakespeare because why wouldn’t you want the recognition?
No proof that Shakespeare authored his plays but no proof he didn’t.
So, like Mary, I go with the simplest answer: Yes.
Good question, and the answers from the Not-Shakespeare crowd are pretty weak and/or convoluted. Those who think the writer was Francis Bacon say he had to conceal his identity because being known as a playwright would end his career as an aristocratic politician. Those who think it was Christopher Marlowe say that Marlowe, about to be arrested for blasphemy, faked his own death and lived out his life in hiding, secretly writing the plays attributed to Shakespeare. Those who think it was Edward deVere, 17th Earl of Oxford (the strongest contender for the role), say that many of Shakespeare’s works, Hamlet in particular, were an exposé of Queen Elizabeth’s court and if deVere were recognized as the author, he would be tried for treason.
Granted, there are coincidences that make for some head-scratching. For example, both Edward deVere and Hamlet were kidnapped by pirates and left naked on Denmark’s shore. And deVere’s brother-in-law supposedly wrote him a letter about two courtiers he met named Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. But to my way of thinking, it was a small world back then. Maybe one of Shakespeare’s peers said to him in a pub one night, “Hey, did you hear what happened to Ed deVere? Pirates got him!”…and Will incorporated the story into his next play. 
That certainly seems like a simpler explanation! I think nobles slumming it with Shakespeare could explain a lot!
Certainly some “writers” have questioned the authenticity
[quote]
Dozens of luminaries (Sigmund Freud, Charles Dickens and Mark Twain among them) over the years have joined the so-called anti-Stratfordian camp, convinced, as Henry James put it, “that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practised on a patient world.”
And there are questions …
*Shrew was part of a series of Italian marriage comedies that Shakespeare suddenly started writing around 1592. Those plays aren’t merely set in Italy; whoever wrote them seems to have read Dante and other Italian literature in the original. The Bassanos, surviving letters indicate, spoke and wrote fluent Italian, which may well have been Amelia’s mother tongue.
Belfast University professor Roger Prior noted in a recent article that one speech Iago makes in Othello even seems to match, image for image, a fresco in the Italian town of Bassano, north of Venice. Perhaps Shakespeare himself visited this small town off the typical Italian tourist trail. But Mr. Hudson argues that it makes more sense to believe that Amelia Bassano made a return visit to her family’s hometown.*
I agree Liz’s appearance was to show her importance to Peter. I think Lovett put her there to show us Peter was moving on. Peter’s subconscious was letting him know there is life and love after Amanda.
The Amelia Bassano theory is interesting. Another version of it hypothesizes that at one point she and Shakespeare were lovers (with her being the inspiration for The Dark Lady Sonnets 127-154) and that they co-wrote some plays.
As the BBCAmerica article points out, one reason the authorship question persists is that it seems unbelievable that someone of such extraordinary and prolific talent would not have been a person of renown, with a better paper trail regarding his life and some handwritten evidence of his work. As the final line of the article states: “if you think Shakespeare didn’t write his plays, you have to believe in vast arrays of impossible plots, and, if you think he did, then you have to believe in an impossible talent.”