Hamlet but Everything is Different

Dating Hamlet: Ophelia's Story by Lisa Fielder

Pages: 192 Genre: YA retelling

Rating: 2 Star

Ophelia is in love with Hamlet and has grand plans for their future together, but right now her heart hurts for him as he mourns his father. When she is drawn out to the castle walls one night, she witnesses the return of the Ghost of King Hamlet and learns of the Prince's plans. The lovebirds have to face a country full of deceit and betrayal, and Ophelia seems to be the only one with all the answers.

This book answers the burning question of everyone who has ever read Hamlet: What if this tragedy had no tension, no stakes, and no consequences? Honestly, it wasn't that bad, but this book did manage to take everything that makes the original play so beloved and discard it.

I was immediately put off by the treatment of Horatio, and unfortunately it was never corrected. In the play, Horatio is kind and deeply loyal to Hamlet. He infamously ends the play by trying to kill himself in Hamlet's honor. In this book, Horatio laments that he cannot steal Ophelia from Hamlet, he is generally gross to the girls, and he is given a random girlfriend-assumed-dead to ensure that his suicide attempt at the end is not gay. I get that this is an old book and not everyone will interpret Horatio the same as me, but none of his (brief) inclusions in this book felt accurate to how Play Horatio would act.

Hamlet is also unrecognizable but in the opposite way. In fact, they seemed to switch personalities. On one hand, I was really grateful for a Feminist Retelling™ that doesn't blindly demonize Hamlet. A lot of people seem to read Hamlet and decide he is an evil monster who does horrible things for love of the game with no acknowledgment of his actual characterization, both good and bad, and this book blissfully avoided that. But it also really overcorrected. I can't believe that I, of all people, am saying this, but this book liked Hamlet too much. He keeps calling himself indecisive, but it's never really relevant. He's very nice and doesn't have much of a temper. His wit is mildly annoying, but it doesn't come with an ego. It felt like he was built to be a Good Boyfriend instead of being a good character, or a good Hamlet.

The reason for this is obvious: Hamlet had to be brought down to boost up Ophelia. Again, I liked her on a base level. If the author had pitched me her characterization, I would've been really into it. An Ophelia with a quick mind and extensive, practical knowledge of plants is fun. But in practice, Ophelia is the exact same as the watered-down Hamlet. She's good at everything, adored by literally every single man and one woman, and has a mind to rival Hamlet's. It makes fun of her Play counterpart for every negative trait, from her emotions to her lack of knowledge to her actual death. "What kind of idiot would die in such a stupid way as drowning?" says Ophelia, openly implying that her original version is lesser because of it:

"How dare they e'en suggest that I would indulge in such a cowardly act! Me, Ophelia — so weak as to willingly abandon life? 'Tis unjust and wrong I be remembered thus. I drowned! 'Twas the river's doing, the work of the undertow (at least, 'tis how it was meant to appear)! A fie on't!"

I don't think it's empowering to Ophelia to build up her Book version by demonizing her Play version. I think it's lazy characterization and boring. Just write a new character at this point. Writing Ophelia to basically be Hamlet means they're both the worst possible versions of themselves.

The major change in this book was all the planning. Ophelia is in on everything and gets all her information from her sneaky and innocent maid/friend named Anne. It's basically everyone versus Claudius. I've read other books where Ophelia is in on things and knows about Hamlet's plans. I don't think it's a horrible idea if it's executed well, but I'm not sure this one was. There's no consequences to most things, there's no tension because you know nothing bad will happen, and there's no sense of drama (which is a crime — this is Shakespeare!). The only real tension was created by making Bernardo and Claudius sexual predators. We got to have some fun 2000s reflections on that, but really it just feels uncomfortable and forced to give a sense of conflict where there otherwise is none.

Murder was also treated strangely. I won't spoil anything not from the original play, but no one seemed to care much about people being murdered or being a murderer. Polonius dies and is immediately forgotten about. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not even mentioned after leaving. This is three murders for a very gentle Hamlet, but this is never really explored outside of one single observation from Ophelia. Claudius' death is fine because he's a Bad Person and bad people deserve to die.

I liked the way this book was written. It's an attempt at Elizabethan English for a YA audience, and I kind of liked it. Don't get me wrong: it was weird. Going from modern day sex puns to actual quotes from the play (and not the actual sex jokes, funnily enough) could be a little jarring, but I ultimately found it charming. If you have to use real quotes from the play, I'd rather them at least be disguised by a similar writing style.

Was this book a good Hamlet retelling? Not particularly. I could see some benefit to students reading it, but only if they are told about the worst changes. But was it a good book on its own? Also not really. It's not the worst book ever, but unless you're on a quest to read every Hamlet retelling out there, I don't think it's worth it.